Transit Technology Needs - dot.state.oh.us · technology investment was identified by the Ohio Transit Needs Study Team primarily through site visits with individual transit agencies

DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1

INITIATIVE: TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY NEEDS SUMMARY The transit industry, like nearly every sector of the economy, has increasingly employed technology to improve service, management, and operations. Innovations in transit technology offer multiple benefits to operating agencies in terms of service planning, operating efficiency, and customer experience of transit.

Opportunities to increase the investment in transit technology investment was identified by the Ohio Transit Needs Study Team primarily through site visits with individual transit agencies and comparison of Ohio’s current technology inventory with national best practices. In addition, investment in transit technology is consistent with the larger ODOT goal of using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) solutions to improve the transportation decision making process and equip travelers with high-quality information.

The study team focused on a subset of six technologies that are anticipated to be among the most appropriate and offer the greatest benefit to Ohio transit agencies:

─ Automatic Vehicle Location/Global Positioning Systems (AVL/GPS)

─ Automated Passenger Counters (APCs)

─ Scheduling Software

─ Electronic Fare Collection

─ Real Time Information

─ Web Trip Planners/Google Transit

TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PLAN

Technology recommendations focus on a series of core transit technologies that should be available at most transit agencies in Ohio.

Investments in transit technology can create immediate benefits for riders and transit operations.

The need for technology investment is estimated at between $51 million and $63 million over a ten-year period. This translates to an annual investment of between $5 million and $6 million.

Roughly 10% of the investment is allocated to staff training, system maintenance, and updates.

Recommendations also call for phased implementation that target systems where new technologies will have the biggest impact on passengers and operational efficiencies first. Once high impact investments are made, the plan suggests investing in systems based on service type and/or agency size.

Some transit technologies may not be appropriate for all transit agencies, even in the future.

Recommendations also identify opportunities for the State of Ohio to support smaller transit agencies in acquiring and developing transit technologies. Support also includes staff development.



OVERVIEW The transit industry, like nearly every sector of the economy, has increasingly employed technology to improve service, management, and operations. Nearly every facet of the transit industry benefits considerably from the use of advanced technologies, including:

– Improved service operations and management

– More accurate reporting

– Increased productivity of vehicle and driver scheduling, deployment, and dispatch

– Safer and more reliable fare collection systems

– Clearer and easier to use information systems

Transit technologies vary in a number of ways, including initial purchase costs and the costs to implement and manage technologies, as well as the type and amount of benefits achieved. It is also true that some technologies are generally cost effective for most transit agencies, while others only become cost effective when a transit agency reaches a certain size as defined by the number of trips provided or the number of vehicles operated. Other technologies are expensive to maintain and manage, and require a certain level of staffing expertise that may or may not be available at a small transit agency. As a result, it can be challenging for transit agencies to know when and how much to invest in transit technology.

The Ohio Transit Needs Study included technology investment as part of its needs assessment because the availability of technology systems around the state varies considerably. The purpose of the initiative is to understand the types of technologies that are needed, where they are needed, and the likely impact of making an investment in these systems.

Need in Ohio

Generally speaking, the largest seven transit agencies1 in Ohio (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Toledo, and Stark County) are technology rich, with most of the “best practice” Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) already functioning or planned for the near future. After these largest transit agencies, the use of different technology systems drops considerable. Many of the remaining transit agencies that operate fixed route and deviated fixed route service use scheduling software and a handful electronic fareboxes and offer Google Transit to riders. The use of other systems, however, is more limited.

The two technologies that generally have the greatest impact on the efficiency of demand response service are Automatic Vehicle Locator/Global Positioning Systems (AVL/GPS) and scheduling software. Scheduling software helps transit agencies efficiently schedule trips based on service times and other route characteristics; it can also significantly improve the efficiency of demand response services by making it easier to create driver schedules and forecast pickup and travel times. In Ohio, transit agencies that operate demand response service in addition to fixed route services are much more likely to have access to scheduling software and, in some cases, AVL/GPS systems. Demand response only systems, on the other hand, are less likely to use automated scheduling systems and in general any type technology is much less common.

1 The largest transit agencies are defined for this analysis in terms of passenger trips and annual operating budget. All seven agencies carry more than 2.5 million passengers per year and had annual operating budgets of more than $15 million (in 2012).



