USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Advanced technology for transit passenger information delivery systems


Material Information

Advanced technology for transit passenger information delivery systems
Physical Description:
Mustard, William A
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
United States. Dept. of Transportation. University Research Institute Program
National Urban Transit Institute (U.S.)
Florida State University. Marketing Institute
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit--Technological innovations--United States   ( lcsh )
Local transit--United States--Information services   ( lcsh )
Internet   ( lcsh )
Advanced traveler information systems (TRIS)   ( trt )
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 46355862
usfldc doi - C01-00168
usfldc handle - c1.168
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00168
(OCoLC) 46355862
0 245
Advanced technology for transit passenger information delivery systems
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1999 October
Local transit--Technological innovations--United States
Local transit--United States--Information services
Advanced traveler information systems (TRIS)
1 700
Mustard, William A
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
United States. Dept. of Transportation. University Research Institute Program
National Urban Transit Institute (U.S.).
Florida State University. Marketing Institute.
Hofacker, Charles.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Advanced Technology for Transit Passenger Information Delivery Systems Dr. Charles H ofacker and William A. Mustard Pri ncipal Invest i gators A research project of ... NUTIthe Nationa l Urban Transit Institute and F TA Federal Transit Administration Conducted by ... The Marketing Institute at the Florida State University Col le ge of Business T allahassee FL 32306-1 1 11 (850) 644-2509 October 1999


n:c1 CAL REPORT ST ..\..1\ffiARD TITLe PAC 1 A ..;IOII NO NUTI-FSU 2. GC'f'III!'MM No l t m S ) 3 No. NUT14FSU 1 UMTRIS/FT A Sec1io n t Hive with t t w automobile, transit pEtssengEt>rs and transit passengers must have access to transit information and accessib i lity that approaches the level of informatior\ Md access offered by the private automobi l e. With the adve n t of new technologies s u d t h e [nt errre-t, the proposed that there may already be an emergin g leader i n new technologies that could p rovide this information. The project proposed to survey the C>Xisting technologies that are current in use by transit systems, d e v ise a way t v compare these t tXh.nologies and se-lect the most technologies for further s.tu.dy Using t h i s methodology_, the research tea.m was able to identify the follow ing top three "advanced techJ\ologies" for <.f('li w r 'nt. time transit information to all transit passenger market segments: 1. lnternctive Voice Resporue Sys.tems 2. Persona] Digital Assistants 3 World W i de Web In addition_, the research team identified the following top three t echnologies fo r dehV('ring background lnformati01\: I. World WideWeb 2 [nte ractive Voice Response Systems 3 P re-trip k iosks i n p"blic buildings 17. KKt '/.'ft. 1 8, l)stnbt.l:cn$a".elf'oeM ATMS, Transit Information, Transit Repon Availa bl e throug h the : Passenger Nat ional Technical I nformation Service (NT IS) 5285 Pon Roya l Road Springfi eld Virg i nia 22161 (703) 487-4650 HI, S.C111'11y ClanJieatlo n. (ol tl!i 1epc:!O'U 20. lllflh:S p.l9e) 21. No. of pap$ "'"" Unclassified Unclass i fied Fonn DOT F 1 700.7 (8-72)


Executi ve Summary This project was conducted during the period 1997 to 1999 to determine the most promising uses of new technology for deliv ering transit passenger information. The project was based on the premise that in order for transit to be more competitive w i th the automobile, transit passengers and potential transit passenge r s m ust have access to transit information and accessibility that approa c hes the level of information and access off ered by the private automobile. With the advent of new technologies such as the lnt emet, the projec t proposed that there may already be an emerging leader in new technologies that could provide this information. The project proposed to survey the existing technologies that are current in use by transit systems, devise a way t o compare these technologies, and select the most promising techno l ogies for further study. After a straightforward literature review and survey of transit systems, the project i dentified 33 systems using "advanced technologies'' (advanced technologies were defined as any sys t em using CPS or ATMS technology to deliver real-time information to passengers, or any systems that could be used t o deliver this type technology, e.g interactive voice-menus on te leph one computers.) After collecting these data, the project team created an evaluation system that related each type of technology to the target market for a given transi t agency. This eva l uation system was reviewed by e ight trans i t marketing/planning professionals from around the United States to "ground truth" the project team s assumptions, and then the system was applied to each of the technologies identified through the earlier survey process Using this methodology, the research team was able to identify the following top three "advanced technologies" for delivering real time transit information to all transit passenger market segments: 1. Interactive Voice Response Systems 2 Personal Dig.ltal Assistants 3. World Wide Web In additio n the research team i dentified the following top three technologies for delivering background information: 1. World Wide Web 2. Interactive Voice Response Syst e ms 3. Pre trip kiosks in public buildings These technolog.les seem t o represent the greatest promise at this time for delivering transit passenger information using advanced technology However, these technologies are evolving quickly, and transit systems wishing to invest in new technologies are advised to use the evaluation system created through this projec t as one way to determine the best n e w technolog i es for use on their particular operations This project was conducted as part of the National Urban Transit Institute The Principal Investigators were Dr. Charles Hofacker, Mr William Mustard, and Mr. DeWayne Carver, all of whom are part of the Marketing Institute at the Florida State University College of Business NUT/ Advanced Technology Final Rttport


