This report estimates the costs of a proposed change to the Access Board’s transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines regarding stop and route announcements. The guidelines currently require buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems to provide a public address system for announcing stops. The Department of Transportation adopted the guidelines as enforceable accessibility standards and requires stops and routes to be announced on vehicles that operate in fixed route systems. Transit agencies can use vehicle operators or automated announcements to comply with the current regulatory requirements. Failure of vehicle operators to announce stops and routes has been a frequent source of complaints to the Department of Transportation and lawsuits against transit agencies.
The Access Board proposes to change the guidelines to require transit agencies that are public entities (i.e., State or local government units) and operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems, as reported in the National Transit Database, to provide automated stop and route announcements on buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems. The Department of Transportation will establish the effective date for this requirement when it adopts the revised guidelines as the updated accessibility standards for transportation vehicles. The requirement will apply when buses are purchased, leased, or remanufactured. Buses currently in service do not have to be retrofitted to meet the requirement.
According to the National Transit Database, 87 transit agencies that are public entities operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems and will be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines. More than 90 percent of these transit agencies currently provide automated stop and route announcements on buses. The report assumes that transit agencies that currently provide automated announcements on buses will continue to do so in the future and will not incur any additional costs as a result of the proposed change to the guidelines. Transit agencies are requested to comment on this assumption. Based on the comments received, this report may be revised at the final rule stage.
Only 7 transit agencies that are public entities and operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems do not currently provide automated stop and route announcements on buses. The total costs of the proposed change to the guidelines for these 7 transit agencies are presented below.
Costs | Present Value (3%)* | Present Value (7%)* | |
---|---|---|---|
* Present value is based on discount rates in OMB Circular No. A-94. | |||
Low Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $9,548,280 | $8,027,897 | $6,534,112 |
Annualized Costs | $795,690 | $668,991 | $544,509 |
High Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $19,678,022 | $16,809,905 | $13,970,121 |
Annualized Costs | $1,639,835 | $1,400,825 | $1,164,767 |
The cost estimates include one-time costs to equip new buses and to set-up backend systems for implementing automated announcements, and on-going maintenance and operation costs for the bus equipment and backend systems. The low cost and high cost scenarios account for variables that can affect costs.
Forty (40) of the transit agencies that are public entities and operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems contract with private entities to operate some or all of the buses. The Department of Transportation regulations require a private entity that acquires vehicles to operate in a fixed route system under contract with a public entity to comply with the accessibility standards applicable to the public entity. The report identifies the private entities that contract with the 40 transit agencies to operate buses in their fixed route systems. These private entities would be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines if they acquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies. These private entities would not be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines if the transit agencies provide the buses to the private entities to operate, of if the private entities deploy buses from their existing fleets to operate in the fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies. Information is not available on whether any of the private entities that contract with the transit agencies acquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies. Private entities that acquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies are requested to provide information on the number of buses acquired on an annual basis for operation under contract with the transit agencies, and whether the buses provide automated stop and route announcements. Based on the information provided, this report may be revised at the final rule stage.
The Access Board prepared this report to estimate the costs of a proposed change to the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines regarding stop and route announcements. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center produced the data presented in the tables and appendices under interagency agreement with the Access Board.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the Access Board to issue guidelines for transportation vehicles that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.1 The guidelines establish minimum requirements for enforceable accessibility standards issued by the Department of Transportation that apply to the acquisition of new, used, and remanufactured transportation vehicles, and the remanufacture of existing transportation vehicles covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.2
The Access Board issued transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines in 1991.3 The guidelines require buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems to provide a public address system for announcing stops.4 The Department of Transportation issued regulations in 1991 that adopted the guidelines as enforceable accessibility standards.5 The Department of Transportation regulations require stops and routes to be announced on vehicles that operate in fixed route systems.6
Transit agencies can use vehicle operators or automated announcements to comply with the current regulatory requirements. Transit agencies that use vehicle operators to announce stops and routes have to systematically monitor vehicle operators and enforce disciplinary procedures to ensure compliance.7 Failure of vehicle operators to announce stops and routes has been a frequent source of complaints to the Department of Transportation and lawsuits against transit agencies.8 Compliance reviews conducted by the Department of Transportation show that vehicle operator compliance with the current regulatory requirements is rarely above 50 percent.9 Individuals with disabilities continue to identify failure of vehicle operators to announce stops and routes as a major problem.10
Many transit agencies have deployed intelligent transportation system technologies during the past decade that can be used to provide automated stop and route announcements. The number of buses that provide automated announcements has increased from 10 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2008.11 Automated announcements provide standardized messages, and lessen the need to rely on vehicle operators for compliance.12
The Access Board made available for public review draft revisions to the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines.13 The draft revisions considered requiring buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems to provide automated stop and route announcements. The American Public Transportation Association commented that the cost of providing automated announcements would pose a hardship for small transit agencies, and recommended that transit agencies operating fewer than 100 buses in peak service periods be exempted from the requirement. Based on the comments, the Access Board proposes to change the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines to require transit agencies that are public entities (i.e., State or local government units) and operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems, as reported in the National Transit Database, to provide automated stop and route announcements on buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems. The Department of Transportation will establish the effective date for this requirement when it amends its regulations to adopt the revised guidelines as the updated accessibility standards for transportation vehicles. The requirement will apply when buses are purchased, leased, or remanufactured.14 Buses currently in service do not have to be retrofitted to meet the requirement.
