DOCSLIB.ORG

MBTA-Realtime Integrating Predictions and Alerts Into One GTFS-Based Platform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MBTA-Realtime Integrating Predictions and Alerts Into One GTFS-Based Platform MBTA-realtime Integrating predictions and alerts into one GTFS-based platform T3 Open Data Webinar, December 2013 Dave Barker, [email protected] Manager of Operations Technology, MBTA Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons The MBTA: • Serves 175 member cities and towns • Carries 1.3 million passengers each weekday • Operates heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus, ferry, and paratransit • Extensive data sharing: GTFS, realtime, more Image credit: walkingbostonian.blogspot.com 2009-2012: Rapid development led to numerous feeds GTFS GTFS API Bus (NextBus) GTFS- Bus (RealTimeBus) realtime csv/json/ Commuter rail xml csv/json Heavy rail 2.0 csv/json/ Heavy rail 1.0 xml Alerts 1.0 RSS Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons The MBTA-realtime vision Bus locations API NextBus (NextBus) Limited GTFS GTFS GTFS Com.rail predictions GTFS- New realtime Subway predictions MBTA-realtime software API (XML, JSON) Elevator status RSS Alerts thru GUI (alerts only) Phase I, June 2013 Bus locations API NextBus (NextBus) Limited GTFS GTFS GTFS (schedule only) Com.rail predictions GTFS- New realtime Subway predictions MBTA-realtime software API (XML, JSON) Elevator status RSS Alerts thru GUI (alerts only) Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons Technical details • Designed and written by IBI Group for MBTA • C# application with Microsoft SQL Server back-end on two Amazon cloud servers • Based around foundation of GTFS data • Alert GUI • XML / JSON API, GTFS-realtime, RSS • Website, subscription service Alert GUI Today’s trains (per GTFS) Alert will clear after selected train scheduled to reach destination Text generated as you make selections Recurring alerts Details and URL Developer output & outreach Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons MBTA to Customers (SMS, email, website) Developers to customers (web, apps, notification) Google Transit BOS Roadify Developers to customers (web, apps, notification) Embark ProximiT Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons Customers #1 Complaint #2 Complaint I want I want fewer more alerts! alerts! Customers Positive - 30,000 subscribers - Alert detail & precision - Web page design Negative - Consistency - SMS delays - Subscriber options Internal users Positive - Simple alerts are easy - Having accurate lists of trips, stops - Ability to review user actions Negative - Complex alerts are hard - Many audiences to consider at once (Alerts vs. website, email vs. SMS…) - Some repetitive actions Developers Positive - 100+ have registered to develop (!) - 30 of 65 polled “Plan to release app” - Alerts integrated quickly into some of the most popular apps Negative - RSS feed “good enough” for many - Many holding off until phase II (real-time) - No “T-Alert service killer” app yet Developers’ Plans using MBTA Data (November 2013 Survey) Using in released app Using in app in development Might use Won't use 7 9 13 13 13 12 19 8 20 23 9 7 29 9 12 17 23 11 20 16 13 20 16 16 6 12 14 2 5 10 9 8 5 6 5 5 2 3 0 0 Alerts: RSS Schedule: GTFS Schedule: Commuter connect Commuter MBTA-realtime API MBTA-realtime Alerts: GTFS-realtime Subway predictions: v2 predictions: Subway v1 predictions: Subway Commuter rail predictions rail Commuter Bus predictions: NextBus API NextBus Bus predictions: Bus predictions: GTFS-realtime predictions: Bus Motivation Vision Execution Results Response Lessons Lessons •GTFS base successful •Development method worked well •Developer encouragement •Real-time information more fun for developers than alerts •The advantage of third parties Next steps •Real-time integration for subway, commuter rail •Twitter integration •Steps to reduce message volume and improve formatting •Encourage further development •Leverage the API ourselves Thank you Visit realtime.mbta.com for more. Acronym Reference - API Application Programming Interface - CSV Comma-Separated Value - GTFS General Transit Feed Specification - GUI Graphical User Interface - JSON JavaScript Object Notification - MBTA Mass. Bay Transportation Authority - RSS Really Simple Syndication - SMS Short Message Service - XML eXtensible Markup Language Dave Barker, Manager of Operations Technology, [email protected] .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet
    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City
