Nội dung

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Synthesis 5 Management Information Systems A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1994 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM W. MILLAR Port Authority of Allegheny County OFFICERS MEMBERS SHARON D. BANKS AC Transit LEE BARNES Barwood, Inc GERALD L. BLAIR Indiana County Transit Authority MICHAEL BOLTON Capital Metro SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO New Jersey Transit Corporation ROD DIRIDON Santa Clara County Transit District SANDRA DRAGGOO CATA LOUIS J. GAMBACCINI SEPTA DELON HAMPTON Delon Hampton & Associates RICHARD R. KELLY Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp ALAN F. KIEPPER New York City Transit Authority EDWARD N. KRAVITZ The Flxible Corporation ROBERT G. LINGWOOD BC Transit MIKE MOBEY Isabella County Transportation Comm DON S. MONROE Pierce Transit PATRICIA S. NETTLESHIP The Nettleship Group, Inc. ROBERT E. PAASWELL The City College of New York JAMES P. REICHERT Transportation Management Services LAWRENCE G. REUTER WMATA VICKIE SHAFFER The Tri-State Transit Authority JAMES H. SLAKEY Washington DOT B. R. STOKES ATE Management & Service Co MICHAEL S. TOWNES Peninsula Transportation Dist. Comm EX OFFICIO MEMBERS ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRB FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS AASHTO JACK R. GILSTRAP APTA GORDON J. LINTON FTA RODNEY E. SLATER FHWA Chair: Joseph M. Sussman, JR East Professor and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Vice Chair: Lillian C. Liburdi, Director, Port Authority, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council MEMBERS BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor & Chair, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University of Texas at Dallas DWIGHT M. BOWER, Director, Idaho Department of Transportation JOHN E. BREEN, The Nasser I Al-Rashid Chair in Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin KIRK BROWN, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy L. GARY BYRD, Consulting Engineer, Alexandria, Virginia A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation (Past Chair, 1993) RAY W. CLOUGH, Nishkian Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley RICHARD K. DAVIDSON, Chairman and CEO, Union Pacific Railroad JAMES C. DELONG, Director of Aviation, Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado DELON HAMPTON, Chairman and CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates DON C. KELLY, Secretary and Commissioner of Highways, Transportation Cabinet, Kentucky ROBERT KOCHANOWSKI, Executive Director, Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission JAMES L. LAMMIE, President and CEO, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. WILLIAM W. MILLAR, Executive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Past Chair, 1992) CHARLES P. O'LEARY, JR, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation JUDE W. P. PATIN, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development NEIL PETERSON, former Executive Director, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission DARREL RENSINK, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering and Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin DAVID N. WORMLEY, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University HOWARD YERUSALIM, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ROBERT A. YOUNG III, President, ABF Freight Systems, Inc. EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association ROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads ANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers Association THOMAS J. DONOHUE, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials JACK R. GILSTRAP, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association ALBERT J. HERBERGER, Maritime Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation DAVID R. HINSON, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation GORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation RICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation JOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation DAVE SHARMA, Research and Special Programs Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation RODNEY E. SLATER, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.Department of Transportation ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FRANK J. CIHAK APTA SECRETARY ROBERT J. REILLY TRB Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Colorado Department of Transportation LILLIAN C. LIBURDI, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey GORDON J. LINTON, U.S.Department of Transportation WILLIAM W. MILLAR, Port Authority of Allegheny County JOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Chair) L. GARY BYRD, Consulting Engineer ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Synthesis of Transit Practice 5 Management Information Systems ROGER BOLDT Consultant Kalona, Iowa Topic Panel RONALD E. BOENAU, Federal Transit Administration GORMAN GILBERT, University of North Carolina HOWARD G. EISENSTADT, MTA New York City Transit LORA G. MAYO, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority PATRICIA "TISH" S. NETTLESHIP, The Nettleship Group, Inc JAMES A. SCOTT, Transportation Research Board RAYMOND M. WRIGHT, Mass Transit Administration SAM YAGAR, University of Waterloo TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation With the Transit Development Corporation NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1994 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213-Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration-now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transit Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy of Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962 As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminating TCRP results to the intended endusers of the research: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. TCRP SYNTHESIS 5 Project SG-3 ISSN 1073-4880 ISBN 0-309-05658-6 Library of Congress Catalog Card No 94-61136 Price $19 00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council Such approval reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U S Department of Transportation Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council Special Notice The Transportation Research Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Printed in the United States of America PREFACE A vast storehouse of information exists on many subjects of concern to the transit industry. This information has resulted from research and from the successful application of solutions to problems by individuals or organizations. There is a continuing need to provide a systematic means for compiling this information and making it available to the entire transit community in a