National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Research Approach
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." 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 69

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.

17 This chapter presents the study findings, which are pro- vided in the following six areas: 1. Transit agency telephone information strategies, 2. Other organizations’ telephone information strategies, 3. Overview of transit agency involvement in 511 systems, 4. Transit agency 511 case studies, 5. 511 system administrator interviews, and 6. Transit rider focus group. 3.1 Transit Agency Telephone Information Strategies Findings related to transit agency telephone information strategies are presented in three subsections: • Overall customer information approaches, • Transit call center strategies, and • Implications of agency size and type. The results presented in this section are drawn both from the literature review as well as the telephone interviews con- ducted with 25 transit agencies. 3.1.1 Overall Customer Information Approaches 3.1.1.1 Customer Information Needs and Preferences The broad categories of trip-related information—pretrip and en route—constitute a core focus for transit customer in- formation. Studies such as TCRP Report 45: Passenger Infor- mation Services: A Guidebook for Transit Systems (4) revealed specific customer needs or elements associated with trip- related information. Pretrip information needs were identified as consisting of elements such as location of the nearest bus stop, routes that travel to the desired destination and transfer locations, fare, and time of departure and approximate dura- tion of the trip. This guidebook identified that while en route, customers needed information on how to transfer to another route, as well as related cost and waiting time; identification of the correct bus to board; location of the final destination in relation to the bus stop, and return trip information (e.g., departure times and changes in route numbers). In a study (5) conducted by Battelle Memorial Institute and MultiSystems (now TranSystems) for FTA, a series of 12 workshops was conducted in 4 states with 284 partic- ipants to identify customers’ needs and preferences for trav- eler information. The participants were asked the following questions: • What kinds of transit information do customers want and expect agencies to provide? • Where should this information be made available to tran- sit travelers? • What are the preferred alternative ways to provide this information? • When should this information be made available to be of the most use to transit travelers? • What are the critical human factors issues involved with presenting and displaying transit information? The results revealed that riders were interested mainly in pretrip information to make informed decisions about their trips. Static information is of interest mostly to riders before they start their trips. Riders were concerned about the relia- bility and accuracy of the information being provided. Along with pretrip information, riders were interested in real-time information while waiting at the wayside. The study also found that most riders generally were not aware of the advanced information media offered by transit agencies (e.g., Internet trip planner and information available through mobile phones and personal data assistants [PDAs]).(6, 7) C H A P T E R 3 Findings and Applications

A consumer research study was conducted by the Utah 511 advisory group and a Bay Area TravInfo® focus group to de- termine the needs and preferences of transit customers with respect to 511 traveler information. (TravInfo was the San Francisco Bay Area intermodal traveler information system that preceded the Bay Area 511 system.) Based on the data re- ceived from respondents, it was found that transit information can be defined according to the following seven categories (8), which are listed in order of importance: • Schedules and on-time status, • Transit news/updates, • Routes and maps, • Conveniences (such as elevators and bike racks), • Fares, • Contact information for transit operators, and • System regulations. Also, it was also found that riders usually need traveler in- formation when they are making a trip that they normally do not make, when there are service disruptions, or when they need to know the real-time status of a transit vehicle. (9) In 2001, another survey was conducted by ITS America to determine the information needs of travelers. Among the sur- vey respondents, 20% were transit riders. The survey revealed that the transit customers want to know about service delays, travel time or arrival time estimates, and the level of crowding on transit vehicles. The respondents wanted such information to be in real time and updated every 10 to 15 min. (10) The sur- vey also showed that commuters making longer trips (greater than 30 min), or riders traveling to unfamiliar locations, are most likely to use 511. 3.1.1.2 Information Provided by Transit Agencies The literature includes the results of a nationwide survey of transit agencies in the United States that identified the types of information agencies provide to their customers. Of the 30 transit agencies that responded to the survey, most provided at least the following types of information: (11) • Operational information (e.g., route detours); • Route and schedule information; • Proposed service changes; • Public meeting information; • Security; • Safety (e.g., mind the gap); • General information (e.g., how to ride, fare information); and • Transit in the community (e.g., transit agency teamed with local business). One of the questions asked of the transit agencies inter- viewed for this study pertained to the type of information they provide to customers. The results—consistent with the general needs and preferences of customers (as detailed in the previous section on Customer Information Needs and Preferences)— indicate that most transit agency customer information fo- cuses on trip planning, schedule, fare, and how-to-ride infor- mation. Figure 1 summarizes the interview results related to 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tri p p lan nin g a nd bo oki ng Fa re Ho w to rid e Wh er e is t he bu s Sc he du le Lo st an d f ou nd Co m pla int s/s ug ge stio ns Re al- tim e sta tus Information Type Nu m be r o f A ge n ci es (ou t o f 2 5 in te rv ie w ed ) Figure 1. Transit information disseminated by transit agency call center.

the type of information provided. Interviewees also reported that questions and comments related to lost and found and complaints/suggestions also constitute significant portions of the information they provide. Transit call centers at the agen- cies that provide paratransit and ridesharing services provide related information such as how to apply for paratransit eli- gibility and make trip reservations, in addition to providing basic rider information. 3.1.1.3 Dissemination Methods/ Technologies Utilized The fact that transit agencies utilize a variety of print and electronic media for disseminating traveler information to their customers is well documented in the literature. Both print and electronic media are developed by agencies per guidelines set by the ADA and the ADA Accessibility Guide- lines (ADAAG), as applicable. (12, 13) A study regarding the effectiveness of rider communication (14) included a survey of 30 transit agencies that documented the number of agencies that use each type of dissemination media for various types of information. The results are shown in Table 6. The percentages associated with each dissemination medium in the columns indicate the percentage of transit agencies that utilize each par- ticular medium for disseminating at least one type of informa- tion. For example, 23% of agencies utilize printed materials (“paper”). The numbers within the individual cells of the table show how many agencies—out of the 30 surveyed—utilize a particular medium for disseminating a specific type of infor- mation. As shown in Table 6, print materials (23%), websites (22%), and telephones (19%), are the most commonly used dissemination methods. Figure 2 summarizes the results from TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems (15) regarding the dissemination media used for real-time transit information provided by transit agencies in and outside of the United States. In addition to showing that real-time information is more common for agencies outside the United States, the results 19 Dissemination Media (%) Pa pe r (23 % ) St at ic si gn a t t ra ns it st o p/ st at io n (13 % ) El ec tr on ic si gn a t t ra ns it st o p/ st at io n (3% ) Pu bl ic a dd re ss s ys te m (3% ) O n- bo ar d el ec tr on ic si gn (1 % ) In te rn et (w eb sit e) (22 % ) Te le ph on e (19 % ) M o bi le te le ph on e (1% ) W ir el es s A pp lic at io n Pr ot oc o l (W AP )-e na ble d d ev ice (1 % ) K io sk (5% ) E- m a il or p a ge (5 % ) W ir el es s d ev ic e (P DA , iP od ) (1% ) O th er (3 % ) Operational Information: Next bus/train/ferry arrival/departure time (either real time or scheduled) 15 15 10 6 3 15 19 1 2 8 2 1 1 4 3 01 5 1 3 22 02 1 8 7 81 32 syaled/sruoteD 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 1 0 1 noitacol elciheV Trip and/or connection time 14 10 2 1 16 16 1 1 6 3 1 1 5 1 7 6 1 2 12 42 1 0 0 51 62 tnemyap eraF Parking availability 5 1 2 0 0 6 6 1 1 3 3 1 0 General Information: Maps, routes, schedules, and fares 30 22 0 0 0 30 23 0 1 10 5 2 4 4 0 1 4 31 42 6 72 ediuG s’rediR Information for disabled riders 26 7 1 1 25 21 1 1 2 4 1 2 Trip planning (including Point A to Point B planning, find closest stop, find service at a location) 10 4 17 20 2 1 3 2 1 4 Safety/Security: Reminders about notifying officials about suspicious packages or activity 19 13 5 7 2 13 3 1 0 3 4 0 0 Evacuation of transit facilities/vehicles 8 5 2 4 0 5 0 1 3 Escalator/elevator outages 1 3 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 strelA rebmA Source: TCRP Synthesis 68: Methods of Ridership Communication (Table 6, p. 52). Table 6. U.S. transit agencies’ dissemination media by type of information.

indicate that wayside and changeable electronic signs (com- monly known as dynamic message signs [DMS]) are the most common dissemination method for real-time information, followed by the Internet and telephone/PDA. This study indi- cates that real-time information is seldom provided manually, by live operators on transit customer information phone lines. One of the questions asked of the transit agencies inter- viewed for this study focused on the type of dissemination media utilized. All 25 of the agencies responding to this ques- tion provided information via telephone by live operators, making this dissemination method the core, foundational method for transit customer information. Figure 3 shows the other dissemination media utilized in addition to telephone by the transit agencies that were interviewed. The Internet (transit-agency-specific websites) is also very common. Other common dissemination media include e-mail (for agencies sending out alerts to customers and for customers providing input to the agency) and printed materials. The study team be- lieves that the relatively low utilization of printed media is a function of how the question was asked and how interviewees interpreted the question (i.e., the question was open-ended— agencies were not specifically prompted for each medium, and many of them may not have mentioned printed material be- cause they thought it was a given, or not the focus of this phone-oriented study). In reality, essentially all transit agen- cies provide information via printed media. 3.1.1.4 Matching Dissemination Methods/ Technologies with Customer Needs and Preferences The 25 transit agencies that were interviewed for this study were asked several questions relating to understanding and meeting the needs of their customers, including the following: • What is the specific role served by telephone information in your overall customer information strategy (e.g., do you use the telephone to provide specific types of information or to meet the needs of specific types of customers)? • What methods do you use to accommodate customers’ special needs? • How do you determine customer needs and preferences and their satisfaction with customer information? 20 0 5 10 15 LE D s ign LC D Vid eo m on ito r Vo ice in for ma tio n b y p ho neP ag er PD A Ca ble te lev isio n Da ta via m ob ile ph on eInt ern et D is tri bu tio n M ed ia Number of Agencies U.S. International Source: TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems (p. 13). Figure 2. Distribution media for real-time bus arrival information. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ag en cy w eb site Ot he r w eb site s Cu sto m er kio sks Sa les (or oth er) ou tle ts Sn ail m ail Em ail re ce ive Em ail rep ly Bro ad ca st em ails Em ail ale rts Pri nt m ate ria ls/b roc hu re s Pri nt m ate ria ls o n- bo ar d Pri nt m ate ria ls a t s top s Dy na m ic m es sa ge sig ns Ra dio /Ca ble TV ad s IVR Nu m be r o f A ge n c ie s (o u t o f 2 5 in te rv ie w e d) Figure 3. Transit information dissemination media other than telephone.

Figure 4 summarizes the results of the interview question, Do you see your telephone customer service as serving a different need or type of customer than your other customer service media? This question was open ended (i.e., interviewees were not presented with a list of specific, potential answers). As indi- cated previously in Figure 2, the most common answer (noted by almost half of the 25 agencies interviewed) was that the telephone is simply the dissemination medium that they think most of their customers prefer. Further, compared to an IVR, staffed telephone information lines are fundamental because many callers, especially the elderly, want to speak with “a real person.” Overall, the agencies’ telephone infor- mation is the core, fundamental communication method used for customer contact. Also, agencies rely on telephone- based communication for relationship building, and adver- tise their customer service telephone numbers on their websites, in printed information brochures, and through other media (e.g., DMS). Transit agencies use the telephone as a primary means for the following types of customer infor- mation requests: • Information requests on what/how/where/when questions. For example, questions can include “how to ride a fixed route bus,” “when is the next bus on route No. X,” or “where can I get my monthly pass?” These questions require live inter- action with an agency representative. Such questions are received mostly from infrequent riders or visitors. • Information requests from customers who are looking for personalized information that suits their specific needs and preferences. • Information requests on the real-time status of transit ve- hicles, detours, or service disruptions, received mostly at agencies that do not have electronic information resources available to customers. Generally, such calls are received when customers are en route and looking for immediate information assistance, • Information requests from customers with special needs (e.g., customers who are senior citizens, customers with disabilities, or non-English-speaking customers). • Requests for paratransit and rideshare reservations. The second most common role served by telephone infor- mation, and noted by just over one-third of the agencies, is that the telephone provides a means for serving those cus- tomers that do not have access to the agency’s website. Other relatively common answers (noted by 20% or more of inter- viewees) were that telephone information plays a specific, im- portant role in serving customers who are unfamiliar with the transit system, elderly customers, and customers who need very detailed information. The general impression was that the direct, two-way, human-to-human communication pos- sible through the telephone makes this medium the core method for meeting the most challenging information needs of customers. Also, with most demand-response services rely- ing on making trip reservations and confirmations via tele- phone, the phone plays a particularly critical, central role for paratransit agencies and customers. Two of the questions asked of the transit agency interviewees focused on how they determine their customers’ needs, prefer- ences, and capabilities, as well as their satisfaction with the agency’s customer information services. All agencies gather this sort of information on an on-going, daily basis through some combination of customer comment/complaint mechanisms, including caller comments to agency customer service opera- tors and caller voicemail, fax, and/or e-mail messages. Agencies seem to perceive this as a basic means of feedback. Most agen- cies supplement this sort of feedback with customer surveys that are administered on-board, on-line, or by telephone. 21 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Ph on e i s p ref err ed No t fa mi liar wi th the sy ste m Ne ed in fo im me dia tel y Fir st lan gu ag e n ot En glis h Vis ito rs Eld erl y c us tom ers No ce ll p ho ne ac ce ss No in ter ne t a cce ss Pa rat ran sit cu sto me rs Ne ed de tai led in for ma tio n N u m be r o f A ge n ci es (o ut of 2 5 in te rv ie w ed ) Figure 4. Types of customers and information requests addressed by telephone.

Several interview questions related to how transit agencies accommodate their customers’ specific information needs, preferences, and limitations. All of the agencies interviewed have telephone typewriter (TTY) or telephone device for the deaf (TDD) lines available for disabled customers. Some agencies, like Blacksburg Transit in Blacksburg, VA, are part of a statewide 211 service that provides transit information in addition to other critical human services. (A nationwide tele- phone number serving 65% of the U.S. population as of June 2007, 211 provides information on basic human needs and physical and mental health, as well as referrals to human ser- vices organizations, and is coordinated by United Way of America and the Alliance of Information and Referral Sys- tems.) Most agencies provide printed information materials in large print and Braille to be compliant with ADA. Over half of the agencies interviewed provide bilingual customer information, and Spanish was, by far, the most common non- English language accommodated. 3.1.2 Transit Call Center Strategies 3.1.2.1 Central versus Decentralized Call Centers All of the transit agencies we interviewed had a single, phys- ically consolidated call center for their regular non-paratransit services. In some cases, (e.g., Charlotte Area Transit Service [CATS] and Valley Metro), physically separate call center facilities are used for paratransit. Transit call centers typically have an organizational structure that is comprised of call takers who are managed by supervisors and supervisors who are managed by call center managers. Sometimes there is one level below that of the call takers: receptionists who receive customer calls and forward them to call takers. 3.1.2.2 Hours of Operation and Staffing Generally, the call centers at the agencies that were inter- viewed operate from early morning (e.g., 6 A.M. or 7 A.M.) to evening (e.g., 6 P.M. or 7 P.M.), and, on occasion, until 11 P.M. These call centers operate a large number of shifts (e.g., 11 shifts at LYNX between 8 A.M. to 8 P.M.) based on the needs to meet the call volumes at specific times. At some agencies, the call center hours were found to vary over the year due to changes in transit schedules after each “pick” or “bid,” which often is done three to five times per year. For example, the Is- land Explorer schedules two shifts of call takers (with nine op- erators) between the months of June to September, while only one shift (with two operators) is needed between the months of October to June. This is because the Island Explorer only op- erates during the summer and early fall. Further, some agen- cies have extended service hours. For example, King County Metro reported that they manage a 24-h per day/7-day per week call center operation to assist customers with informa- tion. This amounts to 20 to 25 shifts on an average weekday. Generally, transit call center operations were found to be smaller in size (less than or equal to 10 operators). In fact, some of the agencies (Lake Havasu City Transit and El Dorado Transit) have dispatchers answer the customer phone calls. Also, the number of operators was found to change due to changes in service hours, as discussed above. In fact, some agencies have to hire part-time call takers to meet their demands at certain times of the year. The scheduling of operators and allocation of other re- sources (e.g., computers and telephone lines) are done man- ually, based on the experience of call center managers and through the analysis of daily call logs. Some agencies have sophisticated tools (e.g., Synergy Software at WMATA and E-WFM at Valley Metro) that help to analyze reports of tele- phone system usage and subsequently assist with reallocating call center resources. Other agencies have developed these tools in house. For example, with the help of the University of Washington, King County Metro developed a queue model using call tracking data in their management information system (MIS) to manage daily call center operations. Most agencies that were interviewed reported that they have a well-established recruitment process for hiring cus- tomer service representatives (CSRs). Generally, the study team found that the agencies focus on recruiting candidates that have prior experience in the customer service industry and have good communications skills, especially for telephone- based communication. The CSRs are expected to be patient, professional, and concise. Sometimes, the CSRs are expected to have multitasking skills and to make decisions when needed. Additionally, when interviewed, the candidates are tested for a variety of technical skills related to the transit industry. The list of skills desired by the interviewed transit agencies is as follows: • Able to work as both dispatchers and call takers, • Cash-handling capability, • Able to respond to what-if questions, • General knowledge of the mass transit environment, • Bilingual/multilingual speakers, • Understand modern communication practices such as e-mail, • Familiar with computers, • Recordkeeping skills, • Knowledge of the service area, • Able to help customers with navigation, • Understanding of transit safety and security, and • Good with map-based information. 3.1.2.3 Technologies The literature review yielded limited information on transit call center technologies in particular, but the literature on call center operations (i.e., including non-transit call centers) was 22

useful in identifying a set of technologies characteristic of call centers in general. (16-18) That list of technologies, ranging from the fairly basic, common technologies, to the very ad- vanced and less common technologies, was then used as a check- list (prompts) in the 25 transit agency telephone interviews that were conducted. These technologies were organized into two categories, basic and advanced, and are presented in Table 7. Most of the technologies described above are not utilized by the transit agencies that were interviewed. As shown in Figure 5, the interviews indicated that voicemail, automatic call distribution (ACD), voice recording, and interactive voice response are the most prevalent technologies used by transit agencies. Voicemail is implemented in more than 85% of the interviewed agencies, and ACD is implemented at 65%. Since none of the interviewed agencies use speech analytics, this technology does not appear in Figure 5. Figure 6 summarizes the reasons that transit agency inter- viewees gave for investing in call center technologies. The most commonly cited rationale for technology investments, as noted by just over half of the agencies interviewed, was to improve customer satisfaction. Many agencies identified a desire to improve the productivity of their call centers— to handle more calls with a given number of operators—as a prime motivation for technology investments. A few agen- cies that have not implemented many technologies cited financial constraints as the reason for their lack of invest- ment. One agency said that they felt it was less expensive to meet call demand by adding operators than by implement- ing technology. A recently published article in Metro Magazine reports sev- eral efforts made by agencies across the country to revamp call center operation with the use of technology, including the 23 Call Center Technology Description Basic Technologies Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) A technology that automatically distributes incoming calls to customer agents in a call center. ACD sends calls to the next available phone operator based on a routing strategy that is configured in the ACD software. Voicemail A commonly used technology that can be employed by customers to leave a message when their call can not be answered by a telephone operator. Advanced technologies such as CTI allow telephone operators to view these messages in their mailboxes. Voice Recording A technology used by call center operators to record telephone conversations between customers and call takers for quality control and future analyses. Advanced Technologies Interactive Voice Response (IVR) A telephone technology that detects and responds to customer requests through either voice or use of a touch keypad on a phone. IVR systems are usually installed in call center environments to filter customers based on the type of information being requested. Also, IVR systems assist in operating an automated call center during non-business hours. Guided Speech IVR An advanced IVR technology in which a live operator monitors customer prompts and helps the IVR system understand the customer responses to those prompts since customer responses can be misinterpreted by a computer system. Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) A technology that integrates a telephone system with computers. This allows telephone operators to use their computers to manage phone functions such as monitoring incoming and outgoing calls; answering, hanging up or conferencing phone calls; and monitoring call queue lists. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) A technology used by call centers to manage customer information and their relationships with customers. CRM helps transit agencies automate various call center functions such as building a contact database of customers, storing and analyzing customer data to determine customer needs and preferences, and performing marketing and sales activities. Customer Interaction Management (CIM) CIM is a technology used by call centers as an integrated portal for communicating with customers. CIM technologies are installed with a CRM system and allow a variety of modes of communication such as e-mail, telephone, fax, chat, and voice chat (using the customer information stored in the CRM database) from a single user interface. Text to Speech (TTS) Also known as speech synthesis, TTS is a technology used to produce human language speech from text inputs. Transit call centers use TTS to provide information through their IVR systems during non-business hours. Speech Analytics An automated process to extract specific information from telephone conversations. This technology can help agencies determine customer needs and preferences in an automated fashion. Table 7. Call center technologies.

following steps taken by transit agencies to handle the prob- lems faced by their customers while calling in: Many transit systems are beginning to address these types of customer service issues by revamping their call centers to provide simplified trip planning options, more user friendly automated systems or, in some cases, a live person with the ability to assess complaints and address them immediately. (19, p. 100) Agencies that were interviewed adopted call center technologies mainly for customer service improvement (e.g., at Capital Metro Transportation Authority [CMTA], Austin, TX, and Pinnelas Suncoast Transit Authority [PSTA], St. Petersburg, FL), CSR training/retraining (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority [SEPTA], Philadelphia, PA), and complaints management (Pace Suburban Bus, Chicago, IL). According to this same article, CMTA found that the deploy- ment of a 24-h IVR system helped reduce the number of calls handled by live operators by 20% to 25% within the first sev- eral months of its implementation. Similarly, PSTA has imple- 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 Au to. Ca ll D istr ib. Vo ice m ail Vo ice re co rdi ng Int era ctiv e Vo ice Re sp on se (IVR ) Gu ide d S pe ec h I VR CT I CR M CIM TT S Call Center Technologies N u m be r o f A ge n c ie s (ou t o f 2 5 in te rv ie w e d) Advanced Technologies Basic Technologies Figure 5. Technology use in transit call centers. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Fie ld mo re ca lls pe r o pe ra tor Fil ter cu sto m er re qu es ts Im pro ve cu sto m er sa tisf ac tio n Re du ce the nu m be r o f c alls N um be r o f A ge n ci es (o ut of 25 in te rv ie w ed ) Figure 6. Reasons for implementing transit call center technologies.

