![](media/image1.png){width="8.740277777777777in"
height="11.247916666666667in"}

**Executive Summary**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40685847 .anchor}

This document presents the results of the evaluation of the ITS Field
Operational Test (FOT) at Acadia National Park. Through the partnership
of the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Interior, Acadia National
Park in the State of Maine was selected for the FOT to test the
effectiveness of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in dealing
with transportation problems within a National Park setting. ITS has
provided effective tools for dealing with problems of traffic congestion
in other settings, and the partners believed that testing the
application of ITS in a National Park was warranted.

The ITS technologies were deployed over a two-year period and in 2002
they were evaluated to determine the impact of ITS on Acadia and the
surrounding communities of Mount Desert Island. The benefits, impacts,
and lessons learned that are documented in this report are directed not
only to those associated with the FOT, but also to others involved with
National Parks, gateway communities, and others interested in the
potential for ITS in addressing similar transportation problems.

**Background on the ITS Field Operational Test**

As part of the National Park System, Acadia has as its dual mission the
preservation of natural and cultural resources and providing visitors
with a meaningful and pleasant experience. The mission is challenged by
the intense usage that Acadia receives during the summer tourist season
owing to its proximity to the population centers of the Northeast and
the attraction of its pristine natural environment and the rugged beauty
of the New England coast. Over 90% of visitors arrive by private
vehicle, straining the capacity of the road system and parking areas
within the Park and in the communities of Mount Desert Island, on which
Acadia is located.

To develop an ITS plan to address the transportation problems at Acadia
National Park, a project team was formed that consisted:

-   local stakeholders---Acadia National Park, Maine Department of
    Transportation, Friends of Acadia, Maine Office of Tourism, and
    other local groups including representatives of local towns and
    businesses

-   representatives of the sponsoring Federal agencies---U.S. DOT ITS
    Joint Program Office, FHWA Division Office, FHWA Federal Lands, and
    the National Park Service

-   SAIC, Multisystems, and other contractors to assist in the design
    and implementation of ITS.

Together they planned a suite of nine different ITS components to
support the region's needs for public transportation management, traffic
management, and traveler information. In the area of public
transportation, the FOT was able to build on the success of the Island
Explorer, a bus system launched in 1999 to provide free service during
the tourist season throughout much of Mount Desert Island. Five of the
nine components in the table below were used to enhance the operations
of the Island Explorer. The remaining four components were to be used
for assisting the Park in management of traffic and to provide real-time
traveler information to visitors.

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **System Component**     | **Functional Requirements**               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Island Explorer Two-way  | Transmit and receive to/from/between      |
| Voice Communications     | vehicles and dispatch center              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Automatic Vehicle        | Compute and transmit vehicle location.    |
| Locator for Island       |                                           |
| Explorer                 | Integrate vehicle locations with          |
|                          | departure signs. Display vehicle          |
|                          | locations. Integrate into annunciator     |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Departure Sign for       | Transmit location. Compute departure.     |
| Island Explorer          | Transmit to departure signs               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Automated Annunciator    | Determine location. Automatically play    |
| for Island Explorer      | next stop and other pertinent             |
|                          | announcements                             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Passenger Counter for    | Auto-count boardings/ dismounts at        |
| Island Explorer          | selected stops. Store information.        |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Parking Lot Monitoring   | Record number of vehicles entering and    |
|                          | exiting, provide slow scan video of       |
|                          | parking area, transmit data, display      |
|                          | video, store data from vehicle counts     |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Automatic Ranger/Vehicle | Determine location +-10 meters, transmit  |
|                          | same to server, display locations on map  |
| Geo-Location             |                                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Entrance Traffic Volume  | Record and transmit number of vehicles    |
| Recorder                 | entering and exiting, store data          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Traveler Information     | Collect and integrate data, disseminate   |
| System                   | data to appropriate audience via          |
|                          | telephone, Web, and parking status signs  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Originally planned to be operational in 2001, technical and
institutional difficulties arose that delayed the deployment for one
year. In addition, not all the originally planned features were
operational in 2002, such as the traffic counters as Park entrances and
parking lots. One component, the automatic ranger/vehicle geo-location
system was eliminated entirely for budgetary reasons.

**The Evaluation Process**

An independent evaluation of the ITS FOT took place from 2000 through
2003. Under contract to the U.S. DOT, Battelle Memorial Institute led
the evaluation with support from the University of Maine. Baseline data
that reflected conditions prior to the deployment of the ITS
technologies were collected for the years 1999-2001, and data collected
in 2002 measured the post-deployment impact of the ITS technologies.

A multi-step process was used to identify and prioritize the goals of
the evaluation. Consensus among the stakeholders identified customer
satisfaction and mobility as the top goals for the evaluation.
Maintaining the visitor experience was critical to both Acadia National
Park and to the communities of Mount Desert Island that rely upon the
tourist economy, and thus assessing ITS from those perspectives was
essential. However, importance was placed on assessment of other goal
areas as well, including safety, efficiency, productivity and economic
vitality, and energy and environment. Thus, evaluation plans were
developed and implemented for all six goal areas, with resources
allocated according to the priorities. Hypotheses regarding the
anticipated impact of ITS in each goal area were developed and tested.

A variety of methods were used to collect data for assessing impacts of
ITS. They included a mail survey of 928 visitors to Acadia in the summer
of 2002, representing a response rate of 74%. Visitors indicated their
perceptions of transportation problems during their visit, their
awareness and use of the ITS technologies, and the impact ITS had on
their travel experience. A mail survey of 257 businesses (60% response)
throughout Mount Desert Island was used to gather information on
business perceptions of the Island Explorer bus system and their
awareness and use and benefits associated with the ITS technologies.
Interviews with staff of the Island Explorer, Acadia National Park, and
other stakeholders were used to assess their experience with ITS from an
operational standpoint as well as to assess their overall deployment
experience. Direct observation of visitor parking patterns was conducted
in eight designated parking lots within the Park. Finally, operational
data from the Island Explorer and records from Acadia National Park and
various agencies within Maine State Government were used to assess the
impact of ITS.

**Results of the Evaluation**

Many of the hypothesized impacts of ITS were supported by the evidence
gathered. In other cases, the data were very limited but suggestive of
the anticipated effect. In a few cases the impact was not observed or
was counter to what was anticipated. Some of the key findings in each
goal area include:

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

-   Visitors rated their overall experience and satisfaction with their
    visit very high, but travel experience during their visit was rated
    lower. Visitors expressed most concern about unsafe conditions
    caused by vehicles parked along main roads. Other top concerns were
    the number of automobiles both inside and outside the Park and their
    impact on air quality.

-   ITS-users expressed more concern about travel issues in general than
    non-ITS users and sought means to alleviate those concerns via ITS
    and the Island Explorer. Non-users, on the other hand, were either
    less sensitive to travel conditions or had strategies for coping
    with problems that didn't involve the need for Island Explorer or
    ITS.

-   Visitors rated the ITS-based traveler information sources very
    highly (86% or more) on attributes of ease of use,
    understandability, and accuracy, and reported that the information
    helped relieve the stress or uncertainty of travel. The vast
    majority of users (78% or more) believed using the same ITS-based
    information again in a future visit would be a pleasant experience.
    Particularly promising are reports from ITS users that they would
    plan to use the information again.

-   Drivers and managers of the Island Explorer bus system expressed a
    high degree of satisfaction with the five ITS technologies
    associated with the buses. Managers believed that ITS improved bus
    operations and contributed to customer satisfaction, but they
    weren't sure if ITS directly increased ridership. Drivers felt that
    ITS made their jobs easier and helped them to cope with increasing
    traffic and ridership.

-   Park managers believed that parking lot status signs and bus
    departure signs have a positive influence on congestion and traffic
    by facilitating bus travel, whereas Park rangers believed that the
    Island Explorer with ITS enhancements is helping to alleviate
    congestion but were less enthusiastic about the parking information
    signs.

**[Mobility]{.underline}**

-   Real-time parking information was made it was easier for visitors to
    get around and avoid parking problems and traffic congestion. The
    parking information impacted decisions visitors made about travel in
    the Park. Of visitors using the parking information, 43% changed the
    time they visited a destination and 38% changed destinations based
    on the information.

-   Visitors strongly believed in the benefits of the Island Explorer's
    real-time bus departure signs and the on-board bus announcements.
    Over 80% found that these ITS technologies made it easier to get
    around and 69-80% visitors believed ITS helped to save time. These
    results were consistent with previous studies of Island Explorer
    passengers who voiced strong support for the bus system even before
    ITS was implemented.

-   Important goals of the ITS technologies were to enhance visitors'
    experience while at the same time encouraging them to use the Island
    Explorer bus rather than their private vehicles. ITS users of the
    electronic departure signs and on-board announcements reported that
    the technologies helped them decide to use the Island Explorer bus
    (80% and 67%, respectively). 44% of the users of the real time
    parking information said it helped them decide to use the Island
    Explorer bus. Thus, the ITS technologies appear to be contributing
    to the overall goal of diverting visitors from personal vehicles to
    using the Island Explorer bus.

**[Productivity and Economic Vitality]{.underline}**

-   The majority of managers of businesses on Mount Desert Island
    recognize the importance of tourism and the benefits to their
    business or community from being situated near Acadia National Park.
    Nevertheless, transportation was one area that drew negative views,
    and they were concerned about tourist season parking and congestion
    as well as issues of air quality and safety.

-   Business managers clearly believe that the Island Explorer bus
    system helps to address some of their concerns about summer travel
    conditions, and 69% of the businesses reported that they provide
    information to visitors about the bus. They perceive several
    benefits from visitors using the bus, such as less worry about
    driving and parking along busy roads, relieving the stress of
    driving, improving air quality, creating safer conditions, reducing
    parking problems in the Park and providing greater access to Park
    destinations.

-   Business managers didn't necessarily believe that more customers
    were patronizing their businesses because parking was less of a
    factor or that the Island Explorer would cause visitors to stay
    longer. On the other hand, managers of businesses whose customers
    and employees did not use the bus believed that businesses that were
    closer to a bus stop than their own enjoyed a competitive advantage.

-   The majority (61%) of business managers was not aware of ITS-based
    travel information sources, but their awareness was much greater for
    the technologies associated with the Island Explorer than the
    parking information signs and Website. Business managers perceived
    many benefits associated with visitors' use of both the parking
    information and the Island Explorer bus technologies.

-   Length of stay by visitors, a measure of economic impact, was
    positively correlated with use of the Island Explorer and with use
    of ITS technologies associated with the bus. However, there was a
    great deal of uncertainty among business managers about whether
    visitors who use the Island Explorer tend to stay longer.

-   While it was expected that the Island Explorer operations would
    benefit from productivity improvements resulting from ITS
    technologies, the opposite happened and operational costs increased
    from 2001 to 2002 for a variety of reasons. Despite this overall
    increase, the cost per rider and per mile driven did decline.

**[Efficiency]{.underline}**

-   While total recreational visitors to Acadia National Park during the
    summer season increased by 1.3% from 2001 to 2002, ridership of the
    Island Explorer increased by 17%. Thus, a higher proportion of
    Acadia summer recreational visitors used the bus after ITS was
    operational than before, growing from 15.6% in 2001 and 18.3% in
    2002.

-   Fewer vehicles were parked outside designated parking spaces (excess
    parking) aftert ITS technologies were implemented. In eight lots
    where parking was monitored, the percentage of days when more than
    300 vehicles were parked outside designated spaces fell from 54% in
    2001 to 33% in 2002. Similarly, the average number of excess parked
    vehicles per day fell from 325 in 2001 to 274 in 2002 even though
    total number of visitors to the Park grew.

-   The real-time parking information posted on signs and on the Park's
    Website was for two of the two most utilized parking lots, Sand
    Beach and Jordan Pond. Average excess parking per day at both lots
    fell after ITS was deployed.

-   The Island Explorer operations realized efficiency benefits after
    ITS implementation. Miles driven decreased slightly (-1.4%) even
    though ridership increased significantly (17%).

-   Interviews with Island Explorer staff indicated that voice
    communications between drivers and the dispatcher helped communicate
    information on large passenger loads and blocked roads. Managers
    voiced support for the automatic vehicle locator system for helping
    them with route management and monitoring buses for schedule
    adherence, speed, and position within the overall system.

**[Energy and Environment]{.underline}**

-   Visitors exhibited a high degree of concern about vehicles
    negatively impacting air quality on Mount Desert Island---it ranked
    among the top five problems related to travel experience during
    their trip to Acadia National Park.

-   Emissions modeling that took into account the increase in ridership
    of the Island Explorer indicated that air quality benefited from the
    bus system, with an estimated additional 1.17 tons of emissions
    avoided in 2002, the year that ITS was operational.

-   A reduction in excess parking at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond parking
    lots suggest that ITS by moving visitors away from full lots and
    putting more visitors on buses may help address aesthetic concerns
    about the sight of many vehicles parked along roads detracting from
    the natural beauty of the Park.

**[Safety]{.underline}**

-   Visitors to Acadia National Park identified safety as their top
    concern related to travel during their visit. Seventy percent of
    surveyed visitors thought that vehicles parked along the main roads
    caused unsafe conditions.

-   Motor vehicle accidents along routes of the Island Explorer within
    the Park decreased dramatically (-54%) during the summer months of
    2002.

-   The voice communications and automatic vehicle location technologies
    on the Island Explorer provided safety benefits to drivers and
    managers of the bus system. Drivers were able to report accidents
    and other hazardous conditions, and managers were able to remotely
    locate buses in emergency situations.

**Conclusions and Recommendations**

This evaluation of ITS at Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island
is based on one season of post-deployment experience. It is also based
on a deployment that was not yet fully realized, because not all of the
technologies were in place by the summer of 2002. Nevertheless, the
results of the evaluation lead to a number of conclusions about the
benefits that ITS provided. Recommendations based on these conclusions
are also presented for further consideration by the FOT stakeholders and
by other National Parks and gateway communities that must deal with
similar transportation problems. Some of the conclusions and
recommendations identified in this report include:

-   ITS contributed to a positive visitor experience and increased
    visitors' willingness to use transit rather than their own vehicles.
    Greater use of the Island Explorer appeared to be associated with
    improvements in air quality and possibly to overall traffic and
    motor vehicle crashes.

    -   The full deployment of the planned ITS technologies at Acadia
        should be completed and the system maintained so that the
        benefits can continue to be enjoyed.

-   Visitors who use ITS traveler information tend to be the most
    concerned about travel problems during their stay, and ITS helps
    alleviate the problems they perceive. Conversely, those visitors
    least concerned about problems associated with using their own
    vehicles within the Park are also the least likely to use the ITS
    sources of traveler information.

    -   Marketing messages promoting tourism at Acadia and Mount Desert
        Island should find a way to inform visitors of the travel
        problems they might encounter and emphasize the Island Explorer
        as a solution that is free and easy to use with the ITS
        enhancements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Real-time parking information, despite the limited deployment of
    signs at three locations and the Park Website, was used by visitors,
    who reacted to it positively. The information appears to have the
    desired effect of reducing excess parking at the two advertised
    parking lots that are the most popular destinations in the
    Park---Sand Beach and Jordan Pond. Although only about 40% of
    visitors reported they changed their plans based on real-time
    parking information, even that percent could help lessen the demand
    for parking. Indeed, the statistics on excess parking in the Park's
    lots suggest that ITS helped to lower demand for parking within the
    Park through a combination of real-time information on parking
    status provided to visitors and making visitors aware that the
    Island Explorer is an attractive option for reaching desired
    destinations.

    -   Consideration should be given to adding real-time information on
        parking lot status at other destinations within the Park.
        Expansion of information on parking conditions can be justified
        from the standpoint of customer satisfaction and better
        management of the Park's transportation resources.

    -   An explicit recommendation to "take the bus" on signs displaying
        information on parking status would give clear guidance to
        visitors about their options for travel at the point of
        decision.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Based upon the findings about the perceived benefits of ITS to
    users, the implication is that traveler information could be
    potentially useful to the customers of many businesses whose
    managers are currently unaware of the ITS technologies and traveler
    information.

    -   Mechanisms are needed to help raise awareness among business
        managers and their employees so that they promote these types of
        traveler information sources to their customers.

-   Although no clear case can be made that visitors are attracted to
    Acadia and Mount Desert Island because of the Island Explorer, use
    of the Island Explorer is associated with the most economically
    attractive types of visitors because they stay longer and spend
    more. Since visitors reported that the ITS technologies played a
    role in their decision to use the bus and enhanced their experience
    with the bus, ITS would appear to be useful from an economic
    development standpoint.

    -   Businesses of Mount Desert Island should be further educated
        about the potential impact of ITS on the local economy and
        should encourage use of the Island Explorer and traveler
        information in promotion of Mount Desert Island tourism more
        than they currently do.

**Table of Contents**

Page

[**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** i](#__RefHeading___Toc40685847)

[**1.0 INTRODUCTION** 1-1](#introduction)

[1.1 Acadia National Park: The Setting
1-1](#acadia-national-park-the-setting)

[1.2 Transportation Problems at Acadia National Park
1-2](#transportation-problems-at-acadia-national-park)

[1.3 ITS as a Potential Solution to Transportation Problems at National
Parks
1-3](#its-as-a-potential-solution-to-transportation-problems-at-national-parks)

[**2.0 ITS FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST DEPLOYMENT OVERVIEW**
2-1](#its-field-operational-test-deployment-overview)

[2.1 Deployment Experience 2-1](#deployment-experience)

[**3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH** 3-1](#__RefHeading___Toc40685854)

[3.1 Methodologies Used for Data Collection
3-2](#methodologies-used-for-data-collection)

[3.2 Expected Impacts of ITS 3-4](#expected-impacts-of-its)

[**4.0 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION** 4-1](#customer-satisfaction)

[4.1 Role of ITS in the Visitor Experience
4-2](#role-of-its-in-the-visitor-experience)

[4.2 Awareness and Use of Traveler Information
4-2](#awareness-and-use-of-traveler-information)

[4.3 Customer Satisfaction Among ITS Users
4-9](#customer-satisfaction-among-its-users)

[4.4 Customer Satisfaction Among Members of the FOT Team
4-17](#customer-satisfaction-among-members-of-the-fot-team)

[4.5 Summary of Customer Satisfaction
4-23](#summary-of-customer-satisfaction)

[**5.0 MOBILITY** 5-1](#mobility)

[5.1 Avoiding Problems 5-1](#avoiding-problems)

[5.2 Ease of Movement 5-3](#ease-of-movement)

[5.3 Saving Time 5-6](#saving-time)

[5.4 Changing Departure Time or Destination
5-8](#changing-departure-time-or-destination)

[5.5 Summary of Mobility 5-10](#summary-of-mobility)

[**6.0 PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC VITALITY**
6-1](#productivity-and-economic-vitality)

[6.1 The Role of Tourism in the Local Economy
6-1](#the-role-of-tourism-in-the-local-economy)

[6.2 Business Managers' View of Transportation Problems and ITS
Solutions
6-4](#business-managers-view-of-transportation-problems-and-its-solutions)

> [6.2.1 Business Managers' Attitudes Toward the Island Explorer
> 6-6](#business-managers-attitudes-toward-the-island-explorer)
>
> [6.2.2 Awareness and Usage of ITS Technologies
> 6-8](#awareness-and-usage-of-its-technologies)
>
> [6.2.3 Business Managers' Perception of Benefits of ITS Technologies
> 6-10](#business-managers-perception-of-benefits-of-its-technologies)

[6.3 Assessing Economic Impact with the Visitors' Survey
6-12](#assessing-economic-impact-with-the-visitors-survey)

[6.4 Economic Impact of ITS on Acadia National Park
6-17](#economic-impact-of-its-on-acadia-national-park)

[6.5 Impact of ITS on Productivity of Island Explorer Operations
6-18](#impact-of-its-on-productivity-of-island-explorer-operations)

[6.6 Summary of Productivity and Economic Vitality
6-21](#summary-of-productivity-and-economic-vitality)

**Table of Contents (Continued)**

**[Page]{.underline}**

[**7.0 EFFICIENCY** 7-1](#efficiency)

[7.1 Impact of ITS on Efficiency of Acadia National Park Operations
7-1](#impact-of-its-on-efficiency-of-acadia-national-park-operations)

[7.2 Effect of ITS on Visitors' Parking Lot Usage
7-2](#effect-of-its-on-visitors-parking-lot-usage)

[7.3 Impact of ITS on Efficiency of Island Explorer Operations
7-5](#impact-of-its-on-efficiency-of-island-explorer-operations)

[7.4 Summary of Efficiency 7-7](#summary-of-efficiency)

[**8.0 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT**
8-1](#energy-and-environmental-impact)

[8.1 Air Quality Impacts 8-1](#air-quality-impacts)

[8.2 Impact of Vehicles on Park Aesthetics 8-**Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc40685886)

[8.3 Summary of Energy and Environment
8-3](#summary-of-energy-and-environment)

[**9.0 SAFETY** 9-1](#safety)

[9.1 Visitors' Traffic Safety Concerns
9-1](#visitors-traffic-safety-concerns)

[9.2 Trends in Traffic Safety on Mount Desert Island
9-2](#trends-in-traffic-safety-on-mount-desert-island)

[9.3 ITS Contribution to Safety in Transportation Management
9-3](#its-contribution-to-safety-in-transportation-management)

[9.4 Summary of Safety 9-3](#summary-of-safety)

[**10.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS\
AND RECOMMENDATIONS**
10-1](#summary-of-key-findings-conclusions-and-recommendations)

[10.1 Key Findings 10-1](#key-findings)

[10.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
10-5](#conclusions-and-recommendations)

List of Tables

[Table 2-1: ITS System Components 2-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779403)

[Table 3-1: Evaluation Tests and Goal Areas to Which They Applied
3-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779404)

[Table 3-2: Expected ITS Impacts by Six Goal Areas
3-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779405)

[Table 4-1: Percent of Respondents Who Were Aware of and Used Travel
Information Sources? 4-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779406)

[Table 4-2: Visitor Ratings of Problems Related to Travel on Mount
Desert Island and in Acadia National Park
4-6](#__RefHeading___Toc40779407)

[Table 4-3: Visitor Ratings of Travel Experiences Using a Personal
Vehicle
4-8](#table-4-3-visitor-ratings-of-travel-experiences-using-a-personal-vehicle)

[Table 4-4: Average Ratings of Satisfaction with ITS Components by\
Island Explorer Staff 4-19](#__RefHeading___Toc40779409)

[Table 4-5: Average Ratings of Satisfaction with the ITS Components by\
Acadia National Park Staff 4-21](#__RefHeading___Toc40779410)

[Table 4-6: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Customer Satisfaction
4-23](#__RefHeading___Toc40779411)

[Table 5-1: Visitor Activities Inside Acadia National Park and Outside
the Park 5-10](#__RefHeading___Toc40779412)

[Table 5-2: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Mobility
5-10](#__RefHeading___Toc40779413)

**Table of Contents (Continued)**

**[Page]{.underline}**

[Table 6-1: Business Managers' Views of Potential Benefits and Negative
Impacts Related to Tourism in the Community
6-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779414)

[Table 6-2: Business Managers' Attitudes about Acadia National Park's
Contributions
6-3](#table-6-2-business-managers-attitudes-toward-acadia-national-parks-contributions)

[Table 6-3: Business Managers' Perceptions of Travel Issues and
Magnitude of Problem on Mount Desert Island and in Acadia National Park
this Summer 6-5](#__RefHeading___Toc40779416)

[Table 6-4: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of the Island
Explorer Bus 6-7](#__RefHeading___Toc40779417)

[Table 6-5: Business Managers' Awareness and Use of the Travel
Information Sources\
this Summer 6-9](#__RefHeading___Toc40779418)

[Table 6-6: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of Providing
Information on\
Parking Conditions Within the Park 6-11](#__RefHeading___Toc40779419)

[Table 6-7: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of Island
Explorer\
Traveler Information 6-12](#__RefHeading___Toc40779420)

[Table 6-8: Days Spent Visiting Mount Desert Island Area by ITS User
and\
ITS Non-User 6-14](#__RefHeading___Toc40779421)

[Table 6-9: Money Spent During Visit by ITS User and ITS Non-User
6-15](#__RefHeading___Toc40779422)

[Table 6-10: Mode of Transportation Used to Reach Mount Desert Island
6-16](#__RefHeading___Toc40779423)

[Table 6-11: Island Explorer Operational Measures
6-19](#__RefHeading___Toc40779424)

[Table 6-12: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Productivity and
Economic Vitality
6-21](#table-6-12-objectives-and-hypotheses-related-to-productivity-and-economic-vitality)

[Table 7-1: Percent of Days in Which Vehicles Exceeded the Capacity of
Eight\
Designated Parking Lots in Acadia National Park
7-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779426)

[Table 7-2: Mean Number of Vehicles that Exceeded the Capacity and Time
of Day for\
Parking Lots at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond
7-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779427)

[Table 7-3: Mean Number of Vehicles Exceeding the Capacity of Individual
Lots in\
Acadia National Park 7-5](#__RefHeading___Toc40779428)

[Table 7-4: Island Explorer Operational Statistics
7-6](#__RefHeading___Toc40779429)

[Table 7-5: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Efficiency
7-8](#__RefHeading___Toc40779430)

[Table 8-1: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Energy and Environment
8-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779431)

[Table 9-1: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Safety
9-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779432)

**Table of Contents (Continued)**

**[Page]{.underline}**

List of Figures

[Figure 1-1: Map of Coastline of Maine Showing Acadia National Park
1-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779853)

[Figure 2-1: System Architecture for ITS FOT at Acadia National Park
2-4](#figure-2-1-system-architecture-for-its-fot-at-acadia-national-park)

[Figure 4-1: Proportion of Survey Respondents by Residence
4-1](#__RefHeading___Toc40779855)

[Figure 4-2: Parking Lot Information Sign at Visitor Center
4-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779856)

[Figure 4-3: Parking Lot Information Sign at Seawall Campground
4-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779857)

[Figure 4-4: Parking Lot Information on the Acadia National Park Website
4-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779858)

[Figure 4-5: Automatic Annunciator Text Display On-board the Island
Explorer Bus 4-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779859)

[Figure 4-6: Electronic Bus Departure Sign at Village Green
4-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779860)

[Figure 4-7: Electronic Bus Departure Sign at Visitor Center
4-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779861)

[Figure 4-8: Respondents' Agreement with Features of Parking Information
Signs 4-10](#__RefHeading___Toc40779862)

