Transit Systems in College and University Communities (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

29 New technologies offer promise to enhance the operation of transit on campuses and in communities with a campus. These technologies are a top issue for transit systems that are looking both at ways to improve the efficiency and cost- effectiveness, as well as to transition transit from a mode that has historically frequently been marginalized as a second- class mode of travel. Moreover, systems hope to appeal strongly to college students, who are often more tech-savvy and are also more likely to use transit to get around than other groups, and who are perceived as the “next generation” of riders that transit systems aim to attract to habitual use. The survey asked respondents about the technologies they cur- rently use in several areas of transit operations: onboard vehicle systems; roadway technologies, such as bus lanes and bus pullouts; roadside improvements, including stops and shelters; information technologies, including marketing technologies such as websites and real-time bus information systems; and other technologies. It also asked about those technologies respondents are planning to implement in the near future. TRANSIT STOP IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES Attractive, high-quality transit amenities on vehicles and at transit stops can increase passenger comfort and entice more people to ride. To discover how transit systems have enhanced their amenities, the survey asked about the percentage (or number) of total transit stops on campus that have certain improvements; responses are indicated in Table 28. Most of the survey respondents have not standardized the use of high-quality transit stop designs that would improve waiting passengers’ comfort, but many are using some of the enhance- ments at a portion of their stops. Bus stop pull outs allow vehicles to move out of the flow of street traffic before loading and unloading passengers, thus reducing the impact of operating in mixed traffic (competing with other vehicles) on service reliability. Similarly, pave- ment markings designating bus stop locations can help reduce transit delays by signaling to drivers they need to yield these areas to buses. Few of the survey respondents are taking advantage of these amenities at every stop, but some have implemented them strategically. Only 17% of respondents have bus pull-outs at more than half of their stations, and only 11% use bus stop pavement markings at the majority of their transit stops. Other transit stop amenities, such as passenger informa- tion and signage, can improve customer satisfaction and help to reduce waiting times. Nearly half of respondents display transit route names and numbers at all transit stops, but a sur- prising 12% never display this basic information. Roughly 40% of the systems responding have fixed schedule informa- tion boards or holders in at least half of their bus stops, but another 40% have installed only this basic passenger informa- tion amenity in less than one-quarter of their stops. And finally, three-quarters of respondents do not provide real-time sched- ule or vehicle arrival information at any of their bus stops. Nearly three-quarters of respondents have transit shelters or covered waiting areas at fewer than half of their bus stops. Three government respondents and two university respondents have covered shelters at all transit stops. Eighty percent of all respondents indicated that they have uncovered benches at less than half of their bus stops. (Bike rack amenities close to transit stops are described in chapter four.) Dedicated lighting increases passenger safety and comfort, but only 4% of systems light all of their transit stops. Again, nearly three-quarters of systems have lighting at fewer than half of their stations. Generally, college and university respon- dents tend to incorporate lighting at more of their stops than their government/transit agency peers; this could be related to the more frequently stated purpose in school systems of providing nighttime/evening safety, since lighting is of par- ticular importance for waiting passengers after dark. TRANSIT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES Technologies on board vehicles can enhance the experience of riding in a range of ways. Respondents were asked what percentage of their vehicles implement on-board technologies (see Table 29 for their responses). Some