Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing Suburban Transit Services (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8This chapter outlines the findings from preliminary case studies completed for 28 transit operators. These preliminary case studies served multiple roles: • They confirmed the range of transit service formats oper- ating in suburban environments. • They helped the research team understand how agencies evaluate the performance of their transit services. • They helped the research team identify key issues and trends facing suburban transit. • They provided the data for the activity surface analysis and the land-use analysis. These analyses compared the charac- teristics of transit service with characteristics of the subur- ban land form, focusing on the four D’s of density, diversity, design, and deterrents to driving. A number of techniques were used to select sites for the preliminary case studies. These techniques included review- ing transit agency websites, identifying appropriate sites from the literature search, requesting information via a list- serv, and applying the professional knowledge of the research team regarding various transit properties. From the prelim- inary case studies, select case studies were chosen for detailed analysis. The final choice of detailed case study locations was done to balance the size and geographical coverage of agen- cies, while ensuring that unique programs were also included. Following is a list of the 28 transit agencies that were part of the preliminary case studies. The list is organized first by geographic region (West, Midwest, South, and East) and then by agency size (starting with the smallest agencies). West: 1. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA, in California) 2. South Metro Area Rapid Transit (SMART, in Oregon) 3. Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit, in California) 4. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA, in California) 5. Pierce Transit (in Washington state) 6. Valley Metro (in Arizona) 7. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB, in California) 8. King County Metro (Metro, in Washington state) 9. Denver Regional Transit District (Denver RTD, in Colorado) 10. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet, in Oregon) Midwest: 11. Champaign–Urbana Mass Transit District (C-UMTD, in Illinois) 12. Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority (DMMTA, in Iowa) 13. Madison Metro (in Wisconsin) 14. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transporta- tion (SMART, in Michigan) 15. Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA, in Ohio) 16. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA, in Missouri) 17. Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis (in Minnesota) 18. Pace, Suburban Bus Division of the Regional Trans- portation Authority (Pace, in Illinois) South: 19. Broward County, Florida, and municipalities within the county 20. Fort Worth Transportation Authority (in Texas) 21. Charlotte, North Carolina 22. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART, in Texas) C H A P T E R 3 Preliminary Case Study Findings

East: 23. Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commis- sion (PRTC, in Virginia) 24. Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA, in Massachusetts) 25. Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA, in New York) 26. Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (Hampton Roads Transit, or HRT, in Virginia) 27. Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority (RIPTA) 28. New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) Key Issues and Trends A number of key issues and trends emerged from the analysis of the preliminary case studies. The range of services offered by the agencies included in the case studies can be grouped into the following categories: • Commuter, • Route deviation, • Demand responsive, • Shuttles, • Circulators, and • Vanpools. The commuter services are typically premium operations designed to attract a higher-income market through various service attributes, or reverse commute operations, which usu- ally operate during nontraditional hours and are often funded by Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds. Another trend is that premium commuter services require a higher farebox recovery ratio than standard fixed routes require to be considered successful. Using an employee from the job site as the driver, creating a “buspool” is one innova- tion observed at a case study site. Success with route-deviation service, sometimes in con- cert with demand-responsive service, has been mixed. Sev- eral areas have abandoned or greatly reduced this type of service because of a variety of difficulties, including sched- ule adherence, customer complaints about advance sched- uling, and lack of buy-in by operational personnel. Some agencies believed that mixing a fixed schedule with demand- responsive routing was a conflict in philosophies. However, other agencies appeared to successfully combine these concepts, especially when they were implemented as a sub- stitute for existing service (as opposed to a stand-alone, new service). Some agencies considered route-deviated services successful if they exceeded the productivity rate of the local demand-responsive service, while others considered route deviation successful if its productivity was comparable to the fixed-route average. Among demand-responsive services, zone systems that capture internal trips or that link passengers to fixed routes have been successfully implemented. The size of the zone (including the number of attractions) and the availability of other services appeared to significantly affect productivity. The standards used to rate success varied by agency. Some services named “shuttles” by their operating agency are similar to the demand-responsive services described above, while others were more fixed in nature, connecting neighborhoods or providing service to employment centers through connections at rail stations or transit hubs. Employer shuttles appeared to perform best with sustained employer participation. Circulators exhibit many of the same characteristics as shuttles, with the possible exception that shuttles connect to a particular destination, while circulators typically connect to multiple activity points. The information collected thus far on vanpools and ridesharing also varies by agency, with a key factor in agency