[Figure 4-9: Respondents Agreement That Parking Conditions Information
Helped to\
Reduce Tension and Stress Related to Traveling
4-10](#__RefHeading___Toc40779863)

[Figure 4-10: Respondents' Agreement with Features of Real-time Bus
Departure Signs 4-11](#__RefHeading___Toc40779864)

[Figure 4-11: Respondents Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure Sign
Relieved Uncertainty When the Bus Would Arrive
4-12](#__RefHeading___Toc40779865)

[Figure 4-12: Respondents' Agreement with Text Features of Automated
On-Board Announcements 4-13](#__RefHeading___Toc40779866)

[Figure 4-13: Respondents' Agreement with Audio Features of Automated
On-Board Announcements 4-13](#__RefHeading___Toc40779867)

[Figure 4-14: Respondents' Agreement that Bus On-Board Announcements
Helped to\
Relieve Uncertainty About When the Bus Would Arrive at my Stop
4-14](#__RefHeading___Toc40779868)

[Figure 4-15: Respondents Agreement that Bus On-Board Announcements
Helped to\
Relieve Uncertainty About When to Exit the Bus
4-15](#__RefHeading___Toc40779869)

[Figure 4-16: Respondents Agreement That Parking Information Helped Me
Decide to\
Use the Island Explorer Bus 4-16](#__RefHeading___Toc40779870)

[Figure 4-17: Respondents' Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure Signs
Helped\
Me Decide to Use the Island Explorer Bus
4-16](#__RefHeading___Toc40779871)

[Figure 4-18: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board Announcements
Helped\
Me Decide to Use the Island Explorer Bus
4-17](#__RefHeading___Toc40779872)

[Figure 4-19: ITS Equipment Inside Island Explorer Bus: Voice and Text\
Communications and Passenger Counter 4-18](#__RefHeading___Toc40779873)

[Figure 4-20: Island Explorer Dispatcher's Office with Radio Voice
Communications\
and Bus Management Software 4-18](#__RefHeading___Toc40779874)

[Figure 4-21: Bus Tracking Software Connected to Automatic Vehicle
Locator on Buses 4-19](#__RefHeading___Toc40779875)

[Figure 5-1: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions Information
Helped to\
Avoid Parking Problems 5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779876)

[Figure 5-2: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions Information
Helped to\
Avoid Traffic Congestion 5-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779877)

**Table of Contents (Continued)**

**[Page]{.underline}**

**[List of Figures (Continued)]{.underline}**

[Figure 5-3: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions Information
Helped to\
Avoid Large Crowds 5-3](#__RefHeading___Toc40779878)

[Figure 5-4: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions Information
Made It\
Easier for Me to Get Around the Area 5-4](#__RefHeading___Toc40779879)

[Figure 5-5: Respondents' Agreement that Real Time Bus Departure
Displays Made It\
Easier for Me to Get Around the Area 5-5](#__RefHeading___Toc40779880)

[Figure 5-6: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board Announcements Made
It\
Easier For Me To Get Around The Area 5-5](#__RefHeading___Toc40779881)

[Figure 5-7: Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions Information
Saved\
Time for the Visitor 5-6](#__RefHeading___Toc40779882)

[Figure 5-8: Respondents' Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure Sign
Saved\
Time for the Visitor 5-7](#__RefHeading___Toc40779883)

[Figure 5-9: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board Announcements
Saved\
Time for the Visitor 5-7](#__RefHeading___Toc40779884)

[Figure 5-10: Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions Information
Changed\
the Time of Day to Visit Certain Destinations
5-8](#__RefHeading___Toc40779885)

[Figure 5-11: Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions Information
Changed\
the Visitor's Mind on what Attractions to Visit
5-9](#__RefHeading___Toc40779886)

[Figure 6-1: Types of Businesses on Mount Desert Island
6-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779887)

[Figure 6-2: Business Manager Awareness of ITS Technologies
6-8](#__RefHeading___Toc40779888)

[Figure 6-3: Business Managers and Their Customers' Use of the Traveler
Information Sources 6-9](#__RefHeading___Toc40779889)

[Figure 6-4: Days Spent Visiting Mount Desert Island Area by
Non-Residents 6-13](#__RefHeading___Toc40779890)

[Figure 6-5: The Amount Visitors Spent During Their Visit, Excluding
Hotel or\
Rental Car Costs 6-15](#__RefHeading___Toc40779891)

[Figure 6-6: Acadia National Park Donations and Gate Receipts (in
1000's) by Year 6-18](#__RefHeading___Toc40779892)

[Figure 6-7: Island Explorer Productivity Measures
6-20](#__RefHeading___Toc40779893)

[Figure 7-1: Statistics Related to Usage of Acadia National Park
7-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779894)

[Figure 7-2: Island Explorer Operating Efficiencies
7-7](#__RefHeading___Toc40779895)

[Figure 8-1: Visitor Rating of Too Many Automobiles Having a Negative
Impact on\
Air Quality 8-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779896)

[Figure 8-2: Island Explorer Passengers and Avoided Emissions in Metric
Tons 8-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779897)

[Figure 9-1: Visitor Rating of Vehicles Parked along the Main Roads
Causing Unsafe Conditions 9-1](#__RefHeading___Toc40779898)

[Figure 9-2: Motor Vehicle Accidents along the Routes of the Island
Explorer during\
the Summer Operating Season 9-2](#__RefHeading___Toc40779899)

# EVALUATION OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ITS FIELD {#evaluation-of-acadia-national-park-its-field .unnumbered}

# OPERATIONAL TEST: FINAL REPORT {#operational-test-final-report .unnumbered}

## 1.0 Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}

This report presents an assessment of the effectiveness of intelligent
transportation system (ITS) technologies in addressing the
transportation problems within the setting of a National Park. Acadia
National Park on Mount Desert Island in the State of Maine served as a
test bed for a suite of ITS technologies that were deployed over a
two-year period and were evaluated during the summer tourist season of
2002. The report begins with a discussion of the transportation problems
of Acadia and the establishment of the ITS Field Operational Test to
address those problems. In Section 2.0 the ITS technologies are
presented along with a discussion of the approach to evaluating their
effectiveness. Sections 3.0 through 9.0 present the results of the
evaluation as they pertain to six evaluation goal areas: customer
satisfaction, mobility, productivity and economic vitality, efficiency,
energy and environmental impact, and safety. Section 10.0 summarizes the
key findings and draws conclusions and recommendations for future ITS
deployments.

## 1.1 Acadia National Park: The Setting {#acadia-national-park-the-setting .unnumbered}

Acadia National Park is part of the U.S. National Park System, which has
as its dual mission the preservation of natural and cultural resources
and providing visitors with a meaningful and pleasant experience. Over
277 million recreational visitors came to the National Parks in 2002 to
experience their unique features.[^1] One of the most popular National
Parks is Acadia. Located on the beautiful and rugged coast of Maine
(Figure 1-1), Acadia preserves the natural beauty of that coastline,
little of which remains in public ownership. The Park's 35,000 acres lie
principally on Mount Desert Island, but smaller portions are located on
the island of Isle au Haut and on Schoodic Peninsula on the mainland.
Establishment of the Park dates to 1916, when lands that were privately
owned by John D. Rockefeller were donated to the Federal Government to
create what is now Acadia. Unlike many other National Parks, private
lands and Park lands intermingle in much of Acadia National Park. This
is especially the case on Mount Desert Island, which has several small
towns and villages, where most of the Island's approximately 9600
year-round population live. The largest town on the Island is Bar
Harbor. Other towns are Southwest Harbor, Northeast Harbor, and Bass
Harbor, plus several other smaller villages.

Tourism dominates the regional economy, and the attraction of Acadia
National Park is a major contributor to the tourism industry. During the
summer months, the Mount Desert Island population nearly triples with
many overnight guests staying at the numerous hotels,
bed-and-breakfasts, and campgrounds in the area. In the last several
years, large cruise ships such as the QE2 have made Bar Harbor a
port-of-call, contributing thousands of additional visitors to the
Island.

Acadia National Park hosted 2.56 million recreation visits in 2002[^2]
with 61% of those visits occurring from June through August. Close to
the population centers of the northeastern states, Acadia has become one
of the most-visited National Parks in the peak summer months of July and
August. Visitors are drawn to Acadia for the active and passive
recreation opportunities, such as sightseeing, camping, hiking,
rock-climbing, kayaking, and wildlife viewing. Those activities are
complemented by the lodging, dining, and shopping amenities of the towns
on the Island.

![](media/image2.png){width="3.785416666666667in"
height="3.282638888888889in"}

**Figure 1-1: Map of Coastline of Maine
Showing**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779853 .anchor}**\
Acadia National Park**

## 1.2 Transportation Problems at Acadia National Park {#transportation-problems-at-acadia-national-park .unnumbered}

The popularity of Acadia National Park and the growth of tourism on
Mount Desert Island are not without problems. On any given year over 90%
of visitors arrive by private vehicle, straining the capacity of the
road system and parking areas. During the peak tourist season, roadway
congestion is the norm, and parking at trailheads and beaches has become
increasingly difficult. Lengthy traffic delays and noise and air
pollution often detract from the experience visitors have come to enjoy,
and they also threaten the Park's natural and cultural resources.

To address the transportation problems at Acadia, in 1995 the National
Park Service issued a "Statement of Management Planning Implementation
Report" calling for Acadia and surrounding towns to develop a regional
public transportation system. That approach is consistent with Acadia
National Park's General Management Plan, which states:

"To reduce the perception of crowding in high-density areas, the number
of parked cars will be kept to a minimum. Existing parking capacities
will be enforced. Alternative means of park access will be developed,
with the goal of replacing private automobiles with nonmotorized means
and a public transportation system."[^3]

To relieve traffic congestion, Acadia National Park has turned to public
transportation as the preferred approach for both protecting the
aesthetic and natural resources of parklands and providing a quality
visitor experience. With support from public and private funding
sources, in 1999 the Island Explorer bus service was launched to provide
free transportation during the tourist season on Mount Desert Island.
From late June through early September of the first season, the buses
carried an impressive total of 142,260 passengers over six routes
through Mount Desert Island towns and Acadia National Park.[^4] The
initial success of the service led to a decision to add nine additional
buses for the 2000 summer season, thereby increasing service on some
routes and providing back-up buses in case of breakdowns. The Island
Explorer got an additional boost in 2002 with a \$1 million donation
from the L.L. Bean Company. The donation will help the bus service to
expand to meet growing demand and enable the extension of bus operations
into the fall season starting in 2003.[^5]

## 1.3 ITS as a Potential Solution to Transportation Problems at National Parks {#its-as-a-potential-solution-to-transportation-problems-at-national-parks .unnumbered}

The U.S. Department of Interior, the parent organization for the
National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Transportation entered
into a memorandum of understanding in November of 1997 to work together
to address the problems of transportation within the National Parks. The
two agencies would collaborate on "joint research efforts to determine
how technology can be used to address transportation problems in
Nationals Parks; education and training of park service staff on
technology applications and programs; and demonstration of new
technologies in National Park units."[^6] The provision of a
demonstration project of transportation technologies would enable the
DOT and the DOI to identify opportunities to use a variety of new
transportation technologies, including ITS, in the National Parks.

As an initial means of focus, U.S. DOT's ITS Joint Program Office and
the National Park Service made plans to identify the most suitable site
for an ITS Field Operational Test (FOT) at a National Park. From
proposals developed for Acadia, Yosemite, and Zion National Parks,
Acadia was chosen for the ITS FOT to determine the effectiveness of ITS
in helping to solve Park transportation problems. SAIC, a contractor to
U.S. DOT, was selected to work with the National Park Service and local
stakeholders on Mount Desert Island to design and deploy the ITS FOT.
U.S. DOT selected Battelle Memorial Institute to conduct an independent
evaluation of the FOT to assess the benefits from the ITS technologies
and identify lessons learned that might be applied to other National
Parks.

Starting in late 1999 a project team was formed to design and deploy the
ITS FOT for Acadia. The team consisted of representatives from the
National Park Service, U.S. DOT (ITS Joint Program Office, FHWA Division
Office, and FHWA Office of Federal Lands), Maine Department of
Transportation, Friends of Acadia (a nonprofit Park advocacy group),
Downeast Transportation Inc. (operators of the Island Explorer buses),
Maine Office of Tourism, SAIC, Multisystems (subcontractor to SAIC), and
other local stakeholders such as representatives for local towns and
businesses. The project team met regularly to identify goals for the
FOT, to consider ITS technologies that could be used, and to develop
system requirements that could be used in procuring and installing the
ITS technologies. Section 2.0 presents information on the deployment.

The evaluation team was formed in 2000 and consisted of Battelle, the
University of Maine (subcontractor to Battelle), and the U.S. DOT ITS
Joint Program Office. The evaluation team worked closely with the
project team to develop an evaluation approach that would result in
meaningful information based on the goals of the FOT. Section 3.0
discusses the evaluation approach.

## 2.0 ITS Field Operational Test Deployment Overview {#its-field-operational-test-deployment-overview .unnumbered}

The Intelligent Transportation Systems deployed at Acadia integrate nine
different components, which support the region's needs for public
transportation management, traffic management, and traveler information.
One of the reasons that Acadia National Park was chosen to be the site
of the FOT was that there was a strong spirit of cooperation among the
stakeholder groups. That spirit enabled a quick consensus to be reached
on the objectives for the FOT that were subsequently translated into
system requirements for the deployment. The components are interrelated
and depicted in Figure 2-1, and Table 2-1 presents additional details on
the individual components.

The public transportation components consisted of ITS technologies
intended to enhance the operations of the Island Explorer bus system.
They included two-way voice communications, automatic vehicle location,
electronic bus departure signs, automated annunciators on-board the
buses, and automatic passenger counters. ITS traffic management
components within the Park included parking lot monitoring and traffic
volume recorders at Park entrances. Traveler information obtained data
from the other ITS components and disseminated information to visitors
and other travelers through various means. One dissemination method, an
interactive voice response (IVR) telephone system, was planned but was
not operational in the summer of 2002. However, the IVR has evolved to
become Acadia's link to the Maine DOT's statewide 511 telephone system
for travel information. An emergency management component involving
geo-location of rangers and vehicles was included in the original system
requirements but not deployed.

## 2.1 Deployment Experience {#deployment-experience .unnumbered}

Planning for the ITS deployment began in 1999 when the project team was
formed. With funding and a support contractor supplied by the U.S.
Department of Transportation's ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the
project team developed a plan that mapped ITS technologies to the
transportation problems that stakeholders viewed as most critical for
solving. Some local stakeholders, who had worked together successfully
on previous projects found the planning stage unnecessarily long and
formal but eventually a consensus plan was reached that enabled design
work to proceed.

Responsibility for implementing various portions of the design was
assigned to the team members who were appropriate from a contractual
standpoint. For example, deployments on Federal property were handled by
the Park Service and the JPO, with the FHWA Office of Federal Lands
later assuming JPO's role. Maine Department of Transportation and
Downeast Transportation, Inc., which operated the Island Explorer,
handled the implementation of ITS technologies for the bus system.

Implementation entailed procurement, technological, management and
funding issues that were not fully understood at the outset by those who
had the responsibility. For example, the original deployment plan called
for some ITS components that, in the end, could not be accommodated
within the available budget. Stakeholders were forced to make a
selection of those components to eliminate. For example, slow scan video
of a parking area and geo-location of Park rangers were eliminated.

All ITS components were scheduled to be operational in the 2001 tourist
season. Unfortunately, the deployment schedule proved to be too
aggressive as technical and procurement problems arose. Hardware
components could not be acquired in time for installation and testing in
2001. In some cases the contracting agency was not experienced in
acquisition of the types of hardware that was needed for the FOT and
consequently additional time was required for the contracting process to
play out. In other cases technical issues arose that demanded more time
to resolve. For example, to support the automatic vehicle locator system
of the Island Explorer buses, the National Park Service made a request
for spectrum allocation to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), which regulates radio frequencies on
Federal lands. Even though the request was made early in the deployment
stage, the process took a long time and added delay to other parts of
the deployment until the frequency and power ratings were assigned by
NTIA. Schedule problems such as this forced the deployment into the next
summer tourist season of 2002.

Not all the ITS components were operational in 2002. By mid-June of 2002
the ITS components associated with the Island Explorer were all
successfully tested and ready to be put into service for the start of
the season. Components within the Park, however, proved to be
problematic. Difficulties were experienced with the loop detectors at
entrances to the Park and parking lots. Acadia, like other National
Parks, has no transportation professionals on staff and had no
experience installing and operating the transportation management
systems and ITS technologies. FHWA assisted the Park by supplying
on-site testing in an attempt to achieve acceptance status during the
summer, but in the end this proved to be unsuccessful for getting the
loop detectors operational in 2002.[^7] As a result automated traffic
counts could not be obtained and manual counts of parking were
substituted. Upgrade of the Park's telephone system to accommodate an
interactive system for traveler information did not take place in time.
A planned enhancement to the Park's Webpage for displaying real-time
traveler information did not take place, but instead was replaced in the
second half of the summer season by a temporary Webpage that was limited
to parking lot status information at two lots.

Despite the various problems that were encountered the project team
succeeded in deploying sufficient number of the components in 2002 for
the evaluation to proceed. Work continued on the interactive voice
response system, and it was encompassed within the statewide 511
telephone service for traveler information which Maine DOT plans to
launch in May 2003.

While the deployment had its difficult moments, it succeeded in most of
what it set out to achieve. The deployment overcame the challenges of
implementing a technologically complicated system within a complex
institutional arrangement. The timing of the summer tourist season meant
that the project team also faced narrow windows of time for system
operation that aren't encountered in many other ITS deployments. The
long winter hiatus in construction was yet another limitation with which
the project team had to contend in implementing certain system elements.
Given these challenges, the ITS FOT at Acadia National Park can be
judged a success so far and one that will continue in the months ahead
as the remaining ITS components are completed.

**Table 2-1: ITS System Components**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779403
.anchor}

+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| *         | **Functional**   | **System**     | **Needs**           |
| *System** |                  |                |                     |
|           | **Requirements** | **Elements**   | **Addressed**       |
| **Co      |                  |                |                     |
| mponent** |                  |                |                     |
+===========+==================+================+=====================+
| Island    | Transmit and     | Transceivers;  | Improved efficiency |
| Explorer  | receive          | vehicle and    |                     |
| Two-way   | to/from/between  | base station;  | Improved safety     |
| Voice     | vehicles and     | text display   |                     |
| Commu     | dispatch center  | in vehicle;    | Real time traffic   |
| nications |                  | repeater to    | information for     |
|           |                  | amplify signal | park staff, reduce  |
|           |                  |                | crush load          |
|           |                  |                | conditions,         |
|           |                  |                | incident detection  |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Automatic | Compute and      | Vehicle        | Improved efficiency |
| Vehicle   | transmit vehicle | transmitter    | and performance     |
| Locator   | location         |                |                     |
| for       |                  | TCP/IP Network | Decreased use of    |
| Island    | Integrate        | Connectivity,  | POV's               |
| Explorer  | vehicle          | GPS            |                     |
|           | locations with   | Transceiver,   | Improved safety and |
|           | departure signs, | GIS            | response            |
|           | display vehicle  | Applications,  |                     |
|           | locations[^8],   | Travel Time    | Real time updates   |
|           | integrate into   | Applications   |                     |
|           | enunciator       |                | Increase ridership  |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Departure | Transmit         | Display sign,  | Improved scheduling |
| Sign for  | location         | Software,      | information         |
| Island    |                  |                |                     |
| Explorer  | Compute          | Wir            | Increase ridership  |
|           | departure        | eless/Wireline |                     |
|           |                  | Communications |                     |
|           | Transmit to      |                |                     |
|           | departure signs  |                |                     |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Automated | Determine        | Vehicle        | Improve efficiency  |
| An        | location         | annunciator    |                     |
| nunciator |                  |                | Reduce delays       |
| for       | Automatically    |                |                     |
| Island    | play next stop   |                | Increase safety     |
| Explorer  | and other        |                |                     |
|           | pertinent        |                | Improve visitor     |
|           | announcements    |                | experience          |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Passenger | Auto-count       | Sensor to      | Increase efficiency |
|           | boardings/       | perform counts |                     |
| Counter   | dismounts at     |                | Improve planning    |
| for       | selected stops,  | Data storage   |                     |
| Island    |                  |                | Increase data       |
| Explorer  | Store            |                | options             |
|           | information      |                |                     |
|           |                  |                | Reduce vehicle      |
|           |                  |                | crush loads         |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Parking   | Record number of | Counting       | Decreased use of    |
| Lot       | vehicles         | sensor         | POV's Provide       |
|           | entering and     |                | planning data       |
| Monit     | exiting, provide | Video camera   |                     |
| oring[^9] | slow scan video  |                | Information for     |
|           | of parking       | Display        | Rangers             |
|           | area[^10],       | monitor        |                     |
|           | transmit data,   |                | Decreased Response  |
|           | display video,   | Wir            | times               |
|           | store data from  | eless/wireline |                     |
|           | vehicle counts   | communications |                     |
|           |                  |                |                     |
|           |                  | TCP/IP network |                     |
|           |                  | connectivity   |                     |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Automatic | Determine        | Transmitting   | Information for     |
|           | location +-10    | unit GPS       | Rangers             |
| Range     | meters, transmit | Transceiver    |                     |
| r/Vehicle | same to server,  |                | Exact locations of  |
|           | display          | Repeater for   | Rangers             |
| Geo-Loca  | locations on map | signal GPS/GIS |                     |
| tion[^11] |                  | Software       | Decreased response  |
|           |                  |                | times               |
|           |                  |                |                     |
|           |                  |                | Improved visitor    |
|           |                  |                | safety, security    |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Entrance  | Record and       | Counting       | Count vehicles      |
| Traffic   | transmit number  | sensor         |                     |
| Volume    | of vehicles      |                | Provide Planning    |
| Reco      | entering and     | Transmission   | Data                |
| rder[^12] | exiting, store   | unit           |                     |
|           | data             |                | Decrease use of     |
|           |                  |                | POV's               |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Traveler  | Collect and      | Interactive    | Increase            |
|           | integrate data,  | telephone      | availability and    |
| In        | disseminate data | messaging      | display options of  |
| formation | to appropriate   | system[^13],   | information,        |
|           | audience         |                | Decrease use of     |
| System    |                  | Web page,      | POV's, Improve      |
|           |                  | parking status | visitor experience  |
|           |                  | signs          |                     |
+-----------+------------------+----------------+---------------------+

![](media/image3.wmf){width="0.5082677165354331in"
height="0.40551181102362205in"}![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.510236220472441in"
height="0.6220472440944882in"}![](media/image5.wmf){width="0.7728346456692914in"
height="0.4338582677165354in"}![](media/image6.wmf){width="0.9019685039370079in"
height="0.9110236220472441in"}![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.4082677165354331in"
height="0.997244094488189in"}![](media/image6.wmf){width="0.7984251968503937in"
height="0.9110236220472441in"}![](media/image8.wmf){width="0.10551181102362205in"
height="7.992125984251969e-2in"}![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.1346456692913385in"
height="0.6074803149606299in"}![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.6338582677165354in"
height="0.5484251968503937in"}![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.4889763779527559in"
height="0.6in"}![](media/image10.wmf){width="0.4736220472440945in"
height="0.5409448818897638in"}![](media/image11.wmf){width="1.045275590551181in"
height="0.5484251968503937in"}![](media/image12.wmf){width="0.6964566929133859in"
height="0.5909448818897638in"}![](media/image13.wmf){width="0.6964566929133859in"
height="0.6625984251968504in"}![](media/image14.wmf){width="0.32086614173228345in"
height="0.38346456692913383in"}![](media/image15.wmf){width="1.4090551181102362in"
height="0.5964566929133859in"}![](media/image16.wmf){width="0.3409448818897638in"
height="0.17519685039370078in"}![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.46023622047244095in"
height="0.4110236220472441in"}![](media/image10.wmf){width="0.3637795275590551in"
height="0.45354330708661417in"}

#  {#section .unnumbered}

#  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-6 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-7 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-8 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-9 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-10 .unnumbered}

# Figure 2-1: System Architecture for ITS FOT at Acadia National Park {#figure-2-1-system-architecture-for-its-fot-at-acadia-national-park .unnumbered}

**3.0 Evaluation Approach**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40685854 .anchor}

An approach to evaluation is based on many considerations, such as the
goals of the project, the timeframe for assessment, and the resources
available for the investigation. For the Acadia ITS FOT a multi-step
process enabled the evaluation team to identify and prioritize those
goals and develop an evaluation plan that could be used to assess the
impact of ITS toward achieving those goals. Based on the collective
feedback of the FOT stakeholders,[^14] the overriding impact of the ITS
technologies should be to reduce vehicle congestion in Acadia National
Park. Reduced congestion will have the added benefits of increased
mobility of visitors and residents, aesthetic and environmental benefits
of fewer vehicles parked on roads, and safety benefits of less traffic
and better emergency response.

In May of 2000 in a workshop setting local partners and representatives
from the state and federal agencies met with the evaluation team to
begin the process of evaluation planning. Despite the differences in the
participant make-up of the workshop, the conclusions were very similar.
There was considerable agreement among participants that customer
satisfaction and mobility were higher in priority than the other goals.
However, other goals for the evaluation (safety, efficiency,
productivity and economic vitality, and energy and environment) also
held some level of importance among the stakeholder organizations and
should not be ignored. These results were formalized in an evaluation
strategy document.[^15]

Utilizing the evaluation strategy the evaluation team formulated an
evaluation plan[^16] specifying what aspects of the ITS project would be
assessed, how, when, and the methods to be used for collecting data.
Subsequently, for each evaluation test to be conducted, a detailed test
plan was developed and included the specific protocols (e.g., survey
questionnaire) and details on responsibilities and resources. The
overall evaluation approach was based on several evaluation tests that
combined primary and secondary data collection and analyses. Table 3-1
lists the seven evaluation tests and the six goal areas to which they
chiefly applied.

