DOT-MA-26-7007-2003.3

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

Advanced Public Transportation Systems Deployment
in the United States

Year 2002 Update

Final Report

June 2003

Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation

Advanced Public Transportation Systems
Deployment in the United States

Year 2002 Update

PDF Version 441KB

June 2003

Prepared by:

Service and Operations Assessment Division
Office of System and Economic Assessment
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Prepared for:

Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division
Office of Mobility Innovation
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

and

Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office
Operations Core Business Unit
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC					METRIC TO ENGLISH
LENGTH(APPROXIMATE)					LENGTH(APPROXIMATE)
1 inch (in)	=	2.5 centimeters (cm)		1 millimeter (mm)		=			0.04 inch (in)
1 foot (ft)	=	30 centimeters (cm)		1 centimeter (cm)		=			0.4 inch (in)
1 yard (yd)	=	0.9 meter (m)		1 meter (m)		=			3.3 feet (ft)
1 mile (mi)	=	1.6 kilometers (km)		1 meter (m)		=			1.1 yards (yd)
				1 kilometer (km)		=			0.6 mile (mi)
AREA (APPROXIMATE)					AREA (APPROXIMATE)
1 square inch (sq in, in^2)	=	6.5 square centimeters (cm^2)		1 square centimeter (cm^2)		=			0.16 square inch (sq in, in^2)
1 square foot (sq ft, ft^2)	=	0.09 square meter (m^2)		1 square meter (m^2)		=			1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd^2)
1 square yard (sq yd, yd^2)	=	0.8 square meter (m^2)		1 square kilometer (km^2)		=			0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi^2)
1 square mile (sq mi, mi^2)	=	2.6 square kilometers (km^2)		10,000 square meters (m^2)		=			1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres
1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he)	=	4,000 square meters (m^2)
MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)					MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)
1 ounce (oz)	=	28 grams (gm)		1 gram (gm)		=		0.036 ounce (oz)
1 pound (lb)	=	0.45 kilogram (kg)		1 kilogram (kg)		=		2.2 pounds (lb)
1 short ton = 2,000 pounds (lb)	=	0.9 tonne (t)		1 tonne (t)		= =		1,000 kilograms (kg) 1.1 short tons
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)					VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)
1 teaspoon (tsp)	=		5 milliliters (ml)		1 milliliter (ml)		=			0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)
1 tablespoon (tbsp)	=		15 milliliters (ml)		1 liter (l)		=			2.1 pints (pt)
1 fluid ounce (fl oz)	=		30 milliliters (ml)		1 liter (l)		=			1.06 quarts (qt)
1 cup (c)	=		0.24 liter (l)		1 liter (l)		=			0.26 gallon (gal)
1 pint (pt)	=		0.47 liter (l)
1 quart (qt)	=		0.96 liter (l)
1 gallon (gal)	=		3.8 liters (l)
1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft^3)	=		0.03 cubic meter (m^3)		1 cubic meter (m^3)		=			36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft^3)
1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd^3)	=		0.76 cubic meter (m^3)		1 cubic meter (m^3)		=			1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd^3)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT)					TEMPERATURE (EXACT)
[(x-32)(5/9)] °F	=		y ° C		[(9/5) y + 32] ° C		=		x ° F

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286      Updated 6/17/98

PREFACE

The research for this report was conducted by the Service and Operations Assessment Division, Office of System and Economic Assessment, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation under the sponsorship of the Advanced Public Transportation Systems Division, Office of Mobility Innovation, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Funding was provided by the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report is the fourth in a series of biennial reports tracking the existing and planned deployments of Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) technologies and services in the United States.

Appreciation goes to EG&G Services staff of Nguyen Kha who made the contacts with all of the agencies outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas and began the transfer of the on-line data to spreadsheets before being called to active duty; to Steve Pax who provided technical assistance; to Rebecca Bergquist who completed the transfer of the database to spreadsheets and produced the report data tables; and to Richard Anderson who managed the EG&G Services effort. Appreciation also goes to Steve Gordon of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Juan Noltenius and Andrew Dixson of SAIC for supplying the survey method and instrument, the data for the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and for use of the server on which the survey responses were stored. Finally, appreciation goes to all the agencies that supplied information for this report.

