6 Costs
The deployment of real-time traveler information systems throughout the country provides the opportunity for millions of travelers to make informed decisions about their routes and schedules. But needless to say, this deployment comes at a cost. While costs for traveler information systems are not easily isolated because much of the detection infrastructure is deployed to support other operations programs, this section seeks to provide several example capital and operating cost estimates for various field technologies, communications, and central systems that could be used as a starting point in the planning stages of real-time traveler information systems deployment.
6.1 System Costs
6.1.1 Traffic
The deployment of real-time traveler information systems throughout the country provides the opportunity for millions of travelers to make informed decisions about their routes and schedules. With this deployment comes cost. This section provides several example capital and operating cost estimates for various field technologies, communications, and central systems that could be used in the deployment of a real-time traveler information system.
To effectively manage and maintain a real-time traveler information system, central ATMS software is used to collect, organize, and disseminate transportation data. The cost of these systems varies widely, but a statewide system that provides a typical level of field device and incident management costs approximately $3,000,000 per deployment and requires a degree of ongoing maintenance and support.
Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 list planning-level cost estimates for various types of equipment and communications used to support traveler information programs, the expected equipment life, and the O&M costs. Table 6.1 gives cost estimates for various roadside devices that are commonly deployed to capture data for distribution. Table 6.2 provides cost estimates for various methods of communication used to obtain the data collected from the roadside devices. As would be expected, the majority of the costs are recognized upfront, with an average equipment life span of 12 years.
Costs for traveler information systems are not easily isolated because much of the detection infrastructure is deployed to support other operations programs. However, cost data is readily available for dissemination technologies and systems, such as 511. Operating a 511 system requires either contractual procurement or in-house infrastructure and resources. A recent study of 511 systems across the United States concluded that costs for systems will vary based on the system size, complexity, available data, and whether it is regional/multimodal versus a statewide system, but the average cost per call of a 511 system is $1.08.
ESS are also deployed for traveler information. In 2003, FHWA published Weather in the Infostructure, an extensive study of the deployment of ESS in metropolitan areas with a population above 1 million. Based on the cost information in this report, RWIS deployments would cost approximately $25,000 on the central, or TMC, side of the deployment. The field device costs range from $10,000 to $50,000 and average $30,000 per site.
Costs for private sector probe-based data will evolve with this relatively young market. For now, the best available cost data is from the I-95 Corridor Coalition, which published its contractual initial and recurring costs. On a per-mile basis, there is a significant cost savings for private sector-based flow data as compared with sensor-based deployments, although it should be recognized that probe data is not the same as sensor data. It does not collect traffic volumes or occupancies, although for traveler information applications, these are usually not important. It is more fitting that agencies would deploy sensors where other operational strategies, such as ramp meters, require those data types and probe data in areas where traveler information is the primary need. Table 6.3 shows the costs for probe-based options and infrastructure-based options.
With resource challenges in today’s DOTs, one of the key challenges for agencies is the ability to effectively maintain infrastructure, and detection is one of the foundational components of urban area freeway management systems. New technologies and alternatives may provide a more cost-effective option than traditional detection systems currently in use by many public agencies.
6.1.2 Transit
6.1.2.1 Incremental Costs
AVL systems require a large capital investment and substantial operating cost to operate and maintain, but are necessary to implement real-time systems. However, real-time transit traveler information is a relatively low marginal capital cost when AVL systems and automated scheduling systems have already been procured as part of an existing transit management system. Therefore, real-time information is often a relatively inexpensive incremental capital investment after other ITS are already in place. Furthermore, larger transit agencies will most likely have already configured their schedule and routing information with advanced proprietary software systems such as Trapeze FX or Giro Hastus that support integration with real-time communications systems.
However, agencies that have yet to deploy AVL systems will incur substantial additional cost to develop the ITS infrastructure to support them. Smaller agencies running simpler transit scheduling systems, often on Microsoft Excel, will incur substantial additional effort and costs to integrate their schedules with real-time system vendor’s commercial solutions. However, Google Transit expansions and upgrades may encourage additional transit agencies to begin providing more standardized information.
