Technical Memorandum One Deliverables Covered in this Technical Memo: Task 2.1: Technology Maturity Assessment Task 2.2: Technology Trends and Opportunities Task 2.3: Industry Peer Review
TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...... 1 Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan ...... 1 Transit Technology Challenges and Opportunities...... 3
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ON TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY...... 6 Building Blocks and Considerations ...... 6 Establishing a Common Vocabulary ...... 12
CHAPTER 3: TECHNOLOGY MATURITY ASSESSMENT ...... 20 Existing Plans Summary ...... 20 Online Survey...... 27 Survey Results ...... 28 Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives ...... 36 Regional Coordination ...... 40 Conclusions ...... 40
CHAPTER 4: PEER REVIEW FINDINGS ...... 42 Introduction and Approach ...... 42 Summary of Key Findings ...... 44 Detail on Key Findings ...... 46 Peer Agency Conclusions ...... 52
CHAPTER 5: TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 53 Introduction and Approach ...... 53 Data and Technology Tools ...... 53 The Need for Support ...... 56 Technology Program Definition ...... 60 Conclusions and Opportunities ...... 61
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page i TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 Table of Tables
Table 3.2: GTFS and Trip Planners in Small Urban Areas ...... 33
Figure 3.1: 2020 Broadband Availability ...... 39
Table 4.1: Interview Participants and their Organizations ...... 43
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1: Perspectives and Functions of Technology ...... 7
Figure 2.2: Centralized to Distributed Technology Functions ...... 11
Figure 2.3: Information Flow ...... 12
Figure 3-1: Respondents by Type of Agency ...... 27
Figure 3.2: Computer Networks by Type of Agency ...... 28
Figure 3.3: How do you service computer systems? ...... 28
Figure 3.4: What is on your website? ...... 29
Figure 3.5: What types of social media do you use? ...... 29
Figure 3.6: Means of Communication ...... 30
Figure 3.7: Number of Methods Used to Communicate ...... 30
Figure 3.8: Are there connectivity issues?...... 31
Figure 3.9: Transit Systems Reporting Connectivity Issues ...... 31
Figure 3.10: Type of Service Operated ...... 32
Figure 3.11: Trip Scheduling Systems ...... 33
Figure 3.12: Does your system have…? ...... 34
Figure 3.13: Fare Types Accepted ...... 34
Figure 3.14: 2020 Broadband Availability ...... 39
Figure 5.1: Models of Centralized versus Distributed Technology Functions ...... 59
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page ii TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan This chapter presents the Greater Plan Purpose Minnesota Transit Technology Plan, the reasons for it, and introduces the The Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan will identify how to support ideas of the subsequent chapters. the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and transit systems within the state as they evaluate and implement technology solutions. The purpose of this plan is to take a strategic approach to the development of transit technology in Minnesota, providing MnDOT with tools to assist in determining how best to develop transit technology throughout Greater Minnesota. This plan will consider the specific technologies needed by transit systems while also taking a broader systems approach to identify how to develop a statewide digital network and support interoperability. It is intended that this plan will: • Define the technology that is most appropriate and suited to the effective delivery of transit services • Identify technology that meets the needs of transit customers • Support transit systems in transitioning to the digital age
The Transit Technology Plan will also provide a framework for developing technology, criteria for evaluating proposed projects, and a plan for implementation.
This first technical memorandum provides information on the current state of technology deployment in Greater Minnesota and an assessment of the state of transit technology across the nation. It provides a basis for discussion of priority needs and development of goals.
Transit systems in Greater Minnesota have identified the need for more technology as they seek to operate efficiently and to communicate effectively with customers and are applying for funding for technology development.
Plan Development Process
MnDOT selected TransitPlus, a consulting team with expertise in transit technology, to work with all key stakeholders to develop this Transit Technology Plan. The team is also working with a Steering Committee of transit systems to coordinate and support the engagement and plan-development process. Plan documents and Steering Committee meetings will be posted on the project website at https://greatermntransittech.com. Appendix A is a list of Steering Committee members and Appendix B contains the Public and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background, Section - Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
TransitPlus is directly engaging staff from approximately 50 rural, Tribal, and small urban area transit systems within the state in the planning process. MnDOT has planning in Greater Minnesota. Figure 1.2 shows the Greater Minnesota area, defined as the 80 counties outside the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Regions 1-4 and 6-8 are considered Figure 1.2: Map of MnDOT Regions Greater Minnesota. Region 5 (Metro) covers the Twin Cities metropolitan area and is not part of this study.
Technical Memorandum One
Overview
The project begins with four related activities that are documented in Technical Memorandum One:
● Review existing plans and participate in the National Center for Applied Transit Technology (N-CATT) Technology Summit to identify planned
technology activities. ● Survey Greater Minnesota’s transit systems to assess existing technology use, technology needs, and development priorities. Map courtesy of MnDOT: ● Identify the opportunities and trends for transit https://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/docs/di strict-map-with-sub-areas.pdf technology through structured interviews with industry experts. ● Review peer states to identify the approaches they are taking to developing technology among transit providers, their successes, and how they are navigating the challenges.
Future technical memorandums will address other project activities such as the development of goals and objectives and Identifying the strategies, projects, and actions that will enable MnDOT and the transit systems in Greater Minnesota to achieve their goals. The TransitPlus team will work collaboratively with the Steering Committee throughout the plan development study to identify technology goals and objectives. Goals will be developed using an iterative process, with objectives refined as the plan proceeds.
The team will synthesize information from previous tasks to identify how to deploy technology to address the identified goals, build a foundation for digital transit technology, and identify needed strategies, actions, and projects. The team will determine growth plans for specific aspects of technology. These will include the resources, timeframe, and costs and benefits of the options to assist the Steering Committee in identifying priorities and standards.
The final Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan will lay out the steps for attaining the goals and objectives, including strategies, actions, projects, standards, and timelines. It will document the research carried out in the development of the plan and engagement activities.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 2 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background, Section - Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Memorandum Organization
Technical Memorandum One is organized into five chapters and three appendices. Following this introductory chapter is Chapter 2-Background on Transit Technology, which gives readers some context on transit technology and introduces commonly used terms.
Chapter 3-Technology Maturity Assessment summarizes related plans and the results of the online survey. Chapters 4 and 5 present the findings of interviews with peer agencies and industry experts. Chapter 4 describes the interview process and key findings, while Chapter 5 focuses on emerging trends and opportunities, many of which came from the interviews.
At the end are the following appendices.
• Appendix A is a list of Steering Committee members • Appendix B contains the Public and Stakeholder Engagement Plan • Appendix C contains detailed results of the survey on existing technology • Appendix D is a case study of the One Regional Card for All (ORCA) system in Seattle, which was among the first card-based systems in the country and is currently undergoing a shift toward an account-based system
Transit Technology Challenges and Opportunities
There are a number of challenges and opportunities around transit technology and in the unique circumstances within Minnesota. Understanding and addressing these challenges and opportunities will assist in making informed and strategic decisions around transit technology.
Industry Challenges
Transit technology is a broad topic area, may include a variety of tools, and requires specific knowledge of the transit industry and information technology. Often there is not sufficient time for transit staff to learn enough about transit technology to be able to make informed decisions and implement transit technology. Transit system staff, particularly in rural areas, are responsible for many agency functions, including day-to-day operations, funding, personnel matters, and more. Building organizational capacity among transit systems in rural and small urban areas is an important challenge. It is also helpful for transit systems and regional agencies to identify common needs and solutions, but there are few existing forums for such discussions.
Technology is always in a period of rapid change. Now more than ever there are new developments in, and a greater ability to share, digital information. Whether it is through applications for mapping or ride hailing services, the public understands the value of transportation technology networks. The public has high expectations, and there is pressure for local transit systems to provide such useful information.
Because the transit technology market is relatively small, many vendors have not adapted their programs to reflect current technology options. While the industry is shifting towards integrated and interconnected technology components, many transit technology vendors continue to offer a
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 3 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background, Section - Transit Technology Challenges and Opportunities TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 single, specific, and often proprietary solution.
Minnesota Challenges
Minnesota transit systems are diverse, and therefore require different technology solutions. A system may serve a town, a small urban area, or multiple counties. A system may only have volunteer drivers or may have fleets ranging from one or two vehicles to 50 vehicles. Transit systems in the state need the flexibility to choose the best technology to meet their needs.
The existing technology also varies widely among transit systems within the state. Technology spans from paper and pencil and paper calendars to robust technology tools and platforms that may include scheduling software, electronic fare systems, maintenance and asset management software, General Transit Feed Specifications (GTFS) data collection, and trip planning software. Transit systems in the state need support in making the transition to digital options.
The topography and large rural areas with low population density within the state result in limited broadband and two-way radio connectivity. Even where internet access is available, it may not be at modern speeds, and there may not be readily available backup connections that are needed to maintain a high level of uptime. Given the trend towards software solutions hosted in data centers, this lack of reliable connectivity can have a significant impact on operational resilience. (Chapter 3 includes more information describing these challenges and solutions.)
Opportunities
There are also opportunities inherent in developing transit technology at the present time. Taking steps now, while agencies are in different stages of technology development and tools are changing means there is an opportunity to be proactive in establishing an understanding of where we are and where we need improvement. A plan like this allows for a framework, but also an ability to be adaptive to continued changes. Specifying the importance of improved transit technology helps vendors to know there is a larger market out there for improved products.
An effective technology strategy depends on having a foundation in place. Making decisions and determining how to build a foundation requires a common language around transit technology or a common understanding of how to achieve desired outcomes. The importance of developing organizational capacity and understanding has emerged as a consistent theme. Forums that allow transit providers to share experiences and learn from one another is an important element in building technology understanding within the state. A glossary of terms is included in Chapter 2 to help stakeholders develop their technology vocabulary and knowledge.
Coordination is a challenge for the transit industry, and Minnesota is no exception. There are a variety of technology tools that support coordination. This includes customer facing technology that supports trip planning to back office tools that help providers share vehicle space and better serve passenger trips. Minnesota has recently established a structure of Regional Transportation Coordinating Commissions (RTCC) to provide a framework for coordination, especially between human service programs and transportation providers. Chapter 2 describes in more detail the
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 4 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background, Section - Transit Technology Challenges and Opportunities TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 functions of RTCCs where technology may be supportive.
There are providers in Greater Minnesota, among rural and small urban transit systems, on the forefront of developing technology. These transit systems and the state have been successful at garnering funds for pilot technology projects. These projects may provide some lessons for other agencies and also support the framework for a digital foundation for Greater Minnesota.
There are numerous opportunities in the development of this plan to build the understanding of stakeholders about technology options. A separate Technology Summit, held on August 17-20, 2020, introduced transit technology issues, and broadly engaged the transit systems in Greater Minnesota. The study team participated in this Summit. Virtual brown bag lunches will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to learn more about specific topics. The Steering identifying goals and objectives and development of the technology growth plan, activities occurring late in the process.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 5 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background, Section - Transit Technology Challenges and Opportunities TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology
This chapter provides context and background on transit technology. Some concepts and terms that recur throughout this document are introduced in this chapter. They provide a useful framework to think about technology. Whether you need a crash course in The concepts and definitions come from the study team’s experience, the technology terminology or have a lot research conducted for this project, and review of a variety of research of experience, please at least skim reports. The last section in this chapter covers terminology introduced in this chapter. That ensures everyone this chapter and is intended to provide a shared language for a variety of has the same baseline knowledge to technology topics. Having a shared understanding of terms and a structure understand the entire plan and for discussing transit technology is the first and most essential step in support Steering Committee work. developing shared communication on this topic.
Building Blocks and Considerations
Use of Technology
Generally, technology in the transit industry is underutilized, so there is significant potential to use technology to assist transit providers in serving customers more effectively, operating efficiently, and coordinating with other providers. Largely, the technological innovations that are most useful for transit service providers to implement have been around for many years and are well-tested. What is most critical in advancing these strategies is widespread adoption of technology that has proven useful in similar contexts. Examples of technology that is widely tested are Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL), scheduling software for demand-response transportation, and using GTFS and GTFS Realtime in conjunction with mapping and trip planning software. An important foundational strategy is development of the internet, cellular, and two-way radio connections across Greater Minnesota so that digital information can be readily exchanged.
Lead with Function
From a transit service provider perspective, technology is useful to the extent that it helps agencies meet their organizational functions. Technology should assist an agency in fulfilling its mission and key objectives. This is a concept that is foundational to technology development across the board. Looking broadly at transportation, Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) programs have this as a key tenet in initiatives to improve the efficiency and safety of transportation infrastructure through technology. Transit signal priority is an example of such a strategy.
The stakeholders in this project reflect at least three very different perspectives: 1) transit systems within the state that vary in size, operating modes, and service areas covered; 2) the Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils (RTCCs) and 3) the transit MnDOT. These three groups have different responsibilities, functions, and perspectives. Figure 2.1 identifies areas where each could benefit from technology. Grounding technology in agency functions and also to support agency values, such as customer service or equity, is a starting point for evaluating and selecting technology.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 6 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Figure 2.1: Perspectives and Functions of Technology
Determining Appropriate Technology
Transit technology can make organizations more functional and efficient. Strengths include: • Handling large amounts of data, carrying out repetitive functions quickly and accurately. The large amounts of data required for trip planning applications require the digital power of information technology.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 7 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
• Sharing information among interested parties, such as by customers and transit agency staff who can access routing, schedule, and on-time performance information. Technology also allows the sharing of information between equipment or programs. Examples are that Global Positioning System (GPS) information from buses can be used by bus stop annunciators to tell passengers the next stop or with automatic passenger counters to provide management information on where passengers are boarding. • The creative use of shared information. Many technological advances occur when data is available to third-party developers who can use the information in innovative ways. For example, walkscore.com, a service that rates the walkability of the neighborhood of any address in the United States, relies on publicly available GTFS data to produce the transit component of its scores, i.e., the Transit Score. Data like this can inform land use and transportation planning and decision-making and establishes valuable baseline data to evaluate transit improvement needs.
As described above, technology can make systems more functional and efficient. However, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits of procuring and utilizing technology. When assessing technology, it is also important to consider the volume of data that will need to be managed and how often data management tasks need to occur. This is an aspect of scalability in decision-making about technology needs. For instance, a spreadsheet may be an appropriate tool for a very small transit system that schedules only 10 - 20 trips on an average day. As the number of trips, vehicles, and drivers increases, a more complex scheduling system may be appropriate.
