Appendixes to TCRP Report 135: Controlling System Costs: Basic and Advanced Scheduling Manuals and Contemporary Issues in Transit Scheduling (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Transit Cooperative Research Program Project A-29 Controlling System Costs: Basic and Advanced Scheduling Manuals and Contemporary Issues in Transit Scheduling Appendix C Vendor Survey Results C.1 Introduction and Methodology The Vendor Survey, undertaken as a Phase I task of TCRP Project A-29, was developed as a tool for obtaining information from vendors of computerized scheduling software packages regarding clientele, software features, training needs, and trends in the transit industry. The survey, provided in the final section, included 31 questions. The project team received only four responses from vendors. One vendor’s product was designed primarily for paratransit services. Another vendor answered most questions “cannot disclose” or “varies by agency.” Thus, the results are far from statistically significant. The diligent respondents did offer several interesting observations from the vendors’ perspective, and these are reported in the following section. C.2 Vendor Observations • Purchasing patterns. Most agencies buy the basic software package. Approximately half will then upgrade to other modules. • Utilization. There is a strong tendency to revert to manual methods. Optimized blocking and runcutting tools are underutilized, along with tools to generate statistics and reports. • Research. Roughly 1/3 of the vendors’ budgets go to research and development. Forty percent of recent software development has been directly related to traditional scheduling elements (i.e., schedule writing, blocking, crew scheduling, and period rostering). The most critical R&D trends are: o User interface issues; o Multimodal applications; o Real-time transfer of data among different systems (scheduling, AVL, trip planning, payroll, timekeeping, human resources); o Expanded capabilities vs. fixed staff. • Training issues include: lack of familiarity with computers; availability of personnel for training (the scheduling function continues through any transition); time gap between training and actually using the software; “but that’s the way we’ve always done it.” • Computer/IT capabilities of scheduling staff vary widely. Comfort with using a computer and ability to grasp more complex scheduling concepts are keys to success. • Major scheduling issues facing the transit industry, as seen by the vendors, include: o Reduced processing time for the production of schedules; Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page C-1

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix C: Vendor Survey Results o Eventual real-time scheduling to take daily variations into account; o Improved intermodal synchronization; o Willingness on the part of agencies to reject the status quo in favor of new ideas and approaches; o Lack of good in-house IT/computer skills. • How could computerized scheduling software be better utilized? “Slack” time for schedulers to play with the application and find better ways to do their daily work is rare because many scheduling departments are minimally staffed. In a perfect world, users would spend more time using the software to test various operational scenarios. Regular training (basic for new personnel and advanced to address more complex issues) would also help agencies maximize the benefits of scheduling software. • Post-implementation changes. The type of work changes in two phases: initially, more time is devoted to the quality of the schedule/ runcut/roster instead of just getting it done. But as more applications are developed, less time is spent tweaking the schedules and more time devoted to downstream requirements. No changes in the size of scheduling departments are observed after implementation. Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page C-2

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix C: Vendor Survey Results C.3 Vendor Survey I. RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1. Vendor Name: 2. Survey Date: 3. Name and Title of Respondent: 4. Respondent Telephone Number: 5. Respondent e-mail address: 6. Software name: 7. # employees: 8. Annual sales: 9. Year company was established: II. CLIENTELE 10. Number of scheduling software program installations: a. Within the United States b. Worldwide: 11. Number of installations with peak vehicle count between: a. 1-50: b. 51-100: c. 101-250: d. 251-500: e. Over 500: 12. Modes the system is used for (count clients for each mode): a. Bus: b. Bus Rapid Transit: c. Light Rail/Tram: d. Heavy Rail (Metro, subway, etc.): e. Commuter Rail: f. Intercity Rail: Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page C-3

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix C: Vendor Survey Results III. FEATURES 13. Modules offered by the system (check as appropriate): a. Schedule writing b. Manual blocking c. Automated blocking d. Manual crew scheduling e. Automated crew scheduling f. Period rostering g. Period rostering with rotations h. Crew sign-in and day of operations assignment i. Other 14. Non-scheduling modules available? (check as appropriate): a. Geographic information system b. Run time analysis c. Ridership analysis d. Census data analysis e. Other 15. Please describe (in summary form) the purchasing patterns of transit agencies. a. What percentage purchase the bare-bones scheduling package? b. What percentage purchase additional modules? c. Of these, what percentage purchase the added modules jointly with the basic package, and what percentage purchase the added modules later? 16. Please describe any mode-specific software features of your system. 17. Which software capabilities are typically underutilized by your transit clients? Please describe. IV. RESEARCH 18. What percentage of your annual expenditures is assigned to research and development? 19. What percentage of recent software development has been directly related to traditional scheduling (i.e., schedule writing, blocking, crew scheduling, and period rostering)? V. TRAINING 20. What percentage of project budgets is typically committed to training? 21. How much and what types of training are typically undertaken for a system implementation? 22. Does your company do the training itself? 23. What are the most common issues that arise with training transit agency staff? Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page C-4

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix C: Vendor Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page C-5 24. Please describe your perceptions of the computer/IT capabilities of scheduling staff that you train. VI. INDUSTRY TRENDS 25. Over the past five years, what percentage of your business has been: a. new sales b. upgrades to existing customers, including additional modules 26. What do you see as the most critical current research and development trends related to computerized scheduling software? 27. In your company’s view, what are the major scheduling issues facing the transit industry? 28. Are you satisfied with how effectively your clients utilize your system? 29. How could your existing software be better utilized by your clients? 30. Have you observed reductions in the size of scheduling departments after the implementation of your software? If so, to what extent? 31. Is there anything specific you would like to see included in the revised industry scheduling manual?