Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
13 Table 3. (Continued). 511 System Information Transit Agency Case Studies Coverage Service Area Character 511 System and Level of No. of Small Transit Integration Buses Urban or Property Large and/or State Region Transit Agencies Interviewed Vans Size Urban Suburban Rural 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 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 No Transit Presence (no transit options or information at all on the 511 system) 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 Ottumwa Transit Authority & 10-15 30 13/52 Sm X X Regional Transit 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 California-Eastern 41 X Sierra 42 Tennessee X writing. In those cases, subsequent short telephone calls and/or The primary point of contact for most of the transit agency e-mail exchanges were always conducted to clarify and elabo- interviews was the customer service manager. In some cases, rate on certain responses. Many of the other phone interviews the contact was the call center manager. For some of the (those where the agency did not send written responses) were smaller agencies, interviews were conducted with the agency also followed by e-mail exchanges and/or additional phone general manager or director, who typically also has the re- calls to follow up on various issues. sponsibility for customer service and telephone information In the case of two 511 systems--those for the San Francisco (most small agencies do not have call centers, per se). area and Southeast Florida--issues of sufficient complexity surfaced through the phone interviews and e-mail exchanges 2.4 Non-Transit Call as to warrant on-site follow-up. San Francisco had a number Center Interviews of different types of transit agencies participating in various degrees, and had a very long and rich experience with 511, in- As part of the research comparing transit call center ap- cluding real-time transit information on 511. Southeast proaches to those used at call centers outside the transit indus- Florida is the only example identified of transit agencies sub- try, interviews were conducted with three U.S. organizations: stantially sharing in the costs of a 511 system, in this case the a local bank branch located in New England (Watertown Sav- annual operations and maintenance costs of approximately ings Bank); a large, national consumer durables manufacturer $5 million. For these two 511 systems, some additional tran- (name withheld by request); and an office of state government sit agencies were interviewed on-site as were the 511 system (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Ve- sponsors (MTC and FDOT). hicles). Although by no means offering a statistically reliable