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 10
10
Table 3-1. Performance criteria for Pierce Transit.
Age of Route Passengers per Vehicle-Hour Cost per Boarding Passenger*
New routes (less than 1 year old) Satisfactory: >3.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$11.30/pass
Unsatisfactory: $11.30/pass
Routes 12 years old Satisfactory: >4.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$8.50/pass
Unsatisfactory: $8.50/pass
Routes more than 2 years old Satisfactory: >5.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$6.80/pass
Unsatisfactory: $6.80/pass
*All costs are in 2003 dollars. They should be indexed for inflation.
CMAQ determined if the service continued beyond the use their local experience and their professional judgment of
demonstration period. Services with dedicated funding what kinds of development are likely to attract transit users.
were often held to different performance standards. This professional judgment is often augmented by new ser-
· Interaction with communities. Another apparent trend vice requests and policy influence, expressed as interest in
was the interaction between local communities and transit service by transit board members or elected officials.
agencies. In several instances, programs were considered to In the majority of cases reviewed, newer, more flexible
be successful when transit dollars were added to commu- forms of transit have been substituted for lower-productivity
nity dollars for the provision of services designed by the fixed-route service. Transit agencies are realizing that tradi-
community. In other instances, lack of continued commu- tional fixed-route services are no longer viable in certain
nity enthusiasm was cited as a factor in discontinuing or areas, or for certain bus routes, because of extremely low rid-
reducing service. ership. However, agencies still want to provide mobility
options to expanded service areas. Route-deviated service,
point-deviation service, or some form of demand-responsive
"call-and-ride" service has a number of advantages under
Assessment of Practices
these circumstances:
Interviews with representatives from the transit agencies
from around the country revealed that many agencies use · The transit agency does not leave former fixed-route pas-
quantitative performance standards as they decide how to sengers stranded without any service. This is important to
serve suburban areas that have uneven and relatively low the passengers, but also to the transit boards who see them-
demand. However, other factors heavily influence service selves as providers of mobility options.
design and provision decisions. · The sense of equity is maintained by providing broader
A weak economy in many areas of the country has resulted coverage service throughout the area that supports the
in lower-than-usual farebox and sales tax revenues, thereby transit agency with taxes. Equity can be used as a rationale
limiting funds available to transit systems. When faced with by transit agencies looking for community support at
limited resources, many agencies have chosen not to invest upcoming referenda for continued or expanded transit
operating funds in areas of relatively low transit demand. services.
Instead, they have strategically invested their limited · New, flexible service can be less expensive than traditional,
resources in areas of higher density, where the highest rider- fixed-route service since it is sometimes contracted out and
ship and revenues can be realized. Alternatively, some agen- provided with smaller vehicles. If complementary ADA
cies provide service in lower-density suburban areas only paratransit service is not required when flexible, accessible
when there is a funding source or partner that will pay for transit is equally available to all passengers, potential sav-
many of the service's expenses. For instance, in the Pace ser- ings can also be increased with flexible services.
vice district, no new suburban shuttle services are put in · Smaller vehicles are often more compatible with the sensi-
operation unless a major employer or a transportation tivities of suburban neighborhoods, which are often sensi-
management association (TMA) will subsidize the cost of tive to the noise and pollution generated by full-sized
operation. Hence, some of the services are being put into transit buses. Smaller vehicles are better able to negotiate
place not as a result of anticipated service performance, but crowded shopping centers, narrow residential streets, and
as a result of dedicated funding. the turns necessary to accommodate deviation requests.
