BBC Research Paper Final 3

Running head: TECHNOLOGIES & PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION USE 1

Full Steam Ahead: Technologies that Encourage Public Transportation Use

Julia L. Needham

Elon University

TECHNOLOGIES & PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION USE

Abstract

Because most people in the United States have become accustomed to the privacy,

independence, and convenience of private vehicles, public transportation use has drastically

declined. This paper looks at new advancements in the field of mass transit to bring in new users

and keep existing ones. Three currently-available technologies should be integrated now to

increase ridership: first, location-tracking mobile applications are easy to implement and increase

passengers’ confidence in using public transit; second, on-demand transportation increases route

efficiency; and third, smart cards/contactless payment alleviate the complications associated with

cash transactions. In the long run, transit companies should work towards replacing conventional

transport vehicles with options like bike share programs, driverless automation, and personal

rapid transit (e.g. high-speed monorails). All of the technologies discussed will make mass transit

in the United States and elsewhere easier to use, more environmentally friendly, and optimally

efficient.

Keywords: public transportation, mobile applications, location tracking, smart cards, bike

share, on-demand transportation, personal rapid transit

2


Full Steam Ahead: Technologies that Encourage Public Transportation Use

Introduction

Although the declining health of the environment from pollution and plundering is now a

very common topic, humans are still continuing on a path of reckless indulgence. That is not to

say environmental policies and attitudes are not improving, but major problems still exist. One of

the largest problems stems from the role of transportation in society. From the late 1800s to the

1920s, urban mass transit was a booming enterprise, but public transportation has been

continuously declining since the advent of the personal automobile and because of the suburban

exodus that ensued (Young, 2015). In 2013, transportation contributed half of the carbon

monoxide and nitrogen oxides that were emitted into the air and also a fourth of the

hydrocarbons (“Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Human Health,” n.d.). This means that vehicles are

a major contributor to global warming and other problems that come from pollution, like acid

rain and groundwater contamination.

Besides the environment, Americans’ health is also suffering greatly due to respiratory

illnesses from air pollution and because of a mainly sedentary lifestyle (Brownson, Boehmer, &

Luke, 2005). The resulting effects, including bronchitis, heart disease, and obesity, harm not only

individual health, but also the government and economy because of health care costs.

Furthermore, people have grown used to the immediate access that cars provide to get exactly

where they want to go. While public transportation may not provide exactly that, its sizable

benefits include reducing traffic congestion (and saving time as a result), saving money that

would otherwise be spent buying and maintaining a car, and of course, reducing greenhouse

emissions (Prashanth, Geetha, & Sundaram, 2011).

Unfortunately, people in the United States are discouraged from using public transit

3


because it can be complex to map a route and find stop locations and times. Most people also do

not want to wait for a bus, and they must deal with the possibility that their train or other transit

mode could be running late or be crowded.

New advancements in transportation technology that can encourage public transportation

use include vehicle location-tracking applications, on-demand transport, and smart cards. Firstly,

location-tracking apps are cheap to implement since they do not require new infrastructure but do

need some modification for underground transit where wireless connections are not strong. Also,

there are ways to ensure that people who cannot enough to afford a smartphone can utilize

location-tracking services, including text message applications that accommodate all mobile

phones. The second topic discussed, on-demand transport, has a lot of promise to increase route

efficiency. Finally, smart cards’ main benefit is the ease-of-access they enable for passengers and

the information they provide to transport companies so that they may improve on riders’

experiences. Overall, these technologies push people to move past their belief that the public

transportation system is one that is complicated and unreliable.

I will also examine the possible future of transport vehicles themselves, like bike share

programs, driverless transport, and personal rapid transit. Much of this topic in transportation is

theoretical, but radically improving public transit vehicles should be the end goal of transport

companies. Actually seeing transportation’s very nature change could be the push that

Americans need to accept public transit into their lives once again. In the meantime, technologies

like location-tracking apps, on-demand transport, and smart cards can start to draw passengers in.

