TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems

71 Pages·2003·4.35 MB·English

20129 TRB TCRP Syn 48 cvr PMS 648 SPINE = 7/32"
A W 5 T T
D 0 R C
DRESS SERVICE REQU ashington, D.C. 20001 0 Fifth Street, N.W. ANSPORTATION RESEARCH B RPSynthesis 48 TCRP TCRREOASONEPASERIRTC AHTIVE
E O
ST ARD PROGRAM
E
D
SYNTHESIS 48
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
Real-Time Bus Arrival Information
R
e
a
l-
Tim Systems
e
B
u
s
A
rriv
a
l Info A Synthesis of Transit Practice
rm
a
tio
n
S
y
s
te
m
s
T
R
B
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2003
SELECTION COMMITTEE (Membership as of March 2003)
(Membership as of October 2002)

CHAIR OFFICERS
J. BARRY BARKER
Transit Authority of River City Chair: GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development,
University of Southern California
MEMBERS Vice Chairman: MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Executive Director, Transportation District Commission of Hampton
DANNY ALVAREZ Roads, Hampton, VA,
Miami–Dade Transit Agency Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board
KAREN ANTION
Karen Antion Consulting MEMBERS
GORDON AOYAGI

Montgomery County Government MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT
JEAN PAUL BAILLY JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Commissioner, New York State DOT
Union Internationale des Transports Publics SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, D.C.
RONALD L. BARNES E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary of Transportation, Kansas DOT
Central Ohio Transit Authority JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, MD
LINDA J. BOHLINGER, JAMES C. CODELL III, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
HNTB Corp. JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads
ANDREW BONDS, JR. BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority
Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Clark University
JENNIFER L. DORN LESTER A. HOEL, L.A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia
Federal Transit Administration HENRY L. HUNGERBEELER, Director, Missouri DOT
NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR. ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor and Chairman, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Metropolitan Atlanta RTA University of California at Berkeley
CONSTANCE GARBER RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
York County Community Action Corp. HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT
FRED M. GILLIAM MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority JEFF P. MORALES, Director of Transportation, California DOT
KIM R. GREEN KAM MOVASSAGHI, Secretary of Transportation, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
GFI GENFARE CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT
SHARON GREENE DAVID PLAVIN, President, Airports Council International, Washington, D.C.
Sharon Greene & Associates JOHN REBENSDORF, Vice President, Network and Service Planning, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha, NE
KATHERINE M. HUNTER-ZAWORSKI CATHERINE L. ROSS, Executive Director, Georgia Regional Transportation Agency
Oregon State University JOHN M. SAMUELS, Senior Vice President, Operations Planning and Support, Norfolk Southern Corporation
ROBERT H. IRWIN PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, CEO, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
BC Transit MARTIN WACHS, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley
CELIA G. KUPERSMITH MICHAEL W. WICKHAM, Chairman and CEO, Roadway Express, Inc., Akron, OH
Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy. & Transport. Dist.
PAUL J. LARROUSSE

National Transit Institute
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
DAVID A. LEE

Connecticut Transit
MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association
CLARENCE W. MARSELLA
MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S. DOT
Denver Regional Transportation District
REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and CEO, American Transportation Research Institute, Atlanta, GA
FAYE L.M. MOORE
THOMAS H. COLLINS, (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard) Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Southeastern Penn. Transportation Authority
JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. DOT
STEPHANIE L. PINSON
ELLEN G. ENGLEMAN, Research and Special Programs Administrator, U.S. DOT
Gilbert Tweed Associates, Inc.
ROBERT B. FLOWERS (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of
ROBERT H. PRINCE, JR.
Engineers
DMJM+HARRIS
HAROLD K. FORSEN, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering
JEFFREY M. ROSENBERG
EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads
Amalgamated Transit Union
JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
RICHARD J. SIMONETTA
MICHAEL P. JACKSON, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S. DOT
pbConsult
ROGER L. KING, Chief Applications Technologist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PAUL P. SKOUTELAS
ROBERT S. KIRK, Director, Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy
Port Authority of Allegheny County
RICK KOWALEWSKI, Acting Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. DOT
LINDA S. WATSON
WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association
Corpus Christi RTA
MARY E. PETERS, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. DOT
SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS JEFFREY W. RUNGE, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. DOT
WILLIAM W. MILLAR ALLAN RUTTER, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. DOT
APTA ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
MARY E. PETERS WILLIAM G. SCHUBERT, Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
FHWA
JOHN C. HORSLEY
AASHTO TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR.
Transportation Research Board Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP

TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Chair)
LOUIS F. SANDERS E. DEAN CARLSON, Kansas DOT
APTA JENNIFER L. DORN, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
LESTER A. HOEL, University of Virginia
WILLIAM W. MILLAR, American Public Transportation Association
SECRETARY ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board
ROBERT J. REILLY PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
TRB MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, Hampton, VA
T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

