Acknowledgments

The report has been prepared with funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) and by the Mountain Plains Consortium (MPC). The MPC receives funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Other MPC member universities include North Dakota State University, Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University.

The authors would like to thank Bridgewater State College and the Community Transportation Association of America for providing mailing lists. Thanks are extended to the many transit operators that completed the questionnaires. Thank you to Laurel Benson for assistance with the data entry. Thanks also are extended to Kiel Ova and Matthew Martimo for technical assistance in the follow-up Web-based survey. Thank you to Paul Colton of the Metropolitan Council in St. Paul, Minn., for hosting the site visit to Metro. Finally, thank you to Ayman Smadi for his helpful suggestions.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, and the Federal Transit Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

Executive Summary

This study was conducted to identify ITS technologies that transit systems are using, and particularly to aid in the progress of the Welfare to Work Initiative. ITS technologies categorized in Fleet Management and Operations, Traveler Information Systems, and Electronic Fare Collection were identified and presented to Transit Managers for selection of technologies used by their systems. The technologies within Transit Management include Automatic Passenger Counter (APC), Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Scheduling and Dispatch (S&D), and Traffic Signal Priority (SP). Advanced Traveler Information Systems include Automated Trip Itinerary (ATI), In-vehicle Announcer (IVA), Kiosks, Variable Message Signs (VMS), and the Web. Electronic Fare Collection includes only Electronic Fare Collection (EFC).

Two different surveys were used to gather information for this study. First, a survey was developed and administered to identify transit systems that use ITS. There were 2,459 surveys mailed to rural, small urban, and suburban transit systems throughout the United States. Five-hundred-one transit systems responded resulting in a 20.4 percent response rate. Of these systems, 122 reported the use of ITS (24.4 percent). A second survey was designed and administered to better target the systems that use ITS. The surveys contained questions regarding each technology the transit systems use. Questions were asked regarding length of time the technology has been used, impacts upon the system and community, and changes in costs and revenues. Additional questions regarding service to welfare to work clientele were asked. From the 122 reporting use of ITS, we were able to contact 116 transit systems. They were asked to complete the follow up web-based survey. Seventy-four transit systems responded to the second questionnaire for a response rate of 64 percent. To summarize results from the surveys, transit systems were categorized by population size. Transit systems were classified as Rural if they served populations less than 50,000 people, Small Urban if serving populations between 50,000 and 250,000; Medium Urban for populations between 250,000 and 400,000 and Large Urban for systems of more than 400,000. Due to the low number of Medium Urban systems responding, the categories of Small Urban and Medium Urban were combined.

Nine Rural Transit systems identified the use of ITS. They prominently use S&D and GIS. Overall, the systems have experienced positive results from using these technologies. Forty-five Small and Medium Urban systems reported primary use of GIS, S&D, EFC, and ATI. These systems also reported positive results using ITS. Often cost increases were offset by increased coverage or better service to the community and welfare to work clientele. Twenty Large Urban systems reported use of ITS. They most frequently use S&D, EFC, GIS, and ATI. Positive results were reported from these technologies. Transit managers from all groups had difficulties reporting on welfare to work clientele because many systems do not delineate this group of customers. However, AVL, S&D, EFC, GIS, ATI, and the Web were believed to have helped increase service to welfare-to-work users. It could be concluded that transit systems were satisfied with the ITS technologies implemented and many reported their intent to implement additional ITS technologies in the future. Costs were found to be probably the largest barrier to implementing the technologies, along with transit systems reluctance to invest in rapidly changing technologies.