National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Research Approach

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Overview
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14277.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

10 This chapter describes the research approach used to carry out the study. The approach featured six major activities. The first four activities focused on understanding call center strategies at transit and non-transit organizations and inves- tigating specific transit agencies’ decisions and experiences with 511 telephone traveler information systems. Based on the results of those early activities, the following two addi- tional research activities were identified, focusing on the two other primary transit 511 stakeholder groups: 1. The 511 system administrators (i.e., the organizations that operate the 511 systems, which are not transit agencies in all cases), and 2. Transit users. 2.1 Literature Review The literature review was conducted primarily in support of Task 1, which documented overall customer information strategies utilized by transit agencies as well as specific call cen- ter strategies employed by transit in comparison to those em- ployed by private companies and other government organiza- tions (e.g., Department of Motor Vehicles). The literature review, including general (non-transit-specific) call center ref- erences played a key role in the development of the interview questionnaire used to collect information for Tasks 1, 2, and 3 (the 29 transit agency case studies). Information was also ob- tained from other sources including TCRP reports, relevant internet sites, and conference proceedings. Specific informa- tion was collected on 511 systems to determine system details, interoperability, and cost-benefit information. 2.2 National Inventory of Operational 511 Systems This inventory was conducted in support of Tasks 2 and 3, which analyzed how transit agency call center approaches and experience vary according to 511 participation. This inven- tory established the basis for those comparisons by establish- ing a comprehensive list of all operational 511 systems and a summary of transit participation on each system. The primary activity in developing the 511 system inven- tory was to call each operational 511 system and then docu- ment the transit-related information, including transit menu items, general or basic transit information (e.g., current ser- vice disruptions, services provided, service areas, hours of op- eration, telephone number for transit customer service, etc.), automated call transfer to transit agencies’ customer service lines, and real-time vehicle arrival/departure information. Operational 511 systems were identified in large part by con- sulting the running list maintained by the national 511 De- ployment Coalition (http://deploy511.org/deploystatus.htm, as of November 2007). However, since that list is updated only periodically, and since new 511 systems are coming on line every few months, the operational status of a number of 511 systems was also tracked by monitoring various publica- tions, including daily and weekly transportation technology e-mail newsletters. In fact, new 511 system launches and the research team’s 511 inventory work continued through the writing of this report in March 2009. Because the calls to the 511 systems were made from out- side the service areas of the individual systems, it was nec- essary to use the traditional 10-digit phone numbers, the so-called “back door” numbers in the 511 community, for access to these services. Many of these numbers are listed on the FHWA’s 511 web page (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/511/ locations/location_numbers.htm). To obtain the most accurate and current information, as well as to establish first-hand familiarity, the research team felt it was important to review each operational 511 system directly, by calling it and working through the menu items. The results of that research were cross-referenced against the findings of the FTA in their own transit-related 511 inven- tory. The latest update of the FTA inventory work was com- pleted in July 2007 and is documented in “Profiles of 511 Traveler Information Services—Update 2007.”(3) C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach

2.3 Transit Agency Case Studies Interviews were conducted with 29 transit agencies. The case studies focused on the following two sets of issues: 1. Overall customer information strategies and specific call center approaches (staffing, technologies, metrics tracked, etc.); and 2. Transit agencies’ 511 experiences and perspectives. In selecting transit agencies for analysis, the objective was to obtain representation across several key parameters, including • Participation versus non-participation in 511 systems— including integration and non-integration, where integra- tion was defined by the research team for the purposes of this study as including an automatic call transfer from 511 to a transit agency. • Transit agency size—based on the number of vehicles operated by the transit agency, and subjectively placed into categories of small, medium, and large. • Transit agency service area characteristics—such as large urban, small urban, suburban, and rural. • Geographic location—representing various regions throughout the United States. • Type of 511 System—such as statewide or regional. Table 2 summarizes the 29 transit agency case studies across these parameters (excluding geographic location). Although seven case studies were completed with transit agencies that are not integrated with 511 systems (that is, there is no call transfer from 511 to transit), the sample is skewed some- what toward transit agencies that are integrated with 511 systems. This is because, partly through the case studies, the research team found that they were gathering very little useful information from transit agencies that do not participate in 511 at all. In nearly all of these cases, the transit agencies did not participate because the 511 system was not set up to allow transit agencies to participate and/or the 511 sponsor never invited transit to participate. The research team concluded that there was very little to be learned from speaking with transit agencies in such circumstances. When this trend became clear, it was decided that the resources associated with additional case studies could be better spent on speaking with more agen- cies that were participating in 511 systems and had actual 511 experiences and perspectives to share. Table 3 presents the list of transit agency case studies, or- ganized according to operational 511 system (of which there were 42, as of March 18, 2009). The list of agencies includes two that are not transit operators—the Metropolitan Trans- portation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco area and District 6 of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Interviews with those agencies were conducted to support the transit agency interviews done in the San Francisco region and in Southeast Florida, respectively. The transit agency interview discussion guide contained 29 questions, with the first 20 questions pertaining to overall customer information strategies (e.g., information provided, methods used, accommodation of special needs customers, etc.) and specific call center methods (e.g., centralized/ decentralized, staffing, use of various technologies, rationale for technology investments, use of a wide range of perfor- mance metrics, etc.). The following eight questions focused specifically on 511: • The agency’s level of 511 participation; • Which 511 statistics are tracked; • Participation in other traveler information systems; • A wide range of potential impacts from 511 participation in- cluding call volume changes, costs, customer responses, etc.; • A wide range of potential pros and cons considered when deciding on 511 participation; • Planned 511 changes; • Perspective on 511 as an alternative to their own interac- tive voice response system; and • Advice to other transit agencies contemplating 511 and general reflections. A copy of the full interview guide is included in Appendix A. The transit case studies included various combinations of telephone interviews, written questionnaires, and site visit in- terviews. Initially, 1- to 2-h telephone interviews were con- ducted with nearly all of the transit agencies, always preceded by an e-mail to the agencies with a copy of the interview ques- tions. In a few cases, the interviewees chose to respond in 11 511/Transit Agency Characteristic Number of Transit Agencies Studied 511 Participation/Non-Participation Participating and integrated (call transfer to transit) 22 Participating but not integrated (no call transfer) 3 4 gnitapicitrap-noN Transit Agency Size 8 )selcihev 05 <( llamS 01 )selcihev 003-15( muideM 11 )selcihev +003( egraL Transit Agency Service Characteristics 61 nabru egraL 31 nabrubus/nabru llamS 4 laruR 511 System Coverage 71 ediwetatS 21 lanoigeR Note: The numbers reported for transit agency services characteristics do not sum to the total of 29 transit agency case studies performed because some agencies have been characterized as having multiple primary service area types (e.g., both urban and suburban). Table 2. Summary of transit agency case study sample.

12 511 System Information Coverage Transit Agency Case Studies Service Area Character 511 System and Level of Transit Integration State Region Transit Agencies Interviewed No. of Buses or Vans Property Size Large Urban Small Urban and/or Suburban Rural Transit Integration (call transfer from 511 to at least one transit agency) 1 Alaska X 1 Anchorage “People Mover” 55 Med X 2 Lake Havasu City Transit 19 Sm X X 3 Pima County Rural Transit 8 Sm X 2 Arizona X 4 Valley Metro (Phoenix) 492 Lrg X 3 California – Northern/Sacramento X 5 El Dorado Transit 58 Med X 4 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky X 6 Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky “TANK” 101 Med X 5 Florida – Central (Orlando) X 7 LYNX (Orlando) 237 Med X X 8 Broward County Transit 275 Med X 9 Miami-Dade County Transit 783 Lrg X 10 South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail) 26 Sm X 6 Florida – Southeast (Miami, Dade, and Broward Counties) X 11 Florida Department of Transportation NA 7 Florida – Northeast (Jacksonville) X see Florida regional systems 8 Florida (Statewide) X see Florida regional systems 9 Boston/Eastern Mass. X 10 Florida – Southwest X 11 Georgia X 12 Maine X 12 Island Explorer (Bar Harbor) 17 Sm X X 13 Minnesota X 13 Duluth Transit Authority 72 Med X 14 New York (Beta Version) X 15 North Carolina X 14 Charlotte Area Transit (CATS) 312 Lrg X 15 Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) 288 Med X 16 San Diego X 16 North County Transit District 165 Med X 17 AC Transit 614 Lrg X 18 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 669 Lrg X 19 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 520 Lrg X 20 San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) 815 Lrg X 17 San Francisco Bay Area X 21 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Muni NA 18 Utah X 22 Sun Tran (St. George) 7 Sm X 23 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority “WMATA” 1,441 Lrg X 19 Virginia (Statewide) X 24 Blacksburg Transit (BT) 35 Sm X Table 3. Transit agency case studies.

