2.3 Transit Management Systems

Transit ITS services include a number of ITS applications that can help transit agencies increase safety and improve the operational efficiency of the nation's transit systems. Advanced software and communications enable data as well as voice to be transferred between transit management centers and transit vehicles for increased safety and security, improved transit operations, and more efficient fleet operations. Transit management centers in several cities now monitor in-vehicle and in-terminal surveillance systems to improve quality of service and improve the safety and security of passengers and operators.

Transportation demand management services increase public access to transit resources where coverage is limited. Fleet management systems improve transit reliability through implementation of automated vehicle location (AVL) and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems which can reduce passenger wait times. These systems have sometimes been implemented with in-vehicle self-diagnostic equipment to automatically alert maintenance personnel of potential problems.

Public access to bus location data and schedule status information is increasingly popular on transit Internet websites. Passengers can confirm scheduling information, improve transfer coordination, and reduce wait times. In addition, electronic transit status information signs at bus stops help passengers manage time, and on-board systems such as next-stop audio annunciators help passengers in unfamiliar areas reach their destinations.

Figure 2.3.1 shows the classification of benefits and costs information for transit management systems. Transit signal priority and electronic payment systems, discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.6, respectively, also provide significant benefits to transit operations.

Table 2.3.1 provides information on the benefits and costs of transit management systems. An assessment of the impact of these systems is indicated by using the symbols in the Impact Legend at the bottom of each page.

Table 2.3.1 – Benefits and Costs of Transit Management Systems

Safety and Security: In-Vehicle Surveillance

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Customer Satisfaction	1	?	The Ann Arbor, Michigan, transit on-board camera systems were often noticed by passengers, but the system only provided a significant feeling of additional security when respondents were traveling at night.[82]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	CCTV cameras are one of the primary surveillance systems used on transit vehicles. The cost of CCTV camera systems have decreased in recent years and now come as options on new transit vehicles. In Chicago, Illinois, on-board transit surveillance systems were installed on 322 buses. Multiple cameras were installed on the interior of each bus to ensure complete coverage, and digital event recorders were used to securely capture video, audio, and sensor data. In 1998, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) reported the total cost of installation was $3.1 million. The cost per vehicle depends on the technology deployed, complexity, and size of the system. Typically, analog CCTV systems are least expensive and digital CCTV systems are more expensive. Digital event recorders are capable of recording visual images as well as signals from other on-board systems.[83]		CTA on-board system surveillance cost: $3.1 million (1998) CCTV system median cost per vehicle: $6,500 Digital event recorder systems per vehicle: $5,000–$7,000

Safety and Security: Facility Surveillance

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Customer Satisfaction	1	?	When respondents in Ann Arbor, Michigan, rated the degree to which improvements increased their sense of security, police presence showed the greatest influence, followed closely by increased lighting. Emergency phones and video cameras had less influence.[82]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem Remote Location subsystem		See Appendix A
System Cost	No data to report.

Transportation Demand Management: Dynamic Routing/Scheduling

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Mobility	1	?	In Eindhoven, the Netherlands, onboard computers recorded daily transit performance. This information was used to plan minimum transit route times and increase schedule reliability.[84]
Customer Satisfaction	1	?	In San Jose, California, the Outreach paratransit program installed AVL on 40 vehicles, as part of an automated scheduling and routing system. A paratransit driver commented that she was satisfied with the system. In particular, she cited its usefulness in settling driver-passenger disputes concerning on-time performance.[85]
Productivity	4	+	The automated scheduling and routing system installed in San Jose, California, enabled shared rides to increase from 38 to 55%, allowing the fleet size to decrease from 200 to 130.[85]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
System Cost	The cost of demand-responsive operational software and computer-aided dispatching systems varies depending on the transit mode, application, and system functionality. Low-end systems can facilitate scheduling, accounting, and report generation activities. High-end systems generally have more advanced transit demand management features and can automate passenger registration, schedule trips in real time, interface with GIS and AVL systems, and communicate with digital mobile messaging systems.[86]		Cost range: $10,000–$50,000+ per system implementation

Transportation Demand Management: Service Coordination

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Productivity	3	+	Travel dispatch centers in Europe used service coordination systems to decrease paratransit operations costs 2–3%. This compared favorably to the previous 15% annual increase.[12]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	In 2002, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in Salt Lake City, Utah, implemented connection protection for passengers transferring from the TRAX (light rail) to buses. The connection protection system uses the real-time information from the TRAX and the bus schedule data along with specific rules that determine when to hold a bus and how long a specific bus can wait for a train without serious impact to the bus schedule. The system uses rules to hold buses based on the frequency and market type of the bus service. Mobile data terminals (MDTs) on-board the buses receive and display the instructions to the driver.[87]		Connection Protection software cost: $305,000