In addition to planning and efficiency benefits, investment in transit technology is also consistent with the larger ODOT goal that, “Ohio will have an exemplary ITS program that combines technology and advanced operational concepts to improve transportation decision-making by all partner agencies, while providing unprecedented levels of information to businesses and individual travelers.” 2

TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY As part of a previous research effort, the FTA identified 11 technologies to be the most basic and useful technologies for public transportation agencies.3 These “core technologies” were identified by a research team as well as representatives from transit industries as a resource for transit agencies seeking to develop technology investment plans. From these core technologies, the Ohio Transit Needs Study Team focused on a subset of six technologies that were identified as the most appropriate tools that would offer the greatest benefit to Ohio transit agencies:

─ Automatic Vehicle Location/Global Positioning Systems (AVL/GPS)

─ Automated Passenger Counters (APCs)

─ Scheduling Software

─ Electronic Fare Collection

─ Real Time Information

─ Online Trip Planners (e.g. Google Transit)

This list includes technologies that relate directly to operations and others that are oriented around the passenger experience. Operational systems refer to technologies that assist transit service operations and management by helping them better understand how their vehicles are being deployed in the field and how riders are using the system, as well as better manage fare collection and payment. Passenger-oriented systems, on the other hand, focus on improving the customer’s experience of transit by making it easier for them to plan a transit trip or know when the vehicle is arriving.

Automatic Vehicle Location/Global Positioning Systems (AVL/GPS)

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is a technology that allows for real-time location and tracking. These computer-based vehicle tracking systems use a specific location technology – frequently Global Positioning Systems (GPS) – to track transit vehicles in real time. AVL systems utilize electronic locator equipment installed on transit vehicles to transmit the vehicle’s location data to a dispatch center. This data allows a transit agency to monitor the real-time position of vehicles.

For fixed route services, AVL can help agencies monitor on-time performance, measure ridership in coordination with passenger counters, and with additional investment be translated into real-time bus arrival information for passengers. For demand-response services, AVL in conjunction with scheduling software allows vehicles to be rerouted in real time to accommodate schedule changes and optimize the number of trips provided.

Introduction of an AVL system is often the first step in a more comprehensive Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) implementation because many other systems require an AVL 2 Ohio Department of Transportation ITS Vision Statement: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Operations/Traffic/miscellaneous/Pages/IntelligentTransportationSystemsITS.aspx 3 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Technology Fact Sheets: http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/factsheets/Overview.asp



system to be in place. When combined with other technologies or processes, AVL can deliver multiple benefits in terms of fleet management, systems and service planning, safety and security, passenger information, fare payment, and data collection.

Onboard GPS equipment can range from $500 to $2,000 per transit vehicle.4 Implementation of a simple AVL system can range from $20,000 to $25,000 per vehicle, while a more advanced system can cost $50,000 to $60,000 per vehicle. In addition, wireless communication technology is necessary to achieve the benefits of real time information.

Automated Passenger Counters (APCs)

APC systems are machines that use electronic sensors to automatically count the number of passengers that board and disembark at each bus stop. When implemented together with an AVL system, a transit agency can track the number of riders by stop, by trip, and by time of day. This provides detailed information about how riders use the system and is an excellent tool for transit service planning. APC data can also be used for mandatory ridership and performance reporting to the National Transit Database; since there are greater reporting requirements for agencies with 100 or more vehicles or located within an urbanized area, these agencies may benefit the most from APCs, saving time and expense that would otherwise be necessary to perform labor-intensive manual counts. APCs are really only useful for the larger transit systems that operate multiple routes and have very high passenger volumes.

APCs can cost $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle, assuming that AVL is already implemented.

Scheduling Software

Scheduling software encompasses transit-specific software that assists with the scheduling and dispatching of transit vehicles. These systems incorporate transit routes, schedules, trip requests, and vehicle assignments, and process this information to prepare efficient vehicle schedules that optimize the number of vehicle trips while minimizing non-revenue miles and passenger wait times.

Scheduling software is frequently used by demand response agencies, as they are particularly useful for agencies where trip demand changes daily, for those that allow day-of-travel reservations, and for those where demand exceeds capacity. These systems are often implemented in conjunction with AVL technology, allowing the schedules to be updated in real time with regard to vehicle locations. Dispatchers can use the software to reroute vehicles in response to schedule disruptions like traffic or changes in pick-up time. Software is also used fixed route agencies to assist with trip building, blocking, and runcutting, and can be particularly useful for large and medium fixed route services.

Scheduling software for a large system (over 150 vehicles) can cost $750,000 to $1,000,000, with annual maintenance costs between $100,000 and $150,000. For a medium-sized system (between 30 and 150 vehicles), scheduling software can cost between $350,000 and $500,000, with approximate annual maintenance costs of $50,000 to $70,000. Software for a small transit system can cost between $150,000 and $250,000, while annual maintenance can cost approximately $30,000 per year.