TCRP
SYNTHESIS 48

Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems

A Synthesis of Transit Practice

CONSULTANT
CAROL L. SCHWEIGER
Multisystems, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts

TOPIC PANEL
ANDREW BATA, New York City Transit
STEVEN CHIEN, New Jersey Institute of Technology
BRIAN CRONIN, Federal Transit Administration
KANG HU, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
RUDOLF KOLAJA, Arizona Department of Transportation
JEROME M. LUTIN, New Jersey Transit
STEVE MORTENSEN, Mitretek Systems
PETER L. SHAW, Transportation Research Board

SUBJECT AREAS
Public Transit

Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2003
www.TRB.org
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP SYNTHESIS 48

The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environ- Project J-7, Topic SA-14
mental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit ISSN 1073-4880
systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of ISBN 0-309-069653
upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, Library of Congress Control No. 2003107942
and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is nec-

essary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new
© 2003 Transportation Research Board
technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations

into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Pro-
Price $15.00
gram (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the

transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to
NOTICE
meet demands placed on it.

The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit
Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, pub-
Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Re-
lished in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Federal
search Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the Na-
Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public
tional Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing
Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also
Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with re-
recognized the need for local, problem-solving research. TCRP,
spect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research
modeled after the longstanding and successful National Coopera-
Council.
tive Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other
The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor
technical activities in response to the needs of transit service provid- this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized
ers. The scope of vice configuration, equipment, facilities, opera- scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of
tions, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions
practices. expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the
Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation
authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- Research Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National
ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum Research Council, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S.
agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by Department of Transportation.
the three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the tech-
of Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board nical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the
(TRB), and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Gov-
nonprofit educational and research organization established by erning Board of the National Research Council.

APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent govern-

ing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selec-

tion (TOPS) Committee.
Special Notice
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodi-

cally but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at anytime. It is
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the re-
the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Coun-
search program by identifying the highest priority projects. As
cil, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor of the Transit
part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding
Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manu-
levels and expected products.
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, ap- facturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely be-
pointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels pre- cause they are considered essential to the clarity and
pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contrac- completeness of the project report.
tors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the
life of the project. The process for developing research problem
statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB Published reports of the
in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in
other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily with- TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
out compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products are available from:
fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on
disseminating TCRP results to the intended end-users of the re- Transportation Research Board
search: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB Business Office
provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, 500 Fifth Street, NW
and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. Washington, D.C. 20001
APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and
other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban
and rural transit industry practitioners. and can be ordered through the Internet at:
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can coop-
eratively address common operational problems. TCRP results http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore

support and complement other ongoing transit research and train-

ing programs. Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and
to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the
superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific
and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the
National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation by stimulating and conducting research, facilitating the
dissemination of information, and encouraging the implementation of research results. The Board’s varied
activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and
practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the
public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including
the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and
individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org
FOREWORD Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which in-
By Staff formation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and
Transportation practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a conse-
Research Board quence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to
bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be
overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solv-
ing or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much
of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their
day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such use-
ful information and to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Co-
operative Research Program Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee author-
ized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study,
TCRP Project J-7, “Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems,” searches out
and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise,
documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute a TCRP re-
port series, Synthesis of Transit Practice.
The synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each re-
port in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those meas-
ures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE This synthesis report will be of interest to transit staff concerned with implementing
real-time bus arrival information systems at their agencies. Information on relevant tech-
nical capabilities, agency experience, cost, and bus rider reactions to these information
systems was documented. The report describes the state of the practice, including both
U.S. and international experience. It documents survey information, a review of the rele-
vant literature, as well as interviews with key personnel at agencies that have, or are in
the process of, implementing these systems.
This report from the Transportation Research Board integrates the information ob-
tained from the literature review and survey responses with the follow-up interviews.
Case study information details specifics from agencies that have deployed these systems.
A panel of experts in the subject area guided the work of organizing and evaluating
the collected data and reviewed the final synthesis report. A consultant was engaged
to collect and synthesize the information and to write the report. Both the consultant and
the members of the oversight panel are acknowledged on the title page. This synthesis is
an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within
the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in
research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Project Background and Objectives, 5
Technical Approach to the Project, 5
Synthesis Organization, 5

6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

8 CHAPTER THREE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF REAL-TIME
BUS ARRIVAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Underlying Automatic Vehicle Location Technology, 8
Real-Time Information Distribution, 8
Real-Time Predictions, and Prediction Accuracy and Reliability, 14
Use of the Information Generated by the System, 19

20 CHAPTER FOUR SYSTEM COSTS
Capital Costs, 20
Operations and Maintenance Costs, 20
Staffing Needs, 21

24 CHAPTER FIVE CUSTOMER AND MEDIA REACTIONS TO REAL-TIME
BUS ARRIVAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Customer Reactions, 24
Media Reactions, 25

26 CHAPTER SIX INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Reasons for Deploying the System, 26
Responsibilities for Deploying the System, 26
Staff Reactions to Deploying the System, 27
Benefits Realized from Deploying the System, 27
Lessons Learned, 29

