Mobile Data Terminals (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9Chapter three presents a summary of the survey responses and a synthesis of the survey findings. It also provides refer- ences to supportive information and database reports in the appendices. RESPONSES TO SURVEY The cover memo to transit agencies noted the potential for a national baseline for technology deployment in the transit agencies. Transit agencies not deploying MDTs in a particu- lar property this year and not to be deployed next year, were asked to reply in the negative. Therefore, a significant num- ber of respondents answered in the negative through the survey, e-mails, or telephone calls. The value of the survey data in the future will be enhanced by this conscientious effort by the NTD respondents and CEOs. A summary of responses is presented in Table 1. SURVEY APPROACH AND TOPICS The information identified for collection by the synthesis topic panel was both extensive and detailed (see chapter one). In an attempt to attract a broad national response to the sur- vey, yet also provide for some depth in understanding deploy- ment of MDTs within the industry, a two-track option was provided to respondents. The short-form “standard” response provided an abbreviated survey instrument with eight topic areas. The long form provided questions on the entire range of inquiry with 14 topic areas. An on-line survey map pro- vided a flowchart for survey respondents to decide which of these options to take. Copies of each survey instrument were also sent to each respondent to assist them in making this choice, as well as to draft the answers to the questions before they took the on-line survey. (The on-line survey map, as well as the long form and short form survey instruments, can be found in the Appendix A1, Section A1-1.) The topics included in the short and long forms are included in Table 2. OVERALL SURVEY RESPONSES In February 2006, surveys were distributed by e-mail to the 640 transit systems included in the 2006 NTD database. The e-mail message was hyperlinked to the on-line survey on the Bridgewater State College GeoGraphics Laboratory web server. By April 2006, 119 transit agencies had responded, a response rate of 18.6%. Of these 119, 40 indicated that they currently had deployed 9,070 MDTs. Thirty agencies indi- cated that they would be deploying 1,623 MDTs within the next year. This constituted an 18% increase in MDT termi- nals nationwide from 2006 to 2007. Forty-six agencies reported that they did not have MDTs deployed and would not be deploying them next year. Nine agencies reported that they would be deploying MDTs in the future. A database report of transit agency respondent informa- tion can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-A1, “2006 MDT Survey Respondents.” A report on the number of cur- rently installed MDTs and those that will be installed within the next year can be found in the Appendix A2, Report A2-C1, “Installed Mobile Data Terminal Totals,” sorted by state and transit property. MODAL RESPONSE Survey invitations were sent to all FTA NTD reporters, including all modes of public transportation. Overwhelm- ingly, the positive responders checked the “motor bus,” “demand responsive,” or both. As of March 2006, six transit properties reported deploying MDTs in motor bus opera- tions, nine reported MDTs in demand-responsive service, and ten reported MDTs in both motor bus and demand- responsive modes. Five properties did not register a mode of transit from the drop down menu. Of those reporting the current or future deployment of MDTs, no other modes were indicated outside of the motor bus and demand-responsive NTD modes. Several respondents that operated modes that have wayside data collection (e.g., heavy rail and ferry boats) reported that they did not have MDTs. Responses to the sur- vey on mode using MDTs from a drop down list and MDT in use in other modes are presented in Appendix A2, Report A2-B1, “Modal Use of MDT.” MOBILE DATA TERMINAL MANUFACTURERS AND MODELS Survey respondents were asked to provide the manufacturer and model number of the MDTs from a drop down list or add their response to a text field. In most cases, the MDT make and model were chosen from the drop down list. The CHAPTER THREE SURVEY FINDINGS