    CASE STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City In 2019, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) released a tender to Shared Mobility providers to develop a new scalable and sustainable on-demand transit proposal. At a glance Liftango was engaged by the MTA for a The MTA network comprises the nation’s simulation service to predict the uptake largest bus fleet and more subway and for an implemented on-demand service. commuter rail cars than all other U.S. Liftango’s simulation technology was transit systems combined. The MTA’s provided to MTA as a benchmark to operating agencies are MTA New York City measure the realism and efficiency of Transit, MTA Bus, Long Island Rail Road, tender proposals from shared mobility Metro-North Railroad, and MTA Bridges and providers. Essentially, enabling MTA to Tunnels. make an educated decision on whom they should choose as their on-demand provider. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America’s largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. 01 The Problem MTA needed to provide a one of the largest growing As MTA’s first time launching better transport solution sectors in the next five to ten this type of project, there to the people of New York years. The census shows was some risk surrounding City’s outer areas. Why? that a number of people are launch. By engaging Liftango, Existing bus services being leaving for work between 3-6 the aim was to mitigate risk, less frequent than a subway pm and therefore returning simulate possible outcomes service or completely during the overnight period.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With corresponding provisions of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Law Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority California Public Utilities Code Page 2 of 110 Introduction The Southern California Rapid Transit District, also known as the SCRTD or the “District” (1964-1993) was created by the State as the successor to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or “LAMTA” (1958-1964). LAMTA was the first publicly governed transit operator in Los Angeles and also responsible for the planning of a new mass transit system to replace the aging remnants of the transit systems built by Pacific Electric (1899-1953) and Los Angeles Railway (1895-1945). Unfortunately, the LAMTA had no ability to raise tax revenues or powers of eminent domain, and its board was appointed by the Governor, making the task building local support for mass transit improvements difficult at best. Dissatisfaction with the underpowered LAMTA led to a complete re-write of its legislative authority. While referred to in state legislation as a merger, the District law completely overwrote the LAMTA Act of 1957. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, also known as LACTC or the “Commission” (1977-1993) was created by the State in 1976 as a separate countywide transportation planning agency, along with transportation commissions in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. At the time the District was initially created, there were no transit or transportation grant programs available from the State or Federal governments. Once funding sources became available from the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit Administration, the California Transportation Commission, and others, the creation of county transportation commissions ensured coordination of multimodal transportation planning and funding programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fy20 Strategic Plan
    FAIRFIELD AND SUISUN TRANSIT FY20 STRATEGIC PLAN FOUNDATION MISSION VISION At FAST, we strive to: To provide a safe and efficient transportation service for our community with . Provide sustainable and innovative service. a high standard of quality. Have a positive impact on our community and environment. Deliver convenient service so people will ride with us. PRINCIPLES STEWARDSHIP SERVICE RELATIONS POSITIVE OUTCOMES We will appropriately manage taxpayer We will provide our community with the We will work as a team to foster positive We will proactively seek innovative resources: time, money, people, and facilities highest quality service by focusing on safety, relations with each other, our customers, our improvements that result in positive and to serve the community and improve our convenience, reliability, and sustainability. community, and our stakeholders. sustainable outcomes. environment. VALUES COMMUNITY/ FACILITIES FINANCES FLEET OPERATIONS SAFETY SYSTEMS CUSTOMERS EMPLOYEES GOALS • Conduct annual FAST • Hire Transportation • Partner with City • Seek and assist with applying • Work with outside consultant • Conduct a Request for • Reduce preventable • Award contract and Customer Satisfaction Survey Manager, Transit engineering staff to continue for funding opportunities for and PG&E to develop an Proposal (RFP) for Transit accident rate to meet implement an updated to monitor performance Operations Manager, engineering, design, and fleet replacement, Fairfield- effective Fleet Ready Plan Operations Services and contract safety standards. transit data management goals and evaluate service Public Works Assistant, construction efforts on the Vacaville Train Station: Phase for the Corporation Yard. award contract. • Use DriveCam to system. quality. and Office Specialist following key projects: II construction (additional • Solicit bids/award contract • Complete a RFP identifying continually improve safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Bus Planning Process
