Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
TRANSIT
TCRP REPORT 116
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
Guidebook for Evaluating,
Selecting, and Implementing
Suburban Transit Services
OCR for page R2
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
SELECTION COMMITTEE (Membership as of June 2006)
(as of June 2006)
CHAIR OFFICERS
David A. Lee CHAIR: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute
Connecticut Transit
of Technology
MEMBERS VICE CHAIR: Linda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation
Ann August Authority
Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority
Linda J. Bohlinger EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
HNTB Corp.
Robert I. Brownstein MEMBERS
PB Consult, Inc.
Sandra K. Bushue Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas DOT
FTA Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT
Peter Cannito John D. Bowe, Regional President, APL Americas, Oakland, CA
Metropolitan Transportation Authority--Metro
North Railroad Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT
Gregory Cook Deborah H. Butler, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries,
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Atlanta, GA
Nathaniel P. Ford
San Francisco MUNI
Anne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC
Ronald L. Freeland Douglas G. Duncan, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia,
Fred M. Gilliam Charlottesville
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Kim R. Green Angela Gittens, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL
GFI GENFARE Genevieve Giuliano, Professor and Senior Associate Dean of Research and Technology,
Jill A. Hough School of Policy, Planning, and Development, and Director, METRANS National Center
North Dakota State University
John Inglish
for Metropolitan Transportation Research, USC, Los Angeles
Utah Transit Authority Susan Hanson, Landry University Prof. of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University
Jeanne W. Krieg James R. Hertwig, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Gloria J. Jeff, General Manager, City of Los Angeles DOT
Celia G. Kupersmith
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
District Harold E. Linnenkohl, Commissioner, Georgia DOT
Clarence W. Marsella Sue McNeil, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware
Denver Regional Transportation District Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT
Faye L. M. Moore
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments
Authority Carol A. Murray, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT
Michael H. Mulhern John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Retirement Fund Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Stephanie L. Pinson Henry Gerard Schwartz, Jr., Senior Professor, Washington University
Gilbert Tweed Associates, Inc. Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA
Robert H. Prince, Jr. C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
DMJM+Harris
Jeffrey M. Rosenberg
Amalgamated Transit Union EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Michael Scanlon
San Mateo County Transit District Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Beverly Scott Thomas J. Barrett (Vice Adm., U.S. Coast Guard, ret.), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Sacramento Regional Transit District Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
Frank Tobey Marion C. Blakey, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT
First Transit
Kathryn D. Waters Joseph H. Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
Frank Wilson George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, and Foreign Secretary,
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County
National Academy of Engineering
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Sandra K. Bushue, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.DOT
APTA
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads
TRB John C. Horsley, Exec. Dir., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
John C. Horsley David H. Hugel, Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
AASHTO
J. Richard Capka J. Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
FHWA Ashok G. Kaveeshwar, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association
TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Louis Sanders Nicole R. Nason, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
APTA Julie A. Nelson, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT
SECRETARY
Robert J. Reilly Carl A. Strock (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps
TRB of Engineers
OCR for page R3
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 116
Guidebook for Evaluating,
Selecting, and Implementing
Suburban Transit Services
URBITRAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
New York, NY
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS
Chicago, IL
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES
Portland, OR
PITTMAN & ASSOCIATES
San Francisco, CA
CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Tampa, FL
Subject Areas
Public Transit
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2006
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 116
The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Price $30.00
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current
Project B-25
systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand
ISSN 1073-4872
service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve
ISBN-13: 978-0-309-09864-9
these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to ISBN-10: 0-309-09864-5
adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- Library of Congress Control Number 2006934473
duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by © 2006 Transportation Research Board
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions
to meet demands placed on it.
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A published or copyrighted material used herein.
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success-
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
from CRP.
research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
administrative practices.
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- NOTICE
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing
of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out-
Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the
lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the
The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review
Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration
Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions
nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and
while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not
independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,
Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S.
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Department of Transportation.
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to
of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
Committee defines funding levels and expected products. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration
(sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or
by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are
ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.
cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process
for developing research problem statements and selecting research
agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro-
grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve
voluntarily without compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-
Published reports of the
nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-
sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from:
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at
address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 116
Robert J. Reilly, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher W. Jenks, TCRP Manager
Gwen Chisholm, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Beth Hatch, Editor
TCRP PROJECT B-25 PANEL
FIELD OF SERVICE CONFIGURATION
Will Scott, Will Scott and Company, LLC, Cincinnati, OH (Chair)
Manjiri G. Akalkotkar, VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, TX
Wilfred L. Beal, Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services, Saginaw, MI
Jerome Beasley, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA
Murthy V. A. Bondada, Atlantic Transportation Engineers, Inc., Winter Garden, FL
Edmond Chin-Ping Chang, EDCPC, Inc., Potomac, MD
Steven R. D'Antonio, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, PA
Catherine C. Dennis, Delaware Transit Corporation, Wilmington, DE
Ronald Downing, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, San Rafael, CA
Mark I. Pritchard, Dutchess County Loop, Poughkeepsie, NY
William Wiggins, FTA Liaison
Peter Shaw, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project B-25 by Urbitran Associates, Inc., in
association with Cambridge Systematics, Kittelson & Associates, Pittman & Associates, and the Center for
Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida.
