Intelligent Transportation Systems for Traveler Information

Deployment Benefits and Lessons Learned

[PDF version 378 KB]
Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Benefits

Travel Time in Demand in Houston and Chicago
Let the Web Do the Work
Traveler Information Gets Thumbs Up from Truckers
Traveler Info Is Most Valuable When It's Free

Costs

511 Costs Vary, But Customer Satisfaction Is High
Roadside Equipment Costs

Deployment

Traveler Information Vital During Emergencies
Mile Marker

Lessons Learned

What Should It Say? Guidelines for Effective DMS
Traveler Information Systems — Lessons from Experience

In the 10 most congested areas of the country, each rush hour traveler pays an annual "congestion tax" of $850 to $1,600 in lost time and fuel and spends a total of almost 8 work days each year stuck in traffic. To address this costly problem, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network. One element of this strategy is to advance low-cost operational and technological improvements that increase traveler information through expanded use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).¹

Traveler Information

Real-time traveler information is information that allows travelers to choose the most efficient mode and route to their final destination. Traveler information systems use ITS to provide timely and detailed information about traffic incidents, the weather, construction, and special events to improve travel time predictability, allow drivers to make better choices, and reduce congestion. Measurable impacts of traveler information systems include:

The use of dynamic message signs and highway advisory radio in South Carolina following Hurricane Floyd in 1999 made it easier for evacuees to use all freeway lanes as they returned home. Statistics show that traffic volume during the evacuation, when outbound traffic used only one side of the freeway, was 44 percent less than traffic volume during the return trip when inbound traffic used both sides of the freeway.²
In California, it is estimated that the reduced travel times and vehicle operation costs for California travelers will provide a payback value of $100 for every $1 invested over the next 20 years in comprehensive statewide traveler information by using the generated data in other infrastructure operations.³
In 2004, 92.3 percent of callers to the San Francisco Bay Area 511 number said that they were satisfied with the system, as did 90.3 percent of callers to Montana's statewide 511 number. In a survey of callers to Virginia's 511 system along I-81, 99 percent said they would call again.⁴
In a 2004 survey, 41 States indicated they currently deploy traveler information websites,⁵ 25 use highway advisory radio,⁶ and 8 reported having either statewide or regional 511⁷— a number that had grown to 26 States by September 2006.⁸
80 percent of surveyed visitors to Maine's popular tourist destinations of Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park said that the availability of real-time information on the electronic departure signs influenced their decision to use the bus.⁹

Travel Time in Demand in Houston and Chicago

When drivers in the Houston metro area got tired of seeing dynamic message signs (DMS) without useful information posted, they let Houston TranStar — the partnership responsible for coordinating the planning, design and operation of Houston's transportation systems, emergency management functions, and ITS — know about it.

TranStar currently posts travel times on 81 DMS across more than 250 centerline miles of Houston area freeways.¹⁰ Travel times are based on data collected from the nearly 2 million "EZ-Tag" automatic vehicle identification toll transponders currently circulating around the Houston metropolitan area.¹¹ Data from these vehicle probes are collected at 232 supplemental reader stations and transmitted to TranStar for analysis. Reader stations are, on average, 2-3 miles apart, but not more than 5 miles apart.¹²

As a result of driver complaints about static messages posted on the DMS, TranStar staff conducted an Internet-based survey to determine the types of information people wanted to see posted. Results of this survey indicated that drivers were primarily interested in seeing incident information (93 percent) and travel times (82 percent). Many respondents indicated that while incident information is important, they also need travel time information to better determine how incidents impact their travel.¹³

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) covers a significant part of northeastern Illinois, the third most congested area in the country.

