Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 58


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 57
57 APPENDIX B TCRP SYNTHESIS SURVEY RESULTS Passenger Counting Systems RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1. Date: 2. Name of Respondent: 3. Title of Respondent: 4. Agency Name: 5. Agency Size (note: this was entered after survey responses were received, based on FY 2006 NTD data) Small (<250 peak buses)__________________ 43 50.0% Medium (2501,000 peak buses)____________ 32 37.2% Large (1,000+ peak buses)_________________ 11 12.8% 6. Respondent Telephone Number: 7. Respondent E-mail Address: PURPOSES 8. For what purposes are ridership data collected and used at your agency? (check all that apply) Track system-wide ridership totals_ _________ 76 88.4% Compile ridership by route_ _______________ 83 96.5% Compile boardings/alightings by stop________ 68 79.1% Monitor passenger loads at max load point____64 74.4% Monitor schedule adherence and running times___________________________ 56 65.1% Other (please describe):___________________ 25 29.1% Other includes: NTD reporting; ridership by fare category; ridership by trip; ridership by route segment; service evaluation/performance reports; prioritization for bus shelters; evaluation of business initiatives; identify discrepancies in bus stop database; forecast equitable placement of vehicles; specific counts related to employer bus pass programs and targeted demographic analysis; develop screenline counts; model and estimate origin-destination patterns; monitor pricing and fare patterns; monitor individual driver performance in such categories as on-time performance and excessive layover; passenger miles and rural service statistics; calculate variances compared to farebox data; determine where additional resources are warranted; estimate revenue and help determine cost-sharing arrangements with other agencies; ridership by time period; ridership by direction; answer inquiries from businesses re passenger activity at stops near potential development sites; route productivity; contract-specific requirements with universities. 9. How does your agency use the data collected? (check all that apply) Calculate performance measures_ ___________ 77 89.5% Adjust schedules (add/delete trips, change headways)_ ______________________ 75 87.2% Adjust running times/select or change timepoints_ ______________________ 62 72.1% Revise routings_________________________ 69 80.2%

OCR for page 57
58 Assess changes in ridership________________80 93.0% Determine locations for bus shelters and other facilities_ _________________________ 63 73.3% Compile NTD reports_ ___________________ 71 82.6% Other (please describe): _ _________________ 8 9.3% Other includes: revenue calculation for third-party services (e.g., to universities); evaluation of demand from passengers using mobility devices and potential for additional service or wheelchair stations on the bus; fare modeling and pricing analysis; growth projections and marketing. TECHNOLOGIES 10. How does your agency collect ridership data? Automatic passenger counters _ ____________ 12 14.0% Other automated methods such as handheld data collection units or registering fareboxes _____________________ 12 14.0% Manually (paper and pencil)_______________ 18 20.9% A combination of automated and manual methods_________________________44 51.2% 11. If your agency collects ridership data manually, what are the reasons that you have not switched to an automated technology? (check all that apply, then you are finished) Cost_ _________________________________ 10 71.4% Satisfied with manual data collection_ ________4 28.6% Data collection/analysis procedures fully developed and tested_ _____________________1 7.1% Awaiting broader ITS purchase that will include APC_____________________________4 28.6% Tried APC in the past but it didn't work out_ ___1 7.1% Low priority at the agency__________________6 42.9% Other (please specify) _____________________6 42.9% Other includes: planning to change but have not yet (4); lack of staff time and expertise to maintain additional data and electronic systems; GFI fareboxes damaged by Hurricane Katrina. 12. If your agency uses a combination of manual and automated methods, please describe how each method is used. APC plus manual________________________ 12 29.3% Farebox plus manual_ _____________________8 19.5% APC plus farebox_________________________4 9.8% APC plus farebox plus manual_ _____________4 9.8% APC plus handheld devices_________________2 4.9% APC plus farebox plus handheld_____________2 4.9% Handheld plus manual_____________________2 4.9% AMTD plus AVL plus APC_________________1 2.4% APC plus handheld plus manual_____________1 2.4% AVL plus farebox plus manual_ _____________1 2.4%