Transportation Technologies

Location-Tracking Applications

The most popular type of technology related to public transportation usability is

4


applications used for location tracking. OneBusAway is one of those location-based apps that

provides real-time data about bus routes, destinations, and the time remaining until

arrivals/departures via the web, SMS (Short Message Service, i.e. text messages), interactive

voice-response, and iPhone web interfaces (Ferris, Watkins, & Borning, 2010). Demonstrating

the success of the app, 92% of the respondents said they were more or much more satisfied with

public transportation because of it. Other benefits that were reported were decreased (perceived

or actual) wait times, increased public transit trips that were not work-related, and an increase in

the amount of walking that people did (to get to a quicker route, pass the time, or because they

knew that it would take less time to walk to the destination than to wait for a bus). Finally, some

people, especially women, reported increased feelings of safety. One person said, “Onebusaway

[sic] makes riding the bus seem more accessible and safe. I can plan when to leave the house

better and spend less time waiting at dark or remote stops” (Ferris et al., 2010, p. 1812).

Location-tracking apps are becoming more popular in many cities around the world. In

Japan, for instance, researchers from Tottori University created a system that sends location data

from passengers to a central computer that matches the vehicle to a specific timetable so that the

actual schedule can be predicted (Ito, Sasama, Kawamura, & Sugahara, 2011). This is useful

because most official timetables are unreliable and inaccurate. The system works by having users

volunteer to provide the data through their smartphones to help other passengers looking at travel

times. People can potentially be incentivized to provide the data through rewards like coupons

for stores along the way.

Another example of tracking apps can also be found right here in North Carolina. First

employed by Triangle Transit, Durham-based TransLoc has developed a mobile application

called TransLoc Rider that is similar to OneBusAway, as well as TransLoc Traveler (Wallace,

5


2014). Rather than directly benefiting passengers, the Traveler app provides important data from

TransLoc Rider to transit companies, such as where people came from before their stop, where

they went after their trip, if they changed modes (e.g. took a train and then a taxi), what they

thought of the service, etc. In many other sources, it was mentioned that companies need

information other than just when and where people get on and off a bus so that they can better

service the consumer. TransLoc Traveler is a prime solution to this because it can provide data

but still keep people’s identities private by compiling the information from TransLoc Rider

anonymously. Undoubtedly, location-based transportation applications are becoming more

prevalent in the United States and abroad, and the information that they provide can benefit not

only the passengers but also the transit companies.

One complication that arises from location-tracking apps is the need to have a wireless

connection in order to use GPS. In particular, many people are unable to use applications like

TransLoc Rider or OneBusAway in subways because of their depth underground (Stockx, Hecht,

& Schöning, 2014). If a person does manage to connect, the location shown is usually inaccurate

and can result in missing a stop. As a response to this, SubwayPS, a system that uses a

smartphone’s built-in accelerometer and gyroscope to tell when a subway is stopped or moving,

was developed. From there, Stockx et al. (2014) made an app called MetroNavigator, which uses

the location detection from SubwayPS to map the route in real-time and also show “event cards,”

like a notification of when the destination has been reached, points-of-interest, and unplanned

stops between stations. This dual-system is a very economical option for transit organizations

because they do not require any new infrastructure, wireless connectivity, or information

crowdsourcing. For many new public transportation users, underground transit can be more

daunting because they cannot see their surroundings or infer when their stop is coming up.

6


Keeping that in mind, SubwayPS and MetroNavigator would allow commuters to have

confidence in knowing exactly what to expect for the location of the vehicle and its arrival times.

Another problem with many of these apps is that they do not allow people who cannot

afford a smartphone to benefit from this information. This smartphone barrier was addressed by

the Detroit Department of Transportation with a totally SMS-based system, called TextMyBus,

where a person texts a number with either their address or the closest intersection them

(“TextMyBus”, n.d.). In return, they get back a list of bus routes that are closest, must select

which bus they would like, and then receive information back on the closest bus stop, the bus

route, and arrival times for the buses that will arrive at that stop. Because more than 90% of

Americans have a cell phone, many more people would able to utilize this program than they

would if it was an app for smartphones (“Mobile Technology Fact Sheet,” n.d.).

On-Demand Transportation

Another new topic in the area of transportation technology is the idea of on-demand

transport. In Amrita University’s campus in southern India, researchers tested the idea of demand

responsive transportation, where anyone who needs transportation from a bus stop uses a built-in

alert system to connect with a central server, which processes the information and reroutes the

closest bus using an algorithm to determine the most efficient path (Prashanth, Geetha, &

Sundaram, 2011). The experiment succeeded, but Prashanth et al. (2011) said that the system

works very well in small-scale areas that have fewer routes, but for a large city there would need

to be a more complex algorithm for vehicles to choose between shorter paths or shorter travel

times. In simpler terms, the system would need a lot of work to be implementable in a large city.