mented IVR-based trip planning software (HASTINFO from GIRO, Inc.) that helps the agency deal with customers calling in to get assistance with complicated trip planning requests. The software helps PSTA train new CSR recruits as well. (20) Training, one of the important aspects of call center oper- ations, is needed to ensure good, quality customer service. The director of customer service at SEPTA said, “Many of our customer service reps did not have adequate skills to become good customer service liaisons.” (21, p. 102) In order to test the skills of prospective CSRs, SEPTA adopted computerized tests to screen the applicants. Such tests help the Human Resources Department assess CSR candidates “on a number of topics, including math, reading, writing, grammar, customer service and computer databases.” (22, p. 102) This enhanced recruiting process has helped SEPTA bring down average talk time from 30 to 17 min per call. Also, the abandoned call percentage went down from 3.5% to 2%. These changes have improved the efficiency and utilization of call center employees at SEPTA by helping to reduce the number of agents from 57 to 47 in 10 years. 3.1.2.4 Metrics Metrics refers to a variety of statistics that call centers may track to monitor different aspects of their performance. The re- view of the general call center literature was useful in identify- ing a list of metrics utilized, to varying extents, in modern call center operations. (23-25) These metrics were used as a check- list (prompts) in the 25 transit agency telephone interviews conducted for this study. The metrics were organized into two categories, basic and advanced, and are presented in Table 8. Figure 7 summarizes the results of the transit agency inter- views in terms of the number of agencies using the metrics shown in Table 8. Essentially, all of the transit agencies that were interviewed track overall call volume in some fashion (thus, that metric is not included in Figure 7). Figure 7 indi- cates that, overall, the candidate metrics shown in Table 8 are fairly routinely utilized by a number of transit agencies. Most of the metrics in Table 8 are tracked by about half (between 10 and 16 agencies) of the 25 agencies interviewed. Not un- expectedly, the “basic” metrics are among the most commonly utilized. Only one of the eight candidate metrics—“percent calls not resolved at the first attempt”—was tracked by less than one-third of the agencies interviewed. In a few cases, agency interviewees identified a metric not in- cluded in the candidate list. Two examples are the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and CATS, both of which track the number of calls answered on their IVR systems. This metric can be helpful in determining the utility of the IVR technology with respect to manually providing in- formation. CATS reported that 90% of their calls are handled by their IVR system. Further, LYNX monitors several measures beyond the aforementioned list, including the attendance of their call center staff, number of calls transferred, number of calls received, and number of complaints handled by each agent per month. LYNX also monitors measures obtained from the 511 system. Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) monitors the amount of time that each operator spends on the phone since they have a specific number of hours (within a daily schedule) allocated for answering customer calls. The measures shown in Figure 7 provide an overview of transit call center operational performance and assist man- agement in evaluating and adjusting their staff assignments so they may utilize their resources effectively. Many of these statistics are available from technologies such as ACD and CRM. Agencies with limited technology resources utilize 25 Table 8. Call center metrics. Basic Metrics Average call duration Average number of calls in the queue Number and percentage of calls abandoned Number of calls/inquiries per hour Number and percentage of calls answered Average delay while waiting in a queue Advanced Metrics Information requested Number of agents ready to take calls Average number of agents in wrap-up mode Average call duration including wrap-up time Average time taken to pick up a phone call Average time until a call is abandoned Not ready time Idle time Percent of calls not resolved at the first attempt Call volume

other measures and methods for tracking call center perfor- mance, including supervisory monitoring, customer feedback, call monitoring (recorded audio), training, and reviewing complaints and comments. 3.1.3 Implications of Agency Size and Type Transit agencies across the United States vary tremen- dously in terms of their size, characteristics, needs, and capa- bilities. To better understand the impact of agency size on issues related to telephone customer information, the results of the transit agency telephone interviews have been sorted and summarized by transit agency size (size was defined by the number of vehicles the agency operates with small –< 50; medium = 51–300; large = 300 +). Table 9 compares the small, medium, and large transit agencies interviewed in terms of a number of factors that char- acterize the level of complexity or rigor of telephone customer 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Inf or m at ion re qu es te d Nu m be r o f a ge nt s re ad y t o ta ke ca lls Av er ag e nu m be r o f a ge nt s in w ra p up m od e Av er ag e c all du ra tio n Av er ag e ca ll d ur at ion inc lud ing w ra p- up tim e Av er ag e n um be r o f c all s in the qu eu e Nu m be r a nd pe rc en ta ge o f c all s an sw er ed Nu m be r a nd pe rc en ta ge o f c all s ab an do ne d Av er ag e tim e ta ke n to p ick up a ph on e ca ll Av er ag e tim e un til th e ca ll i s ab an do ne d Av er ag e d ela y w hil e w ait ing in a qu eu e Th e n um be r of ca lls / in qu irie s pe r h ou r No t r ea dy tim e Idl e tim e % ca lls no t r es olv ed at th e firs t a tte m pt N um be r o f A ge nc ie s (o u t o f 2 5 in te rv ie w e d) Figure 7. Call center metrics tracked by transit agencies. Size of Transit Agency Measure of Call Center Complexity Large Medium Small % of agencies with advanced technologies 78% 50% 33% % of agencies tracking advanced metrics 100% 75% 22% % of agencies with advanced demand forecasting methods 33% 13% 0% % of agencies with advanced quality monitoring methods 44% 50% 22% % of agencies with advanced customer satisfaction monitoring 33% 25% 0% % of agencies with extended hours of operation 78% 75% 67% % of agencies with call center staff with advanced skills 78% 88% 44% % of agencies providing bilingual information 70% 88% 56% % of agencies providing real-time information* 30% 0% 33% = Small agencies less complex than medium and large agencies. * Does not necessarily imply information based on automatic vehicle-location technology. For example, includes vehicle status information as determined by dispatch-driver radio communication. Table 9. Agency call center complexity versus agency size.

information activities. For each factor, the percentage of small, medium, and large transit agencies interviewed demonstrat- ing “advanced” versus “basic” call center approaches has been calculated. Table 10 provides supporting information that identifies the types of specific agency methods and practices that were categorized as either advanced or basic for each fac- tor. For each factor, if a given agency demonstrated at least one of the “advanced” attributes, it was classified as advanced. For example, if an agency utilized any of the four quality monitor- ing techniques that the study team classified as “advanced” for the purposes of this exercise, they were categorized as “advanced” for that measure. The shaded rows in Table 9 highlight the results where the expected relationship between agency size and complexity was strongly evident (i.e., where smaller agencies were less complex than larger agencies). For example, small agencies utilize less complex call center methods than medium or large agencies. This pattern was found for nearly all of the factors. For most factors, there was no consistent difference found between medium and large agencies, suggesting that some medium 27 Characterization of Agency’s Self-Reported Methods Measure of Call Center Complexity Advanced Basic Technologies • IVR • Guided speech IVR • CTI • CRM • CIM • TTS • Speech analytics • ACD • Voicemail • Voice recording Metrics • Percent of calls not resolved at the first attempt • Not ready time • Average number of agents in wrap-up mode • Average call duration including wrap-up time • Information requested • Idle time • Average time taken to pick up a phone call • Average time until the call is abandoned • Number of agents ready to take calls • Average call duration • Average number of calls in the queue • Number and percentage of calls abandoned • Number of calls/inquiries per hour • Number and percentage of calls answered • Average delay while waiting in a queue Demand Forecasting Technique • Use of software • Customized tool to review data • Manual review of reports • Subjective perceptions of historic patterns and volumes Quality Monitoring Technique • Statistics from a software program • Market research/survey • Customer feedback • Real-time supervisory monitoring of calls • Informal supervisory observation • Non-real-time supervisory call monitoring (e.g., call recordings) • Manual review of complaints/comments Customer Satisfaction Monitoring Technique • Online surveying/comments • Email surveying/comments • On-board surveying • Telephone surveying/comments Hours of Operation • Weekdays 15+ h • Saturday 8+ h • Available on Sunday • Weekdays ≤15 h • Saturday ≤8 h • Not available on Sunday Call-Taker Skill Requirements • Any of various skills above and beyond basic telephone and communication skills (e.g., prior work experience in mass transit, prior experience in customer service, bilingual skills, able to also perform dispatch duties) • Basic telephone and communication skills (e.g., patient, customer-friendly) Bilingual Capability • Offer English plus at least one other language • Offer English only Real-Time Information Provided • Real-time information available (e.g., next bus) • No real-time information available Table 10. Categorization of call center attributes as “advanced” versus “basic.”

level of agency size represents the tipping point where more complex and rigorous call center methods become common. The somewhat counterintuitive findings for real-time infor- mation (i.e., small agencies are as likely to provide real-time information as are large agencies) is a function of the small sample size and the fact that the small agency sample included the Acadia National Park Island Explorer service, a rare exam- ple of a small agency that provides “next bus” type information. 3.2 Telephone Information Strategies of Other Organizations This section compares and contrasts the call center opera- tions of transit and non-transit organizations whose call cen- ter operations are considered state of the art. Information on non-transit call centers was collected from call center literature (26-29) and supplemented with telephone interviews. Three organizations were interviewed including a state motor vehi- cle department; a local bank branch office; and a very large, national consumer durables manufacturer. These organiza- tions provided insight on call center organizations of various sizes responsible for different types of products and services. 3.2.1 Similarities and Differences between Transit and Non-Transit Call Centers The study team identified the following similarities and differences between transit and non-transit call centers: • Call center approaches vary widely depending mostly on the size of the organization; larger organizations employ more sophisticated approaches. • Non-transit organizations typically utilize more advanced call center technologies than even the larger transit agencies. For example, the consumer durables manufacturer inter- viewed uses all of the technologies asked about on the survey, whereas many of even the largest transit agencies interviewed use only some of those technologies. • Non-transit organizations, particularly the larger and more sophisticated ones, use IVR technologies more than the average transit agency to limit the number of live opera- tor interactions. Non-transit organizations, especially those with high call volumes, often employ more sophisticated IVR menu structures/ACD schemes and make a greater effort to route specific types of customer questions to spe- cific operators. • Transit and non-transit organizations utilize similar ap- proaches to staffing call centers and setting call-taker skill requirements. The study team’s judgment is that non-transit organizations tend to use more sophisticated human re- source strategies than do even the largest transit agencies. • The quality monitoring technologies used and the perfor- mance metrics tracked by non-transit call centers are sim- ilar to those employed by transit agencies. The size of the organization and number of calls seems to be the key driver both within and outside the transit industry. There does seem to be a slightly greater use of the most sophisticated techniques in non-transit organizations. 3.2.2 Implications for Transit Agencies Overall, it was found that transit and non-transit agencies use many of the same call center methods. Those methods vary primarily in relation to call volumes. Organizations han- dling the highest call volumes use more of the most sophisti- cated methods. However, it was also found that although many of the same methods were used, non-transit call centers tend to use more of the advanced methods than do transit call centers with comparable call volumes. Based on our tele- phone interviews, in those cases where transit agencies use less technology than non-transit agencies, it is either because they lack the resources, or because they do not feel that the more advanced, costly methods are necessary given their call volumes. These findings have the following implications for transit agencies: • Consider employing advanced call center technologies. Although the smallest agencies with the lowest call volumes do not warrant major call center technology investments, somewhat greater use of technology by agencies of varying sizes would provide benefits for many organizations. Some general benefits of using call center technology include – Decreasing the amount of manual, paper-based processes at larger call centers (those with more than 10 call takers that are typically found at medium/large urban or rural transit agencies) by using workforce management tech- nologies that can track daily work logs and automate most tasks; – Reducing the amount of time spent on repetitive infor- mation requests by implementing IVR systems and post- ing such information on the agency website; – Ensuring customer service quality for agencies with large call volumes (e.g., more than 1,000 calls per day) by using quality monitoring technologies; and – Improving customer management, particularly at those agencies that wish to provide personalized information such as service alerts, through the use of CRM and CIM software. • Provide more personalized information. Many non- transit call centers provide highly personalized informa- tion to callers. One way they accomplish this service is by creating individual customer accounts based upon the products purchased. This captured information enables 28

non-transit centers to respond to their customers with personalized information. • Offer more up-to-date information. Non-transit call cen- ters often provide very timely and personalized information to their customers (e.g., the status of a catalog order). Tran- sit agencies can use advanced technologies to increasingly provide similar personal and timely information. • Consider call center/customer information-specific cus- tomer satisfaction surveying. Transit industry call centers mostly rely on customer surveys conducted by agency mar- keting departments for determining customer needs and preferences. Since the nature and objective of such surveys can be different and may not cover needs that are specific to call centers, transit call centers should consider con- ducting their own mail or online surveys, similar to those performed by non-transit industries, to determine needed improvements in call center operations. 3.3 Overview of Transit Agency Involvement in 511 Systems This section documents the extent and nature of transit agency presence on the 511 systems that were operational as of March 2009, and analyzes transit-related 511 operating statistics. The specific 511 experiences of a broad spectrum of individual transit agencies, those integrated and not integrated with 511, are included in the transit agency case studies pre- sented later in this chapter. In order to establish proper context, the transit-related portions of the national 511 Deployment Coalition’s guidelines for 511 systems is presented before the inventory of 511 systems and related information. 3.3.1 Transit-Related 511 Guidelines from the 511 Deployment Coalition The following summary (30) outlining the origin, purpose, and organization of the national 511 Deployment Coalition is taken from the U.S.DOT Joint Program Office web page on 511: Mindful of both the opportunities and challenges 511 presents, AASHTO, in conjunction with many other organizations includ- ing APTA and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America), with support from the U.S.DOT, established a 511 Deployment Coalition. The program kicked off in January 2001. A Policy Committee of leading executives from all elements of the transportation and telecommunications sectors has been formed to guide the 511 Coalition. The goal of the 511 Coalition is “the timely establishment of a national 511 traveler information service that is sustainable and provides value to users.” The intent is to implement 511 nationally using a bottom up approach facil- itated by information sharing and a cooperative dialogue through the national associations represented on the Policy Committee. The mission of the Policy Committee is to provide guidance on how to achieve this goal. In the early days of 511, as the very first systems were being planned and deployed, the 511 Deployment Coalition devel- oped a series of white papers on technical and policy topics to support the efforts of individual deployers. Over time, those separate papers were rolled into an overall document entitled, Implementation and Operational Guidelines for 511 Services, which has been updated several times. The most recent up- date is Version 3.0, which is dated September 2005. (31) In the last several years, with most 511 systems established, there has been very little additional guidance developed. The transit-related 511 guidelines in the latest version of the Implementation and Operational Guidelines can be sum- marized as follows: • For each transit agency in the region, a 511 system should include, at a minimum, a description of the agency’s ser- vice area, schedule and fare information, information about service disruptions, and a connection to the agency’s cus- tomer service center. • Also recommended—although not included in the “basic transit 511 information” category due to the associated challenges—are regional or corridor-specific transit infor- mation and real-time transit arrival or departure times. • A 511 system should work in conjunction with transit agency customer service centers. A 511 system is not intended to replace these operations, but to (1) provide compatible and supplemental information, usually in the form of recorded messages and (2) connect callers to transit agency customer service centers, if so desired by the specific agency. • A 511 system can and should be designed to provide auto- mated messages that will answer callers’ questions prior to seeking assistance from transit customer service center op- erators. Ideally, thoughtful design will reduce the number of calls to be fielded by transit agency operators, thereby allowing them to handle only the calls that require their expertise and to increase the number of calls they can suc- cessfully manage. • Trip planning can be accomplished over an IVR system, like 511, but it is a complex process. An alternative way to provide this service is to provide connections to the transit agencies’ customer service centers. 3.3.2 Extent and Type of Involvement 3.3.2.1 Operational 511 Systems There are 44 operational 511 systems as of March 2009, 42 of which are in the United States (there are two Canadian systems, one serving Nova Scotia and one serving Yukon). Figure 8 graphically summarizes the operational status of these systems nationwide. Most 511 systems cover entire states. Eleven states currently include no 511 systems and have no 29

plans to deploy systems. Of the 44 operational systems, 12 cover specific regions or metropolitan areas. The circles on the map provided in Figure 8 indicate these regional systems (e.g., St. Louis, MO). Interestingly, some of the largest metro- politan areas in the United States—including Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Dallas—currently are not covered by any 511 system. The vast majority of 511 systems are operated by state de- partments of transportation (DOTs). Rare exceptions include the San Diego and San Francisco Bay Area regional systems, which are operated by their respective MPOs, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Metropoli- tan Transportation Commission (MTC). Many of the 511 systems are not new telephone information systems. These systems were typically operational for many years providing highway information as conventional 10-digit toll-free infor- mation numbers. They became 511 systems when the neces- sary programming on the phone switches allowed callers within the service area to reach the system by dialing 511. Early in the federal 511 program, $50,000 was offered to each state to cover such reprogramming costs. In most cases, the pre-511, 10-digit toll-free phone number was retained, and can also be used to reach the system. Perhaps because of their origins as highway/traffic-only sys- tems, almost none of the 511 systems’ main menus list transit or public transportation as their first choice. The exceptions are Alaska (ferries) and San Francisco. Additionally, almost none of the 511 systems have the option of speaking with a live 511 operator, with the exceptions being the Georgia and South Florida 511 systems. 3.3.2.2 Transit Agency Participation in 511 Systems In order to determine transit agency involvement in the operational 511 systems, each of the 42 systems in the United States was called, using the “backdoor” (standard 10-digit) phone numbers. Table 11 presents these results by system, with transit presence or participation in 511 categorized into the following three types: (1) general information on transit services (e.g., services provided, service disruptions, the tele- phone number for the transit agency’s customer service line, hours of operation, fares, etc.); (2) the ability to automatically transfer to the transit agency; and (3) real-time transit infor- mation (e.g., vehicle arrival/departure time estimates). The results can be summarized as follows: • As of March 2009, 22 of the 42 total 511 systems have no transit presence or content whatsoever. – Most of these systems provide only highway/traffic infor- mation, which may include road-weather information. 30 Note: Shaded states have active 511 systems as of March 6, 2009. Source: Federal Highway Administration, March 6, 2009; http://deploy511.org/deployment-stats.html. Figure 8. Summary of 511 deployment.

– Nearly all of the 22 systems that have no transit presence or information are statewide systems. Most of these systems are for large states with relatively low popula- tion densities (e.g., Iowa, Wyoming, and Nevada). The exceptions are New Jersey and Rhode Island. The re- gional systems that lack transit information are St. Louis and California—Eastern Sierras. • Of the 20 systems with some form of transit present or con- tent, the type of information provided is represented as fol- lows (note that because some systems have multiple types of information, the list below does not sum to 20): – Two have only general transit information (e.g., list the phone number for a transit agency); – Seven have only an option to transfer to transit agencies; – Nine have both general transit information and call transfer options; and – Three—San Francisco, San Diego, and Maine (Bar Harbor area)—include real-time transit information. 31 Type of Transit Information/Options 511 System/Service Area 511 System Launch Date “Backdoor”/ Local Phone General Info (Service Disruptions, Fares, etc.) Call Transfer to Transit Agency Real- Time Transit Info 1. Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky June 2001 513-333-3333 X X enoN 9609-609-008 1002 tcO aksarbeN .2 HATU-115-668 1002 ceD hatU .3 X X DAOR-114-888 2002 raM anozirA .4 X X 5. Orlando/Central Florida June 2002 866-510-1930 X 0220-245-008 2002 yluJ atosenniM .6 X X 7. Southeast Florida July 2002 866- 914-3838 X X enoN 7401-882-008 2002 voN awoI .8 9. South Dakota Nov 2002 866-MYSD 511 None 10. Kentucky, Statewide Nov 2002 866-RDREPORT None 11. San Francisco Bay Area, CA Dec 2002 866-736-7433 X X X enoN 3267-622-008 3002 naJ anatnoM .21 enoN DAOR-YCI-008 3002 naJ tnomreV .31 14. North Dakota Feb 2003 866-MY ND 511 None 7757-282-668 3002 ,52 rpA aksalA .51 X X 8757-282-668 3002 yaM eniaM .61 X X 17. New Hampshire May 2003 866-282-7579 None 18. Washington State July 2003 800-695-ROAD X enoN 1492-885-305 3002 ceD nogerO .91 enoN TODK-115-668 4002 naJ sasnaK .02 21. North Carolina Aug 2004 877-511-INNC X 22. Sacramento/Northern CA Sept 2004 877-511-TRIP X 23. Tampa Bay, FL Sept 2004 800-576-3886 X enoN 1111-936-303 7002 yluJ odaroloC .42 1114-875-008 4002 guA ainigriV .52 X X 26. Rhode Island Mar 2005 888-401-4511 None 27. Florida, Statewide Nov 2005 866-511-3352 None* enoN 3267-234-888 5002 voN ohadI .82 enoN 3267-699-888 6002 yluJ gnimoyW .92 enoN 5600-442-778 6002 guA eessenneT .03 enoN 7326-786-778 6002 guA adaveN .13 enoN 1153-267-888 6002 ceD anaisiuoL .23 33. Jacksonville/Northeast Florida Oct 2006 866-511-3352 X 34. San Diego, CA Jan 2007 619-839-0198 X X 35. Southwest Florida Apr 2007 866-511-3352 X 36. St. Louis, Missouri May 2007 877-478-5511 None 37. California, Eastern Sierra May 2007 800-427-7623 None 115AGYM-778 7002 guA aigroeG .83 X 39. New Jersey Aug 2007 866-511-NJDT None 40. Boston/Eastern Massachusetts Oct 2007 617-374-1234 X 41. New Mexico Dec 2007 800-432-4269 None 42. New York (Beta Version) Jan 2009 888-465-1169 X X Table 11. Transit participation on active 511 systems. * The Florida statewide system serves as a gateway that can transfer callers to the regional 511 systems in Florida. Although those regional systems include transit information, no transit information is directly accessible on the main, statewide system menu.