Similarly, consider the volume of work required to make maintenance software cost-effective. If your agency has two to three vehicles, a program to manage maintenance may not be necessary. It is important to compare the work associated with installing and maintaining any technology solution, the risks, and the cost of that technology with the expected benefits. You may find that a low-technology solution (e.g., telephone calls, maintaining a calendar, using a whiteboard, using a spreadsheet) remains a viable option for near-term improvements.
Interfaces and Standards An interface is a way to exchange information and data with a meaningful Please pay extra attention to this outcome. There is a continuum of interfaces possible, from entirely manual section on Interfaces and Standards. options to completely automated ones, and with every point in between. These can be defined into three main categories:
• Level 1 Interface: An interface can be as basic as one transit system calling another to get a client a ride. Through that conversation, Transit System A describes the client and the needs. Transit System B uses that data to see if it fits in their parameters (service boundaries, hours of operation, eligibility) and tells Transit System A whether or not they can provide the trip. • Level 2 Interface: Mid-grade interface systems include those in which a form of data is exchanged manually through faxing, emailing, or using secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) to send information back and forth. This form is normally agreed upon in advance and includes
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 8 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
standards for the information that is exchanged. • Level 3 Interface: Level 3 interfaces entail a completely automated system between software systems exchanging data automatically through application program interfaces (APIs). APIs act as connectors, allowing information to flow back and forth seamlessly and almost instantaneously.
Broadly, interfaces involve meeting different interactional needs: • Intra-agency interfaces, which support a single transit service provider’s operational efficiency. Examples include on-board hardware, such as how a stop annunciator integrates with a GPS unit, or how a GPS unit can integrate with both dispatching and asset management software. • Inter-agency interfaces, which support coordination between peer agencies that have overlapping service areas or long-distance destinations. The examples above from a telephone call to an automated exchange of information are inter-agency interfaces. • Oversight interfaces, where funders, regulatory entities, or network managers need a consistent flow of information to maintain the larger technology system. When designing technology at a large scale, designs that emphasize enhanced interfaces have several benefits:
• They encourage systems thinking, a move away from individual static systems and towards relationships and interactions between systems. • Interfaces are longer lasting than software systems. When change is needed, they tend to evolve rather than be replaced outright. • They guide conversations about core requirements that local systems must meet. • Interfaces between agencies ease operational coordination. Technological interfaces reduce the manual effort needed for coordination. One way this happens is to exchange trip information through software that would otherwise need to be done by phone calls or emails. Interfaces may be based on an industry-accepted or de-facto standard. Interfaces do not necessarily need to be based on specifications adopted by a standards body. They can be as simple as an agreed upon form with the same headings for reporting of monthly service numbers, so information is consistent and can be easily Rule of Single Mention: Information should shared. If two or more parties agree on the only be entered manually a maximum of one format, they can share documents back and time. That is, if someone has entered forth for use in various programs. Additionally, information manually into a form or interfaces do not need to reflect the latest and spreadsheet, a tool is needed to transmit that greatest technology. Interfaces can work with information electronically in a standard minimal technology, but it is important to have format. This supports data veracity and consistent definitions or data tables and fields. maintenance. The key is finding an effective, efficient solution
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 9 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 that works for all parties.
Examples of standardized interfaces include:
• There are several standards for communication between onboard devices developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers, such as SAE J1939 • The newly developed transactional data specifications for demand-responsive transportation presented in TCRP Report 210 • The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), which describes transit services in a computer-readable fashion, so they can be included in trip planners, real time information, and geospatial information systems (GIS) for land use planning, etc. The National Transit Database (NTD), a standard for collecting operating, vehicle, cost, and funding data from Federal Grant Recipients is an example of providing data in a uniform format.
Example of an interface and potential improvements: Let us take a look at how a focus on interfaces could improve the monthly transmission of service, asset, and financial data from local agencies to a state DOT. In this example, data currently is submitted via an online form in which agencies manually enter their information. The process is lengthy and error-prone for the agencies but supplies the DOT with the necessary information it needs to fulfill federal and state reporting requirements.
This current process already has an interface — a user interface, or UI — that allows the transfer of information through manual entry. This manual process could be automated in two ways:
• The online form could be replaced or augmented by the ability to upload a file in a specified format that can be produced through software. • If the data to be reported can be produced from one agency system, agencies could carry out their reporting responsibilities with fewer manual interventions and fewer changes or errors.
Managing Risk
There are risks throughout the lifecycle of a technology solution. Procurement can be very labor- intensive. While the costs of hardware and software are generally easier to plan for, the effort associated with of implementation and training are often greater than originally estimated. This can is especially true with systems that are closely tied to organization workflows, such as scheduling and dispatching systems, often require procedural changes than expected. A broader and more difficult to quantify risk is that the system simply does not produce desired outcomes. For example, in the case of a new mode such as a micro-mobility service, the service that the technology supports may prove too costly or difficult to scale as it grows in popularity. Finally, towards the end of a system’s useful life, a transit system may find itself locked into using a particular brand of technology. It may be due to the length of a contract or because of the effort and training time to obtain a different system. They may be forced to purchase the next generation solution from the same vendor because other systems are tied into a particular proprietary interface.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 10 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
One means of managing the risks associated with technology is to use solutions with a single focus that connect to other systems through standardized interfaces. While this is not a silver bullet, since interfaces between systems can themselves become outdated, it provides more opportunities for parts of the system to be updated independent of one another. Allowing for parts of the system to be upgraded or replaced lowers the risk and the costs.
Another way to lower the risk for small providers is through a state-wide effort that provides support for basic aspects of technology purchase and implementation. Support could include small- scale efforts such as to better coordinate training or procure software; but also include larger-scale efforts like implementing software systems (such as trip planners) that are available to all agencies.
Centralized versus Distributed Technology Responsibilities This section discusses the centralized It is important to consider whether responsibility for a function can be to distributed continuum described at centralized, is best distributed to the agency level, or can be shared the last Steering Committee meeting. between a DOT and transit agencies. Figure 2.2 illustrates a continuum If you missed that meeting or need a from a centralized to distributed approach, which emerged from refresher, please read this section. discussions with other state DOTs, transit agencies and technology vendors. Presently, MnDOT, like most states, distributes most functions to sub-recipients as illustrated in this figure. On the left, centralized indicates activities that are managed, established, or performed by the state DOT. To the right, distributed indicates activities that are managed or performed by the transit service providers.
Figure 2.2: Centralized to Distributed Technology Functions
Centralizing certain activities can promote a common language and approach for performing those functions. Activities that might be considered for centralization include establishing minimum standards for software, procurement, training, asset management, shared software systems, and development of specifications or standards for interfaces. The more distributed the functions, the more agencies have flexibility and control. At the same time, agencies assume more risk. To manage risk, it is helpful to find a balance so that agencies that would benefit from support can access
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 11 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Building Blocks and Considerations TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 needed services. This topic is explored in further detail in Chapter 5 and options for modifying this arrangement will be part of the development of this plan.
Establishing a Common Vocabulary
A variety of terms are used throughout this report. This section introduces commonly used terms, to be used as a reference. It is an expanded glossary and provides some additional context about how the terms relate to each other. Terms are grouped into the following major categories: • Basics • Data • Mobility • Software • Standards and Specifications • Other/Additional • Communications • Electronic Fare Payment
Basics
Transit technology includes a wide range of software and hardware.
Hardware Computer hardware is composed of the physical parts of a computer, such as the central processing unit (CPU), the monitor, mouse, computer data storage, sound card, and motherboard.
Hardware is typically directed by the software to execute any command or instruction. A combination of hardware and software typically forms a usable computing system.
In the context of transportation systems, hardware can also refer to other equipment such as GPS devices, passenger counters, sensors, and cameras.
Computer Software
Often referred to as simply software, is the set of instructions that can be stored and run by hardware, telling the computer Figure 2.3: Information Flow how to work. Computer hardware and software require each- This shows how the user interacts with the application software on a other and neither can be realistically used on its own. typical computer. The arrows indicate information flow. Source: Desktop or portable computers and mobile telephones are Wikipedia, Golftheman / CC BY-SA common types of computers with hardware, operating systems, (https://creativecommons.org/license s/by-sa/3.0) and application software. This report focuses on the application software and the systems specific to the transit industry. Application software, especially as downloaded by a user to a mobile device (Smart phone, tablet, or laptop) is commonly referred to as an app, short for application.
Much on-vehicle equipment such as electronic fare boxes or stop announcement systems (annunciators and signage) have operating system software that enables the hardware to function and allows for an interface with the transit system computer network.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 12 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
For transit operations, common application software includes scheduling and dispatch software, run-cutting software for fixed route systems, inventory software, maintenance software and the software that powers an agency’s website. Sometimes application software bundles several functions. For example, inventory programs (asset management) might be part of accounting software or maintenance software. Scheduling software for demand response services may include driver management software.
On-board technology systems might include electronic headsigns, automated stop announcements (annunciators and variable signage), automatic vehicle locator (AVL) systems, electronic fare boxes, fare media readers, cameras, and systems that monitor vehicle functions or driver performance.
In computing, the combination of front-end tools and interfaces that customers interact with as well as the back-end tools that enable reporting and functions that comprise what software developers refer to as the software stack. Recently the term transit stack1 was coined to describe the combination of systems a transit agency may use in its operations. It is useful to think about the layers of software that create the stack as parts of a modular system. Some of these functions have standard interfaces so they work seamlessly together, such as GTFS-Realtime and GTFS. To the extent standard interfaces are developed, it will make systems more modular, increase agency options, is less costly in the long run, and less risky to implement. Within the transit stack some programs are able to share data with other programs but not all are connected with each other. An example of a foundational part of the technology stack is an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system. Software
There are a variety of different types of software, each appropriate in different situations and each requiring different levels of involvement from the agencies that use them.
Open Source Software
Open source software is software in which source code is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software development can bring in diverse perspectives beyond those of a single company. Linux, the underlying operating system for Android, ChromeOS, and most data center servers, is open source, as are all the current versions of all major web browsers. In the transit world, OpenTripPlanner (OTP) is an open source software application that powers regional and national journey planning services throughout the United States and Europe. With open source software, the user is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the software, either directly or through a contract. Open source software works best when there is a community of users who share in these responsibilities. Open source software code is often made available
1 Trillium Transit blog post. https://trilliumtransit.com/2016/10/10/transit-stack-diagram/
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 13 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 publicly through online services such as GitHub.com.
Proprietary Software
Also known as closed-source software, is computer software for which the software’s publisher or another person retains intellectual property rights – usually copyright of the source code. The publisher licenses the software to users and is responsible for its security, and for maintaining and upgrading the software. Most of the application software used by transit agencies is proprietary.
Open Architecture
Open architecture refers to computer architecture or software architecture that is nonproprietary and uses open interfaces and standards to enable third-party components to interoperate (Okunieff 2017). It is intended to make adding, swapping, and upgrading components easy. Some or all components of the architecture could be published to enable integration.
Software as a Service (SaaS)
Up through the early 2000s, transit agencies deploying information technology generally relied on software installed on workstations or servers located on-premises. Over the last 10 years in particular, there has been a trend toward providing software as a service, where applications are hosted in secure data centers and directly managed by the vendor developing the software. This SaaS (rhymes with grass) approach of deploying and managing applications can greatly ease the technology burden on smaller organizations and opens the door to faster and more manageable technology infrastructure.
Software Integration
Integration is making two or more systems work together through web APIs, physical connection, standard data definitions, or other means.
Communications
The term connectivity can be used in many ways. In the context of this report it refers to the ability of an agency to connect to wireless broadband for internet service, mobile phones, and two-way radios.
Broadband
Broadband(2) is a high-speed transmission link for internet connections. It has some basic forms: DSL (or Digital Subscriber Line), fiber-optic cable, and satellite. • DSL travels on existing copper telephone wires on a frequency range not used by voice communications such that the transmission of data causes no interruption to the telephone service. The speed of a DSL connection varies with one’s distance from the switching station. • Fiber-optic cables provide the fastest Internet connection however, service areas remain limited to areas where fiber-optic cable has been installed.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 14 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
• Satellite broadband service can replace dial-up connections for remote rural areas, but the installation costs are quite high.
Wireless Broadband Wireless broadband2 services connect to an internet backbone (usually a fiber-optic trunk) using Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) connections or radio waves instead of cables for the last mile.
Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) is a fixed, short-range technology that is often used in combination with DSL, fixed wireless, fiber, or cable modem service to connect devices within a home or business to the Internet using a radio link between the location and the service provider’s facility. A Wi-Fi network uses radio waves, similar to two-way radio communications.
Agencies are generally concerned with the ability of the main office to obtain signal coverage and for vehicles in the field to connect to services. Dead zones, or areas where no service is available, are often caused by geographic features or tall buildings as many systems rely upon line-of-site radio waves.
Broadband infrastructure consists of the backbone, the middle mile, and the last mile. The backbone consists of very large-capacity trunks (usually fiber optics) that connect to multiple fiber-optic lines capable of transmitting large amounts of data. It provides a path for the exchange of information that local or regional networks can connect with for long distance data transmission. The middle mile links the backbone to the ISP or telecommunications providers’ core network or telecommunications exchange. The last mile brings the connection to vehicles, and to residents’ homes and small businesses within the telephone exchange or cable company serving the area.
In addition to the different forms by which data communication happens, reliability is a key element of connectivity. As more and more computing takes place in data centers away from agency premises, the continuity of connectivity becomes ever more important. This shift can present a significant challenge in small urban and rural areas. Standard strategies for enhancing reliability include using business-class services that provide guaranteed throughput, and redundant service connections combined with automated rerouting in the event that one connection goes down.
Data
Data is the basis of digital communications. A transit system has a trove of data, much of which is stored in spreadsheets. Most data remain internal to an agency and is used in operating and managing the system. Some is shared through regular reports with funding agencies, such as a ridership report to a City Council, National Transit Database reporting, or reports on grant expenditures or transit assets. Some are useful to riders, such as schedule, route, and fare
2 Broadband and Wifi references: Broadband Reference Guide, produced by the Center for Community Technology Solutions, UW Madison, January, 2014
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 15 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 information. This section describes some common data terms.
