Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
75
The role of these issues in determining a transit 511 strategy 4.1.3.1 Viability of Automated Transit
is explored in Section 4.2.1. Telephone Information
Although there was a minimal amount of experience with
4.1.2.2 Coordination between 511 and Transit automated systems (particularly transit systems), transit rid-
In several cases, the current state of the 511 system in re- ers were supportive of accessing transit information on an
gard to transit content was identified as something that was IVR information system. Focus group participants said they
considered some time ago, when the system was initially de- were willing to rely primarily on an automated system pro-
signed, but has not been reconsidered. It also appears that if vided that the information was accurate and comprehensive
transit considerations at that time included a dialogue be- and that an operator was available if needed. Interest in an
tween the 511 administrator and the transit agency, that dia- automated system is greater when real-time (vehicle arrival/
logue was fairly limited and, once completed, the resulting departure time) information is available.
decision has not been reconsidered. Finally, in several cases, This finding, along with the fact that many transit agencies
the recollections of the 511 system administrator are incon- have invested in, and have derived benefit from, IVR systems,
sistent with those of the transit agency--at least the specific indicates that there is nothing about transit traveler informa-
individuals that were interviewed. Specifically, there are sev- tion that makes it inherently unsuitable for dissemination via
eral cases where the administrator says that transit was invited IVR systems. Although automated information systems can-
to participate but declined and the transit agency represen- not address all of the information needs of every transit cus-
tative says that they do not remember ever being given the tomer, they can be a very important part of a transit agency's
opportunity to participate. These discrepancies may be the overall customer service strategy. Further, this suggests that
result of imprecise memory or staff turnover. Regardless, they providing transit information through a 511 system (which,
underscore how inter-agency communication and coordina- by definition is automated) is fundamentally viable. It also
tion that may have occurred long ago, and which may or may validates the 511 Deployment Coalition guidance stating that
not remain valid or even remembered by the participants, call transfers to transit agency customer service should be
continues to fundamentally shape current 511 operations. provided from 511, since focus group participants expressed
belief that access to an operator is important.
4.1.2.3 Transit 511 Website Participation
A few of the 511 administrators interviewed indicated that 4.1.3.2 Transit Information on 511
the fact that transit information is included in the web ver-
As noted previously, the focus group and the successful
sion of their 511 system played some role in their decision
experiences of transit agencies indicate that providing tran-
(and/or the decision of the transit agencies) not to include
sit information through an IVR is viable. Further, the op-
transit, or not to include much transit, in their 511 telephone
system. For example, Oregon cited this as a consideration and tion of a call transfer to a transit call taker is vital. However,
Alaska has made adding transit to their website a higher pri- the focus group findings (as well as the limited 511 system
ority than adding it to their telephone system. This suggests usage statistics for transit that are available) suggest that
that one set of recommendations or criteria pertaining to other parts of the rationale for transit on 511 will not always
transit and 511 may not be appropriate to cover both the web be valid.
and telephone versions of 511. Specifically, the focus group results do not support the
notion that having transit information on 511 is always ben-
eficial because seekers of transit information might find it
4.1.3 Transit Customer Perspectives on 511 easier to find or remember 511 rather than the phone num-
Study conclusions related to transit riders--both their per- ber of specific transit agencies. Despite many years of 511
ceptions regarding telephone transit information as well as marketing in the Salt Lake region, focus group participants
transit information on 511--are based primarily on the focus did not feel that 511 was very visible and found it unlikely
group conducted with six Utah Transit Authority riders in that a newcomer or visitor to the region would learn about
Salt Lake City. Although the limited scale of the research pre- the local 511 system earlier than they would learn about the
cludes definitive conclusions, a number of informative pre- heavily-marketed and easily remembered UTA customer
liminary conclusions can be identified, then organized into service number (RIDE-UTA) or find it easier than the UTA
those pertaining to transit information on IVR systems in phone number. The focus groups also indicated that in many
general and those pertaining to the rationale for providing communities around the country like Salt Lake City in which
transit information on 511. all or almost all public transportation is provided by a single