usable format. The Transit Cooperative Research Program includes a synthesis series designed to search for and synthesize useful knowledge from all available sources and to prepare documented reports on current practices in subject areas of concern to the transit industry. This synthesis series reports on various practices, making specific recommendations where appropriate but without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Nonetheless, these documents can serve similar purposes, for each is a compendium of the best knowledge available on measures found to be successful in resolving specific problems. The extent to which these reports are useful will be tempered by the user's knowledge and experience in the particular problem area. FOREWORD This synthesis will be of interest to general managers of transit agencies, managers of management information systems (MIS) departments, and information systems personnel, as well as operations, scheduling, maintenance, finance, and other management personnel concerned with improving information flow and data base development. The synthesis identifies the current direction and key factors of selected transit agencies that have successfully implemented MIS. The synthesis documents the range, variety, and benefits derived from the current information and examines how effectively information from specialpurpose systems is integrated into the overall information systems environment and used across departmental boundaries. Administrators, practitioners, and researchers are continually faced with problems on which there is much information, either in the form of reports or in terms of undocumented experience and practice. Unfortunately, this information often is scattered and or not readily available in the literature, and, as a consequence, in seeking solutions, full information on what has been learned about a problem frequently is not assembled. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and full consideration may not be given to the available methods of solving or alleviating the problem. In an effort to correct this situation, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis Project, carried out by the Transportation Research Board as the research agency, has the objective of reporting on common transit problems and synthesizing available information. The synthesis reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP publication series in which various forms of relevant information are assembled into single, concise documents pertaining to a specific problem or closely related problems. The application and level of sophistication of MIS used by transit agencies in North America vary widely. This report of the Transportation Research Board focuses on the general direction of change in transit MIS and on specific integration efforts that are By Staff Transportation Research Board applicable and transferable to the transit industry as a whole. Based on a comprehensive review of MIS functions and environments of the surveyed agencies and on discussions carried out during site visits with key staff at seven major transit agencies, critical success factors are identified. Several general barriers that apply to most transit agencies are discussed, as well as a pronounced need to create an effective, broadly based user group to assist in making the appropriate investment in information technology. To develop this synthesis in a comprehensive manner and to ensure inclusion of significant knowledge, available information was assembled from numerous sources, including selected public transportation agencies. A topic panel of experts in the subject area was established to guide the researchers in organizing and evaluating the collected data, and to review the final synthesis report. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As the processes of advancement continue, new knowledge can be expected to be added to that now on hand. CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose of Project, 4 Background, 4 5 CHAPTER TWO TRANSIT INDUSTRY STATE OF THE PRACTICE IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS Survey/Interview Tools and Site Visits, 5 Current Industry Condition, 5 Degree of Systems Integration, 10 Barriers to Adoption of New Information Systems Technology, 12 User Group Framework, 13 16 CHAPTER THREE INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS: EXAMPLES FROM THE SITE VISITS Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART): Financial Management System, 16 MTA New York City Transit: Integrated Maintenance Management System, 17 Seattle Metro: Distribution Data Base, 18 Toronto Transit Commission (TTC): Automated Transit Operators System, 19 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA): Maintenance Planning and Control, 21 Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA): Countywide Applications Environment, 21 Metropolitan Rail (Metra): Information Systems Environment, 23 27 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 GLOSSARY 36 REFERENCES 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY 38 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE SITE VISITS 66 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 70 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDE 71 APPENDIX D TRANSIT AGENCIES VISITED 72 APPENDIX E OAHU TRANSIT SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY 75 APPENDIX F ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7 CHAIR JACK REILLY Capital District Transit Authority MEMBERS GERALD BLAIR Indiana County Transit Authority KENNETH J. DUEKER Center for Urban Studies ALAN J. GIBBS National Transit Institute HENRY HIDE Cole Sherman & Associates Ltd. MAXINE MARSHALL ATE/Ryder Management PATRICIA V. McLAUGHLIN Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority BEVERLY G. WARD Center for Urban Transportation Research COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Program STEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Manager, TCRP GWEN CHISHOLM SMITH, Project Manager, TCRP TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Information Services SALLY D. LIFF, Manager, Synthesis Studies DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer LINDA S. MASON, Editor TRB LIAISON ROBERT SPICHER Transportation Research Board ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Roger Boldt, Kalona, Iowa was responsible for collection of the data and preparation of the report Valuable assistance in the preparation of this synthesis was provided by the Topic Panel, consisting of Ronald E. Boenau, Transportation Management Specialist, Federal Transit Administration; Howard Eisenstadt, Director, Human Resource Systems, MTA New York City Transit; Gorman Gilbert, Director, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, University of North Carolina; Lora G. Mayo, Programmer/Analyst, Office of Management