This TCRP synthesis report presents information on the state of the practice in real-time bus arrival information systems based on literature research and survey of transit agencies in the United States and abroad. The focus of the report is on bus systems, rather than all transit modes. While transit agencies initially deployed automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to increase operational efficiency, the side benefit of being able to provide real-time bus arrival information to customers is being recognized by transit agencies of all sizes.

The literature review results indicate that, although there is not a significant number of systems operational in the United States, the number of deployments are increasing. Europe has a greater number of operational systems and the systems were deployed earlier than those in the U.S.

The survey covered the basic elements of deploying a real-time bus arrival information system: characteristics of the underlying AVL system, type of media used to disseminate the information, how real-time information is predicted, system costs, customer and media feedback on the system, and institutional and organizational issues. A total of 18 surveys were received; half were from transit agencies in the U.S.

The majority of AVL systems use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology; other technologies used include signpost and transponders. Bus arrival time is disseminated to riders via dynamic message signs or liquid crystal displays at stops. The same information also may be disseminated via the Internet, cellular phones, and personal digital assistants. The most common information displayed at the stops include current date and time, route number and final destination of the bus, wait time (presented as count-down or time range), and service disruptions or other service/security messages. The communications technologies frequently used to disseminate information from the central system to each stop are cellular and conventional telephone lines.

The capital costs for the underlying AVL system and additional real-time information system (including the prediction model software cost) are presented in the table below. The total capital cost for the AVL and real-time information systems ranged from a low of $60,000 for the Fairfax (Virginia) CUE with 12 AVL-equipped vehicles to more than $70 million for the London Buses with an AVL-equipped fleet of 5,700. The cost information, which was excerpted from the report, was reported by the 18 agencies completing the survey. Report tables 4 and 5 contain additional cost data (e.g., cost per vehicle). Note for data in the following two tables, that non-U.S. costs were converted to U. S. dollars using the Interbank currency exchange rate for September 19, 2002.
 

Agency	Number of Vehicles with AVL	Type of AVL	Total Capital Cost of AVL System	Additional Capital Cost for Providing Real-Time Information	Prediction Model Software Cost as Reported
RTD	1,111	GPS	$15,000,000	$1,000,000	NR
City Bus	25	GPS	$150,000	N/A	NR
DTC	189	GPS	$12,000,000	$500,000	NR
Fairfax CUE	12	GPS	$60,000	Included in AVL cost	Included in AVL cost
Glendale Beeline	20	GPS	$171,000 (includes the capital cost of 2 signs)	Included in total AVL cost	Included in AVL cost
LADOT/LACMTA—Metro Rapid System	150	Loop inductors	$2,100,000 (includes cost of transit priority system – signal equipment, roadway sensors, etc.)	$600,000	$300,000
San Francisco Muni	827	GPS	$9,600,000	Included in AVL cost	Included in AVL cost
Tri-Met	689	GPS	$7,000,000	$750,000	Included
ATC Bologna	450	GPS	$4,891,400	$782,600	Developed with internal resources
Kaohsiung	250	GPS	$187,500	$187,500
Taichung	250	GPS	$187,500	$187,500
Taipei	135	GPS	$270,000	$300,000	$20,000
London Buses	5,700	Signpost	$23,251,500·$27,901,800	$46,503,000 estimated for 4000 signs	NR
YTV	340	DGPS and Signpost	$1,400,000	$1,100,000	$250,000
Centro	6	GPS	$705,300	NR	NR
King County Metro	1,300	Signpost	$15,000,000	$1,000,000 to upgrade on-board hardware plus $250,000 in software	$500,000
Dublin Bus	156	GPS	$660,300	$97,900	$81,000
Kent County Council	141	DGPS	$2,000,000	Included in AVL cost	Included in AVL cost

The annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the underlying AVl system and additional real-time information system are presented in the table below. The cost information, which was excerpted from the report, was reported by the 18 agneices completing the survey. Report tables 6 and 7 contain additional cost data (e.g., cost per vehicle, number of signs). Many of the responding agencies were not able to provide the annual O&M costs of theses systems. This lack of information is due in part to the difficulty in allocating tangential costs (e.g., communciation, utility, and software maintenance) across systems and components.

Notes: RTD = Regional Transportation District; NR = not reported; N/A = not available; DTC = Delaware Transit Corporation; CUE = City-University-Energysaver; LADOT/LACMTA = Los Angeles DOT/Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority; Tri-Met = Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Orgeon; ATC Bologna = Azienda Trasporti Consorziali Bologna; YTV = Helsinski Metropolitan Area Council.