Common Data Terms • Data feeds or data streams describe how data is shared (received or disseminated). • Open data describes data that is freely available to use and republish (without copyright restrictions). Open data is used for open-source development. • Static data is data that does not change after being recorded. Standard GTFS data for fixed route services is static. • Discovery data, also sometimes called trip planning data, is the information that helps customers plan their trips. This often includes information on the available services, hours of operation, how to schedule a trip, and perhaps information on fares and how to purchase a ticket. It may be found on a website, a mobile app, or through mapping software or a trip planner. • Transactional data is the information that helps transit systems conduct their business. Having standardized ways to share information about passenger origin and destinations, time of trip, Thinking about public transit systems and mobility aids allows agencies to coordinate human service throughout Greater MN, what transportation. TCRP Report 210 defines initial transactional data additional terms would be helpful in specifications. the glossary?
Standards and Specifications Communication between different software systems is key as the industry trends towards a more modular structure for software applications. In order for that communication to occur, standards and specifications need to be developed so that the software systems are speaking the same language. Another benefit of these shared specifications is that databases stay clean. An example would be a shared client database which lists Mary Smith also as Mary A. Smith resulting in two entries for one client. Along with the shared standards and specifications, software needs a way to exchange this data. One of the most common ways to do that is through APIs.
Application Programming Interfaces (API)
A set of protocols and tools for building scalable technology systems. APIs define how various technology components can interact. Typically, well-documented APIs include information that describes an API “call”, that is the language that must be passed to the API in order to get an expected “response.” In a transit context, responses would include information such as an arrival time prediction or vehicle location. Using APIs, independent systems can transmit information based on a common standard or a standard specific to that API. Examples of standardized interfaces are GTFS and SAE Standard J1939.
Standards-based System or Design
Software systems in which the design and technology follow public, standards and specifications.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 16 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Well-managed standards-based systems tend to have a high level of interoperability and have been independently tested to confirm compliance. Transit fare payment systems require the use of such specifications that have been established for the financial payments industry (Wallischeck et al. 2015) The interfaces are successful because of work on standards for all manufacturers. Unix/Linux operating system is an example of a public, non-proprietary standards-based system. Microsoft Windows is an example of a proprietary standards-based system.
General Transit Feed Specifications (GTFS)
GTFS is a family of specifications that describe the availability of transit services in a geographic area. • GTFS is a data specification that allows public transit agencies to publish their transit service data in a format that can be consumed by a wide variety of software applications. GTFS describes static schedule, fare, and geographic transit information. • GTFS-Real-time is a component that contains arrival predictions, vehicle positions and service advisories (GTFS, 2020). • GTFS-Flex expands the specification to describe demand response or flexible route services. This is particularly relevant for transit providers in rural areas or which provide flexible or route deviation services. It is being tested in the State of Vermont and in Denver, CO. OpenTrip Planner has been modified to read GTFS data feeds, but Google Trip Planner has not been modified yet. Electronic Fare Payment
Fare payment technology is one piece of a broader governance, policy, and accounting puzzle for agencies. In recent years, agencies have benefited from introducing card-based or account-based fare payment systems through partnerships with vendors or even developing fare payment in house through services such as Square. One benefit of this transition is the reduced need for the transit agency to manage cash and fare media. Fare payment continues to be a rapidly evolving area and this section summarizes some key definitions. A case study of the One Regional Card for All (ORCA) system in Seattle, which was among the first card-based systems in the country and is currently undergoing a shift toward an account-based system, is provided in Appendix D.
Contactless Payment Systems
Contactless payment systems are credit and debit cards, key fobs, smart cards, or other devices, including smartphones and other mobile devices that use radio-frequency identification (RFID) or near field communication (NFC) for making secure payments. The embedded integrated circuit chip and antenna enable consumers to wave their device over a reader at the point of sale. Contactless payments are made in close physical proximity, unlike mobile payments which use broad-area cellular or Wi-Fi networks and do not involve close physical proximity.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 17 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Digital Ticket
Digital Ticket is a virtual instance of a ticket which represents the digitization of rights to claim goods or services. In order to implement a digital ticket system, a combination of two paradigms can be used. The first is the account-based system, which relies on central storage and network connections. The second is the card-based system, which uses decentralized storage to store and transfer the ticket.
Mobile Fare Payment Application/App A mobile fare payment app refers to a software application on a smartphone or other portable electronic device such as a tablet that allows transit riders to pay for and access public transit services. These software applications are typically downloaded onto the user’s device. Mobility
Mobility is at the heart of the transition to a digital environment as professionals seek to use transportation resources effectively and nimbly, making it easy for people to choose and use most appropriate service for the trips they make. While public transit or a vanpool service may work well for a daily commute, a shared ride car might be more appropriate for a weekly shopping trip.
Integrated mobility refers to the ability for people to move easily from place to place among various modes and according to their own needs. Public transit is a key component. Connecting many modes of travel, including active transportation and automobile travel, and providing a means to compare and use the means most appropriate for a specific trip is an objective of integrated mobility. Location data is also a key component, in particular, using a common map database or coordinate reference system are important.
Mobility Management Mobility Management is an approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation services to customers. These customers include, but are not limited to, the transportation disadvantaged such as seniors, individuals with disabilities and individuals with lower incomes. Mobility management focuses on meeting individual customer needs through a wide range of transportation options and service providers. It also focuses on coordinating these services and providers in an effort to achieve a more efficient transportation delivery system (Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads & Harbors, 2015).
Mobility as a Services (MaaS) MaaS (rhymes with sauce) maximizes personal mobility through the use of technology so it is possible to reduce reliance on a privately-owned vehicle. Successful MaaS implementation integrates available transportation options into a single platform with on-demand trip planning, real-time information, and payment for seamless end-to-end journeys.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 18 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
One-Call/One-Click
One-Call/One-Click is an organization that enables riders or their representatives to find out their transportation options by making a single call or going to a single website where the information is available. This is often a feature of mobility management programs. Sometimes, this concept goes beyond an organization and a tool may be offered to the public to reserve a ride with one-call or one-click. A good example of a tool is FindMyRidePA.com.
Additional Terms
These words may appear less frequently but are useful to know. • Automated Passenger Counters (APC) is an electronic way of counting passengers often through infrared lights mounted above the doors or cameras that count the number of passengers. • Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is a means for automatically determining and transmitting the geographic location of a vehicle. This vehicle location data, from one or more vehicles, may then be collected by a vehicle tracking system or scheduling/dispatching system. • Computer-Aided Dispatch systems with AVL (CAD/AVL) are common in public transit. Most commonly, the location is determined using GPS with the longitude and latitude coordinates transmitted from the vehicle to a radio receiver. • Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite-based radio navigation system. It is one of the global navigation satellite systems that provide geolocation and time information to a GPS receiver anywhere there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites. Obstacles such as mountains and buildings block the relatively weak GPS signals. • Annunciation system or automated announcement system is a feature of on-board technology that can use vehicle location to announce upcoming stops or other important information to riders. While automated systems are not required under the Americans With Disabilities Act3, they ensure consistency in announcements and timing and remove the annunciation task from the equipment operator.
3 36 CFR 1192 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28867/americans-with- disabilities-act-ada-accessibility-guidelines-for-transportation-vehicles#h-13
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 19 Chapter 2: Background on Transit Technology, Section - Establishing a Common Vocabulary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment
There are many facets to the technology maturity of a transit system or the transit systems in a state. One might consider: • Knowledge about how technology can assist the agency in fulfilling Chapter 3 describes the current functions state of technology in Greater MN. It reviews plans, summarizes the • Familiarity with and implementation of a variety of technology technology assessment survey and solutions N-CATT Technology Summit, and • Organizational capacity to implement and maintain digital discusses some of the needs. technology If you are not familiar with issues • Level of connectivity and redundancy in systems (internet, cell impacting Greater MN, please skim phone, and two-way radio coverage) this chapter. • Knowledge of issues and ability to manage aspects such as maintaining high quality data and integration among technology applications • Ability to procure technology that is a best fit
This chapter provides the facts about existing and planned technology, gathered through a review of existing and related planning documents and an extensive online survey that probed the status of technology currently used by transit systems in Minnesota as well as their needs and preferences. This assessment was also informed by participation in the four-day NCATT Technology Summit, through follow-up discussions with staff from a variety of agencies, and through virtual discussions held with groups of stakeholders to delve deeper into specific transit service provider issues.
As the project continues, goals and criteria will be identified against which technology maturity can be measured and tracked over time.
Existing Plans Summary
Like many states, Minnesota is facing some challenges that will impact the transportation system. Aging populations, aging infrastructure, climate change, funding limitations, and changes to travel behavior are some of these challenges. The Covid-19 pandemic illustrates the immensity of the challenges faced by transit systems as well as the critical role of these services. To better understand the needs, challenges and solutions, the project team reviewed plans from MnDOT, Minnesota’s transit systems, Greater Minnesota regions, and other state and national plans. Brief summaries of those plans, and their application to this Plan can be found below.
Minnesota Statewide Regional ITS Architecture Plan
The Minnesota Statewide Regional ITS Architecture Plan Version 2018 the deployment and integration of ITS systems and technology statewide. This document also gives guidance on how each technology helps meet different goals and objectives, including those for the transit mode. The intelligent transportation systems (ITS) plan identifies a strong focus for transportation systems as a
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 20 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 whole, including items like transit signal priority (TSP). The plan identifies some items relevant to transit systems including 1) identification of existing transit systems, and 2) ITS to allow transit systems to operate more efficiently (including scheduling software, computer-aided dispatch (CAD), automatic vehicle location (AVL), and mobile data terminals (MDT). Public transit systems were part of the stakeholders for this statewide plan. The plan prioritized the following needs and potential transit technology solutions: • Provide transit route and schedule information • Provide real-time transit vehicle arrival/departure and load information • Provide simple and flexible fare payment systems • Coordinate timed transfers between route segments, providers, modes • Manage transit assets, fleet, and personnel operations • Provide surveillance and enforcement on transit vehicles and transit facilities • Provide for an electronic fare payment system
Some other key takeaways of the plan included the need for greater coordination amongst various transit/agency providers and their technology platforms. Transit systems have various platforms for different tasks (e.g., scheduling, phones, kiosks, etc.). These platforms are often unique to that transit system with little or no coordination between providers. There is a strong need for either common systems (all providers use the same vendor for a task like e-fare payments) or a way to integrate between various platforms. This integration could be established through a data exchange hub or APIs. This lack of software integration is not unique to transit systems; tolls and parking also are not integrated.
MnDOT Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) Planning Documents
The MnDOT Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) Planning documents include a Strategic Plan, and Implementation Plan, and a Business Plan. Together these plans identify challenges facing the transportation network, three main goals, and strategies: • Goal #1: Improve reliability, mobility, and efficiency • Goal #2: Improve safety • Goal #3: Carefully and Responsibly Manage Transportation Operations Assets
While the TSMO Plan has a focus on relieving traffic congestion (such as through traffic signal coordination or incident management), it does take a multimodal approach. The TSMO plan has important parallels to the development of this transit technology plan and some overlapping strategies. It also identifies how MnDOT has adapted to implement strategies across MnDOT offices and with other jurisdictions, working across programs. TSMO planning leads with function and takes a system engineering approach to problem solving, as does the Transit Technology Plan. As a result of the TSMO planning, MnDOT has developed a position of TSMO coordinator to implement the TSMO Plan and to “serve as a champion, advocate, educator, and collaborator of TSMO activities.” A
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 21 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 variety of other organizational structure or process changes are recommended.
Traffic signal priority is identified as a strategy and it is one that is included in some of the small urban area transit development plans. Also, Strategy #2 is to Increase MnDOT Usage of 3rd Party Data and Increase Sharing with Traveler Information Disseminators (e.g., Google, WAZE, etc.). MnDOT “provides an XML feed of all MnDOT generate event and condition reports, allowing third- party information disseminators to ingest the data from MnDOT and disseminate it. In this capacity, MnDOT and the Minnesota travelers benefit from the sophisticated information dissemination infrastructures created by third-party providers such as WAZE, INRIX, HERE, Google, and Streetlight Data. Specific activities in this strategy may include continuing the XML data feed, expanding the data included in the feed (possibly considering CAV data) and also expanding outreach to third-party providers to ensure they are informed about the availability of the information.” 4 This shows the expertise within MnDOT regarding data management and using infrastructure created by third-party providers. While the data streams discussed in the Transit Technology plans are different one, there are important parallels and MnDOT has capacity in this area.
A final comment is that the Strategic Plan document notes that “MnDOT will leverage TSMO to strategically and cost-effectively maintain, upgrade and operate transportation assets. It will also support research and development, training, and pilot demonstrations to prepare MnDOT and its partners for emerging technologies. Finally, it will support agency policies, processes, resources, decision-making and organizational structure to manage risk, spur innovation and increase MnDOT’s adaptive capacity.” 5
Minnesota Walks
The 2016 Minnesota Walks plan, led by the Minnesota departments of health and transportation, focuses on efforts to increase walkability in Minnesota. The plan recognizes the public health benefits of walkable communities and identifies the barriers to walking. These barriers include a lack of sidewalks (including areas with transit stops and insufficient/unsafe walking areas (overgrown vegetation, cracked concrete, snow/ice). These barriers discourage people from walking so the plan created solutions to encourage walking. This particularly applies to first/last mile connections and transfers between buses. The plan encourages coordination between Minnesota’s transit systems. The Minnesota Walks plan does not focus on technology, but the plan suggests applications for technology that might improve transit access such as a tool to report sidewalk issues (e.g., geocoded location of potholes, cracks, etc.) that are reported to local public works departments.
Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan
The 2017 Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan acts as a strategic plan for MnDOT to help distribute financial assistance to the more than 50 transit systems operating in Greater Minnesota, which includes all areas of 80 counties outside the Twin Cities. Goal 2 is Improve coordination of
4 MnDOT TSMO Implementation Strategies Reference, June 2019, Appendix C page C-10. 5 MnDOT TSMO Strategic Plan, June 2019, page 7.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 22 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 services to meet transportation needs and includes five strategies. Several of these strategies could be supported by technology. The plan notes that the “Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and MnDOT, in collaboration with other agencies, are working to create Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils (RTCC)” and that coordination between transportation providers and service agencies has been a long-term goal.
