Transit Resources

This week on Stop Requested, we are revisiting a standout conversation from our archive with Ricky Angueira, Principal at Jarrett Walker & Associates. Hosts Levi McCollum and Christian Londono return to this episode to re-air their discussion on the ridership versus coverage framework that continues to shape how cities think about transit planning. Originally recorded earlier in the show’s run, this conversation traces Ricky’s path from studying civil engineering in Puerto Rico to urban planning in Spain, and into leading full network redesigns in cities ranging from Miami to Des Moines. Ricky explains why successful transit planning starts with community values, not just data, and why there is no single right answer when designing a transit network. Drawing on real examples from Knoxville, St. Pete, and Miami, Ricky shows how effective public engagement helps regions align around shared transit goals. The episode also explores microtransit as a coverage tool, the importance of scalable plans during budget constraints, and why transparent conversations with communities are essential to successful network redesigns. If you missed this episode the first time or want a refresher on one of the most influential frameworks in modern transit planning, this re-release is worth another listen.

In this episode of Stop Requested, Levi McCollum and Christian Londono talk with Laura Koprowski, CEO of the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA). Laura shares her path into the transit industry, from communications and government relations to leading a regional transit system serving communities across northwest Ohio. The conversation covers leadership in public transportation, the importance of mentorship and professional development, and how passion for the work can shape a career in transit. Laura also discusses TARTA’s system redesign, expansion of microtransit service, and how data and technology are helping guide decisions as the agency works to improve mobility across the region.

As technology continues its rapid advancement, the future of GTFS development is marked by a commitment to addressing real-world challenges and embracing emerging innovations. Recent contributions and pull requests to the GTFS repository demonstrate an ongoing effort to refine and enhance the specification.

Boca Raton, FL. June 17, 2024. Indiana University (IU) has partnered with ETAs, a leader in innovative transit solutions, to enhance its campus shuttle bus service. This collaboration strengthens IU’s commitment to providing a diverse range of sustainable transportation options for students and staff. IU selected ETA after a rigorous evaluation process involving eight vendors.

The State of Florida recently named ETA as a preferred vendor for intelligent transit technology.

Boca Raton, FL, October 19, 2026. Brownsville Metro, the City of Brownsville’s public transportation system, has selected ETA to upgrade technology across 22 buses. The project includes TransitOps™ for computer-aided dispatch and automatic vehicle location (CAD/AVL), automatic passenger counters, and Tally for trip surveying and reporting support.

Levi and Christian are joined by David Rishel, former Executive Director of Pennsylvania’s CATA and Principal of Delta Services Group, to unpack a career spent shaping accessible transit from the ground up. David recounts launching New Jersey Transit’s statewide ADA paratransit network in the early 1990s, what it took to forecast demand and build eligibility systems when the rules were brand new, and how those decisions still echo today. The conversation dives into the real-world complexity of paratransit operations, the promise and pitfalls of co-mingling microtransit with ADA service, and why fixed-route accessibility and rider education must lead the way. David closes with a grounded look at where ADA mobility is headed next, including on-demand services, evolving software expectations, and the long-term impact of emerging technology.

Boca Raton, FL. March 26, 2025. ETAs, a leading provider of innovative transit technology solutions, proudly announces the successful deployment of a CAD/AVL project in collaboration with Stony Brook University. Awarded in January 2025, the project was implemented just one month from the kickoff call, ensuring a seamless transition after the university’s previous vendor discontinued service at the end of 2024.

Boca Raton, FL. August 21, 2025. The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) has been named a recipient of Metro Magazine’s Innovative Solutions Award for its collaboration with ETA on a project that dramatically improved communications and operational efficiency.

