View By Application

Transit Management > Operations & Fleet Management


Fleet management systems improve transit reliability through implementation of automated vehicle location (AVL) and computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems which can reduce passenger wait times. These systems may also be implemented with in-vehicle self-diagnostic equipment to automatically alert maintenance personnel of potential problems.


Deployment of a new CAD/AVL and voice communication system to cost the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit $21 million.(May 13, 2015)

Deployment of a new CAD/AVL and voice communication system to cost the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit $21 million.(May 13, 2015)

A maintenance contract for an AVL system with 265 fleet vehicles was estimated to cost $64,719 (CAN) per year.(03/17/2014)

Deployment of an Advanced Public Transit System (APTS) for a mid-size transit system costs $150,000.(July 2009)

Recent contract awards suggest the capital costs to implement bus AVL systems range from $10,000 to $20,000 per vehicle.(2008)

The METropolitan Special Transit, a paratransit service in Billings, Montana, spent approximately $43,500 to add automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology to its fleet of 15 vehicles. $83,575 was spent for a computer-assisted scheduling and dispatching (CASD) software system.(May 2, 2007)

Capital costs for transit vehicle mobile data terminals typically range between $1,000 and $4,000 per unit, with installation costs frequently between $500 and $1,000.(2007)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Tucson were estimated at $72.1 million. (May 2005)

A modeling study evaluated the potential deployment of full ITS capabilities in Cincinnati. The annualized life-cycle cost was estimated at $98.2 million.(May 2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Seattle were estimated at $132.1 million.(May 2005)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)

The ITS components for the Bus Rapid Transit system in the Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada costs $5.8 million (Canadian).(August 2003)

Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT), a New Mexico Web-based system that provides coordination between funding agencies and their subgrantees cost about $1 million to implement. CRRAFT is one of five transit agency highlighted in a rural transit ITS best practices case study.(March 2003)

Based on information from 18 agencies worldwide, the costs of real-time bus arrival information systems vary depending on AVL technology, fleet size, and provisioning of real-time information. (2003)

The cost of the capital infrastructure of the Cape Cod Advanced Public Transit System—which included radio tower upgrades, local area network upgrades, AVL/MDT units (total of 100), and software upgrades—was $634,582.(January 2003)

A Minnesota integrated communications system project to share application of ITS across transportation, public safety, and transit agencies cost just over $1.5 million.(November 2001)

Detailed communications equipment costs for the Denver Regional Transportation District regional transit AVL/CAD system.(August 2000)

The Denver Regional Transportation District deployed a regional transit AVL/CAD system for $10.4 million; O&M costs were estimated at $1.9 million. (August 2000)

The cost to implement an advanced public transportation systems in Ann Arbor, Michigan was $32,500 per bus.(October 1999)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 2005)

Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT), a New Mexico Web-based system that provides coordination between funding agencies and their subgrantees cost about $1 million to implement. CRRAFT is one of five transit agency highlighted in a rural transit ITS best practices case study.(March 2003)

The cost to implement an advanced public transportation systems in Ann Arbor, Michigan was $32,500 per bus.(October 1999)

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles, California is considering a $138 million proposal to buy 95 electric buses and accompanying charging infrastructure.(July 21, 2017)

Capital costs to implement ITS fare collection systems for bus rapid transit (BRT) ranged from $2 million to $6 million.(February 2009)

Capital costs to implement ITS applications for bus rapid transit (BRT) can vary widely ranging from $100,000 to more than $1,000,000 per mile.(February 2009)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 2005)

Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT), a New Mexico Web-based system that provides coordination between funding agencies and their subgrantees cost about $1 million to implement. CRRAFT is one of five transit agency highlighted in a rural transit ITS best practices case study.(March 2003)

In New Mexico, the Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT), a Web-based system that integrates the daily operating procedures and administration of multiple rural transit agencies, costs about $95,000 annually to operate.(23 March 2005)

The Utah Transit Authority system which coordinates connections and transfers between light rail trains and buses was developed at a cost of $305,000.(May 2003)

Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT), a New Mexico Web-based system that provides coordination between funding agencies and their subgrantees cost about $1 million to implement. CRRAFT is one of five transit agency highlighted in a rural transit ITS best practices case study.(March 2003)

A connected vehicle pilot project involving over 1,600 vehicles in Tampa's central business district was estimated to cost $17.7 million.

The overall cost to implement a region-wide Traffic Management System in Portland Oregon was estimated at $36 million.(09/01/2013)

Costs to deploy an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) system in Minneapolis for ten years is estimated at $3.96 million.(November 2010)

The cost to develop, implement, and document the deployment of an adaptive signal control and transit signal priority upgrade on the Atlanta Smart Corridor was estimated at $1.7 million.(30 June 2010)

The capital cost to install a next generation transit signal priority system in the Portland area was estimated at $500,000.(06/01/2010)

Transit signal priority detection systems range from $2,500 to $40,000 per intersection and $50 to $2,500 per vehicle, depending on the type of detection used.(2010)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

The capital costs to implement TSP range from $5,000 per intersection (if existing software and controller equipment are used) to $20,000 to $30,000 per intersection (if software and control equipment are replaced).(May 2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Tucson were estimated at $72.1 million. (May 2005)

A modeling study evaluated the potential deployment of full ITS capabilities in Cincinnati. The annualized life-cycle cost was estimated at $98.2 million.(May 2005)

The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Seattle were estimated at $132.1 million.(May 2005)

The costs of the in-vehicle components of precision docking technology ranged from $2,700 to $14,000 per bus depending on the number of units produced.(August 2004)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)