The proposed change to the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines requires transit agencies that are public entities (i.e., State or local government units) and operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route systems, as reported in the National Transit Database, to provide automated stop and route announcements on buses that are more than 22 feet in length and operate in fixed route systems.
Transit agencies are required to report the number of vehicles operated in annual maximum service (VOMS) to the National Transit Database.15 VOMS is the number of vehicles operated during the peak season of the year on the week and day that maximum service is provided.16 Transit agencies report both the number of VOMS directly operated by the transit agency and the number of VOMS operated by contractors.17
According to the National Transit Database, 87 transit agencies that are public entities operate 100 or more bus VOMS in fixed route systems and will be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines. It is assumed that the number of transit agencies that operate 100 or more bus VOMS in fixed route systems will remain stable in the near future.
Seventy-nine (79) of the affected transit agencies directly operate buses in fixed route systems. The transit agencies and number of bus VOMS directly operated by the transit agency are listed in Table 1.
State | Transit Agency | Bus VOMS Directly Operated i |
---|---|---|
† Indicates transit agencies that currently do not provide automated stop and route announcements. Source: National Transit Database Report Year 2007. Notes: |
||
CA | Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) | 76 ii |
CA | Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) | 106 |
MI | Interurban Transit Partnership (The Rapid) | 110 |
TX | El Paso Mass Transit Department (Sun Metro) | 110 |
TN | Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) | 116 |
FL | Palm Beach County (Palm Tran) | 117 |
NM | Albuquerque Transit Department (ABQ Ride) | 119 |
WA | Spokane Transit Authority (STA) | 119 |
IN | Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) | 123 |
TX | † Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) | 123 |
NE | † Omaha Transit Authority (MAT) | 128 |
VA | Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC Transit System) | 136 |
TN | Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) | 138 |
CA | North County Transit District (NCTD) | 139 |
CA | Omnitrans (OMNI) | 145 |
CA | Santa Monica (Big Blue Bus) | 147 |
OH | Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) | 147 |
WA | Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Community Transit) | 148 |
WA | Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) | 156 |
WA | Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Pierce Transit) | 158 |
CA | Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) | 159 |
DE | Delaware Transit Corporation (DART First State) | 160 |
AZ | Tucson (Sun Tran) | 163 |
FL | Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) | 166 |
WI | Madison Transit and Parking Commission (Metro Transit) | 167 |
OH | Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) | 170 |
FL | Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) | 171 |
CA | Long Beach Transit (LBT) | 179 |
FL | Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) | 179 |
PR | Metropolitan Bus Authority (MBA) | 181 |
NY | † Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (CNYRTA) iii | 183 |
NY | Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) | 189 |
NY | Rochester-Genesee Regional Transit Authority (R-GRTA) | 189 |
KY | † Transit Authority of River City (TARC) | 190 |
CA | Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) | 195 |
OH | Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) | 195 |
CA | † San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) | 200 |
RI | Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) | 208 |
TX | Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) | 212 |
CA | San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) | 213 |
MO | Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) | 216 |
MI | Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) | 230 |
FL | Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) | 240 |
FL | Broward County Office of Transportation (BCT) | 241 |
MD | Montgomery County (Ride-On) | 244 |
CA | Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) | 250 |
NC | Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) | 261 |
VA | Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (Hampton Roads Transit) | 279 |
NY | Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA Metro) | 286 |
CT | † Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTTransit) iv | 317 |