writing. In those cases, subsequent short telephone calls and/or e-mail exchanges were always conducted to clarify and elabo- rate on certain responses. Many of the other phone interviews (those where the agency did not send written responses) were also followed by e-mail exchanges and/or additional phone calls to follow up on various issues. In the case of two 511 systems—those for the San Francisco area and Southeast Florida—issues of sufficient complexity surfaced through the phone interviews and e-mail exchanges as to warrant on-site follow-up. San Francisco had a number of different types of transit agencies participating in various degrees, and had a very long and rich experience with 511, in- cluding real-time transit information on 511. Southeast Florida is the only example identified of transit agencies sub- stantially sharing in the costs of a 511 system, in this case the annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately $5 million. For these two 511 systems, some additional tran- sit agencies were interviewed on-site as were the 511 system sponsors (MTC and FDOT). The primary point of contact for most of the transit agency interviews was the customer service manager. In some cases, the contact was the call center manager. For some of the smaller agencies, interviews were conducted with the agency general manager or director, who typically also has the re- sponsibility for customer service and telephone information (most small agencies do not have call centers, per se). 2.4 Non-Transit Call Center Interviews As part of the research comparing transit call center ap- proaches to those used at call centers outside the transit indus- try, interviews were conducted with three U.S. organizations: a local bank branch located in New England (Watertown Sav- ings Bank); a large, national consumer durables manufacturer (name withheld by request); and an office of state government (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Ve- hicles). Although by no means offering a statistically reliable 13 Transit Presence but No Integration (have general transit info. and/or list transit phone no., but no transfer) 20 New Hampshire X 25 Manchester Transit Authority (MTA) 15 Sm X No Transit Presence (no transit options or information at all on the 511 system) 21 Rhode Island X Attempted 22 Tampa Bay X 26 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 180 Med X 23 Vermont X Attempted 24 Washington State X 27 King County Metro (Seattle) 1,177 Lrg X 25 Wyoming X 26 Colorado X 28 Regional Transit District (Denver) 695 Lrg X 27 Idaho X 29 Des Moines Area Transit Authority 113 Med X 28 Iowa X 30 Ottumwa Transit Authority & 10-15 Regional Transit 13/52 Sm X X 29 Kansas X 30 Kentucky X 31 Montana X 32 Nebraska X 33 Nevada X 34 New Mexico X 35 North Dakota X 36 Oregon X 31 Tri-Met (Portland) 656 Lrg X 37 South Dakota X 38 New Jersey X 39 Louisiana X 40 St. Louis, MO X 41 California-Eastern Sierra X 42 Tennessee X 511 System Information Coverage Transit Agency Case Studies Service Area Character 511 System and Level of Transit Integration State Region Transit Agencies Interviewed No. of Buses or Vans Property Size Large Urban Small Urban and/or Suburban Rural Table 3. (Continued).