features, such as automated stop announcements, ease the learning process for new riders or for those using an unfamiliar route. Automated passenger count systems give administrators information about the patronage on their system, and can give detailed data about exactly how many people get on and off at each stop. By far the most widespread technology in use is radio communica- tions, in which nearly all respondents answering the question indicated that every vehicle has such a system in place. While public announcement systems for communication between the driver and riders are relatively popular, automated stop CHAPTER FIVE TECHNOLOGY AND “GREEN” INNOVATIONS

announcements and other video and audio systems are rela- tively rare, indicating that, by and large, systems still rely on the driver to handle dissemination of most on-board navigation information to customers. A relatively more recent technology to hit the market, automatic vehicle locators (AVLs) are based on GPS technology and have quickly become popular. AVL allows transit systems to read bus movements and either track vehicle positions (for internal monitoring and system effi- ciency enhancement—buses can be staggered in real-time to overcome “bunching”) or to output information electroni- cally to customers. Automated scheduling equipment might include software designed to make the process of scheduling door-to-door dial-a-ride services easier. The following technology profile sheds some additional light on emerging GPS-based technologies. Profile: Transit Providers Offer Real-Time Vehicle Information In an effort to make public transit a more appealing transportation option, many universities are employing GPS technology to pro- vide real-time vehicle information to reduce passenger waiting times. 30 Two popular systems using AVL technology convey real- time information. Vehicle arrival information systems take into account the vehicle location, stops, and typical traffic conditions to estimate how many minutes before the next bus arrives at a particular stop location. Vehicle location information systems monitor the position and motion of the vehicles en route and report the vehicles’ current locations and next transit stops. In addition to the arrival time and next stop data, both types of real-time vehicle systems can include graphic user interfaces with detailed route maps displaying or even animating transit vehicles’ current locations. The maps and information can be viewed online or via a web-enabled phone or handheld com- puter, and the arrival time or current vehicle location information can also be sent as a text message alert. Some of the transit systems serving college and university communities already utilizing vehicle arrival or vehicle location information systems include: • Auburn University Tiger Transit, Auburn, AL; • Case Western University shuttle, Cleveland, OH; • Chapel Hill Transit, Chapel Hill, NC; • Emory University shuttles, Atlanta, GA; • CUE Bus, Fairfax, VA; • Harvard University shuttles, Cambridge, MA; • North Carolina State University Wolfline, Raleigh, NC; • Oklahoma City Metro Transit, Oklahoma City, OK; Percentage of Transit Stops with Amenity None Amenity 1%–25% 26%– 50% 51%– 75% 76%– 99% 100% Transit Shelters or Dedicated Cover 1 48 13 6 10 5 Dedicated Lighting 19 31 14 6 8 3 Bus Pull-Outs 11 50 7 3 7 4 Bus Stop Pavem ent Markings 34 30 5 2 4 3 Uncovered Benches 18 37 12 6 1 2 Display Route Num bers/Nam es 10 9 4 6 9 42 Have Fixed Schedule Inform ation Boards/Holders 12 22 10 6 13 16 Real-Ti me Schedule/Arrival Inform ation Sign 65 8 0 1 3 3 n = 85. TABLE 28 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TRANSIT STOPS AT THE SCHOOL HAS THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES? Percentage of Transit Vehicles with Technology None 1% – 25% On-Board Technology 26%– 50% 51%– 75% 76%– 99% 100% Public Announcem ent System 4 3 7 5 13 40 Autom ated Stop Announcements (Audio or Marquee) 31 5 1 3 7 10 Other Interior Video/Audio 23 5 2 0 3 7 Flashing Lights and/or Projecting Stop Signs 27 0 1 0 1 14 Front, Side, or Back-Up Cameras 30 2 2 0 1 9 Interior (Security) Cam eras 19 7 3 1 2 19 Autom atic Vehicle Locator (AVL) System s 23 2 1 1 6 23 Autom ated Scheduling Equipm ent 30 1 0 1 3 8 Autom ated Passenger Count Systems 24 8 5 2 4 6 Radio Co mm unications 3 0 2 1 2 73 n = 84. TABLE 29 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TRANSIT VEHICLES HAS THE FOLLOWING ON-BOARD TECHNOLOGIES?

