Intelligent Transportation Systems: Urban and Rural Transit Providers Reported Benefits but Face Deployment Challenges
Released: 2016-06-21T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Public transit providers are adopting electronics and information-processing applications called ITS to help improve operations and service. ITS technologies can play an important role in facilitating multimodal choices in a rapidly changing transportation environment. This report describes: (1) the extent to which selected transit providers in large urbanized areas are using ITS, (2) the extent to which transit providers in small urban and rural areas are using ITS, (3) the benefits and challenges these transit providers experience in deploying ITS, and (4) the extent to which transit providers have utilized DOT resources to promote and support ITS.

GAO reviewed DOT's ITS deployment data and ITS studies; interviewed DOT officials and public transit stakeholders; conducted three site visits, selected based on geographic dispersion and DOT recommendations; interviewed 31 transit providers serving large urbanized areas selected for geographic dispersion and use of multiple transit modes; and conducted a national survey of small urban and rural transit providers to obtain information on ITS technologies used.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Selected large and medium urban transit providers have deployed most Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies, such as automatic vehicle location (AVL) and electronic fare payment. Most of these providers reported sharing data collected from ITS with the public or regional transportation providers to enable technology innovations and improve regional planning. Large and medium urban transit providers have also deployed advanced types of ITS technologies, such as smart phone applications to provide passengers with travel information and mobile ticketing. GAO estimates that small urban and rural transit providers are using security systems, computer-aided dispatch, AVL, and geographic information systems to, among other things, monitor safety and security and improve record-keeping and billing capabilities. However, most small urban and rural transit providers are not using other ITS technologies—such as automatic passenger counters or electronic fare payment—due to the cost of the technologies or because there is no perceived need.

Transit providers GAO surveyed and interviewed reported various benefits from ITS including improved scheduling and routing, on-time performance and schedule adherence, and customer satisfaction. In addition, many large and medium urban transit providers reported that using combinations of technologies can increase benefits. By using technologies such as AVL and electronic fare payment together, for example, transit providers can obtain more precise ridership information, which can further improve their planning. However, transit providers GAO interviewed and surveyed noted that it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of using ITS technologies because, as reported by large and medium urban providers, it may be difficult to identify a unit of measurement, such as for greater staff efficiency, or attribute benefits to either ITS deployment or a specific technology. Transit providers also face an assortment of deployment challenges, including competing for funding internally with state-of-good-repair needs, reluctance from the transit workforce and leadership to embrace ITS technologies, coordinating deployment across regional agencies, and integrating technologies purchased from different vendors.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) offers a variety of information resources to support ITS deployment, but few of the transit providers interviewed or surveyed reported using these resources. DOT officials, selected large and medium transit providers, and other public transit stakeholders told GAO that the transit community may not be using these resources because transit providers lack sufficient staff and the information provided may not reflect the transit community's needs. Additionally, DOT does not include small urban and rural transit providers in its ITS deployment survey, a tool officials said is used in designing information resources. DOT could improve the awareness and applicability of ITS resources by developing a strategy to raise awareness of DOT's resources available to the transit community and monitoring the adoption of ITS by transit providers in small urban and rural areas. Without greater efforts from DOT to make the transit community more aware of federal ITS resources and to tailor these resources to the needs of smaller providers, transit providers may be missing information that could help them make the most informed ITS deployment decisions.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation develop a strategy to raise awareness of federal resources for ITS deployment in the transit community and include ITS adoption by small urban and rural transit providers in ITS-monitoring efforts. DOT agreed with the recommendations and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Ridership on public transit has grown 60 percent since 1973, and in 2014,  Americans took 10.8 billion trips on public transportation systems, the  highest annual public ridership in 58 years. To help improve the  operations of transit vehicles and services, U.S. transit providers are  adopting a variety of wireless and wire line communications-based  information and electronic technologies—collectively called Intelligent  Transportation Systems (ITS). ITS encompasses a broad range of  technologies, from security cameras to scheduling software, to improve  the operations and efficiency of public transportation. ITS technologies  can play an important role in improving transit operations in urban and  rural areas and facilitating multimodal choices in a rapidly changing  transportation environment. For example, software applications on mobile  devices can help urban transit riders optimize their travel by showing  arrival information for transit vehicles in real time. Transit providers in  major metropolitan areas have used ITS technologies for years, but less  is known about the extent of ITS use among transit providers in smaller  towns and rural areas.

In this context, you asked us to review the use of ITS by transit providers  in the U.S. We addressed the following questions:  1.  To what extent are selected transit providers in large urban areas  using ITS?  2.  To what extent are transit providers in small urban and rural areas  using ITS?  3.  What benefits and challenges are transit providers in large urban,  small urban, and rural areas experiencing in deploying ITS?  4.  How does DOT promote and support the use of ITS technologies, and  to what extent do transit providers utilize these resources?

To determine the extent of ITS use among transit providers in large urban  areas, we reviewed 2013 data on national ITS deployment from the  Department of Transportation (DOT). On the basis of interviews with DOT  officials and analysis of the 2013 ITS deployment data, we determined  that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted  site visits to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland and Eugene, Oregon; and  Tampa and Orlando, Florida to observe transit ITS deployments. We  selected these site visits based on criteria including geographic  dispersion and recommendations by the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO)  and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) officials and industry  stakeholders. During these site visits, we obtained documentation and  interviewed officials from public transit stakeholders including  municipalities, academic researchers, state departments of  transportation, and metropolitan planning organizations. We also  conducted semi-structured interviews on the use of ITS with a judgmental  sample of 31 transit providers serving large urban areas. We selected  transit providers that were geographically dispersed across the country  and represented the variety of transit modes offered in these areas. We  cannot use the information obtained from these interviews to generalize  to a broader population of transit providers. We separated the transit  providers into two categories: medium urban: 13 providers serving urbanized areas with populations  of 200,000–1 million, and  large urban: 18 providers serving urbanized areas with populations of  more than 1 million.

We also interviewed officials from related industry associations such as  the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Community  Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and Intelligent  Transportation Society of America (ITS America), and representatives  from two ITS vendors and four independent ITS consultants. We selected  the ITS vendors based on interviews with several transit providers in large  urban areas who utilized their products, and the consultants based on a  review of published transit ITS reports.

To determine the extent of ITS use among transit providers in small urban  and rural areas, we conducted a generalizable, web-based survey of  transit providers serving small urban and rural areas from November to  December 2015. We define small urban transit providers as organizations  that provide public transit service primarily to urbanized areas of 50,000– 199,999 people, and rural transit providers as organizations that primarily  serve rural areas (i.e., non-urbanized areas with fewer than 50,000  people). Based on discussions with several industry associations and  after conducting initial survey pretests with several transit providers, we  limited our scope to the providers for which the topic of ITS use was likely  most relevant. We therefore excluded rural providers that reported fleets  of 10 or fewer vehicles to the FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD) in  reporting year 2013 from our sample frame. We identified a sample  frame of 896 small urban and rural transit providers using reporting year  2013 data from the NTD, and selected a stratified random sample of 312  of these providers for participation in the survey. The sample is  comprised of 146 recipients of Section 5307 FTA urbanized area formula  grants and 166 sub-recipients of Section 5311 FTA non-urbanized area  formula grants. Approximately 75 percent of our sample—or 233  respondents— completed the survey. All estimates from the sample in  this report have a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence level, of  plus or minus 10 percentage points or fewer, unless otherwise noted. The  survey questionnaire and a more comprehensive tabulation of the results  can be viewed at GAO-16-639SP.

To identify the benefits and challenges that transit providers in large  urban, small urban, and rural areas are experiencing from deploying ITS,  we interviewed JPO and FTA officials, industry associations, officials from  public transit stakeholders in our site visits, and 31 transit providers in  large urban areas; surveyed transit providers in small urban and rural  areas; and reviewed published research on ITS. We analyzed the  interviews, survey results, and published research to identify commonly  cited benefits and challenges. To determine how DOT promotes and  supports the use of ITS technologies, we interviewed officials from the  JPO and FTA about the federal resources and assistance available to  support deployment and how transit providers use these resources. We  reviewed the JPO’s program and strategic planning documents, including  documents related to the ITS Professional Capacity Building Program. In  addition, we reviewed the JPO’s efforts to promote and support ITS  technologies, including various studies, guidance, websites, and the  JPO’s ITS databases. We determined the extent to which transit  providers are utilizing DOT’s ITS resources by asking transit provider  officials about their awareness and use of the training, technical  assistance, or knowledge resources programs offered by the JPO,  whether they had used these programs, and how helpful they had found  them to be, in interviews and through the survey. In prior work, we and  the National Academies’ Transportation Research Board identified  leading practices for successfully encouraging the adoption of new  technologies.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 to June 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional information about  our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Urban and Rural Transit
paragraphs: According to APTA, 6,800 organizations— ranging from large multi-modal  systems in major metropolitan areas to single-vehicle special demand-  response service providers that transport senior citizens and the  disabled—provided public transportation in 2013. While it is difficult to  establish the exact dimensions of urban and rural transit service because  transit providers headquartered in urban areas may also serve rural  areas, urban transit providers primarily serve areas with populations of  50,000 or more. Within this category, small urbanized areas are those  with populations under 200,000, and include small cities, college towns,  and vacation or resort areas, while large urbanized areas are those with  200,000 or more people, including the country’s major metropolitan areas.  The 834 agencies that serve urban areas accounted for more than 98  percent of all transit passenger trips in 2013, according to APTA.

