Archive for April, 2010
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) provides paratransit service to sixty towns and cities in and around Boston. With over 800 vehicles, the MBTA completes more than 1.9 million trips each year. Their paratransit service, called THE RIDE, is contracted to three companies: Greater Lynn Senior Services, Joint Venture TTI/YCN and Veterans Transportation Services. Paul Strobis, Assistant Manager, Paratransit Contract Operations for the MBTA talks about the benefits ITS technology has brought to their operation.
1. What does your company look for in a technology provider? What do you value most?
When we went looking for technology partners for our next five year service contract we wanted to look for stability and the best value for the MBTA, especially in the current economic climate. And with that stability and value, we wanted to be able to provide quality service to the disabled community which is our customer base.
2. How has the system improved how dispatchers interact with drivers?
I think it’s reduced the amount of radio traffic. One-on-one messaging capabilities with the drivers mean that messages don’t need to be broadcast fleet-wide. Using the mobile computers, dispatchers can communicate directly with a driver for same-day orders or manifest changes. I think that’s been the biggest difference.
3. Has the system helped you to more effectively monitor the on-time performance of your fleet?
The information we get back from the AVL technology absolutely gives me a solid feeling about our on-time performance data. Previous to this system, the reporting was being done manually and the MBTA had to take at face value that what was being reported was accurate. Now it’s all uniform, accurate reporting.
This system gives us data so we know when we’re arriving, when we’ve departed, and when we arrive at the drop-off location. All of that data can be collected and reported on, which allows us to see where the problems are. Our scheduling folks can assess this data and are able to tweak the schedule and improve it.
4. Where are you seeing the most benefit?
We are seeing the most benefit in the accuracy of reporting and improved customer service by being able to tell the customer where the vehicle is instead of guessing. I would imagine that fleet utilization and driver utilization is more beneficial to the vendors, as they can keep their man power down by accurately knowing what their slack time is, where their holes are in the schedule, and by being able to dispatch on-the-fly versus sending out paper manifests.
5. At this stage in your company’s growth, what would have been the impact of not equipping your operation with this new technology? How would your customers/staff have been affected?
If we didn’t have this ITS system I would imagine chaos, so I don’t think about that. We’d probably need to hire more staff to be able to handle what is now mostly automated.
Prior to this ITS infrastructure, we used an old Windows 98-based product. We did have an AVL system but it was spotty at best and all the reporting had to be done manually. When we implemented the new ITS technology we saw a swing in reporting where some of our percentages really skewed in the first fiscal year because it was based on the AVL technology and the data coming out of the system versus manual reporting.
The improvement in customer service has been huge. Instead of getting the old ‘Where’s my ride, oh it’s five minutes away, ten minutes away, right around the corner’. Now it’s ‘Your vehicle’s on Smith Street, three minutes away ETA’. Because we really do know where the vehicle is today.
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
It is well known that cell phone use while driving is a leading cause of accidents. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, cell phone distractions cause 600,000 crashes and 3,000 deaths each year.[1] In addition, on-the-job crashes are very expensive for employers with average costs of $24,500 per crash, $150,000 per injury, and $3.6 million per fatality.[2]
An often overlooked aspect of distracted driving is a company’s liability when an employee causes an accident. Under the legal doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer is liable for actions of an employee if the employee was acting under the purview of his or her employment at the time of an accident.[3] In other words, if your employee causes injury to someone due to negligent conduct (i.e. distracted driving), the victim can sue your company directly for damages. ZoomSafer has written an excellent white paper delving further into the details of this issue and outlining the steps companies need to take to protect themselves from liability.