**Table 3-1: Evaluation Tests and Goal Areas to Which They
Applied**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779404 .anchor}

+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| **Test**   | **C     | **Mo | **     | **Prod   | **Energy  | **   |
|            | ustomer | bili | Effici | uctivity | &         | Safe |
|            | Satisfa | ty** | ency** | &        | Enviro    | ty** |
|            | ction** |      |        | Economic | nmental** |      |
|            |         |      |        | Vi       |           |      |
|            |         |      |        | tality** | *         |      |
|            |         |      |        |          | *Impact** |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Visitor    | √       | √    |        | √        | √         |      |
| Survey     |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Business   |         |      |        | √        |           |      |
| Survey     |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Key        | √       |      |        |          |           | √    |
| Informant  |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Interviews |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Parking    |         |      | √      |          | √         |      |
| Lot        |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| O          |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| bservation |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Island     |         |      | √      | √        | √         | √    |
| Explorer   |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Operations |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Acadia     |         |      | √      | √        | √         | √    |
| National   |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Park       |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Records    |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+
| Maine      |         |      | √      | √        | √         | √    |
| State      |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Government |         |      |        |          |           |      |
| Records    |         |      |        |          |           |      |
+------------+---------+------+--------+----------+-----------+------+

## 3.1 Methodologies Used for Data Collection {#methodologies-used-for-data-collection .unnumbered}

A variety of methods were used to collect data for assessing the impacts
of ITS. For some of the data, two collection points were used, a
"before" and "after" period. Details on each method are available in the
individual test reports,[^17] but they can be briefly summarized as
follows:

**[Visitor Survey]{.underline}**

Between July 29 and September 1 of 2002 an intercept survey of visitors
at various locations within Acadia National Park and on the Island
Explorer bus was used to solicit visitors for a mail-back survey. A
total of 1278 adults agreed to the mail-back survey, and 928 usable
questionnaires were returned for a 74 percent response rate. The visitor
survey collected primary data on user awareness and satisfaction with
the ITS technologies. For baseline data use was made of several recent
previous surveys of Park visitors and users of the Island Explorer
buses.[^18]

**[Business Survey]{.underline}**

In the Fall of 2002 a survey of businesses on Mount Desert Island was
conducted. Using mailing lists supplied by the local Chambers of
Commerce, 454 questionnaires were mailed to business, and 257 usable
questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 60 percent. The
survey gathered information on business perceptions of the Island
Explorer bus system and awareness, use and benefits associated with the
ITS technologies.

**[Key Informant Interviews]{.underline}**

Key informants consisted of two groups. The first were representatives
of the two organizations with direct operational responsibility for the
ITS technologies---Acadia National Park managers and rangers and Island
Explorer managers and drivers. The second group consisted of other
stakeholders who had been involved in the planning of the FOT from the
beginning, such as Maine DOT and Friends of Acadia. A total of 16
personal interviews were conducted in the Fall of 2002 to gain an
in-depth perspectives on issues affecting deployment and use of the
technology.

**[Parking Lot Observation]{.underline}**

Direct observation of eight designated parking areas took place in
Acadia National Park during the summer tourist seasons of 2000, 2001,
and 2002. The objective was to identify the number of parked vehicles
that exceeded the official capacity of each lot, either within the
parking lot itself or on adjacent roads. Using a random sample scheme,
each lot was observed once in the morning and once in the afternoon
between 10 AM and 2 PM. The data provided objective measures of the
potential impact of the ITS technologies on visitors' parking patterns
within the Park.

**[Island Explorer Operations]{.underline}**

Data on operations of the Island Explorer were obtained from the
management staff for the years 1999 through 2002. Data covered a range
of operational measures, such as operating expenses, ridership measures,
fleet size, miles and hours of operation. The implementation of the ITS
technologies in 2002 enabled management staff to retrieve some of the
operational data directly from the system that had previously been
stored in less convenient manual form.

**[Acadia National Park Records]{.underline}**

The Park regularly keeps records to measure its operations in various
ways. The evaluation used its data on number of visitors, donations and
gate receipts, and vehicular accidents within the Park. Data from 1999
through 2002 were obtained.

**[Maine State Government Records]{.underline}**

The evaluation used data from several State Government agencies,
including the Department of Transportation for traffic and accident
data, Department of Revenue for sales tax data, and Department of
Environmental Protection for air quality modeling data. Data covered the
period 1999 through 2002.

## Expected Impacts of ITS

ITS technologies were deployed with the expectation they would have
measurable impacts within the Park or Mount Desert Island. The impacts
would be in the form of benefits or improvements realized by persons
(e.g. tourist's satisfaction with their visit), organizations (e.g.
efficiency of Island Explorer operations), or society at large (e.g.
number of accidents). For the purposes of the evaluation the impacts
were stated as hypotheses that the evaluation team could test using the
data from the one or more of the seven tests described in Section 3.1.
Table 3-2 lists the hypothesized impacts according to the six evaluation
goal areas and the associated objectives of the project. The list is not
exhaustive of all potential impacts, but the impacts illustrate the type
of effects that the project team and evaluation team anticipated at the
outset of the evaluation and which expected to be measurable in some
way. Sections 4.0 through 9.0 discuss the results of the evaluation in
terms of the impacts observed in each goal area.

**Table 3-2: Expected ITS Impacts by Six Goal
Areas**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779405 .anchor}

+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Goal   | **Objective**        | **Hypothesized Impact**           |
| Area**   |                      |                                   |
+==========+======================+===================================+
| Customer | To provide a more    | Pre-trip traveler information     |
| Sati     | positive visitor     | services will divert visitors     |
| sfaction | experience through   | from using personal vehicles and  |
|          | greater reliance on  | to using the Island Explorer      |
|          | the Island Explorer  |                                   |
|          | for travel           |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Real-time arrival information on  |
|          |                      | next Island Explorer bus will     |
|          |                      | increase visitors' willingness to |
|          |                      | use transit                       |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Real-time information on parking  |
|          |                      | lot conditions will increase      |
|          |                      | visitors' willingness to use      |
|          |                      | transit                           |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To provide a more    | Real-time information on parking  |
|          | positive visitor     | lot conditions will increase      |
|          | experience through   | visitors' ability to plan         |
|          | information on       | accordingly and to fulfill        |
|          | parking availability | experience preferences            |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To provide a more    | Tourists who use ITS feel less    |
|          | positive visitor     | stress and worry due to service   |
|          | experience through   | operations                        |
|          | efficient service    |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To provide useful    | ITS technologies will have        |
|          | and timely           | positive benefits/effects on      |
|          | information for the  | Island Explorer driver jobs,      |
|          | transportation       | Island Explorer operations, and   |
|          | provider             | interagency relationships         |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Mobility | To increase          | Pre-trip traveler information     |
|          | visitors' ability to | services will cause visitors to   |
|          | access desired       | view Island Explorer as the most  |
|          | destinations and     | reliable and easy means to        |
|          | activities           | experience ANP/MDI.               |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Tourists who use traveler         |
|          |                      | information are more aware of     |
|          |                      | travel options than those who do  |
|          |                      | not use traveler information      |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Tourists use alternate routes or  |
|          |                      | travel modes due to traveler      |
|          |                      | information                       |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Tourists perceive that they have  |
|          |                      | increased access as a result of   |
|          |                      | their use of traveler information |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | Tourists who use traveler         |
|          |                      | information perceive fewer        |
|          |                      | problems with congestion and      |
|          |                      | parking that might prohibit them  |
|          |                      | from visiting certain             |
|          |                      | destinations and activities       |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Prod     | To provide a more    | ITS users stay longer than        |
| uctivity | positive visitor     | non-ITS users                     |
|          | experience and       |                                   |
| and      | increased visitation |                                   |
| Economic |                      |                                   |
| Vitality |                      |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To reduce or         | Better real-time data will allow  |
|          | optimize operating   | IE management to react to dynamic |
|          | budget of the Island | changes more efficiently and      |
|          | Explorer             | thereby more cost effectively     |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To increase economic | ITS attracts visitors and enables |
|          | contribution to      | higher revenue capture during     |
|          | Mount Desert Island  | stay                              |
|          | and Acadia National  |                                   |
|          | Park                 |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To maximize Acadia   | ITS will provide better           |
|          | National Park        | information that will ensure that |
|          | revenue              | visitors pay Park fees and make   |
|          |                      | contributions                     |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | Attract carless      | Tourists arriving without cars    |
|          | tourist segment      | will be attracted by ITS-enabled  |
|          |                      | mobility                          |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Ef       | To increase the      | ITS provides better operating     |
| ficiency | number of customers  | information, which allows for     |
|          | served               | more efficient deployment of      |
|          |                      | resources to a greater number of  |
|          |                      | Park visitors                     |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To distribute the    | Better information availability   |
|          | demand on Acadia     | allows for visitor pre- and       |
|          | National Park        | on-trip planning so that parking  |
|          | resources more       | lots usage is more balanced       |
|          | evenly               |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To increase Island   | ITS will provide better operating |
|          | Explorer efficiency  | information to enable better      |
|          | in managing its      | scheduling and to serve more      |
|          | operations           | passengers with the same          |
|          |                      | equipment                         |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Energy   | To reduce emissions  | ITS-improved Island Explorer      |
| and      | from motor vehicles  | service will result in fewer      |
| Envir    | on Mount Desert      | trips by private vehicle and a    |
| onmental | Island               | consequent improvement in air     |
| Impact   |                      | quality                           |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          | To provide a more    | ITS-improved Island Explorer      |
|          | positive experience  | service will result in fewer      |
|          | for visitors through | vehicles parked on ANP roads,     |
|          | enhanced aesthetics  | thereby improving the visual      |
|          | of Acadia National   | aesthetics of the Park            |
|          | Park                 |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Safety   | To increase          | ITS will reduce vehicular traffic |
|          | transportation       | on roads thereby reducing the     |
|          | safety in Acadia     | number of accidents               |
|          | National Park and    |                                   |
|          | Mount Desert Island  |                                   |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
|          |                      | ITS will reduce hazardous         |
|          |                      | conditions by better management   |
|          |                      | of transportation resources       |
+----------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+

## 4.0 Customer Satisfaction {#customer-satisfaction .unnumbered}

This section examines customer satisfaction with ITS principally from
the point of view of the end users or customers, who are mostly visitors
to the area. With only 6% of the persons surveyed being year-round or
summer residents of Mount Desert Island, the term visitors will be used
for convenience throughout this report to describe customers who were
studied in this evaluation unless otherwise noted. Figure 4-1 shows the
survey respondents by place of residence. Respondents tended to have the
following additional characteristics:

-   Well-educated (67% Bachelor's degree or above)

-   From the Northeast states (63%)

-   From small towns or cities with less than 100,000 population (75%)

-   Arrived in groups of two or three (59%) and usually with family
    (78%)

-   Technology friendly (84% Internet familiar and 73% carrying cell
    phones)

-   Arrived by private vehicle (\>90%) and tended not to be transit
    users at home (87%)

-   Stayed four or more nights (63%) and spent over \$300 during their
    stay (50%)

**Figure 4-1: Proportion of Survey Respondents by
Residence**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779855 .anchor}

In addition to visitors, the satisfaction of a second set of customers
of ITS was also examined. They are the members of the project team who
planned, deployed, and used the ITS technologies to various degrees.
Thus, the evaluation takes a look at their satisfaction with ITS in the
Field Operational Test.

This section of the report draws on the visitor survey and the key
informant interviews, described briefly in Section 3.1. Complete details
on methodology and discussion of results can be found in the individual
test plan reports.[^19]

## 4.1 Role of ITS in the Visitor Experience {#role-of-its-in-the-visitor-experience .unnumbered}

Maintaining or improving visitor experience was seen as the most
important gauge of success for the ITS FOT by local project team
members, and, therefore, assessment of customer satisfaction was a
primary focus of the evaluation. As a popular tourist destination,
Acadia National Park consistently receives high marks from visitors in
terms of satisfaction with their visit. In 1998, 65% of individuals
reported that they had a "very good" and 31% had a "good"
experience.[^20] In 2002 the evaluation survey figures were even higher:
80% "very good" and "18%" good. Nevertheless, when asked to rate their
travel experience during their visit, only 60% of those same visitors in
2002 rated travel as very good. Thus, against this backdrop the
evaluation set out to determine the role that ITS had played in visitor
experience and its future potential.

Visitors had the opportunity to come into contact with ITS through
various forms of traveler information, including information on parking
lot availability on signs at the Visitor Center and two campgrounds
within the Park; parking lot information on the Acadia National Park
Website; electronic bus departure signs at the Village Green, Visitor
Center, and Jordan Pond House; and automated announcements of next stops
on-board the Island Explorer. Figures 4-2 through 4-7 illustrate these
ITS components. An important goal of the ITS technologies was to enhance
the visitor's experience and to divert visitors from using their private
vehicles to using the Island Explorer bus for traveling around Mount
Desert Island and in Acadia National Park. It was expected that ITS
technologies would contribute to a more positive visitor experience and
willingness to use transit by providing real-time information on parking
lot conditions, real-time information on departures of the next Island
Explorer bus, and traveler information on-board buses through the
announcements of the next bus stop.

## 4.2 Awareness and Use of Traveler Information {#awareness-and-use-of-traveler-information .unnumbered}

During the initial contact by the evaluation team within the Park,
visitors were asked about their awareness and use of various sources of
traveler information including the four ITS-based sources. Table 4-1
shows the proportion of visitors who reported that they were aware of
and the proportion of visitors that had used different sources of
traveler information. Over half of the visitors (55%) reported being
aware of the parking availability travel information. Thirty percent of
the visitors reported that they used the information for their travels.
It should be noted that the parking availability reflected the
designated parking lots at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond only. The status
of parking lots being full did not necessarily restrict visitors from
gaining access to these attractions. Visitors could park along the
2-lane one-way section of the Park loop road and walk to the Sand Beach
area. Also, visitors could park along the Park loop and boat access
roads to gain access to the Jordan Pond House. Direct observation of the
parking conditions at these locations indicated this was a common
practice for visitors when parking lots became full. Some visitors may
have realized these areas were still accessible by privately owned
vehicles and, despite knowing the condition of the parking lots, did not
plan to use the information.

![](media/image18.jpeg){width="3.433333333333333in" height="2.5875in"}
![](media/image19.jpeg){width="2.125in" height="2.816666666666667in"}

**Figure 4-2: Parking Lot Information
Sign**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779856 .anchor} **Figure 4-3: Parking
Lot**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779857 .anchor}

**at Visitor Center Information Sign at**

**Seawall Campground**

![](media/image20.png){width="3.0569444444444445in"
height="3.026388888888889in"}
![](media/image21.jpeg){width="3.2743055555555554in" height="2.10625in"}

**Figure 4-4: Parking Lot Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779858
.anchor} **Figure 4-5: Automatic Annunciator
Text**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779859 .anchor}

**on the Acadia National Park Website Display On-board the Island
Explorer Bus**[^21]

![](media/image22.jpeg){width="3.138888888888889in"
height="2.3541666666666665in"}
![](media/image23.jpeg){width="3.1166666666666667in" height="2.35in"}

**Figure 4-6: Electronic Bus Departure
Sign**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779860 .anchor} **Figure 4-7: Electronic
Bus Departure Sign**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779861 .anchor}

**at Village Green at Visitor Center**

**Table 4-1: Percent of Respondents\* Who Were Aware
of**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779406 .anchor}

**and Used Travel Information Sources?**

  ------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
  **Source of Information**                   **Aware**     **Used**

  Parking availability (Park staff/signs)     55            30

  Electronic Island Explorer departure signs  49            28

  Acadia National Park Website                42            31

  Island Explorer automated annunciator       40            34

  Island Explorer Website                     8             5

  Park traveler information (telephone        2             1
  system)                                                   
  ------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------

\* Based on 1278 respondents to the intercept survey within the Park.

Nearly 50% of the visitors were aware of and 28% planned to use the
electronic bus departure signs. Forty-two percent of visitors were aware
of the Acadia National Park Website and a relatively high percentage of
visitors (31%) used this source for planning trips. A small percentage
of visitors (2%) reported being aware of traveler information using the
Park's telephone system, although that would have been for general
travel information since the ITS telephone component was not deployed
during the evaluation period. Finally, caution should be used in
projecting these results to Park visitors in general. Answers reflect
visitors sampled at many locations having one or more of the traveler
information sources. For example, all visitors contacted on the Island
Explorer buses would have been exposed to the automated annunciator.

As reported above, visitors rated travel experience less highly than the
overall experience of their visit to Acadia and Mount Desert Island.
Table 4-2 delves more deeply into the nature of their concerns about
travel. Visitors rated problems differently based upon the combination
of ITS components used and if visitors used the Island Explorer bus.
Therefore, four distinct visitor groups are displayed in the table below
that include three sub-groups of ITS users and one group of non-users:
(A) visitors who used the traveler information for Island Explorer buses
such as the real-time departure of buses but not the availability of
parking at Sand Beach and the Jordan Pond House (n=273); (B) visitors
who used both traveler information related to Island Explorer buses as
well as the availability of parking (n=182); (C) visitors who used
parking availability information but no bus traveler information
(n=175); and (D) the group of visitors that neither used the parking nor
bus information (n=279).

In Table 4-2 visitors' ratings of problems are shown according to the
mean for each group and the rank of the problem that the mean represents
within each group. A statistical technique known as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to test the difference between ITS user and non-user
groups. For each question asked of respondents, ANOVA tests the variance
(squared version of the standard deviation) for each group to identify
statistically significant differences. Statistical significance is
indicated by the probability (p) that the difference observed occurred
by chance. The smaller the probability, the more likely the observed
difference between the means of two groups is real rather than random
and is, therefore, statistically significant.

Table 4-2 illustrates that the concern that gave rise to lower travel
experiences was not uniform among the four visitor segments. For
example, visitor concern about "vehicles parked along main roads causing
unsafe conditions" ranked number one for all visitor groups. However,
certain visitor groups such as the ITS users of the bus and the bus and
parking information rated this as more of a problem than the ITS users
of parking information or ITS non-users. The perceived unsafe conditions
may have influenced visitors to seek out and use traveler information.
Visitors also differed in terms of their travel experiences using a
personal vehicle in Acadia National Park. Visitors identified as using
one or more of the ITS components generally tended to encounter more
parking problems when using their personal vehicle in Acadia National
Park. Thus, a conclusion to be drawn is that ITS-users were more
concerned about travel issues and sought means to alleviate those
concerns via ITS and Island Explorer. Non-users, on the other hand, were
either less sensitive to travel conditions or had strategies for coping
with problems that didn't involve the need for Island Explorer or ITS.

#  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 32%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="4"><strong>Issue</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><em><strong>ITS User</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p><em><strong><u>ITS
Non-User</u></strong></em></p>
<p><strong>(n=279)</strong></p></td>
<td rowspan="4"><p><strong>ANOVA**</strong></p>
<p><strong>Results</strong></p></td>
<td rowspan="4"><h2 id="p" class="unnumbered">p=</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><p><strong>Bus</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=273)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Bus &amp; Parking</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=182)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Parking</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=175)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(A)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="3"><em><strong>(B)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(C)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(D)</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Vehicles parked along main roads causing</p>
<p>unsafe conditions</p></td>
<td>2.45</td>
<td>1</td>
<td colspan="2">2.32</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1.99</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2.05</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Too many automobiles outside of Park</td>
<td>2.41</td>
<td>2</td>
<td colspan="2">2.15</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.82</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1.92</td>
<td>2</td>
<td><p>A&gt;D,C</p>
<p>B&gt;C</p></td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Too many automobiles in the Park</td>
<td>2.38</td>
<td>3</td>
<td colspan="2">2.27</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1.92</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1.90</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Too many automobiles impacting air</p>
<p>Quality</p></td>
<td>2.37</td>
<td>4</td>
<td colspan="2">2.27</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1.71</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.72</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Too many RVs in the Park</td>
<td>1.99</td>
<td>5</td>
<td colspan="2">1.84</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1.62</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>1.67</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>A&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Too many people in the Park</td>
<td>1.91</td>
<td>6</td>
<td colspan="2">1.82</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1.67</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1.75</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>A&gt;D</td>
<td>.050</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Too many tour buses in the Park</td>
<td>1.62</td>
<td>7</td>
<td colspan="2">1.57</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>1.49</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>8</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Ability to fully access desired recreation</p>
<p>opportunities in the Park</p></td>
<td>1.55</td>
<td>8</td>
<td colspan="2">1.61</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>1.65</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>1.51</td>
<td>7</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Ability to access desired attractions outside</p>
<p>the Park</p></td>
<td>1.44</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="2">1.40</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>1.48</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>1.41</td>
<td>9</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Not enough travel information to plan trips</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>10</td>
<td colspan="2">1.27</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>1.37</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>1.30</td>
<td>10</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Seeing electronic signs</td>
<td>1.24</td>
<td>11</td>
<td colspan="2">1.13</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>1.23</td>
<td>11</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Too many Island Explorer buses in the</p>
<p>Park</p></td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>12</td>
<td colspan="2">1.08</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>1.20</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>C&gt;A,B</td>
<td>.005</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Table 4-2: Visitor Ratings of Problems Related to Travel on Mount
Desert Island and in Acadia National
Park**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779407 .anchor}**\***

\* Possible responses: 1 = Not a problem; 2 = Small problem; 3 =
Moderate problem; and 4 = Big Problem.

n = number of visitors in the subgroup

\*\*Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a test to identify significant
pair-wise differences between means. "p" is the probability that the
difference could have occurred by chance.

Since most visitors (83%) reached Mount Desert Island with a car, truck,
or motor home/RV, visitors' experience in using a personal vehicle
during their visit is important. Table 4-3 shows that visitors with
personal vehicles rated travel experiences differently based upon the
combination of ITS components used. Visitors who used parking
information were much more likely to disagree with the statement "I know
the area well enough so I don't need travel information" than visitors
who used only the bus ITS information and ITS non-users. Users of
parking information were also much more likely to agree with the
statement "more information would have made it easier to get to
attractions."

Concerns about difficulty of using their own vehicle may have induced
visitors to take advantage of the Island Explorer, as bus ITS users were
more likely to:

-   disagree that "it is easy to avoid traffic congestion in Acadia
    National Park"

-   agree that "I had some worry about driving and parking along busy
    roads"

-   disagree that "it was easy to find parking in Acadia National Park"

-   disagree with the statement "Overall, I was pleased with travel
    conditions on this trip"

-   disagree that "it was easy to plan trips inside Acadia National Park
    using my personal vehicle."

It should be noted that these ratings are based on the reported
experiences of visitors who used their personal vehicles for part or all
of travel during their visit. It would appear that those visitors who
used none of the ITS-based sources of traveler information had fewer
concerns with using their vehicle during their visit than those who used
the parking, bus, or both types of ITS traveler information. Thus, once
again a pattern emerges that those visitors least concerned about
problems associated with using their own vehicles within the Park are
also the least likely to use the ITS sources of traveler information.
Conversely, visitors who use ITS traveler information may do so to help
alleviate problems they perceive with using their own vehicle.

# Table 4-3: Visitor Ratings of Travel Experiences Using a Personal Vehicle\* {#table-4-3-visitor-ratings-of-travel-experiences-using-a-personal-vehicle .unnumbered}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 32%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="4"><h1 id="issue" class="unnumbered">Issue</h1></td>
<td colspan="6"><h2 id="its-user" class="unnumbered">ITS User</h2></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><h2 id="its-non-user"
class="unnumbered"><u>ITS Non-User</u></h2>
<p><strong>(n=264)</strong></p></td>
<td rowspan="4"><p><strong>ANOVA</strong></p>
<p><strong>Results</strong></p></td>
<td rowspan="4"><h2 id="p-1" class="unnumbered">p=</h2></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Bus</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=173)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Bus &amp; Parking</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=142)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Parking</strong></p>
<p><strong>(n=167)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
<td><strong>Mean</strong></td>
<td><strong>Rank</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(A)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(B)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(C)</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>(D)</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>I know the area well enough so I don’t</p>
<p>need travel information</p></td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3.57</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3.65</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3.21</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>B,C&gt;A,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>More information would have made it</p>
<p>easier to get to attractions.</p></td>
<td>3.02</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2.69</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>2.83</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>3.03</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>A,D&gt;B,C</td>
<td>.003</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>It is easy to avoid traffic congestion in</p>
<p>Acadia National Park</p></td>
<td>2.92</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2.77</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2.43</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>2.55</td>
<td>4</td>
<td><p>A&gt;C,D</p>
<p>B&gt;C</p></td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>I had some worry about driving and</p>
<p>parking along busy roads</p></td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>2.84</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3.24</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3.37</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>C,D&gt;A,B</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>It is easy to find parking in Acadia</p>
<p>National Park</p></td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>2.77</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>2.31</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>2.42</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Overall, I was pleased with travel</p>
<p>conditions on this trip</p></td>
<td>2.40</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>2.37</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>2.00</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>2.03</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>It was easy to plan trips inside Acadia</p>
<p>National Park using personal vehicle</p></td>
<td>2.30</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>2.26</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>1.88</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>1.90</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>A,B&gt;C,D</td>
<td>.0001</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Overall, I was pleased with travel</p>
<p>conditions on a previous visit</p></td>
<td>2.26</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2.16</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2.05</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>1.99</td>
<td>8</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Possible responses: 1 = Strongly agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Neutral; 4 =
Disagree; and 5 = Strongly Disagree

n = number of visitors in the subgroup

\*\*Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a test to identify significant
pair-wise differences between means. "p" is the probability that the
difference could have occurred by chance.

## 4.3 Customer Satisfaction Among ITS Users {#customer-satisfaction-among-its-users .unnumbered}

As demonstrated in the preceding section, non-users of ITS did not
necessarily have a more negative experience with travel during their
visit than users of the ITS-based traveler information. Rather their
perceptions of travel problems differ and they apparently use different
solutions to dealing with those problems. Nevertheless, as will be
discussed in this section, ITS users derived definite benefits from ITS,
which contributed positively to their visitor experience. By focusing on
the ITS users, an appreciation of the benefits they derived can be
achieved.

Clearly the ITS technologies were well received and had a positive
impact on visitors. Each of the technologies is discussed individually
below. In addition, results are presented that reveal how satisfaction
with ITS contributed to visitors' use of the Island Explorer during
their visit.

**[Parking Information Signs]{.underline}**

Thirty-seven percent of visitors obtained parking condition or traffic
information[^22] at the Acadia National Park visitor center,
campgrounds, or Website. They rated the information on a number of
criteria such as how accurate and helpful the information was to the
visitor and if they would use the information again.

Figure 4-8 shows a high level of agreement among users that the parking
conditions or traffic information was accurate. Eighty-six percent said
they "strongly agreed" or "agreed" with the statement "I found the
information to be accurate." Similarly, 93% of the users could clearly
understand the parking or traffic information and nearly all visitors
(91%) rated the parking condition or traffic information as easy to use.