Non-urbanized, or rural, areas have populations of fewer than 50,000  people. In 2013, approximately 1,400 public transit agencies operated in  rural areas, accounting for 1.5 percent of all passenger trips, according to  APTA. Transit providers in rural areas operate in a variety of  environments, serving areas that may span thousands of square miles in  remote areas—meaning that trips may be long with only a few riders at  any given time—or be located in more developed rural areas surrounding  major cities. Compared to large urban systems, rural transit providers  generally have low budgets, few employees, and small vehicle fleets.  However, these transit systems provide vital mobility and connections to  essential services for the approximately 75 million people who live in rural  America.

Transit providers serve the public through a variety of transportation  modes. In this report, we use the following descriptions of transportation  modes:

Fixed-route bus service: rubber-tired passenger vehicles that  operate on fixed routes and schedules over roadways. Diesel,  gasoline, battery, or alternative fuel engines power these vehicles.  This category includes bus rapid transit, commuter bus, and trolley  bus.

Paratransit: accessible, origin-to-destination transportation service  that operates in response to calls or requests from riders. It is an  alternative to fixed-route transit service, which operates according to  regular schedules along prescribed routes with designated stops.

Demand-response (also referred to as dial-a-ride): vehicles that  operate in response to calls or requests from passengers. Small  buses, vans, or taxis to provide transportation service that is not on a  fixed route or schedule. For example, transportation may be provided  for individuals whose access may be limited or whose health condition  prevents them from using the regular fixed-route bus service.

Commuter rail: vehicles that operate along electric or diesel- propelled railways and provide train service for local, short distance  trips between a central city and adjacent suburbs.

Heavy rail: vehicles that operate on electric railways with high-volume  traffic capacity. This mode has separated rights-of-way, sophisticated  signaling, high platform loading and high-speed rapid-acceleration rail  cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails.

Light rail: vehicles that operate on electric railways with light-volume  traffic capacity. The mode may have either shared or exclusive rights- of-way, low or high platform loading, or single or double car trains.

section_title: Transit ITS
paragraphs: ITS encompasses a broad range of wireless and wire line  communications-based information and electronic technologies, including  technologies for collecting, processing, disseminating, or acting on  information in real time to improve the operation and safety of the  transportation system. DOT identifies 11 core technologies that are useful  for public transit providers to deploy. Figure 1 illustrates how seven ITS  technologies are used on a transit bus and how the public may interact  with them when utilizing fixed-route bus service.

Other ITS technologies not depicted in figure 1 include:

Communication technologies: technologies that pass information  from one user to another in a useable form via wire, wireless, radio,  the Internet, or other links to facilitate interaction among drivers,  dispatchers, emergency responders, and other personnel.

Geographic information systems (GIS) & data management:  systems that manage and create spatial data such as location of bus  stops, routes, transit facilities and the regional street network. The  management, analysis, communication, and display of this information  supports automatic vehicle location, automatic passenger counters,  computer aided dispatch, and other technologies.

Maintenance management systems: technologies that monitor  everything from fuel and other fluid levels to engine temperature.

Weather information systems: the hardware, software, and  communications interfaces necessary to provide real-time information  on weather conditions to transportation agencies and their customers.

Deployment of transit ITS may involve a variety of transportation  stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Transit ITS technologies  may be proprietary systems sold by technology firms in the private sector.  Transit providers may also hire consulting firms to assist them in the ITS  procurement and deployment process, including developing system  requirements and the request for proposals from vendors. Further, the  operation of certain ITS, such as a transit signal priority system, involves  not only the transit provider but the municipality that owns and operates  the traffic signal equipment. Smaller neighboring transit providers may  also participate in an ITS deployment, such as a regional electronic fare  collection system, spearheaded by a larger transit provider. Metropolitan  planning organizations may serve a key role in planning ITS deployment,  as they have responsibility for the regional transportation processes in  urbanized areas.

section_title: Transit Funding for ITS
paragraphs: Transit providers may use FTA formula and discretionary grants, among  other sources, for projects that include ITS deployments. They may also  acquire ITS components such as security systems through funding  provided by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, state and  local governments may use their own funds to finance ITS projects. The  primary formula grant programs that transit providers could use to fund  ITS are (1) urbanized area grants, which provide funds to urban areas for  capital projects, such as purchasing buses, planning, job access and  reverse commute projects, and operating and other expenses, and (2)  rural area grants, which provide funds to states and tribal areas to be  used for capital, operating, and other expenses to support public  transportation in rural areas.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes  several competitive grant programs that recipients could use to fund  transit ITS projects, including (1) the Advanced Transportation and  Congestion Technologies Deployment Initiative, which provides grant  funding for recipients to deploy a range of technologies, including transit  ITS such as advanced traveler information systems and electronic pricing  and payment systems, and (2) the Pilot Program for Innovative  Coordinated Access and Mobility, which funds innovative projects that  improve the coordination of transportation services with non-emergency  medical transportation services, and could include ITS projects. Other  FTA competitive funding programs that have been used, at least in part,  for transit ITS include:

Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative (VTCLI):  VTCLI has funded projects in urban, suburban, and rural communities  to strengthen and promote “one-call” information centers and other  tools that enable veterans, active service members, military families,  and others to learn about and arrange for locally available  transportation services that connect them with work, education, health  care, and other vital services in their communities.

Mobility Services for All Americans (MSAA) Deployment Planning  Projects: DOT’s MSAA initiative aims to improve transportation  services and access to employment, healthcare, education, and other  community activities through a coordinated effort enabled by various  ITS technologies and applications. MSAA funds are awarded to  selected local and regional organizations to plan coordinated mobility  services. Funded projects use ITS to coordinate deployment of on- demand public transportation systems, such as paratransit, for people  with mobility issues. The grants help provide vital services for  veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and others who rely on  community transportation providers to access everyday needs such  as employment, medical care, and groceries.

Transit providers often integrate ITS technologies into other capital  purchases, like new buses; therefore, it is difficult to determine the total  amount of FTA funds transit providers use solely for ITS. Although this  does not represent total ITS spending, FTA officials estimated that the  federal funds awarded for engineering, acquiring, constructing,  rehabilitating/renovating, and/or leasing signal and communication  equipment, surveillance/security systems, route signing, mobile fare  collection equipment, vehicle locator systems, and signage (all of which,  according to officials, would be considered ITS) totaled nearly $527  million in fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

section_title: Federal ITS Program
paragraphs: Congress established the federal ITS program in the Intelligent Vehicle- Highway Systems Act of 1991, which was enacted as part of the  Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to  research, develop, and operationally test ITS technologies and promote  their implementation. More recently, the FAST Act authorized $100  million annually for the federal ITS program for fiscal years 2016 through  2020, the same levels the previous surface transportation authorization— Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)—authorized for  fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Within the Office of the Assistant Secretary  for Research and Technology, the JPO coordinates the federal ITS  program and initiatives in consultation with other surface transportation  modal administrations across DOT, including the Federal Highway  Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal  Railroad Administration, FTA, Maritime Administration, and the National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The JPO supports the overall  advancement of ITS through investments in major research initiatives,  such as research on advanced connected vehicle and automation  technologies, exploratory studies, and a deployment support program that  includes technology transfer and training.

section_title: Selected Urban Transit Providers Reported Using Most Types of ITS, and Some Reported Using More Advanced Technologies
subsections: section_title: DOT’s 2013 Survey Found Broad Deployment of ITS in Major Metropolitan Areas
paragraphs: DOT has reported that transit providers located in major U.S. cities have  deployed a majority of the core transit ITS technologies described above.  To determine the extent to which ITS technologies have been deployed,  DOT conducts a survey on a regular basis that measures ITS deployment  by state and local transportation agencies—including transit providers.

The results of DOT’s most recent survey from 2013 indicated that 142  transit providers had deployed many of the core transit ITS technologies  across several types of transit vehicles, including buses (see table 1).  The survey also showed that these transit providers had deployed  traveler information systems—using technologies such as websites,  mobile applications, and electronic message signs at transit stops and  stations—to provide customers with information on routes, schedules,  fares, and real-time information on vehicle arrival and departure times.  Transit providers also reported on planned ITS deployment between 2013  and 2016, and the survey found that future deployment focused on  computer-aided dispatch, automatic vehicle location, traveler information  systems to provide transit information in real time, and improvements to  electronic fare payment systems.

section_title: Selected Urban Transit Providers Reported Deploying the Majority of ITS Technologies, Mainly on Bus Services
paragraphs: Similar to the JPO’s 2013 survey results, the 31 large and medium urban  transit providers we interviewed told us they had deployed most of the  ITS technologies in our review. As shown in table 2, officials from the  large and medium urban transit providers we interviewed reported  deploying 9 of the 11 ITS technologies in our review, but medium urban  transit providers reported deploying some of these to a slightly lesser  extent. Only three of the selected large and medium urban transit  providers had deployed a weather information system, which as  described above, consists of equipment such as pavement and water- level sensors to monitor weather conditions. The large and medium  urban transit providers we interviewed generally told us that they had  deployed most of the technologies across several modes of service to  some extent, but primarily on their bus services. Exceptions were traveler  information systems, which the majority reported using across all modes  of services, and GIS, which they used in concert with their computer- aided dispatch and automatic vehicle location systems and for transit  planning, and which can be applied across all modes of service.

While officials across the selected transit providers reported deploying  these technologies, we found there was variation by provider in the  specific features and types of technologies deployed. Specifically, there  was variation among providers in both the type of traveler information— such as real-time information on vehicles’ schedule adherence versus  static information on routes, schedules, and fares—and the ways in which  the information was provided, such as through websites, text messages,  and electronic message signs at transit stops. We found another example  in security systems, where, depending on the provider, different  components were deployed, such as on-vehicle cameras, audio  surveillance, and silent alarms. There were also differences in the length  of time the large and medium urban transit providers had deployed  certain ITS technologies. For example, officials from 13 of the 18 large  urban transit providers told us that they had deployed automatic vehicle  location and computer-aided dispatch technologies prior to 2010, and 6  transit providers said that they are currently updating or have updated  these technologies at least once since then. Officials from 7 of the 13  medium urban transit providers said they were in the process of deploying  or had deployed these technologies in or after 2010.