3.3.2.3 Transit Participation in Relation to 511 Deployment Coalition Guidelines The current state of transit participation in 511 is poor relative to the basic, minimum transit participation recom- mended by the 511 Deployment Coalition. The Coalition rec- ommends that every 511 system include every transit agency. However, 22 out of the 42 currently operational 511 systems contain no transit presence, information, or options. Even of those 511 systems that do include transit, most of them do not include all of the information and options recommended by the Coalition: • Some 511 systems with transit information do not include a call transfer feature. This is the exception as most 511 sys- tems with transit do include a transfer. • About half of the 511 systems that include transit do not provide any meaningful general information, such as ser- vice disruptions, schedules, and fares. • Many of the 511 systems that do include transit agencies do not include all of the transit agencies in the region. 3.3.2.4 References from 511 Systems to 211 or 311 There are currently no formal guidelines, like those pro- duced by the 511 Deployment Coalition, that definitively identify how 511 systems should interface or relate to either 311 or 211 systems. The FCC designated 211 to be used for the locally/regionally operated “community information and referral services” phone systems. The FCC designated 311 to be used for locally/regionally operated, staffed (live operator) phone systems for “non-emergency policy and other govern- ment services” information. Although the exact relationship between 511 and these other “N11” numbers has not yet been determined or recommended, it has been suggested that, at a minimum, these systems should reference one another. This is especially true in the case of 511 referencing 211, because many demand-response services are coordinated by the agen- cies reflected on 211 systems. (32) Although not every menu option of every operating 511 sys- tem has been explored as part of this study, every main menu and most of the transit-related submenu options have been ex- plored thoroughly. In that experience, only one linkage to an- other N11 number was found. Specifically, the New York City Metro Region portion of the New York statewide 511 system includes a call transfer option to New York City’s 311 system. 3.3.3 Differences between 511-Integrated and Non-Integrated Agencies In addition to documenting the general level of transit agency participation in 511 systems, one objective of Task 2 of this study was to investigate whether transit agencies partici- pating in 511 systems differ from non-participating transit agencies according to several parameters. Those parameters include the sophistication and specific approaches used for overall customer information and call center operations (e.g., technologies and metrics) as well as the extent of involvement in broader, non-511 telephone traveler information systems, including websites, highway advisory radio (HAR) and DMS. This section presents the results of that analysis. 3.3.3.1 Customer Information and Call Center Approaches A number of the questions asked of the transit agency inter- viewees focused on various aspects of their overall customer information strategy and specific aspects of their call center operations. In Chapter 2, a methodology was presented show- ing how the agencies’ responses to these questions was used to characterize agencies as either “advanced” or “basic” in regard to a variety of aspects of call center operations. In Section 3.1.3, the advanced versus basic categorization of agencies was exam- ined according to agency size. Here, those agency categoriza- tions are sorted according to whether the agency is integrated with 511. Integration is defined for this study as those agencies that have the ability to transfer from the 511 system to the tran- sit customer information line. Table 12 shows that, for most of the call center factors, the non-511 integrated agencies were found to be as advanced, or more advanced, than those that are integrated. The shaded rows in Table 9 highlight the results where the expected rela- tionship between agency size and complexity was strongly evident, that is, where smaller agencies were less complex than larger agencies. There are two potential hypotheses on the relationship between transit agency call center sophistication and 511 integration. The first is that more advanced agencies will be more likely to be integrated because participation in 511 either requires a certain level of robustness or sophistication in call center technologies and capabilities, or because the type of agencies that invest in sophisticated call center oper- ations are more likely to experiment with 511 as a new way to reach customers. The second hypothesis is the opposite, rea- soning that the agencies with less advanced call center oper- ations are the most likely to integrate with 511. Presumably, this would be because these agencies see 511 as a way to supple- ment their own services without having their own after-hours capability, IVR or other more advanced telephone customer service capabilities. The study team’s opinion is that these two opposing theo- ries are not supported by the results in Table 12, along with the input from the case studies and the transit agencies, and our own observations of those agencies. Unfortunately, the limited sample size constrains our ability to draw authorita- tive conclusions. However, on the basis of our conversations and visits with more than two dozen agencies, we do not see agencies’ 511 participation decisions as having anything to do with the relative sophistication or lack thereof of their call 32

33 Agencies’ Level of 511 Participation Measure of Call Center Complexity Integrated Not Integrated %34 %85 seigolonhcet decnavda htiw seicnegA %68 %85 scirtem decnavda gnikcart seicnegA %41 %61 gnitsacerof dnamed decnavda htiw seicnegA %34 %73 gnirotinom ytilauq decnavda htiw seicnegA Agencies with advanced customer satisfaction monitoring 26% 0% %17 %47 noitarepo fo sruoh dednetxe htiw seicnegA Agencies with call center staff with advanced set of skills 68% 86% %41 %06 noitamrofni laugnilib gnidivorp seicnegA %34 %51 noitamrofni emit-laer gnidivorp seicnegA Table 12. Agency call center complexity versus 511 integration. Figure 9. Participation in broad traveler information systems. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Non-511 Phone 511 Website Non-511 Website Dynamic Message Sign Highway Advisory Radio Other Pe rc en ta ge o f T ra n si t A ge n ci es 511-Integrated Agencies Non-Integrated Transit Agencies centers. Participation is more a function of whether the 511 system in question includes transit information at all, and whether the 511 sponsor provided transit with an opportu- nity to participate. Most transit agencies, regardless of their size or call center sophistication, took advantage of opportu- nities to integrate with 511 if offered the choice. 3.3.3.2 Participation in Non-511 Traveler Information Systems Each transit agency was asked if they participated in any non-511 traveler information systems like 511 websites, non- 511 websites, DMS (which are included in a multimodal trav- eler information system, excluding signs operated by the tran- sit agency dedicated strictly to their information) and HAR. Each agency also was offered an “other” category to capture any other type of broader traveler information system involve- ment. Figure 9 graphically summarizes these interview results. Overall, there is not a high degree of participation in any of a variety of broader traveler information systems. Among either the 511-participating or non-511 participating agencies, no more than 44% of the agencies were involved in any given dissemination method. The sample size (results are based on 25 transit agency interviews) and the differences between the

number of 511-participating (18) and non-participating (7) transit agencies preclude any authoritative conclusions. How- ever, it does appear that participation in a 511 phone system is correlated with participation in other broader traveler infor- mation systems. For three of the four dissemination methods described in Table 9, where there is any participation, partic- ipation is higher among 511 phone system participants than for non-participants. For example, participation in 511 web- sites is much higher among 511 phone participants (44%, or 8 of 18 agencies interviewed) than among non-participants (14%, or 1 of 7 agencies interviewed). The one area where participants are not significantly more involved than non- participants is non-511 phone systems. However, the rela- tively small gap and small sample size preclude the formation of any strong conclusions. These results suggest that transit agencies participating in 511 telephone information systems are more likely to partic- ipate in other broader traveler information systems. 3.3.4 Transit-Related 511 Operating Statistics Calling 511 systems and assembling an inventory of their transit presence and options is one way to understand, at a high level, the role that transit agencies are playing with regard to 511 systems. Another way to understand transit agency 511 participation and linkages is to look at transit- related 511 statistics, such as the percentage of total 511 menu requests that are for transit-related options, or the number of call transfers out of 511 to transit. For each of the 29 transit agency case studies conducted and documented in Section 3.4, the transit agency was asked whether they saw, or regularly tracked, any 511 statistics re- lated to their agency. Practically none of the transit agencies were aware of, or had seen, any such statistics, with the one exception being LYNX in Central Florida. None of the transit agencies felt that 511 participation impacted their call volumes. Although fully documenting all 511 systems was not a focus of this study, in the course of the case studies the research team did become aware of a few 511 operators who keep transit- related 511 statistics. We chose to present those statistics here, rather than as part of the case studies, because they are more instructive as general indicators of the relationship between transit and 511 rather than the impacts experienced by any one agency. Additionally, we chose to present these statistics here because they did not surface through the transit agencies. The following transit-related 511 operating statistics were collected from the following agencies: • LYNX transit (Central Florida)—Number of call transfers out of the Central Florida 511 system to LYNX and the per- centage of all 511 calls that include a transfer to LYNX. • MTC, Bay Area 511—Extensive statistics for both transit overall, and for individual agencies, including the percent- age of all 511 menu selections that are for transit; the num- ber of call transfers to all participating transit agencies; and the number and percentage of submenu selections within each transit agency’s menu. This last data category allows for the comparison of the number of call transfer requests to a given transit agency and to the number of requests for other items pertaining to that agency, when the informa- tion is resident on 511. This provides some indication of how many callers’ information needs are fully served on 511 without the transfer to a live operator. • Arizona 511—The number and percentage of all 511 menu selections that are transit-related and the number and per- centage of all outgoing 511 call transfers that are to transit agencies. • 511 Virginia—The percentage of selections for transfers. Transfers are the only way to get to transit information on this system. • 511 Deployment Coalition—The percentage of all 511 calls, nationwide, that includes a transit selection. These statistics are shown in Table 13. It is clear that even for the small, core set of basic transit-related 511 statistics represented in Table 13, the availability of the information is quite variable. Few 511 systems have very comprehensive in- formation. The San Francisco Bay Area 511 system stands out as having the most comprehensive and detailed transit- related statistics. The following observations are drawn from Table 13: • Nationally, transit menu selections/calls are a relatively small proportion of all 511 calls/menu selections. The unusually high percentage shown for the San Francisco 511 system is, in part, a function of the great popularity of the Muni vehi- cle arrival times feature, which alone accounts for about 1% of all 511 requests. • Transfers out of 511 to transit agencies—which are obvi- ously a function of the overall popularity of transit on any given 511 system—range from several hundred per month to tens of thousands per month in San Francisco. • In the San Francisco Bay Area 511 system, the proportion of a transit agency’s total menu requests that are for some- thing other than a transfer to a transit operator varies dra- matically, from 80% for Muni to less than 40% for many agencies. In most cases, there is no clear explanation for the variation. Two exceptions are San Francisco’s Muni and AC Transit. In Muni’s case, the high percentage (80%) of non-operator menu requests (that is, requests for data resident on the 511 system) is a function of the popularity of the arrival times feature, which alone accounts for 77% of all Muni menu requests. For AC Transit, the unusually 34

Table 13. Sample of available transit-related 511 statistics. high percentage of transfers is probably related to the fact that that agency advertises 511 as their primary customer service number. Therefore, rather than getting just, or mostly, callers interested in getting automated 511 infor- mation, they get the full spectrum of customer inquiries. In fact, because AC funnels all calls to 511, this statistic is a good indicator of the overall percentage of their customer inquiries that can be handled without a live operator (15%). This would confirm the subjective perceptions of most transit agency personnel that were interviewed, who feel that most customer service calls to their agency will require interaction with an operator. What is not revealed in the sampling of available transit- related 511 statistics shown in Table 13 is whether the calls transferred from 511 to specific transit agencies are “new” calls to transit or “shifted” calls. The amount of transferred calls can be significant—on the order of tens of thousands per month for large transit agencies in large, transit-oriented 511 systems like San Francisco. New calls would represent calls from people who would not otherwise have called the transit agency directly (such as tourists) and these would represent a net increase in calls to the transit agency. Shifted calls would be calls that would otherwise have gone to the transit agency directly, but the caller decided to try 511 instead. An example of this type of caller would be a veteran transit user and caller to the transit agency who noticed a reference to 511 on some of the transit agency’s materials and decided to try it. Under- standing exactly what types of calls these are would increase the understanding of the impact of 511 on participating transit agencies. Case studies shown in Section 3.4 revealed that 511- participating transit agencies did not detect any 511-related change in their customer service call volumes, which may be evidence enough that most 511 transfers are probably “shifted” rather than “new” calls to transit. The analysis of sample transit-related 511 statistics indicates that there is not enough data available to understand any other impacts and effectiveness for transit. Further, the fact that prac- tically none of the transit agencies interviewed were aware of, or provided access to, what limited statistics are available sug- gests that 511 operators have not reached out to their partici- pating transit agencies. This also may indicate that the transit agencies have not asked the operators for such data. 3.4 Transit Agency Case Studies This section presents the 29 case studies of transit agencies that were performed. Conclusions based on the case studies are presented in Chapter 4. The case studies are organized into the following three major categories based upon the level of transit involvement in the 511 system: 1. Transit agencies integrated with 511—These transit agen- cies are all represented on the menu system of their respec- tive 511 systems and 511 callers can automatically transfer 35 511 System/Transit Agency Transit- Related 511 Statistic LYNX (Central Florida 511) MTC (San Francisco 511)* Arizona 511 511 Virginia 511 Deployment Coalition (National Statistics) Transit-related calls/menu selections 24% of all 511 menu selections 1%-2% of all 511 menu selections 9% of all 511 calls Transit transfers from 511 0.4% of all 511 calls (~350 transfers per month) 32,800 transfers per month to AC Transit 6,600 transfers per month to Golden Gate Transit 6,100 transfers per month to Muni 5.2% of all calls (1,650 call transfers per month to Valley Metro) < 1% Transit agencies’ 511 menu requests that are for something other than a transfer to a transit operator 15% for AC Transit 80% for Muni 23% for Golden Gate Transit 42% for Santa Clara Valley 35% SamTrans * Statistics associated with individual transit agencies are available for all of the more than 20 transit agencies that participate in the San Francisco 511 system; only a few examples for 3 agencies are shown here.

from the 511 system directly to the transit agency’s Cus- tomer Service Department. 2. Transit agencies with a presence on 511, but no inte- gration—These transit agencies have a presence on the 511 menu system (e.g., listing the types of services they pro- vide and/or identifying the transit agency’s customer ser- vice phone number) but 511 callers cannot automatically transfer to the agency’s Customer Service Department. 3. Transit agencies with no 511 presence—These agencies are not represented on their respective 511 systems in any way. In cases where multiple transit agencies—as well as other agencies involved in 511 (like state DOTs and/or MPOs)— participate in the same 511 system, these case studies are grouped together based on the common 511 system. For example, the several case studies of the San Francisco area agencies are presented in the subsection on San Francisco Bay Area 511. The format of the transit agency case studies includes a brief introduction that describes the agency and their par- ticipation in 511, followed by subsections on: • Rationale for Participation—The factors considered by the agency in deciding how to participate, or not to participate, in 511, and the basis for their ultimate decision. • Impacts—The actual impacts, both positive (benefits) and negative, experienced by the agency as a result of their 511 involvement. This includes the costs and other financial is- sues, like funding, staffing, technologies utilized, customer service call volumes, customer feedback, coordination with other agencies, etc. • Issues—The problems, concerns, challenges, and other sorts of issues that were encountered or are expected. • Outlook—The overarching observations on 511 participa- tion, including advice to other transit agencies and plans for future 511 participation at the time of the interviews. 3.4.1 Transit Agencies Integrated with 511 3.4.1.1 Arizona 511 The statewide Arizona 511 system was implemented and is operated and maintained in-house by the Arizona Depart- ment of Transportation (ADOT). Prior to the conversion to 511 in March 2002, the system operated for many years as a highway/traffic-only, toll-free, statewide telephone information system. The system was expanded between 2003 to 2005 as part of the FHWA’s National 511 Model Deployment to include transit information in conjunction with a wide range of other modifications and enhancements. As part of those enhance- ments, a transit option was added to the main menu, with sub- menu options for Phoenix area transit (Valley Metro), Tucson SunTran, Native American transits, and for the more than one dozen other rural/regional transit providers statewide. An automatic call transfer to customer service function was provided for each transit agency. Each transit agency was also provided the opportunity to use whatever prerecorded infor- mation they desired. For example, recordings for service area and hours of operation, as well as a voice recording for “flood- gate” messages like those used for service interruptions. Most of the marketing of the ADOT 511 system focuses on highway information or targets highway users. For example, ADOT places messages stating “for roadway information, call 511” on DMS but installed a number of standard, painted roadside signs around some of the major metropolitan areas to refer drivers to 511 for transit information. Havasu Area Transit (HAT). HAT is a rural/regional tran- sit provider in Arizona whose FTA grants are administered by ADOT’s Pubic Transportation Division. HAT provides fixed- route and complimentary paratransit service to residents of the city and the Desert Hills and Horizon Six subdivisions. Service is provided on 5 fixed routes that include a total of 24 stops. (33) The estimated population of the HAT service area is ap- proximately 55,000. Lake Havasu is located approximately 125 miles from Phoenix, on the Arizona–California border. HAT’s location with the Arizona 511 system is within the submenu for regional transit providers. HAT information and options on 511 consist of prerecorded information identifying the phone number for HAT customer service (their dispatch office), dispatch office hours, service area, fares, and an option to transfer to HAT customer service. HAT reports that they do not utilize 511 to provide floodgate information, such as service disruptions. Rationale for participation. The HAT transit manager started in HAT in 2005 and therefore may not have been with the agency when it was contacted by ADOT about 511 partic- ipation. It was not surprising then, that he was not certain about the genesis of HAT’s involvement in 511. The Arizona 511 Manager, who also led the technical activities for the Arizona 511 National Model Deployment during the Model Deployment project, noted that he attempted to contact each of the rural/regional transit providers, but in those cases where he was unable to reach anyone, he went ahead and included their agency on the 511 system. Impacts. HAT indicated that they are not aware of any impacts resulting from their participation in the 511 system. They have not contributed financially to the implementa- tion, operation, or maintenance of the 511 system. They are not aware of any transit-related 511 statistics for the Arizona system but would be interested in seeing them if they existed. Overall, HAT did not recognize any costs or benefits with the 511 systems. 36

Issues. HAT cited no issues with 511 participation. Outlook. Overall, HAT seems to lack any specific perspec- tive on 511. They seem to view it as benign and essentially inconsequential. No one currently at the agency seems to have been involved in the decision to participate in 511. HAT may not have played any real role in the decision since the 511 spon- sor, ADOT, is also the funding administrator and provider of technical support to HAT and the state’s other rural/regional providers. HAT identified no specific planned changes in their 511 participation but they did indicate that they intended to fol- low up with ADOT to update their prerecorded information on 511 and to see if they can get any transit-related 511 statistics. Pima County Rural Transit. Like HAT, Pima County Rural Transit is another rural/regional transit provider in Arizona whose FTA grants are administered by ADOT’s Public Transportation Division. Pima County Rural Transit provides fixed-route and demand-response service for over thousands of square miles throughout south-central Arizona. Their ap- proximately 200-mi-wide service area spans from the Tucson area in the east to the vicinity of Ajo, a small town of less than 5,000 population to the west. (34) Pima County routes pro- vide connectivity to all of the urban public transportation services in their service area as well as to airports. All service is provided by contractors, who use eight vans/mini coaches. Pima County’s menu location in the Arizona 511 system is within the submenu for regional transit providers. Pima County Transit information and options on 511 consist of prerecorded general information on routes and services and an option to transfer to Pima County customer service. Pima County reports that they do not utilize 511 to provide flood- gate information, such as service disruptions. Rationale for participation. Pima County’s sole motiva- tion for participating in 511 was to provide their customers with an alternative and easy-to-remember phone number. Pima County was recruited for participation by ADOT, who then handled most of the issues associated with getting Pima County on the 511 menu. Pima County’s main concern when they made their decision to participate in 511 was the poten- tial time investment required to get set up on the system. Impacts. Pima County indicated that they did not know if their 511 participation has had any impact on them. They do not track any 511 statistics and were unaware if any were available. Pima County Transit has not contributed financially to the 511 system. However, they did devote some staff time early on to provide the content for their prerecorded message on 511. Pima County never considered the need for an IVR for their operation and, therefore, did not even consider the benefit of a 511 IVR. Issues. Pima County cited no issues with 511 participation. Outlook. Overall, Pima County indicates that generally, 511 is a “good thing.” They think its value will increase as more people become aware of 511 systems around the country. They do not think that many people are currently aware of 511. With the expectation that the profile of 511 will rise over time, they note that it’s “good to get in on the ground floor.” Valley Metro (Phoenix). Valley Metro is the regional tran- sit system in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Under the Valley Metro brand, local governments joined to fund the valley-wide transit system that the public sees on the streets. Valley Metro’s service area consists of 413 sq mi with a population of about 2,061,000. Services provided by Valley Metro include local, express, and RAPID commuter bus service, or bus rapid tran- sit, neighborhood circulators, dial-a-ride, vanpool service, and an online carpool matching system. When completed in 2008, Valley Metro will operate the Phoenix region’s first light rail line. Among the various services operated directly by Valley Metro, or under their brand by various contractors, Valley Metro utilizes 790 fixed-route and demand-response vehicles. (35) Valley Metro makes a wide range of information available on the Arizona 511 system in the form of prerecorded mes- sages. They also include options to transfer to their Customer Service Department from various points within the Valley Metro 511 menu. Transfers from the different 511 submenus go directly to different portions of Valley Metro’s customer service menu system. Valley Metro information and options on 511 consist of the following: • A bus selection that, following a brief voice recording iden- tifying the basic local, express, and RAPID services pro- vided through the Phoenix metropolitan area, presents the following submenu options: – A selection for fares that includes prerecorded informa- tion and an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s CSRs, – A selection for detours that includes prerecorded infor- mation, including service disruptions and an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s customer service, – A selection for planning assistance that transfers to Valley Metro’s customer service, and – A leave-a-comment selection that transfers to a voice- mail box. • A dial-a-ride selection that provides prerecorded informa- tion and an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s customer service. • A rideshare selection that provides prerecorded general in- formation followed by the following two submenu options: – A carpool matching selection with an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s customer service and 37

– A commuter vanpool program selection with pre- recorded general information and an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s customer service. • A regional light rail selection that provides prerecorded information on when service is expected to begin and is followed by two submenu options: – A light rail construction selection with an option to trans- fer to Valley Metro’s customer service and – A community involvement program selection with an option to transfer to Valley Metro’s customer service. Valley Metro reports that although they have the ability to provide floodgate information on service disruptions, they do not use this feature because inputting and updating that in- formation is a fairly labor-intensive, manual process (calling into the 511 system and recording the information). As part of the Arizona 511 National Model Deployment, Valley Metro planned to provide real-time estimates on bus arrival times for some of their bus rapid transit (BRT) stops. This was never done because they were unable to find a way to get the proprietary formatted bus status information from the Valley Metro fleet management system into 511. Rationale for participation. Valley Metro cited a num- ber of motivations for participating in the statewide 511 sys- tem, including the following: • Wanting to “keep a place at the table” and be a part of the multimodal, multi-agency system; • Wanting to be a good and supportive partner of the 511 deployer and operator (ADOT); • Wanting to provide their customers with an easy-to- remember phone number; and • Wanting a means to garner lessons learned that could be useful to the operation of their own IVR system. Valley Metro noted only one concern with 511 that they considered before participation. This concern was the pos- sible inconvenience that their customers could experience when calling 511, only to find out that they would have to transfer in order to speak with a Valley Metro CSR. They “didn’t want customers to have to wade through a lot of needless menu options.” Impacts. Valley Metro has not had to contribute to the cost of developing or operating and maintaining the statewide 511 system. The only investments they made, associated with their 511 participation, is the staff time to attend meetings and work with ADOT. Transfers out of the 511 system to Valley Metro are all paid for by ADOT. Valley Metro noted no changes in the volume of calls com- ing in to their phone system as a result of 511 participation. They were not aware that any statistics were available from ADOT on the transit aspects of the 511 and expressed no par- ticular interest in such information. Valley Metro reported that they have not changed how they market their customer services to their customers. Valley Metro does cite benefits of 511 participation. These benefits include providing an easy-to-remember phone num- ber (especially for tourists and visitors) as a way to maintain and strengthen relationships with other agencies involved in 511, and a way to garner lessons learned that could impact how they operate their own telephone information system. Valley Metro indicated that the performance of the 511 system’s voice recognition was a major concern early on, but they believe that it has been improved to an acceptable level. Valley Metro does not view the 511 system as an alterna- tive to their own IVR system, which they continue to operate and enhance. They feel that with a well-established transit customer base already familiar with Valley Metro’s customer service phone number and system, and given the assumption that most callers will ultimately want to transfer to a Valley Metro operator, there is no point in unnecessarily inconve- niencing their customers by routing them through 511. They also noted the significant expense and effort that Valley Metro has put in over the years to deeply establish their own cus- tomer service phone number in the minds of their customers. They did state that for transit agencies just starting out, or those that had no telephone infrastructure of their own, the regional 511 system could substitute. Issues. Valley Metro cited no significant issues or con- cerns regarding their participation in 511. Outlook. Overall, Valley Metro views their experience with 511 positively and plans to continue to participate in the system indefinitely. They report that “overall, 511 is a good investment and it brought transit to the table.” Valley Metro strongly encourages other transit agencies to explore the op- tion of participating in their area’s 511 system, at least as an additional way to reach customers, especially tourists and vis- itors, and as a means to strengthen relationships with other agencies involved in 511. 3.4.1.2 El Dorado Transit (Sacramento, California, Area) El Dorado Transit provides local bus service throughout El Dorado County, several commuter routes, and paratran- sit service for people with disabilities. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, El Dorado’s annual, systemwide ridership was about 325,000. (36) As a small agency, El Dorado Transit has an informal call center. Dispatchers handle the requests for dial-a-ride reser- 38

vations, and office workers handle the general inquiries. El Dorado Transit also provides rider alerts via email. The only El Dorado Transit information or option on the Sacramento Region 511 system is the option to transfer to El Dorado Transit. The Sacramento Area Council of Gov- ernments (SACOG) manages the regional 511 system, which provides travel information for Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Sutter, and Yuba Counties. Rationale for participation. El Dorado Transit indicated that participating in the Sacramento Region 511 was a way to ensure that transit was represented in a multimodal environ- ment. In addition, the agency wanted to take advantage of the different ways to disseminate information about transit ser- vices and, therefore, allow access to information from as many sources as possible. Impacts. El Dorado Transit did not identify any impacts, either positive or negative, from participating in 511. The agency noted that 511 was not “heavily marketed” in the area, which might have led to this low profile. El Dorado Transit did not see 511 as a replacement for their own customer call system. They feel that customers on local routes and dial-a-ride services are not likely to use 511 as those customers are used to calling the existing customer service number. However, the agency believed that it was possible that some of the regional commuters (e.g., passengers on express routes to Sacramento) might see the signs advertising 511 at the park-and-ride and decide to try it. Others might see the link to 511 from the El Dorado Transit website. Finally, first-time transit users might see the number and try the service. Issues. El Dorado Transit did not identify any issues with 511. However, in preparation for this interview, we discovered that the telephone transfer option did not work. Callers selecting the transfer option are placed on hold for a few minutes and then returned to the main menu. Outlook. El Dorado Transit did not identify any proposed changes in their 511 participation. They value it as a means to demonstrate their commitment to regional, multimodal traveler information resources. 3.4.1.3 Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky The Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) pro- vides bus service in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in Kentucky, with connections to downtown Cincinnati, OH. TANK’s service area comprises 561 sq mi with a population of 326,000. Annual system ridership was 3.8 million in 2005. Tank operated a total of 98 regular and paratransit vehicles in 2005. (37) The Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS) is the 511 system for the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky region. The system became operational in June 2001. Callers who select the public trans- portation option can choose TANK. The system provides in- formation about major service disruptions and transfers callers directly to the TANK’s call center. Rationale for participation. It was not possible to find the individuals at TANK who made the decision to participate in the ARTIMIS system. Impacts. TANK has not experienced any impacts from participation in the 511 system. If any calls are transferred to the agency, then it’s “very, very few.” Issues. No issues were identified. However, in preparation for this interview, we discovered that the telephone transfer option did not work. Outlook. Although TANK did not see any major benefits from participating in 511, they also did not see any harm. Whereas TANK’s core ridership already knows how to access information, the system could help people arriving from out of town or the airport. At the time of the interview, TANK was evaluating a series of ITS upgrades. Based on the background information pro- vided during the study, TANK will look into the costs and benefits of increasing their participation in 511. Generally, TANK views 511 positively, as long as partici- pation does not divert funds from service provision. If grants are available, then they would be worth pursuing. (“Do it now before funding disappears.”) If there are costs to the agency, then they feel they will need to more carefully consider poten- tial implications of participation. 3.4.1.4. Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority or “LYNX” is the public transportation provider for Orange, Seminole, and Osceola Counties, FL, an area that includes the cities of Orlando, Kissimmee, and St. Cloud. The LYNX service area totals approximately 2,540 sq mi and has a pop- ulation of about 1,537,000. LYNX provides fixed-route and demand-responsive bus service and administers a vanpool program. (38) The Central Florida 511 system was originally implemented as a regional system in June 2002, and it can still be accessed directly. Since then, as other regional systems were imple- mented in Florida, a consolidated, statewide 511 service was established that allows callers to transfer to the Central Florida system, or any of the other regional 511 systems. The Florida 39