participation being the ownership of the vehicles. In addition, one innovative service used by Pace is to keep vans at Metra stations to connect workers to their place of employment. This service also resembles the car sharing services, some- times termed “station car” service, that have been employed in more urban areas of the country. In addition to the observed services listed above, other issues are worth discussion: • Performance measurement. One of the most thorough efforts to quantify service performance was completed by Pierce Transit. The performance criteria for one of Pierce Transit’s services are shown in Table 3-1. Other perform- ance measurement systems of note are the MetCouncil’s (Twin Cities) thorough review of zones every 3 years and the MTDB’s (San Diego) combination of quantity- and quality-of-service goals. The quantitative criteria include passengers per revenue-mile, passengers per revenue-hour, and subsidy per passenger. The qualitative criteria can be grouped into three categories: transit-supportive land uses, regional transportation priorities, and quality of service. Denver RTD also uses performance measurement exten- sively for all types of services. • Funding. Funding sources also appeared to influence both service availability and, to some degree, the productivity analysis. For example, a number of nontraditional services were funded by JARC or the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, while several agencies either had dedicated local funding taxes or were funded as a result of “opting out” of the transit district. In several instances, the lack of sustained funding from JARC or 9

CMAQ determined if the service continued beyond the demonstration period. Services with dedicated funding were often held to different performance standards. • Interaction with communities. Another apparent trend was the interaction between local communities and transit agencies. In several instances, programs were considered to be successful when transit dollars were added to commu- nity dollars for the provision of services designed by the community. In other instances, lack of continued commu- nity enthusiasm was cited as a factor in discontinuing or reducing service. Assessment of Practices Interviews with representatives from the transit agencies from around the country revealed that many agencies use quantitative performance standards as they decide how to serve suburban areas that have uneven and relatively low demand. However, other factors heavily influence service design and provision decisions. A weak economy in many areas of the country has resulted in lower-than-usual farebox and sales tax revenues, thereby limiting funds available to transit systems. When faced with limited resources, many agencies have chosen not to invest operating funds in areas of relatively low transit demand. Instead, they have strategically invested their limited resources in areas of higher density, where the highest rider- ship and revenues can be realized. Alternatively, some agen- cies provide service in lower-density suburban areas only when there is a funding source or partner that will pay for many of the service’s expenses. For instance, in the Pace ser- vice district, no new suburban shuttle services are put in operation unless a major employer or a transportation management association (TMA) will subsidize the cost of operation. Hence, some of the services are being put into place not as a result of anticipated service performance, but as a result of dedicated funding. A number of the agencies interviewed stated that they sim- ply do not use service guidelines or standards to inform their decisions on where and how to serve lower-density suburban areas. For these agencies, service changes tend to be very incremental. To allocate their resources, the transit planners use their local experience and their professional judgment of what kinds of development are likely to attract transit users. This professional judgment is often augmented by new ser- vice requests and policy influence, expressed as interest in service by transit board members or elected officials. In the majority of cases reviewed, newer, more flexible forms of transit have been substituted for lower-productivity fixed-route service. Transit agencies are realizing that tradi- tional fixed-route services are no longer viable in certain areas, or for certain bus routes, because of extremely low rid- 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 these circumstances: • The transit agency does not leave former fixed-route pas- sengers stranded without any service. This is important to the passengers, but also to the transit boards who see them- selves as providers of mobility options. • The sense of equity is maintained by providing broader coverage service throughout the area that supports the transit agency with taxes. Equity can be used as a rationale by transit agencies looking for community support at upcoming referenda for continued or expanded transit services. • New, flexible service can be less expensive than traditional, fixed-route service since it is sometimes contracted out and provided with smaller vehicles. If complementary ADA paratransit service is not required when flexible, accessible transit is equally available to all passengers, potential sav- ings can also be increased with flexible services. • Smaller vehicles are often more compatible with the sensi- tivities of suburban neighborhoods, which are often sensi- tive to the noise and pollution generated by full-sized transit buses. Smaller vehicles are better able to negotiate crowded shopping centers, narrow residential streets, and the turns necessary to accommodate deviation requests. Because these advantages are applicable regardless of whether agencies have separate standards or guidelines for flexible service, agencies often have no pressing need to develop such separate standards or guidelines. However, a 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 Unsatisfactory: <3.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$11.30/pass Unsatisfactory: >$11.30/pass Routes 1–2 years old Satisfactory: >4.0 pass/hr Unsatisfactory: <4.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$8.50/pass Unsatisfactory: >$8.50/pass Routes more than 2 years old Satisfactory: >5.0 pass/hr Unsatisfactory: <5.0 pass/hr Satisfactory: <$6.80/pass Unsatisfactory: >$6.80/pass *All costs are in 2003 dollars. They should be indexed for inflation.