OH | Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA Metro) | 325 |
MO | Bi-State Development Agency (Metro) | 327 |
CA | Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) | 347 |
TX | VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) | 374 |
UT | Utah Transit Authority (UTA) | 384 |
MI | Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) | 408 |
WI | Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) | 421 |
CA | Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) | 482 |
IL | Pace – Suburban Bus Division (PACE) | 493 |
MD | Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) | 510 |
GA | Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) | 522 |
OH | Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) | 522 |
CA | Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) | 532 |
OR | Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) | 532 |
CO | Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) | 533 |
TX | Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) | 559 |
CA | San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) | 601 |
MN | Metropolitan Council (Metro Transit) | 740 |
MA | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 790 |
PA | Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) | 813 |
TX | Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro) | 837 |
FL | Miami-Dade Transit (Metrobus) | 839 |
WA | King County Department of Transportation (King County Metro) | 1,062 |
PA | Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) | 1,171 |
DC | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) | 1,261 |
NJ | New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) | 1,785 |
IL | Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) | 1,846 |
CA | Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) | 2,248 |
NY | Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) v | 5,312 |
Forty (40) of the affected transit agencies contract with private entities to operate some or all of the buses in the fixed route systems. The Department of Transportation regulations require a private entity that acquires vehicles to operate in a fixed route system under contract with a public entity to comply with the accessibility standards applicable to the public entity.18 The Department of Transportation regulations do not subject private entities to the requirements applicable to public entities because they receive an operating subsidy from, are regulated by, or are granted a franchise or permit to operate by a public entity.19 Thus, private entities would be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines if they acquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies. Private entities would not be affected by the proposed change to the guidelines if the transit agencies provide the buses to the private entities to operate, of if the private entities deploy buses from their existing fleets to operate in the fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies.20
Eight (8) of the affected transit agencies contract with private entities to operate all the buses in their fixed route systems. The transit agencies, contractors, and number of bus VOMS are listed in Table 2.
State | Transit Agency | Contractor | Bus VOMS Purchased Transportation |
---|---|---|---|
† Indicates transit agencies that currently do not provide automated stop and route announcements. Source: National Transit Database Report Year 2007 for bus VOMS purchased transportation. Transit agency websites for contractors. Some transit agency websites do not distinguish between contractors who operate vehicles in fixed route systems, and vehicles in demand responsive or paratransit service. Some contractors may operate vehicles in demand responsive or paratransit service. Notes: |
|||
NY | Suffolk County Transit (SCT) | Suffolk Bus Corporation Inter County Motor Coach C.B.S. Lines Educational Bus Transportation Hampton Jitney |
138 |
VA | † Fairfax County (Fairfax Connector) | MV Transportation | 145 |
MA | Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) | First Transit UMassTransit Services |
181 |
NV | Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) | Veolia Transportation | 253 |
CA | Foothill Transit | First Transit MV Transportation |
256 |
NY | Westchester County (Bee Line System) | County Coach Liberty Transit Lines PTLA Enterprise |
281 |
HI | City and County of Honolulu (TheBus) | Oahu Transit Services | 424 |
AZ | Valley Metro ‡ | First Transit MV Transportation Veolia Transportation Valu Trans Ajo Transportation |
628 |
The other 32 transit agencies contract with private entities to operate some of the buses in their fixed route systems. The transit agencies, contractors, and number of bus VOMS are listed in Table 3.