consolidated results are presented in Table 3, listing the number of transit agencies reporting by MDT make and model, aggregated by mode choice and the number of MDTs reported currently deployed and those expected to be deployed within the year. A report from the MDT database presenting the number of MDT models installed at transit agencies, sorted by MDT 10 manufacturer and model, can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-C2, “Manufacturer and Model.” INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SUPPLIERS Most respondents who indicated that they had deployed MDTs also identified an ITS supplier and their product or service from the drop down list. The results of the survey are presented in the frequency distribution table and a chart showing the percentage of transit agencies responding is presented in Table 4. A wide range of ITS suppliers were reported by those agencies that had deployed MDTs. Reports were generated from the MDT survey sorting transit agency responses to the ITS services by ITS supplier and again by state. In each Responses Short Long E-mail Fax Phone Total Total 75 22 19 1 2 119 No. Using MDTs 19 21 0 0 0 40 No. Deploying MDT Next Year 23 6 1 0 0 30 TABLE 1 MDT SURVEY RESPONSES AS OF APRIL 2006 Survey Topic TA respondent information Transit service (mode) using MDTs MDT types and brands of equipment used ITS supplier information MDT functionality Communications infrastructure supporting MDT Information technology supporting MDT Applications of MDT-collected data Installation, maintenance, and data analysis costs MDT acceptance by staff MDT problems and solutions Security and resilience of communications MDT capabilities desired in future Future ITS applications at TA Long Form Short Form NOTE: TA = transit agency. TABLE 2 MDT SURVEY TOPICS MDT Manufacturer MDT Model No. of Agencies MDT Totals Digital Dispatch Systems Vector 530 1 140 GMSI 2101ROZ 1 321 Greyhawk Technologies CEHawk MDT 1 0 Greyhawk Technologies Fixed-route MDT 1 68 Greyhawk Technologies Fixed-route MDT and paratransit MDT 1 25 Greyhawk Technologies Paratransit MDT 3 281 Innovations in Transportation, Inc. COPILOTsoftkey 3 385 Mentor Engineering, Inc. MDC 5 195 Mentor Engineering, Inc. MDC and Ranger 1 12 Mentor Engineering, Inc. Ranger 3 413 Mentor Engineering, Inc. Stryder 1 52 METS METS 1 1,300 Micronet, Ltd Net 960 1 44 Mobile Knowledge Series 6000 MDT 1 47 Motorola MW20 1 150 Motorola/Nextel Motorola i58 1 44 Orbital TMS SmartMDT 4 2,298 QSI Corporation QTERM-R55 1 900 Radio Satellite Integrators Version 2.0 4 X 40 1 65 Siemens VDO MDT 10 2,239 TABLE 3 MDT MANUFACTURER AND DEPLOYMENT BY MANUFACTURER

11 case, the number of MDT installations was added to provide the reader with a sense of the scale of the deploy- ment at the transit property. These reports are in the Appendix A2, as Report A2-D1, “ITS Supplier—Service by Supplier” and Report A2-D2, “ITS Supplier—Service by State.” MOBILE DATA TERMINAL FUNCTIONALITY Survey respondents reported on MDT functions for both fixed-route and paratransit operations. Fixed-Route Service Eleven of 17 respondents reported that the MDTs were used to download the driver manifests. All 17 reported using the MDT to collect data on driver actions such as sign-on, sign-off, start run, and end run. The individual agency responses can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-E1, “Functions—Fixed Route—General.” Thirteen transit agencies reported counting passengers through their MDTs, with seven of those reporting using electronic beams to count both boarding and alighting automatically. Three of the respondents used the MDTs to manually count the boarding and alighting of passengers. Three other agencies reported a mix of manual and auto- matic counting. The report, by agency, can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-E2, “Functions—Fixed Route— Counting.” Six agencies reported using the MDTs to count the use of mobility aids by passengers. Two others used the MDT to count the loading of bicycles. This report can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-E3, “Functions—Fixed Route— Other Counting.” Five agencies reported that their MDTs were equipped with fare technology; four used magnetic strip readers and one used smart card fare technology (see Appendix A2, Report A2-E4, “Functions—Fixed Route—Fares”). Twenty-four respondents reported that the MDT func- tioned as an emergency alarm, with 14 of the alarms covert trigger mechanisms and 10 buttons on the mobile data computer (MDC) itself. Ten reported automatic commu- nication with the operating center upon setting off the alarm. Security video was reported by six agencies, includ- ing two that had the capability of buffering video frames that could be saved before the alarm was triggered. The disaggregated data sorted by state is found in Appendix A2, Report A2-E5, “Functions—Fixed Route—Emergency” (Figure 1). The survey