ISTHA provides average travel times from toll plaza to toll plaza based on "I-PASS" toll transponder data collected by its electronic toll collection system. Users of the automated I-PASS toll collection system now exceed 1.5 million.¹⁴ These numbers provide ISTHA with a significant penetration of vehicle probes, providing high-quality, time-stamped location information to the Tollway in near real-time.¹⁵

ISTHA uses data from three sources to calculate travel times: I-PASS transponders, radar sensor stations along tolled roads, and loop detectors maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation. ISTHA currently posts travel times on 33 DMS located on tolled and nearby non-tolled roads.¹⁶

Although ISTHA has not conducted a formal study, emails and calls to the customer input line indicate that drivers approve of travel time availability information, and will complain when a non-incident-related message is posted during times when travel time information is normally available.¹⁷

What Should It Say? Guidelines for Effective DMS

At typical highway speeds the message posted on a dynamic message sign (DMS) must be presented to motorists in about 8 seconds or less. This translates to eight words at 55 mph, seven words at 65 mph, and six words at 70 mph.¹⁸ Therefore, the message must count, and the words used must have impact.

The most effective DMS are the ones that contain the following elements (in the order presented):

Situation description
Situation location
Effect on travel (delays, lanes blocked, etc.)
Action motorist should take
Benefit of taking the action (usually implied by situation description).

Some tips to remember when creating dynamic messages include the following:¹⁹

Motorists will ignore advice unless a reason is offered for taking it.²⁰ The "reason" in most cases is the problem (Accident, Left 2 Lanes Closed, etc.). Motorists expect this information to appear first in a DMS message.
For incidents and roadwork, the location should immediately follow the situation descriptor.²¹ If there is an incident ahead, it is important to tell drivers where it is so they can determine whether or not to change their route. If a lane is closed, the DMS message should also include that information so drivers can begin to merge or exit.
When a majority of motorists are commuters, the incident/roadwork location should be referenced to the nearest cross-street or exit ramp.²² Commuters are very familiar with cross-street names and exit ramp names (or numbers), so these should be included in the message.
When a majority of motorists would be unfamiliar with the names of local cross-streets, the incident/roadwork location should be described in distances to the nearest half-mile.²³ On Interstates where numbers are used for exit ramps, the incident location can be referenced to the exit ramp number so non-local motorists can interpret the information as easily as local drivers.
It is important to maintain the credibility of DMS messages by changing them in a timely manner and by validating the message displayed.²⁴ Displaying messages that are inaccurate leads to motorist confusion and can adversely affect both traffic flow and the transportation agency's credibility.
Travel times should be generated automatically and not require a human operator to manually enter travel time data.²⁵ It is important to note that effective travel time messages do not require the data to be 100 percent accurate. Research indicates that data with error rates of 20 percent still produce useful traveler information.

511 Costs Vary, But Customer Satisfaction Is High

Although 511 system costs vary depending on system size and other factors, in States where 511 is deployed, customer satisfaction rates are consistently high. For example, Arizona has a 511 customer satisfaction rate of 71 percent, and Washington State has a satisfaction rate of 68 percent.²⁶ Similarly, callers to the Eastern Kentucky Rural Highway Information Project system indicated their happiness with 511, with 94 percent of those surveyed stating they were very satisfied with the answers and information they received.²⁷

But informative, customer-friendly 511 systems do require varying levels of investment. The following are representative examples of 511 deployment costs collected from around the U.S. that can apply to either a State or metropolitan system.²⁸

Labor costs include personnel that are working on and providing support to the 511 system.

Two tours by management and technical personnel to existing 511 deployments to gather information: $13,720.
Internal information technology department labor charges: $100,000.

Equipment costs include software and hardware purchased for the 511 system as well as associated upgrades and expansions to integrate existing traveler information systems with the 511 system.

Text-to-speech and voice recognition software: $179,000.
Completely new advanced traveler information system hardware and software: $305,920.

Telecommunications costs associated with the system include both initial implementation and operations.

Fees for one telecommunications company to transfer 511 calls in one metro area: $12,000.
Programming telecommunications equipment to properly direct 511 calls throughout one state: $84,000.

Marketing costs include the initial and ongoing costs of outreach and advertisement to the traveling community.

511 advertisement in 350,000 travel guides: $3,400.
Signage, brochure, other collateral: $41,000.