Service Type
FR	Fixed Route
DR	Demand Response
LR	Light Rail
HR	Heavy Rail
CR	Commuter Rail
FB	Ferry Boat
Status
X or Other Letter	Operational System
[X or Other Letter]	Planned System
Any Number	# of Existing Vehicles Involved
[Any Number]	# of Planned Vehicles Involved
Advanced Communications
DIG	Digital Radio
TR	Trunked Radio
Vehicle Probes
F	On Freeways
A	On Arterials
Automated Transit Information
P	Pre-Trip
W	Terminal/Wayside
I	In-Vehicle
Multi-Modal Traveler Information
T	Transit
H	Highway
Automated Fare Payment
MS	Magnetic Stripe Card
SC	Smart Card

Table of Contents

Section

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF APTS DEPLOYMENTS

3. APTS DEPLOYMENT BY TRANSIT AGENCY INSIDE THE UNITED
STATES' 78 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS

4. APTS DEPLOYMENT BY TRANSIT AGENCY OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES' 78 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS

APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

APPENDIX B - 1995-2002 DEPLOYMENT DATA

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

2-1.   Current and Planned Deployments

2-2.   Advanced Communications Systems

2-3.   Automatic Vehicle Location Systems

2-4.   Vehicle Probe Systems

2-5.   Automatic Passenger Counter Systems

2-6.   Vehicle Component Monitoring systems

2-7.   Automated Operations Software

2-8.   Automated Transit Information Systems

2-9.   Automated Fare Payment Systems

>2-10. Traffic Signal Priority Systems

LIST OF TABLES

2-1. Advanced Communications

2-2. Percent Change in Advanced Communications

2-3. Automatic Vehicle Location

2-4. Percent Change in Automatic Vehicle Location

2-5. Vehicle Probes

2-6. Automatic Passenger Counters

2-7. Percent Change in Automatic Passenger Counters

2-8. Mobile Data Terminals

2-9. Vehicle Component Monitoring

2-10. Percent Change in Vehicle Component Monitoring

2-11. Automated Operations Software

2-12. Percent Change in Automated Operations Software

2-13. Automated Transit Information

2-14. Percent Change in Automated Transit Information

2-15. Multi-Modal Traveler Information

2-16. Electronic Fare Payment

2-17. Percent Change in Electronic Fare Payment

2-18. Multi-Carrier Fare Integration

2-19. Mobility Manager

2-20. Transportation Management Centers

2-21. ITS Integration

2-22. Surveillance Cameras

2-23. Silent Alarms.

2-24. Covert Microphones

2-25. Traffic Signal Priority

2-26. Percent Change in Traffic Signal Priority.

3. APTS Deployment by Transit Agency In the United States' 78 Largest Metropolitan Areas

4. APTS Deployment by Transit Agency Outside the United States' 78 Largest Metropolitan Areas

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

The information contained in this report was collected by personnel at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and SAIC during the Summer and Fall of 2002. This Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) deployment tracking survey was conducted over the Internet, to the extent possible, for Year 2002. Previous surveys were conducted by mail, facsimile, or over the telephone.

Most agencies were able to complete the survey online. Agencies that did not have Internet access or who did not feel comfortable filling out the survey online submitted surveys by mail or by facsimile. The survey method and instrument was developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory/SAIC team (Oak Ridge) as part of a larger ITS deployment tracking effort.

As in the year 2000 survey, Oak Ridge collected APTS deployment data for jurisdictions containing 50,000 persons or more within the 78 largest metropolitan areas of the United States. Volpe collected data on APTS deployments in the remainder of the United States. Since the transit deployment questions for the 18 APTS elements tracked by this survey were identical for both the largest and smaller metropolitan areas, nationwide deployment statistics are available for the first time for all APTS systems.

Agencies surveyed consisted primarily of those that report information to the National Transit Database Program. A total of 593 agencies completed surveys in 2002. Oak Ridge received survey responses from 243 agencies. Volpe received survey responses from 350 agencies. It is recognized that this represents perhaps only about half of the transit operations that exist in the U.S., particularly in jurisdictions outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas.