Department of Transportation (FDOT) operates the Central Florida 511 system. LYNX information on 511 is included under the public transportation main menu item. LYNX options are limited to three call transfer options (1) transit information that trans- fers to LYNX’s IVR; (2) access to LYNX, which transfers to LYNX’s paratransit IVR; and (3) carpool, which transfers to LYNX’s rideshare line. No other information on LYNX is provided on 511. Rationale for participation. Overall, LYNX indicated that they chose to participate in 511 because the 511 sponsor gave them a “good deal,” and that although they had no spe- cific 511 objectives, LYNX simply wanted to participate, be involved, and be a supportive partner to the 511 sponsor. The “deal” they struck with FDOT was that in return for FDOT adding LYNX to the 511 system, including arranging and pay- ing for call transfers out of 511 to LYNX, LYNX agreed to sup- port the overall 511 marketing effort by adding 511 references to their own marketing materials. Impacts. LYNX reports that they experienced only one impact as a result of their participation in 511. Per their agreement with FDOT, they now include 511 on all of their customer information materials and on all LYNX buses. LYNX has not observed any changes in their customer ser- vice call volumes as a result of their 511 participation. They are provided some transit-related statistics showing only the num- ber of call transfers out of 511 to each of the three LYNX trans- fer options on 511. In a typical month, about 350 calls will come to LYNX via 511. LYNX does not necessarily consider these calls as 511 impacts because they do not know whether these are “new” calls (which would be impacts) or they are from callers who would otherwise have called LYNX directly (not an impact). LYNX does not currently view 511 as an alternative to their own IVR system, although they have not looked seriously at the issue. They cited two potential concerns. First, callers would have to “wade through” the non-LYNX levels of the 511 menu. Second, LYNX would have some concern about the on-going operations and maintenance of their information on 511, including periodic update processes. Having their own IVR allows them to maintain control and ensure quality control over these processes. Issues. LYNX identified no issues or problems with 511. Outlook. LYNX seems to view 511 as beneficial, but more as a means to stay involved and supportive of their partner agencies than as a component of their customer service strat- egy addressing any specific objectives. As they said, “we got a good deal and we wanted to be involved.” LYNX currently has no changes planned in regard to participation in 511. LYNX’s advice to other transit agencies is that they should consider 511 participation, barter with their 511 sponsors to see what sort of arrangement they can strike (e.g., LYNX’s deal to get free 511 participation in return for their market- ing of 511), and consider a 511 pilot demonstration. 3.4.1.5 Island Explorer (Bar Harbor, Maine) Island Explorer, which is operated under contract by Down- east Transportation for the Maine Department of Transporta- tion, provides seasonal (June to October) fixed-route bus ser- vice on eight bus routes serving towns on Maine’s Mount Desert Island, including Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park. The Island Explorer service began in 1999 and is supported by a number of public and private organizations, including Acadia National Park, L.L. Bean and other businesses, and Friends of Acadia, an independent, non-profit organization. The statewide Maine 511 system is operated by the Maine DOT and became operational in May 2003. Information on Island Explorer is available on 511 via the “Acadia National Park” main menu item, under the Island Explorer submenu. During the operating season, automated real-time vehicle de- parture times are available. During the off-season, a record- ing is provided identifying the operating season and the fact that during the operating season, arrival time information is available. Rationale for participation. Island Explorer’s partici- pation in Maine 511 was partly tied to a large, multifaceted technology demonstration, an ITS field operational test that was sponsored jointly by U.S.DOT and the Department of the Interior, and focused on travel in and around Acadia Na- tional Park. The objective of the test was to utilize technolo- gies to reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of the park visitor experience. Five of the nine technology com- ponents that were deployed focused on Island Explorer and provided the means to generate real-time vehicle departure time estimates (e.g., automatic vehicle location) and dissem- inate them via electronic signs at selected stops. Telephone information dissemination was not an explicit part of the Island Explorer deployment. However, the Maine 511 system was being developed around the same time and the 511 spon- sor, Maine DOT, thought it would be appropriate to include the Island Explorer information on 511. In this regard, Island Explorer did not pursue 511 participation in order to satisfy any specific operational objective and had no specific expec- tations, but rather, simply agreed with Maine DOT that their information was appropriate for 511. Island Explorer did not carefully consider any pros and cons of participation. Impacts. Downeast Transportation reports that they ex- perience no real impacts associated with their participation in 40

511. They said that they get “a question or two every few weeks from someone who couldn’t get what they wanted from 511,” but that the volume of calls is negligible. In the discussion of impacts in the transit agency interviews, each agency was asked whether they viewed 511 as an alter- native to implementing their own IVR. The Island Explorer experience is a clear case of where 511 was definitely seen as, and functioned quite effectively as, an alternative to an IVR dedicated to Island Explorer. Of course, the Island Explorer is very different from most transit agencies and their IVR-related needs were extremely narrow since they were really just look- ing for an automated platform for disseminating vehicle depar- ture times by phone. Issues. Downeast Transportation identified no issues or concerns with their 511 participation. Outlook. Overall, Downeast Transportation views their 511 experience positively and plans to continue indefinitely. When asked to sum up their 511 thoughts and advice to other transit agencies, they replied, “More information is good information—there’s no such thing as too much information. 511 is a plus, it’s just another way to let people know what we do and what we offer.” 3.4.1.6 Duluth Transit Authority (Minnesota) The Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) provides regular route bus service and contracted paratransit services in the cities of Duluth and Proctor, MN, and Superior, WI, an area that encompasses approximately 143 sq mi and a pop- ulation of 123,000. The DTA operates 41 buses during peak hours on 27 routes. Paratransit service is provided using six vehicles. (39) The statewide Minnesota 511 system is operated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), and it became operational in July 2002. The DTA can be accessed from the 511 main menu via the transit option and then by selecting either “DTA regular route” or “DTA STRIDE” (paratransit) from among the four transit agency options under “Duluth.” The DTA indicated that they have informa- tion on 511, such as hours of operation and customer service phone number. However, as of October 17, 2007, the only option under either of DTA’s listings is to be transferred out of 511 to DTA’s Customer Service Department. Although it appears that the 511 system is able to provide general infor- mation, this information is currently blank. Under both of the two DTA menu options, the message is: “(blank) operates a service. For hours, schedules and rates, I can transfer you to (blank).” DTA reports that they do not provide service dis- ruption information via 511. Rationale for participation. DTA identified the follow- ing four motivations for participating in the statewide 511 system: • “Simple to do, and it couldn’t hurt.” • Wanted to be included in the multimodal, multi-agency 511 system. In other words, they wanted to keep a seat at the table. • Wanted to be a good, supportive partner for the 511 spon- sor (Mn/DOT). • Wanted to provide their customers with an alternative, easy-to-remember phone number. DTA did not report that they considered any potential draw- backs with 511 participation. It seems that 511 participation was a fairly simple and uncomplicated decision for them. They characterized 511 participation as being “an easy add on.” Impacts. DTA reports that their participation in 511 has not impacted them significantly and answered in the negative when asked specifically about each of the six impact-related questions in the interview, covering topics ranging from costs to call volume changes in their customer information center to changes in technology or call center staffing. DTA indicated that they were provided one report from Mn/DOT showing 511 system statistics in 2005 but have not seen anything since. DTA does not contribute financially to the 511 system. They indicated that the effort required on their part was to set them up in the 511 system. This effort was quite minimal and consisted of a couple of e-mails to Mn/DOT, who then did all the work (e.g., setting up the call transfers). Issues. DTA cited no issues or concerns with their partic- ipation in 511. Outlook. Overall, DTA seems to have a positive, but only mild and general opinion regarding 511. When asked what advice they would have for other transit agencies considering 511 participation, they responded, “In the way that it was done here, why not? There’s nothing to lose.” They currently have no changes planned regarding their participation in 511. 3.4.1.7 Charlotte Area Transit (North Carolina) The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is managed by the Public Transit Department of the City of Charlotte. CATS provides fixed route and demand response bus service and vanpool services in Mecklenburg County, including the City of Charlotte and the six suburban towns surrounding Charlotte: Davidson, Huntersville, and Cornelius to the north; and Matthews, Pineville, and Mint Hill to the south. CATS also provides service to the four cities and towns in surrounding 41

counties. The total size of the CATS service area is 445 square miles, with a population of about 681,000. CATS is currently planning a regional transit system which will include bus rapid transit, light rail, commuter rail, and expanded bus service within a six-county area. (40) The North Carolina statewide 511 system is operated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the system became operational in August 2004. CATS appears as one of several transit agencies listed under the buses option in the main menu selection for public transportation. Infor- mation and options related to CATS are limited to a short, recorded message identifying the phone number and hours of operation for CATS’ own staffed customer service phone line and an option to transfer to that service. In addition to their staffed customer service, CATS oper- ates their own IVR system. CATS reports that 90% of their total incoming customer service calls are handled by the IVR, with only 10% requiring attention from a call taker. CATS IVR information includes scheduled bus arrival times, infor- mation on transit hubs and the routes they serve, information on the guaranteed ride home (general description and arrang- ing a ride), and information on other transit services (vanpool, paratransit, fares and passes, locations of printed bus sched- ules, and lost and found). Rationale for participation. CATS’ motivation for par- ticipating in the 511 system was to “have a place at the table” and to be a good, supportive partner to the 511 implementer, the North Carolina Department of Transportation. They did not hope or expect that 511 would impact their own cus- tomer service call volumes. CATS reports that no potential negatives were considered when they were evaluating the 511 participation decision. Impacts. CATS has not noticed any impacts related to their participation in 511. Although they have seen no statis- tics from the 511 system, they guessed that transfers from 511 probably account for less than 1% of their total incoming cus- tomer service calls. CATS does not contribute financially to the 511 system in any manner. CATS does not see 511 as any sort of substitute for their own IVR. Their IVR has real-time access to their scheduling database, which supports their scheduled arrival times fea- ture. They indicated that the 511 sponsors “won’t pay for” that capability on 511 and even if they would, CATS wouldn’t feel comfortable turning that responsibility over to 511. Issues. CATS indicated that the only issue that came up when they were arranging their participation with the 511 sponsor was the question of whether CATS would list the 511 number on their printed materials. CATS declined to do so, feeling that there was no point in encouraging their cus- tomers to call 511, only to be transferred out of 511 to CATS customer service. Outlook. Overall, CATS is positive about 511, but does not seem to view the system as being of any real consequence to them. They have no specific objectives they are trying to accomplish with 511, rather, they simply wanted to be a good regional partner and get involved. CATS summed up their 511 participation as “painless and not a big deal.” They did not identify any reasons why other transit agencies should not participate in 511. The only advice offered to other transit agencies is that if they (the transit agency) don’t have their own IVR, and if their 511 sponsor is willing to add transit IVR functionality, 511 might be a real resource and opportunity for them. 3.4.1.8 San Diego 511 The San Diego regional 511 system covers San Diego County, CA, and it became operational in February 2007. The area MPO, SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) led a partnership of public agencies in developing, and now operating, the regional 511 system. Partner agencies include the California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and San Diego SAFE (Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies). San Diego 511 provides up-to-the-minute information on traffic conditions, incidents and driving times, schedule, route and fare information for San Diego public transportation services, carpool and vanpool referrals, bicycling information and more. Historically, the San Diego region utilized several trans- portation telephone information services, a multimodal sys- tem operated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as well as two dedicated transit-only information lines. The Caltrans system was called 1-800-COMMUTE, and the San Diego system was only one of numerous regional 1-800-COMMUTE systems they operated around the state. Transit information on 1-800-COMMUTE was limited to transfers to transit customer information lines. The San Diego 511 system replaced the 1-800-COMMUTE system, which is no longer operational in San Diego, although it continues to be used in regions in California that do not yet have 511, including Los Angeles. The two consolidated (multi-agency), regional transit infor- mation phone systems consist of an IVR called “Info Express,” and another, staffed information service called the “Regional Transit Information Office,” which strictly features live oper- ator support. Both of these systems continue to operate, and call transfer options out of 511 lead to them. Public transportation is a main menu option on the San Diego regional 511 system. Menu and submenu options 42

within the public transportation portion of 511 consist of the following: • Buses; – A selection for lost and found transfers to a San Diego Transit Store operator; – An automated trip planner transfers to the Info Ex- press IVR; – A departure times selection provides automated, real- time vehicle departure time estimates by route, direction, and stop, for some bus routes; and – An operator selection provides a transfer to the Re- gional Transit Information Office, which is the regional, operator-only (staffed) transit information line. • A trolleys option with call transfers only, either to a lost and found or general trolley operator; • A Coaster commuter rail service option for call transfers only, either to a lost and found, special events, or general Coaster operator; • A paratransit option that transfers calls to individual ser- vice providers, referenced by city or agency name; and • A commuter trains option that transfers calls to any of sev- eral different commuter rail providers. Recently, the real-time vehicle departure feature was added and although operational, has not been formally announced or advertised. SANDAG, the regional 511 sponsor, estimates that the times are (as of October 2007) about 70% accurate. They note that they have found that the voice recognition on 511 is challenged by cell phone calls made from noisy environments, such as some transit stops, and that the touch tone option on 511 works very effectively for the departure times feature. Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego). The Metro- politan Transit System Provision of MTS provides bus and rail services directly or through contract with public or pri- vate operators in San Diego, CA. The MTS service area is ap- proximately 218 sq mi and includes a population of about 1.1 million. MTS passenger services include light rail oper- ated by San Diego Trolley on three lines with a total of 53 sta- tions and 53.5 total miles, 82 fixed bus routes that are operated by contractors (including the San Diego Transit Corporation), and paratransit service provided by MTS Access and ADA Suburban Paratransit. Total annual MTS ridership is about 86 million passengers. (41) Information on MTS services is included on the 511 sys- tem, all under the main menu selection for public transporta- tion. MTS information on 511 is of two types (1) real-time vehicle departure time estimates for select bus routes (the sys- tem is being expanded to other bus routes and other services, e.g., light rail); and (2) call transfers, either to the regional, consolidated transit IVR (e.g., for automated trip planning), the regional, consolidated staffed transit information customer service call center, or to various service- and subject-specific live operators (e.g., lost and found for trolleys). Service dis- ruption information is not posted on 511, but it is included on the regional transit IVR. Rationale for participation. MTS cited the following three main motivations for their participation in 511: • They wanted to be involved in this regional, multimodal system, and they wanted to keep a “place at the table.” • They were interested in providing customers an alternative, easy-to-use phone number, especially for visitors and new- comers to the region. • They wanted to provide callers in North San Diego County with a means to make a toll-free, regional transit infor- mation call. With the demise of the previous, multimodal telephone information system (1-800-COMMUTE), and the fact that North San Diego County has a different area code, 511 provided that service. When developing their 511 strategy, MTS indicated that they considered the following potential negative aspects of 511 participation: • The possibility that call volumes into their own customer information phone systems would increase, and • The possible inconvenience to their customers who might call 511 only to find out that they needed to transfer to a transit-specific phone system for the information sought. MTS was quick to point out that neither of these potential concerns materialized. When asked why they thought that their call volumes might increase as a result of 511 participation, they indicated that this was presented as a virtual certainty, and seemed to be the “common wisdom” expounded at an early, national 511 Coalition meeting. The logic seemed to be that 511 would make it so easy to get transit information, there would be a flood of new calls. MTS indicated that over time, their thinking on potential call volume increases associated with 511 participation has evolved. They now view any poten- tial new transit interest stimulated by 511 as a good thing. Impacts. MTS indicated that they noticed no 511 impacts thus far, other than some relatively minor 511-related cost expenditures. MTS does not directly contribute funding to 511 operation, but they did devote some staff time in 511- related meetings and spent some money adding 511 references to some of their printed materials. On all MTS informational materials, “511” appears and, depending on the context, it is sometimes accompanied by other transit telephone informa- tion numbers. 43

MTS was asked if the existence of the San Diego 511 system changed their view on their own IVR system, the regional Info Express automated phone system. MTS stated that they would consider shifting their IVR functions to 511 when it becomes comparable in functionality to Info Express. However, shift- ing services does not offer much benefit to MTS since they already made a considerable investment in the Info Express system and the potential savings associated with shifting IVR to 511 would be limited to operations and maintenance. Issues. Overall, MTS seemed to have no major issues or concerns with 511, or the process to develop it. However, they did briefly note that they believe the regional 511 planning process might have been better executed. They felt that there was lots of “hurry up and wait” time, punctuated with peri- ods when very quick decisions from the participating agen- cies were required, sometimes without enough deliberation. MTS also noted that they felt the San Diego 511 vendor could have, earlier in the process, shown greater sensitivity to the unique needs and preferences of the San Diego region, rather than starting with a 511 model developed for another region. Outlook. Overall, MTS views their 511 participation quite positively. With 511, their customers are provided an alterna- tive, easy-to-remember phone number. MTS participation in 511 discussions strengthened and maintained their commit- ment to regional transportation efforts. Most significantly, 511 provided a toll-free transit information number for North County. Their previous toll-free number was eliminated with the demise of the pre-511, regional transportation informa- tion phone system (1-800-COMMUTE). Overall, MTS encouraged other transit agencies to at least participate in regional 511 discussions in order to “make sure that transit is at the table, that its issues are considered” and to “make sure they are a gracious participant in the process to plan and develop 511, regardless of who the lead 511 agency is.” The only other insight MTS offered that could be con- strued as suggestions for other transit agencies is that, even if the other transit agencies believe that calls to their customer service line will go up as a result of 511 then they should try to view this increased interest in transit as a positive thing and an opportunity. The only change in 511 participation that MTS is pursu- ing is to expand the real-time vehicle departure feature to add additional bus routes and other services like light and commuter rail. North County Transit District. North County Transit District (NCTD) provides fixed-route and demand-response (general public and paratransit) bus, commuter rail, and— starting in December 2007—light rail service in northern San Diego County. NCTD’s geographical service area encom- passes 1,020 sq mi of northern San Diego County extending from Del Mar in the south, northeasterly to Escondido, north to the Riverside County line and west to the Orange County line. The area includes the unincorporated communities of Fallbrook and Ramona, as well as Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base. Other cities in the service area include Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos. The total population of the NCTD service area is more than 800,000. NCTD operates a total of 221 vehicles with 149 buses, 28 commuter rail vehicles, and 44 demand-response vehicles. (42) Information on NCTD services is included on the 511 system and listed under the main menu selection for public transportation. NCTD information on 511 is of two types (1) real-time vehicle departure time estimates for a subset of the bus fleet and (2) call transfers, either to the regional, consolidated transit IVR, Info Express (e.g., for automated trip planning), the regional, consolidated staffed transit infor- mation customer service call center, or to their own customer service call takers. NCTD did not change many of their promotional materi- als to include the 511 phone number but does plan to do so in the future. They feel that reeducating their customers on 511 will be a challenge, since the previous regional, multimodal transportation information number (1-800-COMMUTE) is deeply engrained in the minds of their customers. They describe this process of reorienting callers to 511 as a “sea change.” Rationale for participation. NCTD pointed to the fol- lowing factors as motivating their participation in the regional 511 system: • They wanted to be a part of this major, regional, multi- modal traveler information resource, and they wanted to keep a “place at the table.” • They wanted to be a good, supportive partner to the agen- cies deploying 511. • They hoped that, in the long run, some of their customer service calls would be diverted to 511. • They wanted to provide customers with an alternative, easy-to-remember phone number. • They observed the success of 511 in the San Francisco Bay Area, wanted San Diego to achieve similar success, and NCTD to be a part of it. Overall, NCTD stated that “there was no reason to say no to 511 and there was no cost to us. We were a willing partici- pant all the way.” NCTD said that none of the potential dis- advantages associated with 511 participation that the research team asked them about in the interview played any part in their decision to join 511. They said they had “no real reser- vations and were optimistic.” Impacts. Overall, NCTD has not yet identified any changes as a result of their participation in 511, although they feel that 44