OCR for page 57
59 Farebox plus farecard plus manual_ __________1 2.4% Farebox plus handheld_____________________1 2.4% Farebox plus manual plus on-board survey_____1 2.4% Farebox plus on-board survey_______________1 2.4% 13. If other automated methods are used, please describe these. Responses include: investigating APCs; registering fareboxes as our primary means; fareboxes and turnstiles used for most ride counting, supplemented by APCs, farecards, handheld devices, and video; APCs plus registering fareboxes; drivers manually pressing a button for non-pass riders plus pass swipes; registered turnstile entries; APCs as supplemental; farebox counts; farebox and handheld units; palm pilot with portable GPS capabilities; PDAs. 14. What APC equipment does your agency use (including sensor type--infrared, treadle, etc.), and who is the manufacturer? All except one use infrared. See Appendix E for manufacturers. 15. Does your agency's APC system include a GPS element? Yes___________________________________ 47 94.0% No_____________________________________3 6.0% 16. What percentage of your agency's bus fleet is equipped with APC? 100%_ ________________________________ 12 26.7% 50%99%_ _____________________________5 11.1% 20%49%_ ____________________________ 11 24.4% 10%19%______________________________ 11 24.4% 1%9%________________________________6 13.3% 17. If APC equipment is not on all buses, who prepares the daily assignments of APC buses by route and trip? Planning/service planning__________________8 30.8% Operations______________________________5 19.2% Randomly assigned_______________________3 11.5% Schedules_______________________________3 11.5% APC staff_______________________________2 7.7% Data collection___________________________2 7.7% Other_ _________________________________3 11.5% Other includes: randomly unless special needs, then senior planner; UTA software; randomly for first half of booking, then planning technician with computer program. 18. Is this process automated within the APC software system? Yes____________________________________6 16.2% No____________________________________ 29 78.4% Don't know_ _____________________________2 5.4% 19. What percentage of daily assignments are completed as scheduled? Average is 80%. Range is from 40% to 100%. 20. How often within one year is a particular weekday trip successfully counted, on average? Responses vary widely, from once a year to nearly every day.

OCR for page 57
60 21. Is APC equipment used on any modes other than bus? No, only bus____________________________ 42 85.7% Yes, light rail_ ___________________________4 8.2% Yes, other (please describe)_________________3 6.1% Other includes: heavy rail; at two light rail stations; light rail procurement in process 22. Is your agency's APC system a stand-alone system, or is it part of a larger project? Stand-alone system_ _____________________ 16 32.7% Purchased as part of a larger ITS project______24 49.0% Don't know_ _____________________________1 2.0% Other (please specify)_ ____________________8 16.3% Other includes: light rail stand-alone, bus as part of ITS; APCs preceded AVL, but now integrated; some are stand- alone, others part of ITS; smaller legacy stand-alone system being replaced by new integrated system; mostly stand-alone but gets GPS from DRI talking bus; also purchased Ride Check Plus software; currently stand-alone but capable of downstream integration. 23. If your agency also has an AVL system, is there a preferred source for time-based information at timepoints? Yes, we primarily use APC time data_________3 6.1% Yes, we primarily use AVL time data________ 28 57.1% No preference: either is acceptable_ __________9 18.4% We do not have an AVL system______________9 18.4% APC DATA: PROCESSING, MANAGING, VALIDATING, AND USING 24. What standards did your agency use for the initial acceptance of APC (e.g., level of accuracy)? 85%_ __________________________________1 3.0% 90%_ __________________________________8 24.2% 95%_ _________________________________ 13 39.4% 97%_ __________________________________1 3.0% 95% + 10%______________________________2 6.1% 95% + 5%_______________________________1 3.0% Varies by level___________________________7 21.2% 25. Does your agency use these standards on an ongoing basis? Yes___________________________________ 30 71.4% No____________________________________ 12 28.6% 26. How does your agency transfer ridership data from the APC units? Direct downlink (probe) of APCs with a physical connection_______________________4 8.5% Retrieval of APC data at garage without a physical connection______________________ 23 48.9% Real-time dynamic or periodic remote retrieval of APC data_____________________ 13 27.7% Other (please specify)_ ____________________7 14.9% Other includes: combination of real-time and wireless; radio; PCMCIA card for bus, wireless for light rail; diskettes; WLAN.