Table of Contents /. Purposeofp roject'-------------------1 fl. Project Plan---------------I lll. Task One: Lit erature Review-------------I IV: Two (User Survey) Results---------------J V. Task Three (Eval uati on Criteria) J VI. Task Four (Evaluation of Systems from Task 2 using c riteria from Task J) 5 Vll. R eco mmendations and Findings 8 ATTACHMENTS 10 NUn Advanced T.chnology Final Report


National Urban Transit Institute "l'Ot.. .. :,..,::;oot,J\. .... ........ '"'. Advanced Technology for Transit Passenger Information Delivery Systems .... "':,.. .{;;; The Marketing Institute Florida State University College of Business I. Purpose of project For most of this century, transit has been losing mode share to the automobile. As transit operators strive to offer services in the face of dwindling budgets and declining ridership, they have learned to make use of new technologies for improv ing the efficien c y of their transit systems. Global Positioning Systems, Advanced Traffic Management Systems, and compute r technology are allowing transit to be a more productive part of the transportation system by allowing transit operators to keep up with where their buses are and how well the buses are moving through the street system. As personal computers and computer-based information becomes more ubiquitous, trans it operators may also have an opportunity to share this information with transit passengers. By giving passengers acces.< to information about the l ocation and progress of trans i t vehicles, transit operators can decrease the uncertainty levels typicall y associated with transit travel. If passengers, or potential passengers, can be as confident of the location and availability of transit as they can be of their personal a utomobiles, transit may become a more viable transportation option. This project describes the systems that deliver th is type of newly-available information as "advanced technology for transit passenger information systems." The project is designed to determine the state of development and near development of these kinds of systems and evaluate the systems in terms of their market orientation and feasibility. 11. Project Plan This project undertook a survey of the existing and planned systems for delivering information to transit passengers v i a "advanced technology". For the purpose of this project, "advanced technology" was defined as any system using GPS or ATMS technology to deliver realtime information to passengers, or any systems that could be used to deliver this type of infomlation. For example, an interactive phone system could be hoo ked to a computer to provide real-time data on the transit system, so this type of system would be considered "advanced technology". A print ed paper map or booklet, however, cannot make use of real time data, so it would not be cons idered "advanced techno logy ." Once the survey of existing systems and planned systems was comp leted, the project created a set of evaluation criteria for determining the utility of these new systems. These cri teria were evaluated by t ransit industry personnel in a telephone interview. The criteria were then applied to the systems identified in the survey to dete. rmine which systems had the greatest utility. Finally the project i dentified which systems offered the greatest promise for effectively delivery transit passenger information and made recommendations for inlplementing and supporting these systems. 111. Task One: Literature Review Using the Internet and ubrary resources from the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, ITS America, and others (not ed in the Bibliography), the project NUT/ Advanced Technology Final Rep<>rt page1


identified transit systems that were using, or had indicat.-d they were planning to advanced technology systems. 33 p r ojec ts were identified ; these are listed in Table 1 Table 1: Advanced Techno logy Projects From Literature Re view Project Name Start Year End Year P roject City Project Slate Automated Passenger Information Sy 1 t e m -Je-rsay 95 96 Newark NJ Po111and Smart B u s -90 93 Portioner 6 R _____ +, _,;:;WA_ .. seattle Smart Traveler .,..---.:-. Seattle 1 WA M ontgomery County (MD) Systems Integration Montgomery County MD Denver, CoiO

