What Is It?

• En-route transit information is the information that is available to transit riders after they start their trips. It includes arrival and departure times, availability of services such as park and ride, transfers within the system and connections to other modes.
• It is divided into dynamic information—which changes to reflect what is happening in the system—and static information—fixed timetables, routes and the like. Static information is generally most useful for pre-trip planning. Once a user has embarked on a trip, he is more likely to need dynamic information. Tourists and other users unfamiliar with the system may need continual references to static information, but they usually represent a very small share of system users.
• Rudimentary dynamic en-route information has been available in a few large transit systems since the 1970's, mainly in the form of platform signs and auditory announcements of arrivals, connections and system status. Starting in the 1990's, advances in technologies such as vehicle location, route mapping and wireless communications have made it easier and cheaper to provide more detailed, more timely en-route dynamic information, including precise, real-time location of individual trains and buses and the status of the system.
• Information can be displayed passively or interactively and in a variety of media, including television monitors, LED displays, computer-screens in kiosks, variable message boards and auditory announcements.

• It is important to match the system to the needs of transit riders, and those needs vary widely, depending on the riders' familiarity with the system, the stage they are in on their journey and the nature of the transit system. When there are long headways, for example, real-time arrival and departure information is more valuable than when trains or buses arrive close together. Interactive displays that help riders devise routes would be more useful to riders who are unfamiliar with the system than to riders who travel to the same destination regularly. The need for and value of en-route transit information can even vary according to the time of day.
• The type of information that is useful to travelers en-route is best conveyed by passive displays, which are usually visual or auditory. Visual displays lend themselves more readily to automation, though having both ensures reaching all users, even those with auditory and visual impairments.
• Automatic vehicle location technology has matured to the point where it is within the technical capabilities of even smaller transit agencies, and it can double as a fleet management device. Some agencies report significant cost savings by using AVL to implement flex-routing and feeder services and increase the efficiency of their paratransit dispatching.
• Transit users place a high value on information that reduces their uncertainty and increases their sense of security, both of which can be achieved with accurate, timely en-route information.

• Little reliable data exist to measure cost savings or increases in revenue as a result of en-route transit information, though a study of small agencies' use of AVL suggests there is the possibility of saving operating costs through better fleet management.
• Riders have reported high levels of satisfaction in well-implemented projects because the detailed, timely information reduces their uncertainty over the length of their trips and increases their sense of security, two major elements that transit riders value highly. Little evidence has been found to suggest that it leads to increased ridership. Public support for projects in London and San Francisco has been strong.
• Operationally, there is a potential to use vehicle locating technology to allocate resources more efficiently and redirect them more quickly, with cost savings that have yet to be determined.

• Because the technology is still not widely deployed, cost estimates have not been validated by extensive experience. However, one study suggests that the technology is advanced enough to permit the use of off-the-shelf systems, which cost less than customized ones.
• Two recent deployments, in the Boston area and in San Francisco, suggest that costs can be kept down by a gradual or partial introduction of en-route information systems, limited to routes where the benefits are greatest.
• A major expense is the cost of installing locator technology on buses or trains, equipping dispatch centers and installing receivers and signs. Volume savings are significant as the number of equipped vehicles goes up.
• Maintenance of the new equipment is an added cost.
• Agencies must buy and maintain digital maps and databases, but this cost can be offset by multiple licensing agreements or share procurements with other agencies.

Where is it implemented?

In the U.S.:

• San Francisco Muni (select lines)
• Emeryville, CA
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (select lines)
• BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
• Atlanta
• Orlando
• Washington, D.C.

• Montreal Urban Community Transit Corporation
• London
• Paris
• Queensland, Australia
• Gothenburg, Sweden

Author: Phyllis Orrick