Because the costs to design, build, and implement 511 traveler information systems can vary widely depending on the size of the system and the availability of existing infrastructure, the average development cost, as well as the cost-per-call, which includes all operations and maintenance costs, have been recognized as useful comparative measures to assist deployers with developing appropriate budgets. Data collected from several statewide and metropolitan systems show the average development cost is $415,683 (ranging from $133,000 to $1,028,000), and the average cost-per-call is $1.08 (ranging from $0.12 to $2.84).²⁹

**Roadside Equipment Costs**³⁰
Unit Cost Element	Life (Years)	Capital Cost	Operations & Maintenance Cost (per year)
Dynamic Message Sign	10	$47,000-$117,000	$2,300-$6,000
Dynamic Message Sign Structure	20	$25,000-$120,000	Not available
Portable Dynamic Message Sign	14	$18,300-$24,000	$600-$1,800
Highway Advisory Radio	20	$15,000-$35,000	$600-$1,000
Highway Advisory Radio Sign	10	$5,000-$9,000	$250

Traveler Information Vital During Emergencies

On a typical day, traveler information is an important tool for communicating with the traveling public, and State and local agencies have typically used dynamic message signs (DMS) and highway advisory radio (HAR) in advance of exits and interchanges where alternative routes may help drivers avoid congestion delays or work zones.

But traveler information systems are also crucial for getting information to motorists who need to know about evacuation routes and the impacts of national security or other emergencies. For example:

Florida residents contemplating travel during extreme weather can access the State Department of Transportation's website to view the statewide network of real-time traffic volume and speed data recorders. It also provides links to hotels in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia that allow evacuees to make online hotel reservations.³¹
On September 11, 2001, within 2 minutes of the decision to close the main bridge to New York, DMS alerted motorists 10 miles away. The New York Department of Transportation quickly deployed portable DMS at New York City bridge and tunnel entrances advising of road closures. After TRANSCOM, the regional transportation management coalition alerted the I-95 Corridor Coalition agencies of problems in the New York region, these agencies used HAR and DMS on I-95 as far south as Delaware and as far north as Connecticut to alert travelers to avoid the New York City region.³²

Let the Web Do the Work

During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, a survey about the CommuterLink Website showed that 41 percent of visitors and 70 percent of residents were aware of the website. Overall, 98 percent of visitors and 97 percent of residents who used the website said it worked well for them.³³ In California, 70 percent of survey respondents indicated California's GoVentura website trip planning system helped them make a transit trip that they would otherwise have made by automobile.³⁴

Traveler Information Systems — Lessons from Experience

The following are lessons learned on how to plan, design, operate, and maintain traveler information systems and are taken from the ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource.

Policy and Planning

Perform local consumer research on the 511 service during the planning stage of the project.³⁵ The Utah Department of Transportation held planning stage focus groups to gauge consumer reaction to the 511 system that it had envisioned. Although the focus group had a strongly negative reaction to an automated system, after hearing a demonstration of what a voice activated system would sound like, the participants found it more than acceptable and were surprised at the system's quality and ease of use.
Consider the future when planning and deploying a traveler information system.³⁶ Because New Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) planned for future use, the agency used a combination of equipment purchases and rentals for its project to rebuild the "Big I" interchange in Albuquerque. Once the project ended, NMSHTD was able to reuse the purchased equipment as part of a permanent freeway management system.
Clearly define roles, responsibilities, plans, and processes.³⁷ Without a systems engineering plan, the Montana Department of Transportation and its partner, Montana State University's Western Transportation Institute, encountered delays and confusion whenever development issues arose in creating the Greater Yellowstone Regional Traveler and Weather Information System, making it necessary for management to spend additional time and effort coordinating resolutions.