cross-section of information, a small sample of non-transit agencies was thought to be useful in complementing informa- tion from the literature review with first-hand information. The original objective was to include one or two additional organizations—a large, national, on-line retailer and an inter- national package delivery service—but repeated attempts to recruit these organizations were unsuccessful. The overall crite- rion for selecting organizations to interview was to find organ- izations that field a significant number of customer inquiries by phone. The rationale for selecting the specific organizations that were interviewed was to obtain variation in the size of the organizations, the extent to which the telephone is utilized for customer interaction, public/private status, and type of prod- uct or service. The non-transit call center interviews utilized the first half of the same questionnaire used for transit agencies (see Ap- pendix A)—that is, the 511 questions were omitted. All of the interviews were performed by telephone, in some cases with follow-up phone calls and/or e-mail exchanges to clarify or elaborate responses. All interviewees were provided with the questions in advance. Interviews lasted between 45 to 75 min. 2.5 511 System Administrator Interviews Although 511 system administrator interviews were not originally included in the study, this activity was added after it was concluded through the Phase I research activities that 511 system administrator policies and decisions were at least as important in explaining transit agency 511 decisions and experiences as were factors associated with the transit agen- cies. The Phase I findings were based entirely on informa- tion collected from transit agencies. Adding interviews with 511 system administrators was therefore deemed useful both to further investigate why and how administrators reached their decisions regarding transit but also to validate a finding that was based on only one side of the 511-transit relationship. A total of twelve 511 system administrators were inter- viewed. The pool of interviewees was systematically con- structed so as to include a representative sample of systems. System attributes considered included geographic location, coverage area (statewide and regional), service area popula- tion density, and type of transit content. A roughly equal number of systems were represented in each of the following three categories in regard to transit content and features: • Systems with no transit content or features; • Systems with only an option to transfer a call to transit agency customer service, and • Systems with a call transfer option plus other transit infor- mation such as service disruptions, detailed schedule or fare information, or real-time information (vehicle arrivals/ departures). Table 4 lists the 511 systems represented in the interviews, categorized by the type of transit content and features of these specific systems. Despite efforts to include more regional sys- tems (there are relatively few), all but two of the interviewees represented statewide 511 systems. Eleven of the twelve 511 system administrators represented state departments of trans- portation; the other administrator represented a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). A discussion guide composed of six primary questions— several containing a number of follow-up questions—was developed and sent to each interviewee in advance. The ques- tions spanned the following topics: • How the decision regarding transit content was made, • Satisfaction with the current state of the system in regard to transit content and plans for changes, • Transit agency participation in funding 511 system imple- mentation and/or operation and maintenance, and • Availability of transit-related 511 system operating statis- tics (e.g., number of call transfers to transit). The twelve 511 system administrator interviews were con- ducted by telephone from November 2008 through January 2009. 2.6 Transit Rider Focus Group This activity was added to the study based on the results of the early (Phase I) study findings and at the suggestion of a representative of the 511 Deployment Coalition and the TCRP study panel. At the conclusion of Phase I, a briefing on interim findings was presented to representatives of U.S. DOT and the 511 Deployment Coalition. One of the major findings was that many 511 system administrators have chosen 14 Type of Transit Content and Features 511 Systems Represented in Interviews 1. Colorado 2. Oregon 3. Iowa 4. Washington State 5. Kentucky (statewide system) No Transit Content or Features 6. Alaska 7. North Carolina 8. Georgia Only Call Transfers to Transit 9. Boston/Central MA 10. Utah 11. San Diego Call transfers plus additional transit information 12. Arizona Table 4. 511 system administrator interview sample.