OCR for page 57
61 27. Please describe what steps are taken to edit and validate APC ridership data. (check all that apply) Compare ridership and revenue totals________ 18 39.1% Look for unexplained variations across trips__ 27 58.7% Compare ridership totals across days for reasonableness_______________________ 25 54.3% Rely on the professional judgment of planners/schedulers______________________24 52.2% Use an automated program to analyze APC data_ _____________________________24 52.2% Compare on/off totals by trip and adjust as needed______________________________ 14 30.4% Compare with manual counts_ _____________ 32 69.6% Other (please specify)_ ____________________7 15.2% Other includes: automated program, users identify anomalies, and ongoing manual counts; examine data quality score for each chunk of APC data; use a business intelligence solution with pre-set tolerances, compare with farebox, and spot-check against manual counts; compare to farebox; none on a regular basis; compare with video counts; exception reports from daily diagnostics.28._ If your agency uses an automated program to analyze APC data, please describe it briefly in terms of what it looks for and how it decides the validity of the data. See summary table below for examples of validation tests, thresholds, and actions. Test Threshold Action 5% 10% Discard block or trip data if exceed Boardings vs. alightings by block and/or by trip 20% threshold 30% Adjust boardings/alightings at heavi- Loads Less than 0 est use stops Bus stop location Within 200 feet of actual bus stop Flag stop data if exceed threshold Actual vs. scheduled block miles/kilometers 10% Actual vs. scheduled block pull out/pull in times 30 minutes Discard if data exceed threshold 20 minutes 15,000 Actual vs. scheduled trip start/end times "significantly off-schedule"" Observed vs. "expected" results at the route, block, Not specified Assign quality code to data trip, and stop levels Geographic information vs. computerized schedul- Look for match Assign probable route/block ing software data Block data No data Discard block data 29. Are any special steps required to validate ridership data for NTD reporting purposes? Yes (describe below)_ ____________________ 17 32.7% No_____________________________________5 9.6% We do not use APCs to collect NTD data_____ 30 57.7% 30. Please describe how your agency validates ridership data for NTD reporting purposes. Responses include: follow FTA guidelines; software developed by consulting statistician; manual validation; reasonable checks and management review; use APC data in very limited fashion for NTD; compare with farebox data.

OCR for page 57
62 31. What proportion of raw data collected by APCs at your agency is converted into useful information that can be used by service planning, scheduling, and other departments? Average 74%; median 80%; range 10% to 100%. 32. Were any changes required for existing agency data systems to provide the data needed for APCs to work? (check all that apply) Yes, creating or updating the bus stop inventory_ _________________________ 23 53.5% Yes, identifying GPS coordinates___________ 25 58.1% Yes, other changes (please describe below)____ 13 30.2% No changes required_ ____________________ 12 27.9% Other includes: complete rewrite of ridership estimation program for APCs (previously for farebox data); have route changes as far in advance as possible; automated bus assignments; bus stop inventory and GPS coordinates previously developed for another application, but needed to share with APC system; updating schedules and formatting for use with APC system; creating a template of stops, signposts, and timepoints for each bus; creating bus routes for the system to track; created defined interfaces with computerized scheduling software package; formalize bus stop change procedures; create schedule file; internal program developed to import schedule data. 33. Were any changes required for existing agency data systems to store and analyze APC data? Yes (please specify)______________________ 19 46.3% No changes required_ ____________________22 53.7% Changes include: data storage changes; switch to Oracle database and in-house software to clean and schedule-match APC data; separate server; additional server; scrap vendor-supplied matching software and write our own; hardware and network connections to host APC software and data servers; installation of hardware and related software; new servers; developing reports and GIS access; in-house application to correlate APC data with bus stop database; purchased Ridecheck Plus, vendor software incapable of generating needed reports; vendor software unable to analyze data or perform diagnostic tests to validate data and make needed adjustments; new servers for data storage; third-party solution being considered to address this issue; new servers and vendor-supplied software as part of larger ITS program; network upgrade; installation of SPSS; integrated database; whole new large software package as part of AVL purchase; separate server; creation of Crystal Reports queries/reports for additional analysis. 34. What types of reports are routinely generated from APC data? Please also indicate the approximate frequency for each type of report. Annually Quarterly Monthly Weekly Daily As needed System ridership 9.1% 15.2% 27.3% -- 21.2% 27.3% Route-level 5.3% 26.3% 15.8% 2.6% 18.4% 31.6% ridership Route segment 10.5% 10.5% 5.3% 2.6% 7.9% 63.2% ridership Stop-level board- 2.4% 14.6% 9.8% 2.4% 9.8% 61.0% ings/alightings Performance 6.1% 27.3% 12.1% 3.0% 12.1% 39.4% measures Schedule -- 15.6% 12.5% -- 15.6% 56.3% adherence Running times -- 12.9% 3.2% 3.2% 12.9% 67.7% Other (please -- 20.0% 20.0% -- -- 60.0% specify) Other includes: ridership for special events (rail); ad hoc request response within 24 hours; manual means still primary for generating reports; percentage of trips sampled and how often during current schedule; daily trip-level information; report by bookings instead of by quarter and include linked-trips estimate each year.

