Technology detail is often hidden from system users and business managers – until it isn’t. The constant technological improvements being made to security, performance and reliability don’t often make it to the press – not only is the subject matter pretty dry, but generally these changes have very little impact on most users and system administrators.

These constant security and stability updates are necessary to maintain a modern enterprise system.  In addition, more modern versions of the databases, reporting engines and core libraries used by TIMS and Austrics are leveraged to provide new and enhanced business features. Security updates are essential to ensure that systems are resilient and critical business information remains protected.

CENTOS Linux 6 reaches end of life late 2020 and is one of the changes that will impact on both users and system administrators.

Both TIMS and Austrics run on the same operating system platform, a platform that surprisingly powers both the world’s fastest supercomputer and the humble and pervasive Android phone. Each release of the CENTOS Linux operating system (the specific version of the Linux operating system used by Trapeze) is commercially maintained and supported for at least a decade. The latest version, CENTOS 8 which was released late 2019, will be supported through to 2029. PostgreSQL (the database that powers TIMS) just hit version 12 with support planned through to the end of 2024. 

The flip side to the release of these newer technologies are that older releases of these operating systems and databases are now hitting their end of life dates – meaning that ongoing support such as security and maintenance updates are no longer made available. Cloud computing platforms such as Azure and AWS may no longer run the older operating systems, or at a minimum limit your options such as Disaster Recovery. 

Upgrading these core technologies can be disruptive if not managed appropriately. Planning is required, and decisions made such as choosing when and how to upgrade and whether to take the opportunity to upgrade to new hardware or migrate to managed hosting infrastructure. As with any disruptive process, strategic thinkers will seek opportunities and likely end up in an improved situation. The opportunities in this case include migration to a cloud environment, implementing Disaster Recovery, improving performance and reliability, replacing aging hardware or even archiving old data.

Many clients are reviewing cloud hosted systems rather than relying on hardware that may be put at risk. Cloud based infrastructure allows staff to access the systems remotely, and critical data is backed up in multiple locations more frequently. Servers can also be cost-effectively expanded or scaled down to meet shifting demands such as when new depots or regions are rolled into the business.

If you are running CENTOS 6, you will need to start to plan your migration to a new CENTOS platform in 2020 in order to remain on a supported version. Moving to CENTOS version 8 is likely your best option. If you are running TIMS, updating your database is also highly recommended.

TIMS 3.6 is certified to operate on the latest versions of CENTOS 8 and PostgreSQL 12, providing the maximum flexibility when reviewing options. 

Our Professional Services Team are highly experienced and ready to support you in the move to new environments. We can help plan the move, including reviewing options to ensure the move has minimal down time, and your business ends up in the best possible position for the future. If moving to the cloud interests you, Trapeze can work with your IT team to provide advice, and can even provide a range of managed services from assisted support through to Trapeze taking full responsibility for your new environment.

Contact us and ask for a more detailed brochure on the technology changes. We can also arrange a no-cost, no-obligation audit of your systems to ensure you have the right information available to progress a decision.

The need for operators and authorities to manage ferry services as an integrated part of a city’s public transport has led to the uptake of integrated technology to manage multimodal networks. This effectively allows organisations to use the same tools to manage multiple land and water-based transport modes.

Cities with coastal and river networks benefit from integrating ferry services into their public transport offering, giving users the convenience of transport routes that link land and water through regular, reliable ferry services.

For all transport operators, including ferry, mobility is a key issue.

Not only do operators, maintenance teams and management need a shared view of their assets on water, they also need to see the connecting assets that are essential to the network – jetties, pontoons, mooring systems, dry dock facilities and dockside structures.

Addressing the issue of mobility, an asset maintenance platform gives organisation-wide visibility through a real-time shared view accessible by all users, whether in an office or in the field, on tablet or desktop.

Linking with pre-existing transport services including bus, train, taxi, rideshare and e-mobility solutions ensures ferries can operate as part of an effective overall transport system.

With greater mobility through handheld devices, maintenance teams in the field can see which assets need attention, along with details of parts or components that will be required to complete the task.

Management can access the platform to check servicing history, status, checklists and schedules. Reported incidents can be time-stamped, then checked against the maintenance log (and accompanying photographs) to validate tasks.

Predictive maintenance automates task updates, for more effective ongoing asset management and compliance. This improved visibility and timeliness of maintenance and repairs strengthens the reliability and safety of assets.

Untether from old-school methods

The old-school way of working – tethered to a laptop – isn’t effective for a mobile workforce required to traverse geographic locations.

Small, handheld devices let users see task checklists, along with photographic evidence of asset condition and any maintenance or repairs needed.

Operators relying on outdated, fixed technology and paper-based scheduling can improve their overall efficiency through integrated digital transformation.

Without workforce mobility, once a task has been completed, the time needed to update paper records or offline systems prevents other users in the organisation getting an immediate view of the asset condition, service record and status.

For transport organisations running to tight schedules and operating within strict maintenance budgets, such visibility gaps can be time-consuming and costly.

Enabling workforce mobility via lightweight, handheld devices is no longer a ‘nice to have’ or a future wish. It’s essential to ensure that multimodal transport networks are connected and operate efficiently while optimising running costs and workforce resources.

The technology exists. Many ferry operators are leveraging the same systems that are being used by bus operators for tasks including workforce management, route planning and scheduling, and resource planning.

With tailor-made software ready to go, it’s never been easier for ferry operators to tear themselves away from paper and get on board the digital revolution.

So next time you’re travelling by ferry and see one of the deckhands looking at an iPad or crew members taking photographs with their smart devices, you’ll know that the latest technology is helping keep the network afloat and getting you safely to shore.