Marlene Connor, Senior Vice President Transit Services, Urbitran Associates, Inc., was the principal
investigator. The other authors of this report are Jim McLaughlin of Urbitran Associates, Chris Kopp of
Cambridge Systematics, Paul Ryus of Kittelson & Associates, Donna Pittman of Pittman & Associates, and
Joel Volinski of CUTR.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Gwen Chisholm
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
TCRP Report 116: Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing Suburban Tran-
sit Services examines the current status of suburban transit services and land-use environ-
ments and the relationship between the two. Types of suburban transit services include
commuter, route deviation, demand response, circulators, shuttles, and vanpools. Also, the
guidebook describes the emerging trends that significantly influence the availability and
operation of suburban transit services.
This report updates information presented in TCRP Report 55: Guidelines for Enhancing
Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation and presents the latest research results and
issues related to suburban transit services. This information will be useful to transit profes-
sionals and policy makers in planning and implementing suburban transit services.
The companion document to the guidebook is a final report that includes eight detailed
case studies: Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (Detroit, Mich-
igan); Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Valley (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota);
Tri-Met (Portland, Oregon); South Metro Area Rapid Transit (Wilsonville, Oregon); King
County Metro (Seattle, Washington); Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany,
New York); Broward County Transit (Broward County, Florida); and Regional Transit
District (Denver, Colorado). The case studies describe the types of suburban transit services
offered; the types of operational issues; the funding arrangements; the marketing program;
the performance-measurement program; and the successes, challenges, and lessons learned
from introducing suburban transit services. The companion report also includes quantita-
tive and qualitative decision matrixes. The companion report is available online as TCRP
Web-Only Document 34 at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6526.
During the past 30 years, new suburbs have emerged at greater distances from central
business districts. These suburban land-use environments have not generally been con-
ducive to provision of transit services. However, suburban areas are changing dramatically:
the suburban population is becoming more economically diverse, the aging population is
increasing, and the transit-dependent community is growing. Consequently, the need for
suburban transit services has grown.
In past years, transit districts have introduced a variety of transit services in suburban
neighborhoods, including vanpools, dial-a-ride, shared-ride taxi, flex service, neighbor-
hood circulators connecting with fixed-route service, and extended fixed-route service. The
success of these services has varied. Information on the most effective methods of serving
suburban needs can be used by the transit industry to improve market share and produc-
tivity in the biggest potential market area--the suburbs.
OCR for page R8
In the years since publication of TCRP Report 55, land use and its relationship to transit
services has changed as contemporary suburbia has extended beyond the older suburbs. The
research confirmed that the land-use connection with suburban transit services is primar-
ily based on local policies, which are substantially influenced by the availability of local
funding.
This report provides updated information and guidance on the latest developments in
suburban service options and attributes.
Urbitran Associates, Inc., in association with Cambridge Systematics, Kittelson & Asso-
ciates, Pittman & Associates, and the Center for Urban Transportation Research, reviewed
trends and developments of suburban transit services and recent land development. The
research team identified and described suburban land-use environments and appropriate
transit service strategies; established a methodology with evaluation criteria to determine
best practices in providing suburban transit services; conducted the approved case studies;
and documented the success and the lessons learned regarding the provision of suburban
transit services.
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Introduction to Suburban Transit Services
1 Overview
1 Summary of Findings
3 Chapter 2 Tools, Techniques, and Technology for Suburban
Service Development
3 Understanding Regional Activity Patterns
4 Features of Suburban Transit Services
4 Established Suburban Transit Services
4 Fixed Route
4 Deviated Fixed Route
5 Demand-Responsive Service
5 Subscription Service
5 Innovative Suburban Transit Service
5 Transit Services and the Activity Space
6 Land-Use Assessment
6 Density
6 Diversity
6 Design
7 Deterrents to Driving
8 Chapter 3 Preliminary Case Study Findings
9 Key Issues and Trends
10 Assessment of Practices
15 Chapter 4 Detailed Case Study Findings
15 Case Study Research Methodology
17 Overview of Results
18 Chapter 5 Results and Performance Evaluation
18 Analysis of Land Use versus Transit Service and Operating Performance
23 Analysis of Performance Measurement versus Demographics, Service Delivery,
and Pedestrian Network
23 Demographics
23 Service Delivery
23 Pedestrian Network
23 Findings
26 Relating the Land-Use Analysis to the Transit Performance Measurement
Analysis
26 Activity Surface Example
29 Analysis of Passengers per Revenue-Hour versus Transit Use Factors
30 Establishing Performance Measurement Programs
OCR for page R10
32 Chapter 6 Lessons and Conclusions
32 Operating Environments
32 Measurement and Evaluation Processes
32 Innovations
33 Future Research
