Evaluación del uso del sistema AVL en agencias de tránsito pequeñas y medianas

Esta es la versión html del archivo https://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CUTS/00365.pdf.
G o o g l e genera automáticamente versions html de los documentos mientras explora la web.
Para vincularse a esta página o para marcarla, utilice el siguiente url: https://www.google.com/search?q=cache:KQ1RZF6gHSIJ:www.uwm.edu/Dept/CUTS/00365.pdf+cost+of+automatic+vehicle+location&hl=es
Google no tiene relación con los autores de esta página ni es responsable de su contenido.
Se han resaltado estos términos de búsqueda: cost automatic vehicle location
——————————————————————————–
Page 1
Evaluation of the Benefits of Automated VehicleLocation Systems for Small and Medium SizedTransit Agencies=KRQJ 5HQ 3HQJ6LPL 2FWDQLD5LFKDUG – =\JRZLF](GZDUG $ %HLPERUQ&HQWHU )RU 8UEDQ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 6WXGLHV8QLYHUVLW\ RI :LVFRQVLQ 0LOZDXNHH32 %R[ ‡ 0LOZDXNHH :, 3KRQH KWWS ZZZ XZP HGX ‘HSW FXWVSubmitted for the78th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardWashington, D.C.January 1999
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
ABSTRACTThe present study specifically addresses the issue of AVL applications in small andmedium sized transit agencies. Small to medium transit agencies were contacted todetermine their perception of their experience with AVL and the benefits it has provided.All contacted transit agencies that deployed AVL system perceive great benefits of AVL,especially in the areas of improved efficiency of the system by permitting automateddispatch and scheduling, improved customer services and communication, more efficientuse of resources and improved on-time performance. In addition a survey was conductedof transit users in a Wisconsin community to assess the level of importance that theyplace on features of transit service which AVL can affect. The transit riders consider on-time performance and having real-time information as the most important factor in transitservice. A framework for conducting benefits costs analysis is also provided based ondata from the City of Racine, Wisconsin and some assumptions. It was found thatconsistent with cost-benefit analysis of highway investment, AVL benefits largely occurto transit users if their waiting time can be reduced by even a small amount. AVLsystems for small transit agencies also have the potential of sharing the system with othergovernment agencies, such as public works departments, law enforcement agencies andother transit agencies.Key Words: Public Transportation, Automatic Vehicle Location System (AVL),Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS), Benefits Costs Analysis, IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS).INTRODUCTIONAutomated Vehicle Location (AVL) systems have been increasingly utilized in the transitagencies as a means of tracking the locations of transit vehicles in real time (Casey, et al.1996). They have been promoted as being beneficial to the transit industry by offeringtransit agencies more flexibility in monitoring and managing their vehicles and byreducing customers’ wait time and increasing riders’ (perceived) security (Gomez, Zhaoand Shen, 1998). These systems are being implemented primarily in large transit systemswhere the AVL can provide obvious efficiencies in managing a large fleet of vehicles(Casey, et al. 1996, 1998).However, there is little or no prior work that specifically dealt with AVL applications insmall and medium sized transit agencies, i.e., transit agencies with fleet size less than 50vehicles (according to the Federal Transit Administration’s definition, Casey et al, 1996).In large transit agencies owing to larger fleets and employment, the efficiency gain fromthe use of AVL could be large enough to justify the costs to implement the technology.But the median and small size transit agencies have much small work force and less fleetvehicles. The question still remains if the AVL system can benefit small and medium sizetransit agencies as well.This study specifically addresses the issue of AVL applications in small and mediumsized transit agencies. Small to medium transit agencies were contacted to determine their
——————————————————————————–
Page 3
perception of their experience with AVL and the benefits it has provided. In addition asurvey was conducted of transit users in a Wisconsin community to assess the level ofimportance that they place on features of transit service which AVL can affect. Thisinformation was used to identify the costs and benefits of AVL to the transit riders andservice providers. This information then provides a framework for conducting benefitscosts analysis. The study concludes with suggestions for transit agencies that are thinkingof adopting AVL systems.REVIEW OF LITERATUREMany studies in the literature focus on the development of the AVL technology. Forexample, Cain and Pekilis (1993) in their article on the development history of AVL givea good description of the shift from Loran C, Signpost and Dead reckoning to the presentglobal position systems (GPS) with enhanced real time location tracking and schedulemonitoring. Dana (1997), Okunieff (1997) and Khattak et al (1993, 1996, 1998) alsoprovide a good overview of the GPS technology and the role of AVL for bus transit.These studies on AVL systems highlighted the fact that GPS was the most populartechnology available in the market at present. A wide variety of features can be includedin the basic AVL system. Smart cards, electronic billing etc are some of the examples.On the other hand, very limited literature is available on the cost-benefit analysis for theapplications of AVL systems in transit agencies. One reason for this could be that it is arelatively new technology, and there is little data available for detailed cost-benefitanalysis. Gomez, Zhao and Shen (1998) cite the example of six transit agencies in theirpaper and highlight the different service configurations, fleet, objectives, and otherrequirements that would determine the cost of an AVL system. Their survey of transitagencies that are using AVL or in the implementation stage showed that improvingschedule adherence, emergency response and providing real-time travel information werethe three most important factors in opting for AVL technology.Some transit agencies have compiled reports on the evaluation of their advanced publictransportation systems (APTS) technology. Potomac and Rappahannock TransportationCommission (PRTC) presented their findings to the TRB in April 1996. They weresuccessful in implementing flex-routing and feeder services because of the AVL system.They estimated annual savings of $869,148 for the Fiscal Year 1997. McKeen (1997)from the University of New Mexico cites another success story in his evaluation report onthe Urban Rural Intelligent Corridor Application (URICA) prepared for the city ofAlbuquerque. The main factor influencing implementation of AVL technology in thiscase study was to determine the ability of an advanced regional management andresponse center. A study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, assessed anannual saving of $488,000 from the installation of AVL at Outreach, Santa Clara Valley-California in the year 1996-97 (Chira-Chavala, 1997). However, the transit managementfeels that this is not an if-then relationship because the benefits are difficult to measure.While they could attribute improved efficiency and increased ridership to the newsystem, the task of measuring it in revenue dollars saved was perceived as difficult,