4 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Technology Fact Sheets: http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/factsheets/Overview.asp



Electronic Fareboxes

There are a wide variety of electronic fare collection technologies, although electronic fareboxes are a primary step in the adoption of a more advanced fare collection system. Electronic fareboxes automate the fare collection process by electronically reading and recording fare payment from cash, tickets, and passes, eliminating the need for drivers to handle cash and record fares paid. In addition to making a labor-intensive process more efficient for the driver, it also saves time by speeding up the boarding process. Electronic fareboxes also ease the management of transit passes and discount programs, such as monthly passes and discounted fare passes. Most electronic fareboxes are currently equipped with magnetic swipe readers, although newer systems also include smart card technology.

Electronic fareboxes can cost anywhere from $100,000 for smaller systems to over $1 million for larger systems. A larger system may also need significant technical staffing.

Real Time Passenger Information

Transit systems are increasingly providing real-time service information. Real-time information relies on AVL/GPS technology to track the locations of transit vehicles, and can estimate actual arrival times based on schedules and real time location data. This technology provides information on estimated vehicle arrival times, service disruption, or delay alerts. Once the back-end system has been installed to track vehicles and deliver this information to the agency’s computers, the options for serving this real-time information to the rider are numerous. Common options for sharing real-time information include text messages, a web interface, mobile applications, and digital signage at stations and stops. Some large transit agencies place individualized bus stop numbers or scan codes on bus stop signage, which allows users to text for information or scan the code with their mobile phone and receive real-time service information for that stop.

A basic real time information system can cost between $10,000 and $20,000. A moderately advanced real time information system costs between $70,000 and $100,000, while a more advanced system can cost between $400,000 and $600,000, plus up to $50,000 per location for real time information displays such as digital signs or kiosks. These costs assume that AVL technology is already implemented, and that the agency has already purchased the rights to provide open source data.

Online Trip Planners (Google Transit)

As part of providing information online, most large and many small transit systems now offer route and schedule information through Google Transit. Google Transit integrates transit routes, stops, and schedules within Google Maps, and it allows users to plan transit trips from within Google Maps. The use of Google Transit has become increasingly common, and it is often the first place that younger riders will go to find transit information. Google Transit can also be a source of information for trips that require use of services provided by different transit systems, since it is not tied to any individual system. Google Transit can easily be accessed via smartphones.

While participation in the Google Transit program is “free,” it does require an agency to provide Google with service data in a specialized Google Transit Feed format on an ongoing basis. Therefore, it does require staff time to participate in the program and offer this service.



Figure 1 Benefits of Transit Technologies

Technology Operations/ Productivity

Transit Planning

Customer Service

Finance

AVL/GPS

APC

Scheduling Software

Electronic Fare Collection

Real Time Information

Online Trip Planners

Figure 2 Appropriate Transit Technologies for Different Types of Service

Technologies currently in use at transit agencies in Ohio range from basic scheduling software to real-time passenger information systems and smart card fare payment. However, increased adoption of transit technology can improve operations, management, and passenger experience at agencies of all sizes and service types.

BEST PRACTICES The type and scope of transit technology varies with the size and service type of transit agencies. All types of services can benefit from real-time vehicle location technology and scheduling software, especially demand response agencies, while automated passenger counters and real-time arrival information are appropriate for fixed route services. Although different agencies have different needs, increasingly there are more transit technology options that are appropriate and affordable for different types and sizes of transit service.

An overview of transit technology utilized at different types of transit systems in Ohio is provided below, including technologies used at a large urban system (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority), medium sized urban systems (Stark Area Regional Transit Authority and Laketran), a



Figure 3 GCRTA Real Time Information

Figure 5 Laketran Smart Card

Figure 4 SARTA Real Time Information

rural deviated fixed route system (Athens Transit), and a countywide demand response system (Huron County Transit).