Goal 1, which speaks to enhancing public transportation includes a strategy, 1.6, to develop clear, comprehensive, and accessible public information about transit services. The community input received for this plan indicates the need for trip planning software and GTFS data collection. Through statewide and/or regional trip planners, riders could easily research available transit options and schedules. This solution could be enhanced to include a trip booking solution (requiring e-fare software) making transit use easier for Minnesotans. The benefits of these solutions align with other plan goals, including the Minnesota Go vision for an integrated multimodal transportation system. One possible solution for this would be to expand the current 511 system to include multimodal transit information and trip planning.
Transportation Development Plans (TDPs)
TDPs for the small urban areas were generally developed in 2016 or 2017. As a result, they may not reflect current plans. The following summary covers the plans but also includes information from agency websites. It is worth noting that generally when the TDPs addressed technology, they focused on customer-facing applications, such as trip planning, mobile apps, and real-time tracking of routes. They rarely delve into the foundations that make such customer-facing applications possible. The technologies that support internal operations, such as maintenance and asset management, accounting, human resources, or scheduling and dispatch, are rarely mentioned. Traditional TDPs have focused mainly on customer improvements involving capital and service operations (hours of service, days of service) with more limited considerations for technology improvements. Capital improvements such as the development of a transit signal priority system or costly on-board technology (e.g. a new farebox system) are often included due to their impact on the budget. Ideally, these planning documents are supported by internal processes that address the functions needed to make plans a reality.
Duluth Transit Authority (DTA)
The TDP reports that DTA currently uses Trapeze software for service, CAD-AVL, APC and scheduling. The TDP clearly identified technology options and benefits, with a description of how customer facing technology, such as real-time bus arrival information, mobile application fare payment, and electronic fareboxes can improve the customer experience. Development of a DTA application for real-time information was underway at the time the TDP was prepared. The completion of the DTA App, updating the website, and other early action items have been completed. The website prominently displays options for real time bus tracking and trip planning. Also included in the capital plan are: • Expand Server Infrastructure and ITS Updates (2017, 2019, 2021) • Mobile Device Application (2017-2019)
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 23 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
• Website Redesign (2018-2019) • Fare Payment and Farebox Replacement (2018) • Real-Time Signage (2017) • Transit Signal Priority (2017, 2021)
DTA has purchased Gen-Fare electronic fareboxes but has decided to use the Masabi system for electronic fare payment. DTA is using the TransitApp for trip planning, in which Masabi is embedded.
East Grand Forks - Cities Area Transit (CAT)
The 2017 TDP does not directly address transit technology, although some related projects show up in the capital plan. The capital plan is divided between Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, but one gets a more complete picture by looking at both. For Grand Forks, the plan includes digital way signs (2019), destination signs (2019), and fare collection vaults/software and server (2019). For East Grand Forks, the purchase ticket vending equipment in 2019 and card vending equipment in 2022.
In the public engagement section, the plan noted, “There is a strong sentiment among current and potential users that information about the system is lacking, most specifically information via electronic means and tools. The lack of response to the online survey used as part of the public input process exposed a clear digital gap between CAT and its most reliable customers.”
The website shows that Cities Area Transit has the CAT Prowler Application that allows riders to track buses and plan trips in real time. This indicates that both standard GTFS and GTFS Realtime data is collected. The application was developed by GMV Syncromatics.
La Crosse - Municipal Transit Utility (MTU)
The La Crosse MTU is guided by a Service Enhancement and Policy Plan covering 2015-2025. This is a solid and traditional service planning document, but with scant mention of technology other than the value of an automatic vehicle location system. This improvement was programmed in a phased development starting in the mid-range investment period of 2018-2022.
In the public input portion riders commented on the need for information such as: • GPS on all buses; use in Smartphone application and bus locator boards • Mobility application or phone (SMS) ability to find out where your bus is • Improve website: ability to purchase passes; ability to comment; transfers between MTU and OHWSPT; post route deviations, promotions, etc. on front page • Update stop locations on Google Transit • Route information on bus stop signs
The La Crosse MTU website shows they have installed the Google Trip Planner, so they are now providing a GTFS static data feed and possibly a GTFS-Realtime.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 24 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Mankato
The Greater Mankato Transit System (GMTS) Transit Development Plan was prepared in 2018 and has a focus on service redesign and organizational structure. However, a supporting Marketing and Communications Report does address online materials, communications and feedback channels, and new media and technologies with recommendations in each area. This report notes that GMTS already uses real-time data feeds to improve services and recommends the development of a mobile-friendly data-driven GMTS web application. Specific technology investments were not identified in the plan as capital investments were grouped together.
The Bus Mankato live bus tracker application has been developed and can be found on the website.
Moorhead - MATBUS
The TDP for the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area covered 2016-2020 and the region is embarking on an updated plan. The current plan emphasizes transit services, organizational structure, and coordination among providers. It does not call out technology other than to identify a technology department in its discussion of organizational structures.
The MATBUS website does show a trip planner and live bus tracking (optimized for mobile viewing). The system uses smartcards for fare payment, with an updated version introduced in October of 2019.
Rochester
The Rochester Public Transit (RPT) TDP is a very high-level plan that only briefly touches on response to technology. RPT is undertaking extensive technology activities as part of their internal operations. As with other TDP’s, the orientation of this plan is on service development.
The TDP notes (page 265) that “technology improvements are vital to support growth in the transit network” and that “RPT has plans to improve the AVL system by installing bus stop annunciators which provide audible announcement of the next bus stop location onboard the bus. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is proposed along two corridors in 2018, along 2nd Street SW between Trunk Highway 52 and Broadway, and the Broadway North corridor between 2nd Street SW and 19th Street NE.”
RPT is using DoubleMap to provide real time bus tracking. There is a static GTFS feed that enables one to use Google Maps to do trip planning.
St. Cloud Metro Bus
The St. Cloud TDP recommends a number of initiatives that Saint Cloud Metro Bus could pursue: • Bus Stop Annunciator System • Real time Bus Tracking • Transit Signal Priority
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 25 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
A trip planner is now available on their website and Metro Bus is preparing for installation of new fareboxes for the system, including Fixed Route, Dial-a-Ride, ConneX and Northstar Link buses. The website announced in August 2020 that “touchless pay options will be available using the new Metro Bus Smart Ride Card and mobile phone application known as the Smart Ride App. Cash fares and Smart Ride Tickets for short-term use will also be available across all services.”
Public Transit Coordinated Plans
All transit providers serving people with disabilities, older adults and people with disabilities funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310, are required to have a locally developed coordinated public transit- human service plan. Each region in Minnesota has developed a coordinated plan (Regions 6 and 7 have eastern and western plans for their regions). In review of these plans, several key themes arose between the regions. While expanding transit service hours and boundaries was among the most pressing needs, there were several technology themes expressed to increase coordination. Those needs included: • Trip planning software. Riders want to know transit options and schedules electronically through a website or mobile app • Electronic fare system. Cost has prohibited many Greater Minnesota transit systems from purchasing e-fare systems (e.g., smart cards) however there is a demonstrated need for it • Coordinated dispatch. Transit systems have expressed the benefits of a coordinated dispatch system but are slow to make this transition
While some regions have made progress with these needs between the 2011 and 2017 plans, some are still working towards achieving these goals.
National and Other State Plans
The consulting team reviewed other plans from other state DOT’s that were identified as useful peers (e.g., Nebraska DOT, Colorado DOT) and national organizations (e.g., National Center for Mobility Management, Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program) that included a few themes to consider when developing the Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan: • There is a strong need for coordination among providers, human service agencies and DOT’s. Key features include: o Implementation of statewide and regional coordinating councils/committees that meet frequently. o Mobility Managers are crucial to success and are needed in each region. These Mobility Managers are champions of transit, advocating for the needs of transit dependent populations and the general public. o Robust marketing/outreach campaigns. • Integrating technology into transit services can help increase efficiencies, optimize service delivery, and improve customer information. o To better integrate these technology solutions in a sustainable manner, there is a need
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 26 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Existing Plans Summary TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
for shared transactional data specifications. TCRP Report 210 developed these specifications. o There is a need for transit systems to implement data sharing policies and agreements while protecting the privacy of their riders. • Technological innovation has made huge changes to the transportation landscape nationally. Transit systems are finding a need to respond to a world of autonomous cars, vehicle safety technology, AVL, Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), electric scooters and more.
Some of these technologies make transit safer and more effective while others make things more complicated for transit systems and/or drivers to navigate.
Summary of Existing Plan Review
There are recurring themes and goals among existing transportation plans in Minnesota around enhanced transit services, improved customer information, and the importance of coordination. In turn, the goals and strategies in the plans reflect current industry trends and issues. Many of the strategies can be supported or assisted by current technology.
At the same time, generally the plans do not directly address questions of how to implement or achieve the desired outcomes. These plans are public or stakeholder-facing and the detail of how to achieve the goals is left to the implementation phase. When it comes to the issue of coordination, it is important to acknowledge that coordination is difficult to accomplish and is often over-sold. It can be seen as a panacea to a variety of issues without understanding the practical difficulties that arise when trying to coordinate between human service programs with different eligibility or allowable trip purposes. Based on this review, it appears important that this Greater Figure 3-1: Respondents by Type of Agency MN Transit Technology Plan identify Tribal processes that will aid in 6% implementation of the consensus Small N = 35 goals and strategies. It will also be Urban useful to identify specific steps or 20% milestones that will support managing progress towards meeting the consensus goals. Online Survey To better understand the current state of transit technology, a technology information survey was Rural distributed to Greater Minnesota 74% transit systems on July 31, 2020 through Survey Monkey. Participants
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 27 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Online Survey TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 also had the option to handwrite answers on an emailed version. Thirty-five (35) of the 42 transit systems responded to the survey.
The survey questions were used to assess each agency's organizational capacity and technology tools. The respondents also identified gaps and the priorities of the agencies in addressing these gaps. Following is a summary of the survey results. Full survey responses and additional information can be found in Appendix C. Survey Results Figure 3.2: Computer Networks by Type of Agency Basic Information
The majority of the transit systems in 25 the state have an IT infrastructure in Rural place to set them up for success. 20 Most have networked computer Small Urban systems, allowing for easy transfer of 15 Tribal files and backup systems in place. Agencies have reliable internet which 10 is especially important as most software systems rely on cloud-based 5 storage solutions. Some agencies report difficulties with internet 0 speed, particularly in rural areas. Stand-alone Local internal Part of larger Other system network - agency transit only network Most transit systems have dedicated IT staff or IT contracts to help service their computers. Transit systems reported that these staff members Figure 3.3: How do you service computer systems? have some capacity to take on new IT initiatives. Additionally, transit 25 systems reported having cyber security practices implemented. 20 Having a sufficient IT infrastructure in place allows transit systems to 15 perform their jobs without interruption. This infrastructure also 10 allows the agencies to implement technology solutions that can help 5 create efficiencies or increase effectiveness of the transit system 0 and/or staff. Dedicated IT Staff with IT Contract out Other staff in your skills w/ other Some areas that could improve the agency duties transit agencies include backup
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 28 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 internet and call queueing/reporting: • 71% of agencies do not have backup internet • 53% of agencies have phone systems with call center capabilities such as call queueing and call volume reporting
Website and Social Media
When assessing how transit systems communicate with riders, all agencies Figure 3.4: What is on your website? responded that they have websites in place. Most agencies use the website Place a ride request to post static information like fare information, rider responsibilities and Buy a ticket general information about their services. Comments/complaints Some transit systems use social media to communicate with their Rider responsibilities riders with Facebook being the most popular social media tool. Like Fare Information websites, social media is mostly utilized for information that does not change. Some agencies use social Transit service info media to post service changes like 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 weather delays/closures.
Figure 3.5: What types of social media do you use?
Other
None
YouTube
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 29 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Communications
Communication between drivers and Figure 3.6: Means of Communication dispatchers is a key component to a transit system success. Drivers need a 30 method to alert dispatchers to schedule deviations, issues with 25 customers and/or vehicles and more. Dispatchers also need to alert drivers 20 to schedule changes, route deviations, etc. Transit systems are 15 split with how they communicate between dispatchers and drivers. 10
Of the 35 agencies that responded to 5 this question, 80% use two-way radios, 77% use tablets and 57% use 0 cell phones for communication. Two-way Cellphones Tablets/MDT Other radios
Most Greater Minnesota transit systems rely on multiple means of communication between drivers and dispatch. This is because there are Figure 3.7: Number of Methods Used to Communicate connectivity issues throughout parts of the state. 16 14
12
We have been able to maintain a 10 good cycle of replacing equipment as it ages, and in doing so we had very 8 few issues with equipment failure and 6 downtime. We also have a very reliable ISP which helps immensely 4 with downtime. In recent years we 2 have been able to digitalize our shop inventory and our timekeeping 0 One Two Three systems. This has helped in several ways for bus maintenance and optimization of workloads.
-Rainbow Rider Transit System
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 30 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Connectivity issues Figure 3.8: Are there connectivity issues?
Most transit systems (62%) reported 20 connectivity issues in the survey (see map 18 below for the geographic areas), with reported 16 issues occurring in rural and Tribal areas. 14 12 To determine the severity of connectivity 10 8 issues, a follow up survey was completed 6 during the N-CATT Technology Summit 4 through the Poll Everywhere tool at 2 www.pollev.com. The follow-up survey results 0 No Yes found: • 52% of agencies indicated the SmallUrban Rural Tribal
connectivity disruptions occurred daily Figure 3.9: Communications: Do you have… ? or weekly • 13% reported monthly disruptions 40 • 34% reported minor to no disruptions 35 30
25 Figure 3.10: Transit Systems Reporting 20 Connectivity Issues 15 10 5 0 Phones with Reliable Internet Backup Internet queuing No Yes
Technology infrastructure most challenging for our organization is…] Bad cell tower connections for communicating with bus tablets and AVLs. -Paul Bunyan Transit
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 31 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Service Delivery
There are three main types of public transportation service delivery: fixed route, flexible route, and demand response. Many systems operate more multiple modes of service. The majority of Greater Minnesota transit agencies operate Figure 3.11: Type of Service Operated demand response or flexible route services. • Fixed route service is public bus transportation that Demand Response operates on both a fixed timetable and route. Passengers board/depart the Flexible fixed route systems at designated bus stops. Fixed route services are generally Fixed offered in higher density population areas. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 • Flexible route services can often follow a fixed route
system with the ability to deviate from the route, typically within a specific area, to pick up a passenger. For example, the bus can pick up a rider ¾ mile away from the bus stop. • Demand response services are not bound by a route or timetable but rather are services in which clients can request a trip based on individual points of origin and destination and, within limited guidelines, the provider will accommodate. Demand response service is generally designed to serve older adults, people with disabilities and low-income populations.