State | Transit Agency | Contractor | Bus VOMS Purchased Transportation |
---|---|---|---|
Source: National Transit Database Report Year 2007 for bus VOMS purchased transportation. Transit agency websites for contractors. Some transit agency websites do not distinguish between contractors who operate vehicles in fixed route systems, and vehicles in demand responsive or paratransit service. Some contractors may operate vehicles in demand responsive or paratransit service. Some transit agency websites also do not distinguish between contracts and subsidies. Some of the private entities may receive subsidies and may not be contractors. Notes: |
|||
CO | Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) | First Transit Veolia Transportation |
354 |
CA | Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) | See Note a. First Transit MV Transportation Southland Transit Transportation Concepts |
340 |
NJ | New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) | First Transit Veolia Transportation Academy Bus Community Coach PABCO Transit Olympia Trails Salem County Transit Suburban Transit Trans-Bridge Lines |
327 |
MN | Metropolitan Council | See Note b. First Transit Lorenz Bus Service Robinson Bus Service Team Transit |
306 |
CA | San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) | Veolia Transportation Southland Transit |
216 |
TX | Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro) | First Transit | 183 |
MD | Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) | Veolia Transportation Dillon’s Bus Service Eyre Bus Service Keller Transportation |
171 |
IL | Pace – Suburban Bus Division (PACE) | See Note c. First Transit MV Transportation Veolia Transportation Colonial Coach Lines / Academy Coach Lines |
120 |
TX | Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) | First Transit Veolia Transportation Star Tran Capital Rural Transportation Services |
119 |
MD | Montgomery County (Ride-On) | First Transit | 93 |
FL | Broward County Office of Transportation (BCT) | See Note d. | 87 |
CA | Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) | MV Transportation | 74 |
WA | Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Community Transit) | First Transit | 72 |
CA | San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) | MV Transportation | 66 |
MA | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | See Note e. | 57 |
CA | Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) | Transportation Concepts | 55 |
WA | Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) | Veolia Transportation | 29 |
DC | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) | See Note f. | 24 |
WA | King County Department of Transportation (King County Metro) | MV Transportation | 24 |
CT | Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTTransit) | New Britain Transportation Company Northeast Transportation Company DATTCO |
23 |
CA | Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) | El Paseo Limousine | 21 |
NY | Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) | Upstate Transit of Saratoga | 20 |
DE | Delaware Transit Corporation (DART First State) | Krapf Bus Companies | 15 |
FL | Palm Beach County (Palm Tran) | Good Wheels | 8 |
MI | Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) | Not available | 8 |
IN | Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) | Not available | 7 |
KY | Transit Authority of River City (TARC) | Not available | 7 |
NC | Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) | Not available | 7 |
CA | Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) | Not available | 6 |
FL | Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) | Not available | 4 |
TX | Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) | Not available | 3 |
VA | Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC Transit System) | Not available | 2 |
Eighty (80) of the affected transit agencies currently provide automated stop and route announcements.21 These transit agencies are indicated by shaded rows in Tables 1 and 2. This information was obtained from transit agency websites, vendor websites, and other sources listed in Appendix A. These transit agencies typically provide automated announcements as part of a broader deployment of intelligent transportation system technologies. It is assumed that these transit agencies will continue to provide automated announcements when the transit agencies purchase, lease, or remanufacture buses in the future, regardless of whether the transit agencies directly operate the buses or contract with private entities to operate the buses. Based on this assumption, these transit agencies will not incur any additional costs as a result of the proposed change to the accessibility guidelines. Transit agencies are requested to comment on this assumption. Based on the comments received, this report may be revised at the final rule stage.
Information is not available on whether any of the private entities that contract with the transit agencies listed in Tables 2 and 3 purchases, leases, or remanufacturesacquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies. Private entities that purchase, lease, or remanufactureacquire buses to operate in fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies listed in Tables 2 and 3 are requested to provide information on the number of buses purchased, leased, or remanufacturedacquired on an annual basis for operation under contract with the transit agencies, and whether the buses provide automated stop and route announcements. Based on the information provided, this report may be revised at the final rule stage.
Seven (7) of the affected transit agencies listed in Table 4 do not currently provide automated announcements.
State | Transit Agency | Bus VOMS | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Directly Operated | Purchased Transportation | Total | ||
Source: National Transit Database Report Year 2007 for bus VOMS. | ||||
TX | Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) | 123 | 3 | 126 |
NE | Omaha Transit Authority (MAT) | 128 | 0 | 128 |
VA | Fairfax County (Fairfax Connector) | 0 | 149 | 249 |
NY | Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (CNYRTA) | 183 | 0 | 183 |
KY | Transit Authority of River City (TARC) | 190 | 7 | 197 |
CT | Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTTransit) | 317 | 23 | 340 |
CA | San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) | 200 | 216 | 416 |
The cost estimates of the proposed change to the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines regarding stop and route announcements are based on sample data for the 7 transit agencies listed in Table 4 that do not currently provide automated announcements. Data for each of the transit agencies is presented in Appendix B, and the sample data used to estimate the costs is presented in Table 5.