OCR for page 57
63 35. How did your agency develop data processing and report generation software? In-house, by information systems or computer services department______________ 13 27.7% In-house, by end users of data______________ 16 34.0% Through the hardware vendor______________ 26 55.3% Through another outside vendor____________ 12 25.5% Other (please specify)_ ___________________ 3 6.3% Other includes: plan to use another outside vendor; occasional help from IT department; in-house by a technical person hired to support end users of the data; hardware vendor or end users; part of hardware package; two outside programs; user developed for farebox, computer services department test-processing for APC data. 36. If software was developed through an outside vendor, did the process include customization or modification of the software to meet the agency's specific needs? Yes, considerable customization_____________5 10.6% Yes, moderate customization_______________ 12 25.5% Yes, minor customization_ _________________4 8.5% No_____________________________________8 17.0% Not applicable_ _________________________ 18 38.3% 37. Does your agency have the capability of generating ad hoc, specialized ridership reports from the APC system? Yes, through information services or computer services department______________ 16 35.6% Yes, directly by end users_ ________________ 29 64.4% Yes, through the outside vendor_____________ 11 24.4% No_____________________________________4 8.9% 38. Does your agency archive ridership data for previous year comparisons or future analytical needs? Yes___________________________________ 35 85.4% No_____________________________________6 14.6% 38a. If yes, how long do you keep APC data in the archive? Average and median length is 5 years. 39. Most new technologies require an implementation or "debugging" period in which agencies become familiar with the new equipment and start-up problems are ironed out. If your agency implemented APC within the last five years, how long did this period last? Less than 6 months_ ______________________3 9.7% 611 months_____________________________4 12.9% 1223 months____________________________8 25.8% 24 months or more________________________6 19.4% Ongoing_______________________________ 10 32.3% Average (excluding ongoing) is 17 months; median is 18 months

OCR for page 57
64 ORGANIZATION AND DATA INTEGRATION 40. Which departments were involved in the decision to purchase APCs at your agency? (check all that apply) Planning_______________________________ 38 90.5% Scheduling_____________________________24 57.1% Budget/Finance_________________________22 52.3% Operations_____________________________ 26 61.9% Computer Services/Information Services_____28 66.7% Maintenance_ ___________________________ 18 42.9% Marketing/Market Research_ ______________ 10 23.8% Other (please specify)_ ____________________3 7.1% Other includes executive/senior management. 41. Which department takes primary ownership of management and operation of the APC system? Planning_______________________________ 19 42.3% Scheduling______________________________3 6.8% Budget/Finance__________________________1 2.3% Operations______________________________9 20.5% Computer Services/Information Services______7 15.9% Maintenance_ ____________________________1 2.3% Marketing/Market Research_ _______________0 0.0% Other (please specify)_ ____________________4 9.1% Other includes combinations of: IT, maintenance, and operations; maintenance and IT (joint department); planning and maintenance; planning and IT 42. Which departments are downstream users of APC data? (check all that apply) Planning_______________________________40 90.9% Scheduling_____________________________ 36 81.8% Budget/Finance_________________________ 15 34.1% Operations_____________________________ 32 72.7% Computer Services/Information Services______6 13.6% Maintenance_ ____________________________6 13.6% Marketing/Market Research_ ______________ 26 59.1% Senior management______________________ 23 52.3% No downstream users_ _____________________1 2.3% Other (please specify)_ ____________________3 6.8% Other includes: transit priority group within city government; local businesses, Federal and local governments, Board of Directors, local government planners 43. How do downstream units access APC data? (check all that apply) Hard copy______________________________22 50.0% Electronically via standard reports__________ 35 79.5% Electronically via dynamic queries__________ 19 43.2% Other (please specify)_ ____________________8 18.2%