It is often difficult to determine where costs for a traveler information project begin and another ITS project end. Cost structures for real-time transit information can be difficult to determine when considering that they are often built on top of other ITS. For example, Los Angeles Metro’s entire ITS network, including communications, AVL, and APC, costs approximately $100 million to deploy. While these costs should not be entirely associated with real-time traveler information systems, such systems would be impossible without them. With often only $500,000 to $1,000,000 required to procure and deploy the necessary software, hardware, and communications, real-time information system costs are often small compared to other capital costs, such as the acquisition of additional transit vehicles.
For example, Minneapolis only spent approximately $110,000 on developing a traveler information Website, mostly in market research and programming costs. However, the system was built on a project undertaken by Minnesota DOT several years prior that included the installation of an extensive ITS transit network, which cost the state approximately $1 million. It was only because of this previous deployment that the Website was able to be launched for such a small sum.
Despite these difficulties, many agencies have been able to track the system costs of real-time traveler information. A 2003 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report entitled, Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems surveyed transit agencies across the country, discovering that total implementation costs for real-time information programs ranged from $60,000 to $70,000,000 with an average total implementation cost of approximately $5,000,000.
Pricing models for AVL procurements with real-time functionality can vary substantially depending on the vendor. Los Angeles Metro invested $15,000 per vehicle in capital costs for deployment of an integrated ITS solution that includes AVL and real-time traveler information. Despite the high capital costs, any associated vendor and operating costs for 12 years are bundled as part of the cost. Conversely, San Francisco’s upfront costs for its real-time information system were substantially less ($1,500 per vehicle), but the agency is also responsible for a $30 monthly communications cost and an additional $30 monthly software licensing cost, resulting in a total cost of $10,140 over the same 12-year period.
6.1.2.2 Operational Costs
Cost allocation difficulties continue with operations and maintenance costs, where program costs are often bundled together, particularly communications costs. Communications costs can be substantial considering that each packet sent incurs a charge. Many implementations also require additional staff time that is difficult to tie directly to a traveler information program. In addition to capital and communications costs, other costs incurred on behalf of real-time traveler information programs include software purchases and maintenance costs.
Real-time traveler information system vendors that host the service generally charge a standard operating fee based on the size and complexity of the real-time system. Smaller agencies with simpler routing systems will incur smaller charges than larger, more complex systems. In addition, standard communications fees are incurred for cellular communications that provides tracking for the data. Although each bus often transmits only 2.5 MB of data monthly, communications costs usually range from $12 to $35 per vehicle. New communications technologies such as WiMAX and LTE may provide more cost-effective methods to disseminate information.
6.1.2.3 Cost-Saving Measures
The overall cost of deploying real-time systems as an add-on to AVL is often relatively small, usually comparable to the cost of a couple of transit buses. Furthermore, when compared to the cost of buses, implementing real-time information actually has the ability to allow substantial costs savings. While not feasible in all scenarios, transit agencies could opt to scale back bus service by removing a few buses from less-popular routes in favor of providing real-time information, yet still increase the overall satisfaction for all routes.
Some transit agencies have learned through their experience that the most effective methods for providing information to the general public do not necessarily include large infrastructure costs. For example, many transit agencies have decreased their focus on the deployment of expensive DMS in favor of programs to increase the degree to which customers utilize the Internet and their cell phones to receive information, which allow for a better overall level of service. Such policies help to curb infrastructure costs by focusing on the use of devices that customers already own.
6.1.2.4 Sample Costs
Table 6.4 shows an estimate of the costs incurred by Denver RTD upon implementation of its real-time transit information system. While each real-time system will incur very distinct and separate costs, Denver’s cost structure can serve as a general indication for the costs that may be incurred by other agencies.
6.1.3 Parking
Cost factors vary depending on the type of facility being used and the degree of complexity of the sensor system being installed. Additionally, the type and level of accuracy of information provided also affects cost. Table 6.5 summarizes the typical per-space cost of real-time parking information. Space-by-space lots tend to be much more expensive to implement and maintain. Vendors specializing in deployment in garages and other closed facilities often assess capital costs on a per-space basis, often $450 to $750 per space with additional O&M costs of 3 percent to 8 percent per year.