Although a majority of the large and medium urban transit providers  reported that they had deployed transit signal priority, the extent to which  they used this technology varied by provider. For example, most of the  transit providers that reported using transit signal priority told us they did  so in a limited manner, such as along one or two major corridors in their  transit system, or on their bus rapid transit service. We previously found  that transit signal priority is the most common ITS technology included in  bus rapid transit projects. While 18 large and medium urban transit  providers reported using transit signal priority, if only to a limited extent,  officials from six of these transit providers told us they had plans to  expand or would like to expand its use. Officials from three of the medium  urban transit providers who were not using transit signal priority told us  that the technology was being considered in their plans for proposed bus  rapid transit projects.

section_title: Large and Medium Urban Transit Providers Are Sharing ITS Data
paragraphs: Transit providers are now making some of the data collected from their  ITS technologies, such as GIS, computer-aided dispatch, automatic  vehicle location, and automatic passenger counters, available to the  public, a concept which is known as “open data.” A 2015 Transit  Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) study on open data found an  increasing number of transit providers have begun making their schedule  and real-time operational data available to the public since 2010. Open  data has resulted in numerous benefits and innovations that could not  have been accomplished solely by transit staff, such as the proliferation of  mobile phone applications developed by outside entities that provide  passengers with access to transit information. Officials from 22 of the 31  large and medium urban transit providers we interviewed told us that they  had made data from their ITS technologies open to the public, and  officials from the majority of these providers said that outside software  developers had used or hoped to use this data to create mobile  applications for their passengers. Officials from three of the large and  medium urban transit providers reported that having external entities  develop mobile applications reduced costs and saved staff time.

To make ITS data available to the public or other users, transit providers  must use a data standard that allows users to open and read the  information contained. According to the literature, General Transit Feed  Specification (GTFS) is the standard adopted by most transit providers  and enables them to share static schedule information. Officials from 28  of the 31 large and medium urban transit providers reported using GTFS,  while 12 of the 31 large and medium urban transit providers reporting  using GTFS-realtime, which allows transit providers to format real-time  vehicle information and service alterations. Several of the large and  medium urban transit providers told us they use GTFS because it allows  them to publish their data into Google transit maps. Two of the transit  providers we interviewed told us that while they have not made their data  open to the public, they have formatted their data into GTFS to allow it to  be used for Google transit maps.

In addition to sharing data with the public, the large and medium urban  transit providers in our review reported that they share data with regional  transportation stakeholders to support multimodal planning and  management. For example, officials from one of the large urban transit  providers we interviewed told us they shared their data with local  university researchers who received funding through the local  metropolitan planning organization to archive regional transportation data,  including transit and highway performance data. According to these  officials, these data have been used for research and regional  transportation planning. According to DOT, an Integrated Corridor  Management (ICM) approach, where transportation agencies operate  transportation corridors in a coordinated and integrated manner, can  include providing multimodal traveler information en-route in addition to  pre-trip information as travel conditions change. Officials from a large  urban transit provider that is using ICM along a major road corridor told us  that having integrated data on real-time traffic conditions, transit, and  parking availability has enabled travelers to make better travel decisions  and reduces congestion on roadways.

section_title: Large and Medium Urban Transit Providers Reported Using Advanced Technologies
paragraphs: As we have described above, the large and medium urban transit  providers are deploying the majority of the core transit ITS technologies in  our review; however, some of the transit providers described using more  innovative types or features of these technologies. Many of the ITS  technologies in our review represent a range of systems or components  from which a transit provider can select different options, depending on  needs and desired uses, and some of these options are more  sophisticated than others. For example, there are various types of  electronic fare payment systems available to transit providers. Some  types, such as mobile phone payment applications, are considered more  advanced than others, including magnetic stripe cards. Transit providers  may also select different fare systems, including closed systems, which  use smart cards that store cash value and can only be used within that  transit system or on other transit systems that accept that smart card, or a  more advanced open system, which accepts numerous payment types,  such as credit or debit cards, issued by other organizations. For  technologies such as computer-aided dispatch, maintenance  management systems, and security systems, transit providers can  choose from a variety of offered features, some of which may be  considered more advanced than others. In addition, according to DOT,  the proliferation of mobile devices and real-time information has led to a  shift over the past several years in the way transit providers can  disseminate traveler information to their existing and potential  passengers. For example, new opportunities have emerged for transit  providers to offer mobile ticketing and mobile applications for passengers  to retrieve real-time transit information, conduct trip planning, and make  transit reservations (see fig. 2). Below are examples of some of the more  advanced types and features of ITS technologies.

Smart card electronic fare payment: Officials from 15 of the 18 large  urban transit providers and 4 of the 13 medium urban transit providers  we interviewed told us that they have deployed a smart card  electronic fare payment system. Four large urban transit providers  have deployed an open payment system.

Predictive and real-time maintenance management systems: Officials  from six large urban transit providers and one medium urban transit  provider told us they have deployed maintenance management  systems that can transmit maintenance information to the provider in  real time or make predictions when vehicle parts may fail.

Traveler information and mobile fare payment smartphone  applications: Many of the large and medium urban transit providers  we interviewed have made smartphone applications available to their  passengers. These applications can provide traveler information or  the ability to pay fares electronically. Specifically, 15 of the 18 large  urban transit providers and 4 of the 13 medium urban transit providers  we interviewed said they have deployed smartphone applications that  provide passengers real-time transit information. Officials from one of  the large urban transit providers told us that they were about to deploy  a smartphone application that allows passengers to make ride  requests, instead of calling a dispatcher, on their demand-response  service that connects residents living in less-populated areas to  transit. Additionally, officials from five large urban transit providers and  two medium urban transit providers told us they have deployed mobile  ticketing, and two of these providers told us they were using or were  developing a smartphone application that used mobile ticketing in  creative ways. These capabilities included providing passengers with  the ability to purchase mobile tickets for transit and special events,  such as tickets to the state fair or local zoo, and linking mobile  ticketing to private ride-hailing companies to help passengers reach  destinations that are outside the transit service area.

There are several factors beyond the size of the transit provider and  population served that may contribute to a transit provider’s decision to  adopt more advanced technologies. We found several examples from  literature and our interviews of transit providers located in smaller areas  deploying advanced ITS technologies. The JPO has reported that there  are a number of factors that influence ITS adoption across transportation  agencies, including: agency characteristics, such as their risk tolerance, level of  knowledge and expertise, and adoption rate of peer agencies; external environmental characteristics, such as agency budgets,  funding opportunities, agency priorities, and presence of a technology  champion; and  the characteristics of the transportation user, such as public  acceptance and attitudes toward proposed technologies.

We found examples of advanced ITS adoption among small urban and  rural transit providers in some of the studies that we reviewed and from  stakeholder interviews. For example, a 2015 Transit Cooperative  Research Program report on next generation electronic fare payment  systems highlighted the experiences of one small urban transit provider’s  upgrade to smart card-enabled electronic fare payment. Officials from  one of the industry associations we interviewed told us that smaller transit  providers may receive and use grants to invest in more innovative  technologies. For example, FTA officials provided us with examples of  how transit providers are using MSAA and VTCLI grants to deploy ITS  technologies in innovative ways to help improve human service  transportation in rural areas. An official from another industry association  told us that smaller transit providers located in niche communities, such  as cities where universities or vacation destinations are located and  communities that border metropolitan cities, are using more innovative  ITS technologies. These communities have riders that have certain  expectations of and are more reliant on transit and these factors drive  providers to adopt advanced technologies.

section_title: Small Urban and Rural Providers Are Primarily Using Four ITS Technologies, and Use of Other ITS Is Limited
paragraphs: We surveyed a stratified random sample of 312 small urban and rural  transit providers to learn about the extent of their use of ITS  technologies. This sample is generalizable to a target population of 314  Section 5307 recipients serving small urbanized areas and 582 Section  5311 sub-recipients serving non-urbanized (rural) areas that reported to  the FTA’s National Transit Database in reporting year 2013. We refer to  this target population as “small urban and rural transit providers.”
subsections: section_title: Roughly Three-Quarters of Small Urban and Rural Transit Providers Are Using Security Systems
paragraphs: We estimate that nearly 75 percent of small urban and rural transit  providers use ITS through the deployment of security systems. Of those  providers, approximately 81 percent are using closed circuit TV cameras  and 58 percent are using audio surveillance; other less-common systems  include silent alarms, object detection sensors, and covert microphones  (see fig. 3). Further, we estimate that of those transit providers that are  using this technology, about 69 percent of small urban and rural providers  use security systems on their bus fleet, and approximately 72 percent use  this technology on demand-response vehicles. According to the JPO,  urban and rural public transportation systems can benefit from the  implementation of security systems because they can be used to monitor  the safety and security of passengers, employees, equipment, and  materials.

section_title: About Half of Small Urban and Rural Providers Are Using Computer-Aided Dispatch, Automatic Vehicle Location, and GIS
paragraphs: Small urban and rural transit providers are also using other ITS  technologies. Based on the survey results, we estimate that about half of  small urban and rural providers are using computer-aided dispatch,  automatic vehicle location, and GIS. Approximately 55 percent of small  urban and rural providers are using computer-aided dispatch software.  According to a 2010 North Dakota State University study on technology  adoption by small urban and rural transit providers, computer-aided  dispatch packages are a core component of rural transit technology  systems, and may provide record-keeping and billing capabilities, improve  the accuracy of reservations, and give transit providers the ability to  provide real-time customer information.