The ITS components for the Bus Rapid Transit system in the Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada costs $5.8 million (Canadian).(August 2003)

The cost of stage one of the Watt Avenue ITS corridor in Sacramento, California was estimated at $1.5 million.(May 2003)

Implementation costs for transit signal priority range from $8,000 to $35,000 per intersection.(11 July 2002)

In Los Angeles, California, transit signal priority for BRT cost approximately $20,000 per intersection, or $100,000 per mile.(July 2001)

In Chattanooga, Tennessee a transit signal priority system with 27 buses and 10 intersections was installed for $250,000.(22 June 2001)

The costs to implement a transit signal priority demonstration project in Los Angeles, California was $10 million.(January 2001)

Central Dispatch Workstation - Capital cost/unit - $700(July 2009)

Mobile Data Terminal - Fixed Route Service - Capital cost/unit - $1747(July 2009)

Central Dispatch Server - Capital cost/unit - $1700(July 2009)

AVL system hardware - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $60(February 2009)

AVL system hardware - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $60(February 2009)

AVL system software integrated with scheduling - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $60(February 2009)

On-board transit AVL equipment - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $60(February 2009)

Transit AVL Interface - Capital cost/unit - $25000 - O&M cost/unit - $2500(February 2009)

On-board transit AVL equipment - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $60(February 2009)

Rural Transit APTS Depoyment Travel - Capital cost/unit - $28520(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Software upgrades/evaluation - Capital cost/unit - $61606(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Installation - Capital cost/unit - $98394(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS AVL/MDT/EFP system* - Capital cost/unit - $3125(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Radio towers upgrade - Capital cost/unit - $23005(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Local area network - Capital cost/unit - $117920 - O&M cost/unit - $34838(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Deployment GIS data anal - Capital cost/unit - $64921(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS subcontractor overhead - Capital cost/unit - $14250(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Deployment Project Mgmt - Capital cost/unit - $95040(January 2003)

Rural Transit APTS Design - Capital cost/unit - $98075(January 2003)

Transit Center Labor - Capital cost/unit - $54600(7/22/2002)

Transit Center Vehicle Location Interface - Capital cost/unit - $11000 - O&M cost/unit - $5400 - Lifetime - 7 years(7/22/2002)

Transit Center Software for Tracking and Scheduling - Capital cost/unit - $46200 - O&M cost/unit - $6000 - Lifetime - 7 years(7/22/2002)

Transit Center Hardware - Capital cost/unit - $7500 - Lifetime - 7 years(7/22/2002)

Transit Vehicle On-board Equipment Maintenance - O&M cost/unit - $42000(6/27/2006)

Integration for Paratransit Fleet Maintenance - Capital cost/unit - $15000 - O&M cost/unit - $15000 - Lifetime - 7 years(6/16/2003)

Central Dispatch Workstation - Capital cost/unit - $700(July 2009)

Central Dispatch Server - Capital cost/unit - $1700(July 2009)

Automatic Passenger Counters - Capital cost/unit - $2100 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/27/2006)

Upgrade for Auto. Scheduling, Run Cutting, or Fare Payment - Capital cost/unit - $177382 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/29/2005)

Transit Center Software, Integration - Capital cost/unit - $172269 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/29/2005)

Automatic Passenger Counters for Transit Vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $12000 - O&M cost/unit - $100 - Lifetime - 8 years(4/1/2004)

Radio and radio-modem set - Fixed Route Service - Capital cost/unit - $1747(July 2009)

Central Dispatch Workstation - Capital cost/unit - $700(July 2009)

Central Dispatch Server - Capital cost/unit - $1700(July 2009)

Smart Cards - Capital cost/unit - $1.2(9/1/2005)

Software Development Tools - Capital cost/unit - $2500(9/1/2005)

Desk Top Reader for Transit Agencies - Capital cost/unit - $212(9/1/2005)

Human Service Transportation Coordination System Maintenance - O&M cost/unit - $60000(9/1/2005)

Bluetooth Enabled GPS Receiver - Capital cost/unit - $258(9/1/2005)

Contactless Smart Card Reader - Capital cost/unit - $192.71(9/1/2005)

Handheld Pocket PC - Capital cost/unit - $356(9/1/2005)

Human Service Transportation Misc. On Board Equip. - Capital cost/unit - $43(9/1/2005)

Training Updates - Materials and Trainer - O&M cost/unit - $20000(23 March 2005)

Help Desk/Support - O&M cost/unit - $20000(23 March 2005)

Internet Access (T-1 or better) - O&M cost/unit - $18000(23 March 2005)

Server Hosting - O&M cost/unit - $2000(23 March 2005)

Maintenance/Tech Services - O&M cost/unit - $35000(23 March 2005)

Demand Response Software Upgrade - Capital cost/unit - $60000(March 2003)

Transit Software Development - Capital cost/unit - $60000(March 2003)

900 MHz two-way radio - Capital cost/unit - $60000(March 2003)

Demand Response Software - Capital cost/unit - $60000(March 2003)

Transit Center Labor - Capital cost/unit - $54600(7/22/2002)

Transit Center Software for Tracking and Scheduling - Capital cost/unit - $46200 - O&M cost/unit - $6000 - Lifetime - 7 years(7/22/2002)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal preemption system - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Vehicle detection - infrared - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Vehicle detection - optical - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal preemption system - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $5360.96(2/4/2013)

Transit signal priority software integration - Capital cost/unit - $75000 - O&M cost/unit - $7500(February 2009)

Transit signal priority hardware - Capital cost/unit - $10900 - O&M cost/unit - $435(February 2009)