A number of the agencies interviewed stated that they sim-
ply do not use service guidelines or standards to inform their Because these advantages are applicable regardless of
decisions on where and how to serve lower-density suburban whether agencies have separate standards or guidelines for
areas. For these agencies, service changes tend to be very flexible service, agencies often have no pressing need to
incremental. To allocate their resources, the transit planners develop such separate standards or guidelines. However, a
OCR for page 11
11
number of agencies measure the performance of new flexible influencing the decision to provide the service have included
services. Generally, this measurement is done because (a) the the following:
agency has very limited financial resources and might have to
cut even these less expensive services (as has happened in Fort · Specific requests from major employment centers or com-
Worth, Texas, where eight different flexible routes were tried munities, many of whom offer to help pay for the expense
and terminated) or (b) the agency regards these services as of providing the service.
any other service and, therefore, continuously reviews them · Strategic placement of service within communities to build
to ensure that they are being used in the most appropriate support for transit referendums.
locations (as in Tacoma, Washington). · Geographic or topographic characteristics that make the
The specific performance standards used to judge these provision of regular fixed-route service impractical.
newer services vary dramatically, although there is some · A residential community's proximity to premium transit
agreement on the general expectations of flexible services. service, such as rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) stations.
The most commonly used quantitative performance meas- · Faster, more direct service. This is often accomplished by
ure is passengers per hour. Virtually all transit agencies straightening trunk-line routes on major arterials and creat-
expect flexible services to perform better than standard para- ing feeder routes to serve areas once served by the fixed route.
transit service, but worse than traditional fixed-route service. · Minimized traffic congestion and air pollution by provid-
Most agencies are satisfied with service that carries between ing a transit link between premium transit services and
four and eight passengers per hour. Some perform slightly major employment centers.
worse than this, but are maintained as "lifeline" services, while · The provision of mobility services to residents of areas with
a few others perform better than eight passengers per hour. relatively high unemployment to support their entry into
The TriMet system in the Portland, Oregon, area requires its the workforce.
local suburban circulators to maintain a productivity level of · The provision of internal community trips with vehicles
15 passengers per hour. that can easily access shopping centers and other areas with
Some agencies include the subsidy per passenger as relatively crowded and/or tight lane conditions.
another quantitative performance measure. Once again, the · The use of smaller vehicles that are more acceptable to cer-
specific standard varies because of different cost structures tain neighborhoods.
around the country and different budget constraints, but · A policy that all residents within a service area will have
the range of values is between $4.50 and $11.30. Less often, access to some form of public transit, even if it is limited
transit agencies use the farebox recovery ratio as a primary service, as a "lifeline" for those with no other affordable
determinant of whether the new transit service is viable. A mobility options.
threshold standard can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, · Regional policies that call for a relationship between differ-
but many services establish a range of 20- to 25-percent fare- ent densities of land uses and levels of transit availability.
box recovery as the threshold for continued service. Agencies · The availability of funds from sources such as CMAQ,
often provide different "probationary periods," during which JARC, or state grant programs for experimental services.
they expect these new services to become established. The · The provision of different services at times or on days that
standard time frame ranges from 1 to 3 years, with 18 months normally see less transit demand.
as an average.
In addition to the quantitative measures that drive serv- The specific quantitative and qualitative measures being
ice decisions, there are often qualitative measures. As noted used by the interviewed agencies are summarized in Tables 3-2
earlier, many flexible services are started as substitutes for and 3-3, respectively. These tables represent only 20 of the 28
less productive fixed-route service. In areas where flexible preliminary case studies because the information collected
transit is introduced as a new service, the qualitative factors from 8 of the agencies was not applicable.
OCR for page 12
Table 3-2. Quantitative factors decision matrix.