Further, we estimate that approximately 51 percent of the target  population is using automatic vehicle location technology. By providing  the real-time position of transit vehicles to a central location, this  technology can enable transit dispatchers to increase the average  number of rider pick-ups per hour. Additionally, approximately 47  percent of small urban and rural providers reported using a GIS system.  According to a DOT report on rural ITS, although GIS is assumed to be a  component in urban ITS deployment, it can be a significant stand-alone  technology for rural transit agencies. The report states that GIS  applications have given smaller operators new tools for improving service  planning and operations and may provide the basis for additional  deployment, such as automatic vehicle location and computer-aided  dispatch.

section_title: Most Small Urban and Rural Transit Providers Are Not Using Other ITS Technologies, Primarily because of Technology Costs or Perceived Lack of Need
paragraphs: Although about half of small urban and rural transit providers reported  using the three aforementioned technologies, based on our survey  results, we estimate that most small urban and rural transit providers are  not using each of five other technologies in our review: maintenance  management systems, traveler information systems, automatic passenger  counters, electronic fare payment, and transit signal priority. Estimated  use of these five technologies is illustrated in figure 4.

In some cases, small urban providers are using technologies that we did  not find widely deployed by rural providers. For example, according to our  survey, approximately 50 percent of small urban providers are using a  variety of means to provide traveler information (see table 3).

We estimate that about half or more of small urban and rural providers  that are not using traveler information systems, automatic passenger  counters, electronic fare payment, and maintenance management  systems reported the cost of the technology as the reason they are not  using that technology. Additionally, most of the small urban and rural  transit providers that are not using transit signal priority indicated that they  do not perceive a need for this technology in their operations. In open- ended responses to the survey, some small urban and rural transit  providers offered other reasons they were not currently using ITS. For  example, five providers reported they are not using a maintenance  management system because they contract out their maintenance  services; four providers said that they do not use automatic passenger  counters because they either provide only demand-response service, or  they manually count passengers; and finally, four providers reported that  they do not use electronic fare payment because they do not charge a  fare for their transportation services.

Small urban and rural providers reported that their plans to deploy ITS in  the future focus on security systems and automatic vehicle location. For  each of the nine technologies, our survey asked transit providers that  indicated they were not using the technology if they had plans to deploy it  in the next five years (see fig. 5).

section_title: Transit Providers Reported Five Key Benefits from ITS, but Benefits Are Difficult to Measure and Deployment Challenges Exist
subsections: section_title: Transit Providers Reported Five Primary Benefits from ITS Deployment
paragraphs: Each ITS technology a transit provider deploys may provide a unique set  of benefits, and DOT has reported on some of these benefits based on  the results of its regular ITS deployment survey and in evaluations of ITS  benefit studies from the JPO’s Knowledge Resources Databases. For  example, DOT’s 2013 ITS deployment survey showed that transit  providers rated communication technologies, automatic vehicle location,  and security cameras as having provided them with the highest benefits.  Also, in DOT’s 2014 updated report on information on the benefits, costs,  and lessons learned regarding ITS deployment studies, the agency  reported findings that transit providers experienced improvements in  operations and fleet management, such as achieving improved service  reliability through computer-aided dispatch, decreased transit travel times  through the use of transit signal priority, and increased ridership from  using traveler information systems. We asked the large and medium  urban transit providers in our review to describe the types of benefits their  ITS has collectively generated. Transit providers we interviewed  identified benefits from ITS broadly related to improvements in  administration, operations, and customer satisfaction. Below are  descriptions and examples of the five main types of benefits reported by  the majority of the large and medium urban transit providers we  interviewed.

Improvements in on-time performance and schedule adherence: Officials  from 25 of the 31 large and medium urban transit providers said that data  from their ITS technologies—such as automatic passenger counters,  automatic vehicle location, and computer-aided dispatch—have improved  or were expected to improve the extent to which service remains on  schedule, which has improved their on-time performance. For example,  officials from 7 of these providers told us computer-aided dispatch and  automatic vehicle location enable them to monitor service in real time and  react to situations that might create service delays—such as traffic,  accidents, or vehicle breakdowns—by holding buses or creating route  detours. Further, officials from 4 of the large and medium urban transit  providers said they have used information from these technologies to  change schedules to better reflect actual arrival and departure times,  which has improved their on-time performance.

Enhanced safety: Officials from 24 of the 31 large and medium urban  transit providers we interviewed told us that ITS technologies—such as  automatic vehicle location, computer-aided dispatch, and various  elements of their security systems—have improved the safety of their  passengers and operators by helping them prevent, manage, and review  incidents, such as criminal behavior and accidents. For example, officials  from 3 of these transit providers told us that automatic vehicle location  and computer-aided dispatch have reduced the number of accidents by  automating some of the driver’s tasks, including providing drivers with  turn-by-turn directions and automating bus stop announcements, and  eliminating some of their distractions. Also, officials from 7 of the large  and medium urban transit providers told us that audio and video  surveillance technologies have enabled their organizations and  emergency responders to monitor and better respond to incidents.

More efficient scheduling and routing: Officials from 24 of the 31 large  and medium urban transit providers told us that data from their ITS  technologies—such as automatic passenger counters, automatic vehicle  location, computer-aided dispatch, and electronic fare payment  systems—have enabled them to make improvements to their transit  service. For example, officials from 16 of the transit providers  experiencing this benefit told us these technologies provide them with  more precise information, such as passenger travel behavior and traffic  congestion. This information enables them to make data-driven decisions  about service—such as routes, schedules, and bus stop locations—that  make travel more efficient. Some of these officials told us that prior to  these systems, agencies made service changes based on customer  complaints and on-site observations, which was less efficient, required  more resources, and was less accurate.

Improvements in reporting and record-keeping: Officials from 21 of the 31  urban transit providers told us that ITS technologies including automatic  passenger counters, automatic vehicle location, computer-aided dispatch,  and maintenance management systems have improved their ability to  document and report new or more accurate data. For example, officials  from 11 of these providers said that they are now able to collect additional  and more accurate statistics, such as on their on-time performance,  number of bus passengers by stop, and vehicle health and parts  inventory. In addition, officials from 7 of the large and medium urban  transit providers we interviewed told us that these technologies have  made it easier to collect and report data on transit service to their  governing boards and to meet federal reporting requirements. For  example, 3 of the large and medium urban transit providers told us that  they are able to use ITS technologies to automatically collect information  such as number of passengers rather than sending staff out to collect this  information.

Increased customer satisfaction: Officials from 17 of the 31 large and  medium urban transit providers told us that ITS technologies, especially  traveler information systems, have improved customer satisfaction. For  example, officials from 10 of these transit providers attributed this  increase in customer satisfaction to their expanded use of traveler  information systems, which have enabled them to provide their customers  with improved ability to access travel information, through such venues as  websites, mobile phone applications, and electronic signs at transit stops.  Additionally, 3 of the large and medium urban transit providers told us that  customer satisfaction has improved with the deployment of electronic fare  payment options. For example, officials from 1 provider told us that they  believe that some of their customers want to be able to make all of their  transactions using smartphones.

According to our survey results, small urban and rural transit providers  rated the same top five benefits from using ITS as the 31 large and  medium urban transit providers we interviewed (see table 4). In order to  reduce the respondent burden and due to potential difficulties isolating  the impacts of individual ITS technologies, our survey asked small urban  and rural transit providers to report on the great or slight benefits of their  collective ITS technologies. We are therefore unable to attribute the  benefits they reported to individual technologies.

We also found from our interviews that the 31 large and medium urban  transit providers achieved other types of benefits to a lesser extent, such  as cost savings, increased operator satisfaction, increased ridership,  greater staffing efficiencies, and reduced travel and wait times. Officials  from the selected large and medium urban transit providers also  described other types of benefits they have experienced from ITS  technologies, such as enhanced communication capabilities between  dispatchers and drivers, improved marketing, and the ability to keep  drivers more accountable. For example, officials from one large urban  transit provider told us they were able to use data from their electronic  fare payment system to measure the impact that a recent marketing  promotion had on ridership, and officials from another large urban transit  provider told us they have used their adoption of some ITS technologies  in their marketing campaigns to improve their image and attract new  customers. In addition, transit providers can use their technologies  together, and officials said this combined use can increase the magnitude  of the benefit they experience. For example, three of the large urban  transit providers told us they use data from automatic passenger  counters, which indicate many passengers get on and off at particular  transit stops, in tandem with electronic fare payment data, which can  provide the exact travel patterns of passengers because it can track the  locations passengers get on and off vehicles and show how riders are  transferring between service modes. Such combinations of technologies  can lead to precise information on ridership behavior that can contribute  to benefits such as more efficient routing and scheduling. See figure 6 for  an illustration of how other benefits may be derived from combinations of  ITS technologies.

section_title: Certain Benefits of Transit ITS Are Difficult to Quantify
paragraphs: About half of the transit providers we interviewed and most small urban  and rural transit providers surveyed found it difficult to measure or have  not measured the benefits they experienced from ITS deployment.  Officials from 11 of the large and medium urban transit providers we  interviewed told us that it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of using  ITS technologies for a number of reasons, such as that it may be difficult  to identify a unit of measurement for enhanced safety or greater staff  efficiency, for example. Several of these officials also told us that it was  difficult for them to attribute benefits exclusively to ITS deployment or  identify the specific ITS technology that created the benefit. For example,  officials from three of the large and medium urban transit providers told us  that ITS technologies are integrated—often installed at the same time— and may result in similar benefits, making it challenging for them to  specify which ITS technology made the positive impact. In addition,  factors other than ITS deployment may contribute to an observed benefit.  For example, officials from two large urban transit providers told us they  have experienced reduced travel times, but it would be difficult to  determine whether this was caused by using transit signal priority due to  factors such as the ability of passengers to pay for their fares prior to  entering the vehicle, city traffic, and the number of boarding passengers.  Also, officials from four of the large and medium urban transit providers  we interviewed told us that their ridership levels have increased, but this  could be a result of different ITS technologies, such as traveler  information systems or electronic fare payment, or other factors, such as  improved service. Furthermore, we estimate that approximately 71  percent of the small urban and rural transit providers were not able to  quantitatively measure any benefits received from ITS. Officials from five  large and medium urban transit providers told us that they had not  measured benefits from ITS deployment for a variety of reasons, such as  the deployment had occurred too recently to be able to measure any  benefits.