31 • Rutgers University shuttle, New Brunswick, NJ; • University of Alabama CrimsonRide, Tuscaloosa, AL; • University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; and • Yale University Transit, New Haven, CT. ROADWAY TECHNOLOGIES Most systems (29 respondents) responding to a question about special transit-related roadway technologies or treatments indicated that none were in use, and 19 respondents reported that these improvements are used locally. Seven systems indicated current use of bus-only exchanges or transit trans- fer centers, and seven systems indicated that bus lanes are available. Four respondents indicated that other roadway technologies are in use. Indiana University–Bloomington uses concrete bus stop pads built into the streets, and Georgia Institute of Technology has bus turnouts. King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, reported the most compre- hensive set of roadway treatments: in addition to bus-only lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes, it also has business access and transit lanes, a type of treatment where the outside lane is designated specifically for use by buses and vehicles entering and exiting businesses. Metro also reports use of transit-only signals, advance green signal priority, and bus bulb-outs. CUSTOMER INFORMATION: HIGH- AND LOW-TECH The advent of GPS technology permitted the creation of AVL technology, which in turn allows the delivery of real-time schedule and arrival information. This information may be available in several ways, including online, by phone (text messaging, voice, or web-enabled), and at transit stops them- selves. The majority of systems do not provide real-time schedule and arrival information at their transit stops; only 4% include it at every station stop (see Table 30). A similar percentage of schools and government/transit agencies (21% and 18%) indicated they provide this customer infor- mation, but of these, more universities include it at more than half of their transit stops. If a government/transit agency pro- vides real-time information, it is most likely at less than half of the system’s transit stops. Instead of displaying real-time arrival information at transit stops, some systems make this information available online or by phone. Thirty-one percent of all respondents provide real-time arrival information for their transit systems on the web, while one-quarter make this information available by phone. Slightly more schools than government/transit agencies rely on the Internet or phone to distribute real-time arrival information. Transit schedule information and system maps are made available to the public in a variety of ways, as indicated in Table 31. Overall, on-board paper schedules and transit pro- vider websites are the dominant methods of distributing transit schedules, whereas electronic information boards are the least common. Schools and government/transit agencies each rely heavily on their own websites for distributing this information to passengers. A higher percentage of the government/transit agencies rely on low-tech communication devices such as paper % of Total Respondents % of School Respondents % of Govít. or Transit Agency Respondents On Web 31 35 26 By Phone 25 30 18 Neither 62 59 65 n = 87. TABLE 30 IS REAL-TIME ARRIVAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB OR BY PHONE? % of Total Respondents Schedule Distribution % of School Respondents % of Gov’t. or Transit Agency Respondents On-Board Pa p er Schedules 85 81 92 Distributed Transit Schedule Holders 66 62 73 Static Inform ation Board/Kiosk Posting(s) 57 50 69 Electronic Inform ation Board 24 26 23 School Website 66 71 58 Transit Provider Website 79 71 92 Phone Line 46 31 69 Other 18 24 12 n = 67. TABLE 31 HOW IS THE TRANSIT SCHEDULE INFORMATION DISTRIBUTED?

schedules, static kiosks, and phones, which perhaps reveals that the agencies themselves or their customers are most comfortable with established technologies or that cost of implementation is a challenge for these typically larger sys- tems. Electronic information boards are not well-utilized overall, but a slightly higher percentage of school respon- dents make use of them. As described in Table 31, more than 70% of systems make their transit system maps available via on-board paper maps, brochure holders, or the transit provider’s website. The school website and static kiosks are less frequently utilized. Again, both schools and government/transit agencies rely heavily on their own websites to disseminate maps. The following case study on North Carolina State Univer- sity’s (NCSU) Wolfline transit service highlights a high-tech implementation that offers new options to travelers. Data for this profile were gathered from NCSU’s website and from their survey responses. Profile: NCSU Transportation’s Web-Enabled Passenger Information NCSU Wolfline bus service is integrated into the Raleigh–Durham regional trip planner website, www.gotriangle.org, so passengers can seamlessly customize and optimize trip itineraries to and from campus using all of the major area transit services. Passengers can also track their Wolfline bus online. All buses have AVL systems, so real-time vehicle arrival information is available online, or on a mobile phone