OCR for page 57
65 Other includes: reports run by APC staff and e-mailed to users with 24-hour turnaround; GIS tools; Ridecheck Plus; schedulers and planners can run dynamic queries; still working out the process. 44. If there are multiple users of APC data, please describe the interaction among the different groups and any synergy or tensions/conflicts that have arisen. Examples could include: greater value placed on ridership data; better work- ing relationships between departments; difficulties in ensuring that daily assignments are completed successfully; demands for new and/or reformatted reports POSITIVE Improved communication between departments_7 20.6% Greater value placed on ridership data_ _______7 20.6% Better data leading to improved decision-making ability____________________5 14.7% Greater responsiveness to public/others_ ______3 8.8% Ability to provide data to end users___________3 8.8% NEGATIVE Difficulty with bus assignments_ ____________7 20.6% Constant/increased demands for new/reformatted reports_ __________________5 14.7% Low priority for APC maintenance___________4 11.8% Unrealistic expectations re turnaround time and data quality__________________________4 11.8% RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 45. How many staff positions (full-time equivalents [FTEs]) are assigned to carry out your agency's passenger counting program? <1 FTE 1-1.9 FTEs 2-3.9 FTEs 4+ FTEs Don't Know Managers/ 47.7% 29.5% 20.5% 2.3% -- professionals Support (e.g., equip- 54.1% 27.0% 13.5% 5.4% -- ment maintenance) Clerical 72.0% 20.0% -- -- 8.0% Traffic checkers 44.4% 11.1% 7.4% 29.6% 7.4% Other (please specify) 42.9% -- 14.3% 42.9% -- Other includes: data retrieval person; data editing and analysis plus report production; traffic checkers ad hoc. 46. Has the APC program resulted in changes in number of staff? Consider a change of more than 2 FTEs a "major" change. Major Decrease Minor Decrease No Change Minor Increase Major Increase Professional staff -- 2.8% 72.2% 22.2% 2.8% Support staff 3.1% -- 81.3% 12.5% 3.1% Clerical staff 3.1% 6.3% 87.5% 3.1% -- Maintenance staff -- -- 71.9% 28.1% -- Traffic checkers 20.0% 28.6% 48.6% -- 2.9% Other (please specify) 10.0% -- 70.0% 10.0% 10.0% Other includes: we needed more IT support and maintenance at first; data retrieval person; eliminated two positions in Treasury branch; but it should!