Despite these challenges, we found several examples in our interviews,  survey, and review of recently published ITS studies where transit  providers and researchers quantified some of the benefits of ITS  deployment. Officials from several of the large and medium urban transit  providers that we interviewed reported that they had quantified several  benefits using a variety of methods, such as:  Increased customer satisfaction, through passenger surveys and  reviews of customer service call rates;  Improvements in on-time performance and schedule adherence,  through reviewing performance data; and

Cost savings, by estimating the value of conducting preventative  maintenance or reduction of staff that was a result of deployed ITS  technologies.

Officials from two of the large urban transit providers told us that they  collaborated with university researchers to measure the benefits obtained  from specific ITS deployments and found that traveler information  systems had a positive impact on customer satisfaction and transit signal  priority resulted in reduced travel times. According to officials from these  providers, the university researchers were able to isolate these  technologies from some of the factors mentioned above that may also  influence the experienced benefit. Among the small urban and rural  transit providers that reported taking steps to measure ITS benefits, 15  providers told us they analyzed either ridership or on-time performance  data to document the impact of ITS deployment. We also found recent  ITS studies that measured the benefits experienced by transit providers  that had deployed ITS technologies such as traveler information systems  and transit signal priority. For example, a 2011 study that analyzed the  impact of implementing transit signal priority on 27 intersections along a  corridor in Minneapolis found that transit signal priority reduced bus travel  times by 3 to 6 percent.

section_title: Transit Providers Face an Assortment of Challenges in Deploying and Using ITS
subsections: section_title: Funding Challenges
paragraphs: Transit providers face a variety of challenges in securing funding for an  ITS deployment. For example, officials from 12 of the 31 large and  medium urban transit providers we interviewed told us that ITS projects  may compete for funding with an agency’s state-of-good-repair needs.  In 2013, FTA estimated that more than 40 percent of buses and 25  percent of rail transit assets were in marginal or poor condition. We have  previously reported that transportation officials must identify priorities and  make tradeoffs between funding projects that preserve or add new  infrastructure and those that improve operations, like ITS. Officials from  one large urban provider told us that technology has historically been a  second-tier funding project next to capital funds for bridges, stations, and  upkeep of infrastructure, and a medium urban provider stated that  because transit providers have so many needs, it can be difficult to say  that acquiring new technology is a bigger need than new buses, for  example. Another large urban provider told us that every project within an  agency has to obtain funds based on its merits, and while providing real- time information at every transit center in a city may be useful, for  example, this project may rank lower among the agency’s priorities. A  2014 JPO report identified securing funding as a challenge when ITS is  competing for attention with “ribbon-cutting” projects that have higher  visibility. According to officials from one large urban provider, it can be  difficult for ITS to compete with other projects internally, in part because it  can be hard to measure the return on investment from ITS. Officials from  another large urban provider told us they have seen an increase in  competition for funding between bus and rail needs, due to rail  maintenance and costs associated with positive train control  requirements. Officials from seven large and medium urban transit  providers told us that competition for external funding with other  transportation agencies can also be a challenge. For example, officials  from a large urban provider told us that highway projects tend to receive  more funding than public transit from federal programs such as the  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).

Transit providers may also face obstacles in funding the operations and  maintenance costs associated with ITS systems, as we reported in  2012. Officials from 16 large and medium urban providers we  interviewed indicated that preparing for the future operations and  maintenance costs related to ITS deployment is a key challenge. For  example, officials from one large urban transit provider said that the  maintenance and support contracts for ITS technologies are expensive,  and that those expenses are more difficult to predict than the capital costs  associated with implementing ITS. The officials said they also anticipate  higher operational costs in the future based on the need for unlimited  cellular data plans to collect real-time data from their vehicles.

Finally, limited opportunities to fund ITS are a challenge, according to  officials from 20 of the 31 medium and large urban transit providers we  interviewed. As we reported in 2012, funding is an ongoing challenge in  the transit community, as transportation agencies face difficult decisions  regarding the allocation of their transportation funding. Many have faced  severe revenue declines in recent years, restricting the availability of  funds for transportation improvements. For example, officials from one  medium urban provider said that the economic recession resulted in  fewer local funds available for transit. Officials from a large urban provider  told us that transit providers must plan and execute new software  deployments effectively because there may not be funding available to  correct a mistake for 5 to 10 years if the agency makes a poor decision in  selecting a vendor or the software selected does not meet a business  need.

In our survey of small urban and rural transit providers, we asked  respondents to rate their experiences with a number of different  challenges, including several similar funding-related challenges they have  encountered with ITS (see table 5).

Additionally, we estimate that 22 percent of small urban and rural  providers experienced unexpected costs in deploying, operating, or  maintaining ITS technology. Costs cited include increases in annual  licensing and maintenance fees, the need for additional internet speed  and storage, software upgrades, cellular service, and training costs.

section_title: Leadership and Workforce Challenges
paragraphs: The familiarity and comfort of a transit provider’s leadership and  workforce with ITS technologies and their benefits—from a board of  directors to bus operators—may have a significant impact on its ability to  successfully deploy these technologies. According to a 2015 ITS America  report on ITS deployment challenges, a transit provider’s board of  directors may not be familiar with ITS technologies and the potential  benefits they bring to operations and ridership. Similarly, we reported in  2012 that leaders do not always place a priority on ITS, especially in the  context of limited funding, and other infrastructure projects can take  precedence. Officials from nine of the large and medium urban transit  providers we interviewed reported that obtaining support for deploying  technologies from leadership and decision-makers in the organization can  be a challenge. Officials from a large urban provider, for example, told us  that because ITS projects may not be as exciting as projects such as  implementing a new rail line or replacing rail cars, staff may have to  spend time explaining the value of an ITS project to board members.  Officials from another urban provider told us that their general manager  has been able to gain the support of their board members by taking them  to ITS conferences so they can see firsthand what other transit providers  are doing.

The introduction of transit ITS also has the potential to significantly alter  the work and responsibilities of a transit provider’s workforce, including  dispatchers and operators. Officials from 21 of the 31 large and medium  urban transit providers indicated that the workforce may be reluctant to  embrace new technology that changes their job responsibilities. For  example, officials from a medium urban provider explained that bus  operators were initially resistant to the installation of surveillance systems,  but their apprehension subsided after they learned that the video footage  could prove that they were not at fault for particular incidents that  occurred on the bus. Officials from a large urban provider also told us that  transit staff tends to include “lifers” who were hired with one expertise and  it can be difficult to train them to work with new technology, or the funding  for that training may not be available.

ITS is a rapidly developing field that requires a specialized workforce  familiar with emerging technologies. Officials from 14 of the 31 providers  we interviewed said that a lack of technical expertise in the workforce is a  deployment challenge. For example, officials from one large urban  provider said that it can be difficult to find applicants who have worked  with certain proprietary ITS products, and as a result, they train new staff  in-house with vendor support. The agency risks losing its investment if  staff leave the organization or department. Additionally, officials from one  medium urban provider told us that it can be difficult to attract and  maintain staff with technical expertise because their union rules are more  protective of senior staff, and it is largely younger, more recent hires who  can adapt to new technologies.

In our survey, we asked small urban and rural transit providers about the  extent to which they encountered similar leadership and workforce  challenges with ITS (see table 6).

The success of an ITS deployment may depend on effective coordination  between several transportation stakeholders in a region, and we have  previously found that ITS coordination across agencies is a challenge.  Complex systems such as electronic fare payment and transit signal  priority may involve multiple entities, including neighboring transit  providers and cities, among others. Officials from seven large and  medium urban transit providers considered coordinating ITS deployment  across agencies to be a challenge. Officials from two large urban  providers told us that obtaining buy-in from regional partners on their  respective regional fare collection systems was difficult because of  resource limitations and apprehension from smaller regional providers  about a larger agency moving forward with decisions about the system  without their input. Officials from a large and medium provider told us they  have had difficulty implementing transit signal priority in their cities  because state or local transportation authorities have opposed the system  or have not upgraded the fiber optic network so that traffic signals are  connected.

section_title: Technology Procurement and Vendor Challenges
paragraphs: Transit providers using federal funds typically purchase ITS technologies  from technology vendors through the federal procurement process.  However, officials at three large and medium providers said that it may  take months to years to procure technology from the request for proposal  to actual deployment, a point at which the deployed technology is already  old and could be replaced or upgraded. Officials from two large urban  transit providers told us that FTA’s “Buy America” requirements—which  require manufactured products used in a project receiving FTA funds to  be produced in the U.S.—are also a factor in prolonging the procurement  process, as agencies may have difficulty meeting the requirements.

