Passenger Counting and Service Monitoring A Worldwide Survey of Transportation Agency Practices Lawrence G. Reuter ,. President Passenger Counting and Service Monitoring: A Worldwide Survey of Transportation Agency Practices 2003 PASSENGER COUNTING AND SERVICE MONITORING: A Worldwide Survey of Transportation Agency Practices Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction 1 Summary of Findings 4 Part One: Passenger Counting Technology Introduction 8 Findings: Summary of Responses 13 Findings: Individual Agency Responses 18 Part Two: Service Monitoring Technology Introduction 32 Findings: Summary of Responses 35 Findings: Individual Agency Responses 44 Bibliography 69 Appendices Appendix A: Agency Profiles A-1 Appendix B: Passenger Counting Technology Survey Results B-1 Appendix C: Service Monitoring Technology Survey Results C-1 PREFACE This report, issued by MTA New York City Transit’s (NYC Transit) Division of Operations Planning, covers research conducted in the years 2001 through 2003. In August 2001, NYC Transit surveyed metros from around the world under the auspices of CoMET, the Committee of Major Metros. CoMET provides a forum for the nine participating large international transit agencies (Berlin, Hong Kong, London, Mexico City, Moscow, New York, Paris, São Paulo, and Tokyo) to share information and compare practices. This questionnaire was based on the CoMET goal of gathering and sharing information on peer practices and experiences. Rachel M. Healy and Ross A. Kapilian supervised and provided assistance to intern Madeleine R. Masters in writing this report. Ms. Healy and interns Adam D. Torres and Robert L. Fraley also contributed research and writing. We wish to thank our colleagues throughout the world, whose generous participation in the survey made this research possible. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please contact: Rachel Healy Division of Operations Planning MTA New York City Transit 130 Livingston Street Room 3003C Brooklyn, New York USA 11201 (718) 694-3081 [email protected] a New York City Transit Lawrence G. Reuter, President Barbara R. Spencer, Executive Vice President Division of Operations Planning Keith J. Hom, Chief PASSENGER COUNTING AND SERVICE MONITORING: A Worldwide Study of Transportation Agency Practices ,. Strategic use of information is essential to the provision of quality transit service. New technologies are supplementing traditional methods of data acquisition and processing, providing transit agencies with more accurate and comprehensive information. This paper examines the state of the practice of methods and technologies for data collection and use in passenger counting and service monitoring. Introduction Topics Addressed The topics covered in the survey were In August 2001, MTA New York City chosen because they are essential to (New York City Transit) surveyed metros helping transit agencies plan and evaluate from around the world about methods and the quality of service provision, by technologies used for counting passengers tracking both the demand and supply of and monitoring service. These issues transit service. reflect areas of recent technological development that are of interest to New Passenger counting allows transit York City Transit and other agencies. providers to determine how many passengers are using each mode of transit, at different locations and different times of day. Identifying significant passenger load points helps indicate where service is excessive or deficient, assisting service planning and schedule adjustment. Technologies supplementing or replacing manual passenger counts include ticket- based counting and a spectrum of technologies known as APC (automatic passenger counting) devices. Some In examining these topics, New York City specific benefits of passenger counting Transit intended to increase its knowledge technologies are: base, and had three broad objectives: Collection of disaggregate data at Focus on practices as a means to lower cost and with greater accuracy illustrate how transit agencies than manual counting (especially with throughout the world address basic APC devices), and the ability to operational issues. aggregate data as needed. Promote sharing of information on an Closer, more accurate relation of international basis. passenger boardings and alightings with respective locations. Compare international practices addressing similar topics. With infrared technologies, increased capacity to understand passenger flow on individual trains. 