Buses Available for Annual Maximum Service | 273 |
Fixed Bus Routes | 70 |
Garages | 5 |
Vehicle Operators | 520 |
Mechanics | 124 |
The factors used to estimate the costs for providing automated stop and route announcements are presented in Table 6. The factors include one-time costs to equip new buses and to set-up backend systems for implementing automated announcements, and on-going maintenance and operation costs for the bus equipment and backend systems. Mid-life software upgrade costs for the bus equipment and backend systems are listed as separate factors. Training costs for vehicle operators and mechanics are included under one-time costs. Low and high cost scenarios account for variable that can affect some of the costs. Some of the low cost scenarios apply to transit agencies that deploy automatic vehicle location technology.22 Four (4) of the transit agencies that do not currently provide automated announcements deploy automatic vehicle location technology.23
Item | Cost | Discussion |
---|---|---|
Source: Estimates are based on discussions with transit agencies and vendors. Labor cost sources are listed in Appendix C. Notes: |
||
One-Time Costs | ||
Bus Equipment | ||
Onboard Processor Next Stop Annunciator Cables & Brackets |
Equipment varies from vendor to vendor. Some systems have integrated system controllers, and other systems have separate next stop annunciators. | |
Low Cost Scenario: $2,350 | In the low cost scenario, the transit agency deploys AVL technology and equips its buses with onboard processors, which can be mobile data terminals. The additional cost for next stop annunciators with automated voice announcement software is estimated at $2,350 per bus. | |
High Cost Scenario: $5,000 | In the high cost scenario, the cost for an onboard processor with automated voice announcement software is estimated at $5,000 per bus. | |
GPS Receiver | $820 | Four (4) of the transit agencies that do not currently provide automated announcements equip their buses with GPS receivers.◊ There is no cost for these transit agencies. |
WLAN Adapter & Antenna | Low Cost Scenario: $0 | In the low cost scenario, the transit agency currently deploys AVL technology and equips its buses with systems to communicate data. There is no cost. |
High Cost Scenario: $585 | In the high cost scenario, the cost for a WLAN adapter and antenna to communicate data is estimated at $585 per bus. | |
Interior LED Display Sign for Stop Announcements | Low Cost Scenario:
$0 |
In the low cost scenario, the transit agency equips its buses with interior display signs for other informational purposes (e.g., to announce “Stop Requested” or “Please Exit Using Rear Door”). There is no cost. |
High Cost Scenario: $650 | In the high cost scenario, the cost for an interior LED display sign to announce stops is estimated at $650 per bus. | |
External Speaker for Route Announcements | $50 | The existing guidelines require buses to be equipped with public address systems and internal speakers for stop announcements. |
Backend System | ||
Software & Hardware | $50,000 | The cost includes global information system (GIS) software, announcement database software, recording and editing software, and computers and related hardware. |
WLAN System | Low Cost Scenario: $0 | In the low cost scenario, the transit agency deploys AVL technology and has established backend systems to communicate data. There is no cost. |
High Cost Scenario: $43,700 per garage | In the high cost scenario, the cost for a WLAN system to communicate data is estimated at $43,700 per garage. The cost includes 7 WLAN access points per garage ($4,600 per access point); Cat6 or fiber wiring ($5,000); and WLAN firewall equipment ($6,500 per garage). | |
Stop Database Consolidation & Geocoding Labor Costs | Low Cost Scenario: $0 | In the low cost scenario, the transit agency has a current stop database and geocoded locations for the stops. There is no cost. |
High Cost Scenario: $1,000 per route & $2,000 for data base set-up | In the high cost scenario, the cost to consolidate the stop database and geocode locations for the stops is estimated at $1,000 per route, plus $2,000 to set-up the data base. | |
Announcement Database Set-Up Labor Costs | Low Cost Scenario: $35,625 | In the low cost scenario, the transit agency has up-to-date operator call sheets that can be readily entered into the announcement database. The announcement database set-up costs involve full-time work by an IT/GIS specialist and quarter-time oversight by an IT project manager during a 3 month period. |
High Cost Scenario: $83,125 | In the high cost scenario, the transit agency re-evaluates what stops to announce, and incurs additional labor costs in transferring data from the scheduling database (e.g., HASTUS) to the announcement database because the database schemas do not match exactly. The announcement database set-up costs involve full-time work by an IT/GIS specialist and quarter-time oversight by an IT project manager during a 7 month period. | |