participants responding to the functions built into the MDC were asked if the data collected by the MDT was stamped with space and time references. They were asked to pick one or more of the following: (1) GPS latitude/ longitude and date/time stamp or (2) digital odometer reading. Forty-six percent used both referencing capabilities, 47% used GPS only, and 7% used odometer readings. The database report can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-E6, “Functions—Fixed Route—Space/Time Features” (Figure 2). Other fixed-route functions written in by the survey respondents were: • Covert microphone for one-way audio monitor; • Bus, operator, route, run, direction, adherence, GPS validity; • Digital messaging; and • Map, suggested routing, predicted and actual on-time performance, and automatic recognition of bus stops. ITS Supplier No. of Responses EnGraph 1 Fleet Management Solutions, Inc. 1 HBSS 1 Innovations in Transportation, Inc. 3 Laidlaw Transit Services 1 Mentor Engineering Inc.; the Checker Group 1 Motorola 1 Nextbus 1 Orbital TMS 4 Orbital TMS, Actsoft, Inc. 1 RouteMatch Software 1 Siemens VDO 8 TAXiTRONiC (Verifone), 1 Trapeze Group 14 Trapeze Group, Siemens VDO 1 Trapeze Group, ITS 3 TABLE 4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ITS SUPPLIERS Covert alarm Auto comm. to Ops. Ctr. Alarm button on MDC Local video recording Buffered video before alarm 0 2 4 6 8 Number of Respondents 10 12 14 16 FIGURE 1 Fixed-route emergency functions. 7% 46% GPS latitude/longitude and date/time stamp/Digital odometer reading GPS latitude/longitude and date/time stamp Digital odometer reading 47% FIGURE 2 Fixed-route functions—Space–time referencing.

Demand-Response Service Fifteen of the 16 respondents reporting on using MDTs for paratransit service noted that they used the MDTs to down- load the drivers’ manifest to the vehicle, and that schedule changes were automatically updated to and from the MDT. Operational actions by the driver (e.g., sign-on and start run) were reported on the MDTs according to all survey partici- pants. This shows a confidence in the technology by the operations staff that was not evident in the early days of MDT deployment in paratransit. In demand-response service, MDTs were reportedly used for counting passenger pick up and drop off in 12 of 14 instances. Most of the 12 used the MDTs to count mobil- ity aids as well. Figure 3 converts the survey responses to percentages in a pie chart. Other functionality reported in demand-response use of MDTs included actual fare collected, messaging between dispatch and vehicle, covert emergency alarm, attendants, and companions. COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE Both the long-form and short-form survey questionnaires addressed the issue of the communications infrastructure sup- porting MDT deployment. Every respondent knew their com- munications infrastructure, even if they did not yet have MDTs or could not identify their ITS suppliers. Several respondents 12 listed more than one means of communications. Most chose private radio network, listed as “conventional radio” (e.g., 450 MHz) on the drop down menu. A variety of communication infrastructures is evident as presented in Table 5. As new markets develop for cellular carriers investing in higher-capacity infrastructure and open WiFi and WiMAX cities become a reality, this synthesis database will be posi- tioned to track any changes among transit operators over time. Clearly, private radio networks dominate the commu- nications at this time; however, public data networks (cellu- lar telephone carriers) collectively make up a significant share. Even WiFi is making a presence at this early date, although it may be for downloading data at the maintenance facility, rather than an outdoor WiFi city scheme. The survey addressed the types of information communi- cated to and from the MDTs. A number of reports generated from the MDT survey database are listed here and can be found in the Appendix A2: • Report A2-F1, “MDT Communications by Type” • Report A2-F2, “MDT Communications by State” • Report A2-F3, “GPS Refresh Rates by Number of MDTs” • Report A2-F4, “Communication of Data and Video” • Report A2-F5, “Communication of Canned Text Messages” • Report A2-F6, “MDT Communication of Free Form Text” • Report A2-F7, “MDT Communication Types—Other” • Report A2-F8, “Two-Way Voice Radio Communi- cation.” The rate of refreshing information on the location of vehi- cles is generally related to the fleet size and transmission capacity of the communications infrastructure. If the data are transmitted over public