Fleet Management: AVL/CAD

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
(New) Mobility	8	++	The Denver, Colorado, Regional Transportation District (RTD) implemented its AVL system to improve bus service, and succeeded in decreasing passenger late arrivals by 21%.[88] The AVL/CAD systems deployed in Baltimore, Portland, and Milwaukee improved on-time bus performance 9–23%.[89, 90, 91]
Customer Satisfaction	4	+	The Global Positioning System (GPS)-based vehicle location system in Denver, Colorado, rated very well with Regional transportation District (RTD) dispatchers. Operators and dispatchers were able to communicate more quickly and efficiently. Approximately 80% of dispatchers found the system "easy" or "very easy" to use, and about 50% of operators and street supervisors thought likewise.[92]
(New) Productivity	6	++	AVL capability was added to the Tri-Met bus dispatch system without requiring a significant change to existing service design and delivery practices. The new system reduced passenger wait time and in-vehicle travel time, providing savings valued at about $3.5 million annually.[89]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Roadside Telecommunications subsystem Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	According to a literature search and survey of transit agencies in the United States and abroad on the state of the practice in real-time bus arrival information, the majority of AVL systems use GPS technology; other technologies used include signpost and transponders. Bus arrival time is disseminated to riders via dynamic message signs or liquid crystal displays at stops. The same information also may be disseminated via the Internet, cellular phones, and personal digital assistants. The most common information displayed at the stops includes current date and time, route number and final destination of the bus, wait time (presented as countdown or time range), and service disruptions or other service/security messages. The communications technologies frequently used to disseminate information from the central system to each stop are cellular and conventional telephone lines.[93]		The total capital cost for the AVL and real-time information systems ranged from a low of $60,000 for the Fairfax (Virginia) CUE with 12 AVL-equipped vehicles to more than $70 million for the London Buses with an AVL-equipped fleet of 5,700.

 

Fleet Management: Maintenance

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Productivity	2	+	A demonstration project in Valencia, Spain, incorporated remote maintenance bus monitoring with dynamic scheduling. The system decreased non-revenue service time through a 20–30% reduction in the time to detect and correct vehicle faults.[12]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	The Ottumwa Transit Authority (OTA) is a department of the City of Ottumwa, Iowa. The agency provides bus service to Ottumwa, Iowa, and the surrounding 10-county area, which covers 5,000 square miles. OTA operates 51 vehicles. The heart of the rural transit ITS project is a two-way radio system which offers improved voice communication and increased bandwidth for the AVL/MDT system. Vehicle condition is transmitted to the central dispatch facility as part of the log-on/pre-trip procedure. Major maintenance and servicing of remote vehicles is scheduled at the facility when conditions are warranted.[94]		Total project cost: for 51 vehicles: $628,000

Fleet Management: Planning

Benefits
No data to report.
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem	See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	The River Valley Transit, operated by the Williamsport Bureau of Transport, a city department, provides fixed route and demand responsive services in the greater Williamsport, Pennsylvania area. The rural transit ITS system, traveler information system (TIS), provides real-time customer information on routes operating out of a new intermodal facility. TIS informs riders audibly and visually as to which of 10 bays buses will arrive at and depart from; provides a 20-second notification before buses depart the center; notifies drivers when they have pulled into the wrong bay; and allows the agency to create reports for operational and planning purposes. The project cost included signs, in-vehicle equipment, computer equipment, software, installation, integration, and warranty.[94]	Total project cost: $200,000

Information Dissemination: In-Vehicle Systems

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
(New) Customer Satisfaction	1	?	At the Acadia National Park in Maine, 84% of surveyed visitors indicated the on-board next-stop announcement systems installed on shuttle buses made it easier for them to get around.[4]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
(New) System Cost	A bus rapid transit (BRT) system was deployed to enhance bus operations and improve customer service in the Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada. In August 2001, BRT route #98 B-Line was introduced to connect the city of Richmond with Vancouver. The BRT service includes several ITS components, including AVL technology, transit signal priority systems, on-board voice and digital announcements of next stop information, and real-time bus arrival time information using digital countdown signs at bus stops.[48]		AVL and real-time information system: $4.2 million (CAD) (2001)

Information Dissemination: In-Terminal/Wayside

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
(New) Customer Satisfaction	3	++	At the Acadia National Park in Maine, electronic message signs were installed to inform visitors of updated bus arrival and departure times at three popular visitor destinations. Ninety percent of surveyed visitors who used the information indicated the technology made it easier to get around.[4]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Roadside Telecommunications subsystem Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem		See Appendix A
System Cost	Transit riders at Bellevue and Northgate Transit Centers (Seattle, Washington) are provided with bus arrival/departure times, bay number, and expected actual departure times for all bus routes using the transfer center. The system, TransitWatch, obtains actual times from an AVI system and presents the information on monitors at the transit centers. Approximately 12% of the capital cost and 25% of the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost listed represent the TransitWatch project's portion of costs shared with other projects in the Seattle Smart Trek Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative (MMDI).[5]		Cost to deploy TransitWatch: $722,877 (1998) Annual O&M cost: $179,652 (1998)

Information Dissemination: Internet/Wireless/Phone

Benefits
Goal Area	# of Studies	Impact	Example
Customer Satisfaction	1	?	The ROUTES (Rail, Omnibus, Underground, Travel Enquiry System) computerized travel enquiry system used by the London Transport in London, England, helped 13% of travelers change their travel modes to transit, which generated an estimated 1.3 million pounds sterling (approximately $2 million USD) of additional revenue for bus companies, 1.2 million pounds (approximately $1.9 million USD) for the underground, and 1 million pounds (approximately $1.6 million USD) for railways.[95]
Costs
Unit Costs Database	Transit Management Center subsystem Transit Vehicle On-Board subsystem Personal Devices subsystem		See Appendix A
System Cost	BusView is a component of Metro Online, the King County, Washington, transit website. BusView displays bus progress and routes on a map. Roughly 25% of the capital cost and 25% of the O&M cost were shared with other Seattle Smart Trek MMDI projects.[5]		Capital cost: $333,118 (1998) Annual O&M cost: $175,552 (1998)
System Cost	The Regional Transportation District in Denver, Colorado, has implemented a voice recognition call-in system called Talk-n-Ride, which enables transit riders to call a toll-free number and check if their bus or train is on time and the scheduled arrivals of the next three buses. The cost to implement the system does not include the cost for tracking bus location.[96]		Cost to implement Talk-n-Ride: $40,000 (2001)

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

ITS Home | US DOT Home | Privacy | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - ITS