Recording & Editing Labor Costs | $500 | The stop and route announcements must be recorded and edited, and the recordings must be entered in the announcement database. |
System Testing Labor Costs | Lost Cost Scenario: $2,100 | In the low cost scenario, the stops that are announced are few or highly separated, and minimal system testing is required to ensure that the geofences do not overlap or conflict. System testing involves 40 hours work by an IT/GIS specialist. |
High Cost Scenario: $6,300 | In the high cost scenario, a high density network of stops is announced, and every route is tested to ensure that the geofences do not overlap or conflict. System testing involves 120 hours work by an IT/GIS specialist. | |
Training | ||
Vehicle Operators | $23 per vehicle operator | All vehicle operators receive one hour training on using automated announcements. Refresher training can be incorporated in the transit agency’s training program at minimal cost. |
Mechanics | $31 per mechanic | Ten (10) percent of the mechanics receive one hour training on repairing automated announcement equipment. |
On-Going Operations & Maintenance Costs | ||
Bus Equipment | ||
Spare Parts | 5 percent of the total bus equipment costs | The estimate excludes the interior LED display signs because transit agencies and vendors report that the signs rarely fail or need repair. |
Repair Labor Costs | $10 per bus annually | Transit agencies reported the number of equipment failures per week for automated announcements and the total number of buses operated by the transit agency. The average weekly equipment failure rate per bus was 0.3 percent. The average repair time for each equipment failure was 2 hours. The bus equipment repair cost is estimated at $10 per bus annually [.003 average weekly equipment failure rate per bus x 52 weeks x 2 hours per repair x $31 mechanics labor cost]. |
Backend System | ||
Periodic Scheduling and Routing Updates & Hardware and Software Maintenance Labor Costs | $35,000 annually | Performing operations and maintenance tasks on the backend system involves work by an IT/GIS specialist 1 month per quarter, or 4 months per year. |
Mid-Life Software Upgrade | ||
Bus Equipment | $145 per bus | |
Backend System | $1,419 |
The low cost and high cost scenarios for a transit agency to provide automated announcements based on the transit agency sample data in Table 5 and cost factors in Table 6 are presented in Appendices D and E, and summarized in Table 7.24 It is assumed that the transit agency will replace one-twelfth of its buses each year based on the 12 year minimum useful life policy for large, heavy-duty buses established by the Federal Transit Administration.25
Costs | Present Value (3%)* | Present Value (7%)* | |
---|---|---|---|
* Present value is based on discount rates in OMB Circular No. A-94. | |||
Low Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $1,263,303 | $1,062,642 | $865,532 |
Annualized Costs | $105,275 | $88,554 | $72,128 |
High Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $2,710,266 | $2,317,076 | $1,927,819 |
Annualized Costs | $225,856 | $193,091 | $160,652 |
The total costs of the proposed change to transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines regarding stop and route announcements for the seven transit agencies that do not currently provide automated announcements based on the transit agency sample costs in Table 7 are presented in Table 8.26
Costs | Present Value (3%)* | Present Value (7%)* | |
---|---|---|---|
* Present value is based on discount rates in OMB Circular No. A-94. | |||
Low Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $9,548,280 | $8,027,897 | $6,534,112 |
Annualized Costs | $795,690 | $668,991 | $544,509 |
High Cost Scenario | |||
Total Costs Over 12 Year Bus Replacement Cycle | $19,678,022 | $16,809,905 | $13,970,121 |
Annualized Costs | $1,639,835 | $1,400,825 | $1,164,767 |
The T | MAT | Fairfax Connector | CNYRTA | TARC | CTTransit | MTS | Sample Data Used to Estimate Costs | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Source: National Transit Database Report Year 2007 for buses operating in annual maximum service, buses available for annual maximum service, vehicle operators, and mechanics. Transit agency websites for fixed bus routes and garages. Notes: |
||||||||
Buses Operated in Annual Maximum Service | 126 | 128 | 149 | 183 | 197 | 340 | 416 | |
Buses Available for Annual Maximum Service ¹ | 152 | 151 | 195 | 232 | 215 | 420 | 547 | 273 |
Fixed Bus Routes | 45 | 34 | 59 | 125 | 55 | 156 | 82 | 70 |
Garages ² | – | – | 3 | – | – | – | 6 | 5 |
