Deployment, Use, and Effect of Real-Time Traveler Information Systems (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

22 C H A P T E R 3 Findings and Applications The findings are separated into three sections that parallel the main goals of the current project— deployment, perception, and use of RT-TIS. The first section focuses on a national survey and several interviews that gathered information about deployment practices from agency representatives. The second section provides findings from the public’s perspective on their perception and understanding of real-time TI. These findings are from a large scale web survey of six cities and focus groups in four cities. The third section focuses specifically on the topic of use by the public—from surveys and travel logs, data are presented that describe the ways that people report use of real-time TI in decision-making and trip behavior. Finally, the public was asked how they would define an ideal TI system and a summary of responses are presented at the end of Chapter 3. Section 1 - Deployment: Summary of Agency Surveys and Interviews A complete compilation of agency survey data can be found in Appendix B. Provided here is a summary of the web-based survey data and the follow up phone interviews from various agencies. The objective of the survey was to obtain the necessary information to compare agencies’ perceptions and rationale as to why they provide TI with their efforts to collect and evaluate data in support of this rationale. The survey can be broken down into three general themes: 1) what are the agency perceptions regarding the rationale for why TI is provided and the mechanisms by which the information is delivered; 2) what are agencies doing to measure the impact of TI and its benefits, and what are some impediments to evaluation assessment; and 3) what are some unique practices in existing TI programs and agency perspectives on the future outlook of TI. A total of 43 agencies responded the survey, either partially or completely. A total of 28 agencies completed the entire survey. Agency perceptions regarding the rationale for why traveler information is provided and the mechanisms by which information is delivered Approximately 98 percent of the agencies believe that information allows the traveling public to make better travel decisions. This emphasizes the concern that agencies have about how to provide sufficient information to travelers in order to enhance individual and system performance. In order to address their concern, around 90 percent of the interviewed agencies disseminate information of non-recurrent events (i.e., incidents and roadwork) and over 85 percent of them provide CCTV and interactive maps illustrating roadway travel conditions. The most popular modes of dissemination are VMS, webpage (including mobile accessible), social media outlets and their 511 system (see Figure 2).

23 Figure 2. Percentage of agencies disseminating TI by various methods. In general, agencies feel that TI systems are effective in fulfilling their objectives. On a scale from 1 to 4, 1 being “not important” and 4 being “very important”, different types of TI averaged 3.24, excluding “Safety Information” and “Transit Alternatives” which scored around 2.5 each (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Perceived traveler information system effectiveness in meeting agency goals.

24 Figure 4 illustrates how this information is being disseminated to the public. Approximately 95 percent of the agencies use highway VMSs and computer accessible websites. In addition, over 80 percent of them rely on a 511 system, mobile accessible webpage and media outlets. Figure 4. Deployment of traveler information systems. As for why they are selecting these dissemination mechanisms, most of the agencies (84 percent) believe they are taking advantage of the latest information dissemination technology/technologies, while around 60 percent are basing their decision on literature reviews, lessons learned from other agencies and FHWA guidance and encouragement. Furthermore, based on their perceived effectiveness, different types of dissemination mechanisms averaged 1.73 on a scale from one to four, one being “very effective” and four being “not effective”, excluding “Highway Advisory Radio” which scored 2.5. To see the complete list of TI systems please go to Question 6 of the survey, which is shown in Appendix B. Measuring the impact of traveler information and traveler information’s benefits and impediments to evaluation assessment Agencies employ a variety of methods to reach different travelers. However, only 30 percent of the agencies reported having evaluation data that demonstrates the benefits of providing information to the traveling public, and only 40 percent have an ongoing program for evaluating the provision of TI (Figure 5). The survey shows that agencies mostly depend on 511 call statistics and, to a lesser extent, some form of traveler survey, to evaluate their systems. Moreover, around 63 percent of the agencies focus their evaluation on three TI components: roadway travel conditions, traffic incidents and travel times. When evaluating, 80 percent of the agencies assess the performance of their 511 system and webpage, while less than 30 percent focus on their TI system trip characteristics components, such as departure time, destination choice, pre- and en-route route choice (see Question 7B).