——————————————————————————–
Page 4
because there are other factors such as increasing fleet capacity that are in effect at thesame time.Outreach has also successfully implemented a Broker Model to serve fifteen cities withinthe valley region as a shared AVL system (Chira-Chavala, 1997). This gave rise to theidea of considering a multi-agency model or AVL system shared between otherdepartments in the city besides the transit agency. Not much information was available onthis front and therefore this question was included in the survey of agencies using AVL toknow if they were considering something on these lines.TRANSIT AGENCY PERCEPTION OF AVL BENEFITSA telephone survey was undertaken of small and medium sized transit agencies who arecurrently using AVL systems to obtain information about the experiences of agenciesusing AVL systems. Since the focus of this study is on small and medium sized transitagencies, we surveyed only those agencies that meet the criteria. The list of agenciescontacted is shown in Table 1. The survey was conducted in an interview format andprovided qualitative information. Prior to the survey, a list of questions was mailed tothese agencies to prepare them for the questions during the telephone interview. A copyof the question list is given in the appendix 1. Most managers were willing to share theirexperiences in an informal discussion following the questions in the survey. A fewagencies even followed up the interview by mailing in other relevant documents.Highlights of the survey results are summarized below.TABLE 1: List of Agencies Contacted and Identified BenefitsCity/ SystemAutomateddispatch &schedulingOn-timeperformanceReal-timeinformationEfficientuse ofresourcesCustomercommunicationAutomatedbilling &payrollNapa, CA – The VineXXXSan Jose, CA -OutreachXXXXXXSanta Monica, CA -SMMBLXXXXXCocoa, FL – SCATXXXPalatka, FL – ArcTransitXXXWinston-Salem, NC -WSTAXXXXXAlbuquerque, NM -SunVanXXXXXRochester, PA -Beaver CTAXXXXXScranton, PA -COLTSXXXWoodbridge, VA -PRTCXXXXXXSheboygan, WI – STSXXXX
——————————————————————————–
Page 5
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF THE AVL SYSTEMThe major benefits of AVL systems cited by the managers are related to theservice providers. Customer benefits occur through improved services, as the AVLtechnology is in nearly all cases a hidden system. From the perspective of themanagement the major benefits of AVL systems cited were:• Improved efficiency of the system. The monitoring capability of the AVL systemallows the agency to make better decision about scheduling and routing. Routes thatshow poor patronage can be rescheduled to demand-response or flex route.• Improved customer communication. Disputes about non-arrival of vehicles andsimilar customer complaints can be better handled because documented evidence ofthe real-time location of vehicles is available from the AVL system.• Better flex routing services. The AVL technology allows the flexibility ofincorporating some demand-responsive services such as route deviation into theregular fixed-route service. This is particularly important for small agencies and para-transit services that operate in a low-density environment. Agencies like Woodbridge,VT (PRTC) that operate in low density areas could encourage choice riders byoffering flex route services and convenient pick-up points. It is very useful forparatransit services where the vehicles can be guided to the correct address.• Decreased reservation time. Para-transit services usually required 24 to 48 houradvance reservations prior to the AVL system. With the AVL the reservation time hasbeen brought down to one or half an hour in many cases. Occasionally real-timescheduling can also be done, which is a great time saving to passengers.• Efficient use of resources. Most small and medium sized agencies are operating ontight budgets and cannot generate enough revenue to improve the services. They feltthat an AVL system would help utilize the resources more efficiently by improvingthe vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by introducing demand responsive services inregular fixed routes (COLTS, 1997).• Monitor and improve on-time performance through fleet tracking. The GPS outputhelps identify trouble areas and can be used to improve on-time performance.• AVL permits automated dispatch and scheduling (Nelson 1995; Khattak et al 1998;Tellechea and Stone 1998).• AVL enhances the ability to do automated billing and payroll.DRAWBACKS OF THE SYSTEM
——————————————————————————–
Page 6
agencies had different vendors supplying different parts of the AVL system and often theproducts did not integrate well. But agencies that acquired entirely new systems have hadlittle difficulty. This however would increase the price of the entire project. Someagencies have had their system for 10 years and never had a major breakdown tillrecently. One compared their system to a kitchen appliance in reliance and durability.FUNDING SOURCES:State and local governments along with FTA have been the usual source of fundingfor these projects. However in some instances like at Outreach, California, a public-private partnership was formed between the government and other corporations in theSilicon Valley to bring in extra money for operating the service.The cost of the system varies greatly depending on the capabilities of the system. ArcTransit, Palatka, Florida went in for a relatively inexpensive system where the basestation cost $46,000. This was because they cut back on their radio time and real-timeinformation and fleet tracking capabilities.TABLE 2. AVL System Costs and Related Fleet SizeCity/ SystemCost of the System Fleet SizeSan Jose, CA – Outreach$750,00015 buses, 55 vansPalatka, FL – Arc Transit$50,00014 busesWinston-Salem, NC – WSTA$235,00017 busesScranton, PA – COLTS$357,93532 busesWoodbridge, VA – PRTC$245,00020 busesSHARING THE SYSTEM: A BROKER MODELOutreach, California has developed a Broker model that caters to 15 cities in SantaClara County. The State of California put out bids for the paratransit dollar allocation incompliance with the ADA regulation. Outreach secured the contract. They in turncontract with other paratransit companies who own or lease the wheel-chair accessiblevans. Outreach provides the AVL-GPS equipment for these vehicles. Outreach alsohandles all the scheduling, dispatch and contract management. They do not own thevehicles that provide the rides.There are 7 vendors contracting with Outreach for these services to provide servicesto 15 cities in Santa Clara County. Outreach owns the AVL and dispatch system andprovides other paratransit agencies with the services. The other agencies in turn pay themfor the services.