Tools to help your RFP to set realistic expectations and deliver a focused review. Over our history, ETA has submitted hundreds of proposals for mass transit technology RFPs. We’ve won some, we’ve lost some, and we’ve seen RFPs pulled without warning. Win, lose, or draw our practice is to reach out to transit agencies and ask for feedback about the RFP—our proposal, where we excelled, where we came up short, and what struggles the agency had during the process. That’s the nature of our industry. This last point serves as the subject for this article; what are the common challenges for proposal evaluation? Our 2018 transit agency survey discovered that comparing offerings was the “biggest source of stress” for those on proposal decision committees, followed by “determining value versus price” and “determining the importance of features.” These are all valid concerns—but easily fixed. The key to solving these issues starts with preparing the RFP itself. The same 2018 survey revealed that “preparation,” “creating technical requirements,” and “determining desired outcomes” were the top three headache-inducing tasks. For the most part, an RFP includes the following components: Cover letter or statement of interest Vendor information Proposed solution Strategy for implementation Warranty & support information Cost proposal Required forms Each section should ultimately contribute to the decision-making process. It’s not uncommon for an evaluation structure included in the RFP which looks something like this: Technical response: 20 points Price: 40 points Vendor qualifications: 20 points Organization of the proposal: 10 points Situational understanding: 10 points And that’s about it in terms of the breakdown and weighting of the proposal response. That’s all a decision committee relies on to score and rank their evaluation. The highest score wins, and to the victor goes the spoils. But what if the evaluation criteria are wrong? What if it’s weighted incorrectly? Why does price weigh more than the solution itself (40% of transit agencies use it as their primary decision factor) than the vendor’s track record (vendor experience is the primary factor for just 11% of transit agencies)? What mechanisms exist in your RFP for establishing value versus performance? Our 2019 survey revealed long-term performance (70.2%) must be part of the evaluation process. That certainly isn’t listed in the standard scoring criteria? Just 52 percent of transit agencies say that the intelligent transit system (ITS) they purchased lived up to expectations in our 2020 agency poll. The picture I’m painting here is that the defined evaluation criteria baked into RFP documentation are inherently flawed; they are not up to the task and are highly subjective. Why do so many agencies value long-term performance, but fail to include any sort of measurement tool within their evaluation structure? Why are nearly half dissatisfied with their ITS purchase? How do we change the evaluation so that it most accurately reflects the needs of the transit agency and delivers on the expected outcomes? Here are a few ideas to consider before you put together your RFP: Pre-proposal polling: Conduct an anonymous internal poll of your transit agency. If possible, include everybody. Everybody is drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, planners, customer support, and administration. Use this effort to discover hidden truths about your agency and potential issues. Look for potential areas of resistance. Find pain points in potential solutions. Include the ability for respondents to rank their answers to gauge priority and level of severity. We recommend Survey Monkey, DooPoll, or even use Microsoft Sharepoint to create your surveys and leverage these tools automatically tally the results. Conduct pre-RFP pricing research: We know that transit agencies (ETA included) keep a tight lid on their pricing structure. It’s a competitive industry, after all, and any advantage helps. This practice doesn’t mean they won’t provide you with ballpark figures for planning purposes. Use this information to A) understand the approximate cost for each component (ITS, APC, AVA, etc.), and B) evaluate cost against the amount of funding you have available. If possible, ask for an estimated ‘per vehicle cost’ to help account for hardware, installation, and recurring fees. This effort will help you set expectations before writing your RFP. It is better to know what you’re asking for and compare it to the final pricing. With this baseline pricing in mind, it will help establish expectations for what your agency cannot afford. It will also help you derive a better sense of value from your proposals. It may even cause you to think about how much weight you place on pricing in the overall evaluation hierarchy. Create a compliance matrix with priority values We’ve written before about the importance of including a compliance matrix as part of your RFP documentation. This approach is an excellent way to get answers about what a proposed system can and cannot deliver. What’s missing from the matrix is a correlation between features and their importance to the final solution. A compliance matrix evens the value across all items but does nothing to tell your evaluation committee how to weigh capabilities against price and competition. Including this information will help the vendor present prioritized solutions based on needs. For example, if your internal survey efforts reveal the following priorities: Cloud-based ITS Route and schedule management NTP reporting Automatic passenger counters Onboard Wi-Fi Then assign value to those features within your matrix (a scale of 1–10, perhaps?). The vendors responding to your proposal will understand what you value the most. They can also construct their proposal to prioritize some aspects over others and deliver more up-front value. A well-constructed