A review of survey responses, websites for trip planners, and Google maps for the following systems showed where transit directions are available. The ability to obtain transit directions indicates a static GTFS feed is in place. Most, but not all trip planners have real time bus information, indicating GTFS Realtime is in place.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 32 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Table 3.2: GTFS and Trip Planners in Small Urban Areas
Transit directions Website shows mobile Static or live feed City/System in Google maps? app and/or trip planner
Duluth Transportation TransitApp Live feed Authority
East Grand Forks – Cities CAT Prowler App Live feed Area Transit developed by GMV Syncromatics
La Cross Municipal MTU trip planner Static feed Transit Utility
Mankato – City Bus Bus Mankato -- live bus Live feed tracker
Moorhead - MATBUS Yes Static feed
Rochester Public Transit Yes – DoubleMap Live feed
St. Cloud - Metro Bus MetroBus Trip Planner Static at present; new application being developed
Of the transit systems offering flexible or demand response services, Figure 3.12: Trip Scheduling Systems 87% have trip scheduling software. Trip scheduling software allows Manual, 1 agencies to schedule runs, often Spreadsheet, 3 allow for subscription service trips (trips that are repeated on a regular basis), act as a client/rider repository, and have reporting functionality that allows agencies to better track metrics. Greater Minnesota transit systems use a variety of trip Software, 26 scheduling software vendors. RouteMatch is the predominant vendor with ten installations but other vendors include CES, CTS, Shah, Trapeze, and Tripspark.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 33 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Vehicles and Trips
A variety of questions were asked regarding various technologies found in vehicles or that can assist with trips. These questions included if transit systems had cameras on vehicles, annunciators, AVL, etc. Some key findings include: • Every transit agency that Figure 3.13: Does your system have…? completed the survey has cameras on vehicles.
• 27 out of 35 respondents BusTracking (77%) use automatic vehicle location (AVL), yet 78% of the Annunciators providers answered that there is not a way for Cameras customers to know the location of the vehicle they Trip Discovery are expecting. This is potentially an opportunity for AVL some training to utilize the AVL feature either by the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 software vendor or a train- Yes No the-trainer type scenario.
Figure 3.14: Fare Types Accepted
E-fare system with mobile application
E-fare system with ability to look up the value if card is lost
E-fare system in which the value is stored on the card
Cash, paper ticket, or pass
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 34 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
What we would like to see is greater interoperability between scheduling, payment, and reporting software. Not necessarily a single program but programs that meet a single data standard to enable communications between multiple providers and vendors. -Arrowhead Transit
Fares The majority of transit systems have flat fare structures and accept cash, paper tickets, tokens and/or passes. There is a strong desire among the respondents to implement e-fare systems, particularly in the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Only six providers (18%) have or are in the process of developing e-fare systems. They include: In place: Three rural, one Tribal • Chisago-Isanti • Semcac/Rolling Hills Transit • Minnesota River Valley Transit Under development: Two small urban • County Heartland Express • White Earth Public Transit
Management
The management section asked questions about technology utilization for tracking employee records, maintenance, and assets. Most transit systems utilize technology to track these tasks, particularly for asset management. Numerous agencies reported using a combination of tools including spreadsheets, electronic calendars, and a manual system. These systems are used to track employee hours, training, license status and preventive maintenance.
Technical Support/Technology Improvements
Transit systems were asked to rank a list of 12 items on how helpful they would be to their organization. Respondents were able to rank the helpfulness of each item on a scale that included not at all, moderately, very, and not sure/not applicable. The top six areas where assistance is needed, listed in order, are: 1. Procurement of technology 2. How to use technology to improve operations/assessing overall technology needs 3. Website ideas, content, maintenance 4. Scheduling and management software 5. Helping customers plan across multiple providers 6. Customer information software options
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 35 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Survey Results TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Transit systems were then asked to rank the benefit of 14 tools using the same metric mentioned above. Transit systems thought the following tools would be most helpful: 1. Scheduling software 2. Dispatch/route optimization, 3. Find my bus application 4. Scheduling application for riders to book rides 5. Coordination across providers 6. Prepaid fare cards Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives
MnDOT and its transit systems have undertaken a variety of initiatives around the development of technology, pursuing grants and programs to aid in the digital transition. Several of these are described here. Some are completed and some are underway.
N-CATT Technology Summit
MnDOT applied for and received a grant from the National Center for Applied Transit Technology to host a Technology Summit for Greater Minnesota transit systems. The four-day virtual event was held August 17-20, 2020 and included regional breakout sessions. Sessions included technology function considerations, a structured approach to planning and deploying technology, utility cost analysis, and key themes. The non-prioritized themes include:
Theme 1: Coordinated Back Offices / Goal: Cross-Agency Demand-Response Booking • Step 1: Build out GTFS, GTFS-Flex • Step 2: Integrate transactional data specification where relevant • Step 3: Review Scheduling & Dispatch software to maximize what’s there • Step 4: Inventory of the components necessary to implement effective real-time scheduling and dispatch system to make cross-agency booking easier
Theme 2: Universal Trip Planner / Goal: Create One-Stop-Shop for Passengers to Book Trips • Step 1: Discuss one-call/one-click centers by district • Step 2: Integrate human service providers • Step 3: Spec the tech. Real-time info, fare payment, provider aggregator and consider broker model • Step 4: Develop trip planning application at state level; leave open API to encourage other platforms to join
Theme 3: Mobility Management / Goal: Direct Customers to the Rides that Best Fits Need • Step 1: Aggregate available transit opportunities across regions, including human service options
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 36 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
• Step 2: Work with RTCCs to establish mobility management framework, TMCCs • Step 3: Continuously work with RTCCs to maintain connection between MM and technological tools
Theme 4: Data Collection / Goal: Seamless Collection and Reduced Silos • Step 1: Review collected data points to balance information and overload • Step 2: Review performance metrics to account for cross-agency coordination • Step 3: Scope tech to make performance metrics easier to collect, connect to NTD reporting • Step 4: Research planning decisions – GIS, GPS data, travel patterns within/across service areas
Theme 5: Filling Coverage Gaps / Goal: Eliminate Cell/Radio Coverage Gaps • Step 1: Assess statewide coverage gaps • Step 2: Identify priority areas • Step 3: Identify funding and infrastructure opportunities to add capacity
Theme 6: Statewide Program Management / Goal: Coordinate Recommendations and Tools (includes asset management, eligibility processes, schedule & dispatch and route optimization tools, training) • Step 1: Identify agencies interested in procuring tools as groups • Step 2: Explore statewide or regional policies for consistency in providing cross-system trip coordination • Step 3: Identify contract specifications, language, scoping, to drive software providers to adapt • Step 4: Standardize eligibility processes related to cross-regional/statewide trip coordination
Theme 7: Group procurement / Goal: Develop Streamlined Procurement Tool • Step 1: Integrate Needs Assessments • Step 2: Identify component systems and software needs for procurement • Step 3: Develop state facilitated RFI/RFP for software that agencies can choose to opt into • Step 4: Develop statewide data collection solution (could include fare collection, scheduling, dispatch, or ridership)
During the Technology Summit, the Supervisor of the, Data, Asset Management, and Innovation unit announced that MnDOT is in the process of writing the scope of work to build a web-based procurement solution. Transit systems were thrilled to learn this as procurement has been a challenge for them.
While these themes and goals were developed by the N-CATT team, this Plan will consider them and apply them when possible. A benefit of the Technology Summit was that it established a framework for the transit systems to think about technology: 1) considering the key functions technology needs to provide, 2) an approach to planning out, procuring and deploying technology solutions and 3) a cost analysis of the technology solution (monetary, labor, etc.). That framework will help the Steering Committee to make decisions for the Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 37 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Grants for Technology Initiatives
MnDOT was awarded a Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative (VTCLI) grant, leveraging Title III funds to develop a statewide One-Call/One-Click Center through a project called Minnesota Ride Link. MnDOT partnered with MinnesotaHelp Network™ to expand the existing One- Call/One-Click centers (called Linkage Lines) to include Veterans, older adults and people with disabilities. Call center software was purchased through these efforts which allowed for a centralized phone number through which calls were directed to one of the five regional call centers which provide information, assistance, and warm referrals. The Minnesota Ride Link project encountered challenges during the project both with HIPAA compliance complications, and the vast knowledge of multiple services required of call center operators. While the MinnesotaHelp Network still exists, transportation assistance duties have shifted to the Minnesota Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils (RTCC) and Transit Coordination Assistance Projects (TCAP).
In 2020, the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency (AEOC), a non-profit organization that provides transit, housing, employment, training and Head Start services to seven counties in northeast Minnesota, received FTA Integrated Mobility Innovation (IMI) funding linking rural residents to “multiple public transit systems using on-demand transit and private taxi providers to enhance first mile/last mile options for riders. The project will include an online portal and website focused on coordinating rural transportation services.”
MnDOT was awarded an FTA FY20 Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) grant to create a regional platform that will “enable multi-modal trip planning and payment for residents in a 13-county area in southern Minnesota. The project will integrate transportation services across rural, small urban and large urban communities and inform strategies for increasing transit ridership and improving service quality, especially in rural areas.” 6
The Headwaters Regional Development Commission and the Northwest Regional Development Commission were selected to attend a National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM) training to learn how to establish and/or expand a One-Call/One-Click Center in the fall of 2020.
Broadband Connectivity Efforts
In 2011, Governor Dayton established a Broadband Task Force tasked with improving internet access for Minnesotans. Through these efforts and the work of the Office of Broadband Development, a program of the State of Minnesota Employment and Economic Development, there is now a state goal that “(1) no later than 2022, all Minnesota businesses and homes have access to high-speed broadband that provides minimum download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second and minimum upload speeds of at least three megabits per second; and (2) no later than 2026, all Minnesota businesses and homes have access to at least one provider of broadband with download
6 https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/integrated-mobility-innovation-imi-fiscal-year-2019- selected-projects
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 38 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of at least 20 megabits per second.” 7
The Office of Broadband Development created the Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program to expand broadband services to un/underserved areas of Minnesota. The 2019 Legislature appropriated $20 million for the two-year program. The map below shows availability by county. Figure 3.15: 2020 Broadband Availability
Map courtesy of MN Department of Employment and Economic Development.
7 https://mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/goals/
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 39 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Greater Minnesota Technology Initiatives TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Regional Coordination
In the Greater MN Transit Investment Plan, Goal 2 is Improve coordination of services to meet transportation needs.8 The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and MnDOT, in collaboration with other agencies, are working to create Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils (RTCC). Coordination between transportation providers and service agencies has been a long-term goal and strategy to fill transportation gaps, provide more service with the same or fewer resources, streamline access to transportation and provide customers more options of where and when to travel.9 A series of strategies are included in the plan and implementation is underway.
Regional Transportation Coordinating Councils (RTCC) in Greater Minnesota and Transit Coordination Assistance Projects (TCAP) in metro areas, have been developed by the Minnesota Council on Transportation Access (MCOTA) to improve mobility options for those with limited transportation options. Through coordination among transportation providers, service agents, and the private sector, the RTCCs and TCAPs work to achieve three outcomes: 1. Identify and reduce transportation gaps 2. Streamline access to transportation 3. Provide more transportation options
There are 12 RTCCs working to increase regional coordination in Greater Minnesota. In meeting with the RTCCs, it was evident that the RTCC staff members are passionate about increasing transportation options for those in need and dedicated to these efforts. RTCCs are looking to make transportation as easy, and accessible, as possible to the public. MnDOT supports and oversees the RTCCs. MnDOT has laid out a clear implementation framework, outlining three unique phases, setting the RTCCs up for success.
The work of the RTCCs could be facilitated by a variety of customer-facing technology systems. These include mapping and trip planning technologies and applications that identify human service transportation options and multi-modal travel options. Coordination between human service transportation and public transit agencies would also require back-office solutions that would support items such as eligibility determination and having program funding follow the client trips.
Conclusions
Review of the current plans, existing technologies, initiatives, and Please read this conclusions section coordination efforts indicate there is inconsistent technology use between then respond to the question at the the regions and transit systems within the state. Some regions/transit end. systems have robust technology systems, ample grant funding, and organizational capacity to implement new technology solutions. Other regions/transit systems are understandably caught up in the day to day transportation issues and indicated less time available
8 Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan, May 2017, page 63 9 Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan, May 2017, pages 63-64.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 40 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Regional Coordination TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020 to learn about new technologies, apply for funding or implement new technology. MnDOT will need to pay special attention to the latter group to provide additional technical assistance with implementation of the Transit Technology Plan and to ensure transit funding is distributed in an equitable manner.
The variety of technical knowledge about the technology solutions presents a training challenge for MnDOT. “How to use technology to improve operations/assessing overall technology needs” was the second highest item for transit systems when asked to rank a list of helpful items. There is clearly a desire for transit systems to learn/know more. For the regions, transit systems, agencies, and MnDOT to move forward with this Transit Technology Plan, a shared language and understanding of technology is needed first. The TransitPlus consulting team will hold an educational webinar to start that conversation; the terminology in Chapter 2 will be a good reference document for these agencies moving forward as well.
There are no clear standards, interfaces or tools utilized which makes coordination and information gathering difficult. The need for coordination amongst Minnesota’s transit systems, human service agencies, the RTCCs and MnDOT was a recurring theme expressed by local, state, and national plans. Coordination efforts will need to be prioritized with resources allocated to help aid coordination. These efforts will need to include development and adoption of data standards and technology tools to ease coordination efforts; this could be a state-wide trip planner, a data exchange, etc.
The need for trip planning software (and, thus, GTFS data collection (preferably GTFS Realtime) was a recurring theme and plan priority. Transit systems recognized this need when asked to rank helpful technology tools: Find my Bus application was the third-highest priority. Riders expressed the desire for this service (as well as trip planning, mobile booking, and an e-fare system) through feedback received in the public outreach process.