IV: Task Two (User Survey) Results After identifying projects that were using advanced technology, the next step was to determine how weU these projects were actuaUy working and the extent to which they had been implemented This was accomplished using a survey that was mailed out to the contact persons for each project. The survey gathered information about the operational characteristics and relative success of the advanced technology systems. Specifically the surveys determined: 1. Target groups for the project 2 Kinds of information provided 3. Technologies used by the project 4. Integration with A TMS 5. Planned changes to the project 22 of 33 surveys were returned or were completed by telephone interview. The information from these surveys, as well as a copy of the survey document, is contained in Attachment One: User S .. rvey. V. Task Three (Evaluation Criteria) After determining the current state of advanced technology development and implementation in Task Three, the project sought to evaluate the utility of thi s technology, which required the creation of evaluation criteria. Because this projec t was attempting to determine the market effectiveness of these technologies, the identification of target markets was considered an important criterion. A second criterion was the type of information being delivered i.e., whether the information was real-time or not. Transit passengers, according to this line of reasoning, would have different types of information needs, based on the type of passenger in question. Different technologies would meet these needs with different levels of success. Using this approach, the research team created three categories of transit users: 1. Reliant Riders: Passengers who use transit because they have no other transportation option 2. Choice Riders: Passengers who could use another transportation option, but have chosen transit because of economic or other considerations 3 General Public: Passengers who rarely use transit except in situations of temporary lack of transportation, such as automobile failure, travel in another city, or for a special event Each of these user categories would have different requirements for real-time transi t information, and therefore might find one type of advanced information delivery technology more useful than another type. For the purposes of testing the criteria, the research team used the three most popular forms of advanced information delivery systems from the User Survey These were interactive telephone menu systems, the Internet/World Wide Web (WWW), and Enroute Kiosks in the transit plaza. The passenger categories and the information delivery systems were arranged in a matrix, and an assessment of "UsefuY' or "Not Usefur' was assigned to each combination of passenger category and delivery system. Table 2 illustrates this arrangement. NUT/ Advancnology Final Report page 3


Table 2: Cri t eria Grid lntouctive Tel hone En route Kiok Reliant Rlde

VI. Task Four (Evaluation of Systems from Task 2 using criteria from Task 3) Having validated the evaluation criteria through peer review, the research team then put each of the systems identified in T ask 2 through an evaluation process. The results from this evaluation are lis ted in Figures 4 and 5. The evaluation instrument and results are contained in Attachment 3. Figure 4 indicates the relative utility of each technology for each market segment, in terms of real time and background information delivery. F igure 5 ranks the systems based on their total "utility scores irrespective of market segment. Figure 5 is also divided into real time and background information delivery systems in recognition that these are two different types of information with different delivery requirem ents NUT/ Advonced Technology Final Report page5


Figure 4 : Systems Utility by Market Segment & Type of Information All Rider Groups--Ranking of Technology Utility Fo r each rider group the info rmatio n delivery sy tems are rank ordered in t erms of utility Background and Realtime ut ili ty are l i s ted separately. Background 1Df21Dliti2D Pret r i p k ios k s-mall Pre trip kiosks pub lic b u ilding l:iDWYI g laza )lgice BsllQ nS POA www Pre trip kiosks other Enroute kiosks -other In t eractive Cab l e Fax Back S y stem Variable Enroute kio sks-ai rport Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas Background IDfOD!!ation Oelivert Technologll '1/WW S:tstf:m Fax Back System Pre-trip kiosks-mall Enroute kiosks a i rport Enroute kiosks other I nt er active Cable f::ligbwax Pre-t rip kiosks pub lic build i ng Pre tri p kiosks-{)ther PDA Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas Background Delivery Tec hnology WW'l/ Pr&-trip kiosks-public bu ilding Pre-trip kiosks-other Enroute kiosks a i rport Interactive Cable Pre-trip kiosks mall Enroute kiosks-transit o faza Enroute kiosks-other VQjce ResllQow vstem Fa x Back System Variab le Highway Message S j g ps Enroute kiosks h i ghway res t areas PDA Reliant Riders Realtime Total Information C;eliveel, 3 3 I nteractive Voice 3 PDA 3 P re-trip kiosks-ma ll 3 Pre t rip kiosk s-public building 2 Enroute kiosks othe r 2 I nt eractive Cable 2 Pre trip kiosks-other 2 '1/WW 1 Fax Back Sys t em 0 Enroute kiosks-airport 0 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 0 Ya!l a ble H igh way Message Signs Choice Riders Realtime !2.1!1 ln!o!!!lat ion Oaliveer: Technologll 3 '1/W'l/ 3 3 PDA 2 I nt e ractive Cable 2 Pre t rip kiosks-p u blic bui l ding 2 Pre trip kiosks-other 2 2 Enroute kiosks airport 1 E nro ute kiosks-{)t h er 1 :iadable Meli!iag 1 Pr&-trip kiosks-mall 1 Enro ute kiosks highway rest areas 0 Fa x Back System General Public Total 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Realtlme l nfonnati o n Delivery Pre-trip kiosks other W'l/'1/ Pre-trip kiosks public building Pre-trip kiosks mall PDA I nteractiv e Vo jce Resoonse I nteractive Cable E nroute kiosks=ttans!t o!aza Enro u te kiosks-othe r Enroute kiosks-airport Variab l e Higtlway Message Signs Fax Back System Enroute k iosks-highway rest areas NUn Advanced Technology Final Repor1 Total 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 Total 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 !2.1!1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 page 6