it’s “too early to tell.” (Note that the interview was conducted only three months after the system became operational.) In addition to the fact that they have not yet changed their own marketing materials to reference 511, NCTD indicated that Caltrans’ park and ride signs still reference the old, pre-511, 1-800-COMMUTE system. They feel that both factors could impact the number of calls to 511. They also noted that mar- keting of the 511 system performed by the 511 sponsor does not target transit users. NCTD expects that there will be some of that transit-specific marketing in the future and plans to be involved. NCTD does not contribute directly to the financing of the 511 system. Their investment thus far has been limited to the staff time associated with their participation in 511-related meetings. NCTD did have some transit-related 511 statistics, but only for the popularity of the public transportation menu option in general (i.e., nothing specific to their agency). The general sta- tistics indicate that the public transportation menu option accounts for about 8% of all menu requests. NCTD considers 511 a supplement, rather than an alterna- tive, to their own IVR (they participate in the regional Info Express IVR) or their own staffed customer service phone system (they participate in the Regional Transit Information Office regional system and have their own small customer service group of 10 employees, who answer phones among other duties). They feel that many transit customer service calls will require interaction with a live operator and that until such a time as the current staff is overwhelmed, they do not see 511 replacing any of their other telephone infor- mation services. Although 511 is not expected to replace any other phone services in the foreseeable future, NCTD does hope that some of their operator calls will eventually divert to 511, which was one explicit motivation for their participation in 511. Issues. NCTD identified two challenges or concerns with their 511 experience. First, they noted that putting their infor- mation into the 511 system has been fairly time consuming, and that this process included the consultant they use for their IVR activities (the regional Info Express IVR). Second, like MTS, they were disappointed that the regional 511 consultant initially brought a one-size-fits-all approach to the San Diego 511 system, unsuccessfully attempting to adopt the San Fran- cisco Bay Area 511 model to San Diego. NCTD indicated that they, and the other regional 511 partners, had to work closely with the consultant to get what they wanted. Outlook. Overall, NCTD seems very pleased with their 511 experience and, although they generally feel it is too early to see results yet, they expect a number of benefits. They seem to have no reservations about 511 and encourage other tran- sit agencies to investigate 511 participation. Their only other advice to transit agencies relates to the two issues noted pre- viously, which are (1) plan on devoting significant time to getting your agency’s information into 511 and for general 511-related planning meetings and (2) in order to make sure that the 511 system deployed meets the needs of your region and agency, plan on working closely with the 511 implementers, who may be inclined to try to apply a 511 system model that they’ve used elsewhere. NCTD summed up their motivation for 511 participation as another way to serve their customers and a logical contin- uation of their historic, technology-based customer service investments, saying “You just want to be of service to your passengers any way you can; joining 511 is just like when you first added a website.” NCTD’s future plans for 511 consist of continuing to add real-time departure times for additional routes and services and shifting their customer service marketing to eventually fea- ture 511 as the primary phone number for customer service. 3.4.1.9 Sun Tran (St. George, Utah) The Utah 511 system became operational in December 2001, which was in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City. The Utah 511 system provides information on traffic, public transit, road conditions, and ferry services. The public transit option provides only information about the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), which serves Salt Lake City. SunTran is a small transit agency serving the City of St. George, which is in southwest Utah. SunTran has three bus routes and paratransit service for people with disabilities. It is operated by the City of St. George. (43) Rationale for participation. SunTran is not represented on Utah’s 511 system. According to SunTran, the agency never made a decision not to participate in 511, rather, they were never offered a chance to participate. Outlook. SunTran could not identify any compelling reasons for participating in 511, stating that “It may not be worth it.” They seemed to feel that the value of 511 could be limited since they are such a small agency. 3.4.1.10 Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority The Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) operates the second largest rail tran- sit system and the fifth largest bus network in the United States. Metrorail and Metrobus (Metro) serve a population of 3.5 million within a 1,500 sq-mi area. The transit zone con- sists of the District of Columbia, the suburban Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince George’s and the North- ern Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun and 45

the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. The Metro- rail system consists of over 1,000 rail cars serving 5 lines covering 106 miles and including 86 stations. The Metrobus system includes more than 1,200 buses, 12,301 bus stops, and 3,133 shelters. (44) Metro is included in the Virginia statewide 511 system, which is operated by the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion. The 511 system became operational in February 2005. Metro information is located within the public transportation main menu option. The information and options for Metro are limited to an option to transfer to Metro’s customer service line and a listing of the Metro customer information phone number. For some other transit agencies on the Virginia 511 system, additional information is provided, including basic information on services provided. Metro operates their own IVR system, which is where all incoming customer service calls are directed (there are then multiple opportunities to transfer to a customer ser- vice operator). The Metro IVR is extensive, and contains a wide variety of information arrayed under five main menu options for (1) trip schedule, (2) fare information, (3) general information, (4) patron services, and (5) customer assistance (transfer to operator). Among the information provided under the trip schedule option are real-time bus arrival time estimates and service disruption announcements. Rationale for participation. It was not possible to reach the individuals at WMATA who were involved in the decision to participate in 511. Impacts. The Metro call center representatives seemed to have very little, if any, involvement or awareness of 511. This lack of involvement combined with Metro’s very low profile on 511, suggest that 511 is in no way a central or significant component of their customer service strategy. It appears that the Metro call center perceives no impact resulting from their continuing participation in 511. Although the call center representatives did not comment directly on the question of whether they view 511 as an alter- native to their own IVR, it seems clear—based on their con- tinued reliance on their own IVR—that they do not view 511 as an alternative. Issues. WMATA identified no issues or concerns—past or present—regarding their 511 participation. Outlook. WMATA, or at least those who could be reached (call center manager and staff), were not aware of 511 or WMATA’s participation in it, and therefore have no pro or con perspective. Although it appears that 511 participation does not generate any adverse impacts on call center opera- tions, at least as perceived by WMATA, 511 is clearly not an important, or even explicit, part of WMATA’s telephone cus- tomer service strategy. 3.4.1.11 Blacksburg Transit (Virginia) Blacksburg Transit (BT) serves the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia Tech, and communities in the New River Valley. The system’s service area covers 28 sq mi with a population of 56,000. BT provides fixed-route bus service and paratransit service for people with disabilities. The agency has 33 buses and 11 vans. In 2005, system ridership was almost 2.4 million one-way trips. About 95% of the system’s riders are Virginia Tech students, faculty, and staff. (45) BT does not have a formal call center for customer infor- mation. Instead, its operations and administrative staff field the agency’s telephone calls. The agency does have a “fairly robust” website and its passengers can also sign up for Blacks- burg Alerts via phone, fax, or e-mail. The Virginia Department of Transportation operates the statewide 511 system. BT is included in the public trans- portation option on the main menu. The system offers the option to transfer to BT’s customer service center and pro- vides the agency’s phone number. No other information is provided. Impacts. BT was not aware of any impacts of their partic- ipation in 511. Almost all of BT’s riders are college students, and BT feels the students are more likely to look for informa- tion on the Internet than they are to use the phone. BT’s buses have WiFi capacity, so passengers can access web-based infor- mation even when they are on the vehicle. Issues. BT cited no issues or concerns with their 511 participation. Outlook. Overall, BT was neutral about participation in 511. Although BT saw no real disadvantages to participa- tion, they also did not see any particular advantages for their customers. 3.4.1.12 Southeast Florida 511 The South Florida 511 Traffic and Transit Information Service is provided by the Florida Department of Transporta- tion (FDOT), Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, and the SunGuide Partners. The system provides highway and tran- sit information for Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. This 511 system is one of just a handful nationwide that includes the option of speaking to a live 511 operator. Callers may select public transit from the main menu. This option allows callers to select one of the following four tran- sit organizations or the regional ridesharing service: • Broward County Transit (BCT), • Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), • Palm Tran, 46

• SouthFloridaRegionalTransportationAssociation (SFRTA)/ Tri-Rail, and • South Florida Ridesharing and Emergency Ride Services. For each of the four transit agencies, callers can choose among the following general options, with some minor vari- ations between agencies: • Schedules for interactive schedule information, • Fares for prerecorded information or transfer to agent, • General information, – Lost and found for Prerecorded information, – Special events for prerecorded information or transfer to an agent, – Trip planning for transfer to an agent, – Comments/complaints/suggestions for transfer to an agent, – More options,  Bicycle policy for prerecorded information or trans- fer to an agent,  Wheelchair accessibility for prerecorded information or transfer to an agent,  Maps and schedules by mail for prerecorded infor- mation or transfer to an agent, and  Special transportation services for passengers with disabilities, which provides prerecorded information or transfer to an agent. The schedule option provides static schedule information based on customer input. An IVR guides customers to enter de- tails about origin, destination, time of day, and travel direction. The IVR system returns information about the next scheduled vehicle that meets the customer’s travel requirements. Customers selecting South Florida Ridesharing and Emer- gency Ride Services from the main transit menu can choose between general prerecorded information and an option to transfer to an agent. A significant feature of the South Florida 511 system is the cost sharing arrangement. FDOT provided the initial capital investment and the four transit agencies share responsibility for ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Florida Department of Transportation. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is not a transit oper- ator but this organization was interviewed because of the unusually complex relationship found between the 511 spon- sor and transit agencies in the Southeast Florida 511 system. FDOT is one of the three organizations sponsoring the 511 system and the system equipment is located at FDOT’s Dis- trict VI office in Miami. Genesis of the Southeast Florida 511 system and transit involvement. The 511 system was initially designed to pro- vide highway information, and the region’s transit agencies were not included in the original plans. However, FDOT added transit to the original highway contract in FY 2004 and obtained federal funds to help cover the capital costs. Program develop- ment took 2 years and deployment costs were $2.8 million. Known as the Consumer Information Network (CIN), the transit application included information from the previously noted agencies (BCT, MDT, Palm Tran, SFRTA/Tri-Rail, and South Florida Ridesharing and Emergency Ride Services). CIN was originally developed in response to policy initia- tives of the South Florida Regional Transportation Organiza- tion (RTO), which envisioned 511 as a multimodal, one-stop shop for traveler information. The RTO was formed in 1998 with a focus on regional transportation and air quality issues. Membership included the transit agencies and MPOs from the three counties comprising South Florida. The organization was folded into the SFRTA in 2003 and continued its efforts to support regional mobility and collaboration. (46) By provid- ing customers with one-stop access to transit information, and especially to regional itinerary planning, CIN supported regional mobility goals and priorities. A unique cost-sharing relationship. The responsibility for funding the transit portion of the 511 system (CIN) was left to FDOT and individual transit agencies. FDOT obtained fed- eral funds to cover the project’s initial capital costs and hired a vendor to oversee CIN. The transit agencies agreed to cover op- erating and maintenance costs over the term of the contract, which ran from FY 2004 to 2005 through FY 2007 to 2008. FDOT designated Miami-Dade Transit as the lead transit agency for CIN. The four participating transit agencies nego- tiated shares of the annual operating and maintenance costs based on the volume of calls handled by their call centers. The cost sharing arrangement was negotiated for the first 4 years of operation, from FY 2004 to 2005 through FY 2007 to 2008. Total operating costs were approximately $2.5 million during the 4-year period. Table 14 shows the percentage share and annual operating and maintenance costs for the four transit agencies. 47 Agency Share (Percent) Operating and Maintenance Costs Miami-Dade Transit 40 $997,765 Broward County Transit 30 $748,324 South Florida Regional Transportation Association/Tri- Rail 20 $498,882 144,942$ 01 narT mlaP 214,494,2$ 001 latoT Table 14. Consumer information network operating and maintenance costs by agency, 2004 to 2008.

Issues and challenges in implementing and operating the 511 transit component. The major technical issue associated with CIN was the difficulty of integrating route and schedule information from multiple transit agencies into a single customer information system. The CIN vendor team was responsible for collecting route and schedule infor- mation from the participating transit agencies and incorpo- rating that information into a database that supported the telephone-based schedule information and an online itin- erary planning application. The agencies used different route scheduling software applications, and this complicated the process. MDT, Tri-Rail, and Palm Trans used one route scheduling application, while BCT used a different product. Converting BCT’s data into a format compatible with that from the other three agencies required an extra step and, at times, resulted in inaccurate schedule and/or itinerary information. Many of the other issues that FDOT encountered were con- sistent with those on any complex multijurisdictional project. These included concerns about the scope of services, qualifi- cations of the vendor, and timing of payments to FDOT from the transit agencies. Outlook. FDOT is replacing the current South Florida regional 511 system with one that will communicate directly with the statewide 511 system. This system will utilize a traffic data entry and message-generation technique consistent with an umbrella, statewide 511 system that was implemented in 2005, 3 years after the separate, region-specific South Florida 511 was implemented. As part of this replacement, FDOT will no longer contract with the vendor that is now supporting the South Florida 511 system and CIN, for which the transit agencies pay but FDOT administers the contract. This means that transit agencies will now need to make alternative arrange- ments if they want to continue providing information via 511. The elimination of this contract mechanism ends the tran- sit agencies’ means to access the CIN support vendor and it also may result in FDOT eliminating some of the local 511 hardware. Broward County Transit. BCT provides bus and para- transit service within Broward County and also offers con- nections to Miami-Dade Transit, Palm Tran, and Tri-Rail. BCT’s service area covers 410 sq mi with a population of 1.6 million. BCT operated 41 routes and served 41.6 mil- lion trips in 2005. BCT is a Broward County government department. (47) Callers who select this transit agency from the public tran- sit option on the CIN main menu may choose between pre- recorded messages or a transfer option that routes them to BCT’s call center where they are placed in a queue to speak with an agent. Menu choices are as follow: • Schedules—Interactive schedule information, • Fares—Prerecorded information, and • General information: – Lost and found—Transfer to agent, – Special events—Prerecorded information, – Trip planning—Transfer to agent, – Comments/Complaints/Suggestions—Transfer to agent, – More options:  Bicycle policy/wheelchair accessibility—Prerecorded information or transfer to agent,  Maps and schedules by mail—Prerecorded infor- mation, and  Special transportation services for passengers with disabilities—Transfer to agent. The transfer option routes callers to BCT’s call center where they are placed in a queue to speak with an agent. BCT rarely provides floodgate messages. Rationale for participation. Although customers could already obtain route and schedule information for each of the South Florida transit agencies, they could not develop an itin- erary for a trip that crossed jurisdictions. Customers would have to call each agency separately and combine the informa- tion themselves. For Broward County, the South Florida 511 system offered the opportunity to improve customer service by making regional itinerary planning available through a single telephone call or web page. The original discussions about the desired features of a South Florida 511 system called for regional itinerary planning via Internet and IVR. Impacts. Although FDOT covered the initial capital costs of the South Florida transit 511 system, the four transit agen- cies had responsibility for ongoing operating and maintenance expenses. Costs were allocated in proportion to the volume of calls in each agency’s call center with BCT’s share at 30%. According to FDOT, Broward’s negotiated costs for the project were approximately $748,000 over a 4-year period. In addition, the agency paid approximately $118,000 in change orders. All agencies, including BCT, agreed that the cost allocation formula was fair. BCT’s concerns were largely about the high operating costs in relation to the perceived value of CIN. Participation in 511 has not had any significant impacts on BCT’s existing call center operations. The agency still main- tains its own call center, and the volume of telephone calls has not changed since CIN was introduced. Although FDOT col- lects statistics on call volumes and transfers, BCT was not aware that such statistics were available. Should metrics become available, BCT would be especially interested in obtaining more information about the volume and types of calls to 511 during the hours when the BCT call center is closed. 48

Issues. By far the most significant issue for BCT is the fail- ure of the 511 telephone system to include the trip planning function that was originally envisioned. One of the major incentives for BCT to participate in the CIN system was the opportunity to provide regional itinerary planning for its cus- tomers. Although a telephone-based trip planning component was a high priority for BCT, it has not been implemented to date. According to BCT, the transit partners initially agreed to include this feature, but they withdrew their support during the planning process and focused on a web-based planner instead. Finally, although CIN does allow customers to access schedule information for each agency individually, the infor- mation for BCT routes contains errors. In addition, the Internet-based itinerary planner appears to be flawed. According to BCT, the online trip planner fre- quently creates impractical or unrealistic itineraries. For ex- ample, it developed itineraries with multiple transfers when a one-seat ride was available. Even when the transit agencies input updates and corrections, the system did not appear to capture the changes properly. BCT finally removed the hyper- link to the 511 site from its web page because of the perceived unreliability of the online trip planner. Data transfer was an ongoing issue for BCT, in part because the other participating transit agencies used different routing/ dispatching software products. For BCT, the process of ex- porting data to the 511 contractor was smooth and “fairly effortless.” Converting the data into a format for use in the CIN trip planning component was not as straightforward, however, and required significant intervention on the part of the vendor to make it work. Finally, planning and coordination did not always hap- pen as smoothly as desired. Most of the participants had no prior experience developing a customer information sys- tem of this scale. As a result, initial assumptions were not always correct, and staff did not always know what ques- tions they should have asked until it was too late. Although this easily could be true for many public projects, the steep learning curve associated with developing CIN was expen- sive for BCT. Outlook. Overall, BCT believes that they did not get what they paid for since the telephone-based itinerary planning system was never implemented (the other transit agencies did not want it). Prior to the 511 system, the agency already had a telephone-based trip planner, lost-and-found system, and complaint system. They believed that the 511 system would establish a regional trip planner covering all four South Florida transit agencies, but the telephone trip planner was never implemented and the online trip planner was flawed. As a result, it has been difficult for BCT to explain the benefits of the system to the public, especially when free online itiner- ary planners like Google Transit or Public Routes are available. (“There is nothing worse than disappointing the public.”) Had the system worked as promised, BCT believes that the investment would have been justified. As a result, BCT’s future participation in the South Florida 511 system is uncertain. FDOT indicated that it would not pursue a new contract for CIN at the end of the vendor con- tract, which expired in November 2008. To keep the system running beyond that date, BCT’s costs are projected to include $800,000 in upfront expenses and $300,000 annually for op- erations and maintenance. This is a large investment for a project that has not met the agency’s expectations, especially in the current funding environment. BCT does not have a dedicated transit fund- ing source and, as a county agency, BCT must compete with other county departments for funding. In addition, a future statewide referendum to roll back property taxes would af- fect transit funding throughout the state. Consequently, BCT is considering dropping out of the 511 system when FDOT withdraws from the program. BCT has agreed to continue to provide route and schedule data if an organization steps in to take responsibility for continuing CIN but, as an alternative, the agency is considering moving toward a free online trip planner like Google Transit or Pub- lic Routes. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority/ Tri-Rail. Tri-Rail provides regional commuter rail service in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. On weekdays, Tri-Rail operates 25 northbound and 25 south- bound trains daily; on weekends and holidays it operates 8 trains in each direction. Tri-Rail served 3.1 million trips in 2005 and has experienced a 40% increase in ridership over the last 14 months. (48) Callers who select this transit agency from the public tran- sit option on the CIN main menu may listen to prerecorded information or transfer to Tri-Rail’s call center, where they can speak with an agent or leave voicemail after hours. Main menu choices for Tri-Rail are as follow: • Schedules—Interactive schedule information, • Fares—Transfer to call center, and • General information: – Lost and found—Transfer to call center, – Special events—Transfer to call center, – Transfer to an agent for trip planning, – Suggestions/complaints/comments—Transfer to call center, – More options:  Bicycles or wheelchair accessibility—Prerecorded in- formation or transfer to call center, and  Map and publications by mail—Prerecorded infor- mation or transfer to call center. 49

When customers transfer to Tri-Rail’s call center, they can speak with an agent or leave voicemail after hours. Tri-Rail has 13 customer service agents and maintains a fully staffed customer call center from 4:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Tri-Rail does not usually provide floodgate information to the 511 system about service disruptions. Although 511 is on Tri-Rail’s telephone notification list, staff indicated that timing was an issue. Generally, Tri-Rail does not provide train-specific delay information because most disruptions are cleared up by the time the information is posted. Rationale for participation. In the late 1990s, the South Florida RTO was established to focus on regional trans- portation and air quality issues. Planned in response to this policy direction, the South Florida 511 system was intended to encourage regional mobility by enabling customers to access regional travel information, including transit. In 2003, state legislation folded the RTO into the newly formed South Florida Regional Transportation Association. Tri-Rail, which was also integrated into the new SFRTA, participated in the 511 system with a goal of benefiting the traveling public. Impacts. Although Tri-Rail did not participate in CIN with an expectation of realizing cost savings, the effort has been a “tremendous drain.” During the planning phases, two staff members devoted at least 10 h per week to the project. Tri-Rail has observed a significant increase in the volume of calls to its customer service center in the past year, but the agency attributes this change to additional rail service, higher gas prices, and ridership growth—not to participation in 511. The agency has not received any CIN performance metrics from FDOT or the vendor. Tri-Rail pays 20% of the annual CIN operating and mainte- nance costs. According to FDOT, Tri-Rail’s share has totaled nearly $500,000 over the 4 years (FY 2004 to 2005 through FY 2007 to 2008). Tri-Rail pays its share of the CIN costs out of its operating budget. Like other Florida transit agencies, Tri-Rail may face a sizable budget shortfall if a statewide referendum to roll back property taxes is successful. If the funding environ- ment changes in the future, Tri-Rail might have to choose between maintaining rail service and funding the 511 system. Tri-Rail has not experienced any major problems provid- ing schedule data for the 511 system. Tri-Rail does not use scheduling/routing software and submits its schedule data to the vendor manually. Schedules are changed as circumstances dictate and not on a defined calendar basis. Issues. Tri-Rail noted that the online regional trip planner often produces incorrect itineraries. Although this issue was not directly related to the telephone 511 service, it influenced perceptions of the value of the 511 system overall (web and phone) by agencies and their customers. Tri-Rail staff did not express confidence in the accuracy of the system or the qual- ity of the data. In fact, Tri-Rail references the availability of 511 in its newsletter but does not otherwise promote the service aggressively. The agency maintains its own call center, believing that no computer can replace the “human factor” when work- ing with the public. In particular, staff cites the importance of communicating in three major languages (English, Spanish, and Creole) and their dialects, as well as the need to recognize outdated or colloquial names for locations and landmarks. In addition, Tri-Rail’s customer service agencies can modify itin- eraries to account for delays in rail service. Finally, consistent with many complex technology procure- ments, staff raised questions about the vendor’s qualifications to undertake this project. Given the complexity and scale of this project, Tri-Rail staff emphasized the importance of ensur- ing “aggressive” and “highly proactive” project management. Outlook. Tri-Rail’s future participation in the South Florida 511 system is uncertain. FDOT indicated that it would not renew the contract when it ended in November 2008. Palm Tran already announced its decision to pull out of the system, and BCT is considering doing the same. That would leave SFRTA/Tri-Rail and Miami-Dade Transit as the two active participants in the system. As a regional agency charged with promoting collaboration and coordination, SFRTA/Tri-Rail believed they could be a logical host for South Florida’s 511 system in the future. How- ever, making this move would require additional resources to manage the project. Given the potential for a budget shortfall if property taxes are rolled back, Tri-Rail would not have the resources to manage a project of this size. Miami-Dade Transit. MDT is the largest transit agency in the state of Florida and one of the largest departments within Miami-Dade County government. MDT covers a service area of 306 sq mi with a population of 2.4 million. MDT operates four modes: Metrobus routes, Metrorail rapid transit, Metro- mover people mover, and Special Transportation Services paratransit service. In 2005, MDT reported more than 104 mil- lion one-way trips. (49) Callers who select this transit agency from the public tran- sit option on the CIN main menu may listen to prerecorded information or choose to transfer to MDT’s call center where they are placed in queue to speak with an agent. Main menu choices for MDT are as follow: • Schedules—Interactive schedule information, • Fares—Prerecorded announcement, and • General information: – Lost and found—Prerecorded information, – Special events—Prerecorded information or transfer to agent, 50

