Real-time passenger information first principles assessment

Real-time passenger information

First principles assessment

Why introduce Real Time Passenger Information?

The information requirements for public transport passengers can be grouped into three categories (Huber, 1996; Caulfield and O’Mahony, 2007):

information for pre-trip travel planning i.e. gathering information before embarking on the journey;
information at stops or interchange points (wayside information, which can include information supplied to personal handheld devices such as mobile phones and personal digital assistants); and
information whilst inside the vehicles. Real time information contributes to all these elements of this process. In addition, real time information can be transmitted to trip planning systems hosted on websites to enable users to check the performance (including delays) of public transport services before embarking on their journeys.

Benefits to Passengers

With regard to wayside information, research has shown that waiting for the bus and not knowing when it will arrive causes passengers to feel anxious and frustrated (Dziekan and Vermulen, 2006; Dziekan and Kottenhof, 2007). The provision of RTPI is therefore useful in reducing the perceived cost of waiting (Li, 2003; Litman 2008). This is primarily because waiting/interchange time is perceived by travellers as a strong deterrent to using public transport. It has therefore been argued (e.g. Schweiger, 2003) that customer service and “goodwill” as well as the visibility of public transport’s role in the community can be improved by introducing RTPI. Furthermore, Multisystems Inc (2003) analysis of survey findings following RTPI introductions in Seattle, USA suggest that provision of RTPI may help public transport retain the very customers who are most likely to leave such as marginal and occasional public transport users by improving the image of public transport to such users.

Although the benefits of RTPI are primarily intangible, it has been demonstrated that customers value information provision in general (Herrala,2007) and RTPI in particular. A survey of the literature reported in Balcombe et al (2004) suggested that the value of the RTPI system in London, UK (known as “Countdown” (see Figure 1)) was valued at 10 pence per trip in 1996 prices. This suggests that provision of accurate information is of value to public transport users. In addition, Balcombe et al (2004) also found that real time information was valued more highly than conventional published information (e.g. timetables) which some users may not consult (Vance and Balcombe, 1997).

Benefits to Operators

Initially, many operators were somewhat hesitant regarding the introduction of RTPI (Centaur and Warman, 2004). This is due to the possible revenue loss due to passengers taking an alternative service or mode (especially in markets where operations are deregulated) knowing that their service would be delayed. However public transport operators have come to realise that the supporting technology behind RTPI can be used for improving fleet despatch and control operations, as discussed below, and hence the operators’ initial scepticism with RTPI have been reduced.

The supporting technology for RTPI is based on Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). The AVL technology is of value to bus operators for several reasons (Gomez et al, 1998; BAH 2006). Firstly the main benefit of AVL is improvement of operational efficiency (Schweiger, 2003). Secondly, RTPI infrastructure allows immediate notification of delays encountered by vehicles on the network to be transmitted to users at stops and interchange points. Thirdly AVL will allow for real time frequency correction to reduce the potential of bunching (simultaneous arrival of buses at stops due to en-route delays) so that standby buses are dispatched to subsequent points to spread passenger loadings during the occurrence of incidents including breakdowns. Fourthly, incorporation of AVL technology allows for the integration of technologies for fare collection (e.g. smart card readers) in particular when the fare basis is distance or zone dependent.

Benefits to Local Authorities

Many local authorities around the world wish to improve their public transport services, increase ridership and where applicable reduce the subsidy levels for public transport funding. To enable public transport to compete more effectively with the car, the technology used to deliver RTPI and its backbone AVL infrastructure also allows for integration with traffic control systems to provide priority for late running buses (Hill et al 2001; Clarke et al, 2007). Hence RTPI may be regarded as a manifestation of one aspect of the measures in providing priority to public transport.

Whatever the tangible benefits are and when considering a roll out of RTPI, the following key points from Vance and Balcombe (1997) provide important considerations when delivering public transport information in general and RTPI in particular:

Good passenger information is necessary as part of any strategy to stem or reverse decline in public transport use;
Both regular and occasional passengers appear to have similar information needs;
Expense of necessary vehicle location for RTPI may be less prohibitive if it is introduced as part of an integrated urban control system; and
Investment in information systems is not a substitute for investment in other public transport improvements; good information will not sell bad services.

Demand Impacts

The responses to cycle lanes and priority measures are dependent on whether or not they are implemented as comprehensive network solutions and in combination with other measures (e.g. safe crossing points) that improve safety such as lower speed limits.