34 CHAPTER SEVEN CASE STUDIES
Regional Transportation District, Denver, 34
King County Metro, Seattle, 35
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon,
Portland, 37
San Luis Obispo Transit, 38
Transport for London—London Bus Services Limited, 39
Acadia National Park—Island Explorer Bus System, 41
43 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS

46 REFERENCES

48 BIBLIOGRAPHY

51 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

52 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

61 APPENDIX B LIST OF AGENCIES RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY
TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF
ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CHAIR CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Manager, TCRP & CTBSSP
FRANK T. MARTIN
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
TCRP SYNTHESIS STAFF
STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Information Services
MEMBERS JON WILLIAMS, Manager, Synthesis Studies
DEBRA W. ALEXANDER DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer
Capital Area Transportation Authority DON TIPPMAN, Editor
GERALD L. BLAIR CHERYL Y. KEITH, Senior Secretary
Indiana County Transit Authority
DWIGHT FERRELL
Consultant
L.G. FULLER
Transpo Enterprises, Inc.
HENRY HIDE
Halliburton/Brown & Root
ROBERT H. IRWIN
British Columbia Transit
PAUL J. LARROUSE
National Transit Institute
WADE LAWSON
South Jersey Transportation Authority
DAVID A. LEE
Connecticut Transit

FTA LIAISON
JOEL R. WASHINGTON
Federal Transit Administration

TRB LIAISON
PETER SHAW
Transportation Research Board

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Carol L. Schweiger, Multisystems, Inc., Cambridge, Massa- Jersey Transit; Steve Mortensen, Senior Transportation Planner, Mi-
chusetts, was responsible for collection of the data and preparation of tretek Systems; and Peter L. Shaw, Senior Program Officer, Transpor-
the report. tation Research Board.
Valuable assistance in the preparation of this synthesis was pro- This study was managed by Donna L. Vlasak, Senior Program
vided by the Topic Panel, consisting of Andrew Bata, Senior Director, Officer, who worked with the consultant, the Topic Panel, and the J-7
State Planning, Telecommunications, and Information Services, New project committee in the development and review of the report. Assis-
York City Transit; Steven Chien, Associate Professor, Department of tance in project scope development was provided by Stephen F.
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Interdisciplinary Program in Maher, P.E., and Jon Williams, Managers, Synthesis Studies. Don
Transportation, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Brian Cronin, Tippman was responsible for editing and production. Cheryl Keith
Engineer, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- assisted in meeting logistics and distribution of the questionnaire and
portation; Kang Hu, Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles draft reports.
Department of Transportation; Rudolf Kolaja, Traffic Operations En- Christopher W. Jenks, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research
gineer, Intermodal Transportation Division, Traffic Engineering Program, assisted TCRP staff in project review.
Group, Arizona Department of Transportation; Jerome M. Lutin, Sen- Information on current practice was provided by many transit
ior Director, Intermodal Planning and Capacity Analysis, New agencies. Their cooperation and assistance was most helpful.
REAL-TIME BUS ARRIVAL INFORMATION
SYSTEMS

SUMMARY In the late 1980s and 1990s, the deployment of automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to
better monitor and control operations was becoming prevalent throughout the U.S. transit
industry. The focus of most of these deployments was to increase operational efficiency, not
to provide customer information. As these deployments matured, transit agencies recognized
that data from an AVL system could be used to provide customers with real-time predictions
of bus arrivals. At the same time, many transit systems in Europe were demonstrating the
benefits of providing such real-time information to their customers.

As a result, transit agencies have discovered a growing interest in providing real-time bus
arrival information to customers once they have deployed the AVL technology. Transit
agencies of various sizes are beginning to invest in real-time information systems, with the
realization that they can have a significant and positive impact on their customers. Also, in-
telligent transportation systems products that specialize in providing real-time transit infor-
mation exist on the market today and are being procured and deployed by transit agencies of
all sizes.

This synthesis describes the state of the practice in real-time bus arrival information sys-
tems, including both U.S. and international experience. The panel for this project chose to
focus on bus systems, rather than all transit modes, and on the following six key elements of
these systems:

• Bus system characteristics;
• Real-time bus arrival information system characteristics, including information about
the underlying technology and dissemination media;
• System prediction, accuracy, and reliability;
• System costs;
• Customer and media reactions; and
• Institutional and organizational issues associated with the system.

This report includes a review of the relevant literature, in addition to the results of a sur-
vey that was conducted as part of this project. The survey covered items from the six key
elements listed previously, including the technical capabilities of the systems, agency ex-
perience, cost, and bus rider reactions to these information systems. This synthesis also con-
tains the results of interviews with key personnel at agencies that have implemented or are
in the process of implementing these systems.

The literature review revealed that there is not a significant amount of material on this
subject in the United States. The number of systems operational in the United States is
commensurate with the amount of literature. However, at the time this report was being
written, an increasing number of systems were in the process of being deployed across the
United States.