Transit vehicle emitter - Capital cost/unit - $75000 - O&M cost/unit - $7500(February 2009)

Transit vehicle emitter - Capital cost/unit - $75000 - O&M cost/unit - $7500(February 2009)

Transit signal priority software integration - Capital cost/unit - $75000 - O&M cost/unit - $7500(February 2009)

Transit signal priority hardware - Capital cost/unit - $10900 - O&M cost/unit - $435(February 2009)

Bus Radio Service - Capital cost/unit - $17(July 2009)

Improve passenger information accuracy and reduce redundant hardware without overwhemling communications capacity, by integrating adaptive traffic signal priorty and dynamic passenger information systems into existing AVL/ACS systems on transit vehicles.(August 2011)

Transit operations decision support systems (TODSS) reduce false and low priority incident reports sent to dispatchers by 60 percent, allowing dispatchers to focus on higher priority incidents.(February 2010)

Joint deployment of scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminals (AVL/MDT) increased ridership and quality of service for two rural transit providers.(December 2010)

Implementation of an adaptive transit signal priority system resulted in 5 percent reductions in running time and 18 to 32 percent reductions in bus intersection delays in San Mateo County.(June 2010)

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) on Reno buses leads to nearly four percent increase in on-time performance for paratransit services and more comprehensive schedule adherence data to create more accurate schedules.(May 2010)

Forty-five percent reduction in complaints by paratransit riders, 50 percent less missed trips due to mechanical problems, and a new trip planning tool for fixed-route riders introduced as part of ITS deployment in Reno.(May 2010)

Overtime hours for drivers reduced and no staff increase necessary to handle over 10 percent increase in transit ridership over six years.(May 2010)

Estimated reduction of 9.37 million personal vehicle miles traveled and 4,252 metric tons of CO2 from increased transit ridership in Reno, Nevada.(May 2010)

Cameras on buses and in facilites improve rider and driver sense of security and reduce insurance claims paid to passengers, while scheduling software saved $1 million in labor costs.(December 16, 2009)

Data archive warehousing pays for itself in less than 1.4 years and scheduling software saves almost four weeks per year for operations planners.(December 2009)

In Waterloo, Canada, express bus service equipped with ITS technologies results in 3,650 tons annual decrease in green house gas emissions.(December 2009)

In rural Pennsylvania, demand-response service vehicles experienced a nine percent increase in overall on-time performance and over five percent decrease in non-revenue miles traveled.(08/31/2009)

Implementation of ITS with AVL, real-time passenger information, and electronic fare media in a mid-sized transit system resulted in a minimum 3.9:1 benefit/cost ratio.(July 2009)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.(2007)

Comprehensive proposed transit ITS implementation proposes numerous operational efficiency and customer satisfaction benefits.(24 August 2006)

Transit operators and dispatchers for the South Lake Tahoe Coordinated Transit System (CTS) are generally satisfied with the new system deployed and feel that it can provide good capabilities for future service expansion.(4/14/2006)

Full ITS deployment in Seattle projects personal travel time reductions of 3.7 percent for drivers and 24 percent for transit users.(May 2005)

In Salt Lake City, Utah, a transit Connection Protection system yielded a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the number of travelers satisfied with their travel experience; 87 percent compared to 85 percent.(5/12/2004)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that more than 80 percent who experienced on-board next-stop announcements and real-time bus departure signs agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(June 2003)

In Portland, Oregon, the Tri-Met transit agency used archived AVL data to reduce variation in run times, improve schedule efficiency, and make effective use of resources.(June 2003)

Implementation of radio system combined with AVL/MDT technology leads to increase in trip productivity and better vehicle maintenance in a large service area with low population density.(March 2003)

Implementation of a two-way radio network with paratransit scheduling software provides better customer service, better scheduling, and more efficient staffing.(March 2003)

New Mexico's scheduling/billing sofware leads to better customer service, more efficient reporting and billing, and better coordination between transportation providers and funding agencies.(March 2003)

Implementation of paratransit software with Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminal (AVT/MDT) technologies leads to increase in trip productivity; reduction in administrative staff; and greater overall confidence in the transportation system.(March 2003)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that 80 percent of bus passengers who used electronic departure signs and 44 percent of bus passengers who experienced real time parking information reported it helped them decide to ride a bus. (February 2003)

Simulation of a transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland indicated that fuel consumption decreased by 3.6 percent, Nitrogen oxides were reduced by 4.9 percent, Carbon monoxide decreased by 1.8 percent, hydrocarbons declined by 1.2 percent, and particulate matter decreased by 1.0 percent.(13-17 January 2002.)

In Helsinki, Finland a transit signal priority system improved on-time arrival by 22 to 58 percent and real-time passenger information displays were regarded as useful by 66 to 95 percent of passengers.(13-17 January 2002.)

A transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland reduced delay by 44 to 48 percent, decreased travel time by 1 to 11 percent, and reduced travel time by 35,800 to 67,500 passenger-hours per year. (13-17 January 2002.)