Many visitors felt they benefited from the parking information, as a
relatively high proportion of users (62%) thought that the parking
conditions or traffic conditions helped to relieve tension and stress
related to travel (Figure 4-9). Twenty-seven percent of the users
"strongly agreed" that it helped to relieve tension and stress related
to travel. However, roughly the same proportion of users (29%) was
uncertain the information helped to relieve tension and stress related
to travel. Eight percent of the users disagreed that the information
helped to relieve tension and stress related to travel.

![](media/image24.wmf){width="5.932638888888889in"
height="3.464583333333333in"}

**Figure 4-8: Respondents' Agreement with Features
of**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779862 .anchor}**\
Parking Information Signs**

![](media/image25.wmf)

**Figure 4-9: Respondents Agreement That Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779863 .anchor}**\
Helped to Reduce Tension and Stress Related to Traveling**

Another measure of the success of the parking information is whether
visitors would want to use such information on a future visit. When
asked about using the information again 78% agreed they would and 81%
believed that using the information in the future would be a pleasant
experience.

Thus, despite the fact that parking information was available only for
two heavily used parking lots and that it was displayed in a "low tech"
manner in only four locations, visitors who used the information reacted
positively to it. The Park may want to consider expansion and automation
of information on parking conditions from the standpoint of customer
satisfaction.

**[Real-time Bus Departure Signs]{.underline}**

Half of the visitors that were sampled and agreed to receive and
complete the traveler survey reported using the Island Explorer bus and
the associated travel-related information. The ITS travel-related
information involved an automated annunciator for the Island Explorer
bus that transmitted an audio message and displayed the next bus stop.
Also, electronic signs displayed real-time departures of the next Island
Explorer bus at the Visitor Center and Jordan Pond House bus stops in
Acadia National Park and at the Village Green in Bar Harbor. The
departure signs are discussed here and the on-board annunciators are
covered in the next section.

Figure 4-10 shows a high level of agreement among visitors that the
real-time departure signs were accurate and easy to read. Virtually all
(96%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement "I found the
information to be accurate." Visitors reported similar ratings (94%) on
how easy it was to read the information displayed on signs and the ease
of using the information (94%).

![](media/image26.wmf){width="6.1819444444444445in"
height="4.069444444444445in"}

**Figure 4-10: Respondents' Agreement with
Features**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779864 .anchor}**\
of Real-time Bus Departure Signs**

The departure signs were definitely beneficial to visitors. A high
proportion of users (85%) thought that the real time information helped
to relieve uncertainty about when the bus would get to the bus stop
(Figure 4-11). A similarly high proportion -- 92% -- would plan to use
this information if they visited Acadia in the next 12 months and would
find it a pleasant experience. Clearly the vast majority of visitors
using the Island Explorer also used the bus departure signs, and they
were more definite about the utility compared to users of the parking
lot information signs. One reason might be that some visitors realized
that parking might still be possible along the access roads even when
Sand Beach and Jordan Pond were reported full.

![](media/image27.wmf)

**Figure 4-11: Respondents Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure
Sign**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779865 .anchor}**\
Relieved Uncertainty When the Bus Would Arrive**

**[Automated On-Board Announcement]{.underline}**

Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show users' evaluation of the traveler information
system involving the automated announcements of next stops on-board the
Island Explorer. Figure 4-12 shows a high level of agreement among users
(95%) that the bus on-board information was accurate. Visitors reported
similar ratings (92%) on how easy it was to read the bus stops displayed
on signs on-board the bus. Most users (93%) also rated the real time
information easy to use. Visitors were asked about the audio quality and
timing of the announcements relative to the next stop and the results
are displayed in Figure 4-13. Ninety-three percent of the users thought
the bus on-board information was clear and understandable. Most users
(95%) reported the volume of the announcements was loud enough to hear,
and most (94%) thought the announcements were made early enough for them
to exit the bus when needed. Thus, in terms of quality the on-board
announcements were well received by visitors.

![](media/image28.wmf){width="5.932638888888889in"
height="3.4618055555555554in"}

**Figure 4-12: Respondents' Agreement with Text Features
of**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779866 .anchor}**\
Automated On-Board Announcements**

![](media/image29.wmf){width="5.5in" height="3.09375in"}

**Figure 4-13: Respondents' Agreement with Audio Features
of**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779867 .anchor}**\
Automated On-Board Announcements**

As with the other ITS-based travel information technologies associated
with the Island Explorer, a high proportion of users benefited from the
on-board announcements. As shown in Figure 4-14, 81% said it relieved
uncertainty about when they would arrive at their bus stop, and a
slightly higher proportion (89%) thought that the announcements relieved
uncertainty about when to exit the bus (Figure 4-15). Moreover, 88% of
the users would plan to use the information provided by the
announcements if visiting in the next 12 months and 87% would find it a
pleasant experience. Only 3% of the users disagreed and 1% strongly
disagreed they would plan to use the information and future use would be
a pleasant experience. Twelve percent of the users were uncertain if
they would plan to use this information if visiting in the next twelve
months.

![](media/image30.wmf)

**Figure 4-14: Respondents' Agreement that Bus On-Board
Announcements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779868 .anchor}**\
Helped to Relieve Uncertainty About When the Bus Would Arrive at my
Stop**

![](media/image31.wmf)

**Figure 4-15: Respondents Agreement that Bus On-Board
Announcements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779869 .anchor}**\
Helped to Relieve Uncertainty About When to Exit the Bus**

**[Impact on Visitors' Use of Transit]{.underline}**

One of the objectives of the field operational test was to use ITS to
encourage visitors use of the Island Explorer and thereby reduce their
use of personal vehicles during their visit. The preceding discussion
revealed that visitors were generally quite satisfied with the ITS
technologies. Thus, the question is how did that positive reaction to
the ITS translate into usage of the Island Explorer? Figure 4-16 shows
that 44% of the visitors who reported using real time parking
information agreed that the information helped them decide to use the
Island Explorer bus. Figure 4-17 shows that 80% of the visitors who
reported using the bus and traveler information reported the real time
bus departure displays helped them decide to use the Island Explorer
Bus, and Figure 4-18 shows that 67% of the visitors who reported using
the bus and traveler information reported the bus on-board announcements
helped them decide to use the Island Explorer bus. Thus, it can be
concluded that ITS plays an important role in influencing visitors'
decision to use transit. Since most (87%) visitors had reported that
they tended not to use transit at home, ITS would appear to have been
influential in making transit a comfortable alternative to their normal
mode of travel.

![](media/image32.wmf)

**Figure 4-16: Respondents Agreement That Parking
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779870 .anchor}**\
Helped Me Decide to Use the Island Explorer Bus**

![](media/image33.wmf)

**Figure 4-17: Respondents' Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure
Signs**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779871 .anchor}**\
Helped Me Decide to Use the Island Explorer Bus**

![](media/image34.wmf)

**Figure 4-18: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board
Announcements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779872 .anchor}**\
Helped Me Decide to Use the Island Explorer Bus**

## Customer Satisfaction Among Members of the FOT Team

While satisfaction with the ITS technologies by visitors was of
paramount interest in the evaluation of the Acadia ITS Field Operational
Test, the views of persons involved in using the ITS technologies from
an operational standpoint were important as well. Through individual
interviews with staff of the Island Explorer and Acadia National Park,
as well as other key stakeholders, an understanding of their
satisfaction with the deployment was obtained. The Island Explorer
personnel included the operations manager, lead dispatcher (who was also
an experienced driver), one veteran driver, and one first year driver.
The Acadia National Park personnel consisted of the Assistant
Superintendent, Visitor Center staff member, rangers stationed at
entrance stations and campgrounds, and law enforcement rangers. An
additional five stakeholder representatives were interviewed, including
persons from Maine Department of Transportation, Maine Department of
Tourism, DownEast Transportation (operators of the Island Explorer), a
Chamber of Commerce representative, and a representative from Friends of
Acadia, a local advocacy group. The three groups of FOT team members are
discussed separately below.

**[Satisfaction with ITS: Island Explorer Staff]{.underline}**

Island Explorer staff experienced five ITS technologies on a daily
basis: the voice communicator, the automatic vehicle locator, the
departure signs, the automatic on-board annuciator, and the passenger
counters on each bus. In addition, equipment and software in the Island
Explorer dispatcher's office enabled managers to track and manage the
buses on a real-time basis. Figures 4-19 -- 4-21 illustrate some of
these technologies.

![](media/image35.jpeg){width="4.439583333333333in"
height="2.839583333333333in"}

**Figure 4-19: ITS Equipment Inside Island Explorer
Bus:**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779873 .anchor}**\
Voice and Text Communications and Passenger Counter**[^23]

![](media/image36.jpeg){width="3.433333333333333in" height="2.575in"}

**Figure 4-20: Island Explorer Dispatcher's
Office**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779874 .anchor}**\
with Radio Voice Communications\
and Bus Management Software**

![](media/image37.jpeg){width="3.433333333333333in" height="2.5625in"}

**Figure 4-21: Bus Tracking Software Connected
to**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779875 .anchor}**\
Automatic Vehicle Locator on Buses**

As shown in Table 4-4, the ratings from the Island Explorer interviewees
indicate a high degree of satisfaction with the performance of the voice
communicator, automatic vehicle locator, departure signs, on-board
annuciator, and passenger counter. On a 5-point scale with 5 being very
satisfied and 1 being not at all satisfied, an average rating of 4 or
better was given by both managers and drivers. Although some problems
were noted by the interviewees, managers and drivers felt that the ITS
components did function as designed and were a very positive
contribution to operating the Island Explorer.

Table 4-4: Average Ratings of Satisfaction with ITS
Components[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779409 .anchor}\
by Island Explorer Staff

  ------------ ---------------- --------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------
               **Voice          **AVL**   **Departure   **Annunciator**   **Passenger   **N
               Communicator**             Sign**                          Counter**     =**

  Island       4.5              4.75      4             4.5               4.5           2
  Explorer                                                                              
  Managers                                                                              

  Island       4.5              Not rated 4             4                 4             2
  Explorer                                                                              
  Drivers                                                                               
  ------------ ---------------- --------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------

> Ratings are averages based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 very
> dissatisfied, 2 dissatisfied, 3 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4
> satisfied, and 5 very satisfied.

***Voice Communicator***. Both managers and drivers voiced satisfaction
with the radio communications. The radios were used constantly to
communicate such information as accidents, large passenger loads, hurt
animals, and blocked roads, although there were some persistent
operational problems with blackouts that were due to topographical
features on Mount Desert Island. According to the managers, both
dispatch personnel and drivers seemed comfortable with radio use.
According to the two drivers interviewed, driver reaction to radios was
mixed; some drivers thought they were essential, others saw them as
contingency tools for extraordinary use. The experienced driver was less
reliant on the radio, but both drivers agreed that being able to
communicate with dispatch was important to report problems such as full
buses, accidents, and hazardous parking. The ability to communicate
directly with other drivers was also seen as desirable, especially if a
dual system channel selection were to be available.

***Automatic Vehicle Locator.*** According to the Island Explorer
managers, topographical features on the island created some transmission
problems that affected the global positioning system signals. Problems
experienced included "disappearing" buses, and GPS "wobble" that may
trigger an annunciator announcement other than the next stop or
premature announcements. Despite these problems satisfaction was very
high. The locator system was seen as extremely valuable in route
management, schedule adherence, driver behavior (speeding), and vehicle
location in the system, and the system is being enhanced to enable
historical route analysis to determine peak passenger loads. (Island
Explorer drivers were not asked about the automatic vehicle locator, as
they were not directly involved in its use.)

***Electronic Bus Departure Sign.*** Managers were satisfied with the
signs, but somewhat less so than other ITS technologies. The departure
sign relies on synchronization with the AVL on buses to compute arrival
and departure times. This function occasionally did not work for some
buses, resulting in incorrect departure information being posted.
Likewise, occasionally a driver would "log in" to an incorrect route
number, resulting in a software distortion of the displayed schedule.
This error could be overridden from the dispatch office, but sometimes a
90-minute schedule distortion would result. Other than these problems,
the signs performed as designed according to the Island Explorer
managers. Drivers were generally receptive to the departure sign, but
felt it did not directly impact their role. One driver did comment that
when the sign was "off schedule" due to system problems, passengers were
prone to berate drivers, despite on-time adherence to printed schedules.

***Automated Annunciator**.* The annunciator on-board the buses was
viewed as a positive feature by the Island Explorer managers. Management
joked that the recorded voice, dubbed "Elvira" was greatly appreciated.
There were some signal problems that would result in double announcing
of a stop or announcing a stop that was across the street, especially
where stops were close together in downtown Bar Harbor, and the
communications consulting company is working on this problem. Management
personnel believed that the menu of announcements could be expanded to
include safety, non-smoking, and Park pass purchase announcements.

Drivers were mixed in their reaction to the recorded voice on the
annunciator. Suggestions included reprogramming with natural voices,
having several versions of the announcements to offer variety, or to
enable drivers to record or customize announcements. The drivers felt
that announcements were wrong or premature about 10% of the time and
rated the annunciator slightly lower than managers.

***Automatic Passenger Counter***. Both management and drivers expressed
satisfaction with the passenger counters on-board the buses, but drivers
slightly less so than management. Management believed the passenger
counters worked well, and that the counts were about 90% accurate. Some
errors were introduced by sensor placement in stairwells and
communication problems causing automatic resets in the middle of runs.

The passenger counter was seen as largely irrelevant to drivers, and
they did not use data from it. Some problems were encountered as a
result of "bad" GPS readings, which triggered a start/end of a route
passenger count in the middle of a route and resulted in dropped or
doubled passenger counts.

***Overall Satisfaction with the Island Explorer Suite of ITS
Technologies.*** Both the Operations Manager and Lead Dispatcher were
enthusiastic in their belief that the ITS technologies improved
operations of the Island Explorer. Specifically, they believed that ITS
made the bus easier to use, but were not sure if ITS
[directly]{.underline} increased ridership. They also believed the
communication system greatly improves safety, especially to send text
messages if the voice features were inoperable (this occurred in one
instance), and to passively locate the vehicle in an emergency. The
combination of technologies was seen as valuable in managing the cost
effectiveness of operations, but not especially helpful in maintenance
of vehicles. The strongest benefit of ITS technology was perceived to be
the combination of geographical and ridership data to enhance route
design. Both managerial respondents strongly believed that ITS
facilitated good operations and contributed to overall customer
satisfaction.

The drivers also agreed that deployed technologies made their job easier
and enabled them to cope with increasing traffic and ridership.

**[Satisfaction with ITS: Acadia National Park Staff]{.underline}**

Staff of Acadia National Park experienced three ITS technologies to
various degrees: parking information signs at two campgrounds and the
Visitors Center; a Web page with parking information linked to the
Park's Website; and the electronic bus departure signs at Jordan Pond
and the Visitors Center. Figures 4-2, 4-3, 4-4 and 4-7 in Section 4.1
depict these ITS-based traveler information sources in operation.

The quantitative ratings of the Acadia National Park managers and
rangers were not as positive as the Island Explorer staff. In Table 4-5
the average rating on the 5-point scale ranged from 3.0 to 3.75,
indicating a somewhat neutral attitude regarding satisfaction with two
of the three ITS components deployed within the Park. The Webpage wasn't
rated as only one Park staff member that was interviewed had observed
it.

**Table 4-5: Average Ratings of Satisfaction with the ITS
Components**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779410 .anchor}**\
**by Acadia National Park Staff

  ---------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ----------
                   **Parking Status Sign** **Departure Sign**  **N =**

  Park Managers    3.0                     3.75                2

  Rangers          3.0                     3.0                 5
  ---------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ----------

> Ratings are averages based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 very
> dissatisfied, 2 dissatisfied, 3 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4
> satisfied, and 5 very satisfied.

***Parking Lot Status Signs.*** The original ITS design envisioned
automated parking status signs located at the Visitor Center and at a
Park entrance. This capability was not deployed, but a manual "tent
sign" was displayed at two campground entrances and the Visitor Center.
Changes in parking status had to be conveyed by telephone and was not
usually updated in a timely manner due to other staff responsibilities
during very busy periods. Only one of the rangers interviewed had direct
experience with updating the parking lot signs. This ranger felt that,
while the signs were a good idea, the telephone notification system by
which rangers received updates was cumbersome. In general, ANP staff
believed that parking status signs, if automated, would be a welcome
congestion management tool. Several respondents felt that the design and
appearance of the signs could be improved. The rangers were largely
neutral as to whether or not the signs were a benefit to visitors.

***Electronic Bus Departure Signs.*** The departure signs experienced
initial problems with power interruptions. Both Park managers and
rangers were largely neutral on the utility of the departure signs at
the two locations within the Park, as they were out of the way of the
Visitor Center and Jordan Pond House personnel. Staff felt that while
the electronic bus departure signs were good features, their utility was
diminished somewhat by the fact that the signs could not be turned off
after the season was over, resulting in visitor frustration with waiting
for buses that were not running. The rangers were somewhat more critical
in their assessment because they were responsible for updating the
parking status signs and answering visitor frustration with post-season
bus inquiries. Table 4-5 reflects this impression.

***Web Page with Parking Information.*** Only one respondent had seen
the Web parking status page, which was linked to the Acadia National
Park main Website. That manager's comment was that the page should be
more prominently linked and have a better design. Thus, it would appear
that the staff member was not very satisfied with this ITS source of
traveler information. (The managers did not rate the Web page and the
rangers, who did not experience it in their jobs, were not asked about
the Web page.)

***Overall Satisfaction with Suite of ITS System Technologies.*** When
asked about their perception of the impact of ITS on visitors to Acadia,
both managers who were interviewed felt that the net impact of ITS was
positive, especially from a traffic congestion management standpoint.
Park managers believed that parking lot and departure signs do have a
positive influence on congestion near attractions, parking behavior, and
traffic by facilitating bus travel.

On the other hand, the rangers who were interviewed felt that bus
departure and parking lot status signs as deployed did not materially
affect congestion near attractions, parking behavior, or traffic.
Nevertheless, all rangers interviewed believed that traffic congestion
was a problem and that the Island Explorer, with ITS-enhancements, is
helping to alleviate it. Thus, they believe that ITS components that
will further enhance the Island Explorer would be worthwhile. For
example, automation of real time information about parking lots (rather
than the manually-changed signs) together with a suggestion to "Take the
Bus" when these lots are full were suggested by the rangers as
meaningful improvements to the present system.

**[Satisfaction with ITS: Other Stakeholders]{.underline}**

All other interviewed stakeholders were satisfied with the ITS
technologies that were operational during the FOT and they agreed that
full deployment of the parking lot loop detectors and sign displays,
which were not operational in 2002, should be pursued. There was also
universal agreement that the Webpage should be completed and prominently
linked to Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island Web sites.

## 4.5 Summary of Customer Satisfaction {#summary-of-customer-satisfaction .unnumbered}

Table 4-6 shows the hypotheses related to customer satisfaction that
were examined in the evaluation. As demonstrated in the previous
sections, support was provided for many of these hypothesized impacts.

**Table 4-6: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Customer
Satisfaction**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779411 .anchor}

  -------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------
  **Goal Area**  **Objective**           **Hypothesized Impact**

  Customer       To provide a more       Pre-trip traveler information
  Satisfaction   positive visitor        services will divert visitors from
                 experience through      using personal vehicles and to using
                 greater reliance on the Island Explorer
                 Island Explorer for     
                 travel                  

                                         Real-time arrival information on
                                         next Island Explorer bus will
                                         increase visitors' willingness to
                                         use transit

                                         Real-time information on parking lot
                                         conditions will increase visitors'
                                         willingness to use transit

                 To provide a more       Real-time information on parking lot
                 positive visitor        conditions will increase visitors'
                 experience through      ability to plan accordingly and to
                 information on parking  fulfill experience preferences
                 availability            

                 To provide a more       Tourists who use ITS feel less
                 positive visitor        stress and worry due to service
                 experience through      operations
                 efficient service       

                 To provide useful and   ITS technologies will have positive
                 timely information for  benefits/effects on Island Explorer
                 the transportation      driver jobs, Island Explorer
                 provider                operations, and interagency
                                         relationships
  -------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------

First of all, it should be emphasized that not all visitors used ITS.
Moreover, many visitors appeared to rely entirely on their own vehicles
for transportation and reported fewer concerns with doing so than
visitors who made use of ITS in one form or another. The visitors who
did use ITS perceived definite benefits from doing so. The visitors who
used the real-time departure signs for the Island Explorer buses and the
real-time parking conditions reported that the information was accurate,
clearly understandable, and easy to use, and such traveler information
contributed to a positive visitor experience. For example, ITS users of
the traveler information system involving the real-time parking
conditions, automated annunciator, and electronic departure sign for the
Island Explorer bus reported the information saved them time and reduced
tension and stress related to travel. The ITS users reported future use
of the traveler information would be a pleasant experience and that they
would plan to use the information again.

As hypothesized, the ITS technologies increased visitors' willingness to
use transit. However, the ITS technologies associated with the Island
Explorer\--the electronic departure signs and bus on-board
announcements---were more instrumental in mode choice than the real-time
parking information. Eighty percent of the users of the electronic
departure signs and 67% of users of the on-board announcements said the
technologies helped them decide to use the Island Explorer bus compared
to 44% of users of the real-time parking conditions. Regardless of the
reported differences, the ITS technologies appear to be contributing to
the overall goal of diverting visitors from using private vehicles to
using the Island Explorer bus.

## Satisfaction with ITS among the FOT project team was also observed. Staff of the Island Explorer was quite enthusiastic about the five ITS technologies associated with the buses. In particular they found the voice communications and automatic vehicle locator technologies extremely valuable to their operations. Among the staff of Acadia National Park a somewhat neutral stance was observed, which is not surprising since most of the ITS technologies intended for deployment within the Park were not operational or only partially so. The parking information signs, while useful to visitors, required too much attention from rangers in their "low-tech" deployed form. Finally, the other key stakeholders also expressed satisfaction with the ITS technologies from a general standpoint. {#satisfaction-with-its-among-the-fot-project-team-was-also-observed.-staff-of-the-island-explorer-was-quite-enthusiastic-about-the-five-its-technologies-associated-with-the-buses.-in-particular-they-found-the-voice-communications-and-automatic-vehicle-locator-technologies-extremely-valuable-to-their-operations.-among-the-staff-of-acadia-national-park-a-somewhat-neutral-stance-was-observed-which-is-not-surprising-since-most-of-the-its-technologies-intended-for-deployment-within-the-park-were-not-operational-or-only-partially-so.-the-parking-information-signs-while-useful-to-visitors-required-too-much-attention-from-rangers-in-their-low-tech-deployed-form.-finally-the-other-key-stakeholders-also-expressed-satisfaction-with-the-its-technologies-from-a-general-standpoint. .unnumbered}

## 5.0 Mobility {#mobility .unnumbered}

In addition to ensuring customer satisfaction with the ITS technologies,
providing mobility to visitors so that they could enjoy Acadia National
Park was an equally important objective of the ITS Field Operational
Test. Although it was not practical to try to collect objective data on
mobility such as miles traveled, it was possible to measure mobility
through visitor's subjective assessment. Visitors were asked to assess
the impact of ITS technologies on various aspects of mobility, including
avoidance of parking problems, traffic congestion, and large crowds;
ease of getting around the area; saving time; and changing the time or
destination of travel. The following sections examine each of these
aspects of mobility.

## 5.1 Avoiding Problems {#avoiding-problems .unnumbered}

Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they had obtained
parking condition or traffic information on the Acadia National Park Web
page and displayed on signs at the Park's Visitor Center or campgrounds.
Figures 5-1 through 5-3 reveal that ITS was attributed by users with
enhancing their mobility. A relatively high proportion of users (66%)
thought that the real time parking information did help to avoid parking
problems (Figure 5-1). Twenty-seven percent of the users were uncertain
as to whether the information helped to avoid parking. There was more
uncertainty among users (35%) in believing the parking information
helped to avoid traffic congestion (Figure 5-2). However, fifty-seven
percent of users "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that the parking
information helped to avoid traffic congestion

Less than half of the users (47%) thought the real time parking
information helped to avoid large crowds (Figure 5-3). The most
frequently rated response was "neutral" by users (41 percent). Eleven
percent of users disagreed and 1% of users strongly disagreed the
information helped to avoid large crowds. It should be noted that
parking condition information was given for two of the most popular
destinations in Acadia National Park: Sand Beach and the Jordan Pond
House. However, there are several other very popular destinations such
as Cadillac Mountain. Visitors may have experienced large crowds at
other destinations regardless of the status of parking conditions
reported at Sand Beach and the Jordan Pond House. Of course, with tour
buses common at some of the Park's destinations, visitors may have
experienced crowding at times when traffic or parking was not perceived
as a problem.

![](media/image38.wmf)

**Figure 5-1:** **Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779876 .anchor}**\
Helped to Avoid Parking Problems**

![](media/image39.wmf)

**Figure 5-2: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779877 .anchor}**\
Helped to Avoid Traffic Congestion**

![](media/image40.wmf)

**Figure 5-3: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779878 .anchor}**\
Helped To Avoid Large Crowds**

## Ease of Movement

Nearly three out of four users (74%) agreed that the real time parking
information made it easier for them to get around despite having lower
agreement ratings for the parking information helping to avoid parking
problems (66%), traffic congestion (57%), and large crowds (47%). Figure
5-4 shows that users rated 31% "strongly agree" and 43% "agree" with the
statement "It was easier to get around with the information."

The mobility of those visitors who used the Island Explorer bus and
travel-related information during their recent visit was assessed by
asking if the ITS-based information made it easier to get around.
Figures 5-5 -- 5-6 show users' evaluation of the traveler information
system involving the real time bus departure displays and the on-board
announcements.

Figure 5-5 shows a very high percentage of the bus users (90%) that
agreed the real time bus departure displays made it easier for them to
get around the area. Fifty-eight percent of the bus users rated
"strongly agree" that the real time bus displays made it easier for them
to get around the area. Likewise, a high proportion of bus users (84%)
agreed that the bus announcements made it easier for them to get around
the area (Figure 5-6). Half of the bus users (50%) rated "strongly
agree" that the information made it easier for them to get around the
area.