through TransLoc’s Tran- sit Visualization System. The user interface displays a campus map showing the active bus routes and bus stop locations. An icon moving along the route represents the current bus loca- tion. Passengers waiting for a Wolfline bus can see its current position along the route, and estimate how long it will take to arrive at their location. This web-enabled real-time passenger information system effectively shortens the perceived waiting time for Wolfline passengers, increasing the attractiveness of the transit system. This online information is also available on a web-enabled cell phone. NCSU’s WolfTrails alternative transportation program also uses several web-based tools to promote and facilitate rideshar- ing. An online carpool matching website for staff and faculty called www.sharetheridenc.org matches drivers and riders with similar schedules and routes, and identifies park-and-ride lots, public transit services, and bicycle routes convenient to the car- poolers. Students are encouraged to form their own carpools with AlterNetRides.com, a free online ridesharing bulletin board. The website sends e-mail, voicemail, or text message alerts of a ridesharing match, allowing students to make last minute carpool arrangements (NC State Transit—Wolfline Website 2008). ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES Many transit providers indicated that they now use an alter- native energy source to fuel the vehicles in their fleet, includ- ing sources that are considered environmentally less harmful than traditional fuels. Moreover, fleets appear to be diversi- fying: among the 80 respondents who answered this question, 32 just over half indicated that their fleet does not rely on vehicles of one energy type, but rely on a varied fleet of vehicles that use different types. However, the number of respondents (33) who indicated that their whole fleet uses “green fuels” (i.e., other than gasoline or diesel) is substantial. Only seven respondents reported a sizeable proportion of their fleet is gasoline-powered, although more (23) indicated that more than a quarter of the fleet was diesel, and 16 reported that 100% of their fleet used diesel. The most popular among the green fuels are low-sulfur diesel and biodiesel, for which 23 and 26 providers, respec- tively, indicated that more than a quarter of their fleet uses these fuel types. Compressed natural gas (CNG) was the next most popular choice, with 10 providers indicating that more than a quarter of the fleet was CNG. Just one provider (University of Madison–Wisconsin) reported a significant proportion of hybrid diesel-electric vehicles in use—seven of its eight vehicles are hybrids. Only one provider reported any use at all of hydrogen power or battery-only vehicles—Emory University uses five battery-powered vehicles out of a fleet of 56 vehicles (24 are biodiesel and 27 are CNG). Among the “other” types of fuels listed by respondents were ultra-low sulfur diesel, hydrogen/CNG mixes, and liquid natural gas; a number of respondents indicated that their biodiesel was a blended formula, most frequently a 5% mix. Chapel Hill Transit, located in a college and university community, reported that it has undertaken an environmen- tal initiative in its administrative location, as profiled in this vignette: Profile: Chapel Hill Transit, NC, Goes “Green” Chapel Hill Transit, a department of the town government in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, relocated to a new building in July 2007. The building has been certified under LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a rating system for envi- ronmentally efficient buildings organized by the U.S. Green Building Council. It features solar panels, geothermal flooring, and uses reclaimed water to wash the bus fleet. PLANNED TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATIONS Respondents were asked the question, “What additional tech- nologies (vehicle, roadway, or other) do you plan to implement within the next 5 years (for example, pavement lighting, pas- sive pedestrian detection, AVL, etc.)?” By far the most prevalent new technology slated for implementation is GPS. Thirty-two respondents reported plans to introduce GPS- based technologies within the next 5 years. Some indicated that these will include features such as automated stop announcements on board, and others indicated that real-time information will be available by phone, on the web, or via electronic signs at transit stops. Five respondents will implement bus signal priority/ pre-emption. In these systems, a bus approaching certain

33 intersections will cause the traffic signal to change (when safe) to allow it to proceed before other signal phases occur. Often, this is accomplished by a transponder placed on a bus that can communicate with a receiver device on a traffic signal. Several technologies will be implemented by four of the respondents: automated passenger counters, roadway improvements such as bus bulbs, and surveillance/safety improvements such as enhanced lighting or cameras. Three respondents indicated that they would add wireless network connections (wi-fi) on vehicles and solar-powered shelters; three respondents indicated that other new technologies would be added.