RESEARCH RESULTS FAVORABLE FOR APTS

	by William Ball, Research Associate, CUTR

In a recent report published as part of the National Urban Transit Institute at CUTR, an alternative investments analysis was developed to estimate the ridership and revenue impacts of traditional transit investments and compare these impacts to the potential impact of APTS investments.

Two of the traditional transit investment alternatives that were analyzed included an increase in level of service and a reduction in the average passenger fare. In this exercise, a transit system that is representative of those in the U.S. is assumed to be contemplating a $1 million investment in APTS.

Characteristics of the representative transit system were established by dividing aggregated national bus transit statistics by the number of bus systems in the U.S. The impacts of these investment alternatives were estimated through the use of demand elasticities.

Results of the comparison indicated that, for a representative transit agency, a proposed $1 million investment annualized over six years could be used to:

• increase revenue miles of service, resulting in 48,840 new revenue miles and 93,708 new unlinked passenger trips;
• This assumes that the $60,959 increase in passenger fare revenues is used to expand service throughout the six year time period;
• reduce the average passenger fare, resulting in a reduction in the average fare of nearly $.02, 129,003 new unlinked passenger trips, and a $125,877 decline in passenger fare revenues; and
• implement an APTS technology that would require at least a 0.67 percent increase in ridership to achieve the same result as service expansion, or a 0.92 percent increase in ridership to match the impact of reducing the average fare.

Although somewhat limited, some "before and after" studies of AVL investments have been conducted to estimate ridership impacts. In Toronto, a 0.5 to 1.0 percent increase in ridership was reported, while declining ridership trends were stopped or reversed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Dublin, Ireland. These studies suggest that, for AVL systems, it would be reasonable to expect ridership increases similar to those estimated for a service increase and fare reduction for the representative transit system.

Ridership changes in response to other types of APTS investments were not determined, but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility to expect a similar response to several other APTS investments, including advanced fare payment media, computerized telephone information systems, and passenger information displays.

The feasibility of APTS investments is further supported since the analysis focused only on the potential for increased ridership and associated fare revenues. The potential for achieving numerous other benefits of APTS technologies contributes further to the feasibility of many of the APTS investments. Other benefits might include increased efficiency, reduced operating costs, and improved data collection and analysis, among others.

The alternative investments analysis is just one component of a project entitled "Economic and Policy Considerations of APTS." This project resulted in two technical reports, including "Background and Review of Evaluation Approaches" and "Assessing the Economic Feasibility of APTS." The first report documents the current state of APTS technologies and the approaches that have been used in their evaluation. The second report provides a general assessment of the costs and benefits of major APTS technologies, as well as the results of the alternative investments analysis.

For additional information or to receive copies of these reports, contact CUTR Research Associate Bill Ball at ball@eng.usf.edu.

Please direct all comments and/or questions regarding this page to webmaster@cutr.usf.edu.

Return to the CUTR Home Page