Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 17
17 TABLE 28 TABLE 31 DATA AVAILABILITY ISSUES MEASURING RELIABILITY AND VALUE OF FORECASTING METHODOLOGY Agencies No. Agencies Responding Agencies Issue Responding (%) No. Agencies Responding Ridership data at route segment or 10 59 Method Responding (%) stop level Comparison of actual and projected 31 94 On-board data collected 3 18 ridership infrequently/expensive to collect Board understanding and approval 9 27 No access to GIS data/demographic 2 12 Other 2 6 data at stop level Question of priorities/balance 2 12 Total responding 33 100 Rail data for new lines 2 12 Better farebox/APC data 2 12 Total responding 17 100 TABLE 32 GIS = geographic information system; APC = automatic passenger counter. EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY ON RIDERSHIP FORECASTING SATISFACTION WITH RIDERSHIP FORECASTING Agencies No. Agencies Responding Technology Effects? Responding (%) Table 35 shows transit agency satisfaction with current rid- Yes 22 63 ership forecasting methods. Responses to this open-ended No 13 37 question are distributed very evenly across the spectrum. Total responding 35 100 Most respondents see a need for improvements to their cur- rent procedures. Table 36 shows the types of improvements envisioned by respondents. Quality and availability of input data and accu- TABLE 33 SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AFFECTING racy of the forecasts are the most pressing concerns. Among RIDERSHIP FORECASTING other desired improvements were an automated short-range Agencies forecasting procedure, incorporation of TCRP Report 95 into No. Agencies Responding service guidelines, a greater commitment to high-quality Technology Responding (%) input data throughout the region, and changes in FTA proce- APC 10 56 dures for non-rail New Starts. Farebox upgrade/Automated Fare 5 28 Collection Travel model upgrade/new appl ication 4 22 Respondents were asked, "If you could change one aspect GIS 4 22 of your agency's ridership forecasting methodology, what Improved personal computers/software 3 17 would you change?" Unlike the question regarding types AVL/GPS 2 11 Data integration software 1 6 TABLE 29 Total responding 18 100 SATISFACTION WITH RELIABILITY OF INPUT DATA APC = automatic passenger counter; GIS = geographic information system; AVL = automatic vehicle location; GPS = global positioning system. Agencies No. Agencies Responding Input Data Reliability Responding (%) Satisfied 14 41 Somewhat satisfied 15 44 TABLE 34 Not satisfied 5 15 HOW TECHNOLOGIES HAVE AFFECTED FORECASTING Total responding 34 100 METHODOLOGIES Agencies No. Agencies Responding TABLE 30 Effect Responding (%) RELIABILITY CONCERNS BY DATA TYPE Data reliability/accuracy 7 30 Level of detail in data 7 30 Agencies Improved analytical tools 7 30 No. Agencies Responding Input Data with Concerns (%) Data availability 6 26 Ridership 13 65 Data integration from different sources 4 17 Origin/destination 5 25 Origin/destination estimation possible 3 13 Demographic 5 25 Faster analysis time 3 13 General 5 25 Better reporting 2 9 Total responding 20 100 Total responding 23 100