RITA | ITS | Benefits: View by Application-Transit Management

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

About RITA

Communities of Interest

Press Room

RITA Offices

Site Map

ITS >> Benefits Database >> View by Application >> Transit Management

Need assistance? Contact us or view the Help page.

Quick Links:

Transit Management (67 unique benefit summaries found)

To view:

Related T3 Webinars - (what is this)

Operations & Fleet Management

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)

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)

Automatic Vehicle Location / Computer-Aided Dispatch

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)

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)

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)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that 90 percent of respondents who used the real-time bus departure signs and 84 percent of respondents who experienced the automated on-board next-stop message announcements agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(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.)

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)

Intelligent Time Savers, Life Savers(December 1997)

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 use to manage 17 transit vehicles decreased passenger wait time by more than 50 percent.(1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system 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)

Maintenance

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)

Planning

Service Coordination

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)

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

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)

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.(8/19/2004)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

Three evaluation projects conducted in Europe found that transit signal priority reduced travel time for transit vehicles by 5 to 15 percent.(1994-1998)

Information Dissemination

Outside San Francisco, a transit-based smart parking system contributed to an increase in transit mode share, a decrease in commute time and a reduction in total VMT.(December 2006. )

In-Terminal/Wayside

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that 74 percent of respondents who experienced real-time parking information agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(February 2003)

Users of the Advanced Traveler Information System in Seattle, Washington were satisfied with the information on freeway and transit conditions provided via Web sites and a Traffic TV service.(30 May 2000)

In-Vehicle Systems

Internet/Wireless/Phone

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies that promote integration among freeways, arterials, and transit systems can help balance traffic flow and enhance corridor performance; simulation models indicate benefit-to-cost ratios for combined strategies range from 7:1 to 25:1.(2009)

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system field test increased BART trips and resulted in an average of 9.7 fewer vehicle miles traveled and decreased the average commute time by 2.6 minutes.(1 August 2007)

Deployment experiences document the importance of traveler information and list top sources of traveler information.(2005)

In London, a survey indicated that 30 percent of travelers who used a computerized route planning system and completed a trip, changed routes based on the information provided, another 10 percent decided to use public transport. (9 March 1998)

Transportation Demand Management

Dynamic Routing/Scheduling

An evaluation of scheduling software for the paratransit service in Billings, Montana found that the break-even point for savings as a result of the software implementation was a three percent improvement in efficiency.(May 2, 2007)

Experience with the Omnilink system in Prince William County, Virginia suggests that with less than 20 passengers per hour, adding 10 minutes of slack time allows accommodation of one or two deviations per hour for routes taking approximately 35 minutes to drive without deviations.(January 2007)

Scheduling software enabled St. Johns County in northeast Florida to reduce office staff from 9 to 4.5 full-time equivalents, while doubling the number of daily trips on the paratransit service, saving $58,000 per year.(February 2003)

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

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

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)

Safety & Security

Facility Surveillance

A 1998 survey of transit riders in Ann Arbor, Michigan indicated that police presence and increased lighting at transit centers had the greatest influence on riders' perception of personal security; on-board video surveillance systems and emergency phones had little influence.(1999)

In-Vehicle Surveillance

A 1998 survey of transit riders in Ann Arbor, Michigan found that police presence and increased lighting had the greatest influence on riders' perception of personal security; emergency phones and video surveillance systems had little influence.(1999)

Subscribe to Transit Management RSS Feed | View all available RSS Feeds | What is RSS?