——————————————————————————–
Page 7
TRANSIT USER PERCEPTION OF AVL BENEFITSThe purpose of the on-board user survey was to identify the importance that transitusers place on the attributes of transit service that AVL may affect. The results wouldhelp evaluate the value of implementing an AVL system in small sized transit agenciesfrom the users’ perspective. The survey was conducted to get feedback about riders’concerns and perceptions about transit service characteristics.The City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin was selected as the site of an on-board usersurvey because it is a representative of a small sized agency. The system operates fivefull-time dedicated buses and one van with flex scheduling. The on-board user surveywas conducted on Friday 23rdJanuary 1998. The survey began at 6:15am with the firsttrip of the day and continued to approximately 2:00 p.m. The questionnaires were handedout on board the bus and collected back during the ride. The administering team was onboard to help the respondents if necessary. The overall response rate was around 80percent. The survey questionnaire is attached in Appendix 2. The following are thehighlights of the on-board survey.RIDERS PROFILEOn the day of the survey, there was a high proportion of senior citizens using the system.Senior citizens accounted for 27.1 percent of the total ridership. Furthermore, seniorcitizens usually ride more frequently in a week than other age groups (Table 3). About 31percent of the people riding more than 5 times a week are senior citizens.TABLE 3. Distribution of Age-group by Frequency of Riding
——————————————————————————–
Page 8
The second important characteristic of the rider profile is the high proportion ofcaptive riders, i.e. those who did not have a car available for their trips, 80 percent of therespondents. An interesting observation in this survey was that 57 percent of the riderswho said they would ride the bus more if better information was available were thosewho already ride the bus more than five times a week.TABLE 4. Distribution of Frequency of Riding by Availability of CarRIDERS’ PERCEPTIONSThe responses to questions regarding the riders’ expectations from an efficient transitservice were weighted and ranked in order to identify the relative importance of the majorfactors that affect riders’ decision to ride a bus. The most important ranking is scored 1and the least important ranking is scored 5. These scores were then weighted using thefrequency of respondents who selected the factors. It can be seen that the bus arrivals on-time and real-time information are the two most important factors. However it should benoted that all the factors range between 1.48 and 2.82 implying that all were considerablyimportant in the riders’ decision in using transit.The on-time performance of the bus service emerged as a very important factor forthe transit riders. In fact the occasional riders tended to mark it as very important in theirdecision to ride a bus. Overall 61 percent of the respondents considered the on-timeperformance as very important.
——————————————————————————–
Page 9
TABLE 5. Weighted Importance IndexVariableWeighted ImportanceScoreBus is on-time1.48Real-time Information1.55Low Fares1.62Replacement on breakdown1.66Emergency Response1.68Exact Delay Time1.78Availability of Seat1.91Latest technology2.01Display Next Stop2.39Calling out Stop2.82Having real-time information on the bus service ranked second on the list. About half,51 percent, of the respondents felt this was very important in their decision to riding abus. Frequent users are particularly interested in real-time information (Fig. 1).Frequency of Riding5times a weekCount80706050403020100Real-Time informatioVery UnimportantSomewhat UnimportantNeutralSomewhat ImportantVery importantFigure 1. Real-time InformationAbout fifty seven percent of the respondents marked low fares as very important.Once again the highest proportion was in the frequent riders category. This was asurprising observation as they were mostly monthly pass holders and could getunlimited rides with their pass. The senior citizens and students got a further discount
——————————————————————————–
Page 10
rate. The percentage of people considering fares as very important in their decision toride a bus was high across all age groups.TABLE 6. Distribution of Response to Low Fares by Age-groupThe idea that a bus could be equipped to contact an emergency response service washighly ranked by respondents. It appeared as the third most important factor on the list.The transit agency and on-board survey indicate that transit agencies are usually positiveabout the benefits of the use of AVL technology, while transit users are generally in needof better services that AVL could provide. The following section summarizes the AVLbenefits to transit providers and riders.IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL AVL BENEFITSBased on the survey results from the transit agencies and riders, the following effectsare identified as the major benefits of AVL systems to transit agencies and riders. Thesebenefits are developed into a “benefit tree” as the one shown below (Fig. 2).AGENCY BENEFITSThe advantage of AVL to the operation and management of a transit agency is centeredon its ability to reduce cost while providing a more efficient service. The measurablebenefits from an AVL system include cost reduction by the elimination of staff andreducing response time to incidents, as well as increased efficiency of existing routes andgreater productivity without increased staff or vehicles. Both of these areas lead to greaterrevenue generation through cost savings and the increase of potential ridership. The un-measurable benefits of AVL to an agency have to do with the ability to use AVL as apublic relations magnet to increase awareness and pride in the existing service.
