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.

15 After analyzing general data from the preliminary case studies, the research team focused on a more in-depth analy- sis of a select group of transit agencies. In choosing the agen- cies for this select group, the research team sought to balance the distribution of geography and agency size. Because a key goal of the research was to illustrate the nexus between land use and suburban transit services, sites with more extensive data on land use, demographics, and operations were given priority. The research team chose sites with a range of subur- ban transit services, from both large urban and small rural areas of the country, both with and without specific policies guiding service implementation: • King County Metro (Seattle, Washington), • Tri-Met (Portland, Oregon), • South Metro Area Rapid Transit (Wilsonville, Oregon), • Regional Transportation District (Denver, Colorado), • Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis area, Minnesota), • Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (suburban Detroit, Michigan), • Broward County Transit (Broward County, Florida), and • Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany, New York). As indicated in Tables 4-1 through 4-3, the recommended sites vary in size, provide broad geographical coverage, and offer a wide range of service alternatives. Case Study Research Methodology The research team developed a detailed information request form, as summarized below: • Transit Characteristics – Service characteristics  % of households or jobs within service area, response time, number of vehicles in peak service, intermodal hubs, technology (signal preemption/next bus) – Vehicle characteristics  Vehicle type, capacity (seats/wheelchair positions), technology (annunciators, automatic vehicle location [AVL], smartcards) • Route Characteristics – Headway (peak/off peak); average speed; trips per week- day, Saturday, and Sunday; route length (mi/hr); service span (weekdays/Saturday/Sunday) • Performance – Annual passengers, revenue-hours, revenue-miles, vehicle-hours, vehicle-miles, cost/passenger, cost/hour, cost/mile, subsidy/passenger, farebox recovery ratio • Funding Sources • Transit Policy – Board role and involvement, decision-making process, guidelines, performance measurement system (describe), organizational model, other unique characteristics • Land Use and Travel Patterns – Key attractions  Large employers, schools, shopping centers, medical centers, museums, arenas, hotels – Land use by parcel  Residential (dwelling units by parcel or block), com- mercial (square footage of leasable space) – Travel behavior  Origin-destination travel patterns, trip purposes, trip frequency • Demographics – Household income, car ownership, age composition, unemployment rate, non-English-speaking popula- tions, average household size • Street Network Characteristics – Street width, number of lanes, speed limit, signal spac- ing, average daily traffic, volume/capacity ratio, level of service (LOS), connectivity, distance between bus stops • Transit Priority Features – Traffic signal priority, queue jump lanes, exclusive lanes C H A P T E R 4 Detailed Case Study Findings

16 East South Midwest West Capital District Transportation Authority, CDTA (NY) Broward County Transit, BCT (FL) Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, SMART (MI) Metropolitan Council, MetCouncil (MN) South Metro Area Rapid Transit, SMART (OR) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, TriMet (OR) King County Metro, Metro (WA) Denver Regional Transportation District, Denver RTD (CO) Transit Services B ro w ar d Co un ty T ra n sit , B CT (F L) Ca pi ta l D ist ric t T ra n sp or ta tio n A ut ho rit y, CD TA (N Y) D en ve r R eg io na l Tr an sp or ta tio n D ist ric t, D en ve r R TD (C O) M et ro po lit an C ou nc il, M et Co un ci l ( M N) K in g Co un ty M et ro , M et ro (W A ) So ut h M et ro A re a Ra pi d Tr an sit , S M A RT (O R) Su bu rb an M ob ili ty A ut ho rit y fo r R eg io na l T ra n sp or ta tio n, SM A RT (M I) Tr i-C ou nt y M et ro po lit an Tr an sp or ta tio n D ist ric t, Tr iM et (O R) Fixed Route - Circulator/Shuttle ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Demand Responsive ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Flexible -Route Deviation -Point Deviation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Commuter -Bus -Vanpool ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Table 4-1. Detailed case study sites by agency size. Table 4-2. Detailed case study sites by agency location. Table 4-3. Detailed case study sites by transit services offered. Small (Fewer than 100 buses) Medium (100 – 600 buses) Large (More than 600 buses) South Metro Area Rapid Transit, SMART (OR) Capital District Transportation Authority, CDTA (NY) Broward County Transit, BCT (FL) Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, SMART (MI) Denver Regional Transportation District, Denver RTD (CO) King County Metro, Metro (WA) Metropolitan Council, MetCouncil (MN) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, TriMet (OR)

• Parking Cost or Scarcity – Average cost of parking, metered parking, structures Much of the transit service data were available from the transit agencies. To obtain data on land use, the research team typically had to work with multiple agencies at city, county, and regional levels. In general, there was a considerable lack of consistency among the data available at the various detailed case study sites. However, the need remained to develop analyses that could consider the range of planning and land-use information available to the broader transit community, such that guidance could be developed even with a range of specificity of data available. Overview of Results Land-use data are becoming more readily available in many areas, but the lead agency for maintaining the data and the types of data maintained can vary from one locale to another. Further, although some transit operators are very familiar with these data, others do not use the land-use data, especially in the specific ways developed in the research plan. As a result, no single method can be prescribed to access sim- ilar land