Entry/exit systems are more cost effective to deploy than space-by-space systems, and therefore more popular for public sector deployments. They utilize more cost-effective implementation methods including cheaper count in/count out magnetometers and wireless sensors at strategic locations within the facility, instead of more costly vehicle presence detectors. Although they vary in cost depending on size, complexity, and other factors, total implementation costs are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and annual operating costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. WMATA is currently deploying a real-time parking information system at its Vienna metro station, with expected capital costs of approximately $200,000 for an entry/exit system spanning 5,400 spaces across 2 garages and 2 surface lots.
On-street parking system costs vary based on the volume of sensors and data being collected, with larger systems able to achieve greater economies of scale. One vendor described its costs running approximately $300 per space for a system installation on new spaces as well as a maintenance fee of $10 per space per month. Installing a network for parking spaces with existing meters is often possible at a discount, approximately $175 per space.
Parking System |
Costs | |
|---|---|---|
| Capital | Annual O&M | |
| On-street | $300 | $120 |
| Entry/exit | $40 | $2 |
| Space-by-space | $600 | $30 |
6.1.3.1 Potential Cost Savings
Still, budget limitations often limit the number of sensors that can be deployed and the granularity of data received, especially in publicly deployed systems. Substantial cost savings can be achieved by choosing to implement a parking information system that fits the unique needs of the parking operator, including sensors that provide the right granularity of information and dissemination methods that meet the needs of system users. Public sector deployments with tight budgets in particular are choosing cost-effective operations. For example, using magnetometers has proven substantially more cost effective than inductive loop detectors, often available for a tenth or a hundredth of the cost and less affected by snow and other weather conditions.
Another critical factor in cost-effective operation is low power engineering on both sensing and networking equipment. For example, newer parking sensors being utilized can operate for 5 to 10 years on two AA batteries. This allows for installation of sensors at very low cost by not requiring wiring, core drilling to provide space for large batteries, or labor to frequently replace batteries.
In addition to providing information to potential users, real-time parking information can also be disseminated to enforcement personnel, informing them of the locations of vehicles in violation of parking ordinances. Smart parking allows enforcement personnel to more effectively issue citations, thereby increasing revenue and decreasing the need for enforcement staff.
One of the most important elements in disseminating real-time information to drivers in immediate vicinity of parking facilities is signage. It is imperative to deploy signage that is appropriate to meeting the needs of system users, including determining appropriate locations and determining whether fixed or variable message signage are required to display the necessary information. Since the usefulness of DMS is limited, such signs should only be deployed to limited, high-traffic areas. Funds may be better spent on other information disseminations methods.
6.1.4 Freight
6.1.4.1 Public Sector Systems
Providing freight-specific information as an add-on to an existing 511 system or Website can be achieved for a relatively small marginal cost once existing ITS is already in place. Basic hardware and software can be leveraged to utilize existing information, including additional methods to pass freight-specific situational awareness to commercial carriers via Websites, email blasts, or providing an interstate 511 service via a toll-free number. The Florida Department of Transportation’s decision to add an 800-number to its 511 service for en route truckers required minimal cost, but has allowed truckers increased access to real-time information.
Building systems that provide real-time information at intermodal facilities, border crossings, and other freight bottlenecks may incur significant expense. Whatcom Council of Governments spent approximately $2 million on the development of its southbound real-time border crossing information system, including detection, signs, and communications equipment. However, the system does not exclusively benefit commercial vehicles, as passenger vehicles can also utilize information from Whatcom’s deployment.
As the project is still underway, specific cost information related to C-TIP is still unavailable, but the project administrators are considering cost-effective and sustainable methods to implement the project. While the government is willing to provide research seed funding, it hopes that it can build an economically sustainable model in which a commercial operator could take over the project in exchange for collecting subscription fees from the carriers and other participants. The project also seeks to provide information via Web services, which are more efficient and less costly. A similar approach could be utilized for border-crossing implementation, especially where pre-clearance truck-only lanes could be implemented. An improved border crossing with real-time freight information is in development at the Otay Mesa East crossing near San Diego, California.