The data contained in the report tables are only as accurate as the information provided by the agency contacts and have not been verified by Volpe. Responding agencies with no existing or planned APTS systems are not listed in the report tables.

SECTION 2. SUMMARY OF APTS DEPLOYMENTS

Summary statistics for deployment of 18 APTS elements are shown in this Section. (See Appendix A for definitions of these elements as used in this report.) Figure 2-1 displays the number of responding transit agencies with operational and planned (i.e., expected to be operational by 2005) deployments of the 18 APTS elements.

The 2002 survey found that the most widely deployed APTS element was Automated Transit Information (445 agencies). Advanced Communications (267 agencies) was next. The least widely deployed APTS element was Vehicle Probes (13 agencies). No other element was currently deployed by fewer than 36 agencies nor by more than 168 agencies. The APTS element with the greatest number of planned deployments was Automatic Vehicle Location (172 agencies). The APTS element with the least number of planned deployments was Vehicle Probes (28 agencies). The remaining elements were planned by no fewer than 45 agencies nor by more than 149 agencies. When combining operational and planned deployments, the number of agencies varied from a low of 41 for Vehicle Probes to a high of 495 for Automated Transit Information. More than half of the agencies had operational or planned Automated Transit Information, Advanced Communications, Advanced Operations Software, and Automatic Vehicle Location systems. Except for Vehicle Probes, all other APTS elements were being operated or planned by at least 19% of all agencies surveyed.

Where pertinent and available, the summary tables also contain the number of agency deployments by specific technologies as well as the number of service types these agencies operate with APTS systems or technologies. Table 2-1, for example, shows that 348 transit agencies operate, or are planning to operate, 97 trunked, 90 digital, and 161 trunked and digital communications systems. Table 2-3 reveals that 300 transit agencies operate, or are planning to operate, 499 service types employing Automatic Vehicle Location. Figures 2-2 through 2-10 show graphically the number of APTS systems deployed or planned as revealed in the 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2002 surveys. (See Appendix B for the actual numbers in each of the years.) Data from prior years were collected for only nine of the 18 APTS elements for the entire U.S. Percentage increases between survey periods where these same data were obtained are also shown in tables in this Section.

The Section 2 table statistics showing the number of agency deployments are presented in three columns. The first column contains the data collected by the Oak Ridge team on the existing or planned APTS deployments in jurisdictions containing 50,000 persons or more within the 78 largest metropolitan areas of the U. S. The second column contains the data collected by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) on the existing or planned APTS deployments in the remainder of the U.S. The third column contains the sum of the Oak Ridge and Volpe data.

The operational and planned status numbers in Section 2 tables will sum to the transit agency total. However, the breakdowns by service type or location often exceed the transit agency total because of the number of agencies with a technology installed on more than one mode. If an agency is operating an APTS technology but is upgrading to a more advanced technology in the same category (e.g., from trunked only to trunked and digital communications) it was counted only once and counted as operational. If an agency is operating a technology in more than one service type (e.g., fixed route buses and demand responsive service), it was counted as one agency, but with multiple service types.

Summaries by APTS element are as follows.

Advanced Communications

Advanced Communications encompasses digital and trunked radio systems as opposed to analog and regular (non-trunked) systems.

Table 2-1 contains the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 show the survey to survey period changes in deployments.

Advanced Communications ranked 2^nd of the APTS elements in both the total number of agencies with operational systems (45% of agencies) and in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (59% of agencies) in the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 41% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 48% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Advanced Communications systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 58% and 59% respectively.

Figure 2-2 shows a substantial number of Advanced Communications systems already deployed or planned. Consequently, the percent change in agencies with operational and especially with planned systems dropped off from 2000 to 2002. Nevertheless, Table 2-2 shows an increase from 1995 to 2002 of well over 300% for operational and operational plus planned systems.