——————————————————————————–
Page 11
Figure 2. Potential Benefits of AVLCost SavingsAVL has the potential of reducing the cost of managing a transit system in several ways.The first is the ability to reduce or reassign existing staff. With the use of AVL existingstaff positions can be evaluated and assessed since it is no longer necessary to manuallymonitor the on-time performance. Another area of cost savings comes from the reductionin response time to incidents which may require police, fire, medical, or insurancepersonnel. In this case the ability to determine the exact location of an incident, takesmuch of the guesswork out of directing response personnel. Cost savings can also comein a more efficient use of radio systems. In many cases AVL reduces the need for directcommunication between the base and the vehicle. Thus it save airtime and its relatedexpenses.RevenueWith better efficiency and reliable service comes additional revenue. AVL allows theagency to provide a better service. This better service gives it the ability to offer higherstandards of service and a means to promote more demand for it.Schedule EfficiencyAVL systems can provide better productivity for an agency through improving servicescheduling. By tracking vehicles as they move an agency can locate ways of modifyingexisting routes and service, such as relocating existing routes to help acquire more ridersand modifying transfer times to better serve transfers.
——————————————————————————–
Page 12
Better Complaint ResponseAVL gives an agency a tool to validate customer complaints and to proceed with a courseof action. The transit agency can acknowledge or dismiss claims with the documentationfrom AVL to back them.Morale and ImageThere are many perceptions by the general public that place stigmas on publictransportation that not only tarnish transit image but can also effect the morale of staffand employees. Many of these perceptions are unfounded, yet hard to dismiss andcounter. Some of these misguided ideas include the believe that waiting and riding on thebus is not safe, too much time is wasted waiting for the vehicles to arrive, and that it coststoo much to ride. AVL can address many of these perceptions as well as give the agencya modern appeal, which helps to improve morale and image of the service offered.USER BENEFITSBenefits to transit riders are classified as those that reduce wait time and improvesecurity. AVL can improve on-time performance and help reduce the uncertainty ofwaiting at the bus stop. Safety issues are addressed by reducing the amount of time onewaits for the vehicle and the assurance that once on board the vehicle is equipped withemergency response system.Time SavingsAVL has the potential of saving wait time in three respects. With efficient scheduling anddispatching, AVL can help improve on-time performance, which translate into users’wait time saving. On the other hand, the real-time information display can reduce theanxiety of waiting for buses once there is a delay. Riders perceive delay differently ifthey are informed how long the delay would be from uninformed blind wait. Forexample, two field surveys in London found (Nelson 1995) that the average customerperceived waiting time is 10.13 minutes, but the average actual waiting time is 6.70minutes. The difference is more than 3.4 minutes, or more than 50% longer. The surveyfurther shows that passengers are willing to wait as long as 20 minutes if they know buswill come exactly in 20 minutes. Furthermore, the increased reliability and confidence ofbus arriving on time will reduce the need of users to arrive early to a stop in fear ofmissing a bus.Less RiskLess wait time at a bus stop allows for more secure feeling and a more relaxedenvironment. AVL also can provide greater passenger security on the vehicle because ofthe emergency response system inside the vehicle.