OCR for page 57
66 47. Has the APC program resulted in changes in skill levels required by staff? Yes, in software/computer skills____________ 29 69.0% Yes, in analytical skills_ __________________ 23 54.8% Yes, in hardware maintenance skills_________ 23 54.8% Yes, in other skills (please specify)___________5 11.9% No____________________________________ 10 23.8% Other skills include: learning how to use the data properly, what it is good for, and its limitations; we have had APCs for so long, it is part of our ongoing fabric; training for operators 48. What is the capital cost associated with your agency's passenger counting program? For capital costs, list approxi- mate purchase cost and year purchased. If multiple purchases were involved (e.g., bus one year, rail the next), list bus information in the boxes and add other information in the next question. You do not need to use a dollar sign; enter a number for each box. Overall cost:______________________________ Cost per APC unit:_________________________ Year purchased:___________________________ Cost data from the survey should be interpreted cautiously. Respondents varied in their ability to break down cost data (especially for older systems or for APC systems purchased as part of a larger ITS procurement). As one example, reported capital costs for the agency's APC system ranged from $90,000 to $40,000,000. The average capital cost per APC unit was $7,500, with a range from $450 to $26,700. The median capital cost per APC unit was $6,638, with 26 agencies responding. See below for breakdown (Table 21 in Chapter 3). APC Median Capital Cost and Median Capital Cost per Unit by Number of Vehicles Equipped Median Capital Median Capital No. Vehicles with Cost per APC Unit No. Systems APCs Cost ($) Installed ($) < 100 200,000 7,500 13 100 to 400 500,000 2,700 7 > 400 1,800,000 1,100 3 Total sample 490,000 6,638 26 NOTES:_ Three systems reported total cost only; three systems reported unit cost only. All three systems in the over 400 category had at least 1,450 vehicles with APCs. 49. Add any additional information on capital costs here. See above. 50. What is the annual operating/maintenance cost associated with your agency's passenger counting program? If mul- tiple purchases were involved (e.g., bus one year, rail the next), list bus information in the boxes and add other informa- tion in the next question. You do not need to use a dollar sign; enter a number for each box. Overall cost:______________________________ Cost per APC unit:_________________________ Cost data from the survey should be interpreted cautiously. Respondents varied in their ability to break down cost data (especially for older systems or for APC systems purchased as part of a larger ITS procurement). Responses regarding annual operating and maintenance costs also showed a huge variation, from $0 (everything is under warranty) to $15,000,000. Average annual operating and maintenance cost per APC unit was $1,458, with a range from $0 to $6,500. The median annual operating and maintenance cost per APC unit was $600, with 11 agencies responding. 51. Add any additional information on operating/maintenance costs below. See above.

OCR for page 57
67 ASSESSMENT 52. How satisfied has your agency been with the performance of its APC system in terms of counting passengers? Very satisfied___________________________ 16 40.0% Somewhat satisfied_ ______________________ 18 45.0% Somewhat dissatisfied_____________________2 5.0% Very dissatisfied__________________________4 10.0% 53. What have been the primary benefits of APC for your agency? Finer level of detail (stop/segment/trip)_ _____ 14 36.8% Quality of data__________________________ 11 28.9% Running time data to adjust schedules_ ______ 10 26.3% Better basis for decision making_____________6 15.8% Quantity of data__________________________6 15.8% Timeliness of data_ _______________________5 13.2% 54. Have there been any problems encountered with the APC system? None/usual start-up issues_________________ 10 25.6% Reports/reporting software_________________5 12.8% Data processing/analysis___________________4 10.3% Data validation___________________________4 10.3% Hardware problems_______________________4 10.3% 55. If you could go back in time and change ONLY ONE aspect in the process of purchasing, installing, and using your APC system and associated methodology, what would you change? Contract/procurement_____________________8 25.0% Additional APCs_ ________________________7 20.6% Approach_______________________________7 20.6% Testing_________________________________4 11.8% Hardware_______________________________3 9.4% Training________________________________2 5.6% 56. Please describe any "lessons learned" that would benefit other transit agencies that are considering changes to their passenger counting methods. Data processing/use/reporting_ _____________ 14 41.2% Purchase/implementation_ _________________9 26.5% Data validation___________________________7 20.6% Maintenance_ ____________________________7 20.6% Staff/resource needs______________________5 14.7% Time frame_ _____________________________5 14.7% Testing_________________________________5 14.7% Experience of peers_______________________4 11.8% Training________________________________4 11.8%

OCR for page 57
68 Other: procedures_ _______________________6 17.6% Other: staff/management___________________3 20.6% Other: APC system inputs__________________2 17.6% 57. Is there another transit system that you suggest we contact for this synthesis project? If you know of a contact at that system, please list the name also. Various responses. 58. Would you be willing to participate further as a case study, involving a telephone interview going into further detail on your forecasting methodology, if selected by the TCRP panel for this project? Yes___________________________________ 28 68.3% No____________________________________ 13 31.7%