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Cleveland RTA has made significant strides in adopting transit technology and intelligent transportation systems. It currently is the only transit agency in Ohio that utilizes all six of the core technologies evaluated here, including:

─ Vehicles equipped with GPS and AVL technology

─ 25% of fixed route vehicles are equipped with APC units

─ Electronic fareboxes

─ CAD and scheduling software

─ Real time information for passengers provided via its website and through a smartphone-based mobile site, as well as at major rail, bus, and BRT facilities

─ Participation in Google Transit for integrated transit trip planning

Stark Area Regional Transit Authority

SARTA is a medium-sized transit system serving Stark County. The agency currently utilizes five of the six core technologies identified here, and plans to participate in Google Transit beginning in 2014. SARTA’s transit technology initiatives include:

─ Real time information via its website and through a smartphone-based mobile site

─ Vehicles equipped with AVL/GPS technology

─ APC units on-board vehicles

─ Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) scheduling software for fixed route services

─ Electronic fareboxes, with the potential for smart card technology in the future

─ Currently planning on adding schedule data to Google Transit in 2014

Laketran

As a medium-sized transit system serving Lake County, Laketran has adopted new technology to improve operations and enhance the customer experience. These technologies include:

─ Vehicles equipped with GPS and AVL technology



Figure 6 Athens Transit on Google Transit

─ Electronic fareboxes, including contactless fare payment using Smart Cards

─ Google Transit for trip planning, particularly useful for customers planning trips that include transfers to and from GCRTA service

─ Scheduling software for fixed route and paratransit services

Athens Transit

Athens Transit operates deviated fixed route service in Athens County. Athens Transit’s service area is considered rural, yet it still utilizes some newer yet affordable technologies to improve both operations and customer service, including:

─ Recent acquisition of scheduling and dispatch software

─ Participation in Google Transit for online trip planning by customers

Huron County Transit

Huron County Transit operates a small, countywide demand response service. As a paratransit agency serving nearly 80 passengers per day with 10 vehicles, Huron County Transit utilizes technologies that are appropriate for the scale and productivity of their service, including:

─ Fully-automated scheduling and dispatch software

─ General-purpose tablet computers onboard each vehicle that are equipped with wireless/GPS capability, which provide real-time navigation and allow drivers to record pickups and drop-offs



TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY IN OHIO As part of the Transit Needs Study, the study team reviewed the availabilty of transit technology among Ohio’s transit agencies. The technology assessment focused merely on the whether or not the technology is available to transit managers, staff, and passengers, and did not attempt to evalaute how effectively the technology is being used.

In most cases, there is a relationship between transit agency size and both the need for technology and the benefit-cost ratio of making an investment in technology. Larger systems, for example, are more complex and benefit more readily from investments in technology systems such as scheduling software or automatic passenger counters. Likewise, larger systems also have more riders and typically serve more occassional riders; as a result, providing service information in more formats may be more important. As part of understanding the need for technology investment, transit agencies were categorized by size and service type:

─ Large Urban Fixed Route

─ Medium and Small Fixed Route

─ Deviated Fixed Route

─ Demand Response

Transit technologies were then broadly evaluated relative to agencies offering similar transit services. This review assessed the availability of technology at fixed route service in terms of the following transit technology elements:

1. AVL/GPS

2. APC

3. CAD/Scheduling Software

4. Electronic Fare Collection

5. Real Time Arrival Information

6. Online Trip Planner/Google Transit

Several Ohio transit agencies provide demand response service exclusively, and so their technology needs are necessarily different from those agencies operating fixed route service. Core transit technologies for demand response services were identified as scheduling software and AVL/GPS systems.

Automatic Vehicle Location/Global Positioning Systems (AVL/GPS)

Fewer than 40% of Ohio transit agencies currently have AVL/GPS technology, although there is significant variation among different types of agencies. Most of the state’s large fixed route systems (four out of five) have implemented vehicle location technology on transit vehicles; Akron METRO does not currently have AVL/GPS, but does plan to install the technology during 2014.

A smaller share of medium and small fixed route agencies has AVL technology: eight agencies (42%) do have the technology, while one agency (Chillicothe Transit System) plans to implement AVL in 2014. Of Ohio’s seven agencies operating deviated fixed route transit service, only two (29%) have AVL technology. Similarly, less than one-third of Ohio’s demand response agencies have implemented vehicles location technology on their fleet.



Figure 7 Ohio Transit Agencies with AVL/GPS Technology

Agency Type Number of Agencies with

AVL/GPS % of Agencies with

AVL/GPS

Large Fixed Route 4 80%

Medium/Small Fixed Route 8 42%

Deviated Fixed Route 2 29%

Demand Response 9 30%

All Agencies 23 38%

AVL/GPS technology is a core transit technology, and is also a building block for most transit technology applications. When combined with other technologies such as automated passenger counters or automated scheduling software, AVL/GPS can deliver multiple benefits in terms of operations, service planning, safety and security, passenger information, fleet management, and fare payment. The ability to locate and monitor vehicles in real time is essential for most fixed route and demand response agencies, and AVL can be a pivotal technology for agencies to expand their technological capabilities. The necessity of AVL/GPS capability for other technologies makes it a truly core transit technology for Ohio transit agencies.