Vehicle Operators | 524 | 157 | – | 666 | 251 | 657 | 602 | 520 |
Mechanics | 124 | 30 | – | 105 | 124 | 175 | 657 | 124 |
Labor Costs (Salary and Benefits) | |
---|---|
Vehicle Operator: $23 per hour Mechanic: $31 per hour |
|
Source: The National Compensation Survey (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cm) reports industry-wide average total compensation costs for transportation and material moving occupations is $23 per hour for vehicle operators and $31 per hour for mechanics in the first quarter of FY 2009. Benefits are estimated to make up approximately ⅓ of the total compensation costs. The Occupational Employment Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_485100.htm) reports the public transit agency average wage is $15 per hour for vehicle operators and $20 per hour for mechanics in the first quarter of FY 2009. Multiplying the average wages by 1.5 to adjust for benefits yields total compensation costs of $23 per hour for vehicle operators and $30 per hour for mechanics. |
|
IT/GIS Specialist: $105,000 per year | |
Source: Discussions with transit agencies and cross-checked with BLS Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Local Government Occupations (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_999300.htm). Estimates assume the employees work 50 weeks per year. | |
IT Project Manager: $150,000 per year | |
Source: Discussions with transit agencies and cross-checked with BLS Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Local Government Occupations (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics4_999300.htm). Estimates assume the employees work 50 weeks per year. |
Year | One-Time Costs | On-Going Operations & Maintenance Costs | Mid-Life Software Upgrade | Total Cost | Present Value (3%) * | Present Value (7%) * | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bus Equipment | Backend System | Training | Bus Equipment | Backend System | |||||
* Present value is based on discount rates in OMB Circular No. A-94. | |||||||||
2010 | $52,800 | $88,225 | $12,344 | $32,980 | $35,000 | – | $221,349 | $214,902 | $206,869 |
2011 | $55,200 | – | – | $450 | $35,000 | – | $90,650 | $85,446 | $79,177 |
2012 | $55,200 | – | – | $680 | $35,000 | – | $90,880 | $83,168 | $74,185 |
2013 | $55,200 | – | – | $910 | $35,000 | – | $91,110 | $80,950 | $69,507 |
2014 | $52,800 | – | – | $1,130 | $35,000 | – | $88,930 | $76,712 | $63,406 |
2015 | $55,200 | – | – | $1,360 | $35,000 | – | $91,560 | $76,680 | $61,010 |
2016 | $55,200 | – | – | $1,590 | $35,000 | $24,474 | $116,264 | $94,533 | $72,403 |
2017 | $55,200 | – | – | $1,820 | $35,000 | – | $92,020 | $72,641 | $53,556 |
2018 | $52,800 | – | – | $2,040 | $35,000 | – | $89,840 | $68,855 | $48,867 |
2019 | $55,200 | – | – | $2,270 | $35,000 | – | $92,470 | $68,806 | $47,007 |
2020 | $55,200 | – | – | $2,500 | $35,000 | – | $92,700 | $66,968 | $44,041 |
2021 | $55,200 | – | – | $2,730 | $35,000 | – | $92,930 | $65,179 | $41,262 |
2022-2032 | – | – | – | $12,600 | – | – | $12,600 | $7,800 | $4,241 |
Total | $655,200 | $88,225 | $12,344 | $63,060 | $420,000 | $24,474 | $1,263,303 | $1,062,642 | $865,532 |
Annualized | $105,275 | $88,554 | $72,128 |
Year | One-Time Costs | On-Going Operations & Maintenance Costs | Mid-Life Software Upgrade | Total Cost | Present Value (3%) * | Present Value (7%) * | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bus Equipment | Backend System | Training | Bus Equipment | Backend System | |||||
* Present value is based on discount rates in OMB Circular No. A-94. | |||||||||
2010 | $138,270 | $430,425 | $12,344 | $77,138 | $35,000 | – | $693,177 | $672,988 | $647,829 |
2011 | $144,555 | – | – | $450 | $35,000 | – | $180,005 | $169,672 | $157,223 |
2012 | $144,555 | – | – | $680 | $35,000 | – | $180,235 | $164,941 | $147,125 |
2013 | $144,555 | – | – | $910 | $35,000 | – | $180,465 | $160,341 | $137,676 |
2014 | $138,270 | – | – | $1,130 | $35,000 | – | $174,400 | $150,439 | $124,345 |
2015 | $144,555 | – | – | $1,360 | $35,000 | – | $180,915 | $151,513 | $120,551 |
2016 | $144,555 | – | – | $1,590 | $35,000 | $24,474 | $205,619 | $167,187 | $128,049 |
2017 | $144,555 | – | – | $1,820 | $35,000 | – | $181,375 | $143,179 | $105,562 |
2018 | $138,270 | – | – | $2,040 | $35,000 | – | $175,310 | $134,361 | $95,357 |
2019 | $144,555 | – | – | $2,270 | $35,000 | – | $181,825 | $135,295 | $92,431 |
2020 | $144,555 | – | – | $2,500 | $35,000 | – | $182,055 | $131,520 | $86,493 |
2021 | $144,555 | – | – | $2,730 | $35,000 | – | $182,285 | $127,851 | $80,937 |
2022-2032 | – | – | – | $12,600 | – | – | $12,600 | $7,800 | $4,241 |
Total | $1,715,805 | $430,425 | $12,344 | $107,218 | $420,000 | $24,474 | $2,710,266 | $2,317,086 | $1,927,819 |
Annualized | $225,856 | $193,091 | $160,652 |
1 42 U.S.C. §12204.
