 |
|
|
|
Mobility Services for All Americans
Phase 2: Foundation Research
Final Report
Cover photos courtesy of TranSystems and SAIC. All rights reserved.
Contract No. DTFH61-01-C-00180
Task No. SA80D090
Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Transportation
ITS Joint Program Office
Federal Transit Administration
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
1710 SAIC Drive
M/S T1-12-3
McLean, VA22102
July 29, 2005
Table of Contents
Report Documentation Page |
List of Abbreviations |
Executive Summary |
1. |
Introduction |
1.1 |
Scope |
1.2 |
What Has Been Done? |
1.2.1 |
GAO |
1.2.2 |
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, United We Ride, and the New Freedom Initiative |
1.2.3 |
Other Efforts |
1.3 |
Current State of the Practice |
1.3.1 |
United We Ride – Workshop Results and Follow-on |
1.3.2 |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Human Services Transportation – A Cross-Cutting Study. ITS Applications for Coordinating and Improving Transportation Options for The Elderly, Disabled or Poor |
1.3.3 |
Technology Solutions for Persons with Disabilities |
1.3.4 |
Technical Assistance Efforts: CTAA, Easter Seals Project ACTION, and Others |
1.4 |
Final Report Layout |
2. |
Mobility, Accessibility, and Needs, Barriers, and Gaps |
2.1 |
Purpose |
2.2 |
Transportation Disadvantaged |
2.3 |
Transportation Needs |
2.4 |
Barriers |
2.5 |
Current Service |
2.5.1 |
Technology |
2.5.2 |
Coordination |
2.5.3 |
Training |
2.6 |
Gaps |
2.7 |
Summary Table |
3. |
Linking Technology with Access and Mobility |
3.1 |
Description of Available Technologies |
3.1.1 |
Transit ITS |
3.1.2 |
Assistive Technologies |
3.1.3 |
Other Supporting Technologies |
3.2 |
Applicability of Technologies |
3.3 |
State of Readiness and Level of Deployment |
3.4 |
Examples of Current Technology Deployments |
3.4.1 |
Autonomous Dial-A-Ride Transit (ADART) in Corpus Christi, TX – Prototype Technology for Automated Dispatching |
3.4.2 |
Wheels of Wellness in Philadelphia, PA – Coordination through Brokerage |
3.4.3 |
TriMet in Portland, OR – Coordination of Accessibility on All Modes |
3.4.4 |
Reach Your Destination Early (RYDE) in Kearney, NE – Goal Setting Using ITS Architecture |
3.4.5 |
OmniLink in Prince William County, VA – Fixed Route Flex Service Aids All Users |
3.4.6 |
Municipal Railway in San Francisco, CA – Remote Infrared Audible Signals (RIAS) |
3.4.7 |
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) in Suburban Detroit, MI |
3.4.8 |
Utah Transit Agency Transfer Connection Protection |
3.4.9 |
Ventura County Transportation Commission – Smart Passport (Integrated Fare Collection in Ventura, CA) |
3.4.10 |
Tahoe Coordinated Transit System (CTS) in Lake Tahoe, California/Stateline, Nevada – Integrated Operation of Public and Private Transportation Resources |
3.5 |
Issues and Barriers |
3.5.1 |
Institutional Concerns |
3.5.2 |
Technical Concerns |
3.5.3 |
Technology Summary |
4. |
Foundation Research Discussion Groups |
4.1 |
Overview of the Discussion Groups |
4.2 |
Discussion Group Format |
4.3 |
Discussion Group Summaries |
4.3.1 |
Consumers /Advocacy Organizations (Representing Transportation Disadvantaged) |
4.3.2 |
Community Transportation/Non-Profit Transportation Agencies |
4.3.3 |
Public Transit Agencies |
4.3.4 |
Public Administrators |
4.3.5 |
Private Industry |
4.4 |
Overall Summary (Consumers, Community Transportation/Non-Profit Agencies, Public Transit Agencies, and Public Administrators) |
4.5 |
Discussion Group Priorities and Overarching Themes (Consumers, Community Transportation/Non-Profit Agencies, Public Transit Agencies, and Public Administrators) |
5. |
Synthesis of Major Findings |
5.1 |
Summary of Transportation Mobility Needs |
5.2 |
State of the Practice and a Summary of the Gaps |
5.3 |
Options for Addressing Transit Mobility Gaps and Barriers to those Options |
5.3.1 |
The Resource Solution |
5.3.2 |
The Productivity Solution |
5.3.3 |
The Role of Technology |
6. |
Preliminary Thoughts Towards a Traveler Management Coordination Center |
6.1 |
Core Elements of a Proposed Traveler Management Coordination Center |
6.2 |
Option #1 – Physical Center |
6.2.1 |
Strengths of the Physical Approach |
6.2.2 |
Weaknesses of the Physical Approach |
6.3 |
Option #2a – Virtual Approach (with centralized hardware) |
6.4 |
Option #2b – Virtual Approach (No Centralized Hardware) |
6.4.1 |
Strengths of Virtual Approach |
6.4.2 |
Weaknesses of Virtual Approach |
6.5 |
Recommended Approach |
6.6 |
Implementation Considerations |
7. |
Suggested Next Steps for MSAA Program |
Appendix A: Discussion Group Summaries |
List of Tables
List of Figures
Next
|
|
|
|
|