The top two helpful technology tools identified included scheduling software and dispatch/route optimization. While 87% of demand response transit systems currently have scheduling software, many articulated frustrations with their current software system and are interested in a change.
It is worth noting that the need for an e-fare system was a recurring theme, especially in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. All interested parties recognized the need for this service. Some expressed the need to coordinate e-fare systems so that money can readily be exchanged between providers.
Lastly, procurement of technology was an area where transit service providers expressed needing assistance. MnDOT has announced that they are working on a solution for addressing procurement, an important step. MnDOT can also consider taking pre-qualifying a list of technology vendors ● In what ways do these resonate for key technology products, such as scheduling software. This may include with you? that vendors selected meet certain standards and have the ability to ● What questions or concerns do interface with one another. you have? ● What’s missing?
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 41 Chapter 3: Technology Maturity Assessment, Section - Conclusions TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings Introduction and Approach Interviews were conducted with The study team interviewed a variety of peer agencies and industry peer agencies of varying sizes to experts. The objective of the peer review task was to interview agencies of learn about their approaches to varying sizes to learn about their approach to technology. Peer agencies technology and lessons learned. were interviewed regarding their approach to implementing technology, Chapters 4 and 5 will be the focus including challenges or barriers to implementation, prioritization and of the next Steering Committee lessons learned. The objective of the industry expert review task was to meeting and future goal setting and gain an understanding of trends in the transit technology industry and the objectives. Please read these two resulting opportunities for transit systems in Greater Minnesota and chapters carefully. MnDOT.
The study team drafted a list of interviewees based on knowledge of the industry, then worked with MnDOT to enhance that list. Interview invitations were sent to agencies requesting 60-minute interviews. Table 4.1 below lists the interviews which were analyzed and further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Interviewees were selected based on several criteria including: • The study team’s knowledge of technology efforts the agency or vendor have are undertaking, • A recommendation by the MnDOT project manager, or • A recommendation by an agency or vendor regarding an innovative partnership or project.
When reaching out to interviewees, the study team sought out an information technology (IT) project or program manager, an executive director, or the individual(s) responsible for technology innovation projects, such as pilots, within each agency. The invitation described the project briefly, particularly the interest in their technology stack, so the appropriate interview respondents could be identified. Through the interviews, interviewees noted similar sentiments with respect to how their organization could be more effective, how they make decisions about technology, and what their priorities and next steps are. The interviews focused on specific rider-facing technologies such as trip planning, electronic fare payment, and schedule and dispatch tools, but were open-ended as well to invite the participants to share lessons learned. Because the study team heard several key themes across organizations, the insights are separated into two chapters. Chapter 4 focuses primarily on the key themes identified from the peer agencies. Chapter 5 is organized around Technology Trends and Opportunities, and how agencies are using resources to research, plan for and implement a technology program that aligns their needs with promising market trends and opportunities.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 42 Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Introduction and Approach TransitPlus Team Technical Memorandum One -DRAFT 11-02-2020
Table 4.1: Interview Participants and their Organizations Interviewee Organization Role Technology/Purpose
Ross MacDonald Vermont Agency of Public Transit Planner and GTFS-Flex and statewide trip Transportation Coordinator planner Ruth Miller CalTrans Product Manager State-level support for smaller agencies Matthew Barnes Oregon DOT Transit Network Manager Statewide GTFS and GTFS-flex and Sarah data, statewide trip planner Hackett Ryan Taylor Utah Transit Coordinated Mobility Regional One-Call/One-Click, open Authority Manager source DRT system Mindi Knebel, KaizenHealth Technology/Partnership HIPAA compliance; paratransit + Megan Project Manager for GO!Bus NEMT brokerage as pilot with The Hannagan, Pilot Rapid, Grand Rapids MI Gillian Robinson Steve Weekley OATS Missouri Executive Director Statewide coordination; mature program that predates many existing technologies; offers DRT and deviated fixed routes Cara Marcus National RTAP Project Manager - Tribal General technology and training and Liz Taylor Training Director Janet Geissler Michigan DOT Mobility Innovations Pilot planning, implementation, and Jean Specialist and Head of and evaluation; innovative Ruestman Office of Passenger technologies Transport Tim Geibel and CATA Pennsylvania Executive Director and Rural transit agency with 70 Kristin Arendash Planning Manager vehicles Leo Frachet MobilityData Executive Director Developing and maintaining GTFS specification Ritesh Warade IBI Group Director and Associate State of practice for DOTs engaging and Santosh Director with technology Mishra Gabrielle Florida DOT Research, Planning and Statewide research, planning and Matthews, Commuter Programs programming perspective David Sherman, Division Administrator and Chris Team Wiglesworth
Note: Other agencies that were not interviewed but were reviewed via TCRP reports included Lane Transit District in Oregon and the Flint MTA for their Rides to Wellness Program.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 43 Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Introduction and Approach
Summary of Key Findings
In terms of key findings, the study team consistently heard several Please give extra attention to the messages from agencies interviewed around setting goals, defining roles Summary of Key Findings starting and performance standards, and understanding the full capabilities of the here. For more information, read the technology that currently exists. Details on Key Findings on the following pages. Key Finding 1: Having clearly defined goals is a critical first step, and On page 51, please answer which champions are needed to communicate and advance those goals. key finding resonates most with you/your agency or transit systems. Multiple agencies noted that without a clear goal for what the technology brings to the organization, it is merely innovation for the sake of innovation. Understanding the technology or technology program and why it is needed is critical. This understanding should exist at all levels - from senior leadership at the DOT, to transit system dispatchers, as well as the What do you think of the idea of mechanics that might be involved with asset management tools. These “champions” as informal advocates? individuals do not need to be actively involved in implementation, but each Is it better to have these roles included in job descriptions? agency should have a champion for mobility and technology who can communicate with stakeholder groups.
Key Finding 2: After setting goals, performance measures and work plans should be regularly maintained.
Goals, performance measures and work plans will help an agency craft the right approach to procuring, implementing, upgrading, or retiring technology throughout its lifecycle.
For day-to-day software tools: Tools can be flexible and remain most useful if there is a process in place to evaluate technology performance and adjust software program settings to meet evolving needs. Just as At the Steering Committee meeting, there needs to be a champion to communicate, there should be staff who we will talk about what performance measures matter and how we could understand the full capabilities of the tools in order to ensure they are measure them to track progress being used to their full potential (and that potential is high if goals were towards meaningful goals. set prior to procurement).
For pilots and demonstrations: Keeping a close eye on performance measures and work plans will keep demonstration projects on track and avoid scope creep. It gives technology project managers something to point to when vendors are struggling to meet the schedule or requirements and provides a clear decision-making framework for ending a pilot or formalizing it as a permanent program.
Key Finding 3: Keep an eye on opportunities for coordination that align with agency/provider goals.
Transit is a complex program that could also set an example for using data for other modes and programs, as Cal-ITP intends to demonstrate. Some state DOTs found it beneficial to work with other offices or bureaus in their DOT, to capitalize on ITS, safety or other programming. Such collaboration is not a necessary element but keeping the broader DOT and transit providers statewide informed at a
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 44
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Summary of Key Findings
high-level can generate opportunities for collaboration and an understanding for the value organized data can bring to the agency. Other examples would be to keep a running list of grant deadlines and encourage providers or other agencies to partner for FTA and FHWA grants that support the complete trip. There may also be opportunities to invite FTA, universities, or other research organizations to do an independent evaluation of MnDOT and RTCC programs.
Key Finding 4: Technology is evolving quickly but getting fundamental building blocks in place - and maintaining them - should be an ongoing activity.
Many agencies are experimenting with new tools such as vehicle-pedestrian detection via a smartphone or piloting electronic fare payment. Even in this last FTA grant cycle, several awards were given to agencies for piloting integrated fare payment. There is still much to learn and there could be consolidation of vendors in this market in the next 3-5 years, which is an added challenge for procuring when long-term sustainability of the tools is a concern. However, there are several building blocks firmly in place (or far enough along in development) which MnDOT can put in place now to start seeing benefits statewide. These are briefly discussed in this chapter and will be elaborated on in a future project task (Task 2.5: Technology Standards).
Key Finding 5: The technology program must have a plan for sustaining data and covering ongoing costs.
Several worthy pilots were cancelled because the cost of the service or application was not sustainable. On the other hand, one very successful pilot (Rides to Wellness) was sustained, and the program managers give much credit to the fact that they set a price that covered operating costs. While new services or technology may cost more than existing programs, often agencies determine that the added cost is worth it in terms of employee or customer convenience, so long as it is meeting clearly defined goals as described in Key Finding 1. The path to a sustainable cost model might include a diversity of funding sources, centralized leadership, strong coordination at the state or regional level, statewide procurement strategies, or working with a group of providers on cost-sharing and cost-allocation models.
Several agencies (state and transit provider) also had a full-time staff person devoted to data analysis for continuous improvement. Vendors noted that maintaining clean, accurate data is a time-consuming and important undertaking that serves as the foundation for any technology program.
These key findings are striking in that, while the technology may be changing quickly, the approach to introducing and maintaining transit technology follows the trajectory of other transportation assets: understand the asset, take care of its components, support it with training, and make plans to replace or upgrade it. In other words, many interviewees essentially recommended a program management approach for DOT and transit system technology programs - where the hardware, software and data are all component assets of the technology program. The following subsections elaborate on each of these key findings and offer examples and additional context for the peer agencies.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 45
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Summary of Key Findings
Detail on Key Findings
The following subsections elaborate on the key findings using specific examples from the interviews.
Key Finding 1: Goal Setting and Defining Champions
A consistent theme heard from peer agencies is that champions for mobility as well as technology are needed for several reasons, including: • Maintaining energy, focus and commitment on new projects, as was the case with several technology pilots in Michigan. • Understanding the capabilities of the technology tools, what kind of data the tools generate, and how that data can be used to inform operations, as was mentioned by CATA Bus in Pennsylvania as well as Cal-ITP in California. • Coordinating communication and updates/upgrades with technology vendors and the IT program manager, as suggested by OATS in Missouri.
The key message was that data and technology can help agencies find efficiencies within the organization, but that this requires someone to focus on finding that information precisely in order to replicate the processes. In California, a small team of product managers and data analysts is fulfilling this role statewide for the most critical technology components (e.g., APC or AVL), whereas a single agency could choose to have an in-house data analyst to evaluate all the data being generated by every piece of technology (e.g., fleet management, scheduling and dispatching, and fare data). Florida DOT recently published a Transit Technology Primer on their Having goals around technology and champions who are website. It defines a process to vet assigned the responsibility to understand and manage that new technologies and filter out what technology was noted as one way to avoid innovation for technologies are needed and useful to the sake of innovation. Several peers noted that they do not transit providers in the state. Many want to buy something if they cannot justify a need for it. transit providers are solicited by a Defining the goals and a role for the technology helps variety of vendors and have no way of provide a check that every component is bringing value to knowing whether technology products the enterprise. This goal setting might also involve setting a are useful, or what their track record schedule and budget for replacement, e.g., where a state is in terms of implementation in the technology program seeks to replace 30% of a specific type state or other places. of equipment each year based on available budget, in order to bring all providers up-to-speed.
Key Finding 2: Performance Measures and Work Plans
Interviewees noted the importance of having work plans where other roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. In addition, performance measures are needed to describe how success will be defined and measured. Interviewees also noted that leadership needs to be flexible and adopt a learning mindset. Thus, the work plans and metrics should build in opportunities to document learning and adapt Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 46
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
to changes while being a resource that staff can use to build on in the future.
So how do agencies build structure into a fast-changing technology landscape, akin to building a bus as it drives down the road? Below are some strategies that different peers used: • Michigan DOT (MDOT) took on the role of facilitator for a series of statewide pilots (which they funded); and MDOT found that projects with defined milestones and benchmarks were the most likely to stay on track. • Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Bus, a rural transit provider of demand response and fixed routes in Pennsylvania with roughly 70 vehicles in the fleet, has a data analyst with a clear job description: the analyst's role is to understand data and how it can be used to track performance. This additional role also allows CATA to communicate more effectively regarding the value of transit with the transit board, local councils, and the public. • The DRCOG Ride Alliance project in Denver, Colorado benefits from having a diverse group of stakeholders overseeing project direction. The group defined functions that a trip brokerage software system must be able to fulfill, and the project has built and tested components of that tool. When specifications were defined by this group and a technology vendor was not able to develop the resulting API, the steering committee was able to cancel that task order and issue it to another technology vendor who could deliver a similar tool. • California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), through the California Integrated Travel Program (Cal-ITP) worked with a vendor to survey hundreds of agencies statewide to understand how key technology components fit together. Their vendor compiled the key technologies that agencies need to fulfill their mission - and they are in the process of defining the requirements, specifications, and data produced by those technologies so they can understand the technology stack that California’s rural and small urban agencies need. This will allow Cal-ITP to establish these preferred pieces of equipment (based on requirements and specifications). By vetting the equipment, California can offer it to any agency in the state via a transit store.
Key Finding 3: Opportunities for Collaboration
Collaborating with other agencies, departments, or universities was not always a primary ingredient, but the relationship between the DOT and other agencies was a common component that peers noted as either a success factor in their project or as a longer-term goal or outcome of their technology undertaking. Collaborations can help build economies of scale that are important for transit service productivity. After setting goals and having performance measures in place, agencies could use those metrics and goals to have conversations around collaboration. There are several types of collaboration that we heard about: across geographies, among and within agencies, and finally with other groups like universities or regional hospital systems.
Several state DOTs and others interviewed participate in informal monthly roundtables. The National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) hosts roundtables for rural and tribal transit agencies, with the topic selected a few weeks in advance and informed by prior roundtables. Cal-ITP also hosts monthly roundtables with agencies statewide, where the topic for subsequent sessions is discussed and selected Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 47
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
at the end of each meeting. During the last few minutes of the call, the organizer asks what topics the group is interested in discussing, and if anyone is willing to share their experience on that topic. This format helps to build shared understanding around best practices and trends. The roundtables could also invite vendors to do demonstrations or develop topics for Requests for Information (RFIs), such as Cal-ITP’s market soundings.