Integrated transit ITS technologies for a flexible-route transit service reduced the amount of time required to arrange passenger pick-up or drop-off off the fixed route from two days to two hours.(1/5/2002)

In Denver, 80 percent of RTD dispatchers felt that the GPS functions of the transit AVL system were "easy" or "very easy" to use and approximately half of bus drivers and street supervisors felt likewise.(August 2000)

In Denver, transit AVL decreased early and late arrivals by 12 and 21 percent, respectively.(August 2000)

In 1998, in Portland, Oregon an automatic vehicle location system with computer aided dispatching improved on-time bus performance by 9 percent, reduced headway variability between buses by 5 percent, and decreased run-time by 3 percent.(Summer 2000)

When bus priority was used with an adaptive signal control system in London, England average bus delay was reduced by 7 to 13 percent and average bus delay variability decreased by 10 to 12 percent. (6-12 November 1999)

In San Jose, California, a paratransit program equipped with AVL/CAD and an automated scheduling and routing system, realized increased ridership, better on-time performance, and a $500,000 reduction in annual operating costs.(March/April 1997)

In San Jose, California, a paratransit driver commented that she was satisfied with a new AVL/CAD scheduling and routing system, and said it was useful for settling disputes concerning on-time performance .(March/April 1997)

In Sweetwater, Wyoming a computer assisted dispatching system that allowed same-day ride requests contributed to an 80 percent increased in ridership (5,000 to 9,000 passengers per month), without requiring an increase in dispatch staff. (September 1996)

In Kansas City, Missouri an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system increase productivity by eliminating seven buses out of a 200 bus system that allowed Kansas City to recover their investment in AVL in two years.(14 November 1995)

In Kansas City, transit AVL systems improved on-time bus performance from 80 to 90 percent.(November 1995)

In Kansas City, a transit AVL system reduced the time required to respond to bus drivers' calls for assistance.(November 1995)

Transit AVL can improve O&M and reduce operating expenses.(November 1995)

In Baltimore and Kansas City, AVL improved on-time bus performance by 23 percent and 12 percent, respectively; in Milwaukee, AVL contributed to a 28 percent reduction in buses behind schedule by more than one minute.(July 1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system and other improvements used to manage 17 transit vehicles decreased passenger wait time by more than 50 percent.(1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system and other improvements increased vehicle miles per passenger-trip by 5 percent, reduced operating expenses, and contributed to an expanding client list which grew from 1,000 to 2,000 in 6 months(1995)

Forty-five percent reduction in complaints by paratransit riders, 50 percent less missed trips due to mechanical problems, and a new trip planning tool for fixed-route riders introduced as part of ITS deployment in Reno.(May 2010)

Two thirds of bus tracking website users said they used transit more frequently because of the availability of real-time information.(December 2009)

In rural Pennsylvania, demand-response service vehicles experienced a nine percent increase in overall on-time performance and over five percent decrease in non-revenue miles traveled.(08/31/2009)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

In Europe, a centralized and coordinated paratransit system resulted in a 2 to 3 percent annual decrease in the cost to provide paratransit services.(1994-1998)

In Orlando, Transit Signal Priority and Bus Rapid Transit systems were estimated to reduce travel times up to 26 percent for all vehicles and reduce delays up to 64 percent for buses. (01/11/2016)

Bus rapid transit concepts deployed in New York City attracted new riders accounting for 18 percent of ridership; 61 percent of these riders were attracted to the improved features of the new service.(01/11/2016)

Bus rapid transit service improvements on the I-10 and I-110 corridors increased ridership on Metro's Silver Line by 52 percent in the morning and 41 percent in the afternoon.(08/31/2015)

Transit Priority Corridor planned for San Francisco estimates to amass $227.4 million in safety benefits from 2020-2050.(08/01/2015)

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) on Reno buses leads to nearly four percent increase in on-time performance for paratransit services and more comprehensive schedule adherence data to create more accurate schedules.(May 2010)

Forty-five percent reduction in complaints by paratransit riders, 50 percent less missed trips due to mechanical problems, and a new trip planning tool for fixed-route riders introduced as part of ITS deployment in Reno.(May 2010)

Estimated reduction of 9.37 million personal vehicle miles traveled and 4,252 metric tons of CO2 from increased transit ridership in Reno, Nevada.(May 2010)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

A prototype Integrated Dynamic Transit Operations (IDTO) system saved transit riders 13 to 39 minutes for each successfully protected trip connection.(03/02/2016)

Implementing bus rapid transit on B44 route in Brooklyn, New York reduced travel time by 18 to 29 minutes for passengers traveling most of the route.(01/11/2016)

Implementing bus rapid transit concepts on Brooklyn, New York’s B44 bus route reduced traffic volume by 9 to 13 percent on arterials served by the route.(01/11/2016)

Operational Strategies modeled to optimize real-time transit network operations may reduce overall passenger travel time by 4.7 percent.(08/11/2015)

Real-time automated passenger counter data enables responsiveness to periods of high and low demand for light rail.(January 2015)

Coordinating human service transportation across funding sources can increase passengers per revenue hour by 10 percent.(August 1, 2013)

Coordinating human service transportation across funding sources can increase passengers per revenue hour by 10 percent.(August 1, 2013)

Deploying ITS transit technologies, such as CAD/AVL and traveler information services, to coordinate community transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged improved non-Medicaid demand response trips by 18 percent and non-emergency Medicaid response trips by 40 percent.(2011)

Joint deployment of scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminals (AVL/MDT) increased ridership and quality of service for two rural transit providers.(December 2010)

Forty-five percent reduction in complaints by paratransit riders, 50 percent less missed trips due to mechanical problems, and a new trip planning tool for fixed-route riders introduced as part of ITS deployment in Reno.(May 2010)

Overtime hours for drivers reduced and no staff increase necessary to handle over 10 percent increase in transit ridership over six years.(May 2010)

Estimated reduction of 9.37 million personal vehicle miles traveled and 4,252 metric tons of CO2 from increased transit ridership in Reno, Nevada.(May 2010)

In rural Pennsylvania, demand-response service vehicles experienced a nine percent increase in overall on-time performance and over five percent decrease in non-revenue miles traveled.(08/31/2009)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