25 Figure 5. Reasons for disseminating real-time traveler information. In general, most of the agencies limit themselves to measure travel time, mainly because of the difficulty/cost of measuring actual operational impacts and determining how best to evaluate the many components of their program (see Figure 6). This might explain why less than 20 percent of the agencies do not believe their TIS methods are unique, and around 60 percent of them do not feel they are more effective than other agencies (see Questions 9 and 11, respectively). This might also explain the 60 percent of the agencies that indicated the reason for providing TI is because other agencies like them are providing information to the traveling public. Hence, one can expect that agencies attempt to provide the same type of information as other agencies and don’t necessarily feel the need to evaluate the impact of this information.

26 Figure 6. Factors hindering agencies’ abilities to effectively evaluate traveler information programs. Unique practices in existing traveler information programs, and agency perspectives on the future outlook of traveler information As technology advances (e.g., communication, sensor, internet accessibility), so does the possibility of new TIS applications and measuring techniques. As previously stated, fewer than 20 percent of the agencies believe their TI systems methods are unique. Nevertheless, the agencies that do believe they provide unique information/service offer TI systems in one of these two forms: • Pinpoint location-based information accessed from smartphones (i.e., apps or mobile accessible webpage) or 511 systems. • Maintaining a higher level database (in quality and quantity) allowing a more effective action evaluation process. One agency’s database is publicly accessible, providing access to developers, media outlets, and others without much bureaucratic navigation. In general, when asked about the future of TI systems (see Question 14), agencies’ responses can be summarized as: • Partner more with the private sector. In this manner, the private sector is proving to be a strong ally (43 percent of the agencies have some form of relationship with it) and even stronger in the near future (78 percent of agencies admitted possibility of alliance) (see Questions 4 and 13, respectively). In the follow up interview, NYSDOT stated that: “Currently, they contract out for everything.” • Take advantage of smartphones and new social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, apps). This new technologies enable more rapid real-time information dissemination. • Make sure funding is available for expansion. Additional information • Highway advisory radio is considered the least effective dissemination technique ; nevertheless 70 percent of the agencies use it and only 27 percent of them take it into account in their evaluation. • While roughly 90 percent of agencies provide information on traffic conditions (e.g., roadway status, CCTV video, incidents, construction zones), fewer than 35 percent provide alternate routes.

27 • While 98 percent of the agencies believe that TI enhances traveling experience, only 30 percent of them have performed studies to demonstrate the benefits of TIS. • While 59 percent of the agencies indicated they provide TI because other agencies like them are doing it, perhaps not surprisingly, 60 percent of the agencies do not feel they are more effective than other agencies. • Safety and transit alternatives information are indicated to be the least important types of TI. • Agencies express concerns regarding availability of funds and what can they do with the limited funds have available. When asked about funding in the follow up interview, the common comment of the agencies could be summarized as “there is never enough” and “we need more.” • Agencies support the notion that new social media and technology need to be seized. In this manner, in the follow up phone interview all six agencies indicated that they have an app and/or Twitter account. The latter being the most popular in some cases, but not necessarily the most effective. • INRIX’s real-time data is being used in 15 States and its app has over 1 million downloads. • When asked if there is any type of TI that they feel is effective but are not currently providing, agencies responded with: statewide driving time, detail post construction lane status information, and multimodal and route trip planning. However, only 59 percent focus on travel time as a research topic, around 47 percent do research on construction zones, and fewer than 21 percent of the agencies sponsor research on alternate transit and routes (see Question 7A). Section 2 - Use/Perception: Summary of Traveler Focus Groups and Surveys Several topics of interests were discussed and surveyed through focus groups in four metro areas (New York City, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Orlando) and surveys in the same four metro areas, plus Detroit and Salt Lake City. The data collected from these two approaches are organized into a high-level overview for each topic of interest. The goal of this section is to address the major findings for each topic from findings across selected cities. For organizational purposes, topics are separated into two categories—information sources and information types. Information sources are the places and media where individuals find TI (e.g., 511 phone system, websites, electronic messages signs, radio, television). Information type is composed of the TI content that individuals use media and other modes to access (e.g., traffic incident information, alternate routes, travel times, parking availability). Each of these will be briefly discussed with the main respondent feedback summarized. See Appendices L and M for detailed graphs and data summaries. In some cases, there is a fair amount of detail that varies from city to city, and will be discussed within each context and the city specifically mentioned. In other cases, either due to low usage or familiarity, some sources or types may not have had much discussion and will be treated accordingly. Finally, a section is provided that summarizes participants’ responses to questions of what features they would like to find in an ideal real-time TI system. Information sources There is a burgeoning amount of sources available to individuals who are seeking real-time TI. See Appendix A for a list of information sources that are available in each city. The following list is not exhaustive, but provides the major categories of information sources in alphabetical order: • 511 phone system • Electronic highway message signs • Electronic local roadway signs • Email, text messages that are subscription based