Table 6.6 displays some of the costs that may be associated with adding freight-specific information to existing ITS. These costs assume that a 511 system for passenger vehicles is already in place.
6.1.4.2 In-Vehicle Telematics
An increasing number of carriers are finding real-time freight information to be a worthwhile investment to improve their operating efficiency. However, trucking is a low-margin industry, where carriers often lack the investment capital necessary for such tools, even with the potential of a high return on investment.
In recent years, the costs of in-vehicle communications and fleet management tools have become much more affordable and ubiquitous. Entire after-market packages can now be installed and maintained for approximately $500 to $2,000 per truck per year, including communications costs. Schneider Trucking’s recent procurement of a new fleet management system for its entire fleet required a $40 million upfront cost. However, as opposed to its legacy system, which only used expensive satellite communication, its new system will leverage more cost-effective WiFi and cellular networks when possible, decreasing overall communications costs.
Some manufacturers are including lower-end telematics that provide basic functionality, such as vehicle tracking, as standard equipment. Such systems only cost manufacturers several hundred dollars to include, and basic operations is bundled with purchase for the first year or more, with affordable operating costs after this initial period. Volvo Link is a cheaper alternative to after-market options, although it provides less functionality. The basic system is bundled into the cost of the truck for at least the first year. Following the trial period, a cost of 15 cents per message is associated with use.6.2 Trends and Cost Impacts
6.2.1 Willingness to Pay
The traveler information industry has evolved greatly since the early days of ITS. At various times and in various segments, it was seen as more of a public sector role and, at other times, as more of a private sector role. While the public sector appears to be taking on a greater role in traveler information under the banner of 511 programs, the private sector continues to search for sustaining business models as both vendors and data providers. Several years ago, it was believed that the private sector could develop sustainable business models for traveler information services, and much research was conducted regarding what travelers wanted, the benefits of traveler information services, and the elusive “killer app” that would spawn greater demand. To date, however, it is not well known what value individual consumers place on traveler information. Complicating matters is that as technologies and delivery mechanisms change, their willingness to pay will also change. For example, an in-vehicle navigation system is likely to increase the utility of the same information previously accessed on a Web site simply because it is delivered in the vehicle when it is more timely and relevant.
Willingness to pay may be seen as a matter for the private sector and of no consequence to the public sector, which is funded through ITS programs. However, the value individuals place on traveler information has important consequences for how much a public agency should be willing to pay for traffic data, either in the form of deploying its own sensors, systems, or programs, or through purchasing data from the private sector. Furthermore, the value individual travelers place on information as a function of its accuracy is important for the public and private sectors alike as they make investment decisions.
6.2.2 Costs to Sustain Current Business Models
The traveler information market has always been a mix of the public and private sectors. Over time, the role and business models employed by the private sector have evolved. Many different approaches to public-private partnerships have been tried, and some have succeeded for a time, while others have not. As previously noted, new business models emerge as technologies evolve over time. Current models in use by private sector firms are different from those of the past. To date, it is not known whether those models are sustainable. By bundling traveler information with other location-based information services and delivering them in new ways, such as via mobile devices or in-vehicle systems, there are new opportunities to earn revenue from information, including the ability to provide multi-modal information. For public sector business models that rely on purchasing information (particularly traffic information) from the private sector, it is important to assess the sustainability of the companies with which they are contracting. If these firms are not able to survive, the public sector will need to abandon current strategies and fall back to a position of relying on its own data collection efforts.
6.2.3 Declining Costs of Technology
The costs of providing real-time traveler information are decreasing. Declining costs for sensors, communications, data storage, and data retrieval are accelerating real-time information opportunities spawned by new forms of communication and business models. In general, costs for sensors and communications infrastructure are decreasing while quality rises. Sensor size is also decreasing, equating to a decrease in the cost of installation. These new technologies and methodologies are providing for more cost-effective implementations. Additional vendors and more information and media bundling should continue to force prices down.