Paperless mobility solutions for ferry operators can lead to outcomes such as longer asset lifespan, better use of workforce time and resources, shorter waiting times or asset downtime, streamlined maintenance interchanges, and improved operations. 

For more information on how Trapeze technology helps manage multimodal transport networks, get in touch to arrange a demo.

Communicating with each other instantly is something that we have become so used to in our personal lives that we take it for granted. Want to check where someone is? Send an SMS. Or ping their device to pinpoint their current location on a map. The question of “where are you?” has almost become rhetorical.

Location – along with status (are you available?) and history (have you heard?) – are crucial to effective messaging. However, when it comes to emergency services, managing communication and compliance across a highly geographically dispersed mobile workforce presents unique challenges.

It seems logical that emergency control centres would be utilising instant, shared adaptive communication technology today.

Although the technology exists, many emergency services still rely on legacy messaging systems that are siloed and unresponsive, blanket-sending alerts to users regardless of location, status or history and the ability to track responses to messaging is still a distant pipe dream.

The dissemination of information across emergency service organisations can be extremely challenging. The communication devices being utilised are many and varied and the systematic coordination of information across these devices is a daunting task. Many ambulance organisations utilise multiple point solutions between multiple devices and locations such as:

• Messaging transmitted to Mobile Data Terminals (MDT)
• Short-burst text messaging to portable radios
• Text messaging to mobile phones, often to a personal mobile with no security or rigour
• Voice communication via a landline telephone to a station

A centralised mobile messaging and compliance platform allows organisations to create, manage, disseminate and track information efficiently regardless of the device or communication medium being used. This is currently a key objective for most Emergency Service organisations.

Messages can be sent in multiple formats including text, video, audio, and photographs, and can incorporate tracking and conditions (such as specifying vehicles, effective dates, recurrence, acknowledgement requirement, etc) all from a central hub.

Prioritised message delivery can improve outcomes in most situations.

Let’s look at a few ambulance-related scenarios:

• Hospital shutdown

Critical events, such as terrorist activity, infection breakout or capacity overload can temporarily shut down a hospital. Location aware messages can be sent to vehicles and crews within a defined geofence, across multiple channels: MDT, radio, phone, SMS, pager – with compulsory acknowledgement requirements.

• Procedural updates

Time-critical updates can be pushed to all devices, or in a cascading hunt approach to devices, until acknowledged. This could include drug dosage errors, drug administration updates, infection warnings and more.

• Follow-me messaging

Alerts can appear on multiple devices in sequence until acknowledged – to the MDT first, then if no response within a set time, to radio, pager, SMS and other devices, even ultimately through to the station tannoy.

• Hands-free alerts

Staff in moving vehicles or helicopters can receive enunciated voice messages as first priority, to ensure that information is received without compromising the transportation job in progress.

• Natural disaster warnings

Geolocation capabilities from AVL data can send warnings to specific vehicles and crew in areas likely to be affected by events such as floods, high winds, hail or bushfire.

• Training management

Training information can be transmitted to staff based on a needs assessment. Organisations are able to communicate procedural information such as key user data for the operation of a new type of vehicle they haven’t used yet before they start a shift. Once a message has been acknowledged, it won’t be repeated; refresher messages can be scheduled at specific intervals.

• Asset and vehicle maintenance

Vehicle status dashboards automatically generate messages to on-board crew for maintenance tasks required outside of the standard servicing schedule. For example, washer fluid refill, tyre pressure, fluid leaks and so on. In conjunction with RFID or other asset location systems, auto-generated messages can alert the crew to clinical items and consumables needing replenishment.

• Duress alarm testing

Auto-generated emergency drills can be pushed to crews to test duress buttons, for occupational health and safety compliance.

• Managing staff shift times

Send messages to personal devices based on work hours – for example to confirm that breaks have been taken. The message “Take your meal break” could require a Y/N response. If ‘N’ the follow-up message could request further explanation.

• Response status aware communication

For vehicles that are in transit, at high speed or with lights and sirens operating, non-critical messages will be postponed until jobs are completed.

• Crew status awareness

Messages can be targeted based on recipients’ current location and/or status. If seat sensors show that crew are inside the vehicle, the message can be sent to the MDT first. If the sensors show the vehicle is unoccupied or that the doors are open, the message goes to radio, pager or phone.

If you can think of other scenarios where an integrated messaging solution could be useful, let me know!

To find out more about the Trapeze emergency services messaging and compliance system, please get in touch by email or visit this page.

You may also be interested in this article on how to influence better patient outcomes through The Connected Journey.

Introduction

When the first Cobb and Co coach ran from Melbourne to Bendigo, it left the Criterion Hotel in Collins St every morning promptly at 6:00am (Sundays excepted).

They overnighted in Castlemaine and were off at 6:00am the next day for Bendigo. A timetable en-route may well have read “Cobb and Co to Castlemaine will be here at 12:30”.

If you were in Keilor, Gisborne or Woodend, you had a pretty good idea when the daily coach was coming through and you would get to the stop with time to spare.

Speed was important, so drivers would sound a bugle one mile out and groomsmen would ready the next team of horses to minimise changeover time. If you were a passenger and you happen to miss the coach, there was always tomorrow. (Unless, of course, it was Sunday.)

Having published them, we as transport professionals strive to deliver on our promise. Broken axles, muddy tracks and floods may have been replaced with rail crossings, car accidents and unrelenting peak hour delays but all these challenges must be overcome to keep services running to the timetable.

What is Headway?

As public transport demand grows, service frequencies increase.

Eventually a service becomes so frequent a passenger no longer needs a timetable; they know they can just roll up at the stop and a bus will shortly pick them up. This then removes the need for a timetable at the stop, as a notice that a bus will be at the stop in less than 10 minutes will suffice.