Figure 5: Information Deliveey Systems Ranked by Total I Jtilitv ScnrP All Informa tion Systems -Utility Ranking Each information delivery system i s listed with total utility score based on the total score for all 3 rider groups. The systems are ordered by score with separate listings for Realtime and Background data. Realtime Information Delivery Technology l oteraeljve Voice Response Svstem PDA www Pre-trip k i osks-public building Pre-trip kiosksOiher Enroute kioskstransit plaza Interactive Cable Pre-trip kiosks-mall Enroute kiosks-other Enroute kiosks-airport variable Highway Message Signs Fax Back System Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas BackGround lnform!tion Deljverv Technology www I nteract ive Voice B!lsponse System Pre-trip kiosks-public bui l ding t;:nro ute kiosks-transit plaza Pre-trip kiosks-mall Pre-trip kiosks-other Enroute kiosks-oth er Interactive Cable Enroute kiosks-airport Fax Back System PDA Variable Hjghway Message Signs Enroute k ioskshighway res t areas NUTI Advanced Tec-hnology Fine/ Report Total 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 4 1 1 0 Total 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 2 1 page 7


VII. Recommendations and Findings The top three information delivery systems identified in Task Four for delivering rea l time information to all market. segments were: 1. Interactive Voice Response 2. Personal Digital Assistants (PDA) 3 Wor ld Wide Web (WWW) For the delivery of background information such as fares, routes and schedu les, and "static" information, the following top three information delivery systems were selected: 1. World Wide Web 2. Interactive Voice Response Systems 3. Pre-tr ip kiosks in public buildings These rankings do not tell the entire s t ory, however There are two additional points to consider when evaluating the relative utility of these systems. First, the WWW provides an information delivery "standard" that almost all of the information delivery systems can be designed to incorporate. This is described further under "Findings", below, but it cannot be emphasized enough. Any information deliver y system, especially a real-time system, whether IVR, PDA, or kiosk-based, must be designed with the connection to the WWW in mind. The second point to consider in evaluating the of these systems is that the rankings above aggrega t e the ma rket segments that were identified in Task 3. Without a clear understand ing of the market segment for which transit information i s intended, one runs the risk of impl e menting an expens i ve transit information delivery system that will never be used because it does not meet the needs of one's customers. For this reason, Table 4 rather than Table 5 may be more useful to transit systems, even though Table 4 is a bit more complicated. Tab le 4 ranks the information d elivery systems by market Table 5 does not. The importance an d relative lack of understanding of marketing principles to transi t sys t ems is also discussed at greater length under "Findings", below, and also cannot be emphasized enough Findings Based on the peer review survey and literature review, the research team has identified the following three concerns relating t o the use of advanced techno l ogy for transit passenger information delivery systems: 1. Need for c onnecti vity between information systems: All of the information delivery systems that were identified can be designed t o access computer information with existing technology Th i s implies that an information "standard" that is appropriate for the personal computer would also be an effective informa t ion organizational medium for transit information delivery The World Wide Web i s emer ging as the ideal standar d. Kiosks, for instance, can easily be linked t o the WWW, as can PDA's, IVR systems, and interactive cab le. Based on this finding. the WWW should be considered the standard medium of delivery for any passenger transit information system 2. Possible misdirection of transit marketing focus: The peer review survey indicated that while 6 out of 8 respondents saw a d i stinction between reliant riders and choice riders, 5 out of 8 respondents saw no distinction between the information needs of these two groups From a m arketing perspective, this could indicate that transit sys te ms may be unclea r as to the best way to determine the information needs of their use rs. NUT/ Ac/VanC

Incidentally, 7 of the 8 respond ents did see a distinction between the needs of visitors and the needs of local transit users, which would indicate that these respondents do make a distinction between some market segments. 3. Need to educate trans jt operators on state of technology: The peer review group had a clear understanding of the use of kiosks and the WWW as information delivery systems, although there was d isa g reement on the wisdom of providing real time information through these or any other information delive ry system. Interactive Voice Response, however, was consistently misunderstood as an information delivery system The peer review group tended to consider any voice mail tree, or even a live operator, as an IVR system [n fact, IVR r efers to systems that allow callers to interact with a computer vi a use of the telephone, with no other human assistance, in order to get information from and/ oc add information to the computer system IVRsystems are widely use d by banks, credit card companies, and universities to perform tr a nsactions, check information, or register for classes or services. Based on the peer review, it is likely that transit systems do not understand the potential of IVR systems to secve the needs of their passengecs. Recommendations for Future Research: lnfocmation delivecy technology is changing and advancing rapidly, and may continue to do so for some ttme. The use of information delivery via Personal DJgltal Assis tants, for instance, was relativeiy rare at the time this project was conducted, due to the fact that PDA's were n.ot wide ly used at that time. In the past year, however, the handheld-computer market has increased considerably, and will continue to do so for the next few years as cellular, CPS, and paging technologies are inc orporated into these tiny computers These computers ace replacing PDA 's, and may very well be 'as common as pagers and cellular phones within a few years. Therefoce even though this type of information delivery system did not scoce very highly in the evaluation criteria, it is probab l y worth continued scrutiny. Bearing that in mind, future research could usefully focus on the top technologies listed in this report, as well as PDA information delivery, and look for better ways to educa te transit operators regarding these technologies. NUn Advanced Technology Final Report page 9