– Transfer to an agent for trip planning, – Comments/complaints/suggestions—Prerecorded infor- mation, and – More options:  Bicycles—Prerecorded information,  Wheelchair accessibility—Prerecorded information,  Maps and schedules by mail—Prerecorded informa- tion or transfer to agent, and  Specialized transportation services for people with disabilities—Prerecorded information. The transfer option routes callers to MDT’s call center where they are placed in queue to speak with an agent. Miami- Dade issues floodgate messages for situations like hurricanes and major sporting events. In February 2007, MDT’s call center moved into a cen- tralized 311 call center for Miami-Dade County. (The 311 telephone number is reserved for government information and non-emergency services.) MDT calls are now integrated with all other 311 calls. Although the MDT call center phys- ically moved into the 311 facility, MDT has maintained its own customer service phone number. Customers seeking transit information do not access an IRV, instead they speak directly with agents who use the itinerary planning applica- tions developed for the CIN system. Rationale for participation. In the late 1990s, the South Florida RTO recommended developing a 511 system to help facilitate regional transportation planning and coordination. Prior to that time, each transportation agency provided travel information for its own service area. Customers seeking infor- mation about a multijurisdictional trip (e.g., Miami Inter- national Airport to Fort Lauderdale) had to call the agen- cies responsible for service in each locality. The 511 system was intended to encourage regional mobility by enabling customers to access regional travel information. As the largest transit agency among the four participat- ing organizations, MDT was designated as the lead agency. Although at times the staff perceived this role as a burden, the agency also recognized that leading the project would help ensure that the regional system met their needs. Of particular interest to MDT was the opportunity to upgrade its own com- puter system to support itinerary planning. Impacts. As the largest participating transit agency, MDT also pays the largest share of the ongoing operating and main- tenance costs at 40%. According to FDOT, MDT’s share has been close to $1 million over the 4 years of program implemen- tation from FY 2004 to 2005 through FY 2007 to 2008. Unlike the other transit agencies in South Florida, MDT benefits from a dedicated funding stream. A half-penny surtax, passed in 2002, has helped support a wide range of transit improve- ment projects at MDT. Although the transition to 311 was independent of par- ticipation in CIN, the change has been challenging for MDT. Before the move, a cost-benefit analysis was con- ducted to identify the issues associated with consolidating these functions. The transition, which required moving to a new location and consolidating staff, raised questions about union representation, job classifications, and pay ranges and was difficult for both the agencies and their call center staff. Merging the call centers meant that agents who previ- ously only handled 311 inquiries—most of which had scripted answers—were now also responsible for responding to cus- tomer inquiries for itinerary planning. Although the 311 agents use the Internet-based itinerary planner developed for CIN, the transition has been difficult and many county call agents did not want to make the move to 311. The change also had labor implications, because MDT call agents and county call agents were represented by different bargaining units. Ultimately, the union that represented the county call agents was selected to represent the entire 311 call center. MDT has not received any performance metrics from FDOT or the vendor. Staff members have tried to download the data from the web, but the files were encrypted. Issues. The process to develop CIN from initial concept to implementation took years. Because this was a regional project, participants encountered institutional issues and pursued the project in the face of changing priorities. As the lead agency, MDT found itself managing personalities as much as the process. The planning process, described as “painful” at times, took a lot of time and money. It was difficult to achieve consensus. Nevertheless, MDT emphasized that the players were well intentioned and all participants worked together to develop the final system. Despite years of effort, however, MDT believes that CIN was not well marketed. The project had a “soft launch,” and did not receive much notice. In retrospect, MDT speculated, a more aggressive marketing campaign might have generated more users. More users, in turn, could have helped build a larger base of support for the next phase of the project. MDT encountered data issues with CIN. MDT exports data to the 511 vendor twice a year, at the time of each new driver “pick.” Within MDT, it has been a challenge for the Planning Department to meet the deadline for submitting schedule changes to the vendor. To help facilitate this process, one staffer developed an internal schedule and meets individ- ually with MDT departments to help move data and informa- tion through the system. 51

MDT also noted some technical issues with system naviga- tion. Specifically, users who select certain items through the 511 telephone system cannot return to the main menu. Outlook. The outlook for maintaining transit informa- tion on the South Florida 511 system is uncertain. FDOT indicated that it would stop hosting the servers at the end of the vendor contract in November 2008. Palm Tran already announced its decision to pull out of the system, and BCT is considering doing the same. That would leave MDT and SFRTA/Tri-Rail as the two active participants in the system. MDT acknowledges several important benefits from par- ticipating in the 511 system. First, the 511 system introduced regional transit itinerary planning throughout South Florida via the system’s website. Second, the system can provide infor- mation to customers around the clock, even when customer agents are not available. Third and finally, it enabled MDT to upgrade its IVR system and to provide web-based itinerary planning. Despite these benefits, however, MDT has not made a commitment to participating in 511 after the current con- tract has run out. From the start, MDT considered participation in 511 as an extension of its services, not a replacement. Consequently, in the absence of continued funding or support for the regional transit 511 system, MDT plans to maintain its own IVR sys- tem, now part of the county’s 311 services. In addition, like its fellow South Florida agencies, MDT is exploring the po- tential for a free application like Google Transit to replace the online trip planner, at least on an interim basis. 3.4.1.13 San Francisco Bay Area 511 The San Francisco region’s 511 system serves the entire nine-county Bay Area. The system is distinguished in two im- portant respects. First, it is among the earliest 511 systems. Second, it is one of the richest 511 systems in terms of transit participation. Having 5 years of 511 operating experience— in addition to many years of experience within the systems that came before this 511 system—and having been among the most ambitious systems in regard to transit agency par- ticipation and transit content, there is much of interest in the Bay Area 511 experience. One of the unique aspects of the Bay Area 511 system is that it is one of the very few 511 systems that did not originate as a state DOT-operated, conventional (i.e., 10-digit), traffic/ highway-only telephone information system. Prior to moving to the three-digit 511 number, the Bay Area system operated for several years as a regional, multi-agency, transit information- centric telephone information system called TravInfo. Unlike nearly all other 511 systems—most of which are operated by state DOTs—the Bay Area 511 system, as well as its precursor system, is operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Com- mission (MTC), the MPO for the region. Consistent with the transit roots of the system, the Bay Area 511 system is one of only a few 511 systems where the first option listed on the main menu is for transit or public transportation, rather than for a highway or traffic-oriented option. Given the vitality of public transportation in the region, as well as the transit emphasis on 511 and its precursor informa- tion system, it is not surprising that some of the most extensive transit agency participation in any 511 system has occurred in the San Francisco Bay region. The system is unique both in terms of the large number of transit agencies that are included on the menu system (approximately 43 transit agencies and 20 paratransit agencies), and also because it is one of only a few 511 systems that include real-time transit vehicle arrival time estimates (currently, only for San Francisco Municipal Railway, but the system is being expanded). The Bay Area 511 telephone information system includes the following top-level menu options: • Traffic, • Public transportation, • TransLink (the new regional fare system), • Rideshare, • Bicycling, • Transfer to FastTrack (electronic toll collection system for bridges), and • Transfer to Sacramento 511. Several options are available under each menu item. For example, under traffic, both general traffic conditions and driving times are available for specific roadways. The sub- menu under the public transportation option includes the following choices: • Transit agencies (say the name or select from a list to get access to each individual agency’s submenu), • TransLink, • Commuter incentives, • Airports, • Paratransit, and • All Nighter Service (a regional all-night bus service that serves BART stations after BART stops running at midnight). Transit-related floodgate messages may be input at sev- eral different places in the 511 menu structure, including the main menu level, public transportation menu level, and indi- vidual transit agency menu level. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). AC Transit is the third-largest public bus system in Califor- nia, serving 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in 52

Alameda and Contra Costa counties—the East Bay area of the greater San Francisco region. Approximately 1.5 million people live in AC Transit’s 364 sq-mi service area. AC Transit provides regular fixed-route, paratransit, and school services using a variety of bus vehicle types for a total of 682 vehicles. Annual regular fixed-route service (excluding paratransit) ridership for 2005 to 2006 was estimated at 67 million. (50) AC Transit makes a wide range of information available via the Bay Area 511 telephone system. The agency’s submenu on the Bay Area 511 system includes an opening floodgate pre- recorded message (e.g., a voice recording of any general ser- vice disruption or other announcements), after which the following options are available: • Cash fares (prerecorded information); • Pre-paid passes (prerecorded information); • Lost and found (a transfer to an AC Transit call taker); • Damaged passes (a transfer to voicemail); • Customer relations (for complaints, commendations, and suggestions, which results in a transfer to an AC Transit call taker); and • Information (for schedule and trip planning, which results in a transfer to an AC Transit call taker). For options that consist of a call transfer to AC Transit, before completing the transfer, the 511 system first states the hours of operation for the AC Transit customer service telephone line. The prerecorded information for AC Transit is maintained by MTC, the 511 system operator, although AC Transit is re- sponsible for ensuring that their 511 information is current and correct. For updates, AC Transit notifies MTC via phone, fax, or e-mail, of the information they want updated. MTC then uses professional voice talent to record the updates. AC Transit reports that they generally do not provide service disruption information to 511. They have few service disrup- tions that are broad enough (i.e., impacting more than a single bus) to warrant dissemination on 511, and have no quick and easy way to add service disruption messages to 511 them- selves (they would have to relay the message to the 511 system administrator). Rationale for participation. Transit agency participa- tion in the Bay Area 511 system was orchestrated by the sys- tem developer and operator, MTC. MTC staff attempted to contact each transit agency in the region to invite them to participate. When they could not reach an agency, they left a message indicating that the agency would be added to the 511 menu and that basic service information and a call transfer to the agency’s customer service department would be included. AC Transit reports that it was not a difficult decision for them to participate in 511. The key factor motivating their decision to participate was that they wished to remain a good regional partner with MTC and wanted to support MTC’s 511 efforts. Secondary and less significant motivations were as follows: • Especially for newcomers to the region, 511 could serve as an easy-to-remember number. • Any calls that may be diverted to 511 and away from the AC Transit customer service operators would ease the work load for AC Transit call takers. Although cited as a pos- sible benefit, and therefore part of the 511 participation decision, AC Transit was quick to note that they never envisioned any significant shifting of calls to 511, believing that most transit information calls require interaction with a live operator. The only potential adverse impact AC Transit reports con- sidering in their 511 participation decision was the possibility that their callers might feel inconvenienced by being routed through 511, only to find that they still had to transfer to speak with an AC Transit CSR. The possibility for inconven- ience was attributed mostly to the 511 voice recognition sys- tem, which AC Transit perceived as operating poorly during the early days of 511 system operation. Impacts. Overall, AC Transit reports that they have ex- perienced no significant impacts as a result of participation in 511. They have not been asked to contribute anything to the cost to deploy and operate the 511 system itself. MTC has taken full responsibility (funding of the Bay Area system is discussed further in the MTC case study later in this section). Neither has 511 participation necessitated any changes in call center operations, either for staffing or technology. During the first 6 months of 511 operation, AC Transit re- ceived a number of complaints from their customers about the 511 menu system and voice recognition performance, but those complaints have fallen off dramatically as the 511 sys- tem was refined and callers became familiar with the system. During the early period when callers were struggling with the 511 menu, AC Transit requested that “AC Transit” be allowed as a caller input at the very top of the 511 menu. MTC denied the request, saying that the large number of transit agencies makes it impossible to list each as a top-level menu option. (Public transportation is a top-level menu option and, after making this selection, a caller can request a specific transit agency by name.) AC Transit has made one major change, however, to lever- age the value of their participation in 511. They converted their customer service marketing (brochures, website, etc.) to identify 511 as the single telephone information number for their agency. The only remaining references to their prior, seven-digit customer service number are on their bus 53

station signs, and there are plans to replace those with signs only showing 511. In this way, even though they believe that many callers to 511 will ultimately transfer to speak with an AC Transit operator, AC Transit has truly embraced 511 as their telephone information portal. Factors underlying that decision include 511 being an easy number to remember and the possibility that some calls—even if only a very small percentage—may be handled by 511 and therefore save a call to AC Transit customer service operators (all incoming customer service calls are ultimately handled by live oper- ators). AC Transit has a call direction system, but not a full IVR system. Although not noted by AC Transit, another possible moti- vation for their embrace of 511 could be cost savings. When routed through 511, the cost to transfer non-local callers (which includes many callers from nearby areas, such as Berkeley, that are in a different area code than AC Transit) to AC Transit is borne by the 511 sponsor. Otherwise, AC Tran- sit would incur that cost (most agencies ensure that all calls to their customer service center are toll free). Lending some sup- port to this notion is the fact that some other Bay Area agen- cies interviewed indicated that this was a key motivation for AC Transit when participating in the pre-511 regional tele- phone information system. AC Transit reports that they do not perceive any increase or decrease in calls to their customer service line, either be- fore or after the regional phone systems’ conversion to 511, or after they began marketing 511 as their primary number. This is a subjective assessment since AC Transit does not have access to any 511-related statistics (i.e., number/percentage of AC Transit menu selections, call transfers from 511 to AC Transit, etc.). Prior to 511, AC Transit seemingly had no plans for their own IVR system, and they still have no such plans. Therefore, when asked whether they viewed 511 systems as possible sub- stitutes for individual transit agency IVRs, their response cen- tered on 511 systems and transit agencies in general, rather than their particular circumstance. They indicated that they view some potentially significant obstacles to using 511 as a substitute for agency-specific IVRs, noting the following: • Individual transit agencies may not feel they adequately control a regional 511 system (e.g., can make decisions about menu structures, etc., to satisfy their customers’ particular preferences); • The regional 511 sponsor may not sufficiently view the tran- sit agencies as their customers or end users; • A regional or statewide 511 system may be subject to the “whims and needs” of regional or statewide agencies, and therefore may not be something an individual transit agency can count on in the long term; and • Particularly in a region with many transit agencies (like the Bay Area) it can be very difficult for a single 511 system to satisfy the needs and preferences of all transit agencies (that is, they believe that using 511 as a substitute for individual transit agencies’ IVRs holds greater promise in smaller re- gions with fewer transit agencies to satisfy). Issues. Overall, from AC Transit’s perspective few signif- icant issues or problems were encountered with 511. Those that were encountered, such as early concerns about the complexity of the 511 menu system and voice recognition performance, have largely been resolved. Outlook. Overall, AC Transit has viewed their participa- tion in 511 as a positive experience and intends to continue to actively participate indefinitely. They encourage other transit agencies throughout the country to consider involve- ment in their respective 511 systems. Overarching comments on their 511 experience and the benefit of 511 include the following: • “511 is an opportunity. The three-digit number is easy and straightforward and, if implemented correctly, it is another way to reach your customers.” • “If nothing else, agencies should consider doing 511 in addition to their own customer information number.” • “511 makes it easier for the first time rider, or really anyone, to get through to transit.” • “511 just gives customers another option—which is great!” AC Transit expressed interest in the following 511-related plans and desires: • Converting all of their roadside signs to show 511 as the customer service phone number rather than the current seven-digit number. • Investigating the concept of a regional, consolidated, “after-hours-only” staffed transit call center. (This may or may not relate directly to the 511 system.) Such a sys- tem would serve calls during times when individual tran- sit agency customer service lines are closed. The concept, which is being spearheaded by MTC, is in the very early stages of consideration. • Ultimately including estimated bus arrival time informa- tion on the 511 telephone information system. They are currently in discussions with MTC, which is leading the effort to expand transit arrival times on 511. Currently, AC Transit is doing an arrival times demonstration on several routes, but the information is not made available via 511. • Having access to 511-related statistics (e.g., call transfers from 511 to AC Transit), which they intend to request from MTC. 54

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). BART operates heavy rail, subway service in the San Fran- cisco Bay Area. Their system consists of a fleet of approxi- mately 600 cars operated on 5 major lines over 104 miles of track, much of it in subways, tunnels, or the 3.6-mi Transbay Tube that runs under the San Francisco Bay and connects the East Bay with San Francisco. BART service is provided in the four counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. The BART system includes 43 stations. (51) BART participates in the Bay Area 511 system, although not in an intensive manner in terms of information content. The only user option under the BART portion of the menu is to be transferred to the BART customer service line. As with all of the transit agency call transfers out of 511, before complet- ing the transfer to BART, the 511 system informs callers of the hours of operation of the BART customer service center. BART’s own customer service line features an auto-attendant greeting that provides callers with several options. Once an option is selected, callers are transferred to a live operator. BART is developing their own IVR system which is expected to be operational late in 2007. BART’s IVR will be driven by a web database. Eventually, the system will access the BART real- time information system that is currently used to provide real- time arrival information on BART platforms. The BART IVR is also planned to include station-to-station schedules and information on fares. The only information that BART provides routinely to the 511 system is changes in the hours of operation of the BART customer service information line. BART is aware of, and seems to value, their ability to provide service disruption or other floodgate messages to the MTC for inclusion on 511. MTC reports that BART periodically provides faxes that con- tain updates to the information provided on 511. The regional 511 operations staff contacts BART (as well as several other agencies) on a set daily schedule (twice during each morning and evening rush hour in the case of BART) to solicit infor- mation for posting on 511. Rationale for participation. As with all of the Bay Area transit agencies, BART was recruited to participate in the re- gional 511 system by the regional 511 sponsor, MTC. BART’s decision to participate in 511 was motivated by a desire to be a good regional partner and to support MTC’s efforts with 511. Overall, BART does not generally view 511 as playing a significant role in their customer information strategy. They feel that almost every caller ultimately wants and needs to speak with a live operator and therefore they see very limited value to putting more information on 511 (e.g., schedules, fares, etc.—such as provided for AC Transit on 511). They also felt that routing callers through 511 who would eventu- ally want to speak to a BART operator could inconvenience their customers. Generally, BART wishes to maintain their own immediate contact with customers and they feel that they have the re- sources to provide high-quality service themselves, including comprehensive and accurate information on all BART service as well as information on other services with which BART connects. BART feels that they have the ability to provide more information effectively to their customers than can the 511 system. Although emphasizing that it is not a driving fac- tor in BART’s decisions about 511 involvement, they also note some concerns about the quality of the 511 voice recog- nition system. Finally, BART acknowledged that part of their preference for using their own customer telephone informa- tion system is because they have used the same phone num- ber for many years, and it is well known by their customers. Although they do not see 511 as a major component of their customer information strategy, BART does feel that 511 provides them with two important benefits • It provides an easy-to-remember number for people who do not know the BART customer service number, and • The meetings and interactions associated with 511 help BART stay in touch with what other agencies are doing. In terms of BART’s motivation to invest in developing their own IVR as opposed to putting automated, IVR-type in- formation on the regional 511 system, the primary motiva- tions seem to be that (1) BART feels they have the resources to provide a very high-quality IVR service to their customers, developed to address BART’s specific needs and preferences, and (2) since the regional 511 system includes only pre- recorded, voicemail-type messages and (with the exception of estimated arrival times) is not driven by an underlying infor- mation database, BART does not view the 511 system as a true, robust IVR. Impacts. BART reports that neither their 511 participa- tion nor the 511 system overall have impacted them in any significant way. BART has not been asked to directly con- tribute to financing either the implementation or operation of the 511 system. The only cost impact has been in the form of BART staff time. They report that in the early days of 511 development, one or two of their staff members spent “a lot of time” attending meetings. BART has observed no change in the volume of calls com- ing to their call center. However, this is based on a subjective assessment, since they do not have access to MTC’s 511 call statistics. When informed that such statistics were available, BART indicated mild interest—they were somewhat curious but mostly felt that if there was anything significant, they would have observed the impact in the call center. They also noted that they get all of the key statistics they need regarding their own call center from their own system. 55

BART has not changed how they market customer service— all of their marketing continues to emphasize their own tele- phone number. They indicated that they do not see a strong argument in their marketing 511 when it does not provide much value to their customers (who would have to transfer from 511 to BART to get any information). They indicated that they have received no feedback from their customers regarding 511. The research team asked BART whether they had consid- ered the potential cost savings made possible by the fact that when a local long distance call (one from within the region but from a different area code than BART) comes to BART via 511, the 511 system pays for the call rather than having BART pay for the call. They said that they had considered the same issue when the 511-precursor regional transit information line (TravInfo) was developed and they decided that the cost savings were not compelling. They did note that AC Transit opted to run all of their calls through TravInfo for this very reason and that they saved a lot of money. Issues. Overall, BART has not had any significant issues or problems with the regional 511 system. Rather, they sim- ply find its value to them to be fairly limited and, although wanting to provide general support to the concept, they have not heavily utilized 511. As noted, they have some concerns about 511, such as voice recognition performance (at least early on), limited value as an IVR, etc. Their decisions regard- ing 511, however, have been driven primarily by their belief that with their extensive knowledge and adequate resources, they are best suited to serving the information needs of their customers. Before the site visit interview with BART, the research team was under the impression that BART might have had some concerns with 511 potentially diverting calls from their cus- tomer information center, and the impact of that call reduc- tion on their customer service staffing. BART indicated that this was not a concern of theirs with 511, but in relating their experiences with a different project, they did note that they, at one point, did have this concern. In that case, the concern was that reductions in call volumes would translate to a reduc- tion in hours of operation for their call center (noting that below a certain staffing level it becomes very difficult to pro- vide extended service). Although this did not end up being a “BART-Bay Area 511” issue, the fact that BART has consid- ered such impacts in other contexts suggests that this type of concern is at least possible with 511. Outlook. BART has no changes planned in regard to their 511 participation. Overall, although they do not find 511 to be a key part of their customer information strategy, they feel that it does provide an easy-to-remember number for those who do not know the BART number, and 511-related meet- ings help them stay in touch with others in the region. Their advice to other agencies considering 511 is to at least investi- gate 511 and to compare the 511 option to what they could accomplish themselves. BART feels that, at a minimum, it is important that a transit agency “have a seat at the table” on 511 deliberations. The only significant change planned for their own cus- tomer information telephone system is that BART intends to provide real-time estimates of vehicle arrival times. BART has provided real-time information on their station plat- forms for many years. A limited demonstration is now being conducted on their website, and once the feature has been expanded on the website, they will focus on dissemination via phone. BART has made no plans for providing this in- formation via 511 (they noted that they perceive 511 discus- sions of arrival times to be centered on buses and therefore not relevant to them). San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni). Muni provides transit service within the city and county of San Francisco 24 h per day, 7 days per week. With over 800 total vehicles includ- ing historic streetcars, modern light rail vehicles, diesel buses, alternative fuel vehicles, electric trolley coaches, and their world-famous cable cars, Muni’s fleet is among the most di- verse in the world. Muni is a part of the San Francisco city government. Together with the Department of Parking and Traffic, Muni is part of the San Francisco Municipal Trans- portation Agency. Muni is one of America’s oldest public transit agencies, the largest in the Bay Area, and the seventh largest system in the United States. It currently carries more than 200 million riders annually. (52) Muni’s situation relative to customer service telephone information is unique among the agencies studied in this project, in so much as the City of San Francisco recently im- plemented a citywide, live operator (there is no IVR), 311 telephone information system. The FCC has designated 311 as a national number for non-emergency police, fire, and munic- ipal business. Administration of 311 systems is the responsi- bility of local and municipal governments. The San Francisco 311 center began operations in February 2007 and, at that time, assumed all customer service call cen- ter functions for Muni, as it did for many municipal agencies. The objectives of the system included improving customer service and reducing the volume of 911 calls. The San Francisco 311 center is a large, purpose-built, professionally staffed, state- of-the-art call center located in the same building as some of Muni’s offices. The 311 center is staffed and operational 7 days per week, 24 h per day, 365 days per year. Language translation is offered for dozens of languages. 56