This situation portrays a 10-minute headway. Running this in theory is straightforward: start a trip every 10 minutes and run all buses to time. At least, that is the plan – but unfortunately, traffic and physics failed to read the playbook, so what is delivered is often very different.

Making Headway Management Happen

Buses get delayed for many reasons: traffic, large crowds at a stop, elderly people looking for change – the list is as long as it is entertaining. Despite our best efforts to meet a timetable, certain issues refuse to go away: for example, when a bus is caught in heavy congestion, it is really hard to move it faster than the cars!

From a customer experience perspective, passengers generally have a high-level understanding of how traffic (and other circumstances beyond an operator’s control) can cause delays. What they don’t understand is why this will result in a really, really long wait succeeded by two buses showing up at the same time.

Operators try and deal with this through planning. Two common techniques are:

• To keep the routes short (reducing the ability for the headway to get too large), and
• To introduce more layover at timing points (giving buses the opportunity to reset).

However, these methods are at odds with high frequency services. Whilst increased layover helps get back to the timetable, it is not popular with passengers.

Sure, you could fire off a bus from the terminus every 10 minutes, but there is no way to control these services other than having a supervisor with a clipboard standing by the roadside with a watch, manually timing the services and talking to drivers as needed.

Even gathering performance data will be difficult, as resource restrictions mean you can only measure how each bus is progressing at a small number of points along the route. Compounding this, drivers will not be able to see the vehicle ahead of them on their current route.

The result is that real-time intervention is almost impossible and headway management generally happens after the fact.

It is designed to present the public with as close to a consistent arrival time as possible, even if there are service delays. It helps operators spread the buses out so that two buses on the same route do not arrive at the same stop together.

When combined with high frequency services, headway management even eliminates the need to publish timetables and gives passengers the confidence that a bus will be arriving very soon.

Who is Using It?

Although there is a lot of talk about headway-managed routes being the latest big thing, it is not new. Shuttle bus services are often run on a headway basis and a number of high frequency routes in many cities have long been advertised as ‘turn up and go’. However, they were manually controlled or not controlled at all.

Technology has reached a point where public transport authorities can now deliver on the promise. Some examples of agencies where this is done are:

There are many other progressive cities across the world where headway is used to measure regularity, including Barcelona, Milan, New York, Paris and Vancouver [3]. In Australia and New Zealand, regularity is typically measured by on-time terminal departures. However, the limitations this places on delivering better customer outcomes are now becoming more widely recognised.

The possibility of technology changing this paradigm sparked a great deal of interest at the UITP ANZ Customer Experience Roundtable in August 2018, with many attendees recognising the benefits that effectively-managed headway can bring to all stakeholders.

Choosing the Right Tools for Success

KPIs and Metrics

To track service reliability, authorities have used:

• EWT,
• Actual waiting time (AWT),
• Standard deviations of the difference between actual and scheduled headways,
• Wait assessment, and
• Service regularity.

Each technique has its own benefits and drawbacks [3], but EWT has emerged as the indicator of choice. For high frequency services, EWT is an objective measure that can be calculated across routes and is relatively easy to fold into operating contracts, with a history of producing excellent results.

Passengers are the immediate beneficiary of the right metric and good headway management because irregularity in headway discourages commuters’ use of public transport [4] and increases passenger discomfort [5]. Furthermore, as passengers on high frequency routes are more likely to arrive at the stop randomly [6], a small improvement in EWT will deliver the best outcome to the most passengers.

By measuring EWT and encouraging operators to reduce this, transport authorities will consistently deliver better services that passengers can rely on.

The Right Technology

Public transport companies also benefit from the use of EWT as a metric. The core technologies used to monitor and report on EWT give operators an instant view of operations for both scheduled services and headway services. Whilst both service types are scheduled in the normal manner, once they start running there is a need to clearly identify each route by type and give operators continuous EWT statistics on all routes.

Another key tool is the development of automatic alerts on Bus Bunching. This lets operators see issues whilst they can be fixed and before they become too serious.

The right technology will bring transport authorities a real-time view of the transport network, but more importantly it will monitor and measure headway.

It should deliver the right visibility and controls to operators and allow them to adjust operations in real time to meet EWT targets. This ensures that buses arrive with greater regularity and improves the level of service delivered to the public.

Incentives

To encourage operators to be proactive and course-correct services in real time, transport authorities can offer substantial performance bonuses as an incentive. Transport for London, for example, pays up to 15% of the contract value in bonuses.

Conclusion

Just like the Cobb and Co services from Melbourne to Bendigo, the delivery of headway is dependent on a number of factors.

Freeman Cobb saw the opportunity for improved services and filled that need with high-speed services, enabled by changing stations every 15 miles and the right technology (in Cobb’s case it was imported Concord coaches, which had been designed for travel in the American West).

Transport authorities must have a similar vision to drive service change. They need to put the right headway management technology in place to drive operators to achieve a higher standard of service delivery KPIs.

Operators then need to be focussed on making this work. Management personnel in these companies must adapt and accept that they need to be even more closely partnered with their drivers than normal, as it is the driver who must make use of the information the tools provide and self-manage the gaps between buses.

Only the passenger needs to do nothing as properly delivered, headway-managed routes will give them a better service, with less waiting and higher levels of reliability.

When Henry Lawson wrote ‘The Lights of Cobb and Co’, perhaps he could sense the excitement of the public for a better transport system. That excitement is still here today – it is up to us to deliver on the promise. Headway management can help us do just that!

References

[1] Transport for London, “London’s Bus Contracting and Tendering Process, lbsl-tendering-and-contracting.pdf,” Transport for London, London, 2015.

[2] B. S. C. t. I. S. T. t. BCM, “Bus Services Continue to Improve Since Transition to BCM,” 04 09 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=752cc877-00a8-4e0c-8732-11e3d8ffa126.