![](media/image41.wmf)

**Figure 5-4: Respondents' Agreement that Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779879 .anchor}**\
Made It Easier for Me to Get Around the Area**

Caution should be used in drawing conclusions about the real time bus
departure displays and the on-board announcements in Figure 5-5 and 5-6
with the reported ease of getting around the area. Daigle and Lee's 1999
study of the Island Explorer bus passengers identifies user reports of
increased ease of travel in getting around the area.[^24] Answers in the
FOT evaluation may reflect to some degree visitors' use of the Island
Explorer bus itself as compared to the traveler information.

![](media/image42.wmf)

**Figure 5-5: Respondents' Agreement that Real Time Bus Departure
Displays**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779880 .anchor}**\
Made It Easier for Me to Get Around the Area**

![](media/image43.wmf)

**Figure 5-6: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board
Announcements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779881 .anchor}**\
Made It Easier For Me To Get Around The Area**

## Saving Time

Enabling users to save time is another potential benefit of ITS and this
aspect of mobility was examined through questions about the ITS users'
experience with various forms of traveler information. Results showed
that the majority of ITS users agreed that they saved time with the
travel information they used, but there was less certainty about the
time saving benefit of the parking information and the on-board bus
announcements compared to the real-time bus departure signs.

Visitors who reported that they obtained information on parking
conditions at the Acadia National Park visitor center, campgrounds, or
Website were asked to rate their agreement with statements on time
savings. Figure 5-7 shows that a relatively high proportion of users
(67%) who agreed that the real time parking information helped saved
time. However, a sizable proportion of users (29%) were uncertain as to
whether the parking information saved them time.

![](media/image44.wmf)

**Figure 5-7:** **Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779882 .anchor}**\
Saved Time for the Visitor**

Among visitors who used the Island Explorer bus and travel-related
information the impact on their perception of time savings varied
somewhat between the real-time bus departure signs and the on-board
announcements. Eighty percent of the bus users reported that the real
time bus departure signs helped to save time (Figure 5-8), whereas only
16% were unsure. Figure 5-9 shows that 69% of users agreed that the bus
on-board announcements helped them to save time. However, twenty-four
percent were uncertain that this information helped to save time.

![](media/image45.wmf)

**Figure 5-8:** **Respondents' Agreement That Real Time Bus Departure
Sign**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779883 .anchor}**\
Saved Time for the Visitor**

![](media/image46.wmf)

**Figure 5-9: Respondents' Agreement That Bus On-Board
Announcements**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779884 .anchor}**\
Saved Time for the Visitor**

## Changing Departure Time or Destination

Providing visitors enhanced mobility can be achieved by enabling them to
make changes to their daily trip planning so they can avoid travel
problems. Users of the real-time parking information were asked about
the impact on their departure times or destinations of travel. Figure
5-10 shows that 43% of the users changed the time of day they visited an
attraction based upon the real time parking information. Thirty-two
percent were uncertain that the information influenced the time of day
they visited an attraction and 26% disagreed that the parking
information changing the time of day they visited an attraction. Figure
5-11 shows that the real time parking information changed some visitors'
minds on what attraction to visit (38 percent). However, 37% of users
were uncertain and 26% disagreed that the information changed their mind
on what attractions to visit. These results indicate that while a
sizeable proportion of visitors appeared to take advantage of the
parking information to select what destinations to visit and when, the
majority was either uncertain or disagreed that there was an impact.

![](media/image47.wmf)

**Figure 5-10: Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779885 .anchor}**\
Changed the Time of Day to Visit Certain Destinations**

![](media/image48.wmf)

**Figure 5-11: Respondents' Agreement That Parking Conditions
Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779886 .anchor}**\
Changed the Visitor's Mind on what Attractions to Visit**

To further assess the potential impact of ITS on visitor mobility, data
on visitor activities were examined. Visitors reported participating in
a variety of activities and often multiple activities both inside Acadia
National Park and outside the Park. Table 5-1 shows the activities and
visitors who were identified as ITS users and ITS non-users. The most
common activity for ITS users and ITS non-users was sightseeing (81% and
76%, respectively). Other popular outdoor activities for visitors
included hiking on trails, walking on carriage roads, picnicking, biking
on carriage roads, and attending ranger led programs. While
participation levels were generally higher for ITS users as compared to
ITS non-users for activities both inside Acadia National Park and
outside of the Park, the more diverse activities of ITS users may be
related to longer stays in the area as discussed in Section 7. Thus, a
case cannot be firmly made that ITS users were more mobile than
non-users when measured by the range of activities and access diverse
destinations in which visitors participated. That conclusion would be
consistent with the observations in Section 4 about customer
satisfaction that both ITS users and non-users had high satisfaction
levels with their experience at Acadia.

**Table 5-1: Visitor Activities Inside Acadia National Park and Outside
the Park**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779412 .anchor}

+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Activity**                        | # ITS {#its   | # ITS {#its-1 |
|                                     |  .unnumbered} |  .unnumbered} |
|                                     |               |               |
|                                     | **User**      | **Non-User**  |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
|                                     | **\-\-        |               |
|                                     | \-\-\-\-\-\-- |               |
|                                     | Percent\-\-\- |               |
|                                     | \-\-\-\-\--** |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Sightseeing                         | 81            | 76            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Going out to eat/entertainment in   | 80            | 59            |
| the village center                  |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Shopping in village centers         | 77            | 57            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Hiking on trails                    | 70            | 62            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Walking on carriage roads           | 41            | 36            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Jordon Pond House food service      | 37            | 41            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Shopping in Park                    | 36            | 31            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Picnicking                          | 35            | 24            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Biking on carriage roads            | 29            | 19            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Attend ranger led programs          | 20            | 7             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Other                               | 20            | 13            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Bird watching                       | 15            | 10            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Biking on motor roads               | 13            | 3             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Rock climbing                       | 13            | 8             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Sea kayaking                        | 13            | 10            |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Lake boating/canoe                  | 12            | 9             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Horse and carriage rides            | 6             | 3             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Going to work                       | 5             | 1             |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Percentages add to more than 100    |               |               |
| because visitors could do more than |               |               |
| one activity                        |               |               |
+-------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

## Summary of Mobility

Table 5-1 shows the hypotheses that were posed regarding the impact of
ITS on mobility of visitors. The hypothesized impacts dealt with various
aspects of mobility, and in the survey these impacts were examined with
questions that focused on avoidance of parking problems, traffic
congestion, and large crowds; ease of getting around the area; saving
time; and changing the time or destination of travel. Sections 5.1
through 5.4 demonstrated that some but not all the hypotheses were
supported by the survey results.

**Table 5-2: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to
Mobility**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779413 .anchor}

  ---------- ------------------- -----------------------------------------
  **Goal     **Objective**       **Hypothesized Impact**
  Area**                         

  Mobility   To increase         Tourists who use traveler information are
             visitor's ability   more aware of travel options than those
             to access desired   who do not use traveler information
             destinations and    
             activities          

                                 Tourists use alternate routes or travel
                                 modes due to traveler information

                                 Tourists perceive that they have
                                 increased access as a result of their use
                                 of traveler information

                                 Tourists who use traveler information
                                 perceive fewer problems with congestion
                                 and parking that might prohibit them from
                                 visiting certain destinations and
                                 activities
  ---------- ------------------- -----------------------------------------

In general, ITS contributed to visitors' perception of mobility at
Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island. Nearly three out of four
users (74%) agreed that the real time parking information made it easier
for them to get around despite having lower agreement ratings for the
parking information helping to avoid parking problems (66%), traffic
congestion (57%), and large crowds (47%). A higher proportion of bus
users agreed that the real-time bus departure signs and the on-board bus
announcements made it easier for them to get around (90% and 84%,
respectively).

The majority of visitors reported that they saved time by using the
ITS-based traveler information, and this was especially the case for
users of the real-time bus departed signs. Eighty percent of them agreed
that the signs saved them time. This is not a surprising result, since
the information those signs conveyed was time-related. ITS technologies
in the form of the parking information had limited success in changing
the time of day or changing the visitor's mind on what attractions to
visit (43% and 38%, respectively). One explanation might be that some
visitors may have been aware that parking along access roads to Sand
Beach and Jordan Pond was permitted even when the parking lots were
full. Even so, getting just 40% of users of the parking information to
change their plans could help lessen the demand for parking at these two
locations.

Finally, it was hypothesized that ITS users would generally report
increased ability to access desired destinations and activities as
compared to ITS non-users. While ITS users did appear to have slightly
higher levels of activities than non-users, that may be due to the
length of visit. Nevertheless, ITS impacted some visitors' access to
destinations as approximately 40% of users of the parking information
indicated that they changed the timing or destination of a trip based on
the information. For those visitors, access to certain destinations was
limited, but presumably they visited those destinations at some other
less-congested time.

## 6.0 Productivity and Economic Vitality {#productivity-and-economic-vitality .unnumbered}

This section examines the economic impact of the ITS technologies
deployed as part of the ITS FOT at Acadia National Park. During the
evaluation workshop of May 2000, participants identified two principal
perspectives from which the potential economic impact of ITS could be
assessed. First, would ITS have a noticeable impact on the local economy
that is heavily dependent upon tourism? This question was explored using
data from the survey of local businesses, the visitor survey, and data
from Acadia National Park.[^25] A second area of interest was the impact
of ITS on the productivity of the Island Explorer. Would the bus
operations realize cost savings from use of ITS technologies?
Operational data from the Island Explorer were used to assess this
question. The following sections start with an exploration of the impact
of ITS on the vitality of the local economy, followed by an assessment
of productivity impacts in the Island Explorer operations.

## The Role of Tourism in the Local Economy

Tourism is a mainstay of the economy of Mount Desert Island, a fact
reflected in the responses of 257 local business managers who responded
to the survey conducted for this evaluation. Figure 6-1 shows that 74%
of managers, who were members of area Chambers of Commerce, classified
their main business as lodging, retail, restaurant or tour guide. The
greatest clusters of businesses are in downtown Bar Harbor (37%) and
Southwest Harbor (18%), and operations are either highly seasonal (43%
open 6 months or less) or year-round (44%). The managers themselves tend
to be year-round residents of Mount Desert Island (86%) who have lived
in the area a decade or more (70%) and have operated their business five
or more years (77%). Thus, the perspective of these seasoned managers
who are well acquainted with Acadia and Mount Desert Island was expected
to provide valuable insight into the role that transportation plays in
the success of tourism and ultimately their businesses.

Business managers generally held a positive view of tourism in the area.
Table 6-1 presents the average of respondents' ratings to potential
positive and negative impacts of tourism. The results revealed strong
levels of agreement with statements about the positive impacts and
either neutrality or disagreement with negative impacts. For example,
managers strongly agreed that tourism would continue to have a major
economic role in the community and that they personally support the
vital role of tourism. On the other hand, the data reveal a more neutral
position, or a polarized view, on whether additional tourists beyond the
current levels would be a positive thing.

Table 6-2 presents business managers' views of the potential
contribution of Acadia National Park. The data reveal that Acadia is
valued for a wide variety of contributions to the community.
Specifically related to economic contribution, Acadia was viewed as
contributing in a major way to job creation (52%), the stability of the
economy (59%) and as an attraction for tourism dollars (83%).

![](media/image49.wmf)

**Figure 6-1: Types of Businesses on Mount Desert
Island**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779887 .anchor}

**Table 6-1: Business Managers' Views of Potential Benefits and Negative
Impacts**

**Related to** []{#__RefHeading___Toc40779414 .anchor}Tourism in the
Community\*

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----------
  **Potential Benefits and Negative Impacts**                        **Mean**

                                                                     

  The tourism industry will continue to play a major                 1.87
  economic role in this community                                    

  I support tourism as having a vital role in this community         1.86

  My community should plan for and manage the growth of              1.61
  tourism                                                            

  I am happy and proud to see tourists coming to see what my         1.41
  community has to offer                                             

  Additional tourism will have a positive impact on my               .42
  community's growth                                                 

  I favor new tourism facilities in my community that will           .27
  attract more tourists                                              

  Tourists are a burden on my community's services (roads,           .13
  water & sewer, police & fire)                                      

  An increase in tourists in my community will lead to               -.004
  friction between local residents and tourists                      

  Tourism is responsible for too fast a rate of urbanization         -.29
  and development in Maine                                           

  Tourism usually benefits a small group of individuals in   -1.19   
  this community                                                     
  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- -----------

\* Possible responses: +2 = Strongly Agree; +1 = Agree; 0 = Neutral; -1
= Disagree; and -2 = Strongly Disagree

  -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ---------- ----------
  **Item**                               **Contribution**                                                              **Mean**   

                                         **No**                                 **Minor**   **Moderate**   **Major**              **Rank**

                                         **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Percent of                                                         
                                         Respondents\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--**                                                     

  A natural setting in which your        \<1                                    1           9              86          3.87       1
  community takes pride                                                                                                           

  A chance to experience unique          1                                      2           13             81          3.81       2
  recreation opportunities                                                                                                        

  A feeling that your community is a     1                                      3           10             84          3.80       3
  special place to live                                                                                                           

  A place to preserve/conserve various   1                                      3           11             81          3.80       3
  natural and unique ecosystems                                                                                                   

  A chance to attract tourism dollars to 2                                      2           13             83          3.78       4
  my business and community                                                                                                       

  Assurance that access to recreation    2                                      5           18             72          3.66       5
  opportunities will not be lost                                                                                                  

  Opportunities for exercise that        1                                      7           19             70          3.64       6
  improve local people's health                                                                                                   

  A greater ability to preserve the      4                                      4           17             71          3.61       7
  character of the immediate area                                                                                                 

  A greater understanding of your        2                                      5           23             66          3.61       8
  natural environment                                                                                                             

  A more stable economy within the       2                                      9           25             59          3.48       9
  community                                                                                                                       

  The number of jobs that are created in 1                                      15          29             52          3.36       10
  your community                                                                                                                  
  -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

## Table 6-2: Business Managers' Attitudes toward Acadia National Park's Contributions\*  {#table-6-2-business-managers-attitudes-toward-acadia-national-parks-contributions .unnumbered}

## \*Possible responses: 1= No Contribution; 2 = Minor Contribution; 3 = Moderate Contribution; and 4 = Major Contribution {#possible-responses-1-no-contribution-2-minor-contribution-3-moderate-contribution-and-4-major-contribution .unnumbered}

## 6.2 Business Managers' View of Transportation Problems and ITS Solutions {#business-managers-view-of-transportation-problems-and-its-solutions .unnumbered}

Transportation was one area that drew negative views from the business
managers. Table 6-3 presents their perceptions of the magnitude of
various transportation problems in the summer of 2002. Business managers
are concerned about summer travel on Mount Desert Island and in Acadia
National Park in several ways. In their rating of "big" and "moderate"
problems, first and second ranked problems had to do with too many
vehicles outside of the Park causing parking problems or congestion.
Parking and congestion concerns were a "big" or "moderate" problem to
72% and 70% respectively. Business managers felt similarly about too
many vehicles inside the Park causing parking problems (70%) and
impacting visitor experiences (62%). It should be noted that concerns
reported by business managers could partly be a reflection of their own
personal experiences, with many of them viewing travel problems as the
norm. When asked separately about their own overall travel experience
during the past summer, nearly one-half of all business managers (48%)
rated it as being "average," and 18% rated it "poor" or "very poor." In
contrast, only 35% reported "good" or "very good" travel experience.

It is interesting to note that in Table 6-3 the average ratings for
visitors' ability to fully access desired attractions outside of the
Park (i.e., restaurants, shops) was lower than issues of air quality and
unsafe parking. For example, despite the magnitude of their concern
noted previously with parking and traffic congestion outside of the Park
and parking inside the Park, lower ratings (57%) were reported by
business managers in terms of visitor's ability to access desired
attractions and recreation opportunities. However, business managers
reported access as more of a problem at attractions outside of the
Park\--a big problem to 23%\--than inside of the Park, where it was
rated as big problem to only 6%. Business managers did not generally
believe that travel and traffic information was insufficient to help
visitors plan trips in the Park, as only 20% rated it as a moderate or
big problem. Thus, while managers may be voicing concern over problems
that visitors encounter, those concerns are less than the air quality
and safety concerns. They may also be an expression of concern for their
own quality of life from operating a business in the area when it comes
to health or travel conditions to and from work.

ITS offered potential solutions to the transportation problems
experienced by both visitors and managers of local businesses on Mount
Desert Island. The survey sought to determine if business managers saw
the ITS technologies deployed in the FOT as beneficial. Because many of
the deployed ITS technologies were intended to enhance the operation of
the Island Explorer bus system, the evaluation examined managers'
attitudes toward the Island Explorer as a prelude to assessment of the
ITS technologies per se.

**Table 6-3: Business Managers' Perceptions of Travel Issues and
Magnitude of Problem on Mount Desert Island and in Acadia National Park
this Summer**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779416 .anchor}**\***

+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| **Issue**                           | * |    |      |    | ** | ** |
|                                     | * |    |      |    | Me | Ra |
|                                     | M |    |      |    | an | nk |
|                                     | a |    |      |    | \* | ** |
|                                     | g |    |      |    | ** |    |
|                                     | n |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | i |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | t |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | u |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | d |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | e |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | o |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | f |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | P |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | r |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | o |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | b |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | l |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | e |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | m |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
|                                     | * | *  | **Mo | *  |    |    |
|                                     | * | *S | dera | *B |    |    |
|                                     | N | ma | te** | ig |    |    |
|                                     | o | ll |      | ** |    |    |
|                                     | * | ** |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | P |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | e |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | r |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | c |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | e |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | n |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | t |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | \ |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | - |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     | * |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many vehicles outside of the    | 7 | 17 | 23   | 49 | 3. | 1  |
| Park causing parking problems       |   |    |      |    | 21 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many vehicles outside of the    | 6 | 21 | 27   | 43 | 3. | 2  |
| Park causing traffic congestion     |   |    |      |    | 11 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many vehicles inside of the     | 6 | 17 | 35   | 35 | 3. | 3  |
| Park causing parking problems       |   |    |      |    | 07 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many autos having a negative    | 1 | 19 | 32   | 32 | 2. | 4  |
| impact on air quality               | 2 |    |      |    | 90 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many autos in the Park that     | 9 | 24 | 32   | 30 | 2. | 5  |
| impacts visitor experience          |   |    |      |    | 89 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Vehicles parked along main roads    | 1 | 26 | 31   | 29 | 2. | 6  |
| causing unsafe conditions           | 1 |    |      |    | 82 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Ability for visitors to fully       | 1 | 22 | 34   | 23 | 2. | 7  |
| access desired attractions outside  | 8 |    |      |    | 64 |    |
| of the Park                         |   |    |      |    |    |    |
|                                     |   |    |      |    |    |    |
| (i.e., restaurants, shops)          |   |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Too many people inside of the Park  | 2 | 31 | 30   | 12 | 2. | 8  |
| that impacts visitor experiences    | 0 |    |      |    | 37 |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Ability for visitors to fully       | 3 | 27 | 23   | 6  | 2. | 9  |
| access desired recreation           | 4 |    |      |    | 02 |    |
| opportunities and attractions in    |   |    |      |    |    |    |
| the Park                            |   |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+
| Not enough travel and traffic       | 3 | 25 | 18   | 2  | 1. | 10 |
| information to help visitors plan   | 7 |    |      |    | 82 |    |
| trips in the Park                   |   |    |      |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+

\*Possible responses: 1= No Problem; 2 = Small Problem; 3 = Moderate
Problem; and 4 = Big Problem

## [Business Managers' Attitudes Toward the Island Explorer]{.underline}

The Island Explorer is readily available to the vast majority of local
businesses. It stops in front of 21% of the businesses and is within a
5-minute walk to an additional 58%. Sixty-nine percent of the businesses
distributed schedule and other information related to the bus. It is no
surprise, therefore, that 64% of the managers reported that their
customers used the bus (and an additional 20% were unsure). Moreover, at
21% of the businesses at least one employee used the bus to get to work,
and at many businesses managers (25%) or their employees (35%) used the
Island Explorer for non-work trips, too. Given the proximity to and use
of the bus by the both customers and workers at local businesses, the
evaluation sought to understand managers' perceptions of the benefits
that the Island Explorer provided. Table 6-4 presents managers' ratings
of potential benefits of the bus to tourists and residents.

Bus usage and strength of perceived benefits are clearly correlated. For
all but two of the potential benefits listed in Table 6-4, business
managers who reported usage of the bus system by customers and/or
employees rated those benefits higher than those who either didn't use
or weren't sure about use of the bus. The differences between the two
groups were statistically significant in 6 of the 14 benefits.

The biggest benefit reported, regardless of business manager group type,
was that the Island Explorer bus created less worry about driving and
parking for tourists along busy roads. Similarly, all managers on
average agreed that the bus relieved the stress of driving, improved air
quality, created safer conditions due to fewer vehicles, reduced parking
problems in the Park and provided greater access to Park destinations.
Both groups of managers also believed that the bus is helping to create
a new tourist segment that doesn't need to have their own vehicle at
all.

When asked about the Island Explorer's direct economic impacts, managers
tended to be more neutral in their beliefs. They didn't necessarily
agree that more customers were patronizing their business because
parking was less of a factor or that the Island Explorer would cause
visitors to stay longer. On the other hand, with an average rating of
.38, managers who did not report usage of the bus by their customers or
employees held somewhat to the belief that businesses closer to a bus
stop than their own did benefit.

**Table 6-4: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of the Island
Explorer Bus**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779417 .anchor}**\***

+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| **Benefits**                | **   |     |      |    | **AN  | * |
|                             | Repo |     |      |    | OVA** | * |
|                             | rted |     |      |    |       | p |
|                             | Cust |     |      |    | **Res | = |
|                             | omer |     |      |    | ults\ | * |
|                             | Use  |     |      |    | *\*** | * |
|                             | of   |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             | Is   |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             | land |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             | Ex   |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             | plor |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             | er** |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
|                             | **B  |     | **No |    |       |   |
|                             | us** |     | Bus  |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     | or   |    |       |   |
|                             | **(  |     | D    |    |       |   |
|                             | n=16 |     | on't |    |       |   |
|                             | 2)** |     | Kn   |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     | ow** |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     | **   |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     | (n=9 |    |       |   |
|                             |      |     | 0)** |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
|                             | **Me | **  | **Me | ** |       |   |
|                             | an** | Ran | an** | Ra |       |   |
|                             |      | k** |      | nk |       |   |
|                             |      |     |      | ** |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Creates less worry about    | 1.48 | 1   | 1.30 | 1  | A\>B  | . |
| driving and parking for     |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| tourists along busy roads   |      |     |      |    |       | 4 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 8 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Reduces tension and stress  | 1.44 | 2   | 1.30 | 1  |       |   |
| for people who would        |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| otherwise drive their own   |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| vehicle                     |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Reduces the amount of       | 1.44 | 2   | 1.04 | 7  | A\>B  | . |
| vehicle pollution and       |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| improves air quality        |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Contributes to fewer total  | 1.40 | 3   | 1.17 | 3  | A\>B  | . |
| vehicles on the road and    |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| safer driving conditions    |      |     |      |    |       | 3 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 4 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Reduces the amount of       | 1.40 | 3   | 1.19 | 2  | A\>B  | . |
| parking problems inside of  |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| the Park                    |      |     |      |    |       | 3 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Improves access to intended | 1.39 | 4   | 1.30 | 1  |       |   |
| destinations inside of Park |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Creates more potential for  | 1.25 | 5   | 1.15 | 4  |       |   |
| a new segment of tourists   |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| who do not drive personal   |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| vehicles                    |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Reduces the amount of       | 1.19 | 6   | .96  | 5  |       |   |
| parking problems in village |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| centers                     |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Improves access to shops    | 1.12 | 7   | .92  | 6  |       |   |
| and restaurants in village  |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| centers                     |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Provides people with fast   | .80  | 8   | .74  | 7  |       |   |
| service to their intended   |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| destination                 |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Increases ability to keep   | .57  | 9   | .60  | 8  |       |   |
| people off the road who may |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| drink and drive             |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Enables me and my employees | .46  | 10  | .034 | 11 | A\>B  | . |
| to have an alternative      |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| means to get to work        |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 5 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Increases the likelihood    | .38  | 11  | .16  | 10 |       |   |
| that visitors will stay     |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| longer                      |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Has enabled more customers  | .080 | 12  | -.19 | 12 |       |   |
| to patronize my business,   |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| because parking is less of  |      |     |      |    |       |   |
| a factor                    |      |     |      |    |       |   |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+
| Tends to benefit businesses | .062 | 13  | .38  | 9  | B\>A  | . |
| that are closer to the bus  |      |     |      |    |       | 0 |
| stop than mine              |      |     |      |    |       | 2 |
|                             |      |     |      |    |       | 1 |
+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+----+-------+---+

\* Possible responses: +2 = Strongly Agree; +1 = Agree; 0 = Neutral; -1
= Disagree; and -2 = Strongly Disagree

n = number of visitors in the subgroup

\*\*Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a test to identify significant
pair-wise differences between means. "p" is the probability that the
difference could have occurred by chance.

## [Awareness and Usage of ITS Technologies]{.underline}

Businesses managers were asked if they were aware of any of the four of
ITS technologies for delivering traveler information: parking
information signs, parking information on the Website, automated
annunciators on-board the Island Explorer, and electronic bus departure
signs. The majority of business managers (61%) reported being unaware of
the ITS-based traveler information technologies (Figure 6-5). Of those
business managers who reported being aware of at least one of the
traveler information sources (n=98), Table 6-4 shows their awareness and
use. A high proportion (80%) of the ITS-aware business managers reported
being aware of the electronic signs that displayed real time departures
of the next Island Explorer bus. Forty-five percent of the business
managers were aware of the audio announcement of the next Island
Explorer bus stop. Forty percent of the business managers reported being
aware of the parking availability information on the displayed signs at
the Parks' visitor center and campgrounds. Only 25% reported being aware
of the parking availability information on the Park's Web page.

![](media/image50.wmf)

**Figure 6-2: Business Managers' Awareness of ITS
Technologies**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779888 .anchor}

Table 6-5 also shows that almost half of the 98 ITS-aware business
managers actually used at least one of the traveler information sources
(n=48). Use was much lower for information on parking conditions as
compared to the Island Explorer traveler information. Of the 48
managers, 79% reported using the electronic bus departure signs, and 45%
used the audio announcement of the next Island Explorer bus stop. Thirty
four percent of the business managers reported using the parking
availability information on the displayed signs at the Parks' visitor
center and campgrounds, whereas a mere 17% reported obtaining the
information on the Park's Web. A possible explanation for managers' low
awareness and usage of parking availability information may be due to
their prior knowledge of daily parking patterns at Sand Beach and the
Jordan Pond House. Moreover, they would have been less likely to
frequent the Park campgrounds and Visitors' Center where the parking
information signs were displayed.