spreadsheet may even include auto-calculation to help score each entry in advance. An entry in a compliance matrix theoretically might look like this, where “yes” answers to compliance earn full marks, where “no” responses don’t earn points, and “extra cost” applies a multiplier value to adjust the score to account for additional charges: Provide this spreadsheet as part of the RFP and ask vendors to complete it as part of their submission. Lock and hide those columns, cells, and worksheets from the file submitted to vendors. Reveal those fields after submission to see how a vendor stacks up based on their responses. Include in your calculations weighted penalties for unsupported systems. Proposal creation Now that you are adequately armed with priority preferences by role (via the internal survey), you will have more insight into how each business unit will react to your final choice. Additionally, you’ll have a sense of what you can afford and what systems to prioritize (using the ITS Price Estimator) and, ultimately, a point-by-point accounting of each vendor’s capabilities (courtesy of the weighted compliance matrix). With this information, you can create an RFP document that better captures the actual deliverables for your project and have the background data needed to conduct a proper evaluation. With this data in hand, you can quickly rule out submissions below a capability threshold that you identify before evaluating. The goal, after all, is to narrow down proposals quickly. This approach: Greatly assists in the preparation of the RFP Clearly defines the technical requirements It helps determine an agreed-upon, prioritized outcome Reduces internal debate process The process helps build a right-sized transit spec while avoiding common pitfalls and finding that vendor who will be your forever friend. Now that you’re ready to construct your RFP, you can focus on telling a precise story—your story—so that any vendor responding has a full grasp of everything your system needs to accomplish. Construct your RFP to follow a logical progression and use clearly-defined topics and industry-standard terminology. Avoid copying and pasting from other sources, which typically results in a messy, contradictory document. We recommend a sequence that follows this general approach: Introduction (overview of your agency and history) Objectives (description of the challenges you seek to resolve) Resources (provide details about your agency, e.g., number of vehicles, makes and model, installed hardware, contact points, who has the final say, etc. Scope (define every deliverable, feature, and intended use—a good place to include your compliance matrix) Submission requirements (we recommend the following:) Statement of interest About the vendor Technical proposal Implementation plan Warranty & support Price proposal Required forms A significant consideration in this process is to allow enough time for vendors to create a thoughtful response to your solution. A good rule of thumb is six to 12 weeks from the RFP’s issue (or street) date. We also encourage you not to put page limits on the proposal. These highly technical and complex systems allow the vendor the necessary time to explain the system and benefits thoroughly. Yes, this can lead to some lengthy proposals. Consider the amount of money you are about to spend and the consequences of selecting poorly. In this decision, we highly stress that you should err on the side of information. Short summaries could cause a potential vendor to omit details that could otherwise influence your decision one way or another—all to satisfy an arbitrary page count. The added information serves as a handy reference to answer any questions you may have. Proposal evaluation You’ve now laid the groundwork for your evaluation with all your pre-proposal work. The tools and concepts presented above provide your transit agency with enough background information to help identify potential vendors to look for before the issuance of the RFP—and then compare their response against the pre-RFP evaluation. More importantly, you have established a list of criteria based on priority gathered by stakeholders at all levels of your organization. Take your time to evaluate the results. Ask questions. Conduct pilot programs. Take the necessary steps to ensure that you’re making a comprehensive decision in your agency, taxpayers, and riders’ best interest.

From Belfast to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Artemis Technologies is scaling zero-emission, high-speed ferries. David Tyler joins Levi and Christian to explain how hydrofoils slash drag and energy use, why 150-passenger boats are the near-term sweet spot, how agencies might fund/lease fleets, and why charging and maintenance look more like EVs than marine diesels. Plus: batteries, safety certifications, and where ferries fit alongside buses and rails.

What happens when the person who’s worked at your transit agency for 20 years retires—and takes decades of institutional knowledge with them? Walter Jenkins, founder of Transit Chat, knows this problem all too well. In this episode, we dive deep into the communication breakdowns plaguing transit agencies of all sizes. From managers drowning in 65 emails by noon to critical information getting lost in endless reply-all threads, Walter shares real stories from over a dozen agencies about what’s not working—and what can be done about it. You’ll discover why traditional communication methods fail in transit environments, how geographical data adds complexity to documentation, and the surprising power of skip-level meetings between CEOs and frontline employees. Walter also reveals how Transit Chat is working to become the centralized platform for communications, files, and assignments that agencies desperately need. This episode offers practical solutions for building better communication culture in your agency.