——————————————————————————–
Page 13
A FRAMEWORK OF BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS OF AVL SYSTEMSAssessing the costs and benefits for AVL technology in public transportation is achallenging task because a large number of benefits associated with the use of AVL arenot quantifiable and therefore difficult to assign a dollar value. Moreover, bringing innew technology such as AVL system in an organization often acts as a catalyst that setsin motion a whole process of changes, which is not usually accounted for the final resultsin the cost-benefit analysis. For example, since Outreach, California decided to expandand brought in an AVL system, the ridership has increased significantly. But it would bedifficult to attribute the increase in ridership or services to the AVL system alone in acost-benefit analysis. The ridership and service increase could be the result of thecomplete revamping of the system, in which the new AVL system played a critical role.This point has been raised by most of the transit agencies and they strongly feel that thisis not an ‘if-then’ relationship.Examining the costs and benefits for technology changes is also a comparative study thathas to compare the before and after figures. This essentially implies that in order toevaluate the benefits of an AVL system, one needs to have conducted a similar studybefore implementing the system, to make a direct comparison. Even there, a directcomparison is difficult because it is hard to measure the organizational impact that AVLhas brought in. Furthermore, the before and after comparison also depends on theoperation efficiency of the before situations. A more efficient before-operation wouldmake the impact of new technology smaller, while a less efficient before-operation wouldmake the impact of new technology larger.Nevertheless, there is a need for transit agencies and decision-makers to determine if thenew technology is worth the investment. A parametric benefit-cost analysis wasconducted to determine the relative magnitude of AVL benefits and costs. This processallows some estimates of the relative magnitudes of benefits and costs and the relativecontribution of different factors to benefits and costs. To do such an analysis,assumptions were made of different factors and then varied to determine their relativeimportance. So the purpose of this exercise is not to come up with an absolute value ofbenefit/cost ratio, rather it is an evaluation framework. It presents the possible break-evenpoints under different cost benefit scenario. The purpose is to serve as a rough guidancefor policy makers to make decisions on whether AVL should be deployed in the smalland medium sided transit agencies.BENEFITS ANALYSIS OF AVLAVL has benefits to the transit users and transit agencies. From the transit agency surveyAVL is perceived to be able to improve on-time performance, which can benefit transitusers by reducing the wait time. The time saving transforms to the benefits of AVL totransit users. AVL can also benefit transit agencies by increasing operating efficiencies,
——————————————————————————–
Page 14
which transform to the reduction of operating or administrative expense. It can alsoincrease the response time to vehicle incidents, thus reduce incidents costs.User BenefitsThe amount of user benefits depends on the number of trips made, the value of time andthe amount of wait-time saving. The more transit trips made, the more wait time savedand the more valuable that time is, the greater the user benefits. The number of trips, ortransit ridership, can be obtained directly from transit agencies. Ridership data can alsobe broken down into different trip purposes such as home-based work, school, others andnon-home based trips. The value of time and the wait time for every trip purpose can bederived from a mode split model such as that developed by metropolitan planningorganizations for transportation planning purposes. The critical question is how muchwait time can be saved by using the AVL technology. This requires a detailed study onwait time changes before and after AVL is installed. Since there is no published numberon wait time saving, some assumptions have to be made as a starting point.An example of user benefits is given in Table7, using data from the City of Racine,Wisconsin as a case study. The annual fixed-route ridership in Racine is 1,771,000 tripsand paratransit ridership is about 19,500. Among those, 29 percent are home-based worktrips, 40 percent are school trips, 26 percent are shopping or other trips, and 4 percent arenon-home-based trips. Parameters to convert time savings into dollar benefits werederived from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)’stransportation mode split model (SEWRPC 1995). This model was calibrated bySEWRPC based on home interview survey data, to simulate how travelers make tradeoffsbetween travel time, travel cost, waiting time and other factors when they choose a meansof travel. Parameters were developed from the calibrated disutility equations by factoringout the in-vehicle time multiplier and looking at the relative values of other coefficientsin their model. These led to a value of travel time for work trips of $2.09 per hour, and$0.41, $0.42 and $2.05 for school, shop/other and non-home based trips respectively.Since people perceive wait time longer than the actual wait time, a wait weight is used toadjust for the perceived wait time. The SEWRPC model implies that people perceive waittime about 2.62 times longer than the actual wait time for work trips. In other words, waittime is about 2.62 times more valuable than the in-vehicle time. Parameters for other trippurposes are 1.00 for school trips, 7.36 for shopping trips and 7.00 for non-home basedtrips.The critical question is how much wait time can users save by AVL? Since there is nodata on it, a parametric analysis was conducted with an initial savings of 2 minutes pertrip are assumed in this analysis as a starting point. Therefore, for the work trips, there isa wait time saving of (518,901 trips * 2 minutes =) 1,037,802 minutes. Since wait time is2.62 times more valuable than the in-vehicle travel time, the dollar value of the wait timesaving is (1,037,802 minutes /60 * $2.09 * 2.62 =) $94,713. A similar calculation is donefor other trip purposes and leads to a user benefit of all trip purposes for fixed routeservice about $187,000 with an AVL saving of 2 minutes per trip, or about $95,000 perminute of time savings.
——————————————————————————–
Page 15