ATIACHMENTS 1. User Survey: Contains copy of survey instrument and tally of survey results 2. Peer Review Survey: Contains copy of peer review instrument and wehpage instrument. 3. Evaluation Survey: Contains copy of survey instrument and tally of results 4. Bibliography NUT/ Advanced Technology Final R.,x>l1 page 10




""',o.'-u '11"' N a ti o nal Urban T ran s i t In stitute The Marketing ln$titute at the F l o r ida State U n iversit y College of Business Tallahass e e FL 32306 (850)644 2509 july 8,1997 < < Identifier> > <> <> Tltle>> Company>> Mailing_Address>> City _State Zip _Code Dear < > LocaL Contact_Last_Name: Your agency has been identified as a current or past user of advanced technologies for delive ring transit information. We are currently conducting research on the use of these technologies, and we w.ould like to get some information from you regard ing your program. Th i s resear c h is being conducted by the Marketing Institute at Florida State University, under contract with the National Urban Transit Institute at the University of South Florida. The information you provide will be used to evaluate the suitability o f differen t technologies (such as the lntemet GPS a.nd real-time data transmission interactive cable, and kiosk systems) for delivering transit information in a variety of different settings In exchange for your assistance, we will provide you with a copy of the completed study. The enclosed survey will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete A researcher from our office will call you within the next few weeks to arrange a time to conduct the survey over the te lephone with you, or you can complete the survey on y our own and mail it back to the us in the enclosed envelope. The survey should be retumed by August 15,1997 Thank you for you assistance in conduc ting this research Your input will help us find even better ways to use, fund, and support the use of advanced technologies for transit information delivery Please call me at (850) 644-2509 if you have any questions about o r this research project. Your comments and input are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Deway n e Carver Assistant Director, The Marketing Institute


New Technology for Interactive Transit-User Information Systems Prepared by; The Mark e ting Ins titute F l ori da State University CoUege of Business Tallahassee, FL 32306-1111 July 1997 A research project for the ... ""'iQ"' Survey of Existing Programs (plcese complote and return by Friday, Auguso 15, 19'17) Urban Transit Institute


Project Identification This portion of the survey collects basic information about the person in charge of this project. Please correct any inaccurate i nformation and fill in any missing information .... Your Name/P rojec t Administrator: Identifier Local Contact First Name Local Contact Last Name Title Company or Agency : Company Address Mailing_Address City_State_Zip_Code Phone Phone Number Fax Fax Number Email Erna il Web Page: Web_Page Title of Project or Information Delivery System: Project_Name Total funding of project: Funding Projec t Beginning Date: Start_Month, Start_Year Project Ending Date: End_Month, End Year Operational Characteristics 1. Please indicate the primary group(s) to whom this program is targeted (check all that apply): Enroute transit users Pre-trip transit users Enroute auto commuters Pre-trip auto commuters General public Tourists Transit Provider/Operator Other ____ ____________


2. Please indicate the kinds of information that this program provides (check all that apply): G enera l t ransit inform a tion (how to ride t he bus, fares, etc.) Transit rou tes an d schedu les Real -time transit route i nformation (what buses are ea r ly, late. on t ime e t c ) Gene r a l traffic information (construct io n areas. scheduled delays, etc.) Rea l time traffic informatio n (check all t ha t apply) Accidents traffic speeds other-------------------3. Please indicate which of the following technologies are used by this program to deliver information (check all thai apply): Wor l d Wtde Web/Internet PreTrip Kios ks Types of Locations: Shopping malls Public build i ngs such as libraries city hall etc. _______________________ __ Enroute Kiosks Types of Locations: Transit P l azas or centers Airports or other i ntermodal Highway rest areas Other _____________ _ Telephone menu system Fax Back System Personal D i gital ASSitant broadcast Interactiv e Cable lV other technology (please describe below; anach descriptio n it necessary) PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT PAGE


4 Does this tie into any other intelligent infrastru cture syo t e m s (traffic signals r e mot e se nsing, etc.)? Please cirCle o n e : Yes or N o If yes. please ex p lain h o w the system is tied In: Program E valuation 5. How well has the pro gram accomplished its purpose a s described in the questions above? P lease circl e one : Abov e expectatio ns Met expectations B e low expectations 6 Do you foresee any c h anges, modifications or e>




Advanced Technology for Transit Information Delivery Peer Review Interview Questions Interviewer: Interviewee Name: Position: Company: Date: 1.) If you were going to divide transit users into groups, how would you do so? 2.) Do you see a distinction between those who take transit by choice (choice riders) and those who use it out of economic necessity (reliant riders)? Yes N o 3 ) Is this a key distinction? Yes No 4 ) How and when do these groups use transit? Commuting, traveling, daily, occasionally, etc Reliant commute trave l daily v. occasional other, _ ___ __ Choice commute travel daily v. occasional otherr ___ ___ _ 5.) How do the information needs of these two groups differ?