Expanding on this idea, Helsinki’s public transit authority has already established

Kutsuplus (Finnish for call plus) that is built on the concept of on-demand transport. The system

7


is specifically trying to attract people who do not normally partake in public transportation by

providing an alternative to the standard bus system, which may not fit in with their schedule

(Barry, 2013). Basically, Kustuplus works like a government-run taxi system where people can

share a minibus (which has nine seats) with others or take a private trip. Also, the route and

scheduling is completely automated, meaning that operational costs are low. In a case such as

this, demand-responsive transit should complement already existing bus systems rather than

replace them because it might get too complicated to service so many people who all want to go

to different places in a large city. It is great for people who are willing to pay more, but like

program director at the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority, Kari Rissanen, says, people who

are satisfied with standard public transportation should continue using it (Barry, 2013, para. 7).

There are many benefits to demand-responsive transportation that can be reaped both by

US transit companies and citizens. As the head designer of Phillips Electronics Company, Cheaw

Hwei Low mentions in Dowling’s interview (2013), positives of an on-demand system range

everywhere from the reduction of traffic and congestion during peaks hours to transit companies’

saving money over time from reduced waste (e.g. time, gas, etc.). The biggest benefit of a system

like the one tested in Amrita University is that massive amounts of pollution are kept from

entering the environment (Prashanth, Geetha, & Sundaram, 2011).

Smart Cards

Another technology that is becoming more important in the transit industry is smart

cards. Smart cards are basically devices, about the size of a credit card, that are designed to store

and usually process data; they are currently used in many areas to store information on

everything from biometrics, fingerprints and medical data, to religious affiliation and banking

data (Pelletier, Trépanier, & Morency, 2011). Currently, most public transportation smart cards

8


are utilized in Europe and Asia and are usually employed for the main purpose of revenue

collection. However, Pelletier, Trépanier, & Morency (2011) argue that smart cards can be used

for much more, especially because of the massive amounts of data that they can collect. As a

result, the data can be used to, say, track the effects of new policies or ensure that there are no

defective pieces of equipment. The researchers note that although initial costs and

implementation can be difficult, many transit authorities are already using smart cards to replace

traditional magnetic cards and tickets.

Lathia and Capra (2011) used smart card data to analyze how perceived and actual

behaviors of public transit users differ, and found that people overestimate both how much they

use public transportation and how much they pay for it. Their experiment compared data from an

online survey of Oyster card users to actual data from Transport for London’s (TfL) database.

The study found that many people overestimate how much they use public transport, which

means that they do not realize how little they are utilizing public transit, and 20.7% of

respondents also overestimated how much they were paying for fares. Disseminating the

information that people overestimate the cost of fares and the frequency that they use public

transit could encourage readers to take advantage of the transport systems already in place. The

researchers also note that ridership could increase with rewards programs where loyal customers

eventually earn free travel. “Free” rewards are already very popular in the United States, and

smart cards could allow transit companies to tap into that kind of a loyalty benefits system.

In general, smart cards would be an effective way to attract new public transportation

users and to keep current ones because of the ease-of-access that they provide. The cards are

very durable, result in quicker boarding times since cash transactions are eliminated, and can

help transit authorities better service passengers by optimizing routes and the overall passenger

9


experience (Blythe, 2000). They were domestically put to the test in 2010, when the

Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, the Port Authority of New York and New

Jersey, and New Jersey Transit began a pilot program that looked at the effectiveness of

MasterCard’s PayPass system in subways and buses (Nichols, 2010). At the time, the new

contactless credit card would replace the old system, MetroCards, which were basically gift

cards (prepaid debit cards) for transportation. MTA Chairman and CEO Jay H. Walder

succinctly remarked, “It makes life easier for our customers, helps us board our buses more

quickly and saves us money.” New Jersey Transit has since employed the Tap>Ride Program

which utilizes smart card/contactless payment technology, demonstrating that they are quite

feasible for use in the United States (New Jersey Transit, n.d.).