Automatic Vehicle Location

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is the determination of a vehicle's position using technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS), Signposts, Ground-Based Radio, or Dead-Reckoning. Previous surveys revealed that GPS is the overwhelming method of choice for new installations. Even some agencies that had installed other methods are upgrading to GPS.

Table 2-3 contains the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-4 show the survey to survey period changes in deployments.

AVL ranked 7^th of the 18 APTS elements in total number of agencies with operational systems (22% of agencies) and 3^rd in total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (51% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 34% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 13% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational AVL systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 59% and 45% respectively. The AVL element had the largest number of planned systems of any of the APTS elements, almost two-thirds of these outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas.

Figure 2-3 shows fairly steady growth in the number of agencies with operational and planned AVL systems from 1995 to 2002. Table 2-4 reveals a large percentage increase in operational systems over the 1995-2002 period, due in large part to the fact that that there were few systems operational in 1995.

Vehicle Probes

A Vehicle Probe is an AVL-equipped vehicle that is used to provide information for the calculation of travel times and speeds on roadway facilities.

Table 2-5 contains the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-4 shows the survey to survey changes from 2000 to 2002, the only years for which Vehicle Probe data was collected for the entire U.S.

Only a few Vehicle Probe systems have been deployed or are planned. Vehicle Probes ranked last of the 18 APTS elements in both the total number of agencies with operational systems (2% of agencies) and in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (7% of agencies) in the 2002 survey. Only 8 agencies (3% of agencies) in the 78 largest metropolitan areas and 5 agencies (< 2% of agencies) in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Vehicle Probe systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 9% and 6% respectively.

Just over half of the operational or planned Vehicle Probe systems are intended to collect travel condition information on both freeways and arterials.

Automatic Passenger Counters

Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) are devices that count passengers as they enter and exit the transit vehicle or system. The most prevalent counting technology is infrared beams.

Table 2-6 contains the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-5 and Table 2-7 show the survey to survey period changes in deployments.

APCs ranked tied for 13^th of the APTS elements in total number of agencies with operational systems (10% of agencies) and 12^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (31% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. The comparison between deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas showed 18% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas and 5% of the agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational APC systems in 2002. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 40% and 25% respectively.

Figure 2-5 shows a larger increase in the number of agencies planning APC systems between 1998 and 2002 than those with operational systems. Table 2-7 reveals an increase in agencies in both operating and planning categories of more than 400% over the 1995-2002 period, due principally to the small number of systems operational or planned in 1995.

Mobile Data Terminals

Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) are wireless devices that can send and receive information over a wireless data network. MDTs typically have a small screen that displays messages sent by the dispatch center and a series of buttons that can be pushed to send preset messages to the dispatch center.

Table 2-8 contains the 2002 deployment survey results, the first year for which MDT data was collected.

MDTs ranked 9^th of the APTS elements in total number of agencies with operational systems (17% of agencies) and 7^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (40% of agencies) in 2002. The comparison between deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas showed 24% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas and 12% of the agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational APC systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 44% and 37% respectively.

Vehicle Component Monitoring

Vehicle Component Monitoring is the remote collection, in real time, of vehicle conditions such as engine temperature, oil pressure, tire pressure, etc.

Table 2-9 shows the 2000 deployment survey results. Figure 2-6 and Table 2-10 show the survey to survey period changes in deployments.

Vehicle Component Monitoring ranked 11^th of the APTS elements both in the total number of agencies with operational systems (13% of agencies) and in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (34% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 19% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 9% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Vehicle Component Monitoring systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 40% and 29% respectively.

Figure 2-6 shows fairly even growth in both operational and planned Vehicle Component Monitoring systems from 1998 to 2002. Table 2-10 reveals a substantial increase in agencies planning Vehicle Component Monitoring systems, but a huge increase in operational deployments over the 1995-2002 period, primarily due to the small number of systems operational or planned in the early years.

Automated Operations Software

Automated Operations Software encompasses computer programs that collect, process, and/or analyze real-time operational information in ways that will assist transit agencies in providing improved service or in reducing service cost.