6.) Is there a n important d istinctio n between the needs of visitors and the needs of local transit users? Yes No (If no, go t o Question 9) 7.) I f yes, what sorts of information do the visitors need that lo cal users do not? 8. ) How and when do these groups use transit? Visi t ors: Locals: 9 .) We have named one group of transit users "the general public." By this we mean folks who rarely if ever actually use transit. They might use it if they had a mec hanical problem with the ir car, or while traveling. Does this group have distinct information needs from normal users and choice users? \0.) We have found that there are three technologically advanced methods of d e livering transit information: interactive phone service kiosks and the Internet. Would you agree that any of these delivery schemes might have value? Yes No If yes, which ones? 11 ) Can you think of any others that we should include? 12.) Is there a difference between how real time location information should be d elivered versus h o w background information about routes and schedules should be delivered?


13.) We see the delivery of transit information as being part of a grid or a table A long the to p of the grid are the 3 types of delivery system: Interactive Voice Response, K i osks and the WWW Down the left side of the gri d are our three transit user types: reliant users, choice users and the general public. 'vV ithin this grid, u sers can receive two types of information: Background and Real -time Does the idea of this grid make sense to you? (a copy of this grid is available on the World Wide Web at http: II tmi.cob fsu .e d u/ tmi/ nutitech.htrn.)


14.) Please comment on how useful each deliv e ry system would be for each combination of market segment and delivery method for both real time information and ba ckground information. Reliant Riders Choice Riders General Public IVR 1 Background, Real 4 Background, Real 7 Background, Real Kiosk 2Background, Real 5 Background, Real 8 Background, Real www 3 -Background, Real 6 -Background, Real 9 Background, Real


1 4 ) Please comment on how useful each deljvery system would be for each combination of ma r ket segxnen t and delivery method for both real time informatio n and background in f ormatio n. Reliant Riders C lt o ice Riders Publ i c IVR 1 Background, Real 4 -Background, Real 7 -Bac kground, Real Kiosk 2 -Bac kground, Rea l 5Bac kground, Re al 8 Background, Real www 3 B a ckgr ound, Real 6 -B ackground, Real 9 -Ba c .kground, Real


15.) For each combination of user group and delivery method, commen t on our evaluations below Our comments indicate w h ether the information delivery system is useful, useful in spe cifi ed circumstanc es, or not useful for each user group. Background Information Delivery Reliant Riders Choice Rider s General Public IVR Possibly useful for simple street layo uts Possibly u seful for simple street l ayouts Not useful Real Time Information Delivery Transit Riders Choice Riders Gei'U!ral Public IVR Useful Useful Not Useful Kiosk Useful at transfer points or at common destinations like shopping maUs Useful at transfer points or at common destinations like shopping maUs Useful Kiosk Useful at destinations like maUs Not Useful Not Useful www Not Useful Useful Useful www Not useful Useful Not Useful Thank you for participating in our project We will send you a final report on this project about six months. If you have any questions about the project or this interview, please contact [your name] or DeWayne Carver, the Project Manager, at (SSO) 644-2509. Thank you again for your help!




NU TI Technology T ask 4 Survey This survey i s designed to evaluate t he utility of the transit inform ation delivery techn ologies ident ified in the Task 2 of the project u sing the criteria create d in Task 3. P l ease i ndicate, for each transit in formation de liv ery technology listed across the top o f the pag e whether t he t echnology would be useful or "not use f ul" for each of the 3 transit passenger market categories t ransit r e liant riders t ransit choice riders a nd the genera l public Do th i s once for Background i nformation ( such as routes and schedu l es ) and once for rea l tim e in f ormation ( such as route delays time-to-next bus etc. ) for each technolog y. When finished, retum the survey to DeWayne Carver the Marketing In stitute. MC 1111 321 RBB Remember that the tran sit p asse ng e r market categories are defined as follow s : reliant riders: transit i s only means of transporta t i on choice riders: commuters wi t h option of using trans i t or driving g eneral public: may occasionally use trans i t, if v i s iti ng or if car breaks down


Background Information Delivery Reliant Riders Real Time Information Delivery Reliant Riders General Public NUTI Tech Task 4 Survey.xls useful not useful not useful useful not useful useful not useful useful not use fu l not useful useful not useful useful not useful Page 1 of 5 ii e .. -"' .. 2 -"' useful not useful not useful useful not useful useful not useful