AVL Technology Goal:

All large fixed route agencies should have AVL/GPS within five years.

75% of medium and small fixed route agencies should have AVL/GPS within five years, and 100% should have it within ten years.

50% of deviated fixed route agencies should have their fleet equipped with AVL/GPS within five years, and 100% should have within ten years.

50% of demand response agencies should have their dedicated vehicles equipped with AVL/GPS within a five year time span, and 100% should have their dedicated fleet equipped within ten years.

Automated Passenger Counters (APCs)

All except one of Ohio’s large transit agencies have installed APC systems on their fixed route services; Akron METRO plans to install APCs in 2014. Only two of 18 medium and small fixed route agencies have APCs, and one agency (Lima/Allen County Regional Transit Authority) plans to install APCs on their vehicles. No deviated fixed route agencies currently have or plan to implement APC technology.

Figure 8 Fixed Route Agencies with APC Technology


APCs % of FR Agencies with APCs




All Fixed Route Agencies 6 19%



APCs automatically collect data on passenger boardings and alightings by stop, trip, and time of day. While the same information can be collected manually, it can be costly and time-consuming to deploy manual passenger counters, and it can be inefficient to have operators in large and medium systems perform counts in addition to vehicle operation and fare collection duties. APCs offer a valuable alternative, saving time and collecting thorough ridership data that serves as a tool for performance evaluation and service planning.

Transit agencies with 100 or more vehicles, or that are located within an urbanized area, have greater mandatory reporting requirements for the National Transit Database. Since these agencies can benefit the most from APC technology, it is recommended that fixed route agencies meeting this standard should implement APC units on at least a portion of their vehicles.

APC Technology Goal:

All large fixed route agencies should have or plan to implement APC systems within five years.

No standards are recommended for medium and small fixed route agencies or agencies operating deviated fixed route services.

Scheduling Software

Of all six technologies, scheduling software is the only one that a majority of all agencies (75%) currently have. All large fixed route systems in Ohio currently utilize automated scheduling software. Nearly 80% of medium and small fixed route agencies have some kind of computer-assisted or automated scheduling software. Most deviated fixed route systems (71%) and demand response systems (70%) utilize scheduling software as well.

Figure 9 Ohio Transit Agencies with CAD/Scheduling Software


Scheduling Software % of Agencies with Scheduling Software




Demand Response 21 70%

All Agencies 46 75%

By automating the scheduling process, scheduling software help prepare efficient vehicles schedules that optimize the number of vehicle trips while minimizing non-revenue miles and passenger wait times. Software packages can process complex information and work within different sets of parameters, saving staff time and producing rational, efficient schedules.

Basic scheduling software is recommended for all large and medium fixed route services and for most small services, although the smallest fixed route agencies may not realize significant benefits relative to the cost of scheduling software. Computer-aided scheduling is recommended for all demand response services except the very smallest (systems that operate fewer than five vehicles), while fully automated scheduling software is recommended for services that schedule at least 200 trips per day. Since most demand response and fixed route agencies in Ohio already have



scheduling software, it is recommended that all remaining agencies in the state ultimately implement scheduling software.

Scheduling Software Goal:

90% of medium and small fixed route agencies should have scheduling software within five years, and 100% should have it within ten years.

90% of deviated fixed route agencies should implement scheduling software within five years, and 100% should have it within ten years.

90% of demand response agencies should implement scheduling software within five years, and 100% should have it within ten years.


Most large agencies already have electronic fareboxes, and some are currently planning for the implementation of smart card fare payment technology. 32% of medium and small fixed route agencies have installed electronic fareboxes on their vehicles. No deviated fixed route systems currently use electronic fare collection.

Figure 10 Fixed Route Agencies with Electronic Fareboxes


Electronic Fareboxes % of FR Agencies with






Electronic fare collection eliminates the need for drivers to handle cash and record fares paid, making a labor-intensive process more efficient. The technology also improves efficiency by speeding up the boarding process and reducing the time that vehicles need to spend at each stop. In addition, electronic fareboxes can record revenue in detail, and make it easier to report which fare pass types are utilized and how much revenue they generate. It is recommended that most medium and small fixed route systems install electronic fareboxes.

Electronic Farebox Goal:

75% of medium fixed route agencies should have electronic fareboxes within five years, and 100% should have them within ten years.

25% of small fixed route agencies should have electronic fareboxes within five years, and 50% should have them within ten years.

