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 R1
TRANSIT
TCRP REPORT 134
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
Transit, Call Centers, and 511:
A Guide for Decision Makers
OCR for page R2
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
SELECTION COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
Robert I. Brownstein
AECOM Consult, Inc. CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of
MEMBERS Governments, Arlington
Ann August
Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
John Bartosiewicz
McDonald Transit Associates MEMBERS
Michael Blaylock
J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
Linda J. Bohlinger Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
HNTB Corp. Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Raul Bravo Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Raul V. Bravo & Associates Norfolk, VA
Gregory Cook
Veolia Transportation
William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Terry Garcia Crews David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond
StarTran Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Nathaniel P. Ford, Jr. Virginia, Charlottesville
SF Municipal Transportation Agency Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN
Kim R. Green
GFI GENFARE Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC
Jill A. Hough Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento
North Dakota State University Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Angela Iannuzziello Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
ENTRA Consultants Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
John Inglish
Utah Transit Authority Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
Jeanne W. Krieg Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR
David A. Lee Rosa Clausell Rountree, Consultant, Tyrone, GA
Connecticut Transit
Clarence W. Marsella
Steve T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Denver Regional Transportation District Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Gary W. McNeil C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
GO Transit Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando
Michael P. Melaniphy Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR
Motor Coach Industries
Frank Otero
PACO Technologies EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Keith Parker Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC
Charlotte Area Transit System
Jeffrey Rosenberg
Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
Amalgamated Transit Union George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York
Michael Scanlon University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
San Mateo County Transit District James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Beverly Scott Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
James S. Simpson
Administration, U.S.DOT
FTA LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the
James Stem Interior, Washington, DC
United Transportation Union Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Frank Tobey John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
First Transit
Officials, Washington, DC
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
APTA U.S.DOT
Robert E. Skinner, Jr.
TRB William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
John C. Horsley Lynne A. Osmus, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
AASHTO Jeffrey F. Paniati, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration,
Jeffrey F. Paniati U.S.DOT
FHWA Steven K. Smith, Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration,
TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR U.S.DOT
Louis Sanders Jo Strang, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
APTA Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
SECRETARY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Christopher W. Jenks Matthew Welbes, Executive Director and Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
TRB U.S.DOT
*Membership as of February 2009. *Membership as of February 2009.
OCR for page R3
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 134
Transit, Call Centers, and 511:
A Guide for Decision Makers
BATTELLE
Columbus, OH
TRANSYSTEMS
Boston, MA
OAK SQUARE RESOURCES
Brighton, MA
Subject Areas
Planning and Administration · Public Transit
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2009
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 134
The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project A-31
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current ISSN 1073-4872
systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand ISBN 978-0-309-11789-0
service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve Library of Congress Control Number 2009931478
these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to © 2009 Transportation Research Board
adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro-
duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report
published or copyrighted material used herein.
213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes from CRP.
research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran-
sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit
research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,
NOTICE
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research
administrative practices.
Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review
lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration
for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions
ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and
Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not
Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,
nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and
Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to
procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or
Committee defines funding levels and expected products. manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are
considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed
by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state-
ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni-
cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process
for developing research problem statements and selecting research
agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro-
grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve
voluntarily without compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-
Published reports of the
nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-
sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from:
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at
address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 134
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lawrence D. Goldstein, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Editor
TCRP PROJECT A-31 PANEL
Field of Operations
Robin Cody, Jeskell, Inc., Concord, CA (Chair)
Madinah Ali, MSA Global Advisory Group, Decatur, GA
Rob Andresen, First Transit, Inc., Denver, CO
Sandra J. Check, New Jersey Transit Corporation, Kearny, NJ
Mark Hickman, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Jianling Li, University of Texas--Arlington, TX
Barbara A. Parker, Orlando, FL
Patricia E. Vidaurri, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX
Raj Wagley, FTA Liaison
Jane Hardin, Community Transportation Association of America Liaison
Louis F. Sanders, APTA Liaison
Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project A-31 by Battelle Memorial Institute,
TranSystems Corporation, and Oak Square Resources. The work undertaken by TranSystems and Oak
Square Resources was under a subcontract with Battelle.
Matt Burt, Senior Research Scientist, Battelle, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this
report are Carol Schweiger, Vice President, TranSystems; Santosh Mishra, Transportation Planner, Tran-
Systems; and Susan Bregman, Principal, Oak Square Resources. The work was done under the general
supervision of Mr. Burt. The work at TranSystems was done under the supervision of Ms. Schweiger.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Lawrence D. Goldstein
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
TCRP Report 134: Transit, Call Centers, and 511: A Guide for Decision Makers provides a com-
prehensive review of the operational characteristics of 511 telephone traveler information sys-
tems and how 511 systems interact with transit system call centers. This report inventories exist-
ing 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 sys-
tem administrators in determining a viable transit-511 telephone strategy.