[3] M. Trompet, X. Liu and D. J. Graham, “Development of key performance indicator to compare regularity of service between urban bus operators,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transprotation Research Board No. 2116, pp. 33-41, 2011.

[4] A. Polus, “Modeling and Measurements of Bus Service Reliability.,” Transportation Research, Vol. 12, pp. 253-256, 1978.

[5] M. Simeunovic, M. Lekovic, Z. Papic and P. Pavle, “Influence of vehicle headway irregularity in public transport on in-vehicle passenger comfort,” Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 7(32), pp. 2874-2881, 2012.

[6] D. R. a. G. C. Csikos, “Investigating Consistency in Transit Passenger Arrivals: Insights from Longitudinal Automated Fare Collection Data,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2042, pp. 12-19, 2008.

There is no denying that driver fatigue and the consequences of driving drowsy are serious issues.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that driving fatigued can have the same dangerous outcomes as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with both conditions being associated with reduced alertness and attentiveness, slower reaction times and impaired decision-making abilities(1)(2).

In light of this, eliminating or minimising driver fatigue and its related risks is a high priority for many bus companies.

The issue itself is the heart of the problem. However, if bus operators lack a readily accessible driver fatigue policy for staff members and an easy-to-implement process for monitoring and flagging breaches of policy, they risk being held legally liable for any consequences that result from allowing operations to continue under dangerous conditions.

While the driver is expected to comply with policy, the operator also has a duty of care to produce a safe work roster that gives employees adequate time to sleep, recover and perform their social and domestic responsibilities(3).

Governments and industry bodies recognise that businesses have a responsibility to systematically manage their fatigue risk in order to effectively supervise their drivers, with enforcement, compliance regulations, standards and reviews by the authorities intended to ensure safe operations(1).

Fatigue is one of the key areas that is in the spotlight and targeted for implemented change over the coming years(1).

Historically, Australian authorities have focused mainly on the trucking industry when it comes to driver fatigue monitoring. However, with trucking having been under the microscope for some time, industry regulators are now turning their attention to bus operators. As per the National Heavy Vehicle Register (NHVR), these are the standard work and rest hourly requirements for drivers operating a bus or a coach:

How does your company stack up against these requirements today?

It is not uncommon in the transportation industry, where there is ongoing pressure to perform to schedules, for people to work within a culture of ‘powering through’(3). Are your operations currently ensuring that there is adequate policing of fatigue management regulations?

While the laws and regulations around heavy vehicle driver fatigue are often complex and difficult to comply with(4), it doesn’t have to be hard for your company.

By having a policy in place and using an integrated system to help automate the monitoring and regulating of driver shifts, you can place more focus on managing the causes of driver fatigue, which are often overlooked(4).

Empirical evidence suggests that drivers perceive support from management as playing a key role in them taking positive actions towards preventing driver fatigue(5). This is further supported by the observation of decreased reported fatigue in depots where positive management relationships were in place.

This makes the process of being able to manage compliance and act accordingly easier. It also eliminates any pressure on management to manually keep track of staff compliance with fatigue policies.

Furthermore, an ERP system as your company’s single source of the truth and data repository enhances incident analysis capabilities, as there is the potential to be able to draw correlations between staff behaviour and accidents.

An example of this could be discovering a trend that late driver check-ins coincide with fatigue-related occurrences. Such information could dramatically change your company’s ability to take preemptive action and instill new practices or policies to avoid risky situations.

A bus-specific ERP system allows you to not only meet the requirement of adhering to driver fatigue legislation, but also ensures your company is following industry best practice.

Your company also has the added benefit of being able to build trust with authorities through a well-implemented policy and the ability to produce evidence of your compliance with standards and legislation.

Learn more about Trapeze ERP

(1) Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2016). Delivering heavy vehicle safety solutions together: Queensland’s Heavy Vehicle Safety Action Plan 2016–18. Retrieved from https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Road-safety/Strategy-and-action-plans

(2) Watson, N. F., Morgenthaler, T., Chervin, R., Carden, K., Kirsch, D., … Wise, M. (2015). Confronting drowsy driving: The American academy of sleep medicine perspective. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine , 11(11), 1335–1336. http://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.5200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623133/

(3) Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (2017). Fatigue. Retrieved from https://www.atsb.gov.au/safetywatch/sw_fatigue/

(4) National Transport Commission Australia. (2016). Heavy vehicle driver fatigue data: Final report May 2016. Retrieved from http://www.ntc.gov.au/Media/Reports/(792A30B5-8CE0-420A-A8F6-79723FE802F6).pdf

(5) Biggs, H. C., Dingsdag, D. P., & Stenson, N. (2009) Fatigue factors affecting metropolitan bus drivers: A qualitative investigation. Work : A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 32(1). pp. 5-10. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/19562/1/19562.pdf

In an unregulated eHail rideshare market, with new operators frequently joining the mix, the likelihood of passenger dissatisfaction increases while trust in the industry tumbles.

Today’s passengers are mobile-connected and increasingly reliant on eHail platforms to search, compare and book transport. Customers demand high-quality, consistent service every time they complete a trip. (Should anyone pay five times the regular fare just because it’s raining?)

However, the current eHail market hides its risks behind a veneer of convenience.

Lack of governance or oversight leads to less visibility and control over service. Unaccredited and unregulated operators aren’t likely to be monitored or managed for bad service.

This ultimately leads to negative public opinion and, by association, can damage the taxi industry’s reputation.

Ultimately, the responsibility for managing and regulating public transport falls to transport authorities.

The regulatory umbrella of those authorities needs to also cover eHail and rideshare services to help bring order to the chaos and deliver a more efficient, safer customer experience.

To help facilitate this shift in business thinking – to bring multiple modes of transport together under one platform rather than operating in silos – authorities can leverage taxi management software that can integrate eHail and taxi via a shared platform.