**Table 6-5: Business Managers' Awareness and Use of
the**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779418 .anchor}**\
Travel Information Sources this Summer\***

+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| **Traveler Information**                   | ##  | #      |   | ###    |
|                                            | ##  | ### ** |   | # **Cu |
|                                            | **A | Manage |   | stomer |
|                                            | war | r Used |   |  Used* |
|                                            | e** | ** {#m |   | * {#cu |
|                                            |  {# | anager |   | stomer |
|                                            | awa | -used  |   | -used  |
|                                            | re  | .unnum |   | .unnum |
|                                            | .un | bered} |   | bered} |
|                                            | num |        |   |        |
|                                            | ber |        |   |        |
|                                            | ed} |        |   |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
|                                            | *   | **(n   |   | **(n   |
|                                            | *(n | =48)** |   | -28)** |
|                                            | =98 |        |   |        |
|                                            | )** |        |   |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
|                                            | *   |        |   |        |
|                                            | *\- |        |   |        |
|                                            | \-\ |        |   |        |
|                                            | --P |        |   |        |
|                                            | erc |        |   |        |
|                                            | ent |        |   |        |
|                                            | \-\ |        |   |        |
|                                            | -\- |        |   |        |
|                                            | -** |        |   |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| Electronic bus departure signs for Island  | 80  | 79     | 6 |        |
| Explorer Buses                             |     |        | 7 |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| Audio announcement of next bus stop on     | 45  | 45     | 3 |        |
| Island Explorer Buses                      |     |        | 3 |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| Parking conditions at Sand Beach and       | 40  | 34     | 1 |        |
| Jordan Pond on displayed signs             |     |        | 5 |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| Parking conditions at Sand Beach and       | 25  | 17     | 7 |        |
| Jordan Pond w/ ANP Website                 |     |        |   |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| Not Sure                                   | 0   | 0      | 3 |        |
|                                            |     |        | 5 |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+
| \*percentages add to more than 100 due to  |     |        |   |        |
| awareness and usage of multiple items.     |     |        |   |        |
+--------------------------------------------+-----+--------+---+--------+

When asked about their customers' use of the ITS technologies Figure 6-3
reveals that most of the business managers (55%) were not sure if
customers had used any of the traveler information sources. Twenty-nine
percent of the business managers reported their customers had used one
or more of the traveler information sources. A small percentage of
business managers reported "not applicable", and it is assumed that
these businesses did not serve customers who traveled or were not
directly related to tourism (e.g., oil delivery company and
self-employed Web designer).

![](media/image51.wmf)

**Figure 6-3: Business Managers' Perception of Their Customers' Use
of**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779889 .anchor}**\
the Traveler Information Sources**

Of the 28 business managers that reported customers using different
sources of traveler information, Table 6-5 shows a high proportion of
the managers (67%) reported customers using the electronic signs that
displayed real time departures of the next Island Explorer bus and 33%
reported customers using the audio announcement of the next Island
Explorer bus stop. As with the business managers themselves, their
customers' use of the parking availability information was lower as
compared to the Island Explorer traveler information. Fifteen percent of
the business managers reported customers using the parking availability
information on the signs displayed at the Parks' visitor center and
campgrounds, and 7% reported customers using the parking availability
information on the Park's Web page. Some visitors may have realized
these areas were still accessible by privately owned vehicles and
despite knowing the condition of the parking lots did not plan to use
the information or ask about this information from the business
managers. Finally, even though they reported that their customers used
one or more of the ITS technologies, 35% of the business managers were
not sure what traveler information sources were used by their customers
during the past summer.

## [Business Managers' Perception of Benefits of ITS Technologies]{.underline}

To assess the potential impact of ITS, business managers were asked
about the benefits to their business and to tourists, who form the base
of the region's economy. In this section the benefits of ITS-based
parking information and information associated with the Island Explorer
are discussed.

**[Parking Information]{.underline}**

Table 6-6 shows a high level of uncertainty among business managers
(48%) that the real time parking availability would be helpful to their
business. Thirty-one percent of the business managers rated "strongly
agree" or "agree" but 22% of the business managers rated "strongly
disagree" or disagree." As noted in the previous section, business
managers were much less likely to be aware of or have used parking
information than the Island Explorer information. Moreover, the
information available for parking was for two highly-used parking lots
within the Park, and it can be assumed that business managers wishing to
use those parking lots would be familiar with the daily patterns of
parking conditions at those two locations much more than tourists.

In sharp contrast there were generally high levels of agreement on the
benefits that tourists themselves would likely derive from using the
parking availability information. As evidenced by high percentages of
"strongly agree" and "agree", business managers believed that parking
information would help tourists:

-   avoid parking problems in the Park (84% )

-   avoid traffic congestion in the Park (81%)

-   avoid large crowds in the Park (70%)

-   get around more easily (78%)

-   plan the time of day for visiting certain destinations in the Park
    (81%)

-   move away from using their own vehicle and toward the Island
    Explorer bus (86%).

**Table 6-6: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of
Providing**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779419 .anchor}**\
Information on Parking Conditions Within the Park\***

  ---------------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -------------- ------------
  **Benefits**                               **Strongly   **Agree**   **Neutral**   **Disagree**   **Strongly
                                             Agree**                                               Disagree**

                               ***Percent of                                                       
                               Managers***                                                         

  Would be helpful to my                     12           19          48            14             8
  business (n=244)                                                                                 

  Helps tourists avoid parking               31           53          14            2              0
  problems in the Park (n=244)                                                                     

  Helps tourists avoid traffic               28           53          16            4              0
  congestion in the Park                                                                           
  (n=245)                                                                                          

  Helps tourists avoid large                 24           46          22            7              1
  crowds in the Park (n=244)                                                                       

  Makes it easier for tourists               27           51          20            2              1
  to get around with the                                                                           
  information (n=245)                                                                              

  Helps tourists to plan the                 32           49          16            2              0
  time of day for visiting                                                                         
  certain destinations in the                                                                      
  Park (n=245)                                                                                     

  Increases the likelihood                   39           47          12            2              1
  that some tourists will ride                                                                     
  the Island Explorer bus                                                                          
  (n=245)                                                                                          
  ---------------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- -------------- ------------

\* Possible responses: +2 = Strongly Agree; +1 = Agree; 0 = Neutral; -1
= Disagree; and -2 = Strongly Disagree.

**[Island Explorer Information]{.underline}**

Business managers were asked to assess the benefits of the electronic
bus departure signs and the automatic next stop announcements on-board
the Island Explorer buses. Table 6-7 presents the results. In contrast
to the parking information, a majority (56%) of business managers
thought that the Island Explorer bus traveler information would be
helpful to their own businesses. This might be a reflection of the use
of the bus by themselves or their employees; or it might be because a
bus stops near their business, thereby increasing its availability to
customers. Nevertheless, a relatively high percentage of business
managers (30%) were uncertain about the benefit of the Island Explorer
traveler information to their business.

They had no such doubts about the value to tourists. As demonstrated in
Section 6.2.1, business managers had highly positive views of the Island
Explorer. Likewise, they view the ITS enhancements to the bus system
with similarly positive attitudes. As evidenced by the very high
percentages of "strongly agree" and "agree", managers believe that the
electronic bus departure signs and the automatic next-stop announcements
will help tourists:

-   get around more easily (95%)

-   relieve uncertainty about when the bus will arrive at the bus stop
    (90%)

-   relieve uncertainty about when to exit the bus (85%)

-   utilize their time, such as visiting shops before a bus arrives
    (87%)

-   improve the travel experience overall (90%)

-   increase the likelihood of using the Island Explorer bus (93%).

**Table 6-7: Business Managers' Ratings of the Benefits of\
Island Explorer Traveler Information**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779420
.anchor}**\***

  --------------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- ------------
  **Benefits**                **Strongly    **Agree**   **Neutral**   **Disagree**   **Strongly
                              Agree**                                                Disagree**

                              ***Percent of                                          
                              Managers***                                            

  Would be helpful to my      22            34          30            9              5
  business (n=250)                                                                   

  Makes it easier for         41            54          5             1              0
  tourists to get around                                                             
  (n=251)                                                                            

  Relieves uncertainty for    44            46          10            1              0
  users when the bus will                                                            
  arrive at the bus stop                                                             
  (n=250)                                                                            

  Relieves uncertainty for    38            47          15            1              0
  users on when to exit the                                                          
  bus (n=249)                                                                        

  Helps tourists utilize time 34            53          11            2              0
  such as visiting shops                                                             
  before bus arrives at the                                                          
  bus stop (n=247)                                                                   

  Helps to improve the travel 42            48          9             1              0
  experience (247)                                                                   

  Increases the likelihood    43            50          6             1              0
  that some tourists will                                                            
  ride the Island Explorer                                                           
  bus (n=251)                                                                        
  --------------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- ------------

\* Possible responses: +2 = Strongly Agree; +1 = Agree; 0 = Neutral; -1
= Disagree; and -2 = Strongly Disagree.

## Assessing Economic Impact with the Visitors' Survey

The survey of visitors provided another means of assessing the economic
impact of ITS. Respondents provided relevant information through their
answers to questions about length of stay, level of spending during
their visit, and the mode of transportation used. Questions related to
mode of transportation were relevant to examination of the potential for
attracting a "carless" segment of tourist to the region.

**[Length of Stay]{.underline}**

The majority of visitors reported staying overnight on Mount Desert
Island. Figure 6-4 shows that 73% of the visitors who were not residents
of Mount Desert Island indicated one or more nights on Mount Desert
Island and 26% stayed a week or more. The highest proportion of visitors
stayed four days (14%) and three days (22%).

![](media/image52.wmf)

**Figure 6-4: Days Spent Visiting Mount Desert Island
Area**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779890 .anchor}**\
by Non-Residents**

Table 6-8 shows how much time visitors spent in the Mount Desert Island
area according to their reported use of one or more of the ITS
components and the Island Explorer bus. These are the same visitor
ITS-use classifications introduced in Section 4 of this report. While
the highest proportion of visitors, regardless of visitor group type,
stayed three to four days, ITS users who used the bus or the bus and
parking information reported longer stays than the ITS users of parking
information and ITS non-users. Fifty-eight percent of the ITS bus users
and 50% of ITS users of the bus and parking information reported staying
5 or more days. In contrast, less than half of the ITS users of parking
information and ITS non-users reported staying for 5 or more days (44%
and 43%, respectively). However, the ITS bus user group had the higher
mean length of stay (7.19 days) and was significantly higher than the
mean length of stay for ITS parking user group (4.42 days) and ITS
non-user group (4.93 days).

Thus, the results suggest that there is a correlation between ITS and
economic impact as measured by length of stay. ITS users tended to stay
longer than non-users, and might be expected to spend more money and
have a greater economic impact as a result. In particular, users of the
ITS technologies associated with the Island Explorer stayed longer on
average than any other ITS users and non-users.

**Table 6-8: Days Spent Visiting Mount Desert Island Area by ITS User
and ITS Non-User**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779421 .anchor}

  --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------
                        **ITS User**                                                                                   **ITS
                                                                                                                       Non-User**

                        **Bus**                                                             **Bus &      **Parking**   
                                                                                            Parking**                  

                        **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Percent                              
                        \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--**                              

  1 to 2 days           14                                                                  9            15            20

  3 to 4 days           36                                                                  33           41            37

  5 to 6 days           22                                                                  27           25            18

  7 or more days        28                                                                  31           19            25

                        **Mean length of visit in days\***                                                             

  ITS Bus user          7.19                                                                                           

  ITS Bus & Parking     5.67                                                                                           
  user                                                                                                                 

  ITS Parking user      4.42                                                                                           

  ITS non-user          4.93                                                                                           
  --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------

> \* Significant differences among user groups, with ITS bus users
> higher than ITS parking group and ITS non-user group (ANOVA, p\<0.05).

**[Expenditures During Visit]{.underline}**

Figure 6-5 shows the amount visitors spent during their visit that
included restaurants, purchases such as film, souvenirs, tickets,
admissions, tours, rentals, and other tourist-type expenses. Visitors
were specifically asked to exclude costs associated with hotel or rental
car costs so that the data would be fairly comparable and not simply
reflect the large discrepancies in costs between, for example, camping
and resort hotels. The highest proportion of visitors reported spending
\$501 or more (27%) and \$301 to \$500 (23%) during their stay in the
Mount Desert Island area. Table 6-9 shows the highest proportion of
visitors, regardless of visitor group type, spent \$501 or more.
However, based upon the length of stay reported above for each visitor
group, it is not surprising that the reported money spent during their
visit was higher for the ITS bus users who used either the bus
information alone or the bus and parking information. Fifty-eight
percent of the ITS bus users and 55% of ITS users of the bus and parking
reported spending \$301 or more during their visit. In contrast, less
than half of the ITS users of parking information and ITS non-users
reported spending \$301 or more during their visit (44% and 46%,
respectively).

![](media/image53.wmf)

**Figure 6-5: The Amount Visitors Spent During Their
Visit,**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779891 .anchor}**\
Excluding Hotel or Rental Car Costs**

**Table 6-9: Money Spent During Visit by ITS User and ITS
Non-User**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779422 .anchor}

+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| #              | **ITS      |            |            | **ITS      |
| #  {#section-1 | User**     |            |            | Non-User** |
| 2 .unnumbered} |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                | **Bus**    | **Bus &    | *          |            |
|                |            | Parking**  | *Parking** |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                | **\-\-\    |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-- |            |            |            |
|                | Percent    |            |            |            |
|                | \-\-\      |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\-\-\ |            |            |            |
|                | -\-\-\--** |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Less than \$25 | 2          | 1          | 4          | 7          |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$25-\$50      | 4          | 2          | 4          | 8          |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$51-\$75      | 4          | 1          | 6          | 7          |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$76-\$100     | 8          | 6          | 7          | 8          |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$101-200      | 13         | 16         | 18         | 13         |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$201-\$300    | 17         | 16         | 17         | 11         |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| \$301-\$500    | 26         | 26         | 19         | 21         |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| More than      | 29         | 32         | 25         | 25         |
| \$500          |            |            |            |            |
+----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

> \* Significant differences across the four groups (Chi-square,
> p\<0.001).

**[The "Carless" Tourist]{.underline}**

The presence of the Island Explorer bus system offers the opportunity
for attraction of a new tourist segment to Mount Desert Island: the
"carless" tourist. With bus service to the Bar Harbor Airport and the
CAT Ferry from Canada, tourists can literally arrive without a car and
then take advantage of bus or bike for trips throughout the Island once
they are there. The visitor survey provided data for examining the
prevalence of the carless tourist.

As reported in Section 4.0 the majority of visitors in this evaluation
said they used a privately owned vehicle as the mode of transportation
to reach Mount Desert Island. Visitors identified as ITS non-users as
compared to ITS user groups were much more likely to report the use of a
car or truck with no trailer as the mode of travel to reach Mount Desert
Island (91% and 75%, respectively). There appears to be more diverse
visitor types including a carless segment of visitors among the ITS user
groups. As depicted in Table 6-10 a slightly higher proportion of ITS
users as compared to ITS non-users reported using modes of
transportation that included commercial airplane (4%), private boat
(3%), tour bus (2%), bicycle (1%), cruise ship (\<1%), and private
airplane (\<1%). Thus, while the survey was not able to identify the
proportion of visitors who were totally without a private vehicle during
their stay, the data do suggest that there are likely to be some in that
group. They are also more likely to be users of ITS, especially those
technologies associated with the Island Explorer which are intended to
help attract visitors away from using their own vehicles. Thus, it would
appear that the infrastructure for the carless segment is in place and
can be further exploited by the tourist industry of Mount Desert Island.

**Table 6-10: Mode of Transportation Used to Reach Mount Desert
Island**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779423 .anchor}

+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| #### **Mode o                | **ITS User**     | **ITS Non-User**  |
| f Transportation** {#mode-of |                  |                   |
| -transportation .unnumbered} |                  |                   |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
|                              | **\-\-\-\-\-\    |                   |
|                              | -\-\--Percent\-\ |                   |
|                              | -\-\-\-\-\-\--** |                   |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Car or truck, no trailer     | 75               | 91                |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Car or truck, with trailer   | 10               | 4                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Motor home/RV                | 6                | 2                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Commercial airplane          | 4                | 3                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Private boat                 | 3                | 0                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Tour bus                     | 2                | 1                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Other                        | 2                | 1                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Motor home/RV, with car      | 1                | 1                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Bicycle                      | 1                | \<1               |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| CAT ferry without auto       | 1                | \<1               |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| CAT ferry with auto          | 1                | \<1               |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Cruise ship                  | \<1              | 0                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Private airplane             | \<1              | 0                 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+
| Percentages do not equal 100 |                  |                   |
| due to rounding              |                  |                   |
+------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+

**[Conclusion about Impact of ITS on Tourist Spending]{.underline}**

Caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about the
relationship between the use of the ITS-based traveler information and
reported increase length of stay, money spent, and diverse mode of
travel used to reach Mount Desert Island. On one hand, answers above may
reflect to some degree visitor's use of the Island Explorer bus
independent of the traveler information. Daigle and Lee's[^26] study of
the Island Explorer bus passengers in 1999 reports similar long length
of stays by bus users as compared to general visitors in previous
studies[^27]. Although money spent was not asked in the 1999 study it is
reasonable to assume that Island Explorer bus passengers would have
reported higher amounts of money spent during their visit as compared to
visitors in general who reported shorter stays. Similarly, the 1999
study of bus passengers showed more diverse visitor types including a
carless segment of visitors as compared to visitors in previous studies.

On the other hand, economic impact may indeed reflect to some degree
visitor's use of the Island Explorer bus related to the ITS-based
traveler information. As noted earlier in this report (Section 4.3),
visitors derived tended to have a positive experience with the ITS
technologies, which in turn helped them to decide to use the Island
Explorer. Therefore, to the extent that ITS enhances the Island
Explorer, and the bus system is a magnet for the most economically
attractive types of visitors, ITS can be said to have an economic impact
on the region.

## Economic Impact of ITS on Acadia National Park

The local planners of the Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational
Test anticipated that the Park might enjoy direct economic benefits in
the form of higher receipts of gate fees and donations by visitors.
While the official policy requires that visitors to the Park pay for a
Park pass, in practice it is possible to enter the Park without a pass.
Through the various means of providing traveler information that were
part of the FOT, travelers could be informed of the Park pass
requirement. Furthermore, by enhancing visitor experience ITS would lead
to greater satisfaction on the part of visitors and increase the
likelihood of visitor donations to the Park, either directly or through
Friends of Acadia. To assess the impact of ITS, records were obtained
from Acadia National Park from 1999 through 2002 and are shown in Figure
6-6.

The data reveal that gate receipts increased from 2001 to 2002 when ITS
was deployed. Gate receipts also rose on a per visitor basis from \$.94
to \$1.03 during that those two years. Donations did not follow that
pattern, given the peak year of 2001 prior to ITS. Focusing attention
just on gate receipts, the question is whether ITS had anything to do
with the increase. In the initial planning of the on-board announcements
for the Island Explorer, a message was planned to inform bus riders
about the need to purchase Park passes. However, that message was not
implemented in the deployed system, and, thus, there appears to be no
direct link between the ITS technologies and higher gate receipts.

![](media/image54.wmf)

**Figure 6-6: Acadia National Park Donations and Gate Receipts (in
1000's) by Year**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779892 .anchor}

## Impact of ITS on Productivity of Island Explorer Operations

As described in Section 4.4 the Island Explorer bus system was equipped
with a suite of ITS technologies that were intended to improve
operations by providing real-time data on bus location, schedule
adherence, passenger loading, and voice communications with drivers. The
anticipated outcome was an improvement in the operating costs of the
Island Explorer on a per unit basis if not as a whole.

To measure productivity, budgetary and other data were obtained from
Downeast Transportation, Inc., the owners of the Island Explorer.
Whereas data such as vehicle mileage and passenger counts were obtained
manually from 1999 to 2001, the ITS technologies automated such data
collection in 2002. Table 6-11 presents the principal operational data
by year from 1999 through 2002.

**Table 6-11: Island Explorer Operational
Measures**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779424 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                   | **19 | **     | **     | **     |
|                                   | 99** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Miles (000)                     | 148  | 209.5  | 220.5  | 217.5  |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Ridership (000)                 | 1    | 193.1  | 240    | 281.1  |
|                                   | 40.9 |        |        |        |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Operating Expenses (\$000)      | 2    | 394.7  | 472.8  | 568    |
|                                   | 04.5 |        |        |        |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Service Denials                 | \<1% | \<1%   | \<1%   | \<1%   |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Standing Riders (% of trip      | 8%   | 8%     | 11%    | 14%    |
| > segments with one or more       |      |        |        |        |
| > standees)                       |      |        |        |        |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Service Hours (000)             | 7.3  | 10.1   | 12.3   | 12.3   |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Routes                          | 6    | 7      | 7      | 7      |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Number of Buses                 | 8    | 17     | 17     | 17     |
+-----------------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+

As the data in Table 6-11 clearly show, operating expenses of the Island
Explorer have increased steadily in its four years of operation. From
2001 to 2002, the year that ITS was fully operational on the Island
Explorer, it grew by 20%. However, ridership also grew significantly,
swelling 17% from 2001 to 2002 leading to 14% of the runs having
standing riders. Service hours, number of routes, and number of buses
remained constant in the two years.

To assess the change in operational performance as the bus system grew
over the four seasons of operation, Figure 6-7 presents unit measures.
In terms of hours of operation, the number of riders remained fairly
flat in the first three years, and jumped by 3.4 per hour riders in the
2002 season. Cost per rider was fairly constant from 2000 to 2002, but
the cost per hour and mile of operation jumped significantly in 2002.
Thus, while ITS may have contributed to attracting more riders to the
Island Explorer, that growth came at a higher overall operating price.

To fully understand the factors behind these statistics, the evaluation
team obtained additional budgetary information from Downeast
Transportation. Because the fiscal year for bus operations is different
than the calendar year, Downeast recommended that the more appropriate
comparison is between 2000 and 2002. The additional information revealed
that the expected improvements in productivity over the two-year period
owing to ITS were not realized due to increased service hours, higher
wages, assuming costs that were previously paid by Acadia National Park,
vehicles no longer being under warranty, hiring professional year-round
management, and increases in direct operating costs. Some details on
specific operational costs included:

[]{.mark}

-   10% increase in the cost of insurance

-   344% increase in the cost of vehicle repairs: buses were not only
    older but were being used more

-   Printing of the bus schedule and cost of a planning consultant that
    was previously paid by Acadia National Park

-   16% increase in operating wages, paralleling increase in service
    hours

-   8% increase in fuel costs.

![](media/image55.wmf)

**Figure 6-7: Island Explorer Productivity
Measures**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779893 .anchor}

In addition, the Island Explorer experienced extra costs to continue to
operate the ITS technology itself. An additional \$100K was spent for a
two-year extension to the warranty of the AVL system supplied by Avail
Technologies, which is being split between the Maine DOT and Downeast
Transportation.

Thus, the operating costs of the Island Explorer prior to 2002 did not
fully reflect all the costs, owing to the assistance provided by Acadia
National Park. In addition, the maturation of the bus operations along
with the success in capturing a large volume of riders has been
accompanied by additional expenses not required in the initial years.
Finally, the ITS technologies themselves resulted in additional
operational expenditures. It can be concluded, therefore, that while ITS
technology undoubtedly entails some additional operating and capital
cost for the Island Explorer, those costs are fairly minor when placed
against all other costs of operating a growing, professionally run
system. Moreover, as will be discussed in Section 7, the operational
benefits of ITS are important and must be weighed against the cost.

## 6.6 Summary of Productivity and Economic Vitality {#summary-of-productivity-and-economic-vitality .unnumbered}

Table 6-12 shows the hypotheses related to productivity and economic
vitality that were examined in the evaluation. Economic vitality relates
to the important role of tourism in the regional economy and the
potential impact that ITS might have in maintaining or strengthening
tourism. Data from the business and visitors survey and revenue data
from Acadia National Park were used to assess economic vitality.
Productivity impacts measured in this evaluation focused on the role of
ITS in the operations of the Island Explorer bus system, and Island
Explorer operational data were used for this purpose.

### **Table 6-12: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Productivity and Economic Vitality** {#table-6-12-objectives-and-hypotheses-related-to-productivity-and-economic-vitality .unnumbered}

+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Goal    | **Objective**                | **Hypothesized Impact**  |
| Area**    |                              |                          |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Pro       | To provide a more positive   | ITS users stay longer    |
| ductivity | visitor experience and       | than non-ITS users       |
|           | increased visitation         |                          |
| and       |                              |                          |
| Economic  |                              |                          |
| Vitality  |                              |                          |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
|           | To increase economic         | ITS attracts visitors    |
|           | contribution to Mount Desert | and enables higher       |
|           | Island and Acadia National   | revenue capture during   |
|           | Park                         | stay                     |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
|           | Attract carless tourist      | Tourists arriving        |
|           | segment                      | without cars will be     |
|           |                              | attracted by ITS-enabled |
|           |                              | mobility                 |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
|           | To maximize Acadia National  | ITS will provide better  |
|           | Park revenue                 | information that will    |
|           |                              | ensure that visitors pay |
|           |                              | Park fees and make       |
|           |                              | contributions            |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
|           | To reduce or optimize        | Better real-time data    |
|           | operating budget of the      | will allow Island        |
|           | Island Explorer              | Explorer management to   |
|           |                              | react to dynamic changes |
|           |                              | more efficiently and     |
|           |                              | thereby more cost        |
|           |                              | effectively              |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+

Regardless of business type, the majority of business managers recognize
the importance of tourism and the benefits to their business or
community from being situated near Acadia National Park. However, they
are concerned about problems of summer travel on Mount Desert Island and
in the Park, including parking and congestion as well as concerns about
air quality and safety. Clearly, many business managers believe that the
Island Explorer bus system helps to address some of their concerns about
summer travel, and 69% reported that they provide information to
visitors about the Island Explorer bus. While the majority of the
business managers (61%) reported being aware of one or more of the ITS
technologies, they were much more aware of the ITS technologies
associated with the Island Explorer bus and in particular the electronic
bus departure signs than the signs that displayed parking conditions at
Sand Beach and Jordan Pond House.