28 • Highway advisory radio • Mobile smartphone “apps” (e.g., iPhone or Droid-based apps) • On board devices (e.g., Garmin, TomTom, Onstar) • Radio • Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) • Television • Websites (using a laptop or desktop) • Websites via mobile devices • Other information sources These range from the basic and readily accessible (e.g., radio and television) to the more cutting edge and less available (e.g., smartphone apps). Also, some methods lend themselves to only pre-trip or en- route use and others can be used both pre-trip and en-route. Each will be briefly discussed below. Across all of the information sources surveyed in the four focus group cities, we see that the most commonly accessed sources before taking a trip were television, radio, and websites (Figure 7). In contrast, very few travelers used the 511 phone system, received alerts, or utilized social media. A similar pattern held for en route information sources, with the exception of the popularity of roadway signage (Figure 8). Figure 8 also shows that nearly one in four respondents reported using information from television to make a trip change en route. This result might suggest that participants saw relevant traffic information on television, but did not act on that information until they were already en route, perhaps in response to corroborating information from another source or visual confirmation of congestion. Figure 7. Information source used to make a trip decision prior to start (web survey data).

29 Figure 8. Information source used to make a trip change decision while in transit (web survey data). 511 phone system Although 511 can have a website associated with it, for the present purposes we focused on the 511 telephone system for feedback from respondents. The main findings were: • In almost every city investigated, with the exception of San Francisco, the 511 phone system was almost completely unheard of in the area. The trip logs corroborate this, with very little use before or during a trip. • At the time of the Washington, DC/Maryland focus group, there had recently been a large informational campaign to educate the public about 511 as a new service in the area. Surprisingly, no one in the focus groups was aware of its existence. • Consistently rated as near lowest importance of any source, and the highest non-applicable rating due to perceived lack of availability across almost all cities. • There is an overall concern about using the cell phone while driving to call 511 due safety and legal reasons. • Travelers mentioned the desire to have 511 coverage expanded to local roadways and for there to be a simplified menu. • Travelers in the San Francisco area were aware of the 511 service, and used it with mixed results: • 25.9% of San Francisco travelers found it not at all important as a source of TI. • Interestingly, those that do use 511 (61%), found it relatively accurate (29.8 % reporting close to extreme or extremely accurate). • In general, travelers used 511 before or during a trip much less than many other sources (and San Francisco was the high water mark for 511 use across the various cities).

30 • One of the disappointments reported by travelers is that the 511 system had limited starting points and destinations, and was only applicable on major roadways. They also wanted to see destinations farther away from San Francisco. • Most travelers learned about 511 via roadway signs. • Users complimented the voice recognition and usability of the system. Electronic highway message signs This section focuses on electronic highway message signs only. Electronic local roadway signs are treated separately below. The main findings were: • Overall favorable response and travelers prefer to have the information. • Trust in accuracy of signs (for example, 27.5% of respondents in the focus groups cities rated them extremely accurate). • Travelers would like to see: – More signs – Time stamp to indicate how recently the information was posted – Description of traffic (e.g., “heavy congestion” or “moderate”) – Better placement of signs before decision points (e.g., before entering the highway—arterial roadway signs with indications of highway traffic conditions) • Helpful for adjusting trip while en-route, especially when events are occurring. • More than 32% of those who responded to a question about en-route use in the focus group cities report typically using them when deciding to change a trip. That number was even higher in the two non-focus group cities (40.9%). • Some travelers felt signs caused traffic delays due to drivers slowing down to read the signs. • Preference to have the information provided on highway signs, even if it is just an indicator of delays without many alternate routes to choose from (“a stress reliever”). Electronic local roadway signs A distinction was made between electronic highway message signs and electronic local roadway signs. Electronic local roadway signs are becoming more common and provide a variety of options for more specific traffic information, special events, etc. The following were the main findings: • Travelers would like to see more of these signs in places where they can maximize decision options (e.g., on the roadway approaching a major highway). • Travelers who did encounter these signs reported levels of trust and favorability similar to electronic highway signs. • These signs were reported to be effective in making a decision about adjusting a trip when en-route (~21% of respondents who answered a question about use while en-route). Email, text messages (via subscription services) In some locations, travelers can subscribe to alert services for information about roadway conditions, emergencies, etc. These messages can arrive via email and/or text messages. The following were the main findings: • In focus groups, some individuals were aware of these services and spoke favorably. Interestingly, those who were not aware of them asked how to subscribe. • Similarly to several other sources, there were safety and legal concerns about receiving text messages while driving.