Information Systems, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Patricia "Tish" S. Nettleship, Chairman and CEO, The Nettleship Group, Inc; James A. Scott, Senior Program Officer, Transportation Research Board; Raymond M. Wright, Senior Systems Engineer, Mass Transit Administration; and Sam Yagar, Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Ontario. The Principal Investigators responsible for the conduct of the synthesis were Sally D. Liff, Manager, Synthesis Studies, and Donna L. Vlasak, Senior Program Officer. This synthesis was edited by Linda S. Mason. Valuable assistance was provided by Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS: STATE OF THE PRACTICE SUMMARY The applications and sophistication of management information systems (MIS) used by transit agencies in North America vary widely. The transit industry clearly lags behind the private sector in acquiring and deploying information systems technology. This synthesis identifies the barriers that inhibit implementation of technology, the direction of current thinking, and the key success factors of those transit agencies that are involved in the best practices of the industry. Seven transit agencies were selected for site visits, based on several fundamental criteria: (1) the agency has developed or acquired sophisticated applications in at least one of four management and operational areas under consideration; (2) the agency has achieved some level of integration of its information systems; (3) the agency has reasonable documentation of its activities with expansion plans; and (4) the agency embodies information systems and technologies applicable to the transit industry as a whole. The seven site visits were conducted over several days, not only to determine the condition of the agencies' overall MIS environments but, more importantly, to assess the extent of integration in four critical areas: administration, planning and operations, materials management, and advanced technology systems. An interview guide was created to help identify specific areas of integration that have been achieved using the most current approaches and technologies and the critical success factors most essential to developing and maintaining effective and efficient MIS in the transit industry. The seven transit agencies and their specific integration projects are as follows: • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): Financial Management System • MTA New York City Transit: Integrated Maintenance Management System • Seattle Metro: Distribution Database, Geographical Information System, and Operation Support System • Toronto Transit Commission (TTC): Automated Transit Operators System • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA): Maintenance Planning and Control • Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA): Transit Operations System • Metropolitan Rail (Metra): Information Systems for Revenue Ticket Distribution and Sales Status In addition to the seven primary site visits, a questionnaire was developed to acquire additional information from a broader range of transit agencies. The 20 questionnaire responses were further supplemented by six additional site visits to small urban bus and paratransit operations. Two of the questionnaire responses (Oahu Transit Services, Inc., under contract to Honolulu Public Transit Authority (city-owned vehicles) and Orange 2 County Transportation Authority) were used in conjunction with supplemental planning documents to outline key transit issues related to MIS. Perhaps the single greatest barrier to the effective acquisition and deployment of MIS resources in transit is the tradition of automating existing manual processes. Although transit agencies are more alike than different, a multitude of unique manual processes have grown up at individual agencies over time. The practice of automating these varying procedures represents a major barrier to standardizing software to support primary functions and impedes transferability across transit agencies of similar size, despite significant commonality. Organizational structures that isolate resources or combine functions can also create barriers to implementing and improving MIS technology. In small agencies, it is often difficult to access MIS staff and/or technical resources from the broader governmental entity. The agency usually must rely on its own limited resources to identify someone who is interested in the problem but not necessarily appropriately trained to provide MIS direction and support. In larger transit agencies, the older data processing model of a mainframe environment primarily supporting financial systems has persisted. MIS resources frequently are organized under the finance department rather than under an administrative group with agencywide responsibility and oversight. This type of model has led to the emergence of pockets of MIS resources outside of the primary computing environment. Lack of training and funding are two critical barriers to success. Training is required at two levels in transit agencies: training and development of MIS staff, and training and education of user department personnel. Funding also is a problem in two areas of transit: lack of funding to acquire, update, and maintain critical MIS and new technologies; and specific funding opportunities through capital grants that create uneven or inappropriate investment in particular technologies. Based on the large investment of federal, state, and local funds, and commonality in the industry, there is enormous value in creating a new framework to facilitate communication and to assist decision making in the acquisition and deployment of information systems technology. It seems appropriate to develop a public framework to facilitate this investment process, which (at a minimum) can provide the following benefits: • Up-to-date information, • Simple and objective description of information, • Standardized evaluation method, • Easy and inexpensive method of accessing information, • A single point of access in the industry, and • An automated as well as manual process for acquiring information. Eighteen critical success factors were identified and prioritized from a comprehensive review of the MIS functions and environments of all the surveyed transit agencies and discussions with key staff involved in MIS project activities. The following activities were considered most important by transit agencies to enhance their overall MIS environments: • Support key strategic business purposes of the transit agency, • Establish appropriate organizational structure for MIS, • Institute an agencywide planning process, • Employ systems development methodology (SDM), • Decentralize access to management tools, • Centralize control over the MIS function, • Use automation to facilitate future expansion, • Initiate an automation/reengineering process,