Managers perceived many benefits associated with the ITS, such as making
it easier for tourists to get around, avoiding parking problems and
traffic congestion and crowds in the Park, relieving uncertainty for
users when the bus would arrive at the bus stop and where to exit the
bus, and improving the travel experience.

It was hypothesized that the ITS-enhanced experience and increased
access will contribute to longer visitor stays and attract a new
car-less tourist segment. There was strong support among business
managers that the Island Explorer creates potential for a new segment of
tourists who do not drive personal vehicles. The visitor survey did
indeed show that, among visitors who used ITS compared to those who did
not use ITS during the summer of 2002, there was a higher incidence of
modes of transportation used to reach Mount Desert Island that might be
associated with the carless segment: commercial airplane, private boat,
tour bus, bicycle, cruise ship and private airplane.

Specifically related to the ITS technologies, most business managers
thought the parking and Island Explorer traveler information would
increase the likelihood that some tourists would ride the Island
Explorer bus, and a high proportion of the business managers thought the
Island Explorer traveler information helped tourists utilize time such
as visiting shops before a bus arrives at the bus stop. According to the
visitor survey, spending was higher among those who used the ITS
technologies, especially those associated with the Island Explorer.

There was a great deal of uncertainty among business managers about
whether visitors who use the Island Explorer tend to stay longer. Thus,
regardless of the increased positive experiences that might result from
customer use of the ITS technologies and probable use of the Island
Explorer bus, managers did not necessarily perceive economic benefit to
businesses in terms of increased length of stay. This may have
contributed to a substantial minority of business manager being
"neutral" to parking and Island Explorer traveler information being
helpful to their business. However, the visitor survey showed that there
was a correlation between ITS use by visitors and how long they stayed,
with users of ITS technologies associated with the Island Explorer
staying longer on average than other groups of ITS-users and non-users.

Revenue in the form of the Park's gate receipts and donations to the
Park were another measure used to evaluate the economic impact of ITS.
However, an automated announcement on-board the Island Explorer to
encourage purchase of Park passes had been planned but not implemented.
Consequently, this economic impact of ITS was not evaluated.

Finally, the productivity of the Island Explorer bus system was
evaluated. Rather than an improvement in operating costs on a total or
per unit basis, the opposite was observed. The reason for the cost
increases can be attributed to a rapid growth in ridership since 1999
and the necessary growing pains associated with that growth. Some costs
in the early years of operation were borne by Acadia National Park and
in the later years these costs were assumed by Downeast Transportation,
the owners of Island Explorer. While many cost components were for
general bus operations, one ITS-specific cost is the need for extending
a warranty on the AVL system. However, that expense was judged to be
fairly minor in the total cost picture.

## 7.0 Efficiency {#efficiency .unnumbered}

This section presents the results of the evaluation that deal with the
impact of ITS on efficiency. Efficiency improvements relate to greater
throughput, or accomplishing more after the ITS technologies were
deployed with the same amount of effort as before. In the field
operational test at Acadia National Park, it was anticipated that ITS
technologies would help automate existing practices and expand
capabilities with the ultimate result being more efficient operations.
Thus, it was expected that Park resources could accommodate more
visitors and that demand for those resources could be distributed more
evenly. Likewise, it was expected that the Island Explorer would serve
more passengers but with better service. These hypotheses were explored
using data from Park records, traffic information from Maine Department
of Transportation, an observational study of parking lot usage within
the Park, and Island Explorer operational data as well as anecdotal
information from its staff.

## Impact of ITS on Efficiency of Acadia National Park Operations

This section examines the level of usage the Park received, how
transportation factored into that usage, and what impact ITS played, if
any, in distributing usage more efficiently. Usage can be gauged not
only by number of visitors officially counted by the Park, but also in
terms of traffic and riders of the Island Explorer buses. Another
element of usage directly related to transportation within the Park is
use of parking lots. Through observation at eight parking areas, the
evaluation was able to determine whether parked vehicles exceeded a
lot's official capacity, thereby representing an over-utilization of the
Park's facilities. Parking lot usage is discussed in Section 7.2.

Figure 7-1 presents statistics on general usage. Counts of Park
recreational visitors are estimates based on an occupancy factor applied
to each vehicle entering the Park. Traffic counts were obtained from
Maine DOT, which has a permanent traffic sensor installed at Thompson
Island Bridge on Route 3 to detect vehicles entering Mount Desert Island
from the mainland. Traffic counts for 2001 were not available because
the traffic counting equipment malfunctioned that year. Downeast
Transportation supplied counts of riders of the Island Explorer, which
operated from late June through Labor Day each year. Because visitors
can enter the Park from roads other than the three where counts are
made, no single measure encompasses total usage adequately.

The data in Figure 7-1 reveal that, while the total recreational
visitors increased steadily over the last three years, the proportion of
visitors carried by the Island Explorer increased dramatically. The
result was that the proportion of visitors carried by the bus during the
summer months when the bus was in service doubled to between 1999 and
2002. The year that the ITS technologies were operational, the
proportion increased from 15.6% in 2001 to 18.3% in 2002. Thus, whereas
it was argued previously in this report that dramatic increases in bus
ridership in 2002 may be attributable in part to the ITS technologies
making the bus easier for visitors to use, that increase appears to be
having an effect on the Park's resources. From the standpoint of demand
for the Park's transportation resources, it is realizing greater
efficiency by serving the same number of visitors with fewer in their
own vehicles.

![](media/image56.wmf)

**Figure 7-1: Statistics Related to Usage of Acadia National
Park**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779894 .anchor}

The dramatically lower (-25%) counts of traffic coming onto Mount Desert
Island in 2002 are harder to explain. One possibility is that the
traffic sensor that caused the problem with the 2001 data affected the
2002 data. Another explanation would be the economic slow-down after
September 11 terrorist attacks. However, that explanation does not
appear to be consistent with the increase in visitors 2002 as compared
to 2001, which would suggest that traffic had actually increased from
the previous year. Sales tax receipts for 2002, unavailable at the time
of this report, could shed further light on the whether the explanation
is a fault sensor or economic factors.

## Effect of ITS on Visitors' Parking Lot Usage

Parking lots are an important transportation resource of Acadia National
Park, as they provide visitors convenient access to some of the most
desirable destinations within the Park. However, during the summer
months parking at some of the most popular destinations is in short
supply, leading some drivers to park vehicles outside designated parking
spaces within the lots and along the side of roads leading up to the
lots. The result is frequently damage to natural environment as well as
aesthetic and safety problems.

The ITS technologies at Acadia were used to address the parking problem
by collecting real-time data on whether the most popular lots, Sand
Beach and Jordan Pond, were full. That information, in turn, was made
available to visitors by means of signs placed at two Park campgrounds
and the Visitor Center (Figures 4-2 -- 4-4 in Section 4). The evaluation
sought to determine whether the information was able to reduce the
parking outside designated spaces at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond. It also
assessed whether ITS helped to distribute the demand for parking more
evenly among other parking lots. Data for the evaluation were collected
through direct field observation of parking patterns at eight parking
areas in Acadia National Park that were served by the Island Explorer
buses, including Sieur de Monts, Sand Beach, Jordan Pond House, Bubble
Pond, Eagle Lake, Ikes Point, Acadia Mountain, and Echo Lake. Using a
randomized sample design,[^28] the evaluation team observed morning and
afternoon parking at each lot for a total of 86 days over three summer
seasons. Years 2000 and 2001 represented baseline conditions, and 2002
represented the post-deployment phase of ITS.

Table 7-1 summarizes the total number of cars in the eight lots that
exceeded the lot capacity. In 2001 on more than half of the days the
eight parking areas where observed (54%), more than 300 vehicles were
counted outside designated parking spots in the eight parking lots. In
contrast, on only 33% of the days in 2002 was the number of excess
vehicles over 300 in the eight parking lots. These percentages correlate
with the mean number of vehicles exceeding the capacity of the eight
designated parking areas during the summer season. In 2001, the mean
number of vehicles was 325 that exceeded the capacity of eight
designated parking lots in Acadia National Park as compared to 274 for
2002. While the year 2000 had a mean number comparable to 2002, it
should be noted that the total visitors to the Park increased each of
the three years, therefore making the reduction in the parking
statistics for 2002 even more notable.

**Table 7-1: Percent of Days in Which Vehicles Exceeded the
Capacity**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779426 .anchor}**\
**of Eight Designated Parking Lots in Acadia National Park

+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| **\# of      | **Percent of Days |                 |                |
| Vehicles**   | by Year**         |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
|              | **2000**          | **2001**        | **2002**       |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
|              | \-\-\-\-\-\-      |                 |                |
|              | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- |                 |                |
|              | percent           |                 |                |
|              | \-\-\-\-\-\-      |                 |                |
|              | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 0-100        | 6                 | 9               | 18             |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 101-200      | 28                | 6               | 12             |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 201-300      | 22                | 31              | 36             |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 301-400      | 22                | 25              | 9              |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 401-500      | 17                | 20              | 12             |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| Over 500     | 6                 | 9               | 12             |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
|              |                   |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
|              | **Mean number of  |                 | #              |
|              | vehicles          |                 | #  {#section-1 |
|              | exceeding the     |                 | 3 .unnumbered} |
|              | capacity of       |                 |                |
|              | lots**            |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 2000         | 273               |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 2001         | 325               |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| 2002         | 274               |                 |                |
+--------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------------+

Turning to the question of the impact of ITS on parking at Sand Beach
and Jordan Pond, the two parking lots for which information on parking
availability was made available to visitors,\
Table 7-2 presents details on the two lots. The reduction in the average
number of vehicles that exceeded the capacity of these two lots is
consistent with the expected impact of ITS.

**Table 7-2: Mean Number of Vehicles that Exceeded the Capacity
and**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779427 .anchor}**\
**Time of Day for Parking Lots at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond

  ---------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- --------------
  **Sand Beach**                                              

  **Year**         **Days       **Morning**   **Afternoon**   **Total**
                   Observed**                                 

                                *\-\--mean \#                 
                                vehicles per                  
                                day\-\--*                     

  2000             18           25            56              81

  2001             35           36            88              124

  2002             33           27            71              98
  ---------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- --------------

  ---------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- --------------
  **Jordan Pond**                                             

  **Year**         **Days       **Morning**   **Afternoon**   **Total**
                   Observed**                                 

                                *\-\--mean \#                 
                                vehicles per                  
                                day\-\--*                     

  2000             18           19            87              106

  2001             35           14            82              96

  2002             33           9             72              81
  ---------------- ------------ ------------- --------------- --------------

Table 7-3 puts the data for these two lots in perspective of all eight
parking lots. As expected the numbers for Sand Beach and Jordan Pond
were much higher compared to the six other parking lots for all three
years. Sand Beach and Jordan Pond are extremely popular destinations in
the Park, and it is possible for visitors to park close to but outside
the designated parking spots for these attractions. Nevertheless, in
2002, the year that ITS was operational, a reduction was seen in the
mean number of vehicles exceeding the capacity of the Sand Beach and
Jordan Pond parking areas compared to 2001. The magnitude of change for
these parking areas compared to the other six parking areas might be
partly related to the real-time parking information available for these
two areas and not the other six areas. Visitors could have observed the
parking information signs indicating the lots were full and decided not
to visit Sand Beach or Jordan Pond or to take the Island Explorer there
instead.

Changes in excess vehicles at other parking lots should be noted as
well. For example, there was a slight increase in the number of vehicles
exceeding the capacity of Acadia Mountain parking in 2002 as compared to
2001. One explanation for the increase may be that visitors learning
about the parking conditions at Sand Beach or the Jordan Pond House may
have elected to go to Acadia Mountain adding to the parking problem at
that location. On the other hand, a noticeable reduction was observed in
2002 for the number of vehicles exceeding the capacity of the Eagle Lake
parking area compared to 2001. The data do not, therefore, demonstrate
an overall redistribution of vehicles among the eight lots as a result
of ITS, as there was not an increase in the mean number of vehicles
exceeding the capacity of the other six parking areas. Still it is
possible that such a redistribution could have occurred, but was not
measured by the data which focused on excess parking. For example, it is
possible that the total number of vehicles increased at Echo Lake during
2002, but they would have been parked legally within the capacity of the
parking lot and, therefore, would not have been counted.

**Table 7-3: Mean Number of Vehicles Exceeding the
Capacity**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779428 .anchor} **of\
Individual Lots in Acadia National Park**

  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------
  **Year**   **Parking                                                                    
             Lot**                                                                        

             **Sieur De  **Sand    **Jordan   **Bubble   **Eagle   **Ikes    **Acadia     **Echo
             Monts**     Beach**   Pond**     Pond**     Lake**    Point**   Mountain**   Lake**

  2000       4           81        106        2          63        2         20           \<1

  2001       2           120       95         4          68        3         24           1

  2002       5           98        82         2          54        4         31           1
  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------ --------

## Impact of ITS on Efficiency of Island Explorer Operations

The ITS technologies associated with the Island Explorer were intended
to enable a variety of improvements in operation, such as better
scheduling of buses to meet demand and better response to vehicle or
driver problems, such as breakdowns, that could impact service. The ITS
technologies associated with the Island Explorer that would most
directly impact efficiency included voice communicators, automatic
vehicle location, and automated passenger counters. Electronic departure
signs and on-board annunciator of the next stop were aimed primarily at
passengers rather than the bus operations, per se.

Table 7-4 presents operational statistics obtained from Downeast
Transportation since 1999, the first year of the Island Explorer. As
noted previously in this report, the bus service has experienced
substantial increase in ridership over its four years of operation. With
a better sense of the potential demand and with a year of operational
experience behind them, Downeast Transportation doubled the size of the
fleet from eight buses in the first year to 17 buses in 2000. Similarly,
a seventh route was added in 2000. Fleet size and routes of service have
remained constant since then. Hours of operation were also lengthened to
provide better service for riders to participate in evening activities
outside the Park. As a result, total service hours reached 12,300 in
2001 and stayed constant in 2002. To assess the impact of the ITS
technologies on the operations of the Island Explorer, these operational
statistics were analyzed. In addition, anecdotal information collected
during interviews with Island Explorer managers and drivers provided
further insight into their perceptions of the benefits of ITS.

**Table 7-4: Island Explorer Operational
Statistics**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779429 .anchor}

+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                       | **19 | **2   | **2   | **2   |
|                                       | 99** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Miles (000)                         | 148  | 209.5 | 220.5 | 217.5 |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Ridership (000)                     | 1    | 193.1 | 240   | 281.1 |
|                                       | 40.9 |       |       |       |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Service Denials (% of trip segments | \<1  | \<1   | \<1   | \<1   |
| > over capacity)                      |      |       |       |       |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Standing Riders (% of trip segments | 8    | 8     | 11    | 14    |
| > with one or more standees)          |      |       |       |       |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Service Hours (000)                 | 7.3  | 10.1  | 12.3  | 12.3  |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Routes                              | 6    | 7     | 7     | 7     |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of Buses                     | 8    | 17    | 17    | 17    |
+---------------------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+

Figure 7-2 shows three measures of operational efficiency from 1999
through 2002. Comparison of measures for 2002, when ITS was in
operation, with the previous year suggests that ITS did indeed aid the
efficiency of Island Explorer operations. Bus utilization, in terms of
miles driven per bus, decreased slightly, even though overall ridership
increased. The increase in the number of riders per hour from 2001 to
2002 was 17% higher with a corresponding increase in the percentage of
trip segments (distance between two stops) with standing riders. It is
significant to note that between 2000 and 2002, far less than 1% of all
trip segments involved a stop where the bus driver refused service
because of over capacity. Thus, it can be concluded that purely on a
quantitative basis that ITS had a positive impact on the efficiency of
operations of the bus system.

From a qualitative standpoint, efficiency benefits were also observed.
In Section 4.4 results of interviews with Island Explorer managers and
drivers were discussed, and some of their perceptions pertain to
efficiency. For example, they said that voice communications between the
dispatcher and the drivers helped to communicate information on large
passenger loads and blocked roads. Managers said they found the
automatic vehicle locator very valuable for route management, schedule
adherence, and monitoring speed and position of each bus and driver
within the overall system. In general, managers believed that ITS helped
them operate the bus system more effectively, and drivers believed ITS
helped them cope with increased traffic and ridership as well as making
their job easier overall. Thus, the beliefs of the staff who experienced
the ITS technologies support the quantitative findings about the
positive impact on efficiency.

![](media/image57.wmf)

Figure 7-2: Island Explorer Operating
Efficiencies[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779895 .anchor}

## 7.4 Summary of Efficiency {#summary-of-efficiency .unnumbered}

The evaluation hypotheses related to efficiency are shown in Table 7-5.
The benefits of ITS on efficiency pertains to the ability to accomplish
more after ITS than before ITS was deployed. Within the context of the
field operational test at Acadia National Park, efficiency was examined
from the standpoint of visitor demand and the use of the Park's
transportation resources. Records from the Park, Maine Department of
Transportation, and the Island Explorer along with an observational
study of parking behavior by visitors at eight parking lots within the
Park served as data for the evaluation. A second area of efficiency that
was assessed was the impact of ITS on the operations of the Island
Explorer. Data on equipment use and passenger loadings were examined to
determine if ITS had an impact. In addition, interviews with managers
and drivers of the Island Explorer provided a qualitative assessment of
the impact of ITS.

**Table 7-5: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to
Efficiency**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779430 .anchor}

  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------------------------
  **Goal       **Objective**           **Hypothesized Impact**
  Area**                               

  Efficiency   To increase the number  ITS provides better operating
               of customers served     information, which allows for more
                                       efficient deployment of resources to
                                       a greater number of Park visitors

               To distribute the       Better information availability
               demand on Acadia        allows for visitor pre- and on-trip
               National Park resources planning so that parking lots usage
               more evenly             is more balanced

               To increase Island      ITS will provide better operating
               Explorer efficiency in  information to enable better
               managing its operations scheduling and to serve more
                                       passengers with the same equipment
  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------------------------

The Park's transportation resources examined in this evaluation consist
of its roads and parking lots that visitors use to access many
destinations within the Park. It was hypothesized that ITS, by enhancing
the Island Explorer and making it easier to use and by providing
information to visitors about crowded parking conditions in the Park,
would result in less utilization of the roadways and the parking lots.
In addition it was hypothesized that usage of the parking lots would be
more evenly balanced as visitors were informed about full conditions at
the two of the most popular destinations, Sand Beach and Jordan Pond,
and selected alternative destinations. The data support most of these
hypothesized impacts of ITS. The Park was able to serve more visitors
while containing the demand for road and parking facilities. Although
total visitors increased from 2001 to 2002, the proportion that used the
Island Explorer increased even faster, suggesting that, relatively
speaking, fewer vehicles were on the Park roads. In addition, the days
that parking at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond exceeded the parking lot
capacity were noticeably fewer in 2002 than 2001, suggesting that
visitors noticed and acted on the parking status information at those
two locations. One hypothesized impact that was not supported by the
evaluation was a redistribution of vehicles to the other six parking
lots that were studied. However, that does not mean that a
redistribution of demand for parking did not take place. Some lots may
have had sufficient capacity to accommodate additional vehicles, and
such a pattern would not have been observed in the data that were
collected on excess parking.

With regard to the efficiency of operations of the Island Explorer, ITS
was expected to provide managers the tools to more effectively deploy
the buses and drivers to service customer demand. Drivers, too, were
expected to benefit from the automation and enhanced features that ITS
provided and enable them to perform their job more efficiently. Both the
quantitative and qualitative data collected in the evaluation support
these hypothesized impacts of ITS. With a stable bus fleet and number of
routes, the Island Explorer was able to serve 17% more passengers in
2002 when ITS was being used. Managers and drivers alike voiced their
belief that ITS was having a positive impact in ways that make
operations more efficient.

## Energy and Environmental Impact

In this section the impact of the ITS technologies are examined from the
standpoint of energy and environment. The anticipated improvements from
the ITS deployment relate primarily to having fewer vehicles on the
roads thereby using less fuel and causing less pollution or using less
polluting vehicles. Yet another potential environmental impact is an
aesthetic benefit that would result from fewer vehicles parked along
Park roads detracting from the beauty of the natural environment.
Visitors come to Acadia to enjoy its outstanding natural beauty, and the
large number of vehicles within the Park is viewed negatively by some.
The expected impacts on energy and environment were tested using data on
counts of vehicles, passenger counts of the Island Explorer, and results
of emissions modeling supplied by the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection.

##  Air Quality Impacts

Visitors ranked concern about "too many autos having a negative impact
on air quality" among the top five problems related to travel on Mount
Desert Island and in Acadia National Park, according to the visitor
survey (see Section 4.2). Figure 8-1 shows that 28% of all visitors felt
it was a "moderate" or "big" problem. The ITS users who used the bus and
parking traveler information actually ranked this item second in terms
of problems related to travel on Mount Desert Island and in Acadia
National Park. Further investigation is needed in terms of the
prevalence of this issue influencing the choice of using the less
polluting propane-powered Island Explorer buses. However, it may be an
attractive incentive for visitors and future use of the Island Explorer
bus with this level of awareness of autos and air quality, especially in
a pristine setting such as Acadia National Park.

While the visitors' perception of a problem is important, trying to
measure air quality and the potential benefit that ITS might provide
quantitatively is no simple matter. The amount of traffic within the
Park is a key indicator of energy and environmental impact. While it was
impractical to directly measure fuel use or emissions of vehicles, the
total number of vehicles is a useful surrogate. Unfortunately, good
estimates of vehicles counts are not available. As noted in Section 7.1,
the 2002 traffic counts from the Maine DOT sensor at the entrance to
Mount Desert Island are suspect. Moreover, Park statistics are in the
form of visitors rather than vehicles. The most reliable indicator is
perhaps the number of passengers on the Island Explorer bus, as they
represent visitors who would otherwise be using their own vehicles to
reach destinations within the Park. Moreover, the Island Explorer runs
on natural propane fuel and therefore is a low emission producing
vehicle.

The impact of the Island Explorer on air quality on Mount Desert Island
is estimated by use of the emissions model known as Mobil 5 used by
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Figure 8-2 shows seasonal
totals of avoided emissions by displacing trips in private vehicles with
Island Explorer ridership. The avoided emissions are the total of VOC
(volatile organic compounds) and NOx (nitrogen oxide) expressed in
metric tons. An additional 1.17 tons of emissions were avoided in 2002,
the year ITS was operational, compared to 2001. In that ITS technologies
have been shown to be a factor in visitors' willingness to use transit,
ITS has a positive environmental impact through the reduction of
vehicle-based emissions.

![](media/image58.wmf)

**Figure 8-1: Visitor Rating of Too Many
Automobiles**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779896 .anchor}**\
Having a Negative Impact on Air Quality**

![](media/image59.wmf)

**Figure 8-2: Island Explorer Passengers and Avoided Emissions in Metric
Tons**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779897 .anchor}

## 8.2 Impact of Vehicles on Park Aesthetics {#impact-of-vehicles-on-park-aesthetics .unnumbered}

As discussed in Section 7.2 parking areas for vehicles within Acadia
National Park are limited owing to the rugged terrain. At popular
destinations the designated parking spaces are usually taken by mid-day
and visitors frequently park at non-designated spaces and along roads
leading to the parking lots. Parking outside designated lots can destroy
vegetation, create soil compaction, and lead to erosion. Moreover, the
sight of many vehicles parked along roads detracts from the natural
beauty of the Park. In Section 7.2 the analysis of excess parking at
selected lots suggested that ITS, in the form of real-time information
about the availability of parking spaces, appeared to have contributed
to a reduction in excess parking outside designated spots at the two of
the most popular destinations: Sand Beach and Jordan Pond. From an
aesthetic standpoint, ITS appears to have had a positive impact as
measured by the reduction in excess vehicles at these two locations
within the Park.

## 8.3 Summary of Energy and Environment {#summary-of-energy-and-environment .unnumbered}

The hypothesized impacts of ITS on the evaluation of energy and
environment are shown in Table 8-1. Although energy and environment was
not a major focus of the evaluation, data were collected for a limited
assessment of the impact of ITS. First, it was demonstrated that
visitors exhibited a high degree of concern about vehicles negatively
impacting air quality on the Island. They ranked it among the five top
problems related to their travel experience. ITS, by enhancing the
Island Explorer bus service, offers one solution for addressing the
problem of air quality by encouraging more visitors to take the bus.
Indeed, emission modeling that takes into account the growth of
ridership of the Island Explorer indicated that air quality does benefit
from the bus system. Thus, ITS can play a role in air quality
improvement.

The other area investigated having to do with the environment was that
of visual aesthetics. Cars parked along roads within the Park are seen
by some as a detraction from its extraordinary natural beauty. A study
of parking patterns showed a reduction in excess parking at the two of
the most visited spots in the Park in 2002 when visitors were provided
with real-time information on parking availability at those two spots.
Such a reduction in excess parking would mean an aesthetic improvement,
which may be attributable to ITS being used for parking information.

**Table 8-1: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to Energy and
Environment**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779431 .anchor}

  --------------- ---------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Goal Area**   **Objective**          **Hypothesized Impact**

  Energy and      To reduce emissions    ITS-improved Island Explorer
  Environmental   from motor vehicles on service will result in fewer trips
                  Mount Desert Island    by private vehicle and a consequent
                                         improvement in air quality

                  To provide a more      ITS-improved Island Explorer
                  positive experience    service will result in fewer
                  for visitors through   vehicles parked on Acadia National
                  enhanced aesthetics of Park roads, thereby improving the
                  Acadia National Park   visual aesthetics of the Park
  --------------- ---------------------- -----------------------------------

##   {#section-14 .unnumbered}

## 9.0 Safety {#safety .unnumbered}

This section presents results of the evaluation of the ITS field
operational test from the standpoint of safety benefits. Although safety
was not a major focus of the evaluation, stakeholders were interested in
understanding how the ITS deployment at Acadia National Park might
improve transportation safety on Mount Desert Island. The Island's
narrow two-lane winding roads were thought to offer ample opportunity
for vehicular accidents. Using ITS to reduce vehicular traffic on
roadways was expected to lead to a reduction in accidents. That is,
having more visitors ride the Island Explorer and fewer on the roads in
their own vehicles should be safer. Safety could also be improved
through the application of ITS to better traffic management. ITS
technologies could assist those responsible for traffic management,
including Park rangers and Island Explorer drivers and managers,
identify incidents and other hazardous road conditions more quickly and
get them resolved. Analysis of safety was based on accident records from
Acadia National Park and Maine Department of Transportation and
interviews with Park managers and staff of the Island Explorer.