San Francisco 311 operators use the following three main information sources for addressing Muni-related customer requests: • Muni “scheduler” software; • The NextMuni System (for real-time vehicle arrival time estimates); and • The regional Trip Planner System, the same one that is available on the regional 511 website (www.511.org). Muni views the 311 center as representing a major improve- ment over their prior Muni-operated call center in terms of the greatly extended hours of operation and overall level of sophistication, including the use of tracking numbers for each call. Muni also noted that use of the Trip Planner by the 311 staff has focused a great deal of attention on the tool, helping to surface and correct problems and, in general, accelerating the refinement of the tool and increasing its value to the region. Many of the 311 call takers are newly hired, although a number of Muni’s former CSRs were transferred to 311. This transfer occurred only after service representatives success- fully completed the 6-week 311 training course, which in- cluded passing a test. Muni reports that there have been some challenges with union employees transferring departments, as well as with the employees that did not pass the 311 quali- fying test. In addition to their 311-based live operator customer ser- vice activities, Muni is also an active and leading participant in the regional 511 system. As well as the optional floodgate message at the top of the Muni menu, the Muni submenu includes the following options: • Fares (prerecorded information); • Next bus (automated, real-time vehicle arrival time estimates); • Operator (transfer to a Muni CSR [at San Francisco 311]); and • Passes (prerecorded information). Currently, Muni is the only Bay Area transit agency that is providing real-time vehicle arrival time information via 511. The project began as a limited-scale demonstration in July 2005, providing information for streetcars on six Muni lines. The demonstration has been very successful. In a typical month, the 511 system fields more than 20,000 Muni arrival time requests. Arrival times are, by far, the most popular of the Muni 511 menu options, accounting for 70% to 80% of total Muni 511 requests in a typical month. The volume of Muni arrival time requests is large enough to represent a sizable portion of all transit 511 menu selections; about 14% in July 2007, a typical month, and 3% of all 511 menu requests in July 2007. Traffic-related menu requests typically account for about 75% of all monthly 511 requests. At the time of the research team’s site visit, efforts were underway to ex- pand the NextMuni program fleet-wide and to make the additional arrival time information available on 511 by the end of 2007. Two of the major tasks in the development of the Muni 511 arrival times demonstration were as follows: • Develop the conversion process for translating the pro- prietary NextBus arrival time data from Muni’s real-time information system vendor into a format that could be posted on 511 and • Work with the vendor to develop the process for upload- ing schedule changes in an automated way into the 511 arrival times module. Rationale for participation. It was not possible to defin- itively identify Muni’s original motivations for participating in 511. Repeated attempts to arrange a full interview with the Muni personnel who were involved in the early 511 deliber- ations were not successful, although one very brief telephone exchange did occur as part of those attempts. The current Muni contact, who is focused at least as much on 311 as 511 and who was not involved in early 511 deliberations, indicated that the arrival times demonstration really drove Muni’s esca- lating participation in 511. MUNI noted that the demonstra- tion was financed by MTC and that MTC is contributing $11.2 million for the expansion of Muni arrival times on 511. For their part, MTC, which recruited transit agencies for par- ticipation in 511, indicates that “some of the smaller agencies [which would not include Muni] were pretty excited to be included . . . most agencies had no real problem with par- ticipating . . . everyone was supportive.” Based on the feedback from MTC and the cumulative in- formation from Muni (both from the current contact and the limited input received from the staff member who had been involved in early 511 decisions), the research team speculates that Muni had no powerful, compelling motivations or spe- cific objectives in regard to initial 511 participation. Rather, they probably saw no drawbacks and wanted to support MTC, which can be a source of funds, in the 511 effort. With the inception of the Muni 511 arrival times demonstration concept and funding from MTC, Muni’s interest in, support for, and expectations regarding 511 escalated. Impacts. Muni did not note any changes in their incom- ing call volumes as a result of participation in 511. They ex- pressed mild interest in Muni-related 511 system statistics, feeling that transfers from 511 do not impact them that much. 57

The only financial impact they experienced with 511 par- ticipation has been staff time associated with participation in regional 511 meetings. Muni has borne 511-related costs for the 511 arrival times demonstration. Although MTC pro- vided the funding for system development and operation, Muni has expended some significant time to resolve data transfer issues from their system to NextBus and then to 511. They are working with NextBus to automate the schedule up- loading process, but this was described as fairly labor inten- sive. Muni was not able to provide specific cost estimates. No other 511-related impacts were identified by Muni. Overall, Muni seems to find value in 511, certainly as the mechanism that made possible their foray into telephone, real-time arrival time estimates. They also note that they see a “good fit” between the San Francisco 311 system’s Muni customer information system and the regional 511 system. The two systems complement one another because 511 is entirely automated (no live operator) and 311 is a live- operator-only system—and also because the 511 system pro- vides a single portal for a wide range of regional information that would never be a part of the city’s 311 system. Muni also emphasized another major benefit of their in- volvement in 511. It was the regional 511 effort, including the 511 website, that drove the development and refinement of the Trip Planner tool that, in turn, has become a critical infor- mation resource to Muni’s (311) CSRs. In turn, 311’s reliance on the Trip Planner helped improve the tool. Issues. Overall, it does not appear that Muni has any sig- nificant concerns about the 511 system. They have, however, encountered the following issues and challenges in their 511 and 511-related activities: • Some technical challenges, mostly related to data conver- sion, associated with the 511 arrival times demonstration, including getting the proprietary NextBus data into 511, and getting Muni schedule and route information into NextBus and then onto 511; and • Some initial concerns on the part of MTC about how the City of San Francisco’s 311 system could “erode the brand identity” of 511, and the impact of potential diversion to 311 of Muni-related calls that would otherwise have gone to 511. Regarding the former, Muni has encouraged 311 call takers to make callers aware of the Muni information available via 511. Regarding the latter, Muni says that MTC feels that the positive 511-related impacts of the 311 system (311-related increase in use and refinement of the regional Trip Planner) more than compensate for the possible negative impacts from potential shifting of some calls from 511 to 311. Outlook. Overall, Muni views their 511 experience very positively and plans to continue their participation indefi- nitely, including expanding the 511 arrival times information to cover their entire fleet. They see 511 as a good fit with their own staffed customer information line, the city’s 311 system. The only significant planned change in Muni’s 511 partic- ipation is the expansion of their vehicle arrival time feature to encompass the entire Muni fleet. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). VTA provides bus, light rail, historic trolley, and demand- response (paratransit) service throughout Santa Clara County and partners with other systems for bus and rail service between Santa Clara County and Alameda, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties. VTA’s more than 520-vehicle bus fleet serves an urbanized area of 326 sq mi with a population of approximately 1.73 million. The 28.6-mi light rail system is operated with a fleet of 50 cars. (53) In addition to operating their own customer service call center and IVR system, VTA actively participates in the Bay Area 511, making available a wide range of prerecorded in- formation on 511 and allowing call transfers from 511 to VTA CSRs. In addition to the ability to provide a floodgate mes- sage (e.g., for service disruptions) at the top of their menu, the VTA 511 submenu includes the following options: • Routes and schedules (transfer to VTA call takers); • Service announcements (prerecorded information); • Fares (prerecorded information); • Passes (prerecorded information); • Bicycles (prerecorded information, including a phone num- ber and e-mail address for additional information); • Elevator and escalator status (prerecorded information); • Identification cards for persons with disabilities (pre- recorded information); • Customer relations (for information on lost and found and access for persons with disabilities, both of which transfer to VTA call takers). VTA reports that they generally do not use the floodgate message capability provided by 511. They provide updated information quarterly to MTC for posting on 511. VTA has altered their marketing of customer information services since joining 511. In addition to their own call center and website information, they now also reference the regional 511 system on many of their materials, including their route map and individual schedules. Rationale for participation. VTA does not believe that they made an explicit decision to participate in 511, but rather that they did not protest the MTC-led effort to include a large number of the regional transit providers on the 511 system. This is consistent with the information from MTC, who made the 511 recruiting contacts to each transit agency 58

and when they could not make direct contact, left messages indicating that the agency would be added to 511 unless they asked to be omitted. Overall, VTA views 511 as a good sup- plement to their own customer information number, con- sidering it “just one more option for our customers and a great service.” A long list of pro and con factors were provided to VTA by the research team and VTA was asked to identify which, if any, factors were considered as part of their decision- making process for 511 participation. They indicated that none of the factors played any real role, that the decision was made simply because it seemed like a good supplement to their own activities, and that they saw no negative impli- cations. They made a point of noting that they definitely did not hope that 511 would divert calls from their own call center, saying that such diversions could have impacts on VTA’s union call takers, who wouldn’t want that work to be outsourced. They also indicated that they would be leery of ever letting another entity, like 511, handle their operator calls. VTA never had any concerns about potential increases in call volumes to their customer service line as a result of 511 participation. Impacts. Overall, VTA views 511 participation as benefi- cial and a supplement to their telephone customer information services. They primarily view 511 as useful as a way to reach visitors or newcomers to the area who are not familiar with reaching individual transit agencies directly. VTA did not contribute to the funding of either the devel- opment or operation and maintenance of the regional 511 system. The only 511-related expenses they have experienced are staff time to attend “a couple” of meetings. They did not make any changes to call center staffing or technologies be- cause of 511. However, they did devote some time to export- ing their route and schedule information to 511, for use in the Trip Planner offered on the Bay Area 511 website. VTA has noticed no changes in their call volume related to 511, noting that if there are increases, they are obscured by the significant overall increase in calls that VTA has experi- enced over the last several years, which they believe are not related to 511. VTA was unaware that MTC has 511 call sta- tistics related to the VTA submenu, but expressed interest in receiving such information and plan to follow up with MTC. The primary statistics of interest to VTA are as follows: • Popularity of VTA menu options (relative to one another); • Call transfers from 511 to VTA and whether the caller re- quested the VTA operator or the VTA IVR; and • Call transfers from 511 broken out by time of day and day of week, to help VTA understand their call center staffing requirements. VTA does not view the potential cost savings associated with the 511 system paying for incoming local long-distance calls (rather than VTA paying for them) as significant. VTA does not currently consider the regional 511 telephone system as an adequate substitute for their own IVR. They indicated that “in an ideal world, where we could get every- thing we want from 511 [e.g., dictate menu structure] and have total control, then we would be interested.” They would not care where the server is, and they believe that if they completely controlled the system it would essentially be like their own IVR and they would not care where the hard- ware was located. However they do not think they are any- where close to that point yet with 511. They would want control, the ability to ensure quality and consistent formats in order to remain responsive to what VTA customers want. Issues. VTA did not identify any significant issues or prob- lems with the regional 511 system. They did note two items that have been of some concern, however, as follows: • Voice recognition performance on 511 is “not perfect, al- though it’s getting better. Voice recognition software sys- tems in general are really not there yet,” and • The effort associated with providing the 511 website (not related to the phone system) with updated schedule and route information. Outlook. Overall, VTA views their 511 experience posi- tively and finds benefit in the 511 telephone information system as another way to reach their customers, especially visitors or those new to the area. VTA’s advice to other tran- sit agencies considering 511 is to view it as “just another tool, one more way to get information out” and “an easy number to remember, which is great for visitors.” The only proposed change in VTA’s 511 participation is to add VTA real-time arrival time estimates once their fleet management system (i.e., automatic vehicle location with schedule adherence monitoring) is implemented. At the time of the team’s interview, a Request for Proposals for the sys- tem was expected to be released by the end of 2007. As a condition for receiving a share of the $20 million portion of the Bay Bridge funding that has been set aside for transit in- formation, MTC has required that any agency able to pro- vide arrival time information to 511 must do so. VTA has been participating in MTC-led regional discussion of the expansion of the 511 arrival times feature. They reported that, to date, the focus has been on issues like bus stop IDs (as a means to request specific arrival times) and the com- plications associated with developing and maintaining a re- gional database of such IDs, rather than on how arrival time estimates will be communicated from individual agencies to the 511 system. 59

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC func- tions as both the regional transportation planning agency— a state designation—and, for federal purposes, as the region’s MPO. (54) MTC led the development of, and operates and maintains, the Bay Area 511 system, including both the telephone and website elements. There is no cost to individual transit agen- cies for participation in the 511 system other than whatever time they choose to devote to participation in regional 511- related meetings, and providing updated information to the 511 system. MTC contacts transit agencies for inputs to 511 on a peri- odic basis, which varies depending on the type of agency and information. Regional rail and ferry operators (e.g., BART, Muni, Altamont Commuter Express, Golden Gate Ferry), the Bay Bridge, and California Highway Patrol are contacted daily in what MTC refers to as “beat calls.” Transit agencies are pro- vided multiple means to submit information to MTC for in- clusion on 511, including e-mail subscriptions (where MTC subscribes to agencies’ periodic e-mail notices in order to keep track of changes), a centralized 511 e-mail address (to which agencies can direct e-mails), and faxes. MTC uses pro- fessional voice talent to record all of the transit agency con- tent on 511, including floodgate messages and information on schedules, fares, etc. A significant focus of MTC’s transit-related work on 511 has been the Muni real-time vehicle arrival times demonstra- tion (described in detail previously in the Muni case study). MTC funded that demonstration and led the work to develop the interfaces between Muni’s vehicle tracking system ven- dor, NextBus, and the 511 system. Those interfaces include the real-time vehicle arrival times estimates, as well as up-to- date comprehensive route and schedule information (arrival times are made available to callers by line/route and stop). Based on the success of the arrival times demonstration, which included only a handful of Muni’s lines, MTC is now leading the effort to expand the arrival times feature to in- clude the entire Muni fleet, as well as other transit agencies. Findings related to various issues and topics regarding MTC’s transit 511 activities are organized into several major topic areas and summarized throughout the rest of this section. Leading and funding the 511 system. Overall, MTC views their work with transit 511 as experimental. Not neces- sarily because of any uncertainty about its value or whether things will work, but because this is a way to explore what is of value, what works, and what information and techniques are most valued and cost effective. They see transit-related 511 as another way to promote mobility in the region, a way to make the overall 511 service multimodal and support con- sideration of transit, and a mechanism for exploring exactly what benefits, costs, and challenges are associated with transit information on 511. They have taken a leadership role because they felt it was a truly regional opportunity/responsibility that no local agency would be willing to tackle. A variety of funding sources have been used to support Bay Area 511, and the transit aspects of it. Initially, federal Con- gestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds were used in conjunction with matching funds from the state Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE), in conjunc- tion with State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. CMAQ funds are no longer being used and have been replaced by federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Expansion of the 511 real-time vehicle arrival times feature is utilizing por- tions of the $20 million set aside from the Bay Bridge project for transit information projects. Recruiting transit agencies. Although a few individual agencies had some interest, there was no groundswell of tran- sit agency-led interest in 511 and transit agency participation was secured by proactive action on the part of MTC. MTC re- cruited transit agencies for participation in 511. They con- tacted each agency to discuss participation and, when they could not make contact, left messages indicating that MTC would add the agency to the 511 menu system and provide for a call transfer from 511 to that agency’s customer information line unless the agency objected. Overall, MTC found that transit agencies were very posi- tive about being included in the 511 system, which is not sur- prising considering that no actions or funding were asked of the agencies—they simply had to agree to let MTC add them to the menu. In particular, smaller agencies seemed to view 511 as an opportunity and an easy way for their customers to reach them. MTC reports that no real concerns were brought up by agencies during recruitment. It does not appear that agencies expressed any concerns about the impact of 511 on their own customer service call volumes. Transit agency 511-related concerns. Overall, transit agencies have had very few concerns with the 511 telephone information system. To the extent there have been “prob- lems,” it is more a case of agencies being uninterested in 511 overall. There are two specific complaints that MTC has en- countered. The first has to do with agency’s concerns about the quality of the 511 voice recognition system. MTC ac- knowledges that the system performed poorly early on and, although it has been improved significantly, additional im- provement would be useful. The second issue, which MTC has heard about from several transit agencies, is “misdirected transfers,” that is, transfers out of the 511 system that were sent to the incorrect transit agency. MTC reports that they did get some complaints from 511 callers and that one transit 60

agency pulled out of 511 because they were getting calls trans- ferred from 511 that were supposed to go to a different agency. Maintaining transit information. As was the case with the development of 511 overall, as well as the transit compo- nent, MTC assumed responsibility for inputting transit agen- cies’ updates to 511 simply because they felt that if they did not do this, it might not get done. MTC is now wrestling with their leadership role for maintaining transit information on 511. Generally, they feel that most agencies do not seem very interested in maintaining their information on 511. They note that they feel like they have to “chase” the agencies to ex- tract information from them, and feel that this may suggest that the 511 phone system is ultimately not very important to some transit agencies. MTC says that they have not yet looked closely at the num- bers, but they knew that maintenance of transit information is a significant expense and are beginning to wonder if the benefits are worth the costs. MTC notes that the recording of transit-related messages on 511 alone represents a significant on-going expense. They estimate that half of the 4- to 6-hr quarterly recording sessions is devoted to transit. They esti- mate that, including the professional voice talent and editing, the cost to update messages for even one small transit agency could be between $5,000 and $8,000. One could speculate that rather than revealing a change in opinion on the part of transit agencies about the value of 511, the current ambivalence among many agencies is consistent with their original perspectives. In retrospect, the fact that nearly all of the transit agencies were pleased to join 511 does not necessarily suggest a high degree of support and commit- ment, because they were not asked to demonstrate any real commitment or make any investment. MTC paid for every- thing and did everything for them. Although MTC’s actions were quite logical insomuch as they wanted to get transit 511 off the ground, it suggests that the real measure of tran- sit agencies’ true commitment and support for 511 has yet to be taken. At this point, MTC has made no decisions about their long- term role in leading the maintenance of transit information on the 511 phone system and, for the time being, plan to make no significant changes. When asked how their concern about data maintenance costs could impact transit agencies that provide a great deal of information via 511—especially AC Transit, which relies on 511 as their primary contact number—MTC made it clear that they have made a commitment to such agen- cies and would honor it. Real-time arrival time. MTC views the Muni arrival times demonstration as one of the major, if not the greatest, transit-related successes for the 511 telephone system to date. The relatively high volume of calls, 4,000 or more for a typical month, for just a handful of Muni lines suggests to MTC that this feature could be a “killer application” for telephone 511. When asked what they think the success of the demonstration means for transit information on 511 overall, they indicate that it is “a focus issue.” That is, that customers’ interest in transit 511 information varies, and that arrival times seem to be of far greater interest than much of the basic schedule and fare information. MTC is currently leading efforts to expand the arrival times feature to other transit agencies. They have stated that in order for an agency to receive a share of the $20 million of the Bay Bridge funding set aside for transit information, the agency has to make arrival time estimates available to 511, if they have such information. One of the major challenges cur- rently being considered concerns stop IDs. A regional data- base of stop IDs is necessary, since arrival time information is offered according to route/line, direction, and stop. Developing a regional system, adding IDs to signs at all stops, and updating the stop ID system (in light of constant service changes) is a major challenge. Other challenges associated with the arrival time expansion include converting individual agencies’ arrival time data into a format that can be input to 511, and inputting (initially, and then updating periodically) agencies’ route and schedule in- formation into 511. The Muni demonstration entailed only Muni’s arrival time data, which is in the proprietary format of their vendor, NextBus. Although that effort was critical in that an explicit format for all 511 arrival time data has been estab- lished, it will still take time and expense on the part of individ- ual transit agencies, and to a lesser extent for MTC, to convert their specific data (a number of agencies are using vendors other than NextBus) to that common format. In 2006, MTC completed a study that assessed the costs and other implications associated with expansion of the ar- rival time feature regionally. The study concluded that costs, to both MTC and to individual transit agencies, would vary based on a number of factors, including 511 call volumes related to arrival times (e.g., could necessitate system capac- ity investments, like additional phone and T-1 lines connect- ing 511 with agencies), the number of times each year that an agency updates their schedule and route information, and the size of the transit agency (impacts the magnitude of the schedule and route information updates). The study included a high-end estimate (reflecting maximum assumptions on the number of agencies participating [28 agencies], call vol- umes, etc.) of about $2 million in implementation costs and about $410 thousand in recurring, annual operations and maintenance costs. (55) Relationship between 511 and 311. MTC was initially somewhat concerned that the diversion of Muni 511 calls to the new San Francisco 311 system, which is handling all 61

customer service calls for Muni, could reduce the 511 call vol- umes and thereby incrementally lesson the vitality of 511. They also were concerned about losing the hard-earned brand identity for 511; that is, people could be confused about the distinction between 311 and 511. We have examined 511 call volumes for 6 mo before and 6 mo after 311’s February 2007 start date and, although average monthly 511 calls are down about 3%, it is not clear whether such fluctuation is normal or related to 311. Regardless, MTC feels that the positive focus that 311 has brought to the regional web-based Trip Planner tool (which is heavily utilized by 311 operators) out- weighs any concerns about potential call siphoning. Regard- ing differentiation of 311 and 511, MTC feels this continues to be an issue, although not necessarily any major threat to 511. Generally, their concern is based on their own experiences in trying to establish the 511 identity and their understand- ing that it is very difficult to effectively educate the public about these types of services, especially when differentiating two similar-sounding services. Outlook. Overall, MTC considers the transit aspects of the 511 telephone information system to have been success- ful; with the arrival times feature being the stand-out per- former and a possible “killer application” for transit on 511. However, after several years of experience, MTC does have some concerns about transit on 511. Most significant among these concerns is the perception that many agencies simply do not care very much about 511 and do not seem willing to put much effort into effectively maintaining their agency’s infor- mation on the system. MTC has made no decisions about their long-term plans for continuing to carry out and fund up- dating of individual agencies’ transit information, but they are beginning to look carefully at the benefits and costs. They em- phasize that regardless of the outcome of that consideration, they will honor their commitment to 511 in support of those agencies that rely on 511. Even greater than any particular successes or disappoint- ments associated with the Bay Area 511 transit activities, the over-arching perspective from MTC seems to be that explo- ration of the value of transit on 511—and the inevitable array of both successes and disappointments that are likely to be encountered—is the most important thing. They seem to feel that studies are useful, but at some point the only way to re- ally learn something is through experimentation, always starting on a small scale to minimize costs and expanding/ continuing only if proven to be warranted. They have em- braced the role of regional 511 leader, including the transit component, feeling that since no single agency would other- wise tackle such a large effort, it is a natural part of their re- sponsibility for promoting regional mobility. As well as continuing to examine and possibly advance their approaches to operating and maintaining transit 511, MTC is considering or pursuing the following 511 and 511-related enhancements, in addition to expansion of the arrival times feature: • My 511—Currently in development, this system will allow transit 511 users to establish a user profile predesignating up to six specific transit trips of interest. Then, whenever the customer calls 511, their phone number will be recognized and they will immediately be presented with the option of obtaining information on any of their predefined trips. • Regional, staffed customer information—This concept, discussed in the AC Transit case study, is only in the very early stages of consideration and may not be discussed any further. The idea would be to establish a regional, consolidated call taking center staffed with operators to handle customer service for multiple transit agencies. As discussed in the AC Transit case study, one possible version of the concept would be for this center to only operate during the times when individual agencies’ call centers are closed. 3.4.2 Transit Agencies with a Presence on 511 but No Integration 3.4.2.1 Manchester Transit Authority (New Hampshire) The Manchester Transit Authority (MTA) provides pub- lic transportation service for the city of Manchester, New Hampshire. In addition, the MTA provides student trans- portation for the Manchester School District. MTA’s service area covers 299 sq mi with a population of 846,000. The MTA system includes 13 bus routes and several specialized shuttles. In 2005, MTA carried 19.3 million one-way trips. (56) The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) sponsors the statewide 511 system. Callers look- ing for transit information are directed to the 511 website, where they can click on the traveler information link, or to a toll-free transit customer information line (no call trans- fer option is provided). There is no other transit informa- tion on the 511 phone system. Rationale for participation. The MTA interviewee was not at MTA when the New Hampshire 511 system was being planned and implemented (2002 to 2003). Therefore, she does not know whether MTA was provided an opportunity to consider having a call transfer from 511 or any other infor- mation or options on 511. The MTA interviewee did note that in the 4 years she has been with the agency, MTA has not been approached by the 511 system administrators about making any changes to the nature of MTA’s participation in the system. 62