Bike Sharing

Although mobile and web-based technologies are important in the future of public

transportation, there are also some interesting developments happening with the transportations

themselves. The most common of these is the implementation of bike share programs, where a

person rents a bike at one location and then drops it off at the docking station closest to their

destination. Advantages of bike sharing include flexible mobility, pollution reduction, health

benefits from physical activity, lower traffic levels, reduced fossil fuel use, and financial savings

(Fishman, Washington, & Haworth, 2013). Unfortunately, many programs are not doing as well

as anticipated or are stagnating due to a few problems. Fishman et al. (2013) found that things

that can deter people from renting a bike are those that can prevent spontaneity, like helmet laws

(80% of bike share users do not wear helmets, compared to 48.6% of private cyclists), overnight

closures, and the inability to use credit card swipes. Safety is also a concern due to unaware

automobile drivers and a lack of bicycling infrastructure. Lastly, “rebalancing,” in which

10


bicycles are strategically redistributed throughout a city to meet customer demand, is a large

problem in current programs because it requires transit authorities to use more resources

(Fishman, Washington, & Haworth, 2014).

One case study, also by Fishman, Washington, and Haworth (2012), looked specifically

at Brisbane, Australia’s “CityCycle” and analyzed barriers and facilitators of partaking in the

program based on the responses of focus groups. The most important motivation for using public

bikes was convenience for being close to home or work. One recommendation from participants

was to integrate Brisbane’s public transit smart card, “Go Card,” for easier access to bicycles.

The groups also thought that the biggest way to increase membership would be for people to see

others using the bikes; one person commented, “If people start seeing people using it – you see

someone going down the street, they might think, ‘hmm, maybe I’ll give that a try” (p. 692).

Finally, many people liked the idea of incentivizing rentals to get initial ridership up by reducing

membership prices or giving two-for-one deals so that friends can join. In summary, if cities

were to provide helmets, make use of contactless payment (smart cards), improve infrastructure

to ensure cyclist safety, and better advertise the program, bike shares could become the

sustainable, efficient transportation mode that they were meant to be.

One final way that transportation planners can better promote bike sharing was explored

by Chen et al. (2015), who developed an algorithm that locates the best places to put bicycle

docking stations. The algorithm is an important advancement because in the past, cities would

send out surveyors to understand local bike demand. This clearly requires time and labor. With

help from the massive amount of available data, a computer-based way of choosing bike station

locations like the one proposed in their paper, would be much more efficient. As a consequence,

the problem that was posed in Fishman et al.’s paper (2014) about rebalancing could be solved if

11


cities were to judicially place stations at the inception of a bike share program. While this

technology affects city and transit planners the most, bike share users would also indirectly

benefit from an algorithm of this nature because bike sharing could actually become a viable

option with better-placed or more docking stations.

Bike sharing looks to be in need of major improvements but could be a great option to

entice people looking for a way to help the environment and also provide physical activity.

According to Brownson, Boehmer, and Luke (2005), most U.S. households have more cars than

they do drivers, and people’s willingness to walk or bike decreases inversely with the number of

cars. As rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other health problems increase from

sedentary lifestyles, bicycling is a good way to improve physical fitness. In addition, bike

sharing is an effective way to promote the use of pre-existing buses, trains, etc. because it

provides a means to fill distance gaps between stops and destinations (Fishman et al. 2013).

Self-Driving Vehicles

Outside of shared bicycles and conventional vehicles, there are many concepts and

prototypes of modes of public transportation that are radically different from the current fleet.

These ideas may be what are necessary to create sizable growth in public transit because of their

perceived novelty. First, many people have heard of self-driving cars but may not have thought

of them as a potential public commodity. Freemark (2015) claims that driverless cars may be the

closest things that humans can get to personal rapid transit. They are attractive because they can

be used by anyone without having to walk, without knowing how to drive, and without waiting

for a bus or train. According to the article, this kind of system does not harm standing public

transit and can actually boost it by giving people the confidence that they will be able to

completely reach their destination without any gaps. The automated automobile technology itself

12


could be adopted by buses and trains, as some trains and subways in Copenhagen and Paris have

done (Jaffe, 2015). This would be profitable for transit companies due to the lack of driver labor

and means that they could spend money instead on improving infrastructure and routing.