Leadership and Partnerships

Encourage private sector involvement to help reduce program risk and support on-time deployment.³⁸ By partnering with more than 20 public and private organizations to create "SmartTrek," Washington State effectively integrated new and existing data sources to establish a regional, multimodal transportation information network that significantly expanded the distribution of traveler information.
Educate tourist-oriented businesses and tourism organizations about the economic benefits of ITS.³⁹ Deploying ITS components to provide real-time traveler information contributed to both a positive visitor experience and a longer stay at Acadia National Park, but 61 percent of local business managers reported being unaware of any of the ITS-based traveler information technologies used there. ITS deployers should consider marketing the benefits of ITS to tourist-related businesses, particularly the positive contributions to the local economy.

Effectiveness and Evaluation

Incorporate mechanisms for capturing user feedback for system evaluation, including the ability to intercept incoming 511 calls for survey or focus group recruitment.⁴⁰ Arizona Department of Transportation used a live intercept approach to survey 511 callers for feedback. Approximately 31 percent of intercepted callers agreed to be surveyed and approximately 71 percent followed through, yielding 411 surveys and a survey completion rate of 22 percent. No complaints were received from intercepted callers regarding the method of recruitment for survey completion.
Recognize that interoperability is becoming an important issue in achieving the vision of a nationwide 511 system.⁴¹ In San Francisco, efforts to implement 511 access were frustrated by the need for regional telecommunications company SBC to develop its plans for 511 access on a system-wide basis. However, the advantages of developing a regionwide 511 system that has been tested and deployed will shorten the implementation schedule for other agencies as they prepare to implement 511 and will help to distribute the development costs among all the system implementers.

For these and other lessons, visit: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov.

Rural ITS Gets Thumbs Up from Truckers

In a Washington State Department of Transportation-sponsored survey of commercial vehicle operation companies, 57 percent of respondents said the availability of the new highway advisory radio (HAR) system made them somewhat or a lot safer.⁴² Of those interviewed during the post-deployment period, 56 percent indicated they tuned in to one or both of the HAR stations while traveling in the area, and 51 percent found the HAR messages useful.⁴³ General travelers were also surveyed, and 94 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the website road weather information made travelers better prepared for their trips. More than half agreed the information helped them avoid travel delays.⁴⁴

Traveler Info Is Most Valuable When It's Free

One study used an Internet survey to evaluate customer satisfaction with Web-based real-time traffic information in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Results showed that 68 percent of users in Pittsburgh and 86 percent of users in Philadelphia changed their original travel route, while 47 percent of users in Pittsburgh and 66 percent of users in Philadelphia changed their original time of travel as a result of the traffic information.⁴⁵ Notably, less than 10 percent of Internet respondents in Pittsburgh and 27 percent in Philadelphia were willing to pay money for the traffic information.⁴⁶

Mile Marker

September 2006 saw the 511 Traveler Information system mark the following milestones:⁴⁷

More than 60 million calls received nationwide since inception in 2001.
25 consecutive months with more than 1 million calls.
511 availability reached more than 100 million Americans (35 percent).

There's More Online!

ITS Applications Overview: www.itsoverview.its.dot.gov

FHWA Office of Operations 511 Program: www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/511/index.htm

FHWA Office of Operations Real-Time Traveler Information Program: www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/index.htm

511 Deployment Coalition: www.deploy511.org

Source Information

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, Washington, DC: May 2006 . Report: isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf

2. Federal Highway Administration, Managing Demand Through Traveler Information Services, Washington, DC: 2005. Report: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/manag_demand_tis/travelinfo.htm

3. 511 Deployment Coalition, The Value of Deploying 511, Washington, DC: May 2004, p. 14. Report: www.deploy511.org/docs/511_Value.pdf

4. 511 Deployment Coalition, America’s Travel Information Number – Implementation and Operational
Guidelines for 511 Services Version 3.0, Washington, DC: September 2005, p. 6. Report: www.deploy511.org/docs/511%20Guidelines%20Version%203.0.pdf

5. Federal Highway Administration, “Statewide Web Sites for Distributing Traveler Information:
2004 National Sumary,” ITS Deployment Statistics Database Entry: www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/ResultsStateNational.asp?ID=310&rpt=M&filter=1.