As discussed in the white paper, in the past ten years a wide variety of cases have resulted in companies paying restitution to victims injured by the negligent driving of an employee distracted by a cell phone. With settlements and verdicts ranging from $1.5 to $21 million[4] employees who use cell phones while driving are a costly risk for your company. Here are a few examples:
- Tiburzi v. Holmes Transport Inc. (2009) – $18 million judgment: The plaintiff was left in a permanent vegetative state from brain injuries caused by a collision with an 18-wheel truck driven by an employee of the defendant. During the trial, the judge found that at the time of the accident the truck driver had flipped open his cell phone and was checking for text messages. Holmes Transport was found vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and ordered to pay $18 million in restitution. Trials are still underway for three other people killed in the accident.[5]
- Bustos v. Leiva & Dyke Industries (2001) – $21 million judgment: An elderly woman was seriously injured after a collision with a truck driven by an employee of Dyke Industries. Though he claimed he was not distracted, the employee’s cell phone records proved he was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. Because the employee was working at the time of the accident, and in a company truck, Dyke Industries was held vicariously liable and subsequently settled for $16.2 million.[6]
- Smith v. Beers Skansksa, Inc. (2005) – $5 million settlement: The plaintiff was injured when a truck driven by an employee of Beers Skansksa, Inc. collided with his car. At the time of the crash, the employee was dialing his cell phone and checking his voicemail. Because the employee was on-duty and using a work-issued cell phone, Beers Skansksa, Inc. was held vicariously liable. The case settled for $5 million just before it was set to go to trial.[7]
To address this problem, many companies have instituted paper policies outlining acceptable cell phone use by employees. However, having a paper policy does not prevent a company from being held liable in the event of an accident, as seen in the case of Ford v. McGrogan & International Paper. In 2008, an employee of International Paper rear-ended another car while using a cell phone. The victim, whose arm had to be amputated, sued International Paper. Even though the company had a cell phone policy in place, management recognized they would likely be held vicariously responsible for the accident because the policy had not been enforced. They settled for $5.2 million dollars.[8]
Paper policies are inherently difficult to implement as their success relies on self-enforcement from employees. Fleet management technologies, such as mobile computers, enable companies to directly manage an employee’s cell phone or computer use while driving. Mobile computers can be programmed to disable functionality and display a blank screen while a vehicle is in motion. Once the vehicle is stopped, two-way messaging and cell phone capabilities allow drivers to communicate with the office safely and efficiently. These technologies eliminate the possibility of an employee using a company cell phone or mobile computer while driving and are one of the few ways to protect your company from liability in the case of an accident.
Click here to read the whitepaper by ZoomSafer.
To learn more about how in-vehicle computers can increase your fleet’s safety and decrease your risk of liability, click here.
[1] Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
[2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) & Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[3] “Distracted Driving: Understanding Your Business Risk and Liability.” ZoomSafer. http://zoomsafer.com/Portals/43/Whitepapers/Distracted%20Driving%20Corporate%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf. January 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
Monday, April 19th, 2010
With the proliferation of transit mapping and mobile applications available, giving your passengers the best trip-planning tools possible can seem like a difficult task. Scott Davis, the founder of ThirstyHead.com, has put together a great overview of the many websites, applications and APIs that can help your customers use transit more effectively. He also provide links to many informative websites and the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), where agencies can easily start the process of opening their transit data to the public. Providing your passengers with these resources will make them more confident when using transit, resulting in increased ridership and improved customer satisfaction. Click here to read the entire article.
Thursday, April 15th, 2010
When temperatures start to rise, fleet drivers have one of two options: they can crank the air conditioning or open windows. We’ve all heard that opening windows is more environmentally-friendly solution because air conditioning requires a running engine, and a running engine takes fuel.
The answer isn’t as cut and dry as you might expect, but it’s very simple.
“When you’re driving across town in stop-and-go traffic,” says Frank Hampshire, Director of Market Research with the Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), “it’s more fuel efficient to drive with the air conditioning off, windows down.” More specifically, when your vehicle is travelling at 40 miles per hour, or slower.[i]
But once you hit the open road of the highway and your speed starts to increase, aerodynamics become a factor. Go over 45 miles per hour and open windows will create drag, reducing fuel efficiency by 10 percent. Go over 55 miles per hour with your windows down and you’ll reduce fuel efficiency by 20 percent. [ii]
[i] http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/will-rolling-down-windows-save-fuel-or-not.aspx
[ii] http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/will-rolling-down-windows-save-fuel-or-not.aspx
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Fuel costs account for 28-30% of most fleet’s budgets. Considering how much fuel costs, this makes reducing fuel consumption one of the most important issues facing fleet managers. Culprits such as prolonged idling and excessive speeding make driver behavior the number one factor in fuel consumption.
A speed and idling monitoring solution allows managers to monitor idling, instances of excessive speed, and unauthorized use of their fleet vehicles. Armed with this information, they can address wasteful driver behaviors to significantly reduce the amount of fuel consumed by their fleet and save their company money.
An urban paratransit agency that recently began piloting a speed a monitoring system was immediately able to identify over 17 hours of unnecessary idling per vehicle in a single week. This costs the agency almost $35 per vehicle, per week in wasted fuel. Extended to their 650 vehicle fleet, the agency would waste more than $1.6 million dollars a year in fuel from excess idling.
Click here to download a white paper to learn more about reducing fuel consumption and how a telematics solution can help.