Officials from 16 of the 31 large and medium urban providers told us they  have experienced challenges in working with ITS vendors. Issues cited by  providers we spoke with include (1) difficulty changing vendors after ITS  has been deployed, (2) turnover among vendor staff during ITS projects,  and (3) difficulty getting vendors to work with one another to integrate ITS  amid concerns about making changes to proprietary systems. Officials  from a large urban provider told us that even though contracts may make  the vendors responsible for integrating ITS technologies, the costs are  passed on to the transit provider. According to DOT, including ITS  standards such as Transit Communications Interface Profiles (TCIP) in  procurements can help to integrate different technologies by establishing  a common framework for the exchange of information between systems,  and allows the transit provider to go beyond a single vendor when  considering an upgrade or adding to an existing system. However, an ITS  consultant we spoke with said that developing standards to enable  different vendors’ products to work together is one of the biggest  challenges in the industry as it requires vendors to share information, and  implementing the interfaces between technologies may add to the cost of  a project.

Our survey asked small urban and rural transit providers about the  challenges they encountered related to working with ITS vendors.  Although most small urban and rural providers did not rate limited vendor  support as a particular challenge, 33 percent indicated that vendors offer  ITS technology solutions that are not designed for the smaller scale of  small urban and rural transit systems. (See table 7.)

Successful ITS deployment requires the capacity to reliably transmit data,  such as vehicle location, between systems. We have previously reported  that rural areas can have conditions that increase the cost of deploying  broadband Internet infrastructure and services, such as remote areas with  challenging terrain like mountains, which increase construction costs, or  conditions that make it difficult to recoup deployment costs, such as  relatively low population densities and incomes. Similarly, in their  comments on our survey, three rural transit providers reported that  geographic conditions in rural areas, such as mountains and large service  areas, can limit connectivity. For example, one rural provider reported that  “mapping technology” (e.g., GIS) may not recognize all of the rural roads  in an area, which limits its usefulness for a demand-response service.  Finally, an official from the National Rural Transit Assistance Program  (RTAP) told us that infrastructure and access to data are inadequate in  rural areas, and the lack of investment in making communications more  reliable to reduce cell phone dead zones and connect drivers to  dispatchers is making rural communities structurally isolated.

section_title: DOT Supports ITS Deployment Through a Variety of Training and Technical Assistance Resources, but Providers’ Use of These Resources Is Limited
subsections: section_title: DOT Offers a Number of Resources to Promote and Support ITS Technologies
paragraphs: The JPO and FTA provide a variety of information resources related to  transit ITS deployment. In addition to their responsibility for conducting  ITS research, development, and testing, the JPO runs programs to  support transportation providers in the deployment of ITS technologies.  According to JPO officials, they design their programs to be applicable to  any transportation mode, including highways, railroads, and transit, but  they also develop resources that are transit-specific. To help inform them  of the transit community’s resource needs, JPO officials told us that they  coordinate with officials from FTA and transit industry groups, such as  APTA and CTAA, and consider other information, such as relevant  research and ITS deployment information from DOT’s ITS deployment  survey of state and local transportation agencies. The following are some  of the ITS information resources that are made available to the  transportation community, including some that are more targeted to  transit providers:  JPO Technical Assistance Programs: The JPO offers a number of  technical assistance programs covering various ITS topics, including ITS  standards implementation, systems engineering, and ITS architecture  implementation, which JPO officials told us include the interests of the  transit community.

ITS Professional Capacity Building Program (PCB Program): The JPO  offers different ITS learning opportunities for transportation agencies,  including transit providers, to ensure the effective implementation and  operation of ITS. These opportunities include web-based and classroom  training, webinars, on-line resources, peer-to-peer assistance, and their  Knowledge Resources Databases, which include past studies of ITS  benefits, costs, and lessons learned, and some of these are more  focused on transit. For example, the JPO provides online training  modules on ITS transit standards, ITS transit fact sheets that describe  transit-specific ITS technologies, transit-targeted webinars, and has  identified transit ITS research in its Knowledge Resources Databases.  Additionally, according to JPO officials, it coordinates jointly with FTA and  APTA on an annual ITS Best Practices Workshop for transit providers  and with APTA and ITS America on the Passenger Transportation  Systems and Services Committee of the Transportation Management  Forum, which is an industry forum that focuses on transit ITS issues.

In addition to the ITS resources the JPO provides, FTA—and within FTA,  RTAP, which promotes the delivery of transportation services in rural  areas—also provides support to transit providers in their ITS deployment  through research, testing, evaluation, training, and outreach. For  example, the National Transit Institute (NTI), which provides training and  educational programs for the transit industry and is funded by an FTA  grant, offers transit ITS courses, such as an introductory workshop on ITS  data management, training on using ITS standards when purchasing ITS  technologies, and a course on rural technology adoption, which FTA  officials told us includes ITS technologies. FTA officials also told us that  FTA headquarters staff provide guidance to transit providers that contact  them with questions about ITS deployment and have quarterly calls with  their 10 regional offices to discuss ITS development in their regions.  Some of RTAP’s activities include providing technical assistance and  training materials to rural transit providers, surveying state RTAP  managers, and participating in conferences and webinars, which an  RTAP official told us include information on ITS deployment. For  example, RTAP developed technical guidance for moving data into the  GTFS format to enable transit providers to adopt website trip planning,  and on-line training that introduces ITS technologies for scheduling and  dispatching to rural transit systems.

section_title: Transit Providers Are Generally Relying on Non- Federal Resources to Inform Their ITS Deployment
paragraphs: Few of the transit providers we interviewed and surveyed reported using  DOT resources, particularly JPO resources. For example, officials from  10 of the 31 large and medium urban transit providers we interviewed told  us they had used JPO resources. Additionally, based on our survey  results, we estimate that about two percent of small urban and rural  transit providers received some form of technical assistance from the  JPO, such as for the planning, deployment, operation, or maintenance of  ITS technologies. In addition to asking these providers questions about  receiving JPO’s general technical assistance, we also asked them about  resources received through the JPO’s PCB Program. And, of the 233  small urban and rural transit providers who responded to our survey, 43  indicated they were aware of the training, technical assistance, and  knowledge resources programs provided by the JPO PCB Program and  24 reported using any of these resources. Consistent with this  information, JPO officials told us the data they collect on use of PCB  Program resources showed low participation rates by transit providers  and estimated that, based on historical participation, transit providers  comprise 3 to 5 percent of the program’s users, or about 1,100 to 1,800  transit providers in fiscal year 2015. JPO officials told us that transit  providers participate in certain PCB Program offerings more than others.

For example, they said that approximately 6 to 10 percent of the webinar  attendees and archives users represent transit providers and these  figures may be higher depending on the topic of the webinar.

More transit providers in our review reported using FTA resources for ITS  deployment than JPO resources. For example, officials from 14 of the 31  large and medium urban transit providers told us that they had received  FTA assistance. Most of these transit providers reported that FTA  assistance was related to the administration of grants rather than  technical deployment,  or that they received assistance through NTI  courses that officials from four providers said were focused on technology  in general and may not have included information on ITS. Likewise, our  survey found that small urban and rural transit providers had also used  FTA resources more than JPO resources. For example, based on our  survey results, we estimate that about 33 percent and 17 percent of small  urban and rural transit providers had received some form of technical  assistance from FTA and RTAP, respectively, such as in the planning,  deployment, operation, or maintenance of ITS technologies.

The transit providers in our review reported relying mostly on non-federal  resources for assistance with ITS deployment. For example, 22 of the 31  large and medium urban transit providers that we interviewed told us that  they rely on peer or regional transit providers and officials from 7 of these  transit providers told us that other transit providers are their main source  of ITS information. Officials from several of these transit providers told us  they are part of peer networking groups where information about ITS is  shared, such as a consortium of transit chief information officers and an  organization of bus transit providers that compare performance and  identify best practices. The large and medium urban transit providers also  reported relying on industry groups and vendors for ITS information. For  example, officials from 18 of the 31 selected large and medium transit  providers said they rely on groups such as APTA, and officials from 7 of  the 31 large and medium urban transit providers said that they rely on  vendors and attending annual vendor user conferences. Based on our  survey results, we estimate that small urban and rural transit providers  receive technical assistance—such as in the planning, deployment,  operation, and maintenance of ITS technologies—from state DOTs (52  percent) and ITS vendors (48 percent) more frequently than from FTA (33  percent).

JPO and FTA officials told us that transit providers may not be using  federal ITS resources because these providers may not have the ability to  send staff to training opportunities and the topics may not be of interest to  them. For example, FTA officials told us they have not received a lot of  demand for NTI courses to include ITS-focused training because transit  providers have high turnover of staff and staff may not have ITS  expertise. Although JPO officials told us they coordinate with various  stakeholders to ensure their resources are responsive to transit  community needs, officials from JPO, FTA, and RTAP told us that transit  providers may not be using JPO resources because these resources are  more focused on urban areas and highway transportation, including  advanced connected vehicle technologies, which are not of current  interest to the transit community. Officials from five of the large and  medium urban transit providers and four public transit stakeholders we  interviewed, including officials from two industry associations and one ITS  consultant, told us that the information provided was either outdated,  focused on highways rather than public transit, or otherwise did not match  their needs. JPO officials told us that they expect participation rates to  increase among the transportation community with their publication of  new ITS Standards Training Modules in late 2015, which they say are  applicable to transit. JPO officials also told us that they solicit and review  feedback on their PCB Program offerings. For example, officials said they  obtain feedback from users of their Knowledge Resources Databases  through an online feedback link and formally twice a year through a  webinar. They said that the transit providers that have provided feedback  have reported that the information on lessons learned is valuable, but  would like more reports on costs of technologies. These officials said that  overall, given the complexity and number of different types of users of the  databases, it is very difficult to meet everyone’s needs. Officials noted  that they also collect live participation and on-demand use numbers of the  PCB Program, but only began collecting more detailed user data for these  programs in 2014. With more detailed data on each PCB Program  offering, they said they hope to focus more on the types of transportation  stakeholders using their resources in 2016 to help them better understand  the reach and effectiveness to various stakeholders, and incorporate this  information into the PCB Program’s strategic plan and assign PCB  Program resources as needed.