Geographic Coordination and Collaboration
When peers referred to geographic coordination, they were typically referring to publishing their service information in GTFS or with geofences in a geographic information system (GIS). Sharing information about service geography can enable collaboration by allowing agencies in a region to see one another’s service areas and discuss opportunities to partner on providing service or even common fare systems.
Inter- and Intra-Agency Collaboration among transportation agencies
The Cal-ITP is allied with Caltrans’s Division of Rail and Mass Transit. This was a strategically selected partnership with a big vision to use underutilized data and organize processes around the insights from that data. Cal-ITP is meant to demonstrate what an integrated system/program could look like, and then take those lessons to other parts of the organization, such as to show how data and technology management could improve snowplowing operations statewide. In this way, the demonstration is happening first, and then the collaboration is expected to come from the demonstrated value. This approach mirrors what other peers have suggested - that to make a collaboration happen, potential partners may want to see a program in action before jumping on board.
Another inter/intra agency collaboration opportunity may exist in the USDOT Work Zone Data Exchange specification. This work zone specification is intended to make roads safer and share information with the public as well as owners/operators of infrastructure. Demonstrating how specifications like this provide value to primary as well as secondary stakeholders was mentioned as a method of demonstrating the value of coordination, collaboration and data specifications at the enterprise level (for the DOT as well as the transit agencies that would use the information for planning).
Collaboration with non-transportation providers/agencies
Finally, several collaborations were mentioned between a DOT or transit agency and local universities, hospitals, or the municipality. There are different ingredients and motivations for such collaborations, such as: • Research partnerships with universities to explore new, innovative programs or technologies • Partnerships with research organizations like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) or USDOT’s Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI) • Partnerships between healthcare providers and a transit agency, such as Rides to Wellness in Flint, Michigan. This partnership emerged because the healthcare provider saw the branded vehicles around town and reached out to the agency to learn how they could get involved. • Relationships with vendors may be formed as a partnership as opposed to a contract, depending on how contracts are designed. Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 48
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
For several of these partnerships, cost allocation is an important consideration. Peers noted that it can be difficult to develop a five-year cash flow calculation for a new idea, but one approach to demonstrating the value to inform future cost allocation is to emphasize the *savings* that could result from such a partnership. Lane Transit District in Lane County, Oregon initiated coordination and software projects to streamline NEMT in 2000, and the Rides to Wellness program in Flint, Michigan began in response to a need for diabetes transportation in 2015 and grew to serve customers in response to the Flint Water Crisis. Both of these are examples where a sustained program with demonstrated benefits has led to additional opportunities for cost sharing and collaboration as the programs have matured.
Key Finding 4: Fundamental Building Blocks and TBD Tech
Technology is evolving quickly, but there are some fundamental building blocks that agencies can confidently put in place, potentially with the support for the state DOT. These key building blocks include items such as: • Business rules and oversight regarding training, insurance, eligibility, asset management and background checks mandated by the FTA and other funding/governmental requirements. • The family of GTFS data - which is recognized as the standard in the United States for trip discovery or planning. This includes the static GTFS fixed route information, GTFS-Realtime for arrival predictions, vehicle positions and service advisories, and GTFS-Flex for demand response or flexible route services.
There are other areas where software and hardware requirements are yet to be determined, such as the Transactional Data Specification for Demand Responsive trips or fare payment integration and mobility wallets. These are being explored through pilots and will likely offer many lessons learned in the coming years. Cal-ITP is undertaking a major initiative to address electronic fare payments, providing leadership in this area. In the meantime, peer agencies were confident that actions they take around business rules and instituting GTFS data would be time well spent.
We know from experience nationwide that customers want flexibility and real-time information about their trips; with this customer need in mind, many agencies have experimented with ADA-compliant alternative services where an agency can contract with ride-sourcing or taxi companies to provide a same day service. A TCRP project10 is underway to evaluate these programs, but they are fundamentally based on business rules around driver training, insurance and reporting to the funding or sponsoring agency. Agencies can use their existing call center and route trip requests via whatever means the contracted, non-dedicated vehicle providers are comfortable with. Agencies that establish detailed business rules that meet funding and eligibility requirements can achieve the flexibility and real-time information that customers desire, even though widely available scheduling and dispatching technology, and often at a higher cost since they are choice programs and thus not subject to the fare rules for
10 TCRP B-48: The Provision of Alternative Services by Transit Agencies: The Intersection of Regulation and Program https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4883 Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 49
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
comparable fixed route service.
A few key findings related to these fundamental concepts from the interviews include: • GTFS is a necessary first step and can enable so much in terms of trip planners and coordination. GTFS can help regional mobility managers and even transit providers define their service. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. • Transactional Data Specifications are in development, with several agencies piloting services based on exchanging information. Over the next 12-24 months, the study team anticipates that lessons around business rules and minimum specifications will be learned and hopefully available to the broader transportation planning community. Some pilots or efforts to watch include: o Ride Alliance in Denver, Colorado o MnDOT and the consortium of providers in Southeast Minnesota who were awarded a FY20 AIM grant from the FTA. One aspect of the project is to carry forward the Transactional Data Specification (TCRP Report 210) mentioned previously as part of a broader mobility platform. o MobilityData, a non-profit which leads the development of GTFS and is working to develop a General Operations Feed Specification (GOFS) for on-demand services o The GO!Bus pilot in Grand Rapids, Michigan - a partnership between The Rapid, KaizenHealth, Lyft, and others. • It is critical to have staff who understand the technology and tools, including how to configure software so it supports their mission, and the need for staff support to assist with implementation at a regional or agency level (potentially as 10% or 20% of an FTE). • Eligibility verification is a large undertaking requiring coordination. Lane Transit District in Oregon manages eligibility in a central database, where the software facilitates eligibility determination for all programs at one time. Cal-ITP is working with the California DMV to automate eligibility and deliver something beneficial to smaller agencies. • The Oregon DOT hosts a technical resource center as a tool for support and building blocks for planning, collecting technology information and training. It is also a tool for connectivity, where providers can go to understand how to use their data to make planning and operating decisions.
Finally, several peers alluded to a need to recognize the end user - not only the transit customers, but also the bus maintenance team who will be installing and maintaining any technology components (CATA, Seattle and LA fare pilots and readers, Star Metro Token Transit pilot in Florida). A maintenance team needs to figure out where to mount new fare equipment or a tablet mount in a vehicle, or to know of a vendor they can use to install these. In research produced by the Eno Center for Transportation, some transit providers have ultimately made a new pilot service free for riders when they experienced difficulties deploying new technology in vehicles, either for equipment problems or data/connectivity issues and to thank them for their patience. Complications are a fairly common part of an implementation. Understanding the life cycle and implementation of technology is a critical component of the fifth key finding in the next subsection.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 50
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
Key Finding 5: Sustainability of Costs and Technology
From goal setting and user needs analysis, to procurement, installation, and implementation - the longer-term work of sustaining technology to deliver service emerged as a key consideration. Peers noted that the ability to sustain a program financially was a big consideration, and when not addressed early on, meant some pilot programs were ended. Sustaining the equipment and data that supports service delivery was identified as one which needs to tie back to technology program goals and staffing.
Key considerations for financial sustainability and maintaining a technology program include: • Calculate the cost to provide service, and price it appropriately. This is more relevant to technology-enabled opt-in alternative service programs that an agency might offer to ADA- eligible customers as a same-day service, but also apply to how agencies might work together to determine cost allocation. • Maintaining data is an ongoing process; both vendors and agencies noted that you must have people who understand tools and data who can stay up to speed and educate others. • Technology can generate more opportunities for cost sharing - if a plan/approach is in place to track those costs and enable partners to get onboard, such as for Lane Transit District or instituting a One-Click system. • Peers warned to avoid technology that breaks easily or is simply a waypoint on the path to the bigger goal - procurement should be cautious because some technology can be a big investment and long-term commitment. Equipment operability, maintainability, and maturity are all important considerations; Cal-ITP and OATS in Missouri both mentioned this as a challenge and having a minimum specification or requirements for procurement (e.g., to be placed in the CalTrans Transit Store) could make this process easier. • Transportation providers will need ongoing assistance. Things are changing rapidly and there need to be resources they can go for continuing education, and also opportunities for feedback. Venues for that feedback could be advisory committees or the state Public Transit Association. At the provider level, having staff expertise and institutional knowledge of the purpose and outcomes of any technology tools is important. • Developing a common understanding of timelines for procurement and grants is critical. When does the agency get to make decisions and enter into new contracts? How can the state support them when there is a decision to be made? Peers in Which of these key findings resonates most with your agency or Greater MN California, Florida and Pennsylvania all mentioned that having public transit systems as a whole? someone at the DOT whom providers could call as a resource when they have questions is part of a successful technology program.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 51
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Detail on Key Findings
Peer Agency Conclusions
A consistent theme was that peers are approaching customer-facing and back office technology by considering technical as well as human/staffing considerations. The picture that emerges from these interviews is one of a Pay careful attention to the Peer Agency Conclusions and be prepared program management approach to technology, where the programs move to apply these at the Steering cautiously and deliberately to form partnerships, develop contracts, and Committee meeting. identify opportunities coordination. This deliberation enables strong decisions that can support the fundamental blocks. At the same time, several peers noted that having flexibility pilots is very valuable - and this agility can be achieved when there are (1) clear goals, (2) project champions, and (3) strong technical and operational building blocks in place.
A clear and almost unanimous finding was that procurement was being managed at the state level by those states leading in technology development. Oregon, California, and Pennsylvania agencies all noted that the state can play a pivotal role in defining minimum specifications and getting a bulk deal on technology. This statewide coordination can also support interoperability, as OATS and PennDOT have achieved with their Ecolane implementations.
The need to maintain clean, quality data is important, and agencies often have a full-time employee devoted to it. Several peers noted that having more templates for reporting to the state DOT (be it for fleets, grants, or trips) would be beneficial. For pilots, it is common in the industry to develop documents including a Concept of Operation, Pilot Test Plans, and Program Evaluation plans. Having business rules and templates for operations and evaluations can simplify decision-making and generate lessons learned to share more broadly.
As technology continues to evolve at a fast pace, several agencies noted a desire to be flexible. Michigan DOT noted that when they took on the risk of several pilots, that gave providers space to be creative and innovative without fear of failure. Balancing the need for solid foundations while remaining flexible is a challenge; the model that emerged from peers was one where understanding and applying critical, fundamental pieces - such as key technology components needed in every technology stack; failsafe technology like GTFS; or eligibility and business rules - can provide that solid ground for agencies to innovate around. Having a common understanding of software, hardware, business rules and reporting requirements can allow planners and operators to see where opportunities for improvement may lie - e.g., a simple business rule adjustment might prove as beneficial as an expensive software procurement.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 52
Chapter 4: Peer Review Findings, Section - Peer Agency Conclusions
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities
Introduction and Approach Interviews were conducted with peer agencies of varying sizes to The goal of this chapter is to articulate the most salient ways in which learn about their approaches to technology impacts or will soon impact the transit industry. Sources of technology and lessons learned. information included the interviews described in Chapter 4 as well as state of the practice research and project reports. Table 4.1 in Chapter 4 listed Chapters 4 and 5 will be the focus of the interviews which were conducted. the next Steering Committee meeting and future goal setting and Focus areas for the interviews and review of the literature included not just objectives. Please read these two the direction of the technology, but how organizations and state chapters carefully in their entirety. departments of transportation are responding to these trends. The study team determined DOTs’, vendors’ and agencies’ needs and activities around technology trends that fall into three categories:
1. Data and Technology Tools: Specific trends related to data, standards, and Software-as-a- Service. These are trends and opportunities in how agencies are defining the role of data and specifications for technology tools. 2. The need for support. Interviewees continually referenced the needs of maintaining data, understanding technology, and organizational capacity as key challenges. This section defines trends in how DOTs or agencies approach training or on-going support for their program/tools/staff. 3. Technology Program Definition: There are different approaches to innovation. While pilots are part of many agencies’ approach to evaluate and implement new technology, they are still usually part of a program.
Data and Technology Tools
The Centrality of Data Read the sections on data Technology and data are two intertwined forces that are rapidly collection, standards, and sharing. transforming the larger society and transit’s place in it. Technology, most Think about the data you collect, recently through the proliferation of cheap networked sensors known as how it is shared internally or with the Internet of Things (IoT), has made it ever easier to collect copious MnDOT, the data format (excel amounts of data. In turn, the increased availability of data generates a tables, faxes, APIs), and the demand for better technology to put it to use for competitive advantage. software you use to store the data - - then respond to the questions With technology platforms and business models built with data at their below about data standards that center, Uber and Lyft have played a significant role in capturing the popular would benefit Greater MN transit systems. imagination with the promise of easy access to mobility options to anyone with a smartphone and some financial means. That promise has set expectations to which the transit industry must respond. The public understands that technology can provide opportunities to compare travel options, book, and pay for trips. They would like this Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 53
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - Introduction and Approach
convenience and the ability to use multiple modes. This is the vision of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and a successful MaaS implementation integrates available transportation options into a single platform with on-demand trip planning, real-time information, and integrated payment for seamless end-to-end journeys.
Data management in transit is not new. Computer-aided scheduling and dispatching has been in common use for decades. What is new is the expansion in real-time vehicle tracking accelerated by the delivery of granular service information to riders. Presenting internally generated data to the public present new challenges to agencies: if riders are to rely on it, the quality and availability of the data must be high, higher than usually required for internal uses.
Public transit systems throughout the U.S. face an array of other issues related to data and integrated payment that Cal-ITP market soundings are addressing. Equity is a core value in transit service delivery so all riders must be served, including those who are unbanked or do not have access to a smartphone. Many riders are also eligible for discounts or to have trips paid for by government programs. For agencies to implement integrated fare payment, there need to be revenue sharing agreements and the quality of data again needs to be very high. Transit agencies using technology create a surprising amount of data, from automatic passenger counters to AVL to fare and ticketing information. It is important to understand how and why an agency might share their data. Sharing internal data might improve customer information. Agencies also need to treat data with respect and understand the risks of sharing. TCRP Report 213: Data Sharing Guidance for Public Transit Agencies Now and in the Future (2020) describes two models for data sharing: • Public Data Sharing (Open Data). Data is shared publicly in an online data repository or dashboard through an Application Programming Interface (API) or in a public-facing report. These sharing models promote transparency and can spur innovation, but they cede control over how the data is used. • Private Data Sharing. In a private data sharing agreement, data is shared with a specific partner, often with a nondisclosure agreement. These types of sharing models can enable transit agencies to meet targeted goals.
