Transit Agency Perspectives on Bus Transit Automation Technologies in Rural, Small-Urban, and Urban U.S. Communities: A Pre-Pandemic National Baseline

While the automobile industry has moved rapidly toward automation, the U.S. public transit industry began investigating automation in bus operations comparatively recently, and adoption pathways differ sharply by community size. This study establishes a national baseline of transit agency perspectives on bus transit automation technologies—ranging from advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) to fully automated shuttles—captured immediately before the wave of demonstration deployments and the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the industry. A national survey of U.S. transit agencies conducted through the Small Urban and Rural Transit Center yielded 258 responses (157 rural, 67 small-urban, and 34 urban agencies). The results show a pronounced awareness gradient by community size: 65% of rural agencies were unfamiliar with SAE automation levels, compared with 23% of urban agencies. Agencies across all community sizes believed automation at all SAE levels (1–5) can promote safety, and safety was simultaneously the leading motivation for adoption and the leading identified research need. However, agencies expressed that SAE Level 4–5 vehicles would still require an onboard operator or agent for customer support and environment monitoring—particularly for ADA paratransit and demand-response services. Collision avoidance, curb avoidance, and lane-keep assist emerged as the technologies most favored for near-term adoption, while interest in fully automated shuttles concentrated in circulator, campus, and first-mile/last-mile applications. Rural agencies identified distinct barriers, including state-mediated procurement, missing digital and physical infrastructure, and clientele requiring personalized assistance. The findings provide a benchmark against which post-pandemic shifts in transit automation readiness can be measured and offer guidance for technology developers, planners, and policymakers targeting communities of different sizes. We recommend that outreach and technical assistance be differentiated by community size, that vehicle developers design for attended rather than driverless operation in paratransit and demand-response contexts, and that state departments of transportation be engaged directly as a leverage point for rural adoption, given that rural vehicle procurement is state-mediated.