section_title: Better Outreach and Information Collection Could Improve DOT’s Promotion of ITS
paragraphs: Although DOT, through JPO and FTA, offers a variety of different ITS  resources, as discussed above, most of the transit providers in our review  were unaware of the resources offered through the JPO and reported  relying largely on resources other than those offered through DOT. In  addition, officials from DOT and industry groups, as well as an ITS  consultant and several transit agencies, generally said DOT’s ITS support  programs and research may not reflect the needs of the transit  community, particularly in rural areas, because, for example, these  programs focus on urban areas, highway ITS, and connected vehicle  technologies. We and the National Academies’ Transportation Research  Board (TRB) have previously identified a number of leading practices for  successfully encouraging the adoption of new technologies that may  improve the extent to which transit providers use DOT resources. These  leading practices include (1) choosing appropriate methods to promote  the use of technology by the target audience and (2) monitoring  technology adoption. Improving the availability and awareness of DOT  resources is a key component to promoting the use of technology by the  target audience and can enhance efforts to assist others in making  decisions regarding the use of technologies. Also, monitoring  technology adoption can provide lessons about efforts to encourage  technology implementation. For example, according to a TRB report on  promoting technology use, such monitoring of information is needed for  managing technology promotion activities and for successfully assessing  progress toward the goals of those activities.

Making users aware of ITS resources  JPO officials told us that they advertise PCB Program offerings through e- mail lists that include the major transit industry associations and FTA  staff, who they say consistently share news and information with transit,  state, regional, and local stakeholders, and the private sector. They also  told us that many individual transit providers subscribe to their e-mails.  There are other ways that transit providers hear about their offerings,  according to JPO officials, including advertisements through ITS America- sponsored webinars and newsletters. When there are products for a  specific audience, such as transit-specific offerings, JPO officials said  they will make additional efforts to inform that audience of the products’  availability. DOT officials also told us that FTA publishes information on  PCB Program opportunities and JPO has a dedicated multimodal  knowledge and technology task that includes outreach and marketing.  Despite these efforts, officials from RTAP, two ITS consultants, and  officials from 12 of the 31 large and medium urban transit providers we  interviewed told us they were unaware of the resources offered through  the JPO. We estimate that the majority of small urban and rural transit  providers are also unaware of JPO’s PCB Program offerings. Specifically,  based on our survey, we estimate that about 75 percent of small urban  and rural transit providers are unaware of JPO’s PCB Program training,  85 percent are unaware of PCB Program technical assistance, and 85  percent are unaware of PCB Program knowledge resources information.  The ITS consultants we spoke with told us that outside of federal  resources the level of support transit providers may receive for ITS  deployment varies and transit providers generally rely on vendors for  technical support. Improving the availability and awareness of DOT  resources could help transit providers take advantage of these resources.

Without greater efforts from DOT to make the transit community more  aware of federal resources, transit providers may be missing information  that could help them make the most informed ITS deployment decisions.

As described earlier, the JPO monitors the adoption of ITS technologies  through the ITS deployment survey and uses this information, according  to JPO officials, to understand the level of deployment and to help them  make decisions on how to encourage the future deployment of ITS  technologies through its information resources. However, the deployment  survey has focused on technology adoption by transportation providers,  including but not limited to transit, that are located in major metropolitan  areas and does not collect deployment data from transit providers that  primarily serve small urban and rural areas. JPO officials told us they  have no plans to survey rural transit providers because these providers  are generally very small and serve specialized functions often associated  with federal programs, such as the transportation of elderly to medical  appointments, which would have required them to contact each provider  individually to get information and that this was outside of the project’s  scope. Additionally, officials told us the purpose of the survey is to  document trends and to understand how ITS deployment, which generally  occurs in larger cities, has progressed, although some of the information  JPO collects may include deployment in small cities because providers in  larger cities may also provide service in those areas. However, we  estimate from our survey results that a majority of small urban and rural  transit providers are using several ITS technologies— such as security  systems, computer-aided dispatch, and automatic vehicle location—but  have experienced challenges in using funding opportunities for ITS as  well as the operational costs associated with these technologies.  Additionally, we estimate from our survey that small urban and rural  providers have plans to continue deploying ITS in the next 5 years. While  there may be some difficulties in including small urban and rural transit  providers in DOT’s deployment survey, there may be other ways to  monitor their ITS deployment, including engaging with state DOTs to  collect information on rural transit ITS. FTA considers state DOTs a useful  resource in understanding rural transit issues as they distribute section  5311 rural grant funding to the state’s subrecipient rural transit providers.  Including the deployment of ITS by small urban and rural transit providers  in its ITS monitoring efforts may provide the JPO with information to  customize ITS resources to address the challenges faced by this transit  community. Without greater efforts from DOT to tailor its resources to  include the needs of small urban and rural transit, these transit providers  may be missing information that could inform their ITS deployment  decisions.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As public transit ridership grows, ITS technologies provide opportunities  for transit providers to improve planning, increase the efficiency of their  operations, and make their services more attractive to riders. In the  nation’s major metropolitan areas, transit providers are using ITS in new  and innovative ways to improve fare collection and keep the public  informed about the status of transit services, even in real time through  smartphone applications. Although less prevalent, ITS technologies are  helping transit providers in small communities and rural areas increase  their scheduling capabilities, enhance the safety of their services, and  improve their reporting and billing processes. However, in deploying ITS,  the transit community faces challenges related to identifying ITS funding  opportunities, paying for the operations and maintenance costs of  technology, integrating systems, and managing the disruption that the  introduction of new technologies can bring to the transit workforce.

Although DOT provides a variety of information resources to promote and  support the use of transit ITS technology including technical assistance  and classroom and online training, few of the transit providers in our  review were aware or making use of these resources, relying instead on  information and support from peer transit providers, industry groups, ITS  vendors, and state DOTs. DOT could improve the awareness and  applicability of these resources through greater use of leading practices  for successfully encouraging the adoption of new technologies.  Specifically, DOT could better ensure that federal ITS resources reach  their intended audience and help make informed ITS deployment  decisions by developing a strategy to increase the transit community’s  awareness of these resources. Additionally, including the deployment of  ITS by small urban and rural transit providers in ITS monitoring efforts  could help DOT customize ITS resources to address the challenges these  providers face. Without greater efforts from DOT to make the transit  community more aware of federal ITS resources and tailor these  resources to the needs of smaller providers, transit providers may be  missing information that could help them make the most informed ITS  deployment decisions.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve access to and awareness and applicability of ITS resources  for ITS deployment, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation  direct the ITS JPO, in coordination with FTA, to take the following two  actions: develop a strategy to raise awareness of JPO’s training, technical  assistance, and knowledge resources for transit ITS deployment in  the transit community, and  include ITS adoption by small urban and rural transit providers in ITS  monitoring efforts.

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT  concurred with both of our recommendations. In its comments, which we  have reproduced in appendix II, DOT noted that it is leveraging its FAST  Act authorities to further evaluate and validate its efforts to advance urban  and rural ITS; for example, the JPO is developing a course catalog to  describe its knowledge resource offerings and is considering developing a  small urban and rural ITS transit survey as part of the 2019 ITS  Deployment Survey. DOT also provided technical comments on the draft,  which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation  and the appropriate congressional committee. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or members of your staff have questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed  in appendix IV.

section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses: (1) the extent to which selected transit providers in  large urban areas use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS); (2) the  extent to which transit providers in small urban and rural areas use ITS;  (3) the benefits and challenges transit providers experience in deploying  ITS; and (4) the extent to which transit providers have utilized the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) resources to promote and support  ITS.

To determine the extent of ITS use among transit providers in large urban  areas, we reviewed 2013 data on national ITS deployment from DOT. On  the basis of interviews with DOT officials and analysis of the 2013 ITS  deployment data, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  our purposes. We conducted site visits to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;  Portland and Eugene, Oregon; and Tampa and Orlando, Florida, to  observe transit ITS deployments. We selected these site visits based on  criteria including geographic dispersion and recommendations by JPO  and FTA officials and industry stakeholders. During these site visits, we  obtained documentation and interviewed officials from stakeholders in  public transit decision-making including municipalities, academic  researchers, state departments of transportation, and metropolitan  planning organizations. We are not able to generalize our findings in  these site visits to the whole country but used the other sources  mentioned above to gain a more general perspective.

We also conducted semi-structured interviews on the use of ITS with a  judgmental sample of 31 transit providers serving large urban areas. We  selected transit providers that were geographically dispersed across the  country and represented the variety of transit modes offered in these  areas. We separated the transit providers into two categories: medium urban: 13 providers serving urbanized areas with populations  of 200,000–1 million, and  large urban: 18 providers serving urbanized areas with populations of  more than 1 million.

Because we used a judgmental sample of transit providers, findings from  these interviews cannot be generalized to a broader population. However,  we determined that the selection of these transit providers was  appropriate for our design and objectives and that these interviews would  generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work.