Vendor prices for in-vehicle telematics are declining as systems become more ubiquitous. Qualcomm’s systems commanded high prices when it first came to market in the 1990s, but such technologies have become more of a commodity in recent years, forcing prices down. Telematics operating expenses used to cost approximately $4,000 per truck per year including communications, but have recently dropped to $500 to $2,000 per truck per year. New technologies are allowing Bluetooth connectivity, communicating the information to a provider who can then give diagnostic information to a carrier for only $45 per month, all done through a Smartphone. Web services will provide a more efficient and less costly approach to an information-sharing platform, which is especially important for trucking and drayage companies that operate on low margins.
Although Schneider Trucking’s recent procurement of a new fleet management system for its fleet required a $40 million upfront cost, it will improve performance and decrease operating costs. As opposed to its legacy system, which only used expensive satellite communication, the new system will leverage more cost-effective WiFi and cellular networks when possible.
Cheaper, ubiquitous wireless technology through WiFi/WiMAX is increasingly able to provide more agency and customer connections. Interfaces based on XML standards allow relatively cheap integration, making data available across multiple operators. However, while prices have gone down for individual media, there is a new focus on providing media alternatives and a variety of information dissemination methods for customers.
In addition to the decreasing costs of technology and communications, alternative approaches to obtaining data that do not rely on building and maintaining expensive infrastructure will decrease the costs of producing information. This includes new opportunities in the form of new, attractive, user-friendly traveler information and multimodal trip planning Web services via the Web, VoIP, and mobile devices such as Google Maps, MapQuest, HopStop, and BusMonster. However, there are questions regarding whether the low-cost product is of sufficient quality to generate the revenue for current business models to be sustainable, and whether current probe-based models require more data points than what is currently available and, if so, whether that additional data can be obtained cost effectively.
6.2.4 Public Sector Budgetary Constraints
Despite decreasing prices, traveler information services are costly for public agencies to maintain. There is a gap in the funding and personnel resources needed to sustain their programs. Many agencies are left without the ability to raise additional capital for real-time information investments, instead needing to focus on just maintaining present service levels. For some transit agencies, funding issues and the ability to sustain operational costs prevent them from deploying real-time systems, despite the ability to add on real-time traveler information as a marginal cost to existing AVL systems. Real-time system operational costs to maintain and validate data, maintain communications links, and provide network management are increasingly difficult to fund in the current economic climate. It is crucial to develop cost-effective deployment methods that minimize the transit agency’s ongoing operating costs. Los Angeles Metro’s policy is to maintain its core service of providing transit, opting to contract out the dissemination of information to companies that specialize in providing information.
As travelers expect more and more information, the public sector fulfills its mandate of providing information, and agencies face budget cuts, a gap exists in what the public sector can provide. There are limits on agencies’ ability to deploy and maintain sensor networks to achieve broader coverage of traditional detection systems. For other types of information such as incidents and construction, there are gaps in the ability of agencies to keep that information up to date. As agencies are forced to do more with less, these gaps only grow.
6.3 Costs to Fill Gaps
6.3.1 Traffic
The cost elements in this Section provide a starting point for a planning-level discussion of the costs of expanding coverage to something close to “all roads, all modes, all the time” or the requirements under the RTSMIP proposed rulemaking. However, traveler information programs include many other costs for data collection as well as dissemination. Additional data collection costs include programmatic and design costs for construction and software systems integration costs. Dissemination requires central support for the maintenance and back-up of databases. Maintaining real-time incident and construction information requires personnel dedicated to the tasks of updating information and coordinating input from other districts and agencies.
A simplified general cost estimate to meet the RTSMIP requirements has been developed based on the cost elements in the previous section and readily available data from the Office of Policy Information, the US Census Bureau, ITS Deployment Tracking data, and the 2003 Weather in the Infostructure report developed for FHWA. The cost estimate includes estimates for each of the four types of information required—roadway or lane-blocking traffic incident information, roadway weather observation updates, travel time along highway segments, and implementing or removing lane closures for construction. In addition, it includes an estimate for the implementation of a statewide ATMS upgrades and replacements. A number of simplifying assumptions were made in the derivation of these costs, as follows.
Central System
-
It is assumed that each state would require a central ATMS for the consolidation of data and that each state has one major system to consider, though that is clearly not always the case.