Real-Time Passenger Information

Three agencies in Ohio provide real-time information:

1. GCRTA via its desktop internet site and a smartphone-based mobile site, plus digital displays at major rail, BRT, and bus facilities



2. TARTA via its desktop internet site, a smartphone-based mobile site, and electronic message boards installed at the major stations

3. SARTA via its desktop internet site and a smartphone-based mobile site

Two transit agencies are currently in the planning process for introducing real-time passenger information: Central Ohio Transit Authority in Columbus, and METRO Regional Transit Authority in Akron.

Figure 11 Fixed Route Agencies with Real-time Passenger Information


Real-Time Information % of FR Agencies with Real-Time Information





Real-time technology provides passengers with information on estimated arrival/departure times, service disruptions, and other alerts. Passenger access to real-time information improves the customer experience of transit, and can even improve perceptions of service reliability. Rather than feeling stranded due to a delay, passengers have the convenience of knowing exactly how long they need to wait until their bus will arrive. Common options for offering real-time information include text messages, a web interface, mobile applications, and even digital signage at stations and stops (see examples in Figure 12).

Figure 12 Examples of Real-Time Transit Information

Mobile Apps Digital Displays Web Interface

The opportunities to provide real time information technology can range from simple text messaging and mobile applications to high-quality information kiosks at major stops and stations. As a result, solutions can require low- or no-cost options (providing open source data to the general public to facilitate mobile application development) or higher-cost investments (digital display infrastructure at dozens or even hundreds of stops). Due to the wide range of investment costs and opportunities, as well as the potential benefits to new and potential transit riders, it is recommended that all fixed route agencies ultimately implement some kind of real time information system to serve customers.

Real Time Information Goal:



60% of large fixed route agencies should have real time passenger information within five years, and 100% should implement real time systems within ten years.

60% of medium fixed route agencies should have real time passenger information within five years, and 100% should implement real time systems within ten years.

10% of small fixed route agencies should have real time passenger information within five years, and 25% should implement real time systems within ten years.

No standards are recommended for agencies operating deviated fixed route services.

Online Trip Planner Implementation

Currently, nine fixed route transit agencies in Ohio participate in Google Transit, five of which are large fixed route systems (GCRTA, COTA, GDRTA, SORTA, Akron METRO), three medium and small fixed route systems (Laketran, PARTA, DATA), and one deviated fixed route system (Athens Public Transit). Two agencies are currently planning to implement Google Transit: Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority and Stark Area Regional Transit Authority.

Figure 13 Transit Agencies with Google Transit Implementation


Google Transit % of FR Agencies with

Google Transit





Online trip planners integrate transit routes, stops, and schedules, allowing users to plan transit trips based on their starting point and destination, without having to refer to specific schedules. For this reason, they are excellent tools for attracting new and potential riders to transit, since they allow customers to plan a trip by transit even if they are not familiar with the system or schedules.

Due to the flexibility, ease of use, and relatively low cost of online trip planners, it is recommended that all fixed route services provide an online trip planner for users, and consider participating in the transit component of online map services (e.g. Google Maps and Bing Maps). Online map services can also be good tools for planning trips that require transfers between multiple transit systems, since they include route and schedule information for all participating transit agencies.

Smaller agencies may need additional resources or assistance for the staff time necessary to prepare and enter data into Google Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format, which is compatible with most transit trip planning tools. The implementation of schedule software at more small and medium fixed route agencies will also make it easier to prepare GTFS data and provide online trip planner tools.

Online Trip Planner Goal:

50% of medium and small fixed route agencies should make their schedule data available in GTFS format and offer riders an online trip planning tool within five years, and 100% should do so within ten years.



50% of deviated fixed route agencies should make their schedule data available in GTFS format and offer riders an online trip planning tool within five years, and 100% should do so within ten years.

RECOMMENDATIONS Innovations in transit technology offer multiple benefits to operating agencies in terms of service planning, operating efficiency, and customer experience of transit. In addition, investment in transit technology is also consistent with the larger ODOT goal of utilizing ITS solutions to improve the transportation decision making process and equip travelers with high-quality information. While several Ohio transit agencies (especially larger and urban services) have made great strides to improve the role of technology in transit services, many smaller agencies have a long way to go to achieve the emerging standards for technology in public transportation.

AVL/GPS capability and scheduling software are considered to be core technologies for both fixed route and demand response agencies, and it is recommended that all Ohio transit agencies implement both technologies and have systems running within the ten year time frame of this study, or by 2024. APCs should be installed in at least a portion of the fleet of all large fixed route services, due to the more rigorous National Transit Database reporting requirements for these agencies. Google Transit participation is recommended for all small, medium, and large fixed route services, while real-time passenger information and electronic fareboxes are recommended for most fixed route services in Ohio.