31 • One participant in a focus group stated (and several agreed) that she “will not risk her life or anyone else’s to check her phone while driving.” (Orlando) • In Orlando, most travelers felt that the service would only be useful if there was a hands-free in-vehicle device or if there was a passenger. • Some travelers in the New York metro area voiced a desire for route specific email or text alerts (similar to what is available for transit systems in the area). • Travelers in the Orlando area seemed to be familiar with several options that provided traffic information, construction alerts, and incident information (e.g., Orlando Sentinel alerts, Florida Sun Pass). • Across both surveys, emails and text messages were rated as low importance and the majority of respondents did not use them (for those who did use these options, the service was perceived as fairly accurate). • There was also very low use (~5%) reported for making a decision about trip diversion pre-trip or en- route. Highway advisory radio Highway advisory radio (HAR) has a long history and general awareness by the public. The following findings were universal across cities: • Extremely negative response about the sound quality, usefulness, and timeliness of information. • Many travelers never tried HAR because they have heard such negative comments from others who have tried it. • Others have only tried HAR once and found the quality to be so lacking that they never tried it again. • Interestingly, several individuals mentioned HAR having potential as a very useful medium (“everyone has a radio”) to reach travelers with important information while on the roadway, but the implementation was severely lacking. • The surveys indicate that a fair number of travelers (~18%) across the 6 cities reported trying to use it en-route as part of their typical decision process. Note that this may be some confusion from other radio outlets (which had a very strong showing) or a reference to using highway advisor radio only in extreme cases. Mobile “apps” (iPhone or Droid) Mobile apps are increasing in popularity along with the availability of smartphones. The market for mobile apps is still rather fragmented and there are a variety of vendors and agencies using these tools to supply the public with TI. The main findings were: • Overall, individuals using the apps really liked them, and those in the focus groups who were not aware of a particular app seemed eager to learn more about it. In fact, participants were eager to demonstrate an app for the group. • The surveys also see a parallel to this, where apps are rated either extremely important or not at all important (approximately 20-25% for each). • There seemed to be difficulty discovering apps—travelers either were not sure how they learned about an app they were using, or where to find apps if they wanted to use a new one. • Similar to all of the mobile device media, there were concerns about using a smartphone while driving for both safety and legal reasons. This seemed to be particularly strong in the New York City area were enforcement seems to have been stronger (for example, one participant received a ticket for operating his phone to get TI while at a stop light). • The use of apps seemed to correspond with more high frequency users of TI. • Approximately 18% of respondents who responded to the pre-trip and en-route decision questions reported the use of apps in their typical trip decision process.