Although she could not reflect on the original MTA deci- sion making in regard to 511 (if there was any), the MTA rep- resentative did share her perspective on the potential pros and cons of 511 participation that were included in our inter- view guide. She cited the following factors as supporting the notion of 511 participation: • Want to include transit in a multimodal traveler informa- tion system—want to keep “a place at the table”; and • Want to be a good partner with the 511 system adminis- trator (the state DOT). She identified the following factors as potential concerns or factors that may argue against 511 participation (“poten- tial” because MTA has not actually experienced any of these impacts): • Possible inconvenience to MTA callers who may call 511 only to find no information on MTA and will then need to make a separate call to MTA, • Cost of technology investments that might be needed to support 511 participation, and • Need to provide data to 511 in specific formats dictated by the 511 administrator. Impacts. No impacts were identified for participation in the 511 system. MTA has not received any information that shows how the system is working or how callers are using the information. Issues. MTA did not identify any issues associated with 511. It should be noted that when the research team tested the traveler information link on the511 website, the link was not active. Outlook. MTA believes that the 511 system may be of potential value to them and that having information about user behavior would help MTA better understand the value of the 511 system to the agency. 3.4.2.2 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (Tampa Bay) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), located in St. Petersburg, Florida, operates public transit services in Pinellas County. PSTA’s service area covers 226 sq mi with a population of 882,000. In 2005, the system served 10.5 mil- lion trips on 43 bus routes. (57) The Tampa Bay 511 system includes general prerecorded information about PSTA, as well as information about major service disruptions. The 511 system provides callers seeking additional information with PSTA’s telephone number, but a direct transfer is not available. Rationale for participation. The 511 system operator did not provide PSTA the option of having a call transfer from 511 to the PSTA customer service center, or any other options beyond their current participation (listing their cus- tomer service phone number). Impacts. PSTA has a fully staffed call center that is avail- able to the public 7 days a week. The agency does not object to having 511 give out their telephone number, but they do not feel that replaces their call center. PSTA did not identify any impacts associated with partic- ipating in the Tampa Bay 511 system. They have no objection to the system giving out the telephone number or directing callers to the agency website. Issues. Currently, the 511 system has a focus on real- time traffic incident reports. PSTA currently does not have the technology in place to provide information about service disruptions to the 511 system in a timely manner. However, PSTA is installing an automatic vehicle location (AVL) sys- tem for their buses and expects to be able to offer real-time information to riders. Outlook. Once PSTA’s AVL system is operational, the agency may increase their 511 involvement by providing real- time information. 3.4.2.3 King County Metro Transit (Seattle) King County Metro (Metro) provides transit service throughout the Seattle metropolitan area. This multimodal agency offers bus, trackless trolley, streetcar, and paratran- sit services for the disabled and operates the largest publicly operated vanpool program in the county. With a service area of 2,100 sq mi, Metro provided 96.6 million unlinked trips in 2005. The agency has about 1,300 vehicles. (58) Metro maintains two separate call centers; one provides itinerary planning and the other handles complaints. The trip planning call center is available 24 h per day, 7 days per week. The complaint center has standard weekday business hours. The Washington State Department of Transportation spon- sors the statewide 511 system. The system, which became op- erational in 2003, provides telephone numbers for the state’s transit agencies but does not allow a direct transfer. Rationale for participation. We were unable to locate anyone at Metro who could provide any information on why or how Metro made decisions about participation in the 511 system. It is not clear whether they have intentionally restricted 63

their 511 participation to the call transfer feature or whether their 511 sponsor did not give them any other options. Impacts. Metro did not identify any impacts from par- ticipating in 511. Metro has no plans to replace its IVR with 511 and would need more information before doing so. First, the agency would need information about the anticipated change in call volume. Right now, they would not expect the call volume to change, except in the case of emergency. (“It’s just another avenue for people to get in touch with Metro.”) Issues. Currently, the 511 system requires callers seeking transit information to hang up and dial the transit agency di- rectly. Metro would like the system to provide a direct trans- fer to its call center. With a direct transfer option, however, Metro would want to upgrade its system to provide better information. For example, adding caller ID to its telephone system would allow the agency to track the source of the calls to the center. Outlook. Metro would be open to potential enhance- ment to their 511 participation if those enhancements would generate cost savings for them. For now, the biggest issue would be acquiring the technical ability to handle new ser- vices. Staff is “ready to go.” 3.4.3 Transit Agencies with No 511 Presence 3.4.3.1 Anchorage People Mover (Alaska) The municipality of Anchorage, AK, operates the People Mover public transportation service. People Mover provides fixed-route bus and contracted demand-response service in a 77-sq-mi area encompassing greater Anchorage with a pop- ulation of about 218,000. People Mover maintains a fleet of 55 buses serving 15 fixed routes. People Mover noted they were not approached or invited by the 511 sponsors and cites this as the main reason that they are not participating in the Alaska statewide 511 system, which is operated by the Alaska Department of Transporta- tion. They are quick to note, however, that the main reason they have not pursued possible 511 participation is that they have not had the time, being very busy with a new technology deployment (IVR, AVL, and mobile data computers). They feel that 511 is “a good concept,” but has stayed on their “back burner” because of the competing demands on their time and attention. When asked to speculate about the possible pros and cons of 511 participation, People Mover indicated that they would not expect any significant impacts from 511. People Mover stated, “I do not think 511 would help or hurt our operations;” and “I do not think 511 would result in more or less calls.” They did indicate that factors that they would consider when looking further into 511 participation include the following: • The cost of any associated technology investments needed to support 511 (including long-term operations and main- tenance costs), • Possible inconvenience to callers who called 511 only to find they need to transfer to People Mover for more infor- mation, and • Requirements that the 511 sponsor might impose regarding the type and format of transit information for 511. Of the numerous potential motivations for 511 participa- tion, the only one People Mover cited as a consideration was that 511 could be an easier number for customers—especially visitors—to remember,. It does not appear that People Mover ever considered 511 as an alternative to implementing their own IVR (which they have done). When asked to consider the possibility, they ex- pressed doubts about adequacy of cell phone coverage in por- tions of their area and the potentially high cell phone roaming costs that non-local 511 callers might experience. 3.4.3.2 Regional Transit District (Denver) The Regional Transit District (RTD) is a multimodal agency serving the Denver, CO, metropolitan area. RTD provides bus, light rail, and paratransit service. RTD’s service area covers 2,300 sq mi and comprises 38 municipalities with a combined population of 2.6 million. In 2005, RTD carried 86.3 million one-way trips and operated a total of 573 vehicles. (59) RTD has an IVR system and maintains a fully staffed call center. Agents are available from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M. on weekdays and from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. on weekends and holidays. RTD’s Talk-n-Ride Program allows callers to call RTD and receive scheduled arrival time for buses and rail via an IVR menu. The Colorado Department of Transportation sponsors the statewide 511 phone system. No transit information is pro- vided on 511. Rationale for participation. The Colorado 511 system includes no transit agencies. The RTD representative inter- viewed for this study, the customer service manager, was not involved in any 511 deliberations, and he was not able to find anyone who was involved at RTD. It may be the case that RTD was never provided the opportunity to participate in the Colorado 511 system. Regardless, they have not given 511 seri- ous consideration. Impacts. Because RTD is not currently included in 511, no impacts were identified. However, RTD believes that par- 64

ticipating in 511 would strain the capacity of its call center because they think that 511 could increase the total number of calls they receive. Outlook. RTD may look for opportunities to participate in 511. They feel 511 could be a benefit to the agency, especially if other transit agencies were included and that made available funds to support RTD 511 participation. This suggests that they think participating in 511 could involve costs to RTD. 3.4.3.3 Iowa 511 The Iowa statewide 511 system is operated by the Iowa Department of Transportation. The system became opera- tional in November 2002. The Iowa 511 system contains only traffic and road-weather information (i.e., icy roads, high winds, etc.). No information on transit is included on the system. Des Moines Area Transit Authority. The Des Moines Area Transit Authority (DART) provides fixed and flexible routes, paratransit service, and vanpools in the Des Moines, IA, metropolitan area. DART covers a service area of 141 sq mi with a population of 369,000. In 2005, DART provided 4.2 mil- lion one-way trips. (60) DART staffs a call center 7 days a week. DART also distrib- utes information to its customers through its website, e-mail, and area employers. Rationale for participation. The Iowa 511 system does not include information from any transit agencies. Based on our conversation with DART, it seems likely that DART was not given the opportunity to participate in 511, and therefore they have not really given it any formal consideration. Outlook. DART has focused on providing information to its customers through its website, call center, and relationships with area businesses. They do not see participation in 511 as critically important to their operation and believe that most people who go to 511 are looking for roadway information. Ottumwa Transit Authority and 10-15 Regional Transit Agency. Ottumwa’s transit agency is, strictly speaking, two organizations that serve two different functions. As the 10-15 Regional Transit Agency, they provide demand-response ser- vice, which is open to the general public in the 11-county, “Region 15” area, as defined by the Iowa Department of Trans- portation (IDOT) Office of Public Transit. The total size of the 10-15 service area is approximately 5,470 sq mi; the total 2000 population was approximately 178,000. The Ottumwa Tran- sit Authority provides fixed-route and demand-response bus transit service within the City of Ottumwa, IA, in a 16-sq-mi area with a population of about 25,000. (61) Ottumwa Transit Authority and 10-15 Regional Transit Agency (Ottumwa/10-15) share the same staff and facilities, including the same general manager. The agency employs a total of five office personnel, including the director. Customer service phone calls for both transit services are routed to the same operators (office staff who have additional duties beyond customer service phone support). Ottumwa/10-15 does not operate an IVR. Ottumwa/10-15 report that although they expressed inter- est to IDOT in participating in the 511 system, feeling that they had information of interest to the public, IDOT expressed no interest in including them on the system. Ottumwa explains that their motivation for wanting to be involved in 511 was general, reflecting both a desire to “come to the table” and be involved, as well as “just another way to let our customers know that we’re out here.” Ottumwa/10-15 had no expecta- tions or concerns in regard to whether and how participa- tion in 511 could impact the volume of calls to their agency. They indicated that they saw no downside associated with 511 participation. 3.4.3.4 Tri-Met (Portland) The Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is a multimodal transit agency serving greater Port- land. Tri-Met’s service network includes a 44-mi light-rail system, 92 bus lines, and specialized service for seniors and people with disabilities. Tri-Met’s service area encompasses 574 sq mi with a population of 1.3 million people. In 2005, Tri-Met provided more than 104 million one-way trips. Tri- Met directly operates 623 vehicles and utilizes a contractor to operate 233 demand-response vehicles. (62) Tri-Met’s customer service center provides assistance with trip planning from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday. In addition, TransitTracker™ provides schedules and real-time arrival information via telephone or web 24 h per day. The Oregon Department of Transportation operates the state’s 511 system, which has been operational since 2003. Transit information is not included. Rationale for participation. The Oregon 511 system contains no transit information and Tri-Met was not invited to participate in the system when it was originally developed and implemented. However, after the 511 system was opera- tional, Tri-Met did become aware of 511, called some of the 511 systems around the country, and read the 511 Deployment Coalition guidance. They then approached their 511 system administrator to explore the possibility of adding themselves and other transit agencies to the 511 system. It seems that the 511 system administrator was at least open to the possibility, 65

but those discussions have never occurred, because both Tri-Met and Oregon 511 staff became distracted with other activities. Generally, Tri-Met did not see 511 as a core component of their customer service strategy. Rather, they liked the general concept of 511 as a consolidated, multimodal traveler infor- mation resource that would be especially useful to newcomers to the region or travelers passing through and were interest- ing in doing their part to support that concept. They did not expect to divert any of their customer service calls to 511 because they think that most of their customers will ultimately want to speak to a Tri-Met call taker or will want the kind of complex trip planning information that is not feasible to main- tain on 511. They also did not see much of an advantage of 511 as an easier-to-remember phone number for their customers. They feel that their well-marketed “238-RIDE” customer ser- vice number is about as easy to remember as 511. The only downside that Tri-Met envisioned with 511 was that, ulti- mately, almost all of their current customers (as opposed to new residents) calling 511 would need to transfer to Tri-Met. They did not view that possible inconvenience as a reason to avoid participation in 511, but rather just a limitation on the value of 511 and the role it would play in their customer information strategy. Tri-Met does not view 511 as any sort of alternative to their own IVR. They do not feel comfortable relinquishing control of how they present information to their customers to any other organization, including the 511 administrator. They take great pride in their customer service and see it as one of their core functions and something over which they want to retain control. They also felt that there would be too many technical challenges associated with inputting and maintain- ing their large route and schedule database on 511. Issues. Tri-Met cited no 511 issues per se, since they are not participating, but they are facing some challenges in re- gard to their own customer information services. Many of the agents in Tri-Met’s call center have seniority and are expected to retire soon. As a result, the agency is looking for technol- ogy solutions that will help offset the need to hire new staff. When TransitTracker was introduced in 2004, usage was “off the charts” and Tri-Met is continuing to improve the product’s usability. The volume of calls to customer service dropped about one third during the past year, and Tri-Met can handle the current call volume with existing staff. Outlook. Tri-Met has no immediate plans to try to renew discussions with the 511 system administrator regarding par- ticipation by Tri-Met or other transit agencies. It simply is not a high priority. Their focus is on improving their traveler in- formation systems, including TransitTracker. 3.5 Interviews with 511 System Administrators The results of the 12 interviews with 511 system adminis- trators are organized around the following four major topics discussed: • Rationale for transit content decisions, • Satisfaction with current content and plans for changes, • Transit agency funding participation, and • Transit-related 511 operating statistics. 3.5.1 Rationale for Transit Content Decisions The rationale for including transit and the specific types of transit information varied based on individual circumstances among the six agencies that have integrated transit into their systems. Generally, the decision to include transit reflected an acceptance of the national vision for 511 as a multimodal information resource, even if the transit content is limited. In many cases, limiting transit content and features to a call trans- fer to transit agency customer service represented an expedient way to include transit in the system and recognize that transit agencies already have telephone customer service systems. Among the six agencies interviewed that include no transit information on their 511 systems, the rationale for the deci- sion also varied significantly. Alaska included only informa- tion about ferry services because they view 511 as a resource only for transportation systems operated statewide, and only ferry services are statewide (other public transportation ser- vices vary and are operated independently in specific locations). Several 511 administrators said that transit agencies were invited to participate but were not interested. Washington State said that they wanted to include transit but the transit agencies did not want to lose any control in how they provide information to their customers. Colorado based its decision to not include transit on a survey of travelers that indicated lit- tle interest in transit information on 511. Both Colorado and Oregon indicated that the fact that transit agencies provide their own information via telephone and websites was part of their decision not to include transit on 511. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet said that transit agencies were prima- rily interested in having a presence on the 511 website rather than the statewide 511 telephone system (transit agencies are included in the regional Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 511 system operated by Ohio). None of the 511 administrators cited the absence of any technological capabilities on the part of transit agencies as playing a role in their fundamental decision to include or not include transit information. 66

Almost all of the 511 administrators who were inter- viewed were well aware of the 511 Deployment Coalition’s guidance on transit content when they made their transit decisions (several interviewees indicated that the decisions were made prior to the guidance and that no system changes have been made since). Although some administrators fol- lowed the recommendations, others did not and do not seem concerned about it (that is, did not view the exclusion of transit or providing less than the minimum recommended content as compromising the concept of 511 as a multimodal resource.) 3.5.2 Satisfaction with Current Content and Plans for Changes Most of the agencies without transit information are gen- erally not concerned with the fact that their 511 system is not multimodal and they do not have plans for changes. One exception is the Washington State Department of Transporta- tion, which hopes to add a call-transfer option. Other states anticipated improvements in information for other travel markets, including tourism (Georgia) and freight (Iowa), but have no plans to change their approach to transit. Several of the systems with transit information have plans for improvement. The Arizona system recently added four rural transit agencies to its 511 system and would consider adding more. The Boston area system wants to use market- ing activities to attract more transit users to its site. Boston and San Diego would like to utilize global positioning sys- tem technology to add location-sensitive transit informa- tion. Alaska expects to include transit information on their updated 511 website and may consider a call-transfer option in the future. Some agencies would like to add additional transit infor- mation or features but have not done so due to funding constraints. San Diego would like to provide travelers with real-time alerts to vehicle delays when funding permits. Utah would like to incorporate real-time travel transit information (vehicle arrival/departure times) into their 511 system when funding is available. 3.5.3 Transit Agency Funding Participation None of the twelve 511 systems receive any funding from transit agencies. The only system to cite the lack of transit- related funding as playing any role in their fundamental decision to include transit was the Oregon Department of Transportation, which explained that their 511 program is funded with highway-based (gas tax) revenues that cannot be used for transit. 3.5.4 Transit-Related 511 Operating Statistics All of the 511 systems with transit content track transit- related use of their systems but most do not share that infor- mation with transit agencies because the transit agencies have never asked for the information. Two exceptions are San Diego, where the administrator of the SANDAG 511 system shares quarterly statistics with a steering committee that in- cludes transit agencies, and Georgia, where statistics are shared with all 511 participating agencies on a weekly and as-needed basis. Some 511 system administrators suspect that the lack of interest in transit-related statistics is due to the fact that transit constitutes such a very low proportion of 511 use (Arizona estimates that fewer than 1% of their calls include a transit- related menu selection). 3.6 Transit Rider Focus Group The focus group was held on January 7, 2009, and included six participants—five men and one woman. All were experi- enced transit riders, and the majority had been UTA riders for quite some time (e.g., one participant had been riding since 1985). Several of the participants do not drive or have auto- mobiles, and one had experience with the Utah 511 system. All participants use UTA fixed-route bus services, and the majority had used the UTA light rail system. After the welcome by UTA, the study team described the purpose of the focus group and offered ground rules for par- ticipants to observe while providing input. The results of the focus group are divided into two subsections describing par- ticipants’ experience with transit information and reactions to an automated transit information system, and experience and reactions to the Utah 511 system. Focus group results are organized into two main sections, the first pertaining to the participants’ perceptions with automated transit telephone information in general and the second pertaining to their perceptions with the Utah 511 system, including the transit component. These two sets of findings relate, respectively, to the two objectives of the focus group, which are as follows: • To investigate transit users’ perceptions regarding the 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 IVR (i.e., without an operator), regardless of whether that system is operated by an individual transit agency or is a 511 system; and • To investigate the fundamental rationale for providing transit information on 511. 67

3.6.1 Automated Telephone Information about Transit In terms of the participants’ information needs, the infor- mation most requested is about schedules and trip planning. Specifically, information is requested regarding finding a route, finding services near a particular address, how to reach a certain destination, bus/train status, and bus/train sched- ules. Participants used two sources to obtain this informa- tion: the Internet (the UTA website) and the UTA customer service telephone line. However, a few participants men- tioned that they obtain better information by calling cus- tomer service rather than trying to obtain the information via the UTA website. None of the participants had experience with a transit IVR. The two concerns raised about IVR systems in general were that voice recognition can be a problem and it is sometimes hard to reach an operator with whom to speak. The study team demonstrated a transit IVR—the Portland, OR, Tri-Met IVR, which provides a variety of rider informa- tion and customer service (503-238-7433). The study team played each menu selection on the Tri-Met IVR, which is as follows: 1. TransitTracker (this is the Tri-Met real-time information system) arrival times for buses and trains; 2. Latest service alerts; 3. Live trip planning assistance; 4. Comments/suggestions, security concerns, or problems with a ticket vending machine; 5. Lost/found; 6. Fare information; and 7. Administrative offices. After running through all of the menu items, the arrival times menu item (No. 1) was demonstrated. After this demon- stration, the study team ran through the menu items one more time. Participants were supportive of a transit IVR, although sev- eral people commented that “everything works okay now.” This statement was interpreted to mean that the participants were satisfied with calling customer service to obtain infor- mation they needed. An interest was expressed in real-time information, with a caveat that it “has to be accurate.” Gen- erally, participants liked the Tri-Met IVR, especially the menu and availability of real-time information. However, a few par- ticipants commented that this IVR did not mention how to reach an operator. Overall, participants are willing to use an IVR rather than ask their question of an operator as long as the IVR informa- tion is accurate and comprehensive. However, the participants do feel that the option to transfer to an operator if needed should always be provided. Even though participants are sat- isfied with UTA information provided by customer service, they would like access to information (i.e., recorded infor- mation) in off-hours. 3.6.2 Transit Information on 511 Hardly any of the focus group participants drive. This is significant in terms of interpreting the participants’ com- ments about, and reactions to, the Utah 511 system. Two of the six participants had heard of Utah 511—one person had used it once and the other person is a frequent user. They heard about 511 on a commercial radio advertisement and saw it in the telephone book. Participants felt that 511 has very low visibility in their area, and a newcomer would be un- likely to learn about it. This response is critical in understand- ing if 511 is indeed easier to remember and market (two of the original rationales for providing transit on 511 systems). Of the two Utah 511 users, neither is very satisfied with the system. Their criticisms of the system included that the voice recognition does not work well, the transit information pro- vided is not accurate, the menu is not friendly, and the traffic information is out of date when compared to traffic informa- tion provided over the radio. One of the participants familiar with 511 questioned how 511 obtains traffic information. The study team demonstrated Utah’s 511 system, which provides information on traffic and transit (866-511-8824). The study team played each menu selection on Utah’s 511 system, which is as follows: 1. Traffic, 2. Public transit, 3. Road conditions, 4. Ferries, and 5. Surrounding states. The study team played all of the public transit menu selec- tions, which are as follows: 1. Buses, 2. TRAX light rail, 3. Flextrans, and 4. Rideshare. Each public transit menu selection on 511 had pre- recorded general information about each of these services. From anywhere in the public transit menu, a 511 user can say “connect me” to effect a call transfer to UTA’s customer service line. When asked how the current 511 system could be improved, the participants offered that the information on the 511 sys- tem should be more up to date and accurate, and the voice 68

recognition should be more sophisticated (including sensitiv- ity to background noise). Further, a concern was expressed regarding the lack of a live operator and the fact that a cus- tomer cannot obtain schedule or trip planning information directly from 511. Participants felt that the ability to transfer to UTA from the 511 system is critical. Another comment regarding the transit aspect of the 511 system is that any 511 system should have transit information. These comments support several of the original rationales for providing transit on 511. However, par- ticipants did not feel that 511 is more visible or easy to remem- ber than the UTA phone number, which is “RIDE-UTA.” This phone number was thought to be memorable and very visible (there is a sign at each stop that has the RIDE-UTA phone number). These comments do not support the two original rationales that 511 is indeed easier to remember and market. Even though participants did not do a lot of driving, they were positive about the idea of integrated transit and traffic available in one place, or having both traffic and transit infor- mation on both the UTA customer service line and 511. Fur- ther, participants said that providing access to 511 from the UTA customer service line, and vice versa, would be a good feature. Overall, most participants would transfer to UTA from 511, and some would support using traffic and transit information for general trip planning. There was a consensus on the theoretical value of linking and merging traffic and transit information (theoretical because few of the partici- pants drive), because some UTA services operate on roads that are monitored by 511. This clearly supports the last rationale for providing transit on 511—consolidating transit and traffic information on a single phone system. Although generally supportive of the concept of transit information on 511, the participants noted that there was no real incentive for them to call 511 at this point—they would prefer to continue calling UTA directly since 511 does not offer anything of value to them (this excludes traffic informa- tion since most of the participants do not drive) that UTA does not already provide. 69

Next: Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Recommendations »
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!