data networks, cost may be an issue in polling the fleet for AVL, especially if the cellular carrier is charging by the call for data transmission. Recently, some cellular vendors began promoting unlimited data plans, fundamentally changing the economic analysis of MDT 14% 14% 72% Use of mobility aids Passenger pick up/Passenger drop off/Use of mobility aids Passenger pick up/Passenger drop off Communications No. of Responses 802.11b/g (2.4 GHz unrestricted) 1 Cellular—Cingular 7 Cellular—Cingular/802.11b/g (2.4 GHz unrestricted) 1 Cellular—Sprint/Nextel 2 Cellular—Verizon Wireless 6 Conventional radio (e.g., 450 MHz) 25 Conventional radio (e.g., 450 MHz)/802.11b/g (2.4 GHz unrestricted) 3 Conventional radio (e.g., 450 MHz)/802.11b/g (2.4 GHz unrestricted)/ 802.11a (5.0 GHz unrestricted) 1 Conventional radio (e.g., 450 MHz)/Cellular—Cingular 1 FIGURE 3 Demand-response functionality—Counting. TABLE 5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY COMMUNICATIONS TYPE

13 communications. Polling rates of 60 s and less, as indicated in Figure 4, are well suited to predicting arrival time for customer information systems. The majority of respondents reported refresh rates of 60 s or less. When those respondents were asked if two-way mobile voice communication was also available to the driver, 86 of the 96 respondents to the survey (90%) answered affirmatively. Only 40 of those transit agencies currently had MDTs deployed and another 30 planned to deploy MDTs this year. If commu- nications is the reason for not deploying MDTs, all of them could have MDTs if they used the approach developed by Cal Poly–San Louis Obispo under the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) cooperative research program (CRP). Cal Poly has developed a public domain MDT that can use con- ventional 450 MHz simultaneously for voice and data at San Luis Obispo Transit. The project is well-documented by Cal Poly and has been approved by Caltrans for further develop- ment in the current state fiscal year CRP program. APPLICATIONS OF MOBILE DATA TERMINAL-COLLECTED DATA The transit agencies were asked to select current applications of MDT-collected data from an extensive list of potential appli- cations arranged in ten topic areas. Responses were received from both short-form and long-form survey respondents. A tabular presentation of the results is presented in Table 6. Deploying an MDT equipped with GPS provides for mon- itoring on-time performance for fixed-route and paratransit 2-5 minutes 13% 61-119 seconds 24% 6-10 seconds 7% 1-5 seconds 7% 11-60 seconds 49% FIGURE 4 GPS and AVL refresh rates. Applications of MDT-Collected Data No. of Responses Driver time keeping 28 Route and schedule adherence Fixed-route service on-time performance Paratransit on-time performance 30 37 Fraud prevention and detection Time fraud by staff or contractors Fare fraud by staff or contractors Third-party payment fraud by human service clients 11 7 2 Real-time web mapping of AVL data 35 Dynamic calculation of estimated time of arrival (ETA) by vehicle At bus terminals At bus stops On board the bus Display of ETA on web 20 17 15 11 QA/QC of service Fixed-route service Paratransit service 17 25 Alarming for preventive maintenance scheduling 10 Verification of performance of scheduled maintenance and repair 7 Aggregation of fueling and consumable supplies by vehicle and driver 7 Calculation of periodic performance measures based on MDT data Passengers carried Revenue received Passenger miles Revenue miles Passengers per vehicle-mile Passengers per revenue-mile Passengers per vehicle-hour Mean time between failures Mean miles between failures Other 30 18 25 26 19 20 21 1 1 1 TABLE 6 APPLICATIONS OF MDT-COLLECTED DATA

services. The survey indicated that 39% of the respondents use MDTs to measure on-time performance in both fixed- route and paratransit service configurations. A similar per- centage uses the MDTs for measuring schedule adherence in paratransit (see Figure 5). MDTs equipped with GPS can be used to calculate the estimated time of arrival (ETA) at a bus stop or terminal. Sur- vey respondents were asked where these ETA calculations would be displayed: (1) at bus terminals, (2) at bus stops, (3) on board the bus, and (4) a display of ETA on the web. The results are presented in Figure 6. MDTs equipped with GPS can be excellent tools for ensuring quality transit and paratransit service and detecting fraud and abuse relating to hours of operation, misuse of vehicle assets, and false reporting. The responses indicate a high percentage using MDTs for QA/QC for paratransit. This study