Figure 3: Distribution of BenefitsUser87%Paratransit4%Incident5%Admin4%For the paratransit users, there is no data on its breakdown of trip purposes, so the sameproportion of trip purposes as the fixed route is assumed. Similarly, the weighted valuetime (using the proportion of trip purposes as the weight) is assumed for the paratransittrips. The total benefit of paratransit users in the City of Racine is $9,730 if an AVL timesaving of 10 minutes per trip is assumed.Transit Agency BenefitsTwo benefits of AVL on transit agencies can be quantified depending on the availabilityof data: savings on vehicle incident responses and administrative expenses. The numberof vehicle incidents including vehicle breakdowns, police/fire calls and medical calls andassociated costs can be obtained from transit agencies. AVL can speed up the responsetime to those incidents by quickly locating the incidents and by reducing the time toinform the emergency response team. It is difficult to determine the benefits associatedwith quicker response time without specific system data. In the absence of reliable data,this exercise assumes a ten-percent reduction of incident costs. As shown in the case ofRacine (Table 7), if one assumes a ten-percent reduction of incident costs and a cost perincident of $1000, this would save about $10,800 per year. The amount of savings isdependent on the current incident related expense and savings from adopting the AVLtechnology.It is widely anticipated that AVL can increase the administrative efficiency of transitagencies. Transit managers and dispatchers are able to be more responsive to incidentsand schedule changes. AVL allows transit managers check schedule and routingadherence more easily. Some work, such as checking on-time performance manually canbe eliminated by AVL. On the other hand, the installation of AVL will add expense toadministrate AVL equipment. There is a lack of detailed data to demonstrate exactly howmuch administrative expense can be changed by AVL. In the example, a ten-percentreduction of administrativeexpense is assumed. Inaddition, a $50,000 is addedas a new administrativeexpense to manage the AVLsystem. Therefore, there willbe about $9500 netadministrative expense in thecase of the City of Racine.As can be seen in Figure 3,the vast majority (91percent) of AVL benefitsresult from time savingsfrom transit users. Only 9percent of savings belong totransit agencies in the formof the reduction of vehicle
——————————————————————————–
Page 16
Figure 4: Distribution of Costscapital72%maint28%incident costs and administrative expenses. It also indicates that the ability of AVL todeliver more reliable service to users is key to its success in generating substantialbenefits.The results are consistent with the benefit cost processes used for highway investmentanalysis. In such studies, time savings from a highway improvement tend to be the mostsignificant element of highway benefits.COSTANALYSIS OFAVLThe costs of AVL include capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs. The system costsinclude the expense of installing GPS units on buses, the expense of equipping thedispatch center, and other miscellaneous expenses. The GPS unit costs depends on thenumber of vehicles; the greater the number of vehicles, the less the cost per unit. TheGPS cost per bus ranges from $2000 to $5000. This analysis uses $4,000 as the assumedbase unit cost. The total GPS and associated other costs to equip all buses in Racine is$184,000 ($4,000 * 46 vehicles).The cost of equipping the dispatch center also varies, depending on the systemrequirements and complexity. It ranges from $10,000 to $50,000. $30,000 is used in thisanalysis. $20,000 is assumed to be other miscellaneous expense. The total initial systemcosts is about $234,000.AVL maintenance is usually handled through a service agreement with the vendor whoinstalls the system. The contract usually covers the costs of installing the system as wellas maintaining the systemincluding system update andtroubleshooting. The annualmaintenance expense ranges from$1500 to $20,000. $20,000 isassumed in this analysis.To calculate the annual costs of theAVL system, it is assumed that theproject will last for 5 years andthat the discount rate is fourpercent. Therefore, the annualsystem cost is about $52,513 andthe maintenance cost is $20,000,for a total annual cost of $72,563.The cost distribution chart (Figure4) shows that the system cost isabout two-thirds (72 percent) ofthe total cost and the maintenancecost is about one-third (28 percent).
——————————————————————————–
Page 17
Figure 5. Benefits vs. user time saved/trip$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,00013579111315Minutes saved per tripbenefitscostBENEFIT COSTANALYSISIn the above analysis there are total annual benefits of $217,077 and annual costs of$72,563. The net benefits are about $144,515, with a benefit/cost ratio of about 3.0 forthe City of Racine Transit System.Sensitivity AnalysisBecause of the lack of reliable before and after data, many of the numbers used tocalculate costs and benefits are assumed. Therefore, it is important to have a sensitivityanalysis to test how sensitive the analysis is to the underlying assumptions. Thesensitivity analysis has been conducted for the following factors: the wait-time savings,discount rate, projected project life, and transit ridership. Sensitivity analysis helps toindicate how important the different assumptions are and how different assumptionsmight affect the benefits and costs of the systemAs shown in Figure 5, Benefit vs. User Time Saved/Trip, user benefits are very sensitiveto the wait-time savings. As the wait-time savings increase, the user benefits increasedramatically. In the example given, the break-even point is when the wait-time saving isabout 0.45 minute or 27 seconds per trip. Given that this is a very small number, itindicates that the potential for AVL wait time savings to exceed its cost is high. It is notdifficult to imagine an AVL system to increase the on-time performance to reduce thewait time by less than a half minute.As shown in Figure 6, the discount rate has a very small impact on the annual costestimation. The projected system life, Figure 7, has a larger impact on the annual costs.
——————————————————————————–
Page 18
Figure 7. Benefits. Costs vs Project Life$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,0001357911 13 15Project Life in YearsbenefitscostFigure 6. Benefits, Costs vs Discount Rate$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,0000%3%6%9%12%Discount RatebenefitscostSystems that last for very short time periods will have much higher annual costs. In theexample shown, if the project life is over 1 year, the benefits of AVL exceed the costs.Figure 8 shows that the increases of transit ridership will increase both benefits and costs,but the increase of benefits occurs faster than the increase in costs. These calculationswere made assuming that user benefits, incident benefits and fleet size will vary directlywith annual trips. With the assumptions made in the example, the break-even point is atabout 220,000 trips per year, or 4200 trips per week. Smaller transit systems should takecareful consideration of potential thresholds of usage when considering adoption of AVLtechnology.Figure 8. Benefits, Costs vs Annual Ridership$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000100140180220260300340380Annual Ridership in 1000sbenefitsannual cost
——————————————————————————–
Page 19
SOMECAVEATSThis analysis is based on limited data and many assumptions. It is intended as an analysisframework only. More rigorous cost benefit number needs more detailed and reliabledata. One shortcoming of the sensitivity analysis is that only one variable can vary at atime. For example, when we analyze the sensitivity of ridership, we assume the wait-timesavings are constant. It is more difficult to vary ridership and time-savings at the sametime to see their impacts on benefits and costs.Furthermore, many potential benefits have not been taken into account in this analysisbecause of the lack of data or because of the difficulty of quantification. For example, theinstallation of a silent alarm system can increase the sense of security for both passengersand drivers. This psychological effect is difficult to put a dollar value on. Theintroduction of AVL may provide a basis for other new technologies, which may furtherhelp the transit agency realize further efficiencies. This effect is also difficult to quantify.Other non-quantifiable benefits include improved agency image, employee satisfaction,better handling of customer complaints and reduction in their number.CONCLUSIONSTransit users place a high degree of importance on features that minimize waitinguncertainty and increase their feeling of security. Features that AVL may provide such as:
——————————————————————————–
Page 20
existing base maps. The life of the project is an important variable in project costs.Discount rate has a small effect on annual costs.AVL systems potentially can have large benefits, which exceed the costs of the systems.These benefits largely occur to transit users if their vehicle waiting time can be reducedby even a small amount. Other effects such as increased sense of security and reducedresponse time for incidents cannot be easily quantified but would add to the benefits of anAVL system. In addition AVL systems have the potential for better managementinformation which can lead to more productive service and better planning for futureneeds.The potential benefits for paratransit service are also great. AVL has the potential toincrease vehicle productivity by facilitating more trip combinations. In addition, AVLcan reduce the advance time needed for a trip reservation and reduce the uncertainty ofvehicle arrival time.The benefits of AVL systems are chiefly a direct function of annual system ridershipwhile costs tend to vary only slightly with ridership. They are also most likely to occur onsystems that have problems maintaining schedules and service reliability.AVL systems should be implemented in a way to maximize their impact on passengerwaiting times. This is an area of high potential benefits. Mechanisms to increaseawareness of vehicle arrival times should be actively explored to provide the best use ofan AVL systemREFERENCESCain, David A and Pekilis, Barry R. 1993. AVLC Technology Today: A DevelopmentalHistory of Automatic Vehicle Location and Control Systems for the Transit Environment.IEEE-IEE Vehicle Navigation & Information Systems Conference, Ottawa.Casey, RF., et al. 1996. Advanced Public Transportation Systems. State of the Art Update’96. United States Department of Transportation, Washington DC.Casey, RF., et al. 1998. Advanced Public Transportation Systems. State of the Art Update’98. United States Department of Transportation, Washington DC.Chira-Chavala, T, Venter, C and Gosling, G. 1997. Advanced paratransit System: AnApplication of Digital Map, Automated Vehicle Scheduling and location Systems.Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley.Dana, P.H. An Overview of the Global Positioning System (GPS).Http://www.utexas.edu/depts/grg/gcraft/notes/gps.
——————————————————————————–
Page 21
Farwell, Randall G, and Marx, Eric. Planning, Implementation and Evaluation ofOmniRide Demand Driven Transit Operations: Feeder and Flex Route Services. TRB,April 1996.Gomez, A, Zhao, F, and Shen LD. 1998. Benefits of Transit AVL and Transit AVLImplementation in the U.S. Paper presented at the 77th annual meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, DC.Khattak, A., H. Noeimi, H. Al-Deek, and R. Hall. 1993. Advanced Public TransportationSystems: A Taxonomy and Commercial Availability, Partners in Advanced Transit andHighways (PATH) Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-93-9, Institute of TransportationStudies, University of California at Berkeley, California.Khattak, A., H. Noeimi, and H. Al-Deek. 1996. A Taxonomy for Advanced PublicTransportation Systems, Journal of Public Transportation, 1 (1): 39-64.Khattak, A. and M. Hickman. 1998. Automatic Vehicle Location and Computer AidedDispatch Systems: Commercial Availability and Deployment in Transit Agencies. Paperpresented at the 77th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC.McKeen, RG. 1997. Urban/Rural Intelligent Corridor Application (URICA) EvaluationReport. ATR Institute, University of New Mexico.Nelson, John D., 1995. “The Potential for Real-Time Passenger Information as Part of anIntegrated Bus-Control/Information System”, Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol.29, No. 1, pp. 13-25.Okunieff, Paula E. TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit. TransportationResearch Board, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1997.SEWRPC, SEWRPC Planning Report #41, A Regional Transportation System Plan forSoutheastern Wisconsin: 2010, Chapter VII, p313, Feb, 1995Tellechea, Suzanne B. and John R. Stone. 1998. AVL Planning for the Winston-SalemMobility Manager. Paper presented at the 77th annual meeting of the TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC.