Background Information D e liv ery Relian t R i ders! Real Ti m e I nformation Delivery Re l iant Rictersl NUTI Tech Task 4 Survey x l s "' c : :; "' .!! "' :I a. .. -" .. 0 :;;: useful not usefu l not useful useful not useful not useful ... ., .s: 0 .. -" .. 0 :;;: usef u l n o t usefu l not useful useful n ot useful not usefu l Page 2of 5 usefu l not useful not useful use f ul not usefu l not useful


Background Information Delivery Reliant Riders I Real Time Information Delivery Reliant Riders NUTI Tech Task 4 Survey.xls t: 0 "' = 'l' .. ... .. 0 :;: useful not useful usefu l not useful nol useful .. " ., "' "' .!!' .<; .. "' .. 0 :X useful not useful useful not useful not useful Page 3 of 5 .. .c -'? .. ... .. 0 :;: useful n ot useful useful not useful not useful


Background Information Delivery Reliant Riders Real Time Information Delivery Reliant Rid < ers I NUT I Tech Task 4 Survey.xls useful no t useful not useful useful no t useful not useful useful not useful not useful useful not useful not useful Page 4 of 5 useful not useful not useful useful not useful not useful


Background Information Delivery Relian t Riders I Real Time Information Delivery Reliant Riders NUT I T ech Task 4 Survey.xls .. :;; .. (.) useful not useful not useful useful not useful not useful Page 5 of 5


All Rider Groups--Ranking of Technology Utility For each rider group, the information delivery sytems are rank ordered in terms of utility Backgrou n d and Realtime utility are listed s e parately. Reliant Riders Background Realtime lnfonnation Delive!ll Tec!JDo !oa:t Total lnlo[!!!ation Delive!l( Technolog:t Total Pre-trip k ios ks-ma ll 3 !;;n[Qute k i osks-t rans it Qlaza 3 Pre-trip kiosks public building 3 Interactive Voice S:tstem 3 E nro ut e kiosks-transit 3 PDA 3 lnte[actil! )Loice BesQonse S:tstem 3 Pre-trip kiosksm all 3 PDA 3 Pre-trip kiosks-public building 3 www 2 Enroute k ios ks-other 2 Pre-trip kiosks-other 2 Inte ractive Cable 2 Enroute kiosks-other 2 Pret rip kiosks-other 2 Int eractive Cable 2 www 2 Fax Back Sys t em I Fax Back System 1 Variable Message Signs 0 Enroute kiosks-alrpon 0 Enroute k i osks-airpon 0 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 0 Enroute k i osks-highway rest areas 0 Variable Highwa:t Message Sign s 0 Choice Riders Background Realtime lnfonnation Del i ve!l( .!2!!1 I!JfO[!!!ation (;!elive!ll I2!!! www 3 vvww 3 ID!rl!!llil!!! B!!SQQOSe S:tstem 3 Interactive Voice 3 Fax Back System 3 POA 3 Pre-trip kiosks-mall 2 I nteract ive Cable 3 !s.i2kS-!tll!lil 2 Pre -t rip kiosks-public building 2 Enroute k io sks-airport 2 Pre trip kiosks-other 2 Enroute kiosks other 2 Enroute kiosks-transit Q taza 2 Interactive Cable 2 Enroute k ios ks-airport 2 )Lada!ll !! !:!iabwa:t Sign 1 Enroute kiosks-other 2 Pre-trip kiosks-public building 1 Variable Highw al! Message S ig!l 1 Pre. trip kiosks-other 1 Pre trip kiosks-mall 1 PDA 1 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 0 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 0 Fax Back System 0 General Public Background Realtime lnfonnatlon Delive!l( Total ln!onnatiO!l Delive!l( Technoloal! Total www 3 Pre-trip kiosks-other 3 Pre-trip kiosks-public building 3 www 2 Pre-trip kiosks-other 3 Pre-trip k ios ks-publ i c building 2 Enroute k ios ks-a irpo rt 3 Pre-trip kiosks-ma ll 2 Inte ractive Cable 3 PDA 2 Pre-trip kiosks-mall 2 Jnl!l!l!ctive Vgice S:tstem 2 Enroute kiosks transit 2 I nteractive Cable 2 Enroute kiosks-other 2 EOtQute 2 Interactive Voice vstew 2 Enroute k io sks-other 2 Fax Back System 2 Enr o ute kiosks-airpo rt 2 Variable Highwal! Message Signs 1 !;!i ghwal! Messag SignJi 0 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 1 Fax BaCk System 0 PDA 1 Enroute kiosks-highway rest areas 0 NUTI Tech Ta sk 4 Survey 1