32 • Transit users seemed to have more options and be more knowledgeable about agency provided apps (in the New York City and New Jersey areas—e.g., NYEmbark and NYCMate). • WAZE was mentioned in the NY groups, and given a favorable evaluation because it was interactive and provided information in real-time. • Orlando and the Washington, DC area groups mentioned the use of TeleNav GPS and also Beat the Traffic (in the latter, there was a concern that the app does not have a voice option). • In Orlando, there was a perception by some that apps were for the “young.” • Favorable apps seemed to be those that: – Had a voice option for use while driving – Were interactive and allowed for customization – Were GPS enabled and provided local, relevant information to a traveler – Provided real-time information On-board devices (e.g., Garmin, TomTom, Onstar) • Most travelers with on-board devices did not have real-time traffic information as an option (often individuals were not aware of this option or seemed uninterested due to a paid subscription requirement for some devices). • Overall, travelers found the systems to be reliable and provided valuable information regarding alternate routes and traffic congestion. In the surveys, respondents generally rated on-board devices either not at all important or extremely important. • Limitations to on-board devices included the need to program them and that they do not provide all of the features of a smartphone app. • A Ford and a Lexus (Lexus Link) system were both specifically mentioned, coupling traffic information with directions. In both cases, a positive was the ability to have directions read to the driver and hands free operation. • Travelers generally found on-board devices to be accurate. Radio Radio is ubiquitous in vehicles, and was discussed in a variety of contexts for its benefits across all of the cities (and was reportedly heavily used en-route). It is the most highly used source as noted in the trip logs and surveys. The main findings were: • Favorable opinion across all cities. • Individuals also mentioned a trust in radio being accurate and reputable. Travelers discussed a strong bond formed growing up listening to the radio for traffic information. • Regularly rated in the surveys near the top for typical use in trip decisions (overwhelmingly most popular for en-route decisions—approximately 55%), importance, and accuracy. Trip logs also corroborate the use of radio. • Travelers felt that it was the ideal medium to be used for information dissemination (“not everyone has a smartphone, but everyone has a radio”), especially in case of emergencies with the possibility of the cellular network being overloaded. This was particularly the case in the New York City region and Washington, DC. • Radio was seen as more reliably available than cell phones due to reception and signal strength. • Regularity of updates was favorable, and travelers felt there were numerous options across stations. • Travelers wanted a dedicated traffic radio station that transmitted clearly. • Some travelers mentioned it is difficult to follow road updates, especially if not familiar with the area and there are numerous roads discussed.

33 • Several participants were able to mention specific radio stations and when traffic updates were given (“on the 3s”, etc.). Satellite radio (Sirius/XM) was also discussed in the context of free over-the-air radio. Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) Social media contains a plethora of options for agencies and vendors to provide TI to, and receive feedback from, travelers within targeted interests, demographics, and regions. The main findings were: • Although a cutting edge of information dissemination, social media was not often used for TI. Occasional mention was made of social media sites like Waze or Trapster, but not as a primary source of TI. • Regardless of the city, social media was not a heavily used avenue for gathering TI. • In the New York City area, some travelers mentioned following Facebook friends who used the same travel corridor to share information with each other through updates. But this was an isolated case and even these individuals were not actively searching through social media sites for traffic information. Television Television is another source of information that is ubiquitous and has low technological barriers to entry for a potential user. It is one of the more commonly used sources of information for pre-trip planning. The main findings were: • The common complaint about television across all of the cities was its datedness for incident information and that it cannot be used en-route. If individuals checked the television news reports before leaving, the information is likely not accurate by the time one arrives at the reported incident location. • Similar to radio, individuals were dedicated to certain television stations and knew the routine of updates, expressed trust in the reports, and had an overall favorable impression (even if aware of the timeliness limitation due to accessing television reports pre-trip only). • Television was one of the top three most highly used pre-trip decision sources (~45% of respondents used it as a source). Websites (e.g., using a laptop or desktop) There were a variety of findings related to websites: • In focus groups, most travelers check for traffic conditions through websites of local news stations or newspapers. • San Francisco travelers had a variety of websites to use and offered several opinions: – www.511.org—travelers liked the color and thought the maps were easy to understand. The zooming feature was considered helpful to explore the map. Participants felt a weakness was the limited points on the map, and at times it was not accurate. – Other websites mentioned were Bing, Google, SF navigation, and SF Chronicle. – BART and Muni were websites used to find public transportation information. • Color maps on websites were seen as favorable, along with the ability to manipulate the map to focus on certain areas of interest (via zooming, for example). Color codes may correspond to congestion, road closures, average speed, delays, etc. • Some travelers in the New York City area mentioned the need for maps to have an option of color layout for individuals with color blindness. • Travelers in the Washington, DC area mentioned the desirability of lane closure information due to roadwork (including tree trimming) to be displayed on websites (e.g., on a website such as www.montgomerycounty.gov).