-
If systems last approximately ten years, it may be assumed that five states would need to upgrade their systems in any given year. If five additional systems would need upgrading ahead of schedule to accommodate new major deployment, 10 states would need to completely upgrade their ATMS software platforms. The cost of a full replacement is assumed to be approximately $3 million.
-
It is assumed that the remaining 40 states have a system in place that can accommodate significant expansion of devices. It is assume the integration cost for these systems would average $200,000.
-
It is assumed that all other costs such as system maintenance and operators are already reflected in existing systems and are not additional costs.
Incident Information
-
It is assumed that incidents can be collected from existing sources but that additional database management staff would be needed to maintain the system.
-
It is assumed that maintenance of construction information would be handled by the same database management staff as for incidents, or that these two roles together would equate to one full-time equivalent staff person.
Roadway Weather
-
It is assumed that the existing roadway weather data provided by public and private entities would need to be supplemented with a nationwide deployment of RWIS stations. Cost estimates were developed using FHWA’s Weather in the Infostructure.
-
It is assumed that the metropolitan area needs would be addressed by the cost estimate provided in FHWA’s Weather in the Infostructure (based on composite scoring and road miles), but with 2003 costs escalated to current estimates.
-
It is assumed that 10 percent of the non-metro roadway miles have RWIS sensors deployed requiring coverage on the remaining 90 percent of non-metro mileage, which would require RWIS sensors at an average of one per every 100 miles.
Travel Times
-
It is assumed that existing sensor deployments would be maintained up to one per mile but not expanded geographically.
-
It is assumed that all future geographic expansion of real-time travel time data would come from probe-based data sources.
-
It is assumed that 50% of all existing sensors need to be replaced, but that replacement costs include the sensor, planning and installation costs only, not infrastructure that would be existing such as pole, cabinet, communications, etc.
Table 6.7 outlines the derived cost estimate for the deployment of RTSMIP. Tables 6.8 through 6.12 provide supporting data.
| Subsystem | Unit Cost | Number of Units | Initial Costs | Recurring Costs (Annual) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central System | ||||
| ATMS Upgrades– new systems | $3,000,000 per system | 10 systems | $30,000,000 | (5%) $1,500,000 |
| ATMS Upgrades – Integration of new devices | $200,000 per system | 40 systems | $8,000,000 | (5%) $4,000,000 |
| Subtotal (Central System) | $38,000,000 | $1,900,000/year | ||
| Traffic Incident and Construction Lane Closure Information | ||||
| Database Operator | $150,000 per year per state | 50 states | $7,500,000 | $7,500,000 |
| Subtotal (Lane Closure Management) | $7,500,000 | $7,500,000/year | ||
| Roadway Weather Observation Updates | ||||
| RWIS Coverage in 61 Metropolitan Areas [1] | (See Weather in the Infostructure) | 61 metro areas | $38,800,000 | (5%) $1,940,000 |
| RWIS Coverage in Non-Metro Areas [2] | $38,000 per RWIS sensor | 360 sensors | $13,680,000 | (5%) $684,000 |
| Subtotal (Road Weather Information) | $52,480,000 | $2,624,000/year | ||
| Travel Time Along Highway Segments [3] | ||||
| Urban Area Detection [4] | $8,000 per sensor | 3,450 sensors | $27,600,000 | (5%) $1,380,000 |
| Metro Area Mileage without Detection [5] | $900 per centerline mile [6] | 10,800 miles | $9,720,000 | $8,100,000 [7] |
| Subtotal (Travel Times) | $37,320,000 | $9,480,000/year | ||
| NATIONWIDE SYSTEM TOTAL | $135,300,000 | $21,144,000/year |
||
Notes:
[1] See Table 6-8
[2] See Table 6-9
[3] Only required in Metro areas over 1 million in population
[4] See Table 6-10
[5] See Table 6-11
[6] Probe-based method of data collection was assumed for the non-metro roadways; $900/month includes first year startup costs
[7] Recurring costs for probe data are assumed to be $750/month according the to the I-95 Corridor Coalition contract