6. Federal Highway Administration, “Statewide Traveler Information Disseminated Via Highway Advisory Radio (HAR): 2004 National Summary,” ITS Deployment Statistics Database Entry: www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/ResultsStateNational.asp?ID=1056

7. Federal Highway Administration, “Statewide 511 System: 2004 National Summary,” ITS Deployment Statistics Database Entry:
www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/ResultsStateNational.asp?ID=794&rpt=M&filter=1

8. 511 Deployment Coalition Webpage,"511 Usage Statistics," www.deploy511.org/usage.htm

9. Federal Highway Administration, Evaluation of the Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test: Final Report, Washington, DC: June 2003. ITS Benefits Database Entry: www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/ECDB8C5BF92D222C85256E6800538AA6 Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13834.html

10. Federal Highway Administration and Texas Department of Transportation, Travel Time Messaging on Dynamic Message Signs – Houston, TX, Washington, DC: May 2005. Report: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/travel_time_study/houston/houston_ttm.htm

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Federal Highway Administration and Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Travel Time Messaging on Dynamic Message Signs – Chicago, IL, Washington, DC: May 2005. Report: www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/travel_time_study/chicago/chicago_ttm.htm

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Federal Highway Administration, Changeable Message Sign Operation and Messaging Handbook, Washington, DC: August 2004, p. 2-3. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&06D51ECB440E536E852572600069CB04 (Lesson learned point of contact: Brian Philips, Mitretek Systems, 202-863-3659, brian.philips@mitretek.org). Report: tmcpfs.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/cfprojects/uploaded_files/CMS%20Operation%20and%20Messaging%20Handbook-Final%20Draft.pdf

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., p. 5-2.

21. Ibid., p. 5-9.

22. Ibid., p. 5-10.

23. Ibid.

24. Johnson, Christine M., Policy Memorandum on the Use of Changeable Message Signs, January 19, 2001.
Document: www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/pame.htm

25. Lindley, Jeffrey A., Guidance Memorandum on Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Recommended Practice,
July 16, 2004. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&45E28761828DD11D85257260006BC296 (Lesson learned point of contact: Brian Philips, Mitretek Systems, 202-863-3659, brian.philips@mitretek.org). Document: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/resources/cms_rept/traveltime.htm

26. 511 Deployment Coalition, America’s Travel Information Number: Implementation and Operational Guidelines for 511 Services Version 3.0, Washington, DC: September 2005, p. 58. ITS Benefits Database Entry: www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/81320BEE35AA27AC8525725D00694782 Report: www.deploy511.org/docs/511%20Guidelines%20Version%203.0.pdf

27. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the University of Kentucky, Evaluation of the Eastern Kentucky Rural Highway Information Project 511 Tourism Service, Frankfort, KY: May 2006, p. 34. Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/14307_files/14307.pdf

28. 511 Deployment Coalition, The Value of Deploying 511, Washington, DC: May 2004, p. 13. ITS Costs Database Entry: www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/20DF3FC794043FF185256F16005D144F Report: www.deploy511.org/docs/511_Value.pdf

29. Ibid.

30. Federal Highway Administration, ITS Costs Database, Roadside Information Subsystems:
www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/SubsystemCosts?OpenForm&Subsystem=Roadside+Information+(RS-I). Unit Element Cost Descriptions:
Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) – Low capital cost is for smaller DMS installed along arterial. High capital cost is for full matrix, light-emitting diode, 3-line, walk-in DMS installed on freeway. Cost does not include installation.
Dynamic Message Sign Tower – Low capital cost is for a small structure for arterials. High capital cost is for a larger structure spanning 3-4 lanes. DMS tower structure requires minimal maintenance.
Dynamic Message Sign — Portable – Trailer-mounted DMS (3-line, 8” character display); includes trailer, solar or diesel powered, and equipped with cellular modem for remote communication and control. Operating costs are for labor and replacement parts.
Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) – Capital cost is for a 10-watt HAR, which includes processor, antenna, transmitters, battery back-up, cabinet, rack mounting, lighting, mounts, connectors, cable, and license fee. A "super HAR," used to gain a stronger signal with a larger antenna, costs an additional $9,000 - $10,000.
Highway Advisory Radio Sign – Cost is for a HAR sign with flashing beacons. Includes the cost of the controller.