34 • Websites were one of the three most popular sources to check information pre-trip (~46% of respondents). Websites through mobile devices There was very little discussion or reported use of websites through mobile devices. What was mentioned focused on the difficulty with viewing webpages on smaller screens of mobile devices. Some individuals mentioned using Google maps with traffic, but that was limited. Surveys also indicated this is not a commonly used source of TI. Other information sources No additional sources of information were mentioned. Information Types There is a wide variety of information types and content available to individuals who are seeking real- time TI. See Appendix A for a list of information types that are available in each city. The following list is not exhaustive and is likely being updated as new sensors or information types are being developed. It provides the major categories of information types in alphabetical order: • Alternate routes • Live traffic cameras • Parking availability • Public safety information (e.g., Amber alerts, Silver alerts) • Roadwork/construction zones • Safety information (e.g., “Buckle up,” “Signal when changing lanes”) • Special events • Traffic incidents • Travel times • Weather information • Other information types These information types range from those that are more cautionary but not necessarily intended for route decisions (e.g., safety information messages) to those that can be critical in improving travelers’ decision-making (e.g., alternate route information, travel time, special events). Each will be briefly discussed below. Across all of the information types surveyed in the four focus group cities, we see that the most commonly accessed types before taking a trip were weather, traffic incidents, roadwork/construction and road closures, and travel time (Figure 9). In contrast, very few travelers used public safety information, live traffic cameras, or parking availability. A similar pattern held for en route information types, with the exception of the popularity of visual inspection of traffic (Figure 10).

35 Figure 9. Traveler information type used to make a trip decision prior to trip start (web survey data).

36 Figure 10. Information type used to make a decision to change trip while in transit (web survey data). Alternate routes Alternate route information is usually a complement to travel times/incidents, special event information, construction zones, and weather. It can be a critical aspect of a traveler’s decision-making process. It can also be constrained by the environment. For example, in San Francisco travelers repeatedly said that options into the downtown area were limited, so alternate route information was not useful. But, in many other locations, it can be the one type of information that can convince a traveler to divert. Several themes of responses regarding alternate routes were found: • Travelers wanted more detail about an alternate route when one is given—the type of roadway, for example. • Related to the above findings from electronic message signs, travelers want to know as soon as possible about alternate routes (to maximize utility in making a decision and before they are committed to the primary route). • Very highly rated on importance and somewhat highly rated on accuracy in both surveys. • Interestingly, it is not one of the main types of information reported in surveys for pre-trip or en-route decisions. It is possible alternative route information is only sought after another type of information impacts trip plans. Live traffic cameras Live traffic cameras offer the opportunity for travelers to judge the density of traffic at a particular location. Most travelers seemed to view these favorably, and mentioned a higher level of trust in this type

37 of information than most others. Several main themes emerged in the findings related to live traffic cameras: • Travelers liked and trusted traffic cameras because they allow for the traveler to judge the traffic themselves. • Travelers wanted more availability and flexibility in selection of live traffic cameras (with sections of roads highlighted). • Also, integration into traffic maps was seen as desirable. Parking availability Parking availability is a type of information that is useful for particularly dense areas where parking spaces are hard to find. There can be valuable savings in time and fuel that are gained by knowing where there are parking options available. The main points discussed were: • Travelers in densely populated urban areas (especially the New York City area) were very interested in having parking availability information. Regardless, parking availability was not often reported as heavily used in the surveys. • Some travelers in the New York City area felt it would only be useful for parking garages, and that city streets would be too fluid in availability for the information to be useful. But several other participants were familiar with smartphone apps that provided parking availability and felt it reliable and useful for finding street parking in a timely manner. • In San Francisco, travelers discussed parking availability smartphone apps for garages, and found them reliable (they learned about the app in the San Francisco Chronicle). • Travelers would like parking information that included: – Garage prices – Free parking locations – Parking spots that are in no parking or tow-away zones – Time a street changes to no parking Public safety information (e.g., Amber alerts, Silver alerts) Public safety information was separated from safety information in general, with the belief that public safety information was more active and urgent. Travelers are being asked to attend to something (e.g., a missing child last seen in a certain type of vehicle) or do something in this context. Several themes emerged: • There was a lack of familiarity with certain types of alert systems including silver alerts (which are issued for a missing person with cognitive impairment). • Travelers mentioned that the information was useful and that they helped actively look for a vehicle, but in the surveys there was a low reporting of actual use in trip decisions. • Travelers mentioned a desire for evacuation information, which may fall into this category. Roadwork/construction zones Information related to roadwork (including tree trimming) and construction zones was seen as very important and useful for avoiding a particular area (or adjusting traveling times). Approximately 40% of respondents in the surveys rated it extremely important. It is also one of the more highly sought after types of information typically used in trip decisions. Travelers wanted information about which lanes would be closed, but also the start and end dates/times of construction. The San Francisco area had the Bay Bridge closure around the time of the focus groups, and participants praised the breadth of sources that this information was transmitted on (e.g., billboards,