When in July 2000 the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) designated "5-1-1"
as the three-digit telephone number for access to traveler information nationally, it was
envisioned as a central source of highway and public transportation information for the
traveling public. Once, designated, however, implementation procedures as well as funding
options were left entirely to state and local agencies. In response, transit agencies expressed
concern that the 511 system would ultimately affect their call center operations by generat-
ing a significant increase in call volume, requiring both additional staffing and costs.
By March 2009, there were forty-two 511 traveler information systems operating
throughout the country with varying degrees of transit system interaction. Battelle Memo-
rial Institute, under TCRP Project A-31, interviewed the operators of those systems along
with nearly thirty transit agencies to explore current interactions, perceived and actual oper-
ational difficulties, impact on call center cost and quality of service, and opportunities for
future improvements. Based on an evaluation of those interviews and information gathered
from a transit-rider focus group, the researchers provide guidance on formulating transit-
511 telephone strategies appropriate to varying local conditions, needs, and resources. The
researchers also explore implications for transit agency application of available and emerg-
ing telephone customer information technologies.
The guide addresses a wide range of factors that vary by region, and that variation is
important in understanding how and why approaches to implementing 511 systems differ.
These factors include the importance of providing multi-modal (traffic and transit) infor-
mation through a single-phone system; the necessity to provide consolidated information
for multiple transit agencies; the often greater demand by transit information seekers for
more complex information (including schedule, route and trip-planning information) that
is not adequately addressed through an automated system like 511; and the relative visibil-
ity of and awareness by transit information seekers of the "5-1-1" number versus local tran-
sit customer service center numbers.
Transit agencies can use the results of this study in three primary ways. First, they can
consider the state-of-the-practice information and recommendations on call center tech-
nologies and practices to reassess their own practices. Second, they can use the information
OCR for page R8
on current transit 511-related practices and experiences to expand their overall understand-
ing of the potential role of 511 as part of a comprehensive call center/customer information
strategy. Third, they can use the 511 guidance to decide whether and how to pursue partic-
ipation in the 511 phone system or, if they are already participating, to reassess their level
of and expectations from that participation.
The study presents several key findings: (1) few 511 systems include even basic transit
content and features recommended by the national 511 Deployment Coalition; (2) few
transit agencies or 511 system administrators cite any significant adverse impacts associated
with their 511 telephone system participation; and (3) in most regions, even modest bene-
fits of transit participation in 511 phone systems justify participation. Significant benefits
are most likely realizable primarily in certain environments--those with multiple transit
providers and significant numbers of travelers who make day-to-day mode choice decisions
based on a combination of traffic and transit information. Significant benefits can also
include relief to transit call centers by providing a one-stop shop for comprehensive traffic
and transit information.
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
1 Summary
8 Chapter 1 Overview
8 1.1 Background
9 1.2 Objectives
9 1.3 Research Tasks
10 Chapter 2 Research Approach
10 2.1 Literature Review
10 2.2 National Inventory of Operational 511 Systems
11 2.3 Transit Agency Case Studies
13 2.4 Non-Transit Call Center Interviews
14 2.5 511 System Administrator Interviews
14 2.6 Transit Rider Focus Group
17 Chapter 3 Findings and Applications
17 3.1 Transit Agency Telephone Information Strategies
17 3.1.1 Overall Customer Information Approaches
17 3.1.1.1 Customer Information Needs and Preferences
18 3.1.1.2 Information Provided by Transit Agencies
19 3.1.1.3 Dissemination Methods/Technologies Utilized