Responses and situations

Response	Reduction in road traffic	Expected in situations
	-
		Travellers might change their route and consider taking alternative public transport routes in event of delays as it is usually the case especially if an alternate public transport service caters to their needs.
	-
	-
	/	Cycle lanes and priority may encourage mode switch from car and public transport to cycle especially on shorter trips.
	-	Comprehensive implementation of high-quality cycle lanes and priority measures may influence car purchase decisions.
	-	The quality of the journey to work and other key destinations may be a consideration in relocation decisions.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Demand responses

Response	1st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years



	-	-	-	-
	/	/	/	/
	-	-	-	-
	-	-	-	-

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Supply impacts

Generally speaking, the supply impact is indirect and the AVL technology is intended to improve reliability of supply. The use of AVL enables operators to schedule their bus fleets more efficiently (Gomez et al 1998; BAH 2006) and also enables real time dispatching of supplementary vehicles where incidents or delays occur to maintain the scheduled service frequency and reduce “bunching” (bunching is a situation which occurs when buses appear together rather than separated by their published frequency and occurs due to congestion or incidents en route).

Financing requirements

Implementing RTPI can incur quite large sums of expenditure (A trial in the East Kent in the UK (Centaur and Warman 2004) reported capital expenditure in the region of £324,000 (2004 prices) with annual revenue expenditure per year of £100,000, this was for equipping 60 buses and providing 6 at stop displays; on the other hand London’s “Countdown” system for 6000 buses and 4000 signs cost up to US$70 m.) Therefore the cost of implementing RTPI can be substantial but generally speaking declining as technology improves. In addition, RTPI is rarely implemented on its own but in combination with a package of measures to improve overall public transport services which makes it difficult to attribute the cost of RTPI precisely.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		Public transport users are able to more efficiently utilise the public transport service resulting in a reduction in the perceived cost of waiting time as well as the perceived unreliability of services and therefore representing an efficiency improvement.
		To the extent that vehicle kilometres are reduced
		To the extent that vehicle kilometres are reduced
		In theory (Holdsworth et al, 2007) it helps to balance the advantages and disadvantages of using public transport with those associated by private cars.
	-
	-
		While it may be costly to introduce on its own, its cost may be reduced through partnerships with operators, technology providers and governments. In addition, RTPI is seldom provided on its own but within an integrated public transport package of improvements.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion-related delay
Congestion-related unreliability
Community severance	-
Visual intrusion		Display ‘boards’ could add to visual intrusion.
Lack of amenity	-	Small contribution to access to existing amenities.
Global warming		Small contribution if patronage increases result from RTPI
Local air pollution		Small contribution if patronage increases result from RTPI
Noise		Small contribution if patronage increases result from RTPI
Reduction of green space	-
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites	-	Small contribution if patronage increases result from RTPI
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments		RTPI improves perceptions of public transport reliability and would have some positive impact here since such groups would feel more confident in user public transport services they may not have trusted in the past.
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups		RTPI improves perceptions of public transport reliability and would have some positive impact here since such groups would feel more confident in user public transport services they may not have trusted in the past.
Number, severity and risk of accidents	-
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area	-

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

Winners and losers

Group	Winners / losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic	-
Small businesses		If travellers know how long they have to wait for the next bus, they may be able to spend their interchange/wait times browsing in shops. In that way shops that depend on foot and passing traffic may benefit.
High income car-users	-	Small benefit if increased patronage results in less congestion – most likely where RTPI is part of a package of measures that constrain induced traffic.
People with a low income		These people are more likely to be PT users, especially bus users and will benefit from improved information and better perceptions of the service potentially.
People with poor access to public transport		Perceived reliability may improve.
All existing public transport users		They will have a better perception of their wait times and the service levels of public transport. They may also find alternative diversions during their wait time that better serves their purposes and not worry about missing the bus.
People living adjacent to the area targeted		May benefit from a ‘better’ service on their door step.
People making high value, important journeys		May benefit from a ‘better’ service on their door step.
The average car user		May find PT more attractive and hence gain some small benefit.

	= weakest possible benefit,		= strongest benefit
	= weakest possible disbenefet,		= strongest possible disbenefit

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

Scale of barriers

Barrier	Scale	Comment
Legal		There are no obvious legal barriers to the implementation of RTPI.
Finance		The cost of implementing it on its own could be expensive. However it is seldom implemented on its own but within a comprehensive package for improving public transport usage. Strong project management is critical for the successful deployment of a real-time information system.
Political		There are no obvious political barriers to the implementation of RTPI.
Feasibility		The technology is already available and hence this would be a minimal barrier. There may be some security concerns with regards to the vulnerability of attacks knowing information about where the bus is and when it is arriving (BAH,2006) although this might be thought to be minimal. Strong project management is critical for the successful deployment of a real-time information system.

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier