APTS – Fourth DayMiscellaneous Topics

Fleet Management

• Fixed Route versus Paratransit

• Operations versus Maintenance

Fleet Management

• Fixed Route - Operations– Late driver relief– Late bus relief– Transfer point coordination– Changes in schedule operation (stop skipping)– Security

Late Driver Relief

• Driver overtime is a significant expense– 1.5x, 2x, and 3x pay rates (depending)

• Extra drivers are available (extra board)– Can be driven from base to route by supervisor

• Problem:– Knowing which drivers to relieve– Computing the cost of relief versus overtime

Late Driver Relief

• Only worthwhile if “really late” (over 20 minutes)

• This leads to an organizational definition of “late” that is very different than that of a rider

Late Bus Relief

• Same issues as late driver relief• A big issue is the fact that the bus can’t make its

next trip on time if it can’t finish the first trip• This concern can be solved by leaving “slack

time” at the end of each trip. (Driver waits 15 minutes before starting the next trip.)

• However, “slack time” is a waste of money. You are paying the driver to do nothing

Late Bus Relief

• An optimization problem

Late Bus Relief

• Optimization problem:– How much money do you save by decreasing

“slack time?” (“Maintenance Hours”)– It depends:

• How many runs are you late for?

• How many riders do you lose by being late?

– Lack data on both of these subjects

• Analysis of location data provides for the first of these items

Changes in Schedule Operation

• Slack time is not the only potential cost savings– What if you could reduce the time it took to

make a trip from 45 minutes to 35 minutes?

• Can you save – A bus?– Driver hours?

Changes in Schedule

• Often must perform the entire run cutting process (schedule creation – driver assignment) to determine the potential cost savings

• For a large transit agency, the potential savings are very large, especially if large blocks of time (10 + minutes) can be removed

Transfer Point Coordination

• Transfers:– A necessary evil in the fixed route

transportation industry

• Transfers allow:– Access between more locations– More frequent service to all locations at the

same cost– High volume movements to major points– Small vehicle service to low volume points

Transfer Point Coordination

• People don’t like to transfer– Takes too much time– Effected by the weather– Worried about missing connections

• Frequent headways make transferring, much less onerous– For many locations, frequent headways are not

possible

Transfer Point Coordination

• Operational requirements– Need to keep all buses on time

• Penalty for route failure viewed as very high

– Adds time to the schedule• All routes controlled by the reliability of the least

reliable bus route

– Importance of schedule reliability goes up

Transfer Point Coordination

• How do we keep the schedules reliable?– Build in extra time

• Slows bus down

• Makes riders more impatient

• Costs money

– Use new technology like TSP• Can limit the effect of delays when needed

– Use communications to allow ad hoc delays

Security

• Driver

• Rider

• Vehicle

• Need to locate a moveable asset quickly in order to send the appropriate response to the appropriate location

Fleet Management

• Paratransit Operations– Pick up and delivery routing– Planning– Late driver / bus notification– Security– Also Taxi operations

Fleet Management

• Maintenance– Vehicle maintenance needs from on-board

diagnostics• Engine performance

• Component status

Fleet Management - Maintenance

• Need communications to get the data off-board

• Need database system to maintain the information transmitted

• Need decision support system to turn information into recommended actions

Fleet Management - Maintenance

• Allows improvement over simple MTBF component replacement

• Improves the speed of diagnostics

• Improves monitoring of driver behavior– Is it legal? – Is it moral?

Fleet Management - Maintenance

• Requires better, more detailed record keeping

• What is the cost of the added record keeping, versus what you save by using the system?

System Integration

• In theory – money can be saved if systems share information / infra-structure– Lower data collection costs

• Fewer sensors

• Less data entries

– Lower communications costs

System Integration

• Requires a simple / cost effective means of transferring data from hardware system to hardware system– Standards

• Requires a consistent means of identification– Vehicle tags– Database identifiers– Conversion from vehicle to other (e.g., route)

System Integration

• Problem of connecting to legacy systems

• Identifiers are missing

• Difficult to change existing code / data structures

• Systems were often designed to stand alone and lack communications capabilities

System Integration

• Location Data– How do we define a location?

• 123 45th St?

• 45th St and Seventh Avenue

• X/Y/Z coordinates

• Milepost 12.3 on State Route 7

• Next to the 7-11 on 45th

System Integration• In reality –

– Vendors like proprietary solutions• Limits competition• Ensures repeat business• Allows sales based on unique characteristics• Can lower development cost to vendor• Can limit potential for innovation

– Requires effort to create / encourage standards– Requires effort to manage system used by

someone else– Who pays for added capabilities?

On-Board System Integration

• On-Board systems in particular can benefit from integration

• Sharing of information eliminates sensors and data entry– Vehicle ID– Location– Communications

On/Off Board Communications

• Who pays for the difference between a simple dumb tag off-board communications link and a “smart” off-board link that contains a variety of other data?

On-Board System Integration

• Vehicle ID

• Needed for almost every task– Revenue reporting– Location reporting

• Operations – late bus

• Security

– Maintenance tracking– Planning / ridership data collection

On-Board System Integration

• Location– Automated passenger counting– Operations – late bus– Operations – TSP (Here I am)– Security– Input to maintenance tracking

• how far vehicle traveled• how vehicle was driven (fast / slow / start / stop)• “here I am” notice to base for data download

On-Board System Integration

• Communications– On-board between systems

• AVI

• AVL

• APC

• Engine diagnostics

• Off-board communications

• Outside displays

• Announcements

• Revenue collection / reporting

On-Board System Integration

• Communications– Off-board: to external systems

• For TSP

• To base – operations

• To base – security

• To base – maintenance data download

• To base – other download

• From base – routes for the day

• From base – database uploads

• From base – “next pick up is” - “directions are as follows”

On-Board Systems Integration

• Standards– SAE J-1708 Van standard – Interface standard

and definitions• SAE J-1587 Protocol and Device Definition

• SAE J-1455 Equipment Environment Standards

• SAE J-XXX In-Progress Connector Standards

J-1708

• A non-proprietary communications protocol based on information sharing to cover transit’s vehicle device and communications needs

• A defined hardware handshake for all manufacturer’s logic boards