38 television, radio, etc.). This provides an example of a major roadwork disruption and the type of information that is vital to get to every traveler (even if multiple sources are necessary). Safety information (e.g., “Buckle up,” “Signal when changing lanes”) Safety information was a topic that was not discussed or highlighted in detail any of the cities. The response seemed to be indifference to the messages and travelers questioned the usefulness. Special events Special event information can range from street closures due to a fair or marathons, diverted traffic as a result of a football game, or increased traffic volume due to a concert or festival. These types of events can be most disruptive and can cause the greatest inconvenience (especially if there are street closings and detours), yet TI about them seems to be the least organized. Consequently, travelers expressed several issues: • Frustration with knowing what is going on and when, with a lack of a cohesive website or source to provide this information. For example, in the New York City area, when asking a group of travelers where they would direct a new neighbor to the area (where street closures are common and can disrupt the ability to park in your buildings garage), the response was a collective “you’ll just have to learn like we did.” • One interesting suggestion was to provide a list of special event websites that may impact the area as part of a move-in welcome package (along with what is provided regarding utility information). • Travelers also noted the need to go to individual event websites to find out schedules of fairs and street closings, for example (in the New York City area). • There was a clear desire to have a central location, possibly managed by the local DOT where a person could find information about special events that may disrupt traffic or contain street closures • Special event information was rated extremely important by a large portion of respondents (~20%), but ratings of accuracy were more mixed. • Interestingly, the reported use of special event information was rather low for both pre-trip and en- route trip decisions. This may be due to lack of available • Travelers wanted to know: sources that travelers can use to make trip decisions. – Date and time of the event – When will the traffic disruption (e.g., street closure) end – What specific roads are closed or potentially impacted – What are the high density areas Traffic incidents Traffic incident information was rated as extremely important by approximately 39% of respondents in the surveys, but it was not emphasized in the focus groups. This type of information was also the top one typically used for making decisions about trips. Traffic incident information was discussed more in terms of what characteristics were desirable. Travelers listed several features: • Time when incident occurred and time when it was cleared. • Number of lanes affected. • Type of incident. • When will affected lanes be reopened.

39 Travel times Travel time information was not discussed in as much detail as many other types of information. This may be a function of availability on highway signs in some areas, and also other ways of presenting the information (e.g., relative to normal traffic via color coded maps on websites or descriptions on radio reports). Overall, travelers indicated a desire for the information, and it was rated as highly important and relatively accurate. Travel time information was used relatively frequently in trip decisions. Travelers also expressed a need for congestion information, specifically how many lanes and what areas of the roadway are affected by congestion. One interesting criticism was that travel time information is not that useful when in unfamiliar areas. Travelers would much rather a description of what the travel is like relative to normal traffic—e.g., “heavy traffic” or “moderate traffic.” Weather information Weather is another type of information that can have major impacts on roadways and traveler decisions. The main themes that emerged related to this type of information were: • Weather information should include road closures (planned or unplanned), severity of weather, evacuation routes, and alternative routes. • It is considered extremely important (~32% of respondents rated it extremely important) and relatively accurate. • Weather information is the most highly used type for pre-trip decisions and one of the most highly used types of information for en-route trip decisions. • Specifically in the Orlando area and related to hurricanes, travelers wanted to know: – What roads were closed – When tolls were lifted for evacuation – Which roads were inaccessible – Alternate routes – Signs that provide distance ahead for severe weather (e.g., “severe weather 2 miles ahead”) – Tornado warnings or other weather events that can appear unexpectedly Other information types Public transportation information was considered highly desirable in some areas (e.g., San Francisco). This information could be used to support mode switching decisions. Section 3 - Effect: Summary of Traveler Log Information and Supplemental Survey A key question from the study focused on the effect of TI sources and types. Without the benefit of resources to do an on-road naturalistic driving study, the approach consisted of traveler logs (i.e., “diaries”) and surveys. The larger web-based survey asked about typical use, which was discussed earlier. This had limitations due to mis-remembering by respondents, and varying time frames. The research team felt it was necessary to focus specifically on TI use and to minimize memory degradation or confusion in reporting. Consequently, information was gathered via traveler logs shortly after trips, and also with a targeted web-survey that asked about TI use in the recent past (3 days). One of the difficulties of gathering data about trip changing behavior is that it does not occur often, as noted in the surveys where the vast majority (80%+ of all cities) noted that they change trip plans one day a week or less. This was also shown by the small sample of individuals who responded to the effect survey who had a recent (3 days or less) trip change to report. Of the 522 who completed the survey, only