1 Executive Summary Service monitoring technology provides Increased levels of data accuracy, information about system operations and through larger samples and more schedule adherence, assisting transit accurate data collection. agencies in enhancing service provision. By tracking vehicle reliability and Greater frequency of data collection. punctuality, this technology illustrates the quality and adequacy of service. Through Ability to collect data at disaggregate, analysis of service trends, agencies may as well as aggregate, levels—even address a number of issues (e.g., operator-level data. operational, infrastructure-related) that affect service. Service monitoring Potential for technology to automatically process data. In response to security concerns, New York City Transit has elected not to publish a third chapter of this report, which was to have examined security monitoring technologies. Research Efforts In August 2001, New York City Transit surveyed over 50 metros, commuter railroads, and surface transport providers technologies include track or route-based around the world to evaluate technological monitoring systems, automatic train change in passenger counting and service supervision (ATS), and automatic vehicle monitoring. New York City Transit also location (AVL). These technologies conducted a literature search on issues collect various types of information related to these topics. The findings from necessary to improving service, including: the surveys and the literature review are included in each section of the report. On-time performance (OTP) information, including arrival and As shown in Table I-1, 31 agencies, departure times. primarily metros and commuter rail agencies from six continents, responded to Vehicle location, in delay or real time. the questionnaire. Of these, 24 reported on passenger counting and 29 reported on Vehicle and platform load service monitoring. To provide context information. for the study findings, a brief profile of each agency is provided in Appendix A Statistics on delays, breakdowns, and more detailed subject summaries are accidents, and their causes. provided in each chapter. The size of the agencies responding to the surveys varied. Survey responses indicated that, in Some agencies gave combined responses general, passenger counting and service for all modes, while others reported on monitoring technologies offer the different modes individually. Annual following benefits over traditional manual ridership ranged from 14.5 million in methods: Glasgow to 1.4 billion in Mexico City and New York City metros. 2 Executive Summary Table I-1 Questionnaire Respondents City Service Provided Berlin, Germany Metro, Bus, Tram Hong Kong (MTR) Metro Mexico City, Mexico Metro New York City, USA (Bus) Bus New York City, USA (Subway) Metro São Paulo, Brazil Metro Tokyo, Japan Metro Athens, Greece (Attiko) Metro Athens, Greece (OASA) Metro, Bus, Trolley Barcelona, Spain Metro, Bus Boston, USA Metro, Bus, Trolley, Tram, Suburban Rail Budapest, Hungary (Bus) Bus Budapest, Hungary (Metro) Metro Glasgow, Scotland Metro Hamburg, Germany Metro, Bus Jersey City, USA (PATH) Metro Los Angeles, USA Metro, Light Rail, Bus Miami, USA Metro, Bus, Automated Guideway Milan, Italy Metro, Bus, Tram, Trolley Montreal, Canada Metro, Bus Portland, USA Bus, Light Rail Prague, Czech Republic Metro, Bus, Tram Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Metro San Francisco, USA (BART) Metro Singapore Metro, Light Rail South Africa Commuter Rail Stockholm, Sweden Metro, Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Bus Sydney, Australia Commuter Rail Taipei, Taiwan Metro Toronto, Canada (Subway) Metro Toronto, Canada (Surface) Bus, Streetcar 3 Executive Summary Summary of Findings vehicles, and transferring between The following is an overview of survey routes or lines. Data are used findings. Detailed findings are presented primarily to understand ridership in Part One, “Passenger Counting numbers and patterns (16 agencies), Technology” and Part Two, “Service but they are also used for analysis of Monitoring Technology.” Individual on-time performance issues (seven agency responses to the surveys are agencies), revenue issues (three provided in Appendices B and C. agencies), and other issues (nine agencies). In general, data are 95% accurate or better; data from automatic Passenger Counting Technology fare collection devices (AFCs) are Although the practice of passenger reported to be 99% to 100% accurate. counting is still dominated by manual methods, agencies are Coverage: System coverage by increasingly taking counting technologies advantage of the benefits ranges from 2.6% (in offered by passenger Hamburg) to 100% in counting technologies. several agencies. Traditional methods of Agencies report that counting include conducting full system coverage is manual staff counts and not necessary to counting ticketed entries, achieve good results. while automatic passenger Six of the seven counting features an array of agencies with 100% emerging technologies, such as infrared coverage