With a united technology platform, operators and authorities who incorporate the taxi into their fleets can gain a shared real-time view of their vehicles, drivers and network, ensuring compliance with current regulations, guaranteeing a reliable, cost-effective service that increases passenger satisfaction and maintains viable profit margins.

To ensure regulation creates a level playing field there are four areas on which authorities need to focus:

In my view, the following benefits are just some of the outcomes that can be achieved within each of the four categories.

1. Regulation

• Regulated fares lead to consistency, building public trust

• Fair application of government and disability subsidies

• Appropriate driver incomes sustained

• Operating vehicles meet required standards

2. Safety

• Fleet road-worthiness is maintained

• Vehicle service and safety checks regularly scheduled

• Drivers covered by public liability insurance

• Drivers undergo police checks, accreditation and training

3. Service

• Vehicles dispatched to high-demand locations

• Effective route management reduces congestion

• Passengers receive efficient, satisfying service

• Special events more efficiently managed

4. Sustainability

• Drivers are earning a fair and minimum wage

• All operators are profitable and invested for the long term

• Vehicles are not old and kept up to date for passenger use

In one of the world’s fastest-growing cities, the Dubai Roads & Transport Authority has already acknowledged the need for a united platform by integrating all modes of transport in the emirate through taxi management software, bringing taxi into the public transport network.

By implementing a united solution, authorities, eHail providers and passengers will all enjoy shared benefits – including those I’ve mentioned above, and more.

The outcomes of a regulated, connected platform will be felt across the industry through greater repeat trips and increased new business. Are you on board?

I encourage you to find out more about taxi technology being deployed globally.

Rail authorities know that asset management is a critical part of delivering a quality service, operating safely and maintaining customer satisfaction. Every day, rail network riders benefit from experiencing clean and safe stations and trains (the ‘above rail’ assets) along their journey. Equally important, however, are the myriad of ‘below rail’ assets including linear infrastructure (track), which provide the strong foundation upon which your system is built.

Linear infrastructure exists across a variety of asset-intensive industries and typically serves the purpose of moving people, water, air or power from one place to another. Examples include railways, pipelines and roads.

In the rail industry, most linear infrastructure falls into the general category of ‘fixed guideway’, and includes the following assets: track (mainline, yard and so on), tunnels, bridges and electrical/power system elements such as overhead catenary wire, third rail and cabling.

In contrast, stationary or non-linear assets are generally confined to a single location, such as rail stations, signals or switches. Railcars, locomotives, carriages and support vehicles are all examples of rolling stock (non-linear) assets.

Managing complex assets

Public rail networks are faced with the unique challenges of ensuring their assets are operating safely while contending with strict timetabling and customer service expectations.

These challenges are magnified significantly due to the complex nature of the network’s large number of linear assets, which often include nested, multilevel hierarchies of ‘child’ assets. For example, rail lines typically have mainline track with interlockings (a ‘parent’ asset) that are made up of a collection of interrelated signals and switches (‘child’ assets).

The sheer size of rail networks also makes the task of maintaining all your infrastructure data incredibly intricate.

The Trans-Asian Railway network comprises 117,500km (73,000 miles) of railway lines throughout 28 countries[1]. In the United States alone, there is almost 224,000km (139,000 miles) of railway track and over 21 million people passing through the busiest station each year[2]. The ongoing data management challenges for maintenance are clear.

Creating an effective linear asset management program requires that you understand what makes linear assets unique – length – and have tools designed for that purpose.

From a data perspective, linear assets can be quite complex, spanning hundreds (even thousands) of kilometres. Different segments along a rail network may face significantly different utilisation and wear and tear. As a result, each section may require different levels of monitoring and maintenance.

Furthermore, the geographically-dispersed nature of rail assets makes it challenging for end users to effectively manage the data and workflows on a daily basis. It is virtually impossible to keep track of all these variables without a rail management system that caters to the uniqueness of linear assets.

Fortunately, specialised tools exist to manage these challenges.

Simplifying with software

Effective asset management requires all assets to be defined and reported on in a systematic method. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) solutions manage all maintenance activities (preventative and corrective) and operating costs (labour and materials).

They have many benefits including tracking all rail infrastructure, their component ‘child’ assets, as well as all work and materials management workflows.

Rail managers use EAM to coordinate the resources required to handle scheduled and emergency repairs to minimise service disruption.

Other common functions include inspection scheduling so you always know when the next service is due, inventory level tracking, parts request management and procurement workflow support.

Time and again though, experience has shown that the complexity posed by the rail environment requires even more: an EAM solution that is purpose-built for the industry.

There are many Tier 2 and 3 EAM software packages on the market that perform basic maintenance functions. However, only a few have the specialised Tier 1 features required to effectively manage rail infrastructure.

How will you know if it’s right for rail?

For starters, look for a system designed to be your single, master repository of all wayside assets (linear and non-linear) over their entire lifecycle.

One key feature is asset configuration management functionality, to ensure that equipment can be updated to the approved engineering configuration while remaining in service.

Secondly, the system must have a Linear Reference System (LRS).

This is the underlying data structure that characterises a linear system (segments, markers and offsets), and to which all asset and event data such as work orders is referenced.

Third, due to the geographically-dispersed nature of rail networks, leading solutions offer advanced tools for field workers: mobile solutions, GPS real-time location and native GIS/mapping visualisation.

Additionally, advanced EAM systems are designed to take full advantage of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) trend by importing track geometry, as well as rail defect/fault data from ‘smart infrastructure’ and vehicle-mounted systems like geometry cars, ultrasounds and ground penetrating radar.

Integrating this data into EAM provides real-time alerts to maintenance staff so they are more aware, proactive and efficient in identifying and solving problems.