    The 2018 South Carolina Intercity Bus Program Evaluation Prepared for the South Prepared by: Carolina Department of RLS & Associates, Inc. Transportation, Office of Public Transit December, 2018 955 Park St, Room 201 –POBox 191 Columbia, SC 29202 (803) 737‐2146 https://www.scdot.org/inside/inside-PublicTransit.aspx#services Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Work Program ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 South Carolina Intercity Busy Service ........................................................................................................................ 1 State’s Intercity Bus Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 5311(f) Funding Recommendations........................................................................................................... 2 II. Project Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods
    T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Synthesis 31 Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1998 PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE OFFICERS CHAIRMAN Chairwoman: SHARON D. BANKS, General Manager, AC Transit, Oakland, California MICHAEL S. TOWNES Vice Chair: WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation Peninsula Transportation District Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Commission Washington, D.C. MEMBERS MEMBERS BRIAN J.L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University SHARON D. BANKS of Texas at Dallas AC Transit SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement Inc., Washington, D.C LEE BARNES E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation Barwood Inc JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland GERALD L. BLAIR JOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center. Lehigh University Indiana County Transit Authority GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO University New Jersey Transit Corporation DELON HAMPTON, Chairman & CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C., ROD J. DIRIDON LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Civil Engineering (Past Chair, International Institute for Surface 1986) Transportation Policy Study JAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York SANDRA DRAGGOO THOMAS F. LARWIN, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board CATA BRADLEY L.
    [Show full text]
  • DOT Is Committed to Ensuring That
    Signed and Anticipated Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Funding Agreements Since 1/20/2017 FTA has advanced funding for 41 new CIG projects throughout the nation under this Administration since January 20, 2017, totaling approximately $10.7 billion in funding commitments. Date Signed by CIG Funding Project Name Project Sponsor Mode Total Project Cost FTA Commitments 1 Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (CA) Caltrain Commuter rail 5/23/2017 $1,930,670,934 $647,000,000 2 Purple Line LRT (MD) Maryland Transit Administration Light rail 8/22/2017 $2,407,030,286 $900,000,000 3 Laker Line BRT (MI) Interurban Transit Partnership BRT 2/9/2018 $72,761,922 $56,189,668 4 Jacksonville First Coast Flyer BRT East Corridor (FL) Jacksonville Transportation Authority BRT 2/23/2018 $34,009,455 $16,930,000 5 Prospect MAX BRT (MO) Kansas City Area Transportation Authority BRT 4/9/2018 $55,810,330 $29,890,000 6 Everett Swift II BRT (WA) Community Transit BRT 4/9/2018 $73,631,772 $43,190,000 7 SMART Regional Rail - San Rafael to Larkspur Extension (CA) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Commuter rail 4/9/2018 $55,435,057 $20,032,873 8 IndyGo Red Line (IN) Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation BRT 5/14/2018 $96,329,980 $74,989,685 9 Tacoma Link Extension (WA) Sound Transit Light rail 5/15/2018 $214,613,395 $74,999,999 10 Albuquerque Rapid Transit (NM) ABQ Ride BRT 8/30/2018 $133,671,298 $75,035,549 11 Santa Ana Streetcar (CA) Orange County Transportation Authority Streetcar 11/30/2018 $407,759,966 $148,955,409 12 Lynnwood Link (WA) Sound
    [Show full text]
  • Complementary Paratransit Service Compliance Review Guam