Figure 14 Summary of Technology Recommendations

Technology Agencies with

Technology ImplementedIn Five Years In Ten Years

AVL/GPS 23 38 61

Automatic Passenger Counters 6 7 7

Scheduling Software 46 55 61

Electronic Fareboxes 10 13 17

Real-Time Information 3 8 14

Google Transit 9 19 31

Investment

Finding resources to purchase and implement transit technologies that would help bring Ohio transit agencies up to a “best practice” system is challenging. There are already several competing needs facing transit agencies, including the need to replace vehicles, expand passenger facilities and invest in new services. Nonetheless, transit technology is critical and implementation will help attract passengers to the system as well as improve system management and operations.

As part of the Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study, the study team developed an investment plan that calls for between $51,269,900 and $63,114,700 invested in transit technology over a ten-year period (see Figure 15). This includes between $46,609,000 and $57,377,000 invested in transit technology, as well as an additional 10% to be allocated towards staff, maintenance, and training costs. These figures represent a ten-year investment in transit technology, with an average investment of between $5.1 million and$6.3 million each year. The largest and most significant



investments are focused on Ohio’s largest and most productive systems. However, while the level and scope of investment reflects the service characteristics of each agency, all but the smallest of systems are slated for additional investment (see Figure 16).

Figure 15 Estimated Costs of Statewide Transit Technology Investments

Technology Number of Agencies

Estimated Cost of Investments (in millions)

AVL/GPS Systems 38 $28.20 - $34.35

Automatic Passenger Counters 1 $0.64 - $0.85

Scheduling Software 15 $2.25 - $3.75

Electronic Fareboxes 7 $9.12 - $9.82

Real Time Information 11 $6.40 - $8.60

Google Transit 22 Free

Staff, training, and maintenance for all technologies

- $4.66 - $5.74

Total $51.27 - $63.12

Figure 16 Share of Statewide Investment Costs by Agency Type

This ten-year investment in transit assumes a phased approach, where technologies are implemented at a certain share of agencies in the next 1-5 years or the next 6-10 years, as described earlier in the report. If funding is not available for the total estimated costs, then agencies can prioritize the transit technologies for implementation. Urban and fixed-route agencies can prioritize their technology investments; ODOT would set aside a certain amount of funding for transit technology, and agencies would be able to apply for funding for technology investments that they consider most important. In the case of rural and demand response agencies, ODOT can identify the top investment priorities and allocate funding accordingly. The highest priority for these agencies is to equip transit vehicles with AVL/GPS systems, followed by implementing scheduling software, launching online trip planners, and installing electronic fare collection systems.

Large Fixed Route$15,271,041

30%

Medium & Small Fixed Route$23,661,756

46%

DeviatedFixed Route$2,914,857

6%

Demand Response$9,422,246

18%



Implementation Strategies

— Conduct a statewide procurement of scheduling software, especially for small fixed route, deviated fixed route, and demand response systems. Statewide procurement could facilitate large groups of transit operators to use the same technology; similar systems would ensure agencies could “talk to each other” and help with all types of service scheduling, including scheduling buses to meet at transfer points, encouraging ride sharing for longer distance medical trips and/or jointly operated services.

— Develop technology specifications for transit technology and assist with the creation of requests for proposals (RFPs). Established technology specs can help smaller agencies pursue and acquire the best and most up-to-date technology, especially for electronic fare collection systems. ODOT may also consider large-scale or statewide procurement opportunities for other technologies in addition to scheduling software.

— Work with human service transportation partner agencies to fund scheduling software for systems that are highly coordinated. In places where transit systems are highly coordinated and trips for older adults and persons with disabilities account for one-third or more of all trips, transit agencies may explore potential partnerships with human service transportation agencies to help fund and purchase scheduling software. Efficiencies gained through use of the software would, in turn, be passed on to the contracting partners.

— Conduct technology training and establish a peer support group. Experience from around the country suggests that the challenge with implementing technology, especially in small urban and rural communities, is not only related to purchasing the equipment but ongoing management of the technology in order to realize the potential benefits. ODOT has a robust training function in place and could play a key role in ensuring transit staff is trained in how to use and manage new technologies. In addition, peer groups could be established so that transit agencies implementing new technologies could learn from their peers with more experience. The Ohio Public Transit Association (OPTA) can play a key role in establishing peer groups to connect peers and provide access to technical assistance.



Appendix A Resources For more information on industry standards and best practices in the field of transit technology, see: TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2008):

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_73.pdf TCRP Synthesis 77: Passenger Counting Systems, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2008):

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_77.pdf TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information, Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2003):

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_92.pdf Fixed Route Transit Scheduling in Florida: The State of the Industry, National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL (2005):

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/527-01-3.pdf Transit Technology Fact Sheets, Research and Innovative Technology Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (2007):

http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/factsheets/factsheets.asp



Appendix B Transit Technology Systems: Inventory by Transit Agency

Table 1 Transit Technology Implementation among Fixed Route Systems (Operations Systems)

Agency AVL/ GPS APC Scheduling Software

Electronic Farebox

Large Fixed Route

Central Ohio Transit Authority


Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

METRO Regional Transit Authority Planned Planned

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority

Medium / Small Fixed Route

Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Planned

Allen County Regional Transit Authority Planned Recommend

Butler County Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Clermont Transportation Connection Recommend Recommend

Eastern Ohio Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Laketran

Lawrence County Transit Recommend

Lorain County Transit Recommend Recommend

Middletown Transit System Recommend Recommend

Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority Recommend Recommend

Richland County Transit Recommend Recommend

Springfield City Area Transit Recommend

Stark Area Regional Transit Authority

Steel Valley Regional Transit Authority

Washington County Community Action Bus Lines Recommend

Western Reserve Transit Authority Recommend

Chillicothe Transit System Planned

Delaware Area Transit Agency Recommend Recommend

South East Area Transit Recommend

Deviated Fixed Route

Lancaster Public Transit System

Sandusky Transit System (Erie County) Recommend

Ashtabula County Transportation System Recommend



Agency AVL/ GPS APC Scheduling Software

Electronic Farebox

Athens Public Transit Recommend

Knox Area Transit Recommend Recommend

Medina County Transit

Greene County Transit Board Recommend Recommend



Table 2 Transit Technology Implementation among Fixed Route Systems (Passenger-Oriented Systems)

Agency Real Time Information Google Transit

Large Fixed Route

Central Ohio Transit Authority Planned


Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority Recommend

METRO Regional Transit Authority Planned

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Medium / Small Fixed Route

Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Planned

Allen County Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Butler County Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Clermont Transportation Connection Recommend

Eastern Ohio Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Laketran

Lawrence County Transit Recommend

Lorain County Transit Recommend

Middletown Transit System Recommend

Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority

Richland County Transit Recommend

Springfield City Area Transit Recommend

Stark Area Regional Transit Authority Planned

Steel Valley Regional Transit Authority Recommend

Washington County Community Action Bus Lines Recommend

Western Reserve Transit Authority Recommend

Chillicothe Transit System Recommend

Delaware Area Transit Agency

South East Area Transit Recommend

Deviated Fixed Route

Lancaster Public Transit System Recommend

Sandusky Transit System (Erie County) Recommend

Ashtabula County Transportation System Recommend

Athens Public Transit

Knox Area Transit Recommend

Medina County Transit Recommend

Greene County Transit Board Recommend



Table 3 Transit Technology Implementation among Demand Response Systems

Agency AVL/GPS Scheduling Software

Licking County Transit Services

Miami County Transit System Recommend

Trumbull Transit System

Ashland Public Transit Recommend

Bowling Green Transit Recommend Recommend

Carroll County Transit System Recommend Recommend

Champaign Transit System Recommend

Community Action Rural Transit System (Columbiana County)

Recommend Recommend

Crawford County Transportation Program Recommend Recommend

Fayette County Transportation Program Recommend

Geauga County Transit

Greenville Transit System Recommend Recommend

Hancock Area Transportation Services Recommend

Harrison County Rural Transit Recommend Recommend

Huron County Transit

Transportation for Logan County Recommend

Logan Transit System (City of Logan) Recommend

Marion Area Transit

Monroe County Public Transportation Recommend Recommend

Morgan County Transit

Ottawa County Transportation Agency

Perry County Transit Recommend

Pickaway Area Rural Transit

Community Action Transit System (Pike County) Recommend

Transportation Resources for Independent People of Sandusky County

Access Scioto County Recommend

Seneca County Agency Transportation Recommend

Shelby Public Transit Recommend

Warren County Transit Service Recommend Recommend

Wilmington Transit System Recommend Planned

Documents

Transit Technology Needs - dot.state.oh.us · technology investment was identified by the Ohio Transit Needs Study Team primarily through site visits with individual transit agencies