2 42 U.S.C. §§12149.
3 56 Federal Register 45530, September 6, 1991 (codified at 36 CFR §1192).
4 36 CFR §1192.37.
5 56 Federal Register 45584, September 6, 1991 (codified at 49 CFR Part 38).
6 49 CFR §37.167 (b) and (c).
7 American Public Transportation Association, Draft Recommended Practice for a Fixed Route Stop Announcement and Route Identification Program (April 2, 2008) at 7-10. The document is available at: http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Accessibility/StopAnnc/FRSA_draft_1_from_editor_1%20July%203%202008.pdf.
8 Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F. 3d 1277 (10 Cir. 2004); Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2002); Neff v. VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority, 178 F.R.D. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1998). See also Daniels-Finegold v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, C.A. No. 02 CV 11504 MEL (U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass. filed July 25, 2002) alleging system-wide problems in providing accessible public transportation, including failure to announce stops and routes.
9 The compliance review reports are available at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3899.html.
10 National Council on Disability, Current State of Transportation for People with Disabilities in the United States (June 13, 2005). The report is available at: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/current_state.htm.
11 American Public Transportation Association, 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book at 17. The document is available at: http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/APTA_2009_Fact_Book.pdf.
12 Vehicle operators will have to announce stops and routes if automated announcements fail.
13 The draft revisions to the transportation vehicle accessibility guidelines and public comments on the draft revisions are available at: http://www.access-board.gov/transit.
14 49 CFR §§ 37.71, 37.73, 37.75 and 38.21 (a).
15 49 U.S.C. §5335; 49 CFR Part 630.
16 VOMS does not include atypical days (e.g., July 4th holiday) or one-time special events (e.g., political convention). NTD Glossary at: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm.
17 Vehicles operated by contractors are reported as “purchased transportation services” in the National Transit Database. NTD Glossary at: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm.
18 49 CFR §37.23 (b).
19 49 CFR §37.37 (a).
20 If the transit agencies provide the buses to the private entities to operate, the transit agencies are responsible for providing the automated announcements. If the private entities deploy buses from their existing fleets to operate in the fixed route systems under contract with the transit agencies, the buses are not required to be retrofitted with automated announcements, but the vehicle operators would have to announce stops and routes.
21 Transit agencies that recently received federal grants to provide automated announcements or are in the process of procuring automated announcements are included among the transit agencies that currently provide automated announcements.
22 Automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology uses global position satellite (GPS) receivers to calculate the real-time location of a vehicle, and transmits the data to a central facility by radio or other wireless communications systems. The data is used to monitor on-time performance and improve adherence to schedules. Automated stop and route announcements can be integrated with AVL technology.
23 The Omaha Transit Authority, Transit Authority of River City, Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System deploy AVL technology.
24 The cost estimates in Appendices C and D do not include GPS receivers since 4 of the transit agencies that do not currently provide automated announcements equip their buses with GPS receivers.
25 The bus equipment spare parts costs are assumed to be incurred in the 1st year of the 12 year bus replacement cycle, and the mid-life software upgrade costs are assumed to be incurred in the 7th year of the 12 year bus replacement cycle.
26 The cost estimates in Table 7 include the costs for GPS receivers for the 3 transit agencies that do not equip their buses with GPS receivers.