20 3.1.1.4 Matching Dissemination Methods/Technologies
with Customer Needs and Preferences
22 3.1.2 Transit Call Center Strategies
22 3.1.2.1 Central versus Decentralized Call Centers
22 3.1.2.2 Hours of Operation and Staffing
22 3.1.2.3 Technologies
25 3.1.2.4 Metrics
26 3.1.3 Implications of Agency Size and Type
28 3.2 Telephone Information Strategies of Other Organizations
28 3.2.1 Similarities and Differences between Transit and Non-Transit
Call Centers
28 3.2.2 Implications for Transit Agencies
29 3.3 Overview of Transit Agency Involvement in 511 Systems
29 3.3.1 Transit-Related 511 Guidelines from the 511 Deployment Coalition
29 3.3.2 Extent and Type of Involvement
29 3.3.2.1 Operational 511 Systems
30 3.3.2.2 Transit Agency Participation in 511 Systems
32 3.3.2.3 Transit Participation in Relation to 511 Deployment
Coalition Guidelines
32 3.3.2.4 References from 511 Systems to 211 or 311
32 3.3.3 Differences between 511-Integrated and Non-Integrated Agencies
32 3.3.3.1 Customer Information and Call Center Approaches
33 3.3.3.2 Participation in Non-511 Traveler Information Systems
OCR for page R10
34 3.3.4 Transit-Related 511 Operating Statistics
35 3.4 Transit Agency Case Studies
36 3.4.1 Transit Agencies Integrated with 511
36 3.4.1.1 Arizona 511
38 3.4.1.2 El Dorado Transit (Sacramento California, Area)
39 3.4.1.3 Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky
39 3.4.1.4 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority
40 3.4.1.5 Island Explorer (Bar Harbor, Maine)
41 3.4.1.6 Duluth Transit Authority (Minnesota)
41 3.4.1.7 Charlotte Area Transit (North Carolina)
42 3.4.1.8 San Diego 511
45 3.4.1.9 Sun Tran (St. George, Utah)
45 3.4.1.10 Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority
46 3.4.1.11 Blacksburg Transit (Virginia)
46 3.4.1.12 Southeast Florida 511
52 3.4.1.13 San Francisco Bay Area 511
62 3.4.2 Transit Agencies with a Presence on 511 but No Integration
62 3.4.2.1 Manchester Transit Authority (New Hampshire)
63 3.4.2.2 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (Tampa Bay)
63 3.4.2.3 King County Metro Transit (Seattle)
64 3.4.3 Transit Agencies with No 511 Presence
64 3.4.3.1 Anchorage People Mover (Alaska)
64 3.4.3.2 Regional Transit District (Denver)
65 3.4.3.3 Iowa 511
65 3.4.3.4 Tri-Met (Portland)
66 3.5 Interviews with 511 System Administrators
66 3.5.1 Rationale for Transit Content Decisions
67 3.5.2 Satisfaction with Current Content and Plans for Changes
67 3.5.3 Transit Agency Funding Participation
67 3.5.4 Transit-Related 511 Operating Statistics
67 3.6 Transit Rider Focus Group
68 3.6.1 Automated Telephone Information about Transit
68 3.6.2 Transit Information on 511
70 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Recommendations
70 4.1 Conclusions
70 4.1.1 Transit Agency Participation in 511 Systems
70 4.1.1.1 National Overview of 511 Systems and Transit Participation
71 4.1.1.2 Influence of Transit Agency Size, Call Center Sophistication
and Participation in Other Traveler Information Systems
71 4.1.1.3 Transit Rationale for Participation/Non-Participation
in 511
72 4.1.1.4 Impacts of 511 Participation on Transit Agencies
74 4.1.1.5 Transit Agencies' 511 Plans
74 4.1.2 Perspectives of 511 System Administrators on Transit Participation
74 4.1.2.1 Buy-In on 511 as a Multimodal Resource
75 4.1.2.2 Coordination between 511 and Transit
75 4.1.2.3 Transit 511 Website Participation
OCR for page R11
75 4.1.3 Transit Customer Perspectives on 511
75 4.1.3.1 Viability of Automated Transit Telephone Information
75 4.1.3.2 Transit Information on 511
76 4.1.4 Transit Agency Call Center Strategies
76 4.1.4.1 The Role of the Telephone in Transit Customer
Information
77 4.1.4.2 Implications of Telephone Information Strategies
of Non-Transit Organizations
77 4.2 Recommendations
77 4.2.1 Guidance for Determining a Specific 511 Strategy
77 4.2.1.1 General Recommendations on the Applicability of Basic
and Additional Transit Information on 511
78 4.2.1.2 Basic Transit Information
79 4.2.1.3 Additional Transit Information
79 4.2.2 Transit Utilization of Advanced Telephone Customer Service
Technologies and Practices
79 4.2.2.1 Consider Greater Utilization of Proven, Advanced
Technologies and Techniques
81 4.2.2.2 Consider N11 Systems as Part of an Overall
Customer Service Strategy
81 4.3 Plan for Implementing the Research Findings
83 References
85 Appendix A Transit Agency Interview Questionnaire
88 Appendix B Transit Rider Focus Group Discussion Guide
