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.