Surveys found that riders on Vancouver's 98 B-line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, which implemented transit signal priority to improve schedule reliability, rated the service highly with regard to on-time performance and service reliability (an average of 8 points on a 10 point scale).(29 September 2003)

Implementation of a two-way radio network with paratransit scheduling software provides better customer service, better scheduling, and more efficient staffing.(March 2003)

New Mexico's scheduling/billing sofware leads to better customer service, more efficient reporting and billing, and better coordination between transportation providers and funding agencies.(March 2003)

Implementation of paratransit software with Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminal (AVT/MDT) technologies leads to increase in trip productivity; reduction in administrative staff; and greater overall confidence in the transportation system.(March 2003)

Final Report: Commercial Fleet Management Project(January 1998)

In Europe, a centralized and coordinated paratransit system resulted in a 2 to 3 percent annual decrease in the cost to provide paratransit services.(1994-1998)

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) logic that resolves conflicting TSP requests can reduce bus intersection delay up to 57 percent compared to conventional first-come-first-serve TSP strategies.(06/01/2016)

Bus rapid transit could reduce travel time by 20 percent compared to conventional bus service.(02/26/2016)

In Orlando, Transit Signal Priority and Bus Rapid Transit systems were estimated to reduce travel times up to 26 percent for all vehicles and reduce delays up to 64 percent for buses. (01/11/2016)

Implementing bus rapid transit concepts on Brooklyn, New York’s B44 bus route reduced traffic volume by 9 to 13 percent on arterials served by the route.(01/11/2016)

Signal Priority operations shown to improve connected bus travel times by 8.2 percent and connected truck travel times by 39.7 percent.

Transit Priority Corridor planned for San Francisco estimates to amass $227.4 million in safety benefits from 2020-2050.(08/01/2015)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to increase person throughput 14 to 38 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce average travel times 48 to 58 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has projected benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 4:1 to 6:1.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM solution for the I-95/I-395 corridor would cost approximately $7.45 Million per year.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce fuel consumption 33 to 34 percent.(June 2014)

Transit Signal Priority in San Antonio’s metropolitan transit system decreases travel time by up to 20 percent.

A typical signal timing project in Portland saves over 300 metric tons of CO2 annually per retimed traffic signal.(09/01/2013)

An adaptive signal timing system in Gresham, Oregon reduced average travel times by 10 percent.(09/01/2013)

Transit signal priority in the Portland metro area can reduce transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and improve travel times 2 to 16 percent.(09/01/2013)

Electric vehicles can save 50 to 85 percent in fueling costs per year.(06/02/2012)

Schedule adherence and speed-based transit signal priority system in Minneapolis reduced travel times by 3 to 6 percent more than a traditional transit signal priority system on the same route.(October 2011)

In Washington D.C., allowing transit vehicles priority during a no-notice evacuation resulted in a 26 percent time saving for transit buses without impacting on personal vehicle travel time.(May 2011)

In Staten Island, New York City, a transit signal priority pilot along a 2.3 mile corridor reduced travel times by approximately 17 percent.(May 2011)

Navigation systems with eco-routing features can improve fuel economy by 15 percent.(January 2011)

Simulated deployment of Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) technologies on the I-394 corridor in Minneapolis show a benefit-cost ratio of 22:1 over ten years.(November 2010)

Transit Signal Priority implemented in Chicago found a 4 to 15 percent reduction in bus travel time, 51 to 54 percent reduction in bus travel time variance, and annual fuel consumption savings of 131 gallons for bus routes 49 and X49.(09/08/2010)

Deploying transit signal priority systems may reduce transit bus delay in Burlington, Vermont by 14.2 to 16.5 percent on Route 15 and by 2.5 to 7 percent on the Old North Route, without producing delays for non-priority traffic.(July 2010)

After presence detection, adaptive signal control, and transit signal priority were implemented on the Atlanta Smart Corridor total fuel consumption decreased by 34 percent across all peak periods.(30 June 2010)

After presence detection, adaptive signal control, and transit signal priority were implemented on the Atlanta Smart Corridor total travel time decreased by 22 percent and total vehicle delay decreased by 40 percent across all peak periods.(30 June 2010)

Adaptive signal control, transit signal priority, and intersection improvements implemented during the Atlanta Smart Corridor project produced a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 23.2:1 to 28.2:1.(30 June 2010)

Implementation of an adaptive transit signal priority system resulted in 5 percent reductions in running time and 18 to 32 percent reductions in bus intersection delays in San Mateo County.(June 2010)

Transit signal priority reduced average bus travel times by 7.5 and 15 percent along major bus corridors in Los Angeles and Chicago, respectively.(2010)

In Waterloo, Canada, express bus service equipped with ITS technologies results in 3,650 tons annual decrease in green house gas emissions.(December 2009)

Queue jumper transit signal priority (TSP) can reduce bus delay by 3 to 17 percent over mixed-traffic TSP design.(2009)

In Snohomish County, Washington State, implementation of a transit signal priority system on two test corridors reduced average transit corridor travel time by 4.9 percent, and had insignificant negative impacts on local cross street traffic.(15 June 2007)

Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.(2007)

Implementing Transit Signal Priority (TSP) can improve bus running times by 2 to 18 percent.(2007)

Comprehensive proposed transit ITS implementation proposes numerous operational efficiency and customer satisfaction benefits.(24 August 2006)

Transit signal priority deployment along a 4 mile corridor can reduce bus travel times by 5 percent.(2005)

In the central area of Chicago, a feasibility study indicated that driver assistance technologies and transit signal priority for bus rapid transit would be cost-effective.(August 2004)