In response to this seismic shift in how data are acquired, analyzed, and shared, the entities we interviewed have made a range of responses: • Centre Area Transportation Authority in northwest Pennsylvania has hired a data analyst to standardize information across its departmental functions, such as planning and maintenance. • The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) provide direct funding for the creation and maintenance of GTFS feeds for all transit agencies that do not do it themselves. • The ODOT has also developed an open source transit network analysis tool and has recently received a $480,000 FTA grant to develop a version 2.0 of the system. • As part of its California Integrated Travel Project (Cal-ITP), Caltrans has hired a data scientist tasked with discovering what data already exists within the agency and making it available in new ways that provide insights and generate enthusiasm for sharing more data.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 54
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - Data and Technology Tools
Increasing Role for Open Data and Data Standards
As noted above, there is a clear and growing trend towards putting more and more transit data into the hands of the general public. This cannot be achieved at scale without standardized methods for getting service data from transit agencies into trip planners and ultimately mobile devices. There is a clear trend towards expanding the use of open data and data standards. For example: • The majority of transit agencies that produce GTFS feeds release them publicly under terms that make them readily usable not just for commercial trip planners, but also researchers, planners, and advocacy organizations. • Caltrans recently released its Minimum GTFS Guidelines to establish for both transit agencies and vendors of the expectations the state has for publishing high quality transit data. • MobilityData, in collaboration with Caltrans and other agencies, is developing both a software tool for validating GTFS feeds and a grading system for evaluating the elements of a GTFS feed that cannot be assessed except by a human being. These efforts are aimed at streamlining the creation and maintenance of GTFS data as it is used by smaller and smaller agencies around the world. • GTFS-flex, which provides a computer-readable way to describe flexible transit services, has recently become a formal extension to the GTFS standard. The flex extension enables the full range of transit services to appear in rider-facing trip planners as well as services planning and analysis tools that have historically only supported fixed routes. Also, in the development are extensions to describe complex fare structures, eligibility for specialized transportation, stop and station pathways, and vehicle amenities and limitations. • The Transportation Cooperative Research Program recently released Report 210, proposing a transactional data specification Which data standards would most for demand-responsive transportation. Implementation of this benefit Greater MN transit systems? specification opens the door to a level of operational coordination What are some of those benefits? of specialized transportation services that has thus far proved elusive in large part due to the absence of streamlined methods for exchanging trip request information between agencies.
Limited Integration Between Vendors Despite Broader Technology Trends
Technology has developed to solve specific problems. In the transit industry, software to schedule and dispatch trips, to ‘cut’ fixed-route vehicle runs, and to manage vehicle maintenance were some early developments. Each system was developed as a stand-alone solution. Over time, what were once single- focus software programs have expanded to become comprehensive systems that meet multiple agency needs. For instance, scheduling software for demand response services has expanded to include vehicle management, driver management, and trip cost allocation to funding sources. Through this approach, a transit system has one vendor with a complete end-to-end software solution composed of a core system with optional modules designed to work together. Under this approach a transit service provider can select the functionality required to tailor the system as a whole to their unique operational conditions and needs.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 55
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - Data and Technology Tools
Because most technology is developed through private industries with no concerted demand from transit agencies for interoperability between vendors, a vendor who has developed one complete solution has few business cases for designing their software to readily interconnect with other vendors’ solutions. Some integration has been carried out, such as with Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and other on-board hardware. Outside of these limited cases, most incumbent vendors have been slow to transition their offerings and business models away from end-to-end offerings.
In contrast, the broader technology industry is moving swiftly toward more modular software that can communicate and work with other software or technology applications through documented system-to- system interfaces. A modular approach has several advantages for the purchasing agency. It allows for a transit system to choose the technology functions that best meet their needs, and it allows for changing just those portions of a system that need updating rather than the entire system. In addition, a vendor that specializes in just one domain and makes it easy for their solutions to exchange data with third- party systems may be better equipped to provide a “just right” solution over one that attempts to have expertise in every facet of agency operations. Finally, the risk of vendor lock-in diminishes when an agency does not rely one provider of technology for all aspects of what they do.
Recent entrants in the transit technology marketplace are embracing open What are some examples you architectures, providing the opportunity for agencies to opt for a more encounter in your work where two diversified technology footprint. For example, an agency may use one tools are not interfacing efficiently vendor for scheduling and dispatching and another for asset management with one another, requiring you to while having both connect to the same on-vehicle data source for tracking manually download data from one tool and input it (either re-entry or the vehicle’s location and status. Such opportunities must be weighed via upload) into another tool or against the costs of managing multiple vendors and integrations between program? systems.
Software as a Service
With Software as a Service (SaaS) now the predominant model for software, comes the need for agencies to expand their competencies and infrastructure in new areas. The shift to hosted (or cloud) computing means that staff need to understand Internet security risks or risk data breaches. It also means that while application uptime may approach 100% at the data center, access to that application can be interrupted by a provider’s slow or unreliable internet connection. If the application is mission critical, agencies wishing to enjoy the benefits of SaaS will need to make sure the underlying ingredients for success are in place.
The Need for Support
Difficulties Building Organization Capacity for Technology
All interviewees described challenges with regards to managing transit-specific technology and the new demands for managing data. These challenges were found to be most pronounced at departments of transportation, whose role has mainly been that of grant management entities. Shifting to becoming an
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 56
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - The Need for Support
actor capable of effectively supporting both its own technology efforts and those of transit agencies requires the acquisition of significant new competencies such as: • Database administration and maintenance, including understanding of security and permissions • Data analytics and an understanding of how analysis of different data sets can answer key questions and achieve transit agency goals • Knowledge of privacy risks and techniques to preserve privacy of data pertaining to individuals
At Caltrans’s Cal-ITP program, the most ambitious ITS effort of all those evaluated through interviews, bringing technology skills into the organization has been achieved almost entirely through the use of independent contractors. There is no labor classification for software developers within Caltrans. Similarly, capacity at Oregon DOT has been built through contracting and partnerships with the state’s public universities.
On-Board Technology is Expected but Often Poorly Supported
On-board networked and GPS-enabled devices and their associated back end systems are now considered by many to be mandatory for any transit system. They enable a wealth of information to riders, dispatchers, drivers, and, if connected to vehicle computers and asset management systems, fleet managers. Putting such systems in place as quickly as possible can seem like a “no-brainer” for many smaller agencies that do not yet have them. The prevalence of this technology and the seeming obviousness of its utility mask a range of costs and challenges that may not be apparent to the agency until after it is procured. While agencies generally maintain these tools, showing that the benefits outweigh the costs, it is useful to be aware of costs ahead of time. • Connectivity issues, especially in rural areas, can significantly hinder the usefulness of on-board devices. • Training of drivers can be more difficult than agencies anticipate. Drivers who are not used to working with tablets may resist using them. • The tooling and services to maintain such technology systems (e.g., updating the underlying operating system when a security vulnerability has been found) is often lacking, especially for smaller and more rural agencies. The IT support services agencies have to maintain workstations and network infrastructure often do not have the expertise to support Android-based tablets in vehicles.
Understanding the total costs of on-board technology systems, along with the real-world benefits, will result in a better ability to maintain the systems and use them to their full potential.
Centralization and Contracting to Manage Complex Technology At the Steering Committee, we will discuss pros and cons of centralized One impactful characteristic of transit ITS is how highly specialized many <---> distributed models for asset key components are. Specialized technology requires specialized management, leadership, knowledge throughout its life cycle—from procurement to procurement, and training.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 57
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - The Need for Support
implementation and on to maintenance. Acquiring and retaining the resources to manage a quickly evolving yet arcane set of skills can prove to be a daunting undertaking for any organization, but it is especially so for smaller transit agencies, where staff turnover needs to be considered.
To succeed with more demanding technologies, we found multiple examples of state departments of transportation assuming a greater role to assist smaller transit agencies to address the challenges of deploying specialized transit technology. For example: • Caltrans is working to make technology procurements easier and less risky by creating a “transit store” of vendors who provide solutions that meet minimum requirements established by the State. The minimum requirements are developed through research into industry best practices in areas such as data standardization and interoperability between technology systems. • Caltrans is also exploring centralizing software by managing a single instance of an open-source real-time arrival prediction system and making it available to transit agencies across the state. • UTA uses a contractor to continuously upgrade and maintain an open source software program (RidePilot) that provides scheduling and program management to very small and volunteer driver services in their large service area. UTA also received an FTA grant to develop an e- voucher application for these entities. • Oregon DOT supports the creation and maintenance of GTFS feeds across the state through a contract with a single vendor. Other DOTs do this as well. In a similar vein, Oregon DOT also provides access to Remix, a web-based transit planning application, for all transit agencies it funds. • PennDOT procured a single scheduling and dispatching system for providers of general public dial-a-ride transportation across the entire state, excepting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. • Nebraska DOT conducted a Request for Qualifications for vendors of scheduling software through a procurement that met Federal standards and included standard pricing. They enabled any agency receiving FTA funds to purchase software from these prequalified vendors, held a technology fair, and supported the agencies in purchasing the software that best meet their needs. Approximately ten agencies purchased or renewed contracts with four different vendors in the first six months after this prequalification.
These examples of centralization lower the barriers that smaller transit agencies encounter when attempting to use sophisticated transit-specific technologies. Samples of different state models are included in Figure 5.1. In these samples, centralized refers to state-level management, while distributed indicates areas managed directly by each transit agency. It should be noted that while the figure focuses on State and transit agency activities, there is opportunity for other actors, such as RTCCs and regional governments.
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 58
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - The Need for Support
Figure 5.1: Models of Centralized versus Distributed Technology Functions
Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 59
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - The Need for Support
Technology Program Definition
The trend is that DOTs wishing to encourage the development of transit technology among their subrecipients are evaluating and modifying their programs in response to the needs they see.
Some DOTs Are Serving as Risk Mitigators
Adopting technology, especially newer applications that reflect emerging trends, is inherently a risky venture. Even proven technology systems can have uncertain outcomes when applied to previously untested contexts such as rural settings. For these cases, state-level support can provide a way for agencies to try things out that may otherwise be deemed too risky. • As an agency serving mostly rural areas, VTrans relies heavily on small pilots to assess whether a given technology will work in the state. Recently, in the last few years, VTrans has used small pilots to evaluate GTFS-flex, real-time vehicle location tracking, electric buses, and replacing low-productivity fixed route lines with on-demand micro-mobility services. • As described in Chapter 4, Michigan DOT assumed the risk for pilots it funded in a recent state- funded grant program.
No Single Approach to Program Structure
Institutional responses to the growing role of technology vary widely with local conditions and leadership: • Vermont has prioritized discovery of rural transit services through the creation of GTFS-flex feeds for all its general public dial-a-ride and the updating a multimodal trip planner (OpenTripPlanner) to make it capable of creating itineraries that included those services. • Pennsylvania has taken a strong role and implemented a single scheduling and dispatch system across rural Pennsylvania. The choice to have a single system is largely due to a need for consistent per-trip compensation to agencies from the lottery funding that supports a large segment of rural and specialized transit across the state. • Caltrans is prioritizing equity and environmental outcomes through market-based approaches that can be feasibly scaled out to the state’s 300+ agencies. • With its relatively small scale, Oregon DOT has focused its efforts on a role no other actor plays: Understanding and improving the statewide network through collecting, analyzing, and distributing data about transit services throughout the state. • In Missouri, OATS Transit adopted a strategy of centralizing most of its information technology (IT) and intelligent transportation system (ITS) functions, allowing it to simultaneously modernize, increase consistency across the state, and manage costs. In Utah, UTA has taken a similar approach for its large service area that covers a 120-mile corridor along the Wasatch mountain range.
These examples serve to illustrate that there is no single solution for how to employ technology in rural and small urban transit. Rather, there are a multitude of challenges, and responses depend on local Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 60
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - Technology Program Definition
conditions, local resources, and local leadership defines and prioritizes the challenges it seeks to overcome.
Conclusions and Opportunities Pay careful attention to the Conclusions and Opportunities The rapid ascendance of mobile computing and data-intensive business section and be prepared to apply models means that transit agencies of all sizes have been called upon to these at the Steering Committee dramatically “up their game” with regard to customer-facing technology, meeting. data management, and integration of disparate systems. Large and medium-sized urban transit agencies are managing this shift but are often doing it without a well- defined framework. For Tribal, small urban, and rural agencies and the organizations that support them, the barriers to success are markedly higher, to the point where support is needed to get on track. New vendor pricing and support models known as software as a service (SaaS) do assist agencies in responding to this new data-hungry environment and frees them from the burden of managing servers and upgrades. They still need to have the organizational capabilities to select, implement, and maintain technology and effectively manage the data produced, even if this support resides with another entity.
In response, the study team observed several DOTs building capacities on behalf of the agencies they oversee. Each state is carrying out this work uniquely, based on their particular leadership, resources, mix of transit system sub-recipients, and priorities.
Opportunities for State DOTs
There are recurring areas where DOTs have opportunities to advance technology amongst their transit system partners. Doing so builds a foundation and framework for transit systems to build out their individual technology systems. This would involve MnDOT evaluating both where it makes sense to take a stronger leadership role and determining the approach to actions in each area. • Procurement, ranging from creating more functional processes to establishing functional standards and pre-qualifying vendors • Coordination and knowledge sharing by providing venues for agencies to learn from one another’s activities and build peer relationships • Creating and maintaining service-related data through creation of GTFS feeds where they do not presently exist or are burdensome on the agency to produce • Providing easy access to technical assistance, ranging from training to on-call support to consulting services • Centralizing highly specialized technology applications that can easily scale to a state level. Examples include trip planners, one-click websites, and systems that produce real time arrival estimates
The power of DOTs to coordinate the agencies, provide technical assistance, manage risk, and establish technology expectations for the statewide transit network mean that they are at a unique position to influence the success of technology for smaller agencies that otherwise would likely be left behind by today’s technology trends Greater Minnesota Transit Technology Plan – Technical Memo 1 Page 61
Chapter 5: Trends and Opportunities, Section - Conclusions and Opportunities