Personal Rapid Transit

The most common type of vehicle today, those with internal combustion engines (ICE),

are so popular because of the “power, personalization, and modularity” that they provide

(Roberts, 2015, para. 2). Roberts (2015) argues that those cars have already passed the point of

where drawbacks (pollution and climate change, traffic) have surpassed advantages. Because of

this, the new concept of personal rapid transit (PRT) could spur people in the United States to

accept public transportation into their lives. For one thing, PRT is very private by nature. The

vehicles can also be extremely fast; for example, a system called skyTran makes use of two-

person pods that can reach speeds of up to 100 mph (Roberts, 2015). Destinations could be

controlled using a smartphone app, and because the system is so spatially compact, it can work

around already existing infrastructure, or even be designed to go through buildings. skyTran’s

company says that building the system would be relatively cheap and could be self-financed (a

ride would be about the price of a taxi). This is attractive both to transportation companies who

would build the new infrastructure and the potential costumer who would pay to use it.

There are also PRT systems that are environmentally friendly. Geoffrey Barnett’s

Shweeb monorail system is currently only a park ride in New Zealand, but it shows great

potential as highly efficient, zero-emission transportation system (Martin, 2008). The monorail is

made up of pedal-powered pods on low resistance tracks, and most people can get up to at least

30 mph. One major benefit to the Shweeb system is safety because unlike bikes or motorcycles,

there is no danger of crashing. Also, if a faster Shweeb comes up behind a slower one on a track,

13


they combine and link together to form one unit, which will then travel faster than either person

could alone. With large-scale implementation, a technology like this monorail could be a

substantial way for cities to become more efficient, not just time-wise and spatially, but also

because of improved infrastructure (that will not corrode as easily over time) and environmental

sustainability. The Shweeb pods would be a great way to encourage Americans to use

transportation because the system includes all of the health and environmental benefits of a bike

share program without the safety problems.

Conclusion

As has been noted, public transportation has many benefits, both for society and the

environment. Economically, the industry currently employs over 400,000 people and helps many

more get to and from work, especially those who could not otherwise maintain a job because

they cannot afford a car (“Facts at a Glance”, n.d). Mass transit clearly reduces pollutants that

would otherwise be coming from individual cars and also reduces traffic congestion from the

lack of vehicles on the road. However, transportation companies need to improve passenger

service so that those people will continue to use the service and so that the companies attract new

customers. Location-tracking apps are relatively cheap, and they give people the confidence to

plan their routes while knowing exact arrival times. On-demand transport, if implemented

effectively, could be one way to remove empty transport vehicles and inefficient routes from the

equation. Additionally, smart cards can make paying for trips quick and hassle-free. The last

topic discussed here, the future of transportation, like bike sharing, PRT systems, and driverless

technology, are all ways that the transport technologies themselves can be improved.

In addition, when looking at civic technology, it is important to think about whether all

kinds of people, regardless of race, gender, or age, can use and benefit from the technology. The

14


Detroit Department of Transportation did this well with the SMS-based TextMyBus service,

because although most adult Americans own a cellphone, there are many people who cannot

afford a smartphone and therefore are not able to use mobile apps. Unfortunately, this review

reveals a large gap in the research and attention that is given to those with financial struggles.

Because those without wealth are often the people that need to use public transportation the

most, more time and consideration should be devoted to looking at gaps in the public

transportation system so that public transit can be made more accessible to and inclusive of

everyone. Besides access for the non-wealthy, other areas of improvement in transportation

technology include reducing overall costs so that the economy is not burdened and improving

efficiency in order to save money, increase reliability, and decrease the environmental impact.

Luckily, there is hope for the future of public transit. In Arizona, travel via personal

vehicles has decreased (gone down 11.8% from 2008 to 2013) and the use of public

transportation has increased in its stead (Brown, 2015). This is mainly because of the rising

number of millennials in Arizona who are more open to taking public transit. The American

Public Transportation Association (2013) agrees with this, as it notes that the Millennial

Generation is more likely to consider many different ways of traveling besides just driving, and

also that young people are more attracted to using public transportation because it allows them to

seamlessly continue using their digital devices. However, millennials would still like to see

improvements in public transportation, like more reliable systems, real-time updates, and a more

intuitive travel experience. These results complement the ideas discussed in this paper about how

to encourage Americans to use mass transit: make it simpler, more accessible, and up to date

with new technology. If transit companies take heed, the valuable commodity that is public

transportation may yet become as important to society as it used to be.