Atlanta, h ttp: I I www .ge o rgia-traveler .com/ traffic/ rtmap.htm Balzotti, Linda; Harman, Larry "GIS Fixed Route Databases Availab l e for the F irst Time in U.S." http:/lgeolab.moakley, 1997. Bissell, C olin. "Metro Dynamics Launches Public Trasportation Kiosks", http:/ I www .metrodynam i cs .comf metro. Boston Smart Traveler, http://<:omL Caltrans, I Casey, Robert F.; LabeU, Lawrence N.; Holstrom, Ross; LoVecch io, joseph A ;Schweiger, Carol L.; Sheehan, Terrence Advanced P u blic Transportation Systems: The State of the Art.:, 1996. Central Puget Sonnd Regional Trans i t Authority, Charles River Associates Incorporated. User Acceptance of A TIS Products and Services: What do we curr e ntly know, CRA, Boston, October 1 996. Charles River Associa tes Incorporated. User Acceptance of A TIS Products and Serv i ces: A report of qualitative research CRA, Boston, January 1997. Chicago Expressways. EPOS Corporation: Products. ts.htm, September 2, 1997. Florida Department of Transportation: ITS Task T earn Florida it's Conce p tual P l an (Operations Perspective), November 1994. Ho u ston http: II www. traffic. traffic.htrnl Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Benefits: Expected and Experienced U S Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1996. King Country Riderlink http://transit. Maxwell Technologies Maxwell Information Systems, Inc http://www. maxwell com{masso, july 8,1997. Newcombe, Tod; Norton, Graham) .; Smart Moves; A decision maker s guide to the in t elligent transportation infrastructure Washington, DC Public Technology, Inc., 1996. Richards, Michael. "Public Gets Sneak Preview of SWIFT Trave ler Information" Trek Talk v. 1 no. 2 Mayl!une. Seattle, WA. Smart Trek, 1997.


Seattle Area T raffi c http:/(1 / northwest/NWFLOW Smart Trek-Fastline Press Release, .h tml, July 24, 1998. Smart Trek What's New http:L/www. July 24,1998. Southern Californ i a, http:/ / c.altrans/ transnet.htmJ Southern California Rideshare. Crossroads, June 1996. Sou them Califomia Telecommuting Partnership The New Buzz in Business Telecommuting, 1998. The Proceedings of a Conference on GIS in T rans it, National Urban Trasit Institute at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, USF, 1996. Transportation Planning, v XXlll, No.2, Winter. Transportation Planning Division, APA, 1997. Travelink Operational Test Eva lu ation Report, Cambridge Systematic, Inc. Roseville, August 1996. Twin Cities, U.S Department of Transportation Advanced Bus Propulsion Systems, http:L/, June 20, 1997. U .S. Department ofTransportation-APTS Project Summaries, http:/ /www., June 13, 1997. U.S. Department of Transportation Developing I n telligent Transportation Systems Using the National ITS Architecture, An Executive Edition for Senior Transportation Managers Mitretek Systems, july 1998 U S Department of Transportation. Developing Traveler Information Systems Using the National ITS Architecture, U.S. Department ofT ransportation, August 1998. U S Department of T ransportation. Intelligent Transportation Systems Projects, January 1996. U S. Department of Transportation. The Road to Successful ITS Software Acquisition Volume 1., Overview and Themes, Mitretek Systems, Ju l y 1998. U.S Department of Transportation. The Road to Successful ITS Software Acquisition Volume II. Software Acquisition Process Reference Guide, M i tretek Systems, july 1998.


U.S. Department of Transportation-Transit Planning and Research Programs,, june 20, 1997. U.S. Department of Transportation-Traveler Information, http:Uwww. June 13, 1997 Washington State Department of Transportation, http: II www. wsdoLgov. Other Internet Resources http: I I \VWW .scubed .com/ cal trans/ transit http://www .aztms .com/ index.html http:L/ http: I I www montegomery its. w ashingot.cdu/ sst http:/ L www. transiH: enter. comlph.nw.dc us / Central Puget Sound Regional Trasit Authority, SOfCPSTRA King Coumy Riderlink, http:L/ Caltrans Southern California, http:! Houston, http:!/ traffic. Seattle Area Traffic, http:/ /198. 238 .21210/ regions/ northwest/ NWFLOW Chicago Expressways, http://www. Boston SmartTraveler, Atlanta http:/(www. Georgia -tr aveler .com/traffic/rtmap TwinCities, http: II wv..'W. traffic. c PRODUCT RESOURCES (brochures, pamphlets, press kits, software): California Smart Traveler, Caltrans New Technology Program, Sacramento, CA Travlnfo, Metropolitan Transportation Conunission, Oakland, CA Miller, Mark Trapeze News, v. 1 issue 1. Scottsdale, AZ, 1996 Opticom, Priority Control System. 3M Traffic Control Systems Div i sion, St. Paul, MN Automatic Vehicle Location and Control. Sysal, Israel aircraft Industries Ltd OrbTrac System. Orbital Sciences Corp. Germantown, MD, 1996 Integrated F leet Operations (INFO) System, Intelligent Tra11sportation Systems, 3M Safety and Security Systems Division, St. PauL MN 1996.