    U.S. Department Headquarters East Building, 5m Floor, TCR Of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Federal Transit Administration APR 0 3 2012 Mr. Rudy Cabana Interim General Manager Guam Regional Transit Authority Government of Guam P.O. Box 2896 Hagatna GU 96932 Re: ADA Complimentary Paratransit Service Compliance Review Final Report Dear Mr. Cabana: Thank you for your responses to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Compliance Review conducted at the Guam Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) from February 9-12, 2010. FTA would like to thank you and your staff for the cooperation provided during the review. At that time, you were informed that FTA would issue a draft report of the findings, on which GRTA would have an opportunity to provide comment, and a final report would then be released. GRTA's comments were to be included in the attachments to the final report. Upon receiving GRTA's comments to the draft report on December 16, 2011, this report is considered final. A copy so marked is enclosed for your records. As of the date of this letter, the Final Report became a public document and is subject to dissemination under the Freedom of Information Act of 1974. FTA recognizes that it has been over two years since our onsite review and that changes have likely occurred in GRTA's paratransit program. We appreciate the efforts that GRTA has already taken to correct the deficiencies identified. We also value the ongoing cooperation and assistance that you and your staff have provided during this review.
    [Show full text]
  • Paratransit Plan Exhibits
    ADA Paratransit Plan Exhibits for Public Comment, December 2017 to January 5, 2018 Paratransit Plan Exhibits Table of Contents EXHIBIT 1: RTS SYSTEM MAP AND SCHEDULES........................... 2 EXHIBIT 2: PARATRANSIT SERVICE AREA MAPS .......................... 2 EXHIBIT 3: SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE ............................................ 8 EXHIBIT 4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & NOTIFICATION ............... 20 EXHIBIT 5: NO-SHOWS (MISSED RIDES) .................................... 38 EXHIBIT 6: COMPLAINTS ........................................................... 53 EXHIBIT 7: TIMELY SERVICE ....................................................... 58 EXHIBIT 8: PICKUP PERIODS FOR RETURN TRIPS AND “NO STRAND” POLICY ....................................................................... 76 EXHIBIT 9: TIME-LINE OF IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 79 EXHIBIT 10: ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION ................................. 110 EXHIBIT 11: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................... 162 EXHIBIT 12: CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES .................... 163 EXHIBIT 13: MPO CERTIFICATION ........................................... 181 EXHIBIT 14: RATIFIED BOARD RESOLUTION ............................ 182 Page 1 of 182 ADA Paratransit Plan Exhibits for Public Comment, December 2017 to January 5, 2018 EXHIBIT 1: RTS SYSTEM MAP AND SCHEDULES This exhibit provides the link to the RTS Service Map for April 2017 https://www.myrts.com/Portals/0/Schedules/RTS- System-Map-April-3-2017.pdf and the link to the portion of the RTS website containing
    [Show full text]
  • Oore Ventura County Transportation Commission
    javascript:void(0) Final Audit Report June 2017 Ventura County Transportation Commission TDA Triennial Performance Audit City of Ojai oore City of Ojai Triennial Performance Audit, FY 2014-2016 Final Report Table of Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ........................................................ 01 Chapter 2: Review Scope and Methodology ..................................... 05 Chapter 3: Program Compliance ...................................................... 09 Chapter 4: Performance Analysis ..................................................... 15 Chapter 5: Functional Review .......................................................... 23 Chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations ..................................... 