Evaluating The Use of RouteMatch Software in Billings MET Transit David Kack, Program Manager Mobility and Public Transportation TRB Rural Conference October 20, 2008

Agenda Technology OverviewTechnology Overview MET Transit OverviewMET Transit Overview Implementation and EvaluationImplementation and Evaluation

Technology Overview Computer Aided Scheduling and Dispatching Software (CASD)Computer Aided Scheduling and Dispatching Software (CASD) Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Mobile Data Communication (MDC)Mobile Data Communication (MDC)

General Outcomes CASD software reduces vehicles in service from 200 to 130CASD software reduces vehicles in service from 200 to 130 –Santa Clara County, CA CASD software reduces its operating cost per vehicle-mile 8.5 % and its operating cost per passenger 2.4%CASD software reduces its operating cost per vehicle-mile 8.5 % and its operating cost per passenger 2.4% –Winston-Salem Transit Authority Source: Volpe, 2000

Billings MET Transit City of approximately 102,000City of approximately 102,000 Largest city in MontanaLargest city in Montana MET Transit is a City DepartmentMET Transit is a City Department MET operates both a fixed route and paratransit system (MST)MET operates both a fixed route and paratransit system (MST)

MST Must be ADA Paratransit EligibleMust be ADA Paratransit Eligible Provides rides per dayProvides rides per day Fifteen total vehiclesFifteen total vehicles Eight vehicles out on a “typical” dayEight vehicles out on a “typical” day Can have up to 12 vehicles out on a busy dayCan have up to 12 vehicles out on a busy day

MST Software Mobility Master SoftwareMobility Master Software No support after 2003No support after 2003 Looked for support for purchasing new softwareLooked for support for purchasing new software

Process Initial Paper – Billings MET Transit Paratransit Technology ReviewInitial Paper – Billings MET Transit Paratransit Technology Review “Sales Calls” by Vendors“Sales Calls” by Vendors RFPRFP Installation – “Go live”Installation – “Go live”

Evaluation Collect three months of “before” dataCollect three months of “before” data Collect three months of “after” dataCollect three months of “after” data Same three monthsSame three months Try to hold all variables constantTry to hold all variables constant –Fuel –Weather and road construction –Demand –Etc.

Evaluation Factors Rides per mileRides per mile Rides per hourRides per hour Cost per rideCost per ride Pick up time performancePick up time performance Drop off time performanceDrop off time performance Survey results from dispatchersSurvey results from dispatchers Survey results from driversSurvey results from drivers

Efficiency DifferencePercentage Rides17,00716, % Hours4,7904, % Mileage54,74250,566-4, %

Efficiency – cont’d 2005(Jul-Sept)2006(Jul-Sept)DifferencePercentage Rides/Hour % Rides/Mile %

Cost Purchase price = $83,575Purchase price = $83,575 Annual fee = $11,835Annual fee = $11,835 5 year life span5 year life span $28,550 savings needed to breakeven$28,550 savings needed to breakeven Equates to 3.3% savings needed in hours and/or mileage to break-evenEquates to 3.3% savings needed in hours and/or mileage to break-even

Time Performance

Dispatcher Survey

Driver Survey

Summary Not enough information for a benefit/cost analysisNot enough information for a benefit/cost analysis Break-even analysis shows only small (3%) reduction in service hours, or mileage necessaryBreak-even analysis shows only small (3%) reduction in service hours, or mileage necessary 2006 vs data shows rides/mile and rides per hour increase in efficiency2006 vs data shows rides/mile and rides per hour increase in efficiency

Additional Research Follow-up to see if efficiency continued into 2007 and 2008Follow-up to see if efficiency continued into 2007 and 2008 Resurvey drivers and dispatchersResurvey drivers and dispatchers

Contact David Kack, Program Manager Mobility and Public Transportation Western Transportation Institute