Surveys found that riders on Vancouver's 98 B-line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, which implemented transit signal priority to improve schedule reliability, rated the service highly with regard to on-time performance and service reliability (an average of 8 points on a 10 point scale).(29 September 2003)

When transit signal priority was not used in Portland, Oregon; bus travel times increased up to 4.2 percent during peak periods and up to 1.5 percent in non-peak periods.(19-22 May 2003)

In Dallas, Texas, simulation found that transit signal priority reduced bus travel time up to 11 percent during peak periods, reduced car travel times up to 16 percent, vehicle delay up to 4 percent and person delay up to 6 percent.(14-17 October 2002)

Simulation of a transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland indicated that fuel consumption decreased by 3.6 percent, Nitrogen oxides were reduced by 4.9 percent, Carbon monoxide decreased by 1.8 percent, hydrocarbons declined by 1.2 percent, and particulate matter decreased by 1.0 percent.(13-17 January 2002.)

During the A.M. peak period, transit signal priority on an arterial route in Arlington, Virginia could reduce bus travel time by 4.0 to 9.1 percent, decrease person delay of bus passengers by 6.5 to 14.2 percent, and reduce transit vehicle stops by 1.5 to 2.9 percent.(13-17 January 2002)

In Helsinki, Finland a transit signal priority system improved on-time arrival by 22 to 58 percent and real-time passenger information displays were regarded as useful by 66 to 95 percent of passengers.(13-17 January 2002.)

A transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland reduced delay by 44 to 48 percent, decreased travel time by 1 to 11 percent, and reduced travel time by 35,800 to 67,500 passenger-hours per year. (13-17 January 2002.)

During the A.M. peak period, transit signal priority on an arterial route in Arlington, Virginia could increase carbon monoxide emissions by 5.6 percent and decrease nitrogen emissions by 1.7 percent.(13-17 January 2002)

Evaluation of several transit signal priority systems found decreased bus travel time variability by 35 percent, lowered bus travel times by 6 to 27 percent, reduced AM peak intersection delay by 13 percent, and decreased signal-related bus stops by 50 percent.(January 2002)

A before-and-after study found that transit patrons experienced a smoother and more comfortable ride when a transit signal priority system was implemented in Seattle, Washington. (January 2002)

In Los Angeles, transit signal priority reduced total transit travel time by approximately 25 percent.(July 2001)

In Tucson, Arizona and Seattle Washington models indicated adaptive signal control in conjunction with transit signal priority can decrease delay for travelers on main streets by 18.5 percent while decreasing delay for travelers on cross-streets by 28.4 percent.(7-13 January 2001)

A transit priority system along an urban arterial in Vancouver, Canada reduced bus travel time variability by 29 and 59 percent during AM and PM peak periods, respectively.(6-10 August 2000)

Implementing traffic signal priority for a light-rail transit line in Toronto, Canada allowed system operators to remove one vehicle from service and maintain the same level of service to passengers.(6-10 August 2000)

At an intersection in Eindhoven, the Netherlands a transit signal priority system reduced bus schedule deviation by 17 seconds. (1-4 May 2000)

When conditional priority was deployed in Eindhoven, the Netherlands; buses experienced 27 seconds of delay without priority and no significant change in delay under conditional priority. (9-13 January 2000)

In Toronto, Canada adaptive signal control reduced ramp queues by 14 percent, decreased delay up to 42 percent, and reduced travel time by 6 to 11 percent; and transit signal priority reduced transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and travel time by 2 to 6 percent. (8-12 November 1999)

When bus priority was used with an adaptive signal control system in London, England average bus delay was reduced by 7 to 13 percent and average bus delay variability decreased by 10 to 12 percent. (6-12 November 1999)

A transit signal priority system in Southampton, England reduced bus fuel consumption by 13 percent, lowered bus emissions by 13 to 25 percent, increased fuel consumption for other vehicles by 6 percent, and increased the emissions of other vehicles up to 9 percent.(1999)

A bus priority system in Sapporo City, Japan reduced bus travel times by 6 percent, decreased the number of stops by 7 percent, and reduced the stopped time of buses by 21 percent.(1999)

A transit signal priority system in Eastleigh, England reduced bus delay by 9 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 2.2 seconds/vehicle/intersection. (1999)

A transit signal priority system in Eastleigh, England reduced bus fuel consumption by 19 percent and reduced bus emissions by 15 to 30 percent, and increased fuel consumption for other vehicles by 5 percent and increased the emissions of other vehicles up to 11 percent.(1999)

A transit signal priority system in Southampton, England reduced bus delay by 9.5 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 3.8 seconds/vehicle/intersection.(1999)

There were 32 accidents along a transitway at the University of Minnesota before transit priority lights were installed, while no accidents were reported after installation of the lights.(2 February 1998)

Transit priority systems in England and France have reduced transit vehicle travel times by 6 to 42 percent, while increasing passenger vehicle travel times by 0.3 to 2.5 percent. (December 1995)

A bus priority system on a major arterial in Portland, Oregon reduced bus travel times by five to eight percent. (July 1994)

Evaluations of the QUARTET PLUS and TABASCO Projects in Europe found that transit signal priority reduced travel time for transit vehicles by 5 to 15 percent.(1994-1998)

Bus rapid transit could reduce travel time by 20 percent compared to conventional bus service.(02/26/2016)

Transit management system in Chicago reduces larger-than-scheduled bus gaps by nearly 40 percent.

Chicago Transit Authority installs computerized bus-tracking system for 1,800 fleet vehicles for an estimated cost of $8.8 million.