indicated that it may be related to the need for contractor control for purchased transportation of demand- responsive service by transit agencies (see Figure 7). Using the MDTs as a basis for the efficient and effective collection of performance measures is of interest to the FTA’s NTD program managers. There was a high rate of return for respondents using the MDT to collect ridership data and other industry standard productivity indicators (see Figure 8). Disaggregated Applications of Mobile Data Terminal-Collected Data Early in the preparation of this synthesis there was a the com- ment that the applications of MDTs in the aggregate as described in Table 6 was important in providing support to those in the industry seeking to implement similar applica- tions at their transit agency. However, it was equally impor- 14 tant to these would-be innovators to be able to contact the early innovators directly. The disaggregated survey res- ponses on applications of MDT-collected data are provided in the Appendix A2 in the following reports. • Report A2-H1, “Applications—Timekeeping and Web–AVL” • Report A2-H2, “Route and Schedule Adherence from MDTs” • Report A2-H3, “MDT Applications to Prevent/Detect Fraud” • Report A2-H4, “Applications—MDT-Based ETA and Display” • Report A2-H5, “Applications—Quality Assurance/ Quality Control from MDTs” • Report A2-H6, “Applications—Maintenance Data from MDT” • Report A2-H7, “Applications—Fueling and Consum- ables” • Report A2-H8, “MDT-Based Performance Measure- ment” • Report A2-H9, “Integration of Spatial Data Appli- cations.” MOBILE DATA TERMINAL USES DESIRED BEYOND CAPABILITIES OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT Survey respondents were asked to identify additional func- tionality that they desired, beyond the current capabilities of their MDTs. The purpose of this question was to anticipate the design of new MDT functionality based on customer preferences. These comments indicated the functions desired by new entrants into the MDT marketplace. The oft-stated need for integration between MDT-collected data and elec- tronic fare collection devices may indicate a desire for an open system of data interchange—the antithesis of propri- 39% 23% 38% Fixed-route service on-time performance Paratransit on-time performance Fixed-route service on-time performance/Paratransit on-time performance At bus terminals At bus stop On board the bus Display of ETA on web 0 5 10 Number of Respondents 15 20 25 Fixed Route Fixed Route/Paratransit Paratransit 26% 24% 50% FIGURE 5 MDTs for route and schedule adherence. FIGURE 6 Display of ETA calculation by vehicle. FIGURE 7 Percentage using MDTs for QA/QC by mode. Passengers carried Revenue miles Passenger miles Passengers per vehicle hour Passengers per revenue mile Passengers per vehicle mile Revenue received Mean miles between failures (equipment breakdown) Mean time between failures (equipment breakdown) Number of Respondents 0 1 1 18 19 20 21 25 26 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 FIGURE 8 MDT-based performance measurement.

15 etary data collection and data manipulation sometimes found in the transit industry. A number of experienced providers called for better displays on MDTs, especially when map- ping and AVL systems were integrated on the MDT. The comments on desires beyond the capabilities of existing equipment have been presented in a database report in the Appendix A2, Report A2-M1, “Desired Functionality.” FUTURE APPLICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES Survey respondents were asked to identify technology appli- cations that they were planning to employ. This question raised the issue of new and associated MDT technologies that might be planned beyond the short deployment period raised in the MDT synthesis of current practice. Many recipients used the opportunity to document future technology in the near term and beyond. Again, respondents who reported that they did not have MDTs currently nor did they expect to deploy them within the year used this opportunity to reveal their plans. As in the previous questions the responses fol- lowed a list of transit ITS components that are understand- able in the context of the individual respondent. What stands out is that the most advanced technology deployments are also the most customer-oriented transit agencies. There is also some interest in WiFi technology and web-based video for security purposes that may relate to transit’s heightened concern for passenger safety and security. The individual comments can be found in Appendix A2, Report A2-N1, “Planned Future Technology.”