not to follow the transit-related guidance issued by the 511 Deployment Coalition in 2003, which calls for a basic pack- age of transit information and options for every transit agency within the 511 service area. The 511 Deployment Coalition representative indicated that because the commission consid- ers whether and how to adjust their guidance and/or increase their efforts to encourage 511 system administrators to follow the current guidance, it would be useful to hear how transit users feel about 511. With the overall objective being to improve the under- standing of transit user perceptions of 511, two specific focus group objectives were identified by the study team. The first objective was to investigate transit users’ perceptions regard- ing those types of transit information that are believed to be of most value to travelers (schedules, fares, disruptions, arrival/departure times) and that can be handled effectively by an automated telephone information system (that is, without an operator), regardless of whether that system is operated by an individual transit agency or is a 511 system. The second objective was to investigate the fundamental rationale for providing transit information on 511. That rationale is ex- pressed as a series of assumptions shown in Table 5. The first three items were explicitly noted in the 511 Deployment Coalition’s 2003 guidance; the last two items were identified by the study team as presumably part of the overall rationale for transit information on 511. Study resources dictated a single focus group conducted in a single location with a local sponsor to recruit partici- pants, provide incentives, and host the focus group. The ideal focus group region, one that would support investiga- tion of the broadest range of issues, was identified as having a variety of transit services and a wide range of transit 511 information content and features. After contacting numer- ous transit agencies around the country (including those in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix, and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky) the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), located in Salt Lake City, was selected. The selection was based both on practical considerations (they were one of only two sites interested and willing to participate), as well as the fact that they met the critical, minimum site selection criteria established by the study team: the pres- ence of a mature 511 system that includes the basic UTA infor- mation and options as recommended by the 511 Deployment Coalition. UTA’s interest in assisting the study team with conducting the focus group was based on two key issues. First, UTA was in the midst of planning for and deploying, an interactive voice response (IVR) system. Second, given that they were a participant in Utah’s statewide 511 system, they were inter- ested in exploring their customers’ reactions to the 511 sys- tem. Another benefit to selecting UTA was that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), which operates the statewide Utah 511 system, was interested in understand- ing more about the multimodal aspect of the system, consid- ering what could be done to improve the system, and meet- ing UTA’s needs. UDOT participated in a post-focus group meeting with the study team and UTA to discuss the results of the focus group. Once the selection was made, UTA’s marketing depart- ment recruited focus group participants from their customer service telephone line. Ten participants were recruited to par- ticipate in the meeting (six participants actually attended), which was scheduled to take place from 7:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. on January 7, 2009, in Salt Lake City. Prior to conducting the focus group, a discussion guide was developed by the study team and shared with UTA and 15 For long-time area residents and/or for newcomers to the area, 511 is easier to remember than a specific transit agency phone number (and newcomers will be at least as likely to be aware of, or learn about, the local 511 system as they would be to learn the phone number for specific transit agencies). It is easier to market 511 than to market individual transit agency- specific information numbers. Assumptions Identified by the 511 Deployment Coalition A significant number of calls made to transit agencies are for information that could be provided entirely via an interactive voice response system such as 511 and do not require talking to an operator (and therefore calls to transit agencies could be reduced). Other Assumptions By consolidating information on multiple transit agencies on 511, callers could avoid having to remember, and call, multiple transit agencies. By consolidating transit and traffic information on a single phone system, callers would be encouraged to do multimodal trip planning and/or those that already do such planning would find the single source of information more useful than making separate calls to traffic and transit information lines. Table 5. Assumptions investigated in the transit rider focus group.

UDOT to solicit comments. The final discussion guide in- cluded questions in the following four categories: • Participants’ background information, including how long they have been riding UTA and what UTA services they use the most; • Participants’ use of transit customer information systems, including what information they typically seek and their experience with automated transit information systems; • Participants’ experiences with and perspectives on Utah’s 511 system; and • Other participants’ questions or comments about 511 or transit information by phone. The final focus group discussion guide is included in Ap- pendix B. Since only one focus group was conducted and given the participants’ very limited experience with 511 and the ab- sence of advanced transit information and features (de- tailed, route-specific schedule information or vehicle arrival/ departure information), this focus group activity does not provide definitive answers to questions about transit users’ perceptions of 511. However, it does provide some prelim- inary, useful insights that, when combined with feedback that other transit agencies or 511 system administrators may have, or will collect, can be useful in shaping 511-transit strategies. 16

Next: Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications »
Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 134: Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers explores the operational characteristics of 511 telephone traveler information systems and examines how 511 systems interact with transit system call centers. This report inventories existing 511 systems throughout the country, documents the extent of transit participation and transit agency experiences with 511, and presents guidance to assist transit agencies and 511 system administrators in determining a transit-511 telephone strategy.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!