Lastly, look for proven solutions that continue to evolve with the industry, such as the ability to track asset condition, performance and risk to comply with ISO55000 or the Transit Asset Management regulations in North America.

Rail asset managers utilising a system that puts this sort of comprehensive linear data at their fingertips are at a clear advantage.

The data helps to improve safety through inspection compliance, failure analysis and service history. Keeping assets in good condition also minimises service delays due to unexpected equipment failures, while extending their useful life. A purpose-built rail asset management system will help ensure you remain in compliance with all regulations while maximising safety, asset maintenance and customer satisfaction.

Learn more about Trapeze EAM

[1] UNESCAP, Trans-Asian railway (2017), http://www.unescap.org/our-work/transport/trans-asian-railway/about

[2] AARP, America’s awe-inspiring railroad terminals (2013), https://travel.aarp.org/articles-tips/articles/info-11-2013/

A common justification for the purchase of an Automatic Vehicle Location and Control (AVLC) system is to provide contract performance reports based on services operated and the performance of the delivered service compared to the published schedule.

(Given that this data is often used to determine performance payments, operators might be justified in seeing the additional workload of supporting a system instituted to penalise them as just another cost to their operations.)

In my experience, the benefit that an AVLC system can bring to operators is not top of mind for governments when they are initially considering a purchase.

Operators are typically viewed through a contractual lens. The government writes the contract and the winning bidder signs up to the conditions. It is up to the operator how they deliver to the conditions of the contract and how to make money by managing their costs.

Certainly there is some benefit in this and operators would be the first to tell governments to stay out of their business as they manage staff, schedule repairs and plan for their future.

However, best practice would suggest that a city's transport operations should not be adversarial.

It is in both the government’s and the operator’s interest to deliver frequent services, on time with minimal disruptions. Good service delivery maximises the benefit to the passenger and the government, and means that operators will get the maximum payment that their contract will allow.

Smart operators know that to do this, they need both visibility and, importantly, control of their fleet.

Visibility

To provide visibility, many companies have installed their own GPS tracking system on their vehicles.

Yarra Trams knew this and 30 years ago went even further, developing their own location and vehicle monitoring system. They have been successfully upgrading and using this system ever since. Many other bus companies have also installed basic GPS tracking.

Unfortunately, these systems are usually installed for a specific purpose by individual operators who are usually running to a very tight budget. Because of this, they are limited in scope and are not related to the KPIs required by their operating contract.

Control

Control is often via the operators’ own radio system. This is standalone, not connected to the AVLC and remains a significant cost to operators.

Partnering for Success

Generally, however, it is not the technology that is at issue. It is the willpower and expectations that shape the interactions.

Both government and transport operators need to be open about what they need and how this will benefit them as well as the other party.

In a cooperative delivery strategy, the government will do all it can to make the operator meet their contractual goals.

They want the operator to win, because this means commuters get a better experience. In this paradigm, an AVLC system is not a tool to penalise operators but to enable them to meet their KPIs.

Properly designed routes that are well-executed will give the travelling public a better service at a lower cost.

This in turn will result in increased patronage and ultimately an overall increase in social wellbeing. It’s good for the transport authority, it’s good for the operators, and most importantly it is good for the passenger.

The result? Winners all round!

The use of public transport around the world was, until recently, increasing.

In 2015, there were 243 billion journeys made on public transport in 39 different countries (up 18% compared to 2000).

However, in what can only be described as a transport planner’s nightmare, we are now seeing patronage decreases across all modes in many cities, including Melbourne, Brisbane and major American cities like New York and Los Angeles.

Recent research presented at the Australasia Bus Conference tells us that 80% of travel in Australian cities is undertaken in private cars.

We love our cars, but with the avoidable social costs of congestion estimated to rise from $16.5 billion in FY2015 to roughly $30 billion in 2030, there is a significant price to pay and this is cause for concern.

Governments are striving to tempt passengers back into mass transit vehicles. There has been plenty of emphasis and exploration into autonomous vehicles, ridesharing, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and on-demand transport.

These are valuable tools and one day, they will all form a natural part of our public transport ecosystem. But what can our government transport teams do now to make a difference?

One possibility is to increase the level of integration in the transport network.

Transfers: Stopping Customers in Their Tracks?

For public transport users, getting from A to B often involves multiple services and modes.

Often, without a customised point to point service, a single trip will not get us where we want to go. We have no option but to consider a public transport journey as one comprising multiple trips on multiple transport modes and/or routes.

For a long time, planners focused on delivering one transport mode and attempted to deliver a CBD-to-the-door experience, based on the philosophy that passengers wanted to settle in on a single vehicle and did not want to have to pay for multiple trips.

This view was not without merit and is supported by research showing waiting time between trips is perceived as a hindrance to public transport adoption.

Whilst this way of thinking is fine for smaller population centres, as cities have grown it has resulted in some unfortunate side effects. Notably:

• Duplication of services. Buses would run on the road alongside train tracks or along the same corridor as trams. Often these services were run by operators in competition with each other!
• Service inequality. Many buses would travel over the same roads near the CBD before spreading out in the suburbs to drop off passengers. This meant inner city suburbs were over-serviced and growing outer suburbs were underserviced.
• Inefficiencies in passenger loads as large buses (necessary for line haul) were circulated in the suburbs, where smaller vehicles may have been more efficient. Often, partially-loaded buses would run line haul to the city.
• Lower service frequencies as suburban buses were tied up doing line haul services.

These issues could be resolved by having suburban services deliver passengers to major bus interchanges or railway stations, where they would board larger buses or trains bound for the city centre. However:

While there are clear advantages for transport authorities in creating more transfer-dependent systems (such as lowering costs while increasing customer options), it is less clear whether passengers are going to like it.