number of agencies measure the performance of new flexible services. Generally, this measurement is done because (a) the agency has very limited financial resources and might have to cut even these less expensive services (as has happened in Fort Worth, Texas, where eight different flexible routes were tried and terminated) or (b) the agency regards these services as any other service and, therefore, continuously reviews them to ensure that they are being used in the most appropriate locations (as in Tacoma, Washington). The specific performance standards used to judge these newer services vary dramatically, although there is some agreement on the general expectations of flexible services. The most commonly used quantitative performance meas- ure is passengers per hour. Virtually all transit agencies expect flexible services to perform better than standard para- transit service, but worse than traditional fixed-route service. Most agencies are satisfied with service that carries between four and eight passengers per hour. Some perform slightly worse than this, but are maintained as “lifeline”services, while a few others perform better than eight passengers per hour. The TriMet system in the Portland, Oregon, area requires its local suburban circulators to maintain a productivity level of 15 passengers per hour. Some agencies include the subsidy per passenger as another quantitative performance measure. Once again, the specific standard varies because of different cost structures around the country and different budget constraints, but the range of values is between $4.50 and $11.30. Less often, transit agencies use the farebox recovery ratio as a primary determinant of whether the new transit service is viable. A threshold standard can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but many services establish a range of 20- to 25-percent fare- box recovery as the threshold for continued service. Agencies often provide different “probationary periods,” during which they expect these new services to become established. The standard time frame ranges from 1 to 3 years, with 18 months as an average. In addition to the quantitative measures that drive serv- ice decisions, there are often qualitative measures. As noted earlier, many flexible services are started as substitutes for less productive fixed-route service. In areas where flexible transit is introduced as a new service, the qualitative factors influencing the decision to provide the service have included the following: • Specific requests from major employment centers or com- munities, many of whom offer to help pay for the expense of providing the service. • Strategic placement of service within communities to build support for transit referendums. • Geographic or topographic characteristics that make the provision of regular fixed-route service impractical. • A residential community’s proximity to premium transit service, such as rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) stations. • Faster, more direct service. This is often accomplished by straightening trunk-line routes on major arterials and creat- ing feeder routes to serve areas once served by the fixed route. • Minimized traffic congestion and air pollution by provid- ing a transit link between premium transit services and major employment centers. • The provision of mobility services to residents of areas with relatively high unemployment to support their entry into the workforce. • The provision of internal community trips with vehicles that can easily access shopping centers and other areas with relatively crowded and/or tight lane conditions. • The use of smaller vehicles that are more acceptable to cer- tain neighborhoods. • A policy that all residents within a service area will have access to some form of public transit, even if it is limited service, as a “lifeline” for those with no other affordable mobility options. • Regional policies that call for a relationship between differ- ent densities of land uses and levels of transit availability. • The availability of funds from sources such as CMAQ, JARC, or state grant programs for experimental services. • The provision of different services at times or on days that normally see less transit demand. The specific quantitative and qualitative measures being used by the interviewed agencies are summarized in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. These tables represent only 20 of the 28 preliminary case studies because the information collected from 8 of the agencies was not applicable. 11