The agency responses to the 2002 survey question regarding Automated Operations Software are inconsistent with results from the 2000 survey. Based upon the premise that the more recent information submitted online would be more reliable than previous survey information obtained over the telephone, the number of operational systems were clearly overstated for 2000. Consequently, the 2002 responses were used to recompute the 2000 summary statistics in instances in which agencies claimed to have had Automated Operations Software in 2000 but who now indicate they either do not have Automated Operations Software or will have it by 2005. On that basis, the year to year comparison appears reasonable.

Table 2-11 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-7 and Table 2-12 show the survey to survey deployment changes, as adjusted.

Automated Operations Software ranked 6^th of the APTS elements in the total number of agencies with operational systems (24% of agencies) and 4^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (52% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 37% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 16% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Automated Operations Software systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 63% and 45% respectively.

Figure 2-7 shows similar growth in both operational and planned Automated Operations Software systems from 1998 to 2000. The rate of growth declined between 2000 and 2002, possibly because most of the agencies that want Automated Operations Software have already installed it or are in the process of doing so. Table 2-12 reveals a large increase in agencies operating Automated Operations Software systems from 1995 to 2002, about twice the percentage increase in operational plus planned systems. The number of agencies with AVL/Computer Assisted Dispatching systems account for a large percentage of Automated Operations Software system existing and planned deployments.

Automated Transit Information

Automated Transit Information as defined for this report is any method of disseminating to the public, without human involvement, a minimum of route, schedule, and fare information for fixed route service and service area, service hours, and fare information for demand responsive service. Some agencies also provide trip planning, and/or real-time schedule adherence or arrival information by automated means. Distribution methods can include automated telephone (including 511 systems) and cellular phone, Internet Web Site, television, pagers, personal digital assistants, kiosks, e-mail, personal computer communications, automated announcements and variable message signs inside and outside transit vehicles, and monitors at stops or stations. These have been arranged as pre-trip, wayside, and in-vehicle systems for presentation purposes in the tables in Sections 3 and 4.

Table 2-13 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-8 and Table 2-14 show the survey to survey deployment changes.

Automated Transit Information ranks 1^st of the APTS elements both in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (75% of agencies) and in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (84% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 72% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 77% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Automated Transit Information systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 77% and 88% respectively.

Figure 2-8 shows fairly steady growth in the number of agencies with installed Automated Transit Information systems from 1998 to 2002 while the number of planned systems declined. The decline in planned systems is due to the high number of agencies that already provide Automated Transit Information. Most of those that do not provide Automated Transit Information are very small agencies. Analysis of the survey responses shows that Internet Web pages account for a large portion of the Automated Transit Information available. Table 2-14 shows the disparity between the very large increase in operational systems and the low level of planned systems.

Multi-Modal Traveler Information

Multi-Modal Traveler Information is information presented to the public via a distribution medium which also includes information on other transit agencies' services or other transportation modes.

Table 2-15 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Multi-Modal Traveler Information deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Multi-Modal Traveler Information ranks 16^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (7% of agencies) and 14^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (23% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 11% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 5% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Multi-Modal Traveler Information systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 29% and 19% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Multi-Modal Traveler Information systems increased by 66% (from 41 to 68 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Electronic Fare Payment

Electronic Fare Payment (EFP) consists of payment schemes by which riders pay for trips through a monthly pass, by having the fare for trips deducted from a stored value magnetic stripe or smart card, or by a credit card.

Table 2-16 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-9 and Table 2-17 show the survey to survey deployment changes.

EFP ranks 5^th of the APTS elements both in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (24% of agencies) and in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (45% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 31% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 18% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational EFP systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 54% and 39% respectively.

As was the case for several other APTS elements, there was fairly steady growth in agencies operating EFP systems between 1998 and 2002. The growth in agencies planning EFP systems matched the operational growth between 2000 and 2002 after dropping off between 1998 and 2000. The increase in operational deployments from 1995 to 2002 was well over 500%, again due to the low number deployed in 1995.

Multi-Carrier Fare Integration

Multi-Carrier Fare Integration consists of two or more transit agencies on which the same electronic payment media can be used to pay fares.