Services are not planned ahead of time with intermodal travel in mind and the result for passengers is long waiting times between services or large walking distances between trips.

In today’s world of instant gratification, who wants to walk a long way to a bus stop, ride a bus to the train station, sit around at the station until the train comes, eventually catch that train to the CBD, wait for your connecting bus to arrive and then after another 15-minute wait, take that second bus to get to your office.

You might start off the day as hip young Generation Z but you end up a frustrated Baby Boomer! Then we get to do it again going home (groan).  

What passengers want is to have a service that is within a comfortable walk, know when the service is going to be at their stop, get off that service at the train station two minutes before the train arrives and catch their train to the city where they find their second bus waiting for the train. Now that is a service I’d want to use!

Making Light Work of a Complex Task

Many cities have hundreds of public transport routes, thousands of vehicles and multiple private companies operating different aspects of the system.

At first glance, it might appear impossible to coordinate all of these aspects into a working service.

However, a sophisticated intelligent transport system (ITS) can simplify the process of running a multimodal transport network by providing the visibility, control and communication needed within a single platform for planning and paying for a journey.

An ITS works in a number of ways. First, it allows the network to be planned effectively.

Bus routes can be coordinated with tram lines and high capacity line haul routes can be coordinated with suburban services, so that passengers can get off one trunk service and easily transfer to a connecting service. Sufficient time is allowed for the service arrival and walking time between stops.

Next, a control centre receives information about schedules, current vehicle location and any delays that may impact travel at that particular time.

This data can be fed back to vehicle operators, drivers and passengers to allow them to adjust their journey if needed.

The centralised collection of data is of great value to public transport authorities, as well as the operators of individual services within the network.

For example, vehicle location and ticketing data can give insight into passenger numbers and trends. The improved passenger information and service interconnectedness are also a win for passengers.

Multimodal Visibility

They want the ability to view the entire public transport network, including trains, buses, trams, ferries, bicycle share and autonomous last mile shuttles, in one digital platform. They also expect simplicity in making multimodal connections.

ITS helps deliver this visibility by allowing transport authorities to collect information on when and where passengers are boarding services and monitoring whether scheduled services are delivered on time.

This is invaluable for day to day delivery as well as planning, where passenger boarding drives the placement of at-stop facilities and travel times allow planners to make realistic service connections.

This data could show, for example, that a particular service is regularly three minutes late at one stop on the route but otherwise running on time.

The reasons for this delay can be investigated and, if not able to be mitigated, the delay can be reflected in a small change to the timetable conveying the time that the bus will actually be at the stop given normal conditions.

While longer term planning is important, the inevitability of delays in public transport networks require the provision of real-time information and control of services.

It is here that passengers benefit most, with ITS also allowing for on-board displays and announcements on delays or even alternative routes.

Passengers can receive real-time information on their current and future services, via the web, apps and SMS, and use digital platforms to track and replan their journey as required.

The real-time communication ITS provides to drivers is just as valuable. If the plan is for passengers to get off a tram and transfer to a bus service for the final part of their journey, missing that connection by 30 seconds will have a very negative effect on passengers who may have to wait 20 - 30 minutes for the next bus.

An integrated ITS can identify that the tram is running late and send a message to the bus, advising the driver to stay at the connection point until the tram arrives. Connection is made – happy days!

Rethinking Transit

With many governments keen to create smarter cities and increase liveability for their residents, the trend reversal we are seeing in public transport patronage is alarming.

To address this, transport authorities must double down to drive positive customer experiences with a fully integrated multimodal network that works for passengers.

Transport planners need to deliver better connected services with reliable wait times that meet the public’s needs and optimise use of transportation assets.

This is not easy, but it must be done and with the right tools and contracts it can be done.

You need only look at the upcoming network redesign in Canberra as validation. This redesign will use the new tram services for line haul, with connecting buses to carry people out to the suburbs. You will see multiple modes working together, connecting timetables and happy passengers.

Only by making public transport easy and convenient, will we persuade passengers to give up their private cars for mass transit vehicles.

With tighter connections and better integration using the right ITS tools, transport authorities and operators can make this happen.

The recent Australasia Bus Conference was an eye-opener in more ways than one, with lots of expert speakers on a wide variety of topics. However, the one that left a biggest impression on me was undoubtedly Claire Madden, the social researcher who literally wrote the book on Gen Z.

(If you, like me, aren’t sure what Generation Z is, this refers to the ‘post-Millennials’ – people born in 1994 or later. They’re likely to be your teenage children or the young professionals who have just entered your workforce.)

Not only did she teach us how to speak Gen Z (kudos to you if you know what all of the above terms mean), she shared some impactful statistics and insights from her research that may surprise you.

 Gen Z in the Workplace 

In terms of what this means for the bus industry, as employers we need to start thinking about how to manage this new generation of employees.

Ms Madden suggested that given their relative inexperience in offline communication, Gen Z employees could need a different kind of professional development – potentially, training on how to communicate effectively on the phone and in person.

Due to their natural inclination to collaborate and expectation that their opinions will be heard, it is important to create a welcoming workspace that encourages them to contribute ideas. A collaborative leadership style is more likely to get the best out of them.

  Gen Z: A Guide to Future Trends?

Gen Z is also immensely valuable if you want to keep up with changes in trends and technology.

Ms Madden described them as “very agile” and with their finger “on the pulse”; if you are interested in societal change, Gen Z-ers are usually pretty good indicators of where we are headed because they are so plugged in.

If you think about this, you’ll see that Gen Z-ers really are a weathervane for changing passenger expectations:

• Their expectation of integration across digital and physical points towards a growing expectation across all generations for frictionless transactions, easy-to-access information and convenience both online and offline.
• They are able to get knowledge, food, car rides and more easily and on-demand; they probably don’t see why public transport should be any different. As older generations increase their digital usage and grow accustomed to this, they too will adopt this attitude.