Table 3-2. Quantitative factors decision matrix. A g en cy C ity State Typ e of Service N o Sta nda rd s M in # P a x/H r D u ring Prob ation M in # P a x/H r A fter Prob ation Prob ation a ry P eriod (M onths) D ifferent Lev el of Service on N ights or W eek end s M a xim u m S ubsidy/P a x ($) M inim u m R id ership % on R o ute of System A v erag e F a rebox R eco v ery R atio (% ) R epla cem ent Service fo r U nd erp erfo rm ing Fixed R o ute F u nding Av ailability of P a rtner (fo r Service to Sta rt) Service in A rea s w ith M inim u m of 1,800 P erso n s/M ile 2 H o u sehold s/A cre Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority Antioch CA 9 12 12 20 3 Regional Transportation District Denver CO Call-and-Ride 3 12 3 South Metro Area Rapid Transit Wilsonville OR 3 Metropolitan Transit Development Board San Diego CA Access Routes 12 24 6.50 New routes 3 12 11.30 3 3 Routes 13 – 24 months 4 12 8.50 3 3 Pierce Transit Tacoma WA Routes 25 months + 5 6.80 3 3 Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Champaign- Urbana IL Dial-A-Ride 3 3

Suburban 5 4.50 3 - 5 Metropolitan Council Minneapolis MN Dial-A-Ride 2 4.50 <3 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission Manassas VA Route Deviation (evenings) 4 Capital District Transportaion Authority Albany NY Flex Routes 3 3 Pace Transit Chicago IL 12 5.00 50 20 3 TriMet Portland OR Circulator 15 24 – 36 Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas TX Curb-to-Curb 3 6 4.30 3 Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority Rhode Island RI 3 Broward County Ft. Lauderdale FL Circulator 5 Ft. Worth Transportation Authority Ft. Worth TX 3 > paratransit services New Jersey Transit Newark NJ 24 20 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Kansas City MO Demand Responsive 3 Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation Detroit MI Flex Routes 3 Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority Des Moines IO Dial-A-Ride (evenings only) 5 3 3 Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Toledo OH Dial-A-Ride 3

Table 3-3. Qualitative factors decision matrix. A g en cy C ity State Typ e of Service S ubstitute Service fo r U np rodu ctiv e Fixed R o utes R eview s L a nd -U se D ev elop m ent Pla n s/Prop o sals G eog raphy & T op og raphy C onsid ered Ensu ring C o m m u nityw id e M obility O pp o rtu nities C om m u nity F eedb a ck D eterm ined N eed D ev eloping C om m u nity S upp o rt fo r T ra n sit Em ploym ent O pp o rtu nity/ U nem ploym ent/ Population M otiv ated Av oid s A DA R eq uirem ent/ Exp en ses Lifeline Service Pro xim ity to R ail Station F u nding Availability of P a rtner (fo r Service to Sta rt) Feed er Service to R egula r o r Prem iu m T ra n sit N etw o rk En viro n m entally M otiv ated D esire to Strea m line R egion al N etw o rk D esire fo r Intern al C om m u nity T rip s Protest A gainst L a rg e B u ses in N eighborhood Visible U se of T a xpay er $ Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority Antioch CA ✓ Regional Transportation District Denver CO Call-and-Ride ✓ ✓ ✓ South Metro Area Rapid Transit Wilsonville OR Metropolitan Transit Development Board San Diego CA Access Routes New routes ✓ Routes 13 – 24 months ✓ Pierce Transit Tacoma WA Route 25 months + ✓ Champaign- Urbana Mass Transit District Champaign- Urbana IL Dial-A-Ride ✓ ✓ Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Kansas City MO Demand Responsive ✓ ✓ Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation Detroit MI Flex Routes ✓ ✓ Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority Des Moines IO Dial-A-Ride (evenings only) ✓ ✓ ✓ Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Toledo OH Dial-A-Ride ✓ ✓ Suburban ✓ ✓ ✓ Metropolitan Council Minneapolis MN Dial-A-Ride ✓ ✓ ✓ Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission Manassas VA Route Deviation (evenings) ✓ Capital District Transportation Authority Albany NY Flex Routes ✓ ✓ Pace Transit Chicago IL ✓ ✓ TriMet Portland OR Circulator ✓ ✓ ✓ Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas TX Curb-to-Curb ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority Rhode Island RI ✓ ✓ ✓ Broward County Ft. Lauderdale FL Circulator ✓ ✓ ✓ Ft. Worth Transportation Authority Ft. Worth TX ✓ New Jersey Transit Newark NJ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