| Interstate | Urban Freeway | Totals | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metro Areas (population > 1 million) |
12,029 [8] | 5,6891 | 17,716 |
| Remainder of U.S. | 34,6431 | 5,2261 | 39,869 |
| Totals | 46,672 [9] | 10,9132 | 57,585 |
Notes:
[8] Derived from National Highway Planning Network (roadway mileage by functional class (GIS line data) overlaid with 2007 US Census Bureau CBSA population estimates
[9] FHWA Office of Policy Information, Highway Statistics, Public Road Length by Functional System, 2007
Units |
Unit Cost |
Cost |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| RWIS Sensors | 832 | $38,000 [10] | $31,616,000 |
| TMC Units (Assume 2 TMC per Metro Area) | 122 | $30,000 [11] | $3,660,000 |
| Development and Engineering (10%) | $3,527,600 | ||
| Total Metro Area Costs (Rounded) | $38,800,000 | ||
Notes:
[10] Escalated from 2003 Weather in the Infostructure cost estimate of $30,000
[11] Escalated from 2003 Weather in the Infostructure cost estimate of $25,000
| Units | Unit Cost | Cost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interstate and Urban Freeway Miles (outside 50 largest metro areas) |
39,869 | ||
| Miles requiring coverage (90%) | 35,882 | ||
| RWIS Sensors (one per 100 miles) | 359 | $38,000 [12] | $13,642,000 |
| Total Non-Metro Area Costs (Rounded) | $13,642,000 | ||
Notes:
[12] Escalated from 2003 Weather in the Infostructure cost estimate of $30,000
| Units | Unit Cost | Cost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interstate and Urban Freeway Miles (within 50 largest metro areas) |
17,716 mi |
|
|
| Miles with existing sensor coverage (39%) | 6,909 mi |
|
|
| Existing sensors needing replacement (50%) | 3,454 mi | $8,000 [13] | $27,632,000 |
| Total Metro Area Sensor Costs (Rounded) | $27,600,000 | ||
Notes:
[13] Planning level figure assumed to include planning, engineering, etc. Assumed spacing of one sensor per mile
| Units | Unit Cost | Cost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interstate and Urban Freeway Miles (within 50 largest metro areas) |
17,716 | ||
| Miles without existing sensor coverage (61%) | 10,807 | $900 [14] | $9,726,300 |
| Total Metro Area Probe Data Costs (Rounded) | $9,720,000 | ||
Notes:
[14] Probe data costs for I-95 Corridor Coalition ($750/mi + $150/mi mobilization in year 1 only)
6.3.2 Transit
The most practical method for estimating the costs to deploy real-time transit information to the entire transit network is to estimate the costs for deploying AVL to transit vehicles currently without it, for additional signage, and for additional software and communications infrastructure needed for the systems. The following tables also break out these costs for deployment for all transit vehicles as well as for just buses. Because buses mostly run in mixed traffic and not on dedicated track, they are more likely to have issues with detours and running behind schedule. Thus, focusing the expansion of real-time information on buses may be more practical. The following information only considers the costs associated with deploying full real-time information to the 94 transit agencies that responded to the 2007 RITA ITS Deployment Survey.
Table 6.13 shows the number of transit vehicle that are currently equipped with AVL and real-time information capabilities.
Source: RITA ITS Deployment Survey, 2007
Table 6.14 shows an estimated cost to equip vehicles with AVL as well the additional cost to equip them with the additional communications equipment and software applications necessary to support real-time information.
| Per Vehicle Capital Incremental Cost to Equip with AVL | Per Vehicle Capital Cost to Equip with Electronically Displayed Automated or Dynamic Traveler Information to the Public |
|---|---|
| $8,000 | $4,000 |
Source: RITA Benefits, Costs, Deployment, and Lessons Learned, 2008
Table 6.15 shows the estimated total capital costs to deploy AVL and real-time information to the 31,664 buses and 26,512 other vehicles currently unable to display real-time information to travelers.
Table 6.16 shows the estimated cost to deploy signage to the new real-time systems. A cost per sign of $6,000 is assumed with one sign deployed for every 20 transit vehicles, based on the RITA Benefits, Costs, Deployment, and Lessons Learned: 2008 Update.