29 Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2017 City of Ojai Triennial Performance Audit, FY 2014-2016 Final Report This page intentionally blank. Moore & Associates, Inc. | 2017 City of Ojai Triennial Performance Audit, FY 2014-2016 Final Report Chapter 1 Executive Summary In 2017, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) selected the consulting team of Moore & Associates, Inc./Ma and Associates to prepare Triennial Performance Audits of itself as the RTPA, and the nine transit operators to which it allocates funding. As one of the six statutorily designated County Transportation Commissions in the SCAG region, VCTC also functions as the respective county RTPA. The California Public Utilities Code requires all recipients of Transit Development Act (TDA) Article 4 funding to complete an independent audit on a three-year cycle in order to maintain funding eligibility. This is the first Triennial Performance Audit of the City of Ojai. The Triennial Performance Audit (TPA) of the City of Ojai’s public transit program covers the three-year period ending June 30, 2016. The Triennial Performance Audit is designed to be an independent and objective evaluation of the City of Ojai as a public transit operator, providing operator management with information on the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of its programs across the prior three years.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Forward 2050 Transit Projects (Draft)
    MOVING FORWARD 2050 PROJECT LIST - TRANSIT (DRAFT 3-27-20) Plan ID Project Sponsor Project Name Description Location Category Project Year Cost ($M) Known Funds ($M) Fund Source 4510 Petaluma Transit Bus Replacements (transitioning toward zero emissions fleet by 2029)Routine replacement of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma ParatransitPetaluma revenue vehicle fleet, followingTransit FTA Capital useful life Projects cycles and via MTC's TCP2020-2050 process $ 16.6 16.6 MTC FTA 5307, 5339, and TDA funds TR0006 Petaluma Transit Fare Free Program Discounted or fare-free programs system-wide or for specific groups,Petaluma, such CAas K-12, seniors, low-income,Transit Improvementsweekend pilot, -summer Non Capital pilot, or paratransit2022 riders. $ 14.0 0 Unknown 4523 Petaluma Transit Fleet Expansion Fleet expansion for fixed route and paratransit service in order toPetaluma offer more service and meet growingTransit demand. Capital Projects 2020-2050 $ 5.0 0 Unknown 4539 Petaluma Transit Ongoing Bus Stop Improvements Addition of shelters, benches, trash cans, real-time informationPetaluma displays, concrete accessibility Transitpads, solar Capital security Projects lighting, maps, infoposts,2021 etc. at various $existing 10.1bus stops in Petaluma. 0.025 TDA 4515 Petaluma Transit Petaluma Transit - Ongoing Operations Operating costs for Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit,Petaluma based upon September 2019 serviceTransit levels Improvements and costs. - Non Capital 2020-2050 $ 84.0 84 TDA, Measure M, STA, Misc. Grants 4516 Petaluma Transit Service expansion Service expansion including increased service and span on majorPetaluma routes & arterials, additional weekendTransit Improvements and holiday service, - Non Capital additional west2020-2050 side and school $tripper service, 56.1 Phase I BRT implementation0 Unknown on E.
    [Show full text]
  • An Econometric Analysis of Public Transportation in Montreal Vincent Chakour Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechani
    An econometric analysis of public transportation in Montreal Vincent Chakour Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics McGill University, Montreal Submitted Electronically August 14, 2013 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Civil Engineering © Vincent Chakour 2013 Acknowledgments I would first and foremost like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Naveen Eluru, whose inspiring guidance, supervision, and constant support throughout my Master’s program made the completion of this thesis possible. I would also like to thank Guillaume Barreau for modeling the transit trips to McGill in Google Maps, Alex Burkley for his help with land use variable generation, and the transportation team in the Department of Civil Engineering as well as the TRAM research group in the School of Urban Planning for their help and support. I would like to give a special thanks to Ahmed El-Geneidy from the School or Urban Planning, Daniel Bergeron from the Agence Métropolitaine de Transport (AMT), and Jocelyn Grondines from the Société de Transport de Montréal (STM) for providing the necessary data to carry out the studies. I would also like to acknowledge financial support from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under the Discovery Grants program and from the McGill Sustainability Projects Fund. 1 Contributions of Authors Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this report are based on three separate papers. The paper from Chapter 2 has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Public Transport on September 8th 2012 and presented at the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, whereas the paper from Chapter 3 has been presented at the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting and submitted for publication in the journal of Transportation.
    [Show full text]