31. Federal Highway Administration, Managing Demand Through Traveler Information Services, Washington, DC:
2005. Report: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/manag_demand_tis/travelinfo.htm

32. Ibid.

33. Federal Highway Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games: Event Study Traffic Management and Traveler Information, Washington, DC: April 2003. ITS Benefits Database Entry: www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/BE4429923C932386852571070063CEBA Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13850.html

34. Federal Highway Administration, Managing Demand Through Traveler Information Services, Washington, DC: 2005. Report: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/manag_demand_tis/travelinfo.htm

35. 511 Deployment Coalition, Implementation and Operational Guidelines for 511 Services, Version 2.0, Washington, DC: September 2003. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&9612695B03F1787D8525707E0061C6B6 (Lesson learned point of contact: Pete Costello, PBS&J, 407-806-4440, petecostello@pbsj.com). Report: www.deploy511.org/guidelinesv2_intro.htm

36. Federal Highway Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones, A Case Study: Work Zone Traffic and Incident Management System, Keeping Traffic Moving During Reconstruction of the Big I, a Major Interstate-Interstate Interchange in Albuquerque, Washington, DC: January 2004. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&B1BF234E0F61EF8F8525707E0061C5C2 (Lesson learned point of contact: Allan DeBlasio, U.S. DOT / RITA / John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 617-494-2032, allan.j.deblasio@volpe.dot.gov). Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13941.html

37. Federal Highway Administration, Final Evaluation Report for the Greater Yellowstone Regional Traveler and Weather Information System (GYRTWIS), Washington, DC: December 2003. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&796841C9B1661F098525713E00588B72 (Lesson learned point of contact: Robert Sanchez, SAIC, 859-626-5109, robert.r.sanchez@saic.com). Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13958.html

38. Federal Highway Administration, Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative – Seattle Evaluation Report, Washington, DC: May 2000. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&A39754432F3449B18525707E0061C7E3 (Lesson learned point of contact: Peter Briglia, Washington State Department of Transportation, 206-543-3331, briglia@u.washington.edu). Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13071.pdf

39. Federal Highway Administration, An Evaluation of Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational Test: Final Report, Washington, DC: June 2003. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&FBF846068035D0FA85257090005496FB (Lesson learned point of contact: Susan Moreau, Maine Department of Transportation, 207-624-3329, susan.moreau@maine.dot). Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13834.html

40. Federal Highway Administration, Model Deployment of a Regional, Multi-Modal 511 Traveler Information System — Final Report, Washington, DC: August 2005. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&7B0328CFD0DC48CF85257169006308C8 (Lesson learned point of contact: Matt Burt, Battelle, 480-753-1511, burtm@battelle.org). Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/14248.htm

41. Federal Highway Administration, 511 Case Studies: San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Washington, DC: April 2001. ITS Lessons Learned Knowledge Resource Entry: www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Lesson?OpenForm&C1FC53660FB265088525707E0061C698
(Lesson learned point of contact: Pete Costello, PBS&J, 407-806-4440, petecostello@pbsj.com). Report: www.its.dot.gov/511/Travinfo.htm

42. Federal Highway Administration, Evaluation of Rural ITS Information Systems Along U.S. 395, Spokane, Washington, Washington, DC: January 2004. ITS Benefits Database Entry: www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/23B45777DB4FE98085256EA6004E86C3 Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13955.html

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Federal Highway Administration, Evaluation of Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program (ITIP) in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Washington, DC: March 2003. ITS Benefits Database Entry: www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/0/D8BFAF0C3FE6944185256CE000491E74 Report: ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/redirect/repts_te/13777.html

46. Ibid.

47. 511 Deployment Coalition Webpage, “511 Usage Statistics,” www.deploy511.org/usage.htm