Table 6.17 estimates the total capital costs associated with deploying real-time traveler information to unequipped vehicles.
| Transit Type | Total Capital Cost |
|---|---|
| Fixed-Route Buses Only | $270,000,000 |
| Other Transit Vehicles | $265,000,000 |
| All Transit Vehicles | $535,000,000 |
Source: RITA Benefits, Costs, Deployment, and Lessons Learned, 2005
Table 6.18 estimates the average annual operating costs associated with real-time information, including the software and communications costs associated with deployment.
Table 6.18: Annual Operating Costs
| Vehicle Type | Annual Costs per Vehicle |
Approximate Number of Vehicles |
Annual Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buses Only | $400 | 32,000 | $12,800,000 |
| Other Transit Vehicles | $400 | 28,000 | $11,200,000 |
| All Transit Vehicles | $400 | 60,000 | $24,000,000 |
| Vehicle Type | Annual Costs per Vehicle |
Approximate Number of Vehicles |
Annual Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buses Only | $700 | 32,000 | $22,400,000 |
| Other Transit Vehicles | $700 | 28,000 | $19,600,000 |
| All Transit Vehicles | $700 | 60,000 | $42,000,000 |
| Vehicle Type | Annual Costs per Vehicle |
Approximate Number of Vehicles |
Annual Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buses Only | $1,100 | 32,000 | $35,200,000 |
| Other Transit Vehicles | $1,100 | 28,000 | $30,800,000 |
| All Transit Vehicles | $1,100 | 60,000 | $66,000,000 |
6.3.3 Parking
Assessing the cost to fill the gaps of real-time parking information is complicated by the limited number of deployments currently in existence and the inability to assess the total number of spaces that would benefit from real-time information. Unlike other modes, where complete coverage would be beneficial to travelers, many parking facilities are never full, meaning that real-time information is unnecessary.
Tables 6.19 though 6.24 seek to estimate the costs to deploy real-time parking information systems across the country, based on the estimated deployments per city, spaces per facility, and number of spaces that may benefit from smart parking information. The tables estimate the number and type of spaces for which real-time parking information is provided for each implementation to a central business district, airport, or transit station. Deployments/ implementation refers to an estimate for the number of parking facilities required for a large scale real-time parking information system, including multiple entry/exit, space-by-space, and on-street monitoring systems. Even in large metro areas, only spaces that regularly reach capacity would require real-time information. Spaces/deployment represents an average estimated number of parking spaces required per smart parking deployment. The estimates shown are based on existing deployments, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. The cost-per-space estimate is based on averages from previous smart parking deployments. As has been observed in previous deployments, it is assumed that central business district deployments will require some entry/exit, space-by-space, and on-street systems. Airports will only require entry/exit and space-by-space systems. Transit stations will only deploy entry/exit systems.
| Parking System | Deployments per Implementation |
Spaces per Deployment |
Cost per Space |
Total Cost per Station |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry/Exit | 20 | 4,000 | $40 | $3,200,000 |
| Parking System | Deployments per Implementation |
Spaces per Deployment |
Cost per Space |
Total Cost per Station |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry/Exit | 20 | 4,000 | $2 | $160,000 |
6.3.4 Freight
Assessing the cost of filling the gaps for developing a robust real-time freight information network revolves around deploying segments to three market segments. Table 6.25 and Table 6.26 show the costs associated with deploying a freight-specific add-on to an existing real-time traveler information system, including a 511 and Website component. The total costs consider the cost of deploying such systems to the 34 states in the contiguous United States that currently lack freight information.
| Cost per Deployment | Deployments | Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| $350,000 | 34 | $11,900,000 |
| Annual Cost | Deployments | Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| $7,000 | 34 | $238,000 |
Information pertaining to the costs associated with deploying freight information systems to intermodal facilities and border crossings is somewhat limited, especially considering that many of the deployments have been pilot programs and business models are still being developed. C-TIP, a pioneering intermodal facility in Kansas City, Missouri, is currently funded via a $250,000 federal grant with an estimated annual operating cost of approximately $10,000 once the system is online. A real-time border crossing information systems in at the Peace Arch and Pacific Highway crossings in Blaine, Washington, required capital costs of $2,000,000, with estimated annual operating costs of approximately $40,000.