Table 2-18 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Multi-Modal Traveler Information deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Multi-Carrier Fare Integration ranked tied for 13^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (10% of agencies) and 17^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (19% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 18% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 5% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Multi-Carrier Fare Integration systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 31% and 12% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Multi-Carrier Fare Integration increased by 78% (from 23 to 41 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Mobility Manager

Transit agencies that handle the travel requests or the dispatching of vehicles for multiple agencies (e.g., social service agencies, Health and Human Service agencies, other transit agencies, etc.) are considered Mobility Managers.

Table 2-19 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Mobility Manager deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Mobility Manager ranks 8^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (19% of agencies) and 9^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (37% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 14% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 23% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Multi-Carrier Fare Integration systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 32% and 41% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Mobility Manager systems increased by 61% (from 88 to 142 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Transportation Management Centers

A Transportation Management Center (TMC) is a facility that houses personnel that control both transit vehicles and highway vehicles or equipment (e.g., transit vehicles, incident management vehicles, traffic signals, variable message signs, etc.).

Table 2-20 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. TMC deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

TMCs rank 12^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (11% of agencies) and 13^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (29% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 19% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 6% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational TMCs. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 36% and 24% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned TMCs increased by 663% (from 11 to 84 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

ITS Integration

ITS Integration is a situation in which agencies share infrastructure (e.g., computer systems, communication lines), coordinate operations (e.g., common control strategy), or share information in real time via electronic means.

Table 2-21 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Integration deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

ITS Integration ranks 15^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (9% of agencies) and 10^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (34% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 10% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 9% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational ITS Integration. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 37% and 33% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned ITS Integration increased by 36% (from 84 to 114 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Surveillance Cameras

Surveillance Cameras have been placed on transit vehicles for the recording or real-time observation of on-board activities.

Table2-22 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Surveillance Camera deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Surveillance Cameras rank 4^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (27% of agencies) and 6^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (41% of agencies) in 2002. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 30% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 25% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Surveillance Camera systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 38% and 43% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Surveillance Camera systems increased by 132% (from 66 to 152 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Silent Alarms

A Silent Alarm consists of a concealed button near the vehicle operator's position that can be pressed to send a signal to the dispatch center that an on-board emergency situation exists which prevents the operator from using the radio.

Table 2-23 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Silent Alarm deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Silent Alarms rank 3^rd of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (28% of agencies) and 8^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (38% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 34% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 24% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Silent Alarm systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 42% and 36% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Silent Alarm systems increased by 34% (from 93 to 125 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002.

Covert Microphones

Covert Microphones are microphones that are hidden from public view which allow dispatchers to listen to what is happening on-board a transit vehicle after the vehicle operator has pressed the Silent Alarm button.

Table 2-24 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Covert Microphone deployments were only tracked outside of the 78 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, so nationwide comparisons with previous years are not possible.

Covert Microphones rank 10^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (15% of agencies) and 15^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (23% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 19% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 13% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Covert Microphone systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 26% and 20% respectively.

The number of agencies reporting operational or planned Covert Microphone systems increased by 688% (from 17 to 134 agencies) outside of the 78 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2002. This high percentage increase is likely due to the increase in AVL/Computer Assisted Dispatching systems which often included Covert Microphones.

Traffic Signal Priority

Traffic Signal Priority systems are those signal systems that provide an advanced or extended green signal phase for approaching transit vehicles that request priority.

Table 2-25 shows the 2002 deployment survey results. Figure 2-10 and Table 2-26 show the survey to survey deployment changes.

Traffic Signal Priority ranks 17^th of the APTS elements in terms of the total number of agencies with operational systems (6% of agencies) and 16^th in the total number of agencies with operational plus planned systems (20% of agencies) according to responses to the 2002 survey. Comparing deployments inside and outside the 78 largest metropolitan areas reveals 12% of the agencies in the 78 largest metropolitan areas versus 2% of agencies in the rest of the U.S. reporting operational Traffic Signal Priority systems. When planned systems are added, these percentages increase to 28% and 14% respectively.

