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 14
14
Manual
tion, see Appendix D.) Only one agency reported the use of
treadle mats, whereas APC installations were split between
infrared beam and treadle mat in the 1998 synthesis.
Another difference is the universal inclusion of a global
18 positioning system (GPS) element in the APC system. In the
1998 synthesis, by contrast, almost half of the APC systems
were signpost-based. Interestingly, the majority of agencies
12 8
with both APC and automated vehicle location (AVL) pri-
marily use AVL time and location data. In many cases, the
4 reason is that AVL is on all buses, whereas only a portion is
equipped with APCs.
12 4 12
Almost half of all respondents indicated that their APC
purchase was part of a broader ITS project. Among the
APC Farebox "other" responses in Table 8 are differences by mode and
stand-alone systems that have subsequently been (or will be)
FIGURE 2 Combinations of automated and manual data integrated with other ITS components.
collection techniques.
TABLE 8
Agencies that continue to collect ridership data manually APC Purchase: Stand-alone or Part of a Broader
ITS Project
were asked for reasons why they have not switched to an
automated technology. As Table 7 shows, cost is the most
common reason, followed by low priority for automated data Agencies Responding
collection at the agency. Category No. %
TABLE 7 Part of a broader ITS project 24 49.0
Reasons for Not Switching from Manual to Stand-alone 16 32.7
Automated Data Collection
Unsure 1 2.0
Agencies Responding Other 8 16.3
Reason No. %
Total responding 49 100.0
Cost 10 71.4
Low priority at agency 6 42.9 More than 80% of survey respondents noted that APC
equipment was used only on buses. Four agencies use APCs
Awaiting broader ITS purchase 4 28.6
on their light rail systems, three others are planning or
Satisfied with manual data collection 4 28.6 beginning to implement APC on light rail, and one agency
has installed APC on a heavy rail system.
Planning to change, but have not yet 4 28.6
Other 4 28.6 Table 9 indicates the percentage of the agencies' bus fleets
equipped with APC. It is still the rule rather than the excep-
Total responding 14 100.0 tion to install APCs on only a portion of the bus fleet and
then rotate the APC buses among the various routes. How-
ever, more than one-quarter of responding agencies have
USE OF AUTOMATIC PASSENGERS COTERST
TRANSIT AGENCIES installed APCs on all buses. Universal installation is more
common as APC costs have come down, especially when
APCs are part of a broader ITS purchase. Nine of the 12
Given the inroads that APCs have made in the transit indus- agencies that are 100% APC-equipped bought APCs as part
try among agencies of all sizes, the remaining questions in of a broader ITS purchase.
the survey focused on APC installation and use of APC data.
This section discusses types of equipment and percentage of As many transit agencies have found, the planning and
fleet equipped with APCs. operations departments must work closely together on bus
assignments when only some buses are APC-equipped.
The question of manufacturer was simpler to answer Introduction of APCs has resulted in changes in how buses
before integrated ITSs came on line. (For further informa- are assigned. A typical arrangement is that service planners