We also interviewed officials from related industry associations such as  the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Community  Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and Intelligent  Transportation Society of America (ITS America), and representatives  from two ITS vendors and four independent ITS consultants. We selected  the ITS vendors based on interviews with several transit providers in large  urban areas that utilized their products, and the consultants based on a  review of published transit ITS reports.
subsections: section_title: Small Urban and Rural Transit ITS Survey
paragraphs: To determine the extent of ITS use among transit providers in small urban  and rural areas, we conducted a web-based survey of transit providers  from November through December 2015. Results of this survey and the  survey instrument have been published in GAO-16-639SP, an E- supplement to GAO-16-638 and can be found at the GAO website.

section_title: Survey Population and Sample Design
paragraphs: We constructed the population of transit providers for our survey sample  using reporting year 2013 data for recipients of Section 5307 FTA  urbanized area formula grants and sub-recipients of Section 5311 FTA  non-urbanized area formula grants in FTA’s National Transit Database  (NTD). Using data from the NTD’s urban module, we determined that  there were 314 providers that primarily served small urban areas. Using  the NTD’s rural module, we identified 1310 providers that primarily serve  rural areas. We excluded from this population transit providers that  reported as urban recipients, rural recipients reporting separately, intercity  bus providers, and 7 agencies that were also included in the urban  module. To target the population of rural providers to those that are most  likely using ITS, we also excluded transit providers with fleets of 10 or  fewer vehicles. The outcome was a survey sample frame of 314 small  urban providers and 582 rural providers. We selected a stratified random  sample of 312 transit providers: 146 small urban providers and 166 rural  providers. We obtained contact information for the rural transit providers  from CTAA. During our data collection, we identified two organizations  that were not currently providing transit service and removed them from  our sample as out of scope. We obtained completed questionnaires from  233 respondents, or about a 75 percent response rate. The survey results  can be generalized to the target population of 314 transit providers that  serve small urban areas and 582 transit providers with more than 10  vehicles that serve rural areas. And, as noted above, we are issuing an  electronic supplement to this report that shows a more complete  tabulation of our survey results.

section_title: Administration of Survey and Quality Assurance
paragraphs: We developed a questionnaire to obtain information about transit  providers’ use of ITS technologies. On November 23, 2015, we sent an  initial e-mail alerting agency contacts to the upcoming web-based survey,  and a week later, the web-based survey was also delivered to recipients  via e-mail message. Our e-mail message described the purpose and topic  of the survey, and encouraged the respondent to consult with other  individuals in the provider’s organization if that would increase the  accuracy of their responses. The web-based survey requested  information on types of ITS technologies deployed and any reasons for  not deploying a technology; costs, benefits, and challenges associated  with ITS; sources of funding and technical support; and federal resources  used. To help increase our response rate, we sent a reminder e-mail on  December 14 and called agency officials. The survey was available to  respondents from November 30 through December 18, 2015.

To pretest the questionnaire, we conducted cognitive interviews with  officials from 7 transit providers with knowledge about their organization’s  use of ITS. Each pretest was conducted on the phone. We selected  pretest respondents to represent small urban and rural areas in different  parts of the country. We conducted these pretests to determine if the  questions were burdensome, understandable, and measured what we  intended, and to ensure we could identify an appropriate individual who  was knowledgeable about ITS use to respond to the survey. On the basis  of feedback from the pretests and expert review we modified the  questions as appropriate.

section_title: Sampling Error and Estimation
paragraphs: To produce the estimates from this survey, answers from each  responding case were weighted in the analysis to account statistically for  all the members of the population, including those who were not selected  or did not respond to the survey. Estimates produced from this sample  are generalizable to the population of transit providers that served small  urban areas and transit providers with more than 10 vehicles that served  rural areas as reported to the FTA’s National Transit Database in  reporting year 2013.

Because our results are based on a sample and different samples could  provide different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of  our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for  example, plus or minus 10 percentage points). We are 95 percent  confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report include the  true values in the study population. Unless we note otherwise, percentage  estimates based on all transit agencies have 95 percent confidence  intervals of within plus or minus 10 percentage points. Confidence  intervals for survey estimates are presented in our supplemental survey  product (GAO-16-639SP).

section_title: Non-Sampling Error
paragraphs: In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly  referred to as non-sampling errors. For example, differences in how a  particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to  respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce  unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both the  data collection and data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing  such non-sampling errors.

We took the following steps to increase the response rate: developing the  questionnaire, pre-testing the questionnaires with small urban and rural  transit providers, conducting multiple follow-ups to identify the appropriate  contact at some organizations and to encourage responses to the survey,  and contacting respondents to clarify unclear responses.

To identify the benefits and challenges that transit providers in large  urban, small urban, and rural areas are experiencing from deploying ITS,  we interviewed JPO and FTA officials, industry associations, officials from  public transit stakeholders in our site visits, and 31 transit providers in  large urban areas, surveyed transit providers in small urban and rural  areas, and reviewed published research on ITS. We analyzed the  interviews, survey results, and published research to identify commonly  cited benefits and challenges. To determine how DOT promotes and  supports the use of ITS technologies, we interviewed officials from the  JPO and FTA about the federal resources and assistance available to  support deployment and how transit providers use these resources. We  reviewed the JPO’s program and strategic planning documents, including  documents related to the Professional Capacity Building Program. In  addition, we reviewed the JPO’s efforts to promote and support ITS  technologies, including various studies, guidance, websites, and the  JPO’s ITS databases. We determined the extent to which transit  providers are utilizing DOT’s ITS resources by asking transit provider  officials about their awareness and use of the training, technical  assistance, or knowledge resources programs offered by the JPO,  whether they had used these programs, and how helpful they had found  them to be, in interviews and through the survey. In prior work, we and  the National Academies’ Transportation Research Board identified  leading practices for successfully encouraging the adoption of new  technologies.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 through June  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation

section_title: Appendix III: Public Transit Stakeholders GAO Interviewed
paragraphs: Appendix III: Public Transit Stakeholders GAO  Interviewed Federal agencies  Federal Transit Administration  U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and  Technology, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office  Academic institutions  Carnegie Mellon University  North Dakota State University, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Small Urban  and Rural Transit Center  University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research  Industry associations  American Public Transportation Association  Community Transportation Association of America  Intelligent Transportation Society of America  ITS consultants  Brendon Hemily  C.R. Peterson Consulting, LLC  Trillium Solutions  ITS vendors  Clever Devices  RouteMatch Software  Metropolitan planning organizations  Lane Council of Governments   Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission  Municipalities  City of Orlando  City of Portland  Public transit providers  Antelope Valley Transit Authority  Bi-State Development Agency (Metro Transit—St. Louis)

Casco Bay Island Transit District  Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX)

section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Susan Zimmerman (Assistant  Director), James Ashley, Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Anne Doré, Heather  MacLeod, Cheryl Peterson, Justin Reed, Malika Rice, Michelle Weathers,  and Elizabeth Wood.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What has been a large source of ITS deployment?
answer: Selected large and medium urban transit providers have deployed most Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies, such as automatic vehicle location (AVL) and electronic fare payment.
child_questions: question: How do providers use ITS data?
answer: Most of these providers reported sharing data collected from ITS with the public or regional transportation providers to enable technology innovations and improve regional planning.

question: What advanced ITS have large and medium urban transit providers deployed?
answer: Large and medium urban transit providers have also deployed advanced types of ITS technologies, such as smart phone applications to provide passengers with travel information and mobile ticketing.

question: How might small urban and rural transit providers use ITS technologies?
answer: GAO estimates that small urban and rural transit providers are using security systems, computer-aided dispatch, AVL, and geographic information systems to, among other things, monitor safety and security and improve record-keeping and billing capabilities.
child_questions: question: Why might such provides not use more advanced ITS technologies?
answer: However, most small urban and rural transit providers are not using other ITS technologies—such as automatic passenger counters or electronic fare payment—due to the cost of the technologies or because there is no perceived need.

questions: question: What did the GAO find to be the benefit of ITS?
answer: Transit providers GAO surveyed and interviewed reported various benefits from ITS including improved scheduling and routing, on-time performance and schedule adherence, and customer satisfaction.
child_questions: question: What were some other benefits mentioned by large and medium urban transit providers?
answer: In addition, many large and medium urban transit providers reported that using combinations of technologies can increase benefits.
child_questions: question: What is an example of combined technology?
answer: By using technologies such as AVL and electronic fare payment together, for example, transit providers can obtain more precise ridership information, which can further improve their planning.

question: Why are ITS benefits hard to quantify?
answer: However, transit providers GAO interviewed and surveyed noted that it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of using ITS technologies because, as reported by large and medium urban providers, it may be difficult to identify a unit of measurement, such as for greater staff efficiency, or attribute benefits to either ITS deployment or a specific technology.

question: What challenges do transit providers face when trying to integrate ITS?
answer: Transit providers also face an assortment of deployment challenges, including competing for funding internally with state-of-good-repair needs, reluctance from the transit workforce and leadership to embrace ITS technologies, coordinating deployment across regional agencies, and integrating technologies purchased from different vendors.

questions: question: How does the DOT promote ITS deployment?
answer: The Department of Transportation (DOT) offers a variety of information resources to support ITS deployment, but few of the transit providers interviewed or surveyed reported using these resources.
child_questions: question: WHy might DOT employees not use ITS tech?
answer: DOT officials, selected large and medium transit providers, and other public transit stakeholders told GAO that the transit community may not be using these resources because transit providers lack sufficient staff and the information provided may not reflect the transit community's needs.

question: How does DOT survey results influence the use of ITS tech?
answer: Additionally, DOT does not include small urban and rural transit providers in its ITS deployment survey, a tool officials said is used in designing information resources.

question: How could DOT help with more widespread ITS adoption?
answer: DOT could improve the awareness and applicability of ITS resources by developing a strategy to raise awareness of DOT's resources available to the transit community and monitoring the adoption of ITS by transit providers in small urban and rural areas.
child_questions: question: What would be the result of the DOT not taking such action?
answer: Without greater efforts from DOT to make the transit community more aware of federal ITS resources and to tailor these resources to the needs of smaller providers, transit providers may be missing information that could help them make the most informed ITS deployment decisions.