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 13
13
Table 4 indicates how agencies use ridership and travel combinations (28 of the 44 combinations reported in Table
time data. Tracking ridership changes, calculating perfor- 5) and including the number of agencies using only one
mance measures, and adjusting schedules were the three means, also noted in Table 5. The top circle represents agen-
most common uses, each reported by more than 85% of all cies using manual techniques, the bottom left agencies using
respondents. APCs, and the bottom right agencies using fareboxes. The
most common combinations involve APC plus manual (12)
TABLE 4 and farebox plus manual (8).
Agency Use of Ridership and Travel Time Data
TABLE 5
Agencies Responding Means of Ridership Data Collection
Use No. %
Agencies Responding
Assess changes in ridership 80 93.0
Means No. %
Calculate performance
77 89.5 Combination of automated
measures 44 51.2
and manual methods
Adjust schedules (add/
delete trips, change 75 87.2 Manual (paper and pencil)
18 20.9
headways) only
Compile NTD reports 71 82.6 APCs only 12 14.0
Other automated methods
Revise routings 69 80.2 (registering fareboxes, 12 14.0
Determine locations for bus handheld units) only
63 73.3
shelters and other facilities Total responding 86 100.0
Adjust running times/select
62 72.1
or change timepoints TABLE 6
Other 8 9.3 Means of Ridership Data Collection By
Agency Size
Total responding 86 100.0
No. of Agencies
MEANS OF COLLECTING RIDERSHIP DATA Technology Total Large Medium Small
Combination of
automated and man- 44 6 23 15
Table 5 addresses how agencies collect ridership data. A ual methods
majority of respondents reported a combination of auto-
Manual (paper and
mated and manual methods. Twenty-one percent use man- 18 2 2 14
pencil) only
ual methods only. Fourteen percent use APCs only, and 14%
APCs only 12 1 5 6
rely solely on some other automated means (fareboxes, turn-
stiles, and preprogrammed personal data assistants or other Other automated
handheld data collection units). methods (registering
12 2 2 8
fareboxes, handheld
units) only
Table 6 presents means of data collection by system size.
A majority of respondents reported a combination of auto- Total responding 86 11 32 43
mated and manual methods. Smaller systems account for
half of all agencies in the sample and are more likely to col-
lect data manually or with some other automated method. The variety of combinations in Figure 2 provides insight
Medium systems account for 37% of all agencies in the into the process of integrating new technologies into exist-
sample, and are much more likely to collect data by means ing systems. In some cases, an older technology is retained
of a combination of automated and manual methods. Large to test the validity of the new technology. Agencies also
systems account for 13% of all agencies in the sample and retain older technologies for specific purposes, for example:
use the various technologies in roughly the same proportion NTD reporting or "official" systemwide ridership data col-
as all respondents. lected through registering fareboxes. Several agencies noted
problems with the accuracy or reliability of APC counts and
Agencies using a combination of methods are of par- thus have not transitioned to use of the new technology.
ticular interest because these constitute a majority of all Methods may also vary by mode, type of service, and type
respondents. Figure 2 is a Venn diagram indicating the major of vehicle.