Min # Pax/Hr After Probation
Probationary Period (Months)
Underperforming Fixed Route
Partner (for Service to Start)
Different Level of Service on
Farebox Recovery Ratio (%)
Maximum Subsidy/Pax ($)
Minimum Ridership % on
Route of System Average
Funding Availability of
Replacement Service for
Min # Pax/Hr During
Service in Areas with
Nights or Weekends
Minimum of 1,800
Households/Acre
Type of Service
No Standards
Persons/Mile2
Probation
Agency
State
City
Eastern Contra
Costa County Antioch CA 9 12 12 20 3
Transit Authority
Regional
Transportation Denver CO Call-and-Ride 3 12 3
District
South Metro Area
Wilsonville OR 3
Rapid Transit
Metropolitan
Transit San Diego CA Access Routes 12 24 6.50
Development Board
New routes 3 12 11.30 3 3
Routes 13 24
4 12 8.50 3 3
Pierce Transit Tacoma WA months
Routes 25
5 6.80 3 3
months +
Champaign-Urbana
Champaign-
Mass Transit IL Dial-A-Ride 3 3
Urbana
District
OCR for page 13
Kansas City Area
Demand
Transportation Kansas City MO 3
Responsive
Authority
Suburban Mobility
Authority for
Detroit MI Flex Routes 3
Regional
Transportation
Des Moines
Dial-A-Ride 3
Metropolitan Des Moines IO 5 3
(evenings only)
Transit Authority
Toledo Area
Regional Transit Toledo OH Dial-A-Ride 3
Authority
Suburban 5 4.50 3-5
Metropolitan Council Minneapolis MN
Dial-A-Ride 2 4.50 <3
Potomac and
Route
Rappahannock
Manassas VA Deviation 4
Transportation
(evenings)
Commission
Capital District
Albany NY Flex Routes 3 3
Transportaion
Authority
Pace Transit Chicago IL 12 5.00 50 20 3
TriMet Portland OR Circulator 15 24 36
Dallas Area Rapid
Dallas TX Curb-to-Curb 3 6 4.30 3
Transit
Rhode Island Public
Transportation Rhode Island RI 3
Authority
Broward County Ft. Lauderdale FL Circulator 5
Ft. Worth
> paratransit
Transportation Ft. Worth TX 3
services
Authority
New Jersey Transit Newark NJ 24 20
OCR for page 14
Table 3-3. Qualitative factors decision matrix.
Avoids ADA Requirement/
Employment Opportunity/
Proximity to Rail Station
Environmentally Motivated
Unproductive Fixed Routes
Geography & Topography
Ensuring Communitywide
Feeder Service to Regular
Developing Community
Visible Use of Taxpayer $
Population Motivated
Community Feedback
Desire to Streamline
Funding Availability of
Buses in Neighborhood
Mobility Opportunities
Partner (for Service to
Protest Against Large
Support for Transit
Substitute Service for
Regional Network
or Premium Transit
Determined Need
Desire for Internal
Unemployment/
Reviews Land-Use
Community Trips
Plans/Proposals
Lifeline Service
Type of Service
Development
Expenses
Considered
Network
Agency
Start)
City
State
Eastern Contra
Costa County Antioch CA
Transit Authority
Regional
Transportation Denver CO Call-and-Ride
District
South Metro Area
Wilsonville OR
Rapid Transit
Metropolitan
Transit Access
San Diego CA
Development Routes
Board
New routes
Routes 13
Pierce Transit Tacoma WA 24 months
Route 25
months +
Champaign-
Champaign-
Urbana Mass IL Dial-A-Ride
Urbana
Transit District
Kansas City Area
Demand
Transportation Kansas City MO
Responsive
Authority
Suburban
Mobility
Authority for Detroit MI Flex Routes
Regional
Transportation
Des Moines Dial-A-Ride
Metropolitan Des Moines IO (evenings
Transit Authority only)
Toledo Area
Regional Transit Toledo OH Dial-A-Ride
Authority
Suburban
Metropolitan Council Minneapolis MN
Dial-A-Ride
Potomac and
Route
Rappahannock
Manassas VA Deviation
Transportation
(evenings)
Commission
Capital District
Albany NY Flex Routes
Transportation
Authority
Pace Transit Chicago IL
TriMet Portland OR Circulator
Dallas Area Rapid
Dallas TX Curb-to-Curb
Transit
Rhode Island
Public
Rhode Island RI
Transportation
Authority
Broward County Ft. Lauderdale FL Circulator
Ft. Worth
Transportation Ft. Worth TX
Authority
New Jersey
Newark NJ
Transit