Figure 2-10 shows a slightly increasing growth rate between 1995 and 2002 in agencies planning Traffic Signal Priority systems, while agencies operating Traffic Signal Priority systems exhibits a more uneven, and slightly lower, growth rate. The percentage increase from 1995 to 2002 in operational and planned deployments is 300% or more, again starting from the low numbers in 1995.

SECTION 3. APTS DEPLOYMENT BY TRANSIT AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES' 78 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS

Table 3 presents the information collected by the Oak Ridge/SAIC team for transit agencies residing in jurisdictions of 50,000 persons or more within the 78 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. A total of 243 transit agencies were surveyed. All of these agencies which have installed, or are planning to install, any of the APTS elements are listed in the Table. As indicated in the Legend, entries enclosed by brackets signify elements either in the implementation or planning stage and are expected to be operational by the year 2005. All other entries indicate operational elements.

The agencies are arranged alphabetically, first by state abbreviation and then by agency name. Table 4 lists the number of vehicles or vessels operated by each agency (directly or by contract) in each service type. Also, where possible and appropriate, the number of vehicles, vessels, stations, or terminals currently equipped with each APTS technology, or which will be so equipped by 2005, are included. Where numbers are not available or applicable, letters signify that the agency has deployed, or will deploy, that technology.

Agency

City

State

Service Type

Vehicle 2002 [2005]

Advanced Communications

Automatic Vehicle Location

Vehicle Probes

Automatice Passenger Counters

Mobile Data Terminals

Vehicle Component Monitoring

Automated Operations Software

Automated Transit Information

Multi-Modal Traveler Information

Automated Fare Payment

Multi-Carrier Fare Integration

Mobility Manager

Transportation Management Center

ITS Integration

Surveillance Cameras

Silent Alarms

Covert Microphones

Traffic Signal Priority

Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority

Birmingham

AL

FR

77

TR,DIG

P,W

[MS 68]     [SC 77]

[X]

X

[X]

DR

22

22

[MS 18] [SC 22]

Central Arkansas Transit Authority

North Little Rock

AR

FR

65

TR,[DIG]

[65]

[8]

[65]

[65]

P,W,[I]

MS 65 [SC 65]

X

X

X

[X]

[X]

LR

0           [3]

[3]

[3]

[SC 8]

[3]

DR

15 [20]

[20]

[20]

[20]

[SC 20]

Glendale Dial-A-Ride

Glendale

AZ

FR

4              [5]

TR,[DIG]

[5]

[A]

[5]

[5]

[5]

P,[W],I

[T]

MS 4[5] [SC 5]

X

[X]

[X]

[X]

[X]

X

DR

15 [18]

[18]

15    [18]

15    [18]

[18]

[SC 18]

Mesa City

Mesa

AZ

FR

49

TR,[DIG]

[49]

[49]

[49]

P,[W,I]

[T]

MS 49

X

[X]

X

[X]

[X]

Peoria Transit

Peoria

AZ

FR

0     [3]

P,I

[MS 3]

DR

9        [10]

[10]

[10]

[10]

[10]

Phoenix Transit System

Phoenix

AZ

FR

600 [700]

[DIG]

[700]

[80]

[700]

[700]

P,W,I

[T,H]

MS 600[700] [SC 600]

X

X

[X]

X

X

X

[56]

DR

115 [150]

115    [150]

[150]

115    [140]

[MS 140] [SC 140]

Sun Cities Area Transit System

Sun City

AZ

DR

14 [15]

TR

Sun Tran

Tucson

AZ

FR

199

DIG

199

40

199

199

199

P,W,I

T,H

MS 199

[X]

X

X

X

X

[199]

Surprise Dial-A-Ride

Surprise

AZ

DR

3

TR,DIG

[X]

VanTran

Tucson

AZ

DR

64 [70]

64    [70]

64    [70]

64    [70]

P

[T]

X

X

X

AC Transit

Oakland

CA

FR

800

800

125

800

800

800

P,W,[I]

T

X

X

X

2

Access Services Incorporated

Los Angeles

CA

DR

373 [663]

DIG

333    [663]

333    [663]