This is why transport authorities are prioritising demand responsive transport and Mobility as a Service (MaaS).

If we’re serious about increasing patronage and getting people out of their cars and into buses, we need to start looking at how we can making public transport easy.

 MaaS and On-Demand Trials: Insights

This talk set the tone for the rest of the bus conference. Other speakers also stressed the importance of customer-oriented public transport and shared insights from their own smart mobility efforts:

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Australia

 Susan Harris, the CEO of ITS Australia, revealed findings from their latest paper on MaaS, the future of public transport and what Australians want:

• People who understand the cost of driving well are more prepared to adopt MaaS.
• 41% of survey respondents said they would use MaaS to get to social activities, but not their regular commutes.
• Pay-as-you-go schemes were more likely to be purchased than unlimited access payment schemes, suggesting they were using MaaS as a supplement and not a replacement.
• The outer suburbs are ready to adopt MaaS to fill a gap. City-dwellers who already have a lot of public transport services are less interested.
• It is vital to have a solid base of public transport access to open up MaaS usage; otherwise, people will just continue using cars.

Ms Harris stressed that it was important to have a vision of where you want to be before implementing MaaS.

With numerous trials and full implementations having been rolled out overseas such as UbiGo, Whim, Didi and S’Hail, there is plenty to learn from.

Read the full paper.

New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA)

 Martin McMullan, NZTA’s Director Connected Journeys, gave a great update on the New Zealand perspective on MaaS:

Customer research:

• 78% of people travel by car; 70% walk; while only 30% take public transport.
• Most people want to see great public transport in the future, but expect to see more private cars on the road.
• People just want to get around quickly and efficiently; that’s why they are willing to try MaaS.
• They want integrated mobility solutions with public transport as a base; they do not see MaaS as a replacement for public transport.

Learnings from trials:

• New Zealand has two trials ongoing: Choice in Queenstown and RideMate in Auckland.
• Their platform takes feeds from 25 different sources so commuters can see everything in one place. The idea is to put passengers in a position of knowledge and give them choice.
• Journey planners in apps need to be fair, not commercialised. It is essential that public transport is visible and portrayed as a premium product in MaaS apps.
• There is potential for MaaS apps to also incorporate vehicle fees and tollgate fees in future.
• NZTA is considering a new payment model that rewards active transport: for example, cycling could generate credits within the app that you can use to pay your bus fare.

NZTA’s collaborative relationship with customers to solve problems and crowdsource ideas really impressed me.

Their openness and willingness to test new concepts and ideas has certainly helped them uncover useful insights into their market.

Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR)

 Matthew Longland, Deputy Director General of Queensland’s DTMR, discussed the on-demand transport trial in Logan and customer feedback:

• Technology is not a big driver for most users; most people wanted to be able to book by phone call instead of app.
• The service’s fares and integration in to the broader public transport network was most important for them.
• There has been a steady growth in patronage, including repeat customers.

However, there is still some way to go with these on-demand services because DTMR have not been able to integrate it with the wider Go Card network.

DTMR also want to improve occupancy by consolidating passengers and optimising trips.

Part of the difficulty DTMR experienced seems to be due to the use of a modified taxi solution instead of a dedicated demand responsive transport software.

Our clients in North America have had great successes in implementing on-demand transport; I’d be keen to see if we can replicate their achievements here.

Mr Longland also outlined DTMR’s objectives and challenges for the future of Queensland’s public transport:

• Innovative, integrated transport for everyone is the goal – in particular, there is a need for integrated transport across modes, including on-demand and high-frequency services.
• Technology and digital connectivity will be a big part of the future as traditional models of public transport blur due to changing customer expectations.
• However, public transport is still the backbone of the mass transit network – newer modes will build on it, not replace it.

Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW)

 John Karaboulis, Executive Director Service Delivery and Asset Management for TfNSW, also provided a helicopter overview of passenger transport in NSW:

• TfNSW’s customer-centric, outcomes-focussed approach seems to be paying off, with passenger satisfaction very high (as seen in customer feedback and strong patronage numbers).
• The development of software and apps has proven to be a challenge in some MaaS pilots.
• But the trials have shown that small vehicles and more convenient payment methods are popular with customers.

Mr Karaboulis also said the new generation of public transport contracts would focus on return on investment and performance improvement:

• He cited the inclusion of demand responsive transport in the recent Newcastle and Region 6 tenders as an example and urged bus operators to “play in this space”.
• The B-Line service, the first in NSW to be run under a headway regime, has been running for nearly a year. The KPIs for this contract were around headway frequency, not on-time performance, so the operator has to retain frequency regardless of traffic and patronage surges. Mr Karaboulis said he expects this to be rolled out to more contracts in future.

Conclusion

Technological and generational change are indisputably triggering new heights of customer expectations, which leading transport authorities and operators are now acting on by researching, trialling and testing MaaS and on-demand transport.

The concept of headway-managed services is also (excuse the pun) making headway in Australia.

While traditionally we have mostly only run shuttle services (think Melbourne Airport’s Skybus) in this fashion, I anticipate ‘turn up and go’ is going to feature strongly in the bus industry’s future. Find out more about headway-managed services.

Yale Wong (Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies researcher) predicts that bus operators are likely to see a shift from delivering vehicles to delivering accessibility. The recent Region 6 tender, the first contract in Sydney to blend both mass and on-demand transit, is an example of this more mode-agnostic thinking from government.

For today’s bus operator, it is clear that passenger expectations are shaping the direction that transport authorities are taking. To stay relevant and competitive, it is more important than ever to get future-ready and be open to new ideas.

And if you have a Gen Z-er in your office, you might want to invite them to your next brainstorming meeting.