Analysis of optimal bus stop spacing based on archived automatic vehicle location data shows potential savings of $100,000 per year on one route. (September 2009)

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, fixed-route scheduling software improved operations by saving approximately 60 hours per week in operator labor, resulting in a savings of approximately $62,000 per year.(10 June 2008)

Stop consolidation and reduced boarding time concepts could save a single route 8.5 hours a day and $180,000 a year.(January 2004)

In 1996, the project benefits of existing and planned deployments of transit ITS technologies were estimated to yield between $3.8 billion and $7.4 billion (discounted dollars for 1996) within several years.(July 1996)

Deploying advanced wayfinding technologies in transit agencies present communications, legal, institutional, and technical challenges(May 2011)

Operating headway-based transit service during high frequency service hours can reduce bus bunching.(January 2011)

Provide at least the recommended minimum distance between a GPS antenna and a radio antenna on a transit vehicle.(December 2010)

For a comprehensive transit ITS deployment program, select an agency project manager with skills in planning, information technology, and communications.(May 2010)

In deploying a comprehensive transit ITS program, develop strategies and requirements for planning, procurement, implementation, and ongoing operations.(May 2010)

Ensure that the management responsible for transit ITS planning is knowledgeable on agency’s labor contracts and how labor contracts affect effective utilization of ITS tools.(May 2010)

To avoid project implementation delays and unanticipated costs, perform a thorough review of the existing technologies during the planning phase of a comprehensive transit ITS deployment.(May 2010)

Define clear goals for a comprehensive transit ITS deployment program and track the achievement of those goals to evaluate program's success.(May 2010)

Commit to testing the new systems thoroughly, develop an acceptance matrix to document status of testing, and perform verification and validation before introducing them to support agency’s transportation operations.(November 2009)

Ensure proper sequencing of ITS deployments with careful consideration to dependencies among projects and utilize a data warehouse to lessen complexity in ITS integration.(November 2009)

Secure high level management support and broad participation throughout an organization during the implementation and operation of transit automatic vehicle location systems.(2008)

Plan for cellular communications to evolve and transition to new communication technologies every few years.(2008)

Consider the implications of ITS transit technologies on operational efficiencies.(4/14/2006)

Consider the pros and cons of performance bonds as they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements.(January 2006)

Exercise careful planning in preparation for issuing an RFP to help mitigate cost, schedule, and performance risks.(January 2006)

Consider issuing separate awards for specific project components when procuring divergent technologies, equipment, or services.(January 2006)

Use transit intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies in rural areas to save agency staff time and create a more user-friendly system.(2/1/2005)

Assure accurate late train arrival forecasts in support of a Connection Protection system.(5/12/2004)

Incorporate real-time bus and train location information in the Connection Protection algorithm.(5/12/2004)

Adjust bus schedules to assure adequate time to accomplish rail-to-bus connections, given the risk of late train arrivals at connecting stations.(5/12/2004)

Provide ITS training for transit systems managers, operators, and maintenance personnel when deploying Advanced Public Transportation Systems.(August 2003)

Develop ways to raise awareness among businesses to promote advanced traveler information sources to their customers.(June 2003)

Consider various technical applications and processes, such as using GIS, evaluating systems compatibility and the facility for upgrades, when deploying ITS.(March 2003)

Design the system to withstand the demands of the physical environment in which it will be deployed.(4/1/2002)

Design and tailor system technology to deliver information of useful quality and quantity, that the user can reasonably absorb.(4/1/2002)

When deploying ITS for transit service, perform a technology assessment during the planning phase, gather technology operator input, and designate a project manager with adequate decision-making authority.(1/5/2002)

Install Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to greatly enhance transit agency performance.(1/1/1999)

Improve demand response transit using ITS technology, including CAD/AVL, with Mobile Data Terminals (MDT), electronic ID cards, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).(1/1/1998)

To avoid surprises after implementation of a comprehensive transit ITS program, perform a detailed analysis of costs for operations and maintenance during the project planning phase.(May 2010)

Understand that the contractor’s availability to remain on site after the deployment of a comprehensive transit ITS is important, so is the contractor’s ability to work with the original equipment manufacturer.(May 2010)

Plan for cellular communications to evolve and transition to new communication technologies every few years.(2008)

Consider the pros and cons of performance bonds as they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements.(January 2006)

Exercise careful planning in preparation for issuing an RFP to help mitigate cost, schedule, and performance risks.(January 2006)

Consider issuing separate awards for specific project components when procuring divergent technologies, equipment, or services.(January 2006)

Use transit intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies in rural areas to save agency staff time and create a more user-friendly system.(2/1/2005)

Install Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to greatly enhance transit agency performance.(1/1/1999)

Allow one agency to be in charge of the procurement process when implementing ITS technologies designed to coordinate services between urban and rural transit systems.(December 2010)

Provide at least the recommended minimum distance between a GPS antenna and a radio antenna on a transit vehicle.(December 2010)

Prepare agency staff for implementation of new ITS technologies and involve maintenance and information technology (IT) staff in the installation process.(May 2010)

Be prepared to use local resources to service mission critical system components, and provide ongoing O&M training to maximize system benefits.(May 2010)

Consider procuring computer and network hardware independently when feasible and procure right-sized systems.(May 2010)

Develop requirements using widely accepted standards, preferably the open source compatible ones if available, and review those requirements immediately before requesting proposals from contractors.(May 2010)

Do not expect to see significant operations staff reductions due to implementing ITS technologies, but do expect service improvements using the same staff levels.(May 2010)