15


References

American Public Transportation Association. (2013). Millennials & mobility: understanding the

millnenial mindset. APTA. Retrieved from http://www.apta.com/resources/

reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf

Barry, K. (2013). New Helsinki bus line lets you choose your own route. Wired. Retrieved from

http://www.wired.com/2013/10/on-demand-public-transit/

Blythe, P. (2000). Transforming access to and payment for transport services through the use of smart

cards. ITS Journal - Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal, 6(1), 45–68.

http://doi.org/10.1080/10248070008903682

Brown, D. (2015). Decline in driving, increase in public transit in Arizona. Scottsdale Independent.

Retrieved from http://www.scottsdaleindependent.com/opinions/decline-in-driving-increase-in-

public-transit-in-arizona/

Brownson, R. C., Boehmer, T. K., & Luke, D. A. (2005). Declining rates of physical activity in the

United States: What are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 421–443.

http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144437

Chen, L., Zhang, D., Pan, G., Ma, X., Yang, D., Kushlev, K., … Li, S. (2015). Bike sharing station

placement leveraging heterogeneous urban open data. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM

International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 571–575). New

York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804291

Dowling, B. S. (2013). Radically rethinking the bus system. BBC. Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130327-new-bus-stop-for-flexible-travel

Facts at a Glance. (n.d.). APTA. Retrieved from

http://www.publictransportation.org/news/facts/Pages/default.aspx

16


Ferris, B., Watkins, K., & Borning, A. (2010). OneBusAway: results from providing real-time arrival

information for public transit. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 1807–1816). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?

id=1753597

Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme

use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,

15(6), 686–698. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.002

Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2013). Bike Share: A synthesis of the literature.

Transport Reviews, 33(2), 148–165. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.775612

Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2014). Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from

the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and

Environment, 31, 13–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013

Freemark, Y. (2015). Will autonomous cars change the role and value of public transportation? The

Transport Politic. Retrieved from http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/

2015/06/23/will-autonomous-cars-change-the-role-and-value-of-public-transportation/

Ito, M., Sasama, T., Kawamura, T., & Sugahara, K. (2011). An effective tracking technique of public

transportation toward passenger generated vehicle location system. In Proceedings of the 13th

international conference on Ubiquitous computing (pp. 551–552). ACM. Retrieved from

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2030208

Jaffe, E. (2015). Why subway trains should be driverless, by the numbers. CityLab. Retrieved from

http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/04/the-case-for-driverless-trains-by-the-numbers/390408/

17


Lathia, N., & Capra, L. (2011). How smart is your smartcard?: measuring travel behaviours,

perceptions, and incentives. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous

computing (pp. 291–300). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2030152

Martin, J. (2008). The Shweeb human-powered monorail. Gizmag. Retrieved from

http://www.gizmag.com/the-shweeb-human-powered-monorail/9678/

Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/

New Jersey Transit. (n.d.). Tap on and tap off. NJ Transit. Retrieved from

http://www.njtransit.com/var/var_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=TapRideTo

Nichols, R. (2010). Smart cards tap into future of city transit systems. Digital Communities. Retrieved

from http://www.digitalcommunities.com/articles/Smart-Cards-Tap-Into-Future-of.html

Pelletier, M.-P., Trépanier, M., & Morency, C. (2011). Smart card data use in public transit: A

literature review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(4), 557–568.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.003

Prashanth, S., Geetha, S., & Sundaram, G. S. (2011). Demand responsive public transportation using

wireless technologies. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Wireless

Technologies for Humanitarian Relief (pp. 449–453). ACM. Retrieved from

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2185332

Roberts, D. (2015). Personal rapid transit: The future of public transportation, maybe. Grist. Retrieved

from http://grist.org/business-technology/personal-rapid-transit-the-future-of-public-

transportation-maybe/

18


Stockx, T., Hecht, B., & Schöning, J. (2014). SubwayPS: towards smartphone positioning in

underground public transportation systems (pp. 93–102). ACM Press.

http://doi.org/10.1145/2666310.2666396

TextMyBus. (n.d.). Code for America. Retrieved from

http://codeforamerica.org/apps/text-my-bus/index.html

Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Human Health. (n.d.). Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved from

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health

Wallace, D. (2014). Durham-based TransLoc’s tool targets agencies for transit improvement. Triangle

Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/

news/2014/11/11/transloc-durham-nc-new-tool-for-transit-agencies.html

Young, J. (2015). Infrastructure: Mass transit in 19th- and 20th-century urban America. Oxford

Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved from http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/

acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-28

19