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