United States
This research documented the current state-of-practice of fixed-route and demand responsive automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems. A literature review was conducted and the results of on-line surveys and case study telephone interviews were evaluated to collect information on the characteristics of implemented bus AVL systems, and examine agency experiences during the design, procurement, implementation, and integration of these systems.
Using an on-line survey software tool, questionnaires were distributed to 107 different transit agencies in the United States and Internationally. Thirty-two (32) agencies responded to the survey. Researchers consolidated participant responses to each of the survey questions and highlighted important findings documenting benefits, costs, and lessons learned.
The synthesis also included a review of capital cost data collected from 27 recent contract awards dating from 2001 to 2007 in the United States and Canada. Researchers developed a formula to calculate rough estimates of AVL implementation costs based on data collected that showed how contract award values increased with increased fleet size.
Contract Award = $17,577(Fleet Size) + $2,506,759 (with an R2=0.677).
The equation is best suited for fleets having less than 750 vehicles and assumes that the costs for the central system are generally insensitive to fleet size and the costs for onboard systems are relatively proportional to fleet size. Researchers noted that there are additional factors not reflected in the model that may affect price, such as:
- The competitive situation for the particular procurement.
- The specific scope of the procurement and whether or not significant capital cost items such as radio system enhancements or a real-time passenger information systems are included.
- The effects of inflation and other marketplace factors on system prices over time.
The data used to formulate the equation above were derived from the following agencies as detailed in Table 34 of the report.
Table 34 (Recent Agency Contract Awards)
Agency
|
Year
|
Fleet Size
|
Award
|
---|---|---|---|
Island Explorer (Bar Harbor, ME) |
2001
|
17
|
$801,385
|
Grand River Transit (Waterloo Region, ON) |
2005
|
34
|
$2,683,229
|
Coordinated Transit System (Lake Tahoe, CA) |
2002
|
47
|
$3,600,000
|
CityBus (Culver City, CA) |
2005
|
55
|
$3,500,000
|
York Region Transit (Toronto, ON) |
2004
|
77
|
$8,695,652
|
Intercity Transit (Olympia, WA) |
2005
|
85
|
$4,400,000
|
StarTran (Lincoln, NE) |
2007
|
93
|
$1,400,000
|
Regional Transportation Commission (Reno, NV) |
2002
|
122
|
$4,750,000
|
VOTRAN (Daytona Beach, FL) |
2005
|
153
|
$3,812,245
|
C-Tran (Vancouver, WA) |
2004
|
165
|
$3,600,000
|
Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (Nashville, TN) |
2007
|
224
|
$7,300,000
|
Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) |
2003
|
228
|
$6,500,000
|
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (Tampa Bay, FL) |
2006
|
297
|
$9,281,981
|
Foothill Transit (West Covina, CA) |
2006
|
300
|
$11,700,000
|
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (Kansas City, MO) |
2003
|
356
|
$6,630,807
|
Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA) |
2007
|
391
|
$6,200,000
|
Bee-Line (Westchester Co) |
2006
|
410
|
$9,700,000
|
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Customized Community Transportation (Philadelphia, PA) |
2007
|
500
|
$17,800,000
|
San Diego Transit, North County Transit District (San Diego, CA) |
2004
|
515
|
$8,400,000
|
Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority (Austin, TX) |
2006
|
599
|
$12,141,865
|
Valley Metro (Phoenix, AZ) |
2002
|
740
|
$14,800,000
|
TransLink (Vancouver, BC) |
2006
|
1,296
|
$30,434,783
|
Metro Transit (Houston, TX) |
2003
|
1,315
|
$20,000,000
|
New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority paratransit (New York, NY) |
2006
|
1,329
|
$16,000,000
|
King County Metro (Seattle, WA) |
2007
|
1,449
|
$25,000,000
|
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Washington, DC) |
2001
|
1,700
|
$8,500,000
|
ChicagoTransit Authority (Chicago, IL) |
2007
|
1,900
|
$24,000,000
|
The data suggest $10,000 to $20,000 per vehicle as a general rule of thumb for capital costs. Although the AVL systems identified were similar, there was some variation in the specific scope of each system (including subsystems) and communication enhancements required by each agency.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS
Table 10 of the report, summarize the cumulative capital costs for bus AVL (including costs for vehicles and central systems). Mobile radio system enhancements were not included.
Table 10 (System Non-communications Capital Costs on a Per Vehicle Basis)
Capital Costs
|
% of Agencies
|
---|---|
$10,000 or less |
22.2
|
$10,001 - $20,000 |
33.3
|
$20,001 - $30,000 |
25.9
|
$30,001 - $40,000 |
3.7
|
$40,001 - $50,000 |
3.7
|
$50,001 - $60,000 |
0.0
|
$60,001 - $70,000 |
0.0
|
$70,001 - $80,000 |
0.0
|
$80,001 - $90,000 |
0.0
|
$90,001 - $100,000 |
7.4
|
More than $100,000 |
3.7
|
The costs below excerpted from Table 11 of the report summarize system capital costs for mobile communications system enhancements needed to support the bus AVL system.
Table 11 (System Communications Capital Costs on a Per Vehicle Basis)
Capital Costs
|
% of Agencies
|
---|---|
$1,000 or less |
38.1
|
$1,001 - $2,000 |
19.0
|
$2,001 - $3,000 |
9.5
|
$3,001 - $4,000 |
9.5
|
$4,001 - $5,000 |
9.5
|
$5,001 - $6,000 |
0.0
|
$6,001 - $7,000 |
0.0
|
$7,001 - $8,000 |
4.8
|
$8,001 - $9,000 |
9.5
|
$9,001 - $10,000 |
0.0
|
More than $10,000 |
0.0
|
AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update (TCRP Synthesis 73)
AVL systems for bus transit: $10K to $20K per vehicle