Identify champions early to facilitate communications, project management, and staff ownership for successful deployment of a comprehensive transit ITS program.(May 2010)

For a comprehensive transit ITS deployment program, select an agency project manager with skills in planning, information technology, and communications.(May 2010)

Encourage staff to find creative and efficient uses of ITS to improve operations through better communications.(May 2010)

Weigh in the advantages of procuring new information technology (IT) assets, and maintain an asset management system that details new IT inventory.(May 2010)

To avoid surprises after implementation of a comprehensive transit ITS program, perform a detailed analysis of costs for operations and maintenance during the project planning phase.(May 2010)

In deploying a comprehensive transit ITS program, develop strategies and requirements for planning, procurement, implementation, and ongoing operations.(May 2010)

Expect agency's information technology (IT) operations and maintenance budget to increase in order to train qualified IT staff to maintain a new suite of hardware and software.(May 2010)

Ensure that the management responsible for transit ITS planning is knowledgeable on agency’s labor contracts and how labor contracts affect effective utilization of ITS tools.(May 2010)

To avoid project implementation delays and unanticipated costs, perform a thorough review of the existing technologies during the planning phase of a comprehensive transit ITS deployment.(May 2010)

Designate the agency project manager as the single point of contact with the contractor and evaluate track record of contractor’s project management.(May 2010)

Define clear goals for a comprehensive transit ITS deployment program and track the achievement of those goals to evaluate program's success.(May 2010)

Plan carefully and test technologies rigurously prior to deployment when seeking support for ITS deployments on public transit.(December 2009)

Develop a long-term ITS vision and use systems engineering processes to successfully manage ITS deployments.(November 2009)

Develop long-term vision and goals for agency’s ITS program and ensure timely completion of long lead-time activities to support future ITS initiatives.(November 2009)

Commit to testing the new systems thoroughly, develop an acceptance matrix to document status of testing, and perform verification and validation before introducing them to support agency’s transportation operations.(November 2009)

Consider developing a data warehouse early on to simplify the integration of subsequent ITS deployments and to efficiently manage operations of interdependent applications.(November 2009)

Tailor the standard systems engineering process model to suit an agency’s ITS deployment scale and needs.(November 2009)

Ensure proper sequencing of ITS deployments with careful consideration to dependencies among projects and utilize a data warehouse to lessen complexity in ITS integration.(November 2009)

Consider using virtual servers and ensure that all applications use a single database engine in order to reduce time and human capital required to maintain the additional IT infrastructure warranted for ITS.(November 2009)

Reach out to a broad range of stakeholders and deploy early the projects that demonstrate easy-to-see benefits to build momentum for agency’s ITS program.(November 2009)

Secure high level management support and broad participation throughout an organization during the implementation and operation of transit automatic vehicle location systems.(2008)

Plan for cellular communications to evolve and transition to new communication technologies every few years.(2008)

Examine route-specific opportunities and constraints, and assess corridor market potential for transit services prior to implementing BRT running way improvements.(2007)

Involve and collaborate with a broad range of users during software design, development, testing, and deployment to increase the return on investment.(7/29/2005)

Use transit intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies in rural areas to save agency staff time and create a more user-friendly system.(2/1/2005)

Install Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to greatly enhance transit agency performance.(1/1/1999)

Deploying advanced wayfinding technologies in transit agencies present communications, legal, institutional, and technical challenges(May 2011)

Allow one agency to be in charge of the procurement process when implementing ITS technologies designed to coordinate services between urban and rural transit systems.(December 2010)

Be aware of operational issues regarding the development of coordinated transit systems(4/14/2006)

Consider the implications of ITS transit technologies on operational efficiencies.(4/14/2006)

Consider the pros and cons of performance bonds as they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements.(January 2006)

Exercise careful planning in preparation for issuing an RFP to help mitigate cost, schedule, and performance risks.(January 2006)

Consider issuing separate awards for specific project components when procuring divergent technologies, equipment, or services.(January 2006)

Install an electronic transit card system to enhance rural transit agency performance and coordinate human service transportation between agencies to achieve more efficient services.(9/1/2005)

Anticipate challenges in planning and deploying smart card technology in a rural environment.(9/1/2005)

Assure accurate late train arrival forecasts in support of a Connection Protection system.(5/12/2004)

Incorporate real-time bus and train location information in the Connection Protection algorithm.(5/12/2004)

Adjust bus schedules to assure adequate time to accomplish rail-to-bus connections, given the risk of late train arrivals at connecting stations.(5/12/2004)

Future ICM systems will require new technical skill sets. Involve management across multiple levels to help agencies understand each other’s needs, capabilities, and priorities.(06/30/2015)

Placing detectors and deploying transit signal priority should be done to maximize benefits for transit vehicles while minimizing delay for other vehicles.(2013)

Conduct bench testing prior to field installation of transit signal priority (TSP) equipment to verify functionality between detectors, signal controllers, phase selectors, and cabinet design.(09/08/2010)

When developing transit signal priority (TSP) systems, consider using traffic simulation models as a cost-effective means of comparing the impacts of different TSP strategies on transit and non-transit vehicle travel time.(July 2010)

Identify functional boundaries and needs for cross jurisdictional control required to implement adaptive signal control and transit signal priority systems.(30 June 2010)

Anticipate and address challenges to consistently operating a transit signal priority (TSP) system.(4/14/2006)

Recognize issues in deploying ITS technologies for coordinating and improving Human Services Transportation.(August 2006)

Adequately invest and plan for the deployment of an Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS).(January 2003)

Recognize the data requirements of an Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS).(January 2003)

Develop a long term vision for an Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS).(January 2003)