## Visitors' Traffic Safety Concerns

In the discussion of customer satisfaction Section 4, safety was shown
to be the number one concern among visitors when they were asked to rate
problems related to travel on Mount Desert Island and Acadia National
Park. As shown in Figure 9-1, 69% of visitors viewed vehicles parked
along main roads causing unsafe conditions as a problem to some extent.

![](media/image60.wmf)

**Figure 9-1: Visitor Rating of Vehicles Parked along the Main
Roads**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779898 .anchor}

**Causing Unsafe Conditions**

It was also observed in Section 4 that visitors who used ITS were those
most concerned about safety and other travel problems. Visitors who used
the ITS-based information on buses alone or buses and parking expressed
more concern about "driving and parking along busy roads" than those who
were non-users or only used the parking information.

These findings indicate that from the visitors' perspective travel
safety is an issue for many who come to Acadia and Mount Desert Island.
Moreover, ITS appears to play a part in alleviating the worry of those
who are most concerned about travel safety during their visit.

## 9.2 Trends in Traffic Safety on Mount Desert Island {#trends-in-traffic-safety-on-mount-desert-island .unnumbered}

Data on motor vehicle accidents were obtained from Acadia National Park
and the Maine Department of Transportation. Figure 9-2 shows the number
of accidents along the Island Explorer route during the summer operating
season. The Maine DOT numbers are exclusive of accidents reported by
Park rangers, who report accidents within Park boundaries. The criteria
for reporting is the same for both the State and the Park: an accident
involving a motor vehicle with over \$1000 in damage or personal injury.

The Maine DOT accident data for 2002 were unavailable at the time of
this report, and thus it was not possible to assess what impact ITS
might have had on accidents along the routes of the Island Explorer
outside the Park. For accidents within the Park the statistics for
reported accidents show a marked improvement in safety between 2001 and
2002, when the ITS suite of technologies was fully implemented. Whether
or not there is any causal relationship between ITS and the 55% drop in
accidents from 2001 to 2002 cannot be determined. However, while number
of Park visitors increased by only 1.8% between 2001 and 2002, Island
Explorer ridership increased by 17.1%. Thus, to the extent that ITS
enhances the appeal of the bus and having visitors tour the Park by bus
rather than their own vehicles leads to fewer accidents, then ITS may
indeed be behind the observed safety improvements.

![](media/image61.wmf){width="5.21875in" height="2.8645833333333335in"}

**Figure 9-2: Motor Vehicle Accidents along the Routes of the Island
Explorer**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779899 .anchor}**\
during the Summer Operating Season**

## 9.3 ITS Contribution to Safety in Transportation Management {#its-contribution-to-safety-in-transportation-management .unnumbered}

The final set of data that bear on potential safety benefits of ITS in
the Acadia National Park FOT comes from interviews with managers and
drivers of the Island Explorer buses. In the course of the interviews
reported in Section 4.4, both managers and drivers identified safety
benefits of the ITS technologies. The voice communicator in particular
was valuable for enabling drivers to report various problems to the
dispatcher, including accidents and hazardous parking that they
observed. The managers believed that the communication system greatly
improves safety by enabling text messages to be sent if the voice
features were inoperable, as occurred once. In addition the automatic
vehicle location system could be used to passively locate a vehicle in
case of emergency. As these remarks indicate, ITS enables the bus system
to be operated in a way that provides safety benefits to both bus
passengers and drivers. In addition, the Island Explorer is in a
position to assist others in emergency situations through the drivers'
use of the ITS technologies installed on the buses.

## Summary of Safety

Visitors to Acadia National Park, when asked about problems with travel,
identified safety on the roads of Mount Desert Island as their top
concern. This section of the evaluation examined the safety benefits of
ITS using the hypothesized impacts shown in Table 9-1. Data available
for the evaluation included accident statistics and anecdotal evidence
of the benefits of safety from the staff of the Island Explorer bus
system.

The results of the analysis provide some evidence that the ITS
technologies may be making travel safer during the summer months. There
was a marked decrease in motor vehicle accidents within the Park in
2002, which may be related to the substantial increase in ridership of
the Island Explorer taking people out of their own vehicles and putting
them on the bus. Data were not available for accidents outside the Park
to determine if a similar decrease took place. Thus, while the data
suggest there might be a causal relationship between ITS and fewer
accidents, no firm conclusion can be drawn from the limited data.

Evidence from interviews with the managers and drivers of the Island
Explorer indicate that other types of safety benefits are derived from
the ITS technologies installed on the buses. Drivers are able to report
accidents and other hazardous conditions, and managers can remotely
locate buses in emergency situations.

Table 9-1: Objectives and Hypotheses Related to
Safety[]{#__RefHeading___Toc40779432 .anchor}

  ----------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------
  **Goal      **Objective**           **Hypothesized Impact**
  Area**                              

  Safety      To increase             ITS will reduce vehicular traffic on
              transportation safety   roads thereby reducing the number of
              in Acadia National Park accidents
              and Mount Desert Island 

                                      ITS will reduce hazardous conditions
                                      by better management of
                                      transportation resources
  ----------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------

##  {#section-15 .unnumbered}

## 10.0 Summary of Key Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations {#summary-of-key-findings-conclusions-and-recommendations .unnumbered}

This section presents key findings from the evaluation, showing what the
evaluation data revealed in six goal areas. Also discussed are
conclusions about the benefits of ITS that were observed in the field
operational test of ITS at Acadia National Park and, where appropriate,
recommendations about how those results could be utilized in the future.

## 10.1 Key Findings {#key-findings .unnumbered}

This evaluation of the Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test
investigated the benefits of ITS in six goal areas: customer
satisfaction, mobility, productivity and economic vitality, efficiency,
energy and environment, and safety. Many of the hypothesized impacts of
ITS were directly supported by the evidence gathered in the evaluation,
whereas for some expected impacts the limited data were only suggestive.
In a few cases the impact was not observed or was counter to what was
anticipated. Key findings for each goal area are summarized below.

**[Customer Satisfaction]{.underline}**

-   Visitors rated their overall experience and satisfaction with their
    visit very high, but travel experience during their visit was rated
    lower. Among the problems associated with travel on Mount Desert
    Island and in Acadia National Park, visitors expressed most concern
    about unsafe conditions caused by vehicles parked along main roads.
    Other top concerns were the number of automobiles both inside and
    outside the Park and their impact on air quality.

-   ITS-users expressed more concern about travel issues in general than
    non-ITS users and sought means to alleviate those concerns via ITS
    and the Island Explorer. Non-users, on the other hand, were either
    less sensitive to travel conditions or had strategies for coping
    with problems that didn't involve the need for Island Explorer or
    ITS.

-   Between 40% and 50% of visitors were aware of the sources of
    traveler information targeted to them, and between 28% and 34%
    intended to use the information sources to help with travel during
    their visit.

-   Visitors rated the ITS-based traveler information sources very
    highly (86% or more) on attributes of ease of use,
    understandability, and accuracy, and reported that the information
    helped relieve the stress or uncertainty of travel. The vast
    majority of users (78% or more) believed using the same ITS-based
    information again in a future visit would be a pleasant experience.
    Particularly promising are reports from ITS users that they would
    plan to use the information again.

-   Drivers and managers of the Island Explorer bus system expressed a
    high degree of satisfaction with the five ITS technologies
    associated with the buses. Managers believed that ITS improved bus
    operations and contributed to customer satisfaction, but they
    weren't sure if ITS directly increased ridership. Drivers felt that
    ITS made their jobs easier and helped them to cope with increasing
    traffic and ridership.

-   ITS components associated with the Island Explorer was not totally
    trouble free, although problems were infrequent or minor enough not
    to detract from the overall satisfaction expressed by Island
    Explorer staff.

-   Given that most of the ITS technologies intended for deployment
    within the Park itself were not operational during the summer of
    2002, it is not surprising that staff of Acadia National Park were
    fairly neutral in their reaction to ITS. Nevertheless, Park managers
    believed that parking lot status signs and bus departure signs have
    a positive influence on congestion and traffic by facilitating bus
    travel, whereas Park rangers also believed that the Island Explorer
    with ITS enhancements is helping to alleviate congestion but were
    less enthusiastic about the parking information signs.

**[Mobility]{.underline}**

-   In general, ITS contributed to visitors' perception of mobility by
    making it easier to get around, avoid problems, and save time. The
    extent to which visitors reported these benefits varied by the
    specific ITS technology.

-   The benefits of real-time parking information, reported by a
    majority of those visitors who used it, was that it made it was
    easier for them to get around and avoid parking problems and traffic
    congestion. Of visitors using the parking information, 43% changed
    the time they visited a destination and 38% changed destinations
    based on the information.

-   Visitors strongly believed in the benefits of the Island Explorer's
    real-time bus departure signs and the on-board bus announcements.
    Over 80% found that these ITS technologies made it easier to get
    around and 69-80% visitors believed ITS helped to save time. These
    results were consistent with previous studies of Island Explorer
    passengers who voiced strong support for the bus system even before
    ITS was implemented.

-   Important goals of the ITS technologies were to enhance visitors'
    experience while at the same time encouraging use of the Island
    Explorer bus rather than use their private vehicles. ITS users of
    the electronic departure signs and on-board announcements reported
    that the technologies helped them decide to use the Island Explorer
    bus (80% and 67%, respectively) as compared to ITS users of the real
    time parking conditions for whom 44% said it helped them decide to
    use the Island Explorer bus. Thus, the ITS technologies appear to be
    contributing to the overall goal of diverting visitors from personal
    vehicles to using the Island Explorer bus.

-   ITS users reported higher levels of participation in a range of
    activities during their visit than non-users. While this finding is
    consistent with the hypothesized impact, it may also be a result of
    ITS users having longer visits to Mount Desert Island than ITS.

**[Productivity and Economic Vitality]{.underline}**

-   Regardless of business type, the majority of managers of businesses
    on Mount Desert Island who were interviewed for this study recognize
    the importance of tourism and the benefits to their business or
    community from being situated near Acadia National Park.
    Nevertheless, transportation was one area that drew negative views.
    They were concerned about tourist season parking and congestion as
    well as issues of air quality and safety.

-   Business managers clearly believe that the Island Explorer bus
    system helps to address some of their concerns about summer travel
    conditions, and 69% of the businesses reported that they provide
    information to visitors about the bus. They perceive several
    benefits from visitors using the bus, such as less worry about
    driving and parking along busy roads, relieving the stress of
    driving, improving air quality, creating safer conditions, reducing
    parking problems in the Park and providing greater access to Park
    destinations.

-   When asked about the Island Explorer's direct economic impacts,
    managers tended to be more neutral in their beliefs. They didn't
    necessarily believe that more customers were patronizing their
    businesses because parking was less of a factor or that the Island
    Explorer would cause visitors to stay longer. On the other hand,
    managers of businesses whose customers and employees did not use the
    bus believed that businesses that were closer to a bus stop than
    their own enjoyed a competitive advantage.

-   The majority (61%) of business managers was not aware of ITS-based
    travel information sources, but their awareness was much greater for
    the technologies associated with the Island Explorer than the
    parking information signs and Website. Whether they were previously
    aware or not, business managers perceived many benefits associated
    with visitors' use of both the parking information and the Island
    Explorer bus technologies. The strengths of their belief in ITS
    benefits was 70% or higher across many types of benefits, such as an
    increased likelihood that some tourists would ride the Island
    Explorer bus. Business managers believed the parking information
    would help tourists avoid large crowds, a finding that contradicts
    reports from the tourists themselves. Important from an economic
    standpoint is the fact that the ITS technologies associated with the
    Island Explorer would help tourists utilize time such as visiting
    shops before their bus arrives.

-   Length of stay by visitors, a measure of economic impact, was
    positively correlated with use of the Island Explorer and with use
    of ITS technologies associated with the bus. However, there was a
    great deal of uncertainty among business managers about whether
    visitors who use the Island Explorer tend to stay longer.

-   While it was expected that the Island Explorer operations would
    benefit from productivity improvements resulting from ITS
    technologies, the opposite happened and operational costs increased
    from 2001 to 2002. That increase can be attributed to a rapid growth
    in ridership since 1999 and the necessary growing pains associated
    with that growth as well as the costs of maintaining an older bus
    fleet. Moreover, some costs in the early years of operation were
    borne by Acadia National Park and in the later years these costs
    were assumed by Downeast Transportation, the owners of Island
    Explorer. Despite this overall increase, the cost per rider and per
    mile driven did decline.

**[Efficiency]{.underline}**

-   While total recreational visitors to Acadia National Park during the
    summer season increased by 1.3% from 2001 to 2002, ridership of the
    Island Explorer increased by 17%. Thus, a higher proportion of
    Acadia summer recreational visitors used the bus after ITS was
    operational than before, growing from 15.6% in 2001 and 18.3% in
    2002.

-   Fewer vehicles were parked outside designated parking spaces (excess
    parking) after ITS technologies were implemented. In eight lots
    where parking was monitored, the percentage of days when more than
    300 vehicles were parked outside designated spaces (excess parking)
    fell from 54% in 2001 to 33% in 2002. Similarly, the average number
    of excess parked vehicles per day fell from 325 in 2001 to 274 in
    2002 even though total number of visitors to the Park grew.

-   The real-time parking information posted on signs and on the Park's
    Website was for the two of the most utilized parking lots, Sand
    Beach and Jordan Pond. Average excess parking per day at both lots
    fell after ITS was deployed.

-   A general redistribution of parking to six other lots within the
    Park was not observed. That does not mean that a redistribution of
    demand did not take place. Rather, some lots may have had sufficient
    capacity to accommodate additional vehicles, and such a pattern
    would not have been observed in data that were collected on excess
    parking. The Acadia Mountain was the one lot that actually did
    experience an increase in excess parking which visitors may have
    used as an alternative to Sand Beach or Jordan Pond.

-   Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the Island
    Explorer operations realized efficiency benefits after ITS
    implementation. Miles driven decreased slightly (-1.4%) even though
    ridership increased significantly (17%). Service denials, in which
    passenger demand exceeded bus capacity, held steady at less than 1%
    of trip segments. Interviews with Island Explorer staff indicated
    that voice communications between drivers and the dispatcher helped
    communicate information on large passenger loads and blocked roads.
    Managers voiced support for the automatic vehicle locator system for
    helping them with route management and monitoring buses for schedule
    adherence, speed, and position within the overall system.

**[Energy and Environment]{.underline}**

-   Visitors exhibited a high degree of concern about vehicles
    negatively impacting air quality on Mount Desert Island---it ranked
    among the top five problems related to travel experience during
    their trip to Acadia National Park.

-   Emissions modeling that took into account the increase in ridership
    of the Island Explorer indicated that air quality benefited from the
    bus system, with an estimated additional 1.17 tons of emissions
    avoided in 2002, the year that ITS was operational.

-   A reduction in excess parking at Sand Beach and Jordan Pond parking
    lots suggest that ITS by moving visitors away from full lots and
    putting more visitors on buses may help address aesthetic concerns
    about the sight of many vehicles parked along roads detracting from
    the natural beauty of the Park.

**[Safety]{.underline}**

-   Visitors to Acadia National Park identified safety as their top
    concern related to travel during their visit. Seventy percent of
    surveyed visitors thought that vehicles parked along the main roads
    caused unsafe conditions. ITS users expressed more concern about
    driving and parking along busy roads than non-users or those who
    only used the ITS parking information and not ITS associated with
    buses.

-   Motor vehicle accidents along routes of the Island Explorer within
    the Park decreasing dramatically (-54%) during the summer months
    of 2002. Accident data from routes monitored by the State of Maine
    were not available at the time of this report to determine if a
    similar drop in accidents had occurred.

-   The voice communications and automatic vehicle location technologies
    on the Island Explorer provided safety benefits to drivers and
    managers of the bus system. Drivers were able to report accidents
    and other hazardous conditions, and managers were able to remotely
    locate buses in emergency situations.

## Conclusions and Recommendations

This evaluation of ITS at Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island
is based on one season of post-deployment experience. It is also based
on a deployment that was not yet fully realized, because not all of the
technologies were in place by the summer of 2002. Nevertheless, the
results of the evaluation lead to a number of conclusions about the
benefits that ITS provided. Recommendations based on these conclusions
are also presented for consideration by the stakeholders of the Field
Operational Test, and they may also be useful to other National Parks
and gateway communities that must deal with similar transportation
problems.

-   ITS contributed to a positive visitor experience and increased
    visitors' willingness to use transit rather than their own vehicles.
    Greater use of the Island Explorer appeared to be associated with
    improvements in air quality and possibly to overall traffic and
    motor vehicle crashes.

    -   The full deployment of the planned ITS technologies at Acadia
        should be completed and the system maintained so that the
        benefits can continue to be enjoyed.

-   Visitors who use ITS traveler information tend to be the most
    concerned about travel problems during their stay, and ITS helps
    alleviate the problems they perceive. Conversely, those visitors
    least concerned about problems associated with using their own
    vehicles within the Park are also the least likely to use the ITS
    sources of traveler information.

    -   Marketing messages promoting tourism at Acadia and Mount Desert
        Island should find a way to inform visitors of the travel
        problems they might encounter and emphasize the Island Explorer
        as a solution that is free and easy to use with the ITS
        enhancements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Real-time parking information, despite the limited deployment of
    signs at three locations and the Park Website, was used by visitors,
    who reacted to it positively. The information appears to have the
    desired effect of reducing excess parking at the two advertised
    parking lots that are the most popular destinations in the
    Park---Sand Beach and Jordan Pond. Although only about 40% of
    visitors reported they changed their plans based on real-time
    parking information, even that percent could help lessen the demand
    for parking. Indeed, the statistics on excess parking in the Park's
    lots suggest that ITS helped to lower demand for parking within the
    Park through a combination of real-time information on parking
    status provided to visitors and making visitors aware that the
    Island Explorer is an attractive option for reaching desired
    destinations.

    -   Consideration should be given to adding real-time information on
        parking lot status at other destinations within the Park.
        Expansion of information on parking conditions can be justified
        from the standpoint of customer satisfaction and better
        management of the Park's transportation resources.

    -   An explicit recommendation to "take the bus" on signs displaying
        information on parking status would give clear guidance to
        visitors about their options for travel at the point of
        decision.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The "tent signs" that were used to display real-time parking
    information at two campground entrances and the Visitor Center
    required Park staff to update parking status manually which didn't
    always happen in a timely manner due to other staff responsibilities
    during very busy periods.

    -   The parking information signs can serve as a valuable congestion
        management tool but they need to be improved. Once all the loop
        detectors at parking lot entrances are deployed, the information
        can be electronically conveyed. Updating of the signs should be
        automated to remove the Park staff as a human interface.
        Consideration should be given to placing parking information on
        existing automated bus departure signs and to installing
        additional electronic signs at other locations in the Park and
        on Mount Desert Island to display parking information.

-   Business managers' favorable attitudes towards the Island Explorer
    bus may motivate businesses to recommend using the bus to visitors
    and add support for the ITS technologies that further improve the
    bus system.

-   Based upon the findings about the perceived benefits of ITS to
    users, the implication is that traveler information could be
    potentially useful to the customers of many businesses whose
    managers are currently unaware of the ITS technologies and traveler
    information.

    -   Mechanisms are needed to help raise awareness among business
        managers and their employees so that they promote these types of
        traveler information sources to their customers.

-   The Island Explorer creates an opportunity for a new car-less
    tourist segment, and this potential has strong support among
    business managers. Visitors who used the ITS technologies have a
    higher incidence of modes of transportation associated with the
    car-less segment than non-ITS users. The local economy would benefit
    from more visitors and the negative transportation impact would be
    minimized if they are car-less.

    -   Greater promotion of Acadia as a car-less destination and the
        ITS enhancements that make use of the Island Explorer easy for
        car-less tourists should be undertaken to increase the
        prevalence of this tourist segment even more.

-   Although no clear case can be made that visitors are attracted to
    Acadia and Mount Desert Island because of the Island Explorer, use
    of the Island Explorer is associated with the most economically
    attractive types of visitors because they stay longer and spend
    more. Since visitors reported that the ITS technologies played a
    role in their decision to use the bus and enhanced their experience
    with the bus, ITS would appear to be useful from an economic
    development standpoint.

    -   Businesses of Mount Desert Island should be further educated
        about the potential impact of ITS on the local economy and
        should encourage use of the Island Explorer and traveler
        information in promotion of Mount Desert Island tourism more
        than they currently do.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Travel safety is an issue for many who come to Acadia and Mount
    Desert Island and ITS has the potential to play a part in
    alleviating the worry of those who are most concerned about travel
    safety during their visit.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Visitors reacted positively to the on-board bus announcements and
    they also benefited bus drivers by making their job interacting with
    passengers easier.

    -   Consideration should be given to expanding the set of
        announcements to convey other important messages such as safety,
        non-smoking, and Park pass purchase.

**To access an electronic version of this publication**

**and other ITS related publications visit the**

**ITS Electronic Document Library (EDL):**

**www.its.dot.gov/itsweb/welcome.htm**

**EDL Document Number: 13834**

**Visit our ITS Website**

**The ITS Joint Program Office:**

**www.its.dot.gov**

**Publication No.: FHWA-OP-03-130**

**HOIT/07-03**

[^1]: National Park Service Web page on visitor statistics:
    http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/

[^2]: National Park Service Web page on visitor statistics:
    http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/

[^3]: National Park Service. 1992. [General Management Plan, Acadia
    National Park]{.underline}. Bar Harbor, ME. 100 p.

[^4]: Daigle, John J. and Byung-kyu Lee. 2000. "Passenger
    Characteristics And Experiences With The Island Explorer Bus, Summer
    1999." Technical Report 00-15. Boston, MA: National Park Service,
    New England System Support Office, 76 pp.

[^5]: Press release on Island Explorer Website
    http://www.exploreacadia.com/llbean.html.

[^6]: NPS webpage: http://www.nps.gov/transportation/alt/mou.htm.

[^7]: The firm responsible for the loop detectors did not complete its
    work and eventually went bankrupt. FHWA has since been dealing with
    the surety company to correct and complete the work in 2003.

[^8]: Not operational during the Field Operational Test

[^9]: Because the loop detectors at the entrance to parking lots were
    not operational during the summer of 2002, personal observation was
    used as an alternative to automated parking monitors as a way to
    communicate parking lot status to visitors through the website and
    specially created parking status signs

[^10]: Eliminated from the Field Operational Test

[^11]: Eliminated from the Field Operational Test

[^12]: Not operational during the Field Operational Test

[^13]: Not operational during the Field Operational Test

[^14]: Stakeholders who participated in the May 2000 evaluation strategy
    workshop included representatives from the National Park Service at
    Acadia National Park, Maine Department of Transportation, Friends of
    Acadia, Downeast Transportation Incorporated, Downeast Acadia
    Regional Tourism, The Town of Southwest Harbor, Tom Crikelair
    Associates, and SAIC.

[^15]: Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test Evaluation
    Strategic Plan, July 2000. Available at the ITS JPO evaluation
    Website: http://www.its.dot.gov/eval/docs_stateregionl.htm.

[^16]: Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test Evaluation Plan,
    August 2000. Available at the ITS JPO evaluation Website:
    http://www.its.dot.gov/eval/docs_stateregionl.htm.

[^17]: The following individual test reports will be posted at
    <http://www.its.dot.gov/eval/docs_stateregionl.htm>: Visitor Survey,
    February 2003; Results of Key Informant Interviews, March 2003;
    Business Survey, March 2003; Island Explorer Data Analysis, April
    2003; Acadia National Park Data Analysis, April, 2003; and State of
    Maine Data Analysis, April 2003.

[^18]: Littlejohn, M. 1999. [Acadia National Park Visitor Study: Summer
    1998]{.underline}. Report 108 Visitor Services Project. Cooperative
    Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho; Crikelair, T. 1999. [Onboard
    passenger survey of the Island Explorer Bus]{.underline}. Report
    prepared for Acadia National Park; Daigle, J. and B. Lee. 2000.
    [Passenger Characteristics and Experiences with the Island Explorer
    Bus]{.underline}: Summer 1999. Technical report 00-15. Department of
    Interior, National Park Service, New England System Support Office,
    Boston, Massachusetts. 76 p.; David-Peterson Associates. 1999.
    [Visitors to Acadia National Park/Mount Desert Island: Look at
    Information System]{.underline}. Visitor Survey for Science
    Application International Corporation. Incorporated into the
    Transportation Needs Assessment report for the Federal Highway
    Administration and Acadia National Park.

[^19]: Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test: Visitor Survey,
    February 2000; Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test:
    Results of Key Informant Interviews, March 2000.

[^20]: Littlejohn, M. 1999. [Acadia National Park Visitor Study: Summer
    1998]{.underline}. Report 108 Visitor Services Project. Cooperative
    Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho.

[^21]: Picture courtesy of Multisystems, Inc.

[^22]: Wording in the visitor questionnaire referred to parking and
    traffic information because it had been expected that real-time
    information on traffic congestion in the Park would be available
    from loop detectors monitoring Park entrances. However, the loop
    detectors were not operational during the survey period and only
    information on parking conditions at Jordan Pond and Sand Beach was
    available and displayed to visitors.

[^23]: Picture courtesy of Multisystems, Inc.

[^24]: Daigle, John J. and Byung-kyu Lee. 2000. "Passenger
    Characteristics And Experiences With The Island Explorer Bus, Summer
    1999." Technical Report 00-15. Boston, MA: National Park Service,
    New England System Support Office, 76 pp.

[^25]: Examination of sales tax data had been included in the original
    evaluation plan, and tax data was included in the baseline data
    collection. However, at the time of the preparation of the final
    report, the Maine Department of Revenue had not released 2002 sales
    tax data. As a result tax data are not included in the evaluation of
    economic impact.

[^26]: Daigle, John J. and Byung-Kyu Lee. 2000. Passenger
    Characteristics and Experiences with the Island Explorer Bus: Summer
    1999. Technical Report 00-15. Department of Interior, National Park
    Service, New England System Support Office. 76 p.

[^27]: Littlejohn, M. 1999. Acadia National Park Visitor Study: Summer
    1998. Report 108 Visitor Services Project. Cooperative Park Studies
    Unit, University of Idaho. 108 p.

[^28]: John J. Daigle and Carol A. Zimmerman, "Acadia National Park ITS
    Field Operational Test: Parking Report," prepared for U.S.
    Department of Transportation, March 2003.