40 72 (13.8%) reported changing a trip in the last three days. That is consistent with the low reported trip changing rate in the traveler logs. See Appendix N for additional detailed graphs and data summaries. The clearest and most accurate reporting will be found in traveler logs that are completed shortly following a trip. Based on traveler log reports of sources used before and during a trip, we see that the majority of trip changes were based on information gathered from television (pre-trip only), radio, and navigation devices (Figures 11 and 12). The use of 511 was almost non-existent, and smartphone apps were also relatively lightly used (although a decent proportion of pre-trip use was found). Figure 11. Trip changes by pre-trip traveler information source (traveler log data). Figure 12. Trip changes by en-route traveler information sources (traveler log data).

41 A supplemental survey was also deployed across all six cities to investigate recent trip changing behavior. This was based on the small number of reported trip changes from the traveler log and because a key interest of the study was to understand the effect of information types and sources on trip changes. A similar pattern was found, with TI sources and types. The most popular sources used included radio, smartphone apps, and electronic highway signs (Figure 13). Note that smartphone apps were reported at a much higher percentage then the earlier survey asking about typical use, possibly due to better memory retrieval now when asked about most recent trips within three days. The least popular sources included local roadway signs, social media, and on-board devices (all possibly reflecting the lack of availability of these systems). As for information types, travelers reported the most used to be traffic incidents, travel times, and alternate route information (Figure 14). The least used were safety information, special events, and parking availability. Figure 13. Traveler information sources used when changing a trip in the last 3 days.

42 We also asked travelers what were the most influential types of TI used when making trip changes. Participants listed traffic incidents, travel times, alternate routes, visual observation of traffic conditions, and roadwork/construction zones and road closures as the most influential types of information used in typical trip changing decisions. Figure 14. Traveler information types used when changing a trip in the last 3 days.

43 Figure 15. Most influential traveler information types. Features of an ideal system In focus groups and surveys across all cities, participants were asked a direct question about features of an ideal real-time TI system. They were asked to pretend that they could design a TI system in the area, and what features would make it an ideal system. These were the main themes that emerged across all cities: • Reliable, real-time, and accurate information • Local and tailored to the travel corridor of interest and living area based on location (possibly GPS enabled), filtering irrelevant information • Detailed information such as specific lane closures, video images of traffic conditions, etc. • Time-stamped information so that the “freshness” is known • Automated alerts based on route or location of traveler • Accessible from a variety of sources (“universal means of accessing information”). Similarly, bundled suite of information types that one can choose from via most sources (e.g., traffic, road closures, construction, weather, public transit, etc.) • Alternate route and transportation information to improve decision-making • Radio as a mode should be included because it is accessible to almost everyone and more reliable in emergencies or places with cell signal obstructions – Including continuous updates on a dedicated station that clearly transmits information • Multimodal information, including transit

44 • Information provided at key decision points (e.g., before entering a highway) • Dedicated apps, radio stations, and television stations • Integrated information regardless of jurisdiction that is for the traveler from Point A to Point B As noted earlier, some types of TI sources and types are not available in all areas (see Appendix A). Consequently, we asked individuals in the supplemental use survey (all six cities) who had recently changed a trip to select the source and type of information they would have preferred to have when making their decision. In other words, what types and sources of TI would a traveler want to have access to when deciding to change a trip? Interestingly, for sources the two that were most frequently named were radio and smartphone apps. Radio has been consistently rated highly in all phases of the study, but smartphone apps have not received as much attention (likely due to lack of availability in many areas). Also, highway message signs were a popular request, and the least popular were 511 phone systems and social medial. As for information types, overwhelmingly travelers wanted information about incidents, alternate routes, travel times, and construction zones/road closures. Safety information and parking availability were the least desired types of information for travelers.