Connection Protection: An Evaluation

1. Connection Protection: An Evaluation ITS America Annual Conference Session 44 Presented by Jeff Jenq, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Battelle 10:00-12:00, Wednesday, April 28, 2004 San Antonio, TX

2. Acknowledgement • Joe Peters, JPO, Manager, ITS Program Assessment • Yehuda Gross, JPO • Terrell Williams, FTA • Steve Mortensen, Mitretek • Richard Hodges, UTA ITS Project Manager • Chris Cluett, Battelle • Ben Pierce, Battelle • Alan Pate, Battelle • Mitsuru Saito, BYU • Salt Lake County Aging Services

3. Background of UTA CP Evaluation • CP protects rail-to-bus transfers by sending a text message to a bus to hold for the late train • System completed in Jan. 02 • Successfully operated during the Winter Olympics • Identified by FHWA ITS Joint Program Office and FTA for Evaluation • Evaluation period: Dec. 02 ~ Apr. 04 • Final evaluation report to be published in May 04 available on FHWA EDL

4. Objectives of CP System • Protect transfers from higher frequency light rail (TRAX) to lower frequency bus services • CP system examines the status of TRAX trains and issues a “Hold at {Station} Until {Time}” message to buses waiting at next 3 rail stations via Mobile Data Terminal, if lateness of train is within a pre-determined threshold (e.g., 3 minutes) • Only protect the selected transfers where • Bus departure meets train arrival • Penalty of missing a bus is high • Last service • High ridership bus routes

5. Operating Environment

6. Train Location By GPS 800 Mhz Radio Train Location ETA Estimation By Geo Focus ETA Electronic Sign at Train Station ETA CP Server By TransCore • CP Assignment • Bus Schedule • Train Schedule Mobile Data Terminal Status Of Radio CP Message 450 Mhz Radio Voice & Data Radio Server CP Message Hold at {Station Name} Until {Time} Bus Radio Control Coordinator Components of CP System

7. Hold at {Station Name} Until {Time} CP in Actions

8. Evaluation Approach • Quantitative study (analysis of system data) • Train arrival time • Bus departure time • CP messages • Qualitative study (user perceptions) • Bus operators (survey, interview) • Radio control coordinators, supervisors, managers (interview) • Bus riders (onboard survey)

9. CP Operational Characteristics • CP is triggered by late trains • One late train event could produce multiple CP messages (i.e., CP system compares ETA for next three stations and each station may have multiple protected transfers) • Small percentage (2%) of late train events were recorded • About 17 CP messages per day • Not all transfers are protected by CP

10. Two definitions of successful connection: When the bus departed more than (1) 120 (2) 180 seconds after the train arrived Quantitative Study Findings • CP significantly increased the percentage of successful rail-to-bus connections • 3.1~3.9 times more likely to have a successful connection at CP protected routes (120 sec. and 180 sec. definitions) • 2~3 times more likely to have successful connections when CP messages were issued (120 sec. and 180 sec. definitions)

11. Quantitative Study Findings (continued) • Most bus operators departed after the scheduled departure time; Bus operators tended to hold the bus longer past scheduled departure time when CP “hold until” message was issued • 51% of bus operators who received CP messages departed after the recommended time – suggesting the need to improve level of compliance • Mechanism for determining when to send a CP message was not associated with actual lateness of the train at TRAX station – suggesting the need to improve ETA estimation

12. Qualitative Study Findings • Bus operators reported a high number (2/3) of unnecessary CP messages received • 49% of operators indicated arriving late at TRAX station • Train was not late • Most bus operators will wait most of the time to pick up train passengers regardless of CP messages (customer orientation) • Tight scheduling reduced bus operators’ compliance to CP messages • Lack of slack time in schedule at TRAX stations • Unfamiliar with service route (especially for the extra board operators)

13. Qualitative Study Finings (continued) • 50% of operators agreed CP should be used on more routes; <20% disagreed • Most bus riders are not aware of CP program as CP was not advertised • Small but positive effects measured by rider reports of trip satisfaction and connection success for those who ride on CP protected routes • Many experienced transfer riders have learned to take an earlier train to avoid missing connection

14. Conclusions • CP is a low cost insurance to help increase connection success • CP utilizes existing ITS infrastructures and is highly flexible in terms of which transfer to protect and adjustment of decision parameters to hold a bus • Rooms for improvement • Operators’ compliance (more reasonable schedule, training and education) • Accuracy in issuance of CP messages • Improve current ETA estimates • Include bus status information when AVL is deployed • Better alignment of bus and train schedules improves rail-to-bus connections

15. For More Information:Jeff Jenq, BattelleJENQJ@BATTELLE.ORG(480) 655-8931Evaluation Report Will Be Available on FHWA EDL Web Site By End of May 2004