P

MS 150[663] [SC 663]

X

[X]

Alameda Ferry Services

Alameda

CA

FB

3           [4]

[4]

P

Antelope Valley Transit Authority

Lancaster

CA

FR

36 [45]

DIG,[TR]

[45]

[45]

[45]

[45]

[45]

P,W,[I]

[H]

[MS 45]

[X]

X

[X]

[X]

DR

9        [12]

[12]

[12]

[12]

[12]

[12]

Arcadia Transit

Arcadia

CA

DR

18

TR,DIG

18

18

P

X

Central Contra Costa

Concord

CA

FR

131

[DIG]

112    [131]

131

131

[MS 131] [SC 131]

X

X

DR

56 [65]

Commerce City Municipal Buslines

Commerce

CA

FR

12 [14]

P,W

X

DR

3         [5]

Corona City Dial-A-Ride

Corona

CA

FR

5         [8]

[8]

[8]

[8]

[8]

[8]

P,W

T

X

DR

9

[9]

[9]

[9]

[9]

[9]

Culver City Municipal Bus Lines

Culver City

CA

FR

43 [63]

TR,[DIG]

43    [63]

43    [63]

43    [63]

43    [63]

43    [63]

P,[W,I]

MS 43 [SC 63]

X

[X]

[X]

[20]

Fairfield/Suisun Transit (FST)

Fairfield

CA

FR

26 [41]

[DIG]

[41]

[41]

[41]

[41]

P,W,[I]

X

[X]

X

[X]

X

[41]

DR

13 [21]

[21]

[21]

[21]

[21]

Fresno Area Express

Fresno

CA

FR

108 [114]

108    [114]

4

108    [114]

108    [114]

108    [114]

P,W,I

[T]

X

X

X

DR

25 [31]

25    [31]

25    [31]

25    [31]

25    [31]

Golden Empire Transit (GET)

Bakersfield

CA

FR

79 [80]

TR,[DIG]

[80]

A

[80]

[80]

[80]

P

MS 79[80]

X

[X]

X

X

X

DR

14

[14]

[14]

[14]

[14]

La Mirada City Transit

La Mirada

CA

DR

12 [13]

[13]

[13]

[13]

P,W

Laguna Beach Municipal Transit Lines

Laguna Beach

CA

FR

12

DIG

P,W

Livermore/Amador Valley Transit

Livermore

CA

FR

71

TR

71

71

71

71

71

P,W,I

[T,H]

[MS 71] [SC 71]

[X]

X

[X]

X

X

X

71

DR

18

18

18

18

18

18

[MS 18] [SC 18]

18

Long Beach Public Transportation Company

Long Beach

CA

FR

220 [260]

220    [260]

25    [55]

220    [260]

220    [260]

220    [260]

P,W,I

[T,H]

[MS 260] [SC 260]

X

[X]

[X]

[X]

X

X

DR

26 [35]

26    [35]

FB

0       [3]

[3]

[3]

[3]

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority/MTA

Los Angeles

CA

FR

2274 [2400]

[TR,DIG]

940    [2400]

F,A

60    [2400]

[2400]

[2400]

940    [2400]

P,[I]

T,[H]

[SC 2400]

X

X

[X]

X

X

X

103 [378]

HR

102 [104]

102    [104]

[SC 22]

LR

95 [121]

95    [121]

[SC 48]

69 [95]

Montebello Bus Lines

Montebello

CA

FR

73 [75]

[DIG]

[75]

[75]

[75]

[75]

P,[W,I]

MS 65 [SC 75]

X

X

[X]

X

X

X

[75]

DR

5

[5]

[5]

[5]

[5]

Napa County Transit

Napa

CA

FR

26

19

19

P,I

[T]

[SC 23]

[X]

X

X

19

DR

15 [16]

15    [16]

Norwalk Transit System

Norwalk

CA

FR

28 [38]

[38]

[38]

[38]

[38]

P,W,I

MS 28[38] [SC 38]

X

X

X

[X]

[X]

X

DR

7 [10]

MS 7[10] [SC 10]

Orange County Transportation Authority

Orange