——————————————————————————–
Page 22
Table 7. Benefits Costs Analysis — Racine ExampleSystem InformationFixedParatransit TotalAnnual ridership1,770,99317,7311,788,724Fleet size38846SEWRPC mode split #’s AVL effectAVL savings per yearUser BenefitsPctTripsValue TimeWait wtwait min/trip minwait mindollarsWork trips29%518,901$2.092.622.001,037,8022,719,041$94,713School Trips40%715,481$0.411.002.001,430,9621,430,962$9,778Shop/other26%464,000$0.427.362.00928,0006,830,082$47,811Non-Home based4%72,611$2.057.002.00145,2211,016,550$34,732100%1,770,993Totals3,541,98611,996,636$187,034Paratransit Users$0.973.3910177,310600,545$9,730AVL effectVehicle incidents/yr before AVLCost /incident Annual costpct reducedBreakdowns36$1,000$36,00010%$3,600Police/fire calls36$1,000$36,00010%$3,600Medical calls36$1,000$36,00010%$3,600108$108,000$10,800AVL effectAdministrative Expensepct reducedFixed route$495,13410%$49,513Paratransit$100,00010%$10,000AVL admin$0($50,000)$9,513AVL system costsTotal benefits$217,077CapitaltotalCost /vehicle$4,000$184,000Annual costEquipment$30,000$30,000capital$52,563Other$20,000$20,000maint$20,000$234,000total$72,563Annual Maintenance$20,000net$144,515Project life-yrs5Benefit/cost2.99Discount rate4.00%Break even min/trip0.45Refs: Bellebus spreadsheet derived from Racine transit data, SEWRPC Planning Assistance Report #79, table 20Parameters are derived from SEWRPC mode split modelsGrey cells are estimates used as input to calculations
——————————————————————————–
Page 23
Appendix 1.Survey of Transit Agencies Using AVL TechnologyTechnology Information1. What kind of AVL system are you using?Name of System Vendor: ____________________________2. What are the components of your AVL system?A. Location Technology◊ Signpost◊ Global Positioning Satellites (GPS)◊ Ground Based Radio◊ Dead-reckoningB. Communication SystemRadio◊ Analog◊ DigitalTrunked channels? (Yes / No )Cellular◊ Analog◊ DigitalOther type of system, explain: ________________________________C. How was your base map information created?◊ Purchased a ready to use mapVendor: ______________________________________◊ Digitized a customized map specifically for your useImplementation3. What were the agency’s initial reasons for seeking to adopt an AVL technology?4. How did you gather support from the local government officials for the system? What kind of promotion strategy didyou use?5. What unexpected problems did you encounter when you implemented the AVL system?6. Which of these caused major cost problems?7. Has the system performed as expected?8. Do you feel that your agency had adequate training and background to implement the new system?
——————————————————————————–
Page 24
9. Did you have any problems with the employees about using a new system / technology?10. How were the workers trained to use the new technology?11. Did you need to reallocate staff after implementing the AVL system?12. What was the cost involved in installing the system?13. How long did it take to install the system?Benefits14. What do you think are the benefits of your AVL system?a. For Managementb. For Employeesc. For CustomersUse of the system15. What do you think are the drawbacks of your AVL system?16. How often does the system break down during normal operating hours?17. Do you have Vendor support for maintenance?18. What is your annual Vendor cost?19. How much of the output data do you use? Do you face any difficulty in managing the information output?Advice for other Agencies20. What advice would you have for other transit agencies that may be considering the use of AVL?21. How important do you think an AVL system is to a small transit agency?22. Do you share the system with any other agencies? If yes, how do you go about cost sharing? Staffing?23. Do you have any bid documents or any other information that you could share with us?
——————————————————————————–
Page 25
Appendix 2. Manitowoc Transit System-On-board SurveyThe purpose of this survey is to assess the impact of using improved technology in transit facilities toprovide better service to the riders. By filling out this form you are giving informed consent to be in thisstudy. All information will be anonymous.How often do you ride the bus?ˆ More than 5 times a week. ˆ 3-5 times a week. ˆ1-2 times a weekˆ 1-3 times a month. ˆ Less than once a monthWhat is the purpose of your trip today?ˆ Work ˆ Shopping ˆ School ˆ Medical ˆ Other3. How do you get information about the bus service? (check all that apply)________I have a copy of the bus schedule________I call the bus company________From other people________From information displayed at the bus stop_______ Other__________________________Do you use the bus schedule for planning your trip?ˆ Yesˆ Noˆ SometimesHow long did you have to wait for the bus today?ˆ Less than 5 min ˆ 5-10 min ˆ 10- 15 min ˆ More than15 minIs the schedule information displayed on-board the bus adequate?ˆ Yesˆ NoHow would better information about when the bus actually arrives at the stop affect your use of transit?XRide moreXRide lessXRide the samePlease rate how important the following are in your decision to ride the bus.VeryImportantSomewhatImportantNeutralSomewhatUnimportantVeryUnimportaTo have information at the bus stop on when the buswill actually arriveXXXXXBus arrives at the scheduled timeXXXXXKnowing how late the bus is in case of a delayXXXXXDisplaying the next stop inside the busXXXXXHaving the driver call out the stopsXXXXXKnowing the bus is equipped with a 911 emergencysystemXXXXXKnowing that another bus can be immediatelydispatched if there is a breakdownXXXXXKnowing the transit system uses the latest vehiclelocation technologyXXXXXHaving a seat available at all timesXXXXXLow bus faresXXXXX
——————————————————————————–
Page 26
9. Did you have a car available that you could have used for the trip you are making today?ˆ Yesˆ NoAre you a:ˆ Maleˆ FemaleWhat is your age group:ˆ Under 18ˆ 18-25ˆ 26-45ˆ 46-65ˆ Over 6512. Please use the back of this page to let us know if you have any additional suggestions or informationyou think will be helpful in providing better bus service.The Center for Urban Transportation Studies at UWM will be conducting a small group discussion. Youwill be paid $20 for participating. If you are interested in taking part in the discussion please provide thefollowing information: Name:_____________________________________ PhoneNumber:_____________I would be able to attend on:______Tue. Mar 10, 3:30 – 5:00pm _________Tue. Mar.10, 6:00 – 7:30pm at Manitowoc TransitCenter.Please return this form to the driver or mail into the following address:Center for Urban Transportation StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin – MilwaukeeMilwaukee, WI 53211-784

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada.