Integrated Corridor Management Initiative – ICMS Surveillance and Detection Needs Analysis for the Transit Data Gap

8.0 Transit Data Types and Performance Measures

8.1    Data Needs

The ICM transit data needs can be summarized as follows:

1. Data about each transit vehicle including capacity and amenities
2. Data about each route, run, stop, schedule, and payment option
3. Data about each parking lot including capacity, location, fees, and associated transit stops
4. Current information associating each operational vehicle with an assigned run, route, and schedule
5. Current information about each in-service transit vehicle – location (30 second reporting desired, 60 second reporting acceptable) and current passenger count (reported after each pull-out preferred, reported at 60 second intervals acceptable)
6. Current information about each parking lot – either current utilization or current un-utilized capacity (60 second reporting desired, 5 minute reporting acceptable)

8.2    Data Gaps

None of the pioneer sites indicated any gaps in acquiring the data for their transit networks. All of the sites reported one or more gaps in observational data (e.g., current passenger counts, current un-utilized parking capacity, or transit vehicle locations).

The root causes of transit surveillance and detection data gaps can be described in three broad categories:

1. Data that is not available in a timely manner
2. Data that is not currently collected
3. Data that is not available due to institutional (data ownership) or technical reasons (systems cannot support automated data exchange)

The following information gaps have been identified:

1. Current passenger count data may not be available fleet-wide or on a timely basis.
   • Ridership data (whether manually or electronically gathered) may not be available until after the vehicle has completed its daily runs.
   • APC may only be implemented on selected in-service vehicles.
   • Some rail transit systems count passengers entering the platform area for departure, but do not associate this data with the time or vehicle the passengers board.
   • Some rail transit systems do not count how many arriving passengers leave the platform or do not associate this data with the time or vehicle providing the service.
2. Current vehicle location data may not be available fleet-wide or on a timely basis.
   • AVL may only be implemented on selected in-service vehicles.
   • Location and schedule adherence information reported by vehicle operators may not be entered into transit data systems as it is received, or archived for future use.
   • Bandwidth or other communication limitations may restrict how frequently vehicle location data is reported.
   • Rail transit systems may only report vehicle locations as the vehicles pass specific points in the network.
3. Parking facility utilization data may not be available on a timely basis.
   • Parking facilities may be owned or operated by organizations that do not report utilization data.
   • Parking facilities may not be equipped to record or report utilization data.
4. Institutional issues affect the availability of the gathered data as that data may be owned by another business entity.
5. Transit data systems may not support automated transferring and sharing of data with other systems.
6. Transit data systems may not support the automated receipt of data from other systems which affects the dissemination of incident information to the transit vehicles.

8.3    Other Limiting Factors

Even if the above technical and institutional issues are resolved and all of the required data is available in a timely manner, there are still major concerns about how effectively transit networks can respond to unanticipated changes in the corridor transportation situation. Short-term responses (four hours or less) are difficult because of the time and labor required to add or re-allocate vehicles within the network.

Adding short-term capacity is not easy. While each transit network has spare vehicles, the number of spare vehicles usually represents a small percentage of the total network capacity, and these “spare vehicles” often include vehicles that are in, or awaiting, shop maintenance or repairs. Operators are not always available on short notice for additional vehicles. While additional vehicles can be added to rail transit runs without adding operators, the total number of vehicles in such a consist is limited by the length of the shortest platform at the stops along the run. Trains powered by electric propulsion may be limited in length due to power traction issues. Union rules for train operators may also limit the train car length.

Longer term changes (days to weeks) are somewhat easier to accommodate since arrangements can be made for additional operators and vehicles can be pre-positioned. Responses can still be constrained by limitations associated with vehicle availability (how much additional capacity is available), route availability (especially on rail routes that are shared with other carriers), and parking availability.

8.4    Conclusion

It is possible, though expensive, to obtain all of the required surveillance and detection data required using currently available technology. Mobile data communications with transit vehicles appears to be a key limiting factor in acquiring desired transit vehicle location and passenger count data. The cost of implementing systems to track parking lot utilization appears to be the limiting factor in acquiring the desired parking utilization data.

Transit agencies are reluctant to invest in the necessary technology to collect current passenger data from transit vehicles. Many agencies indicate that their ability to respond to short-term situations is so limited that there is no value to having up-to-the-minute data versus daily data dumps.

There is more interest in acquiring vehicle location and lot utilization data in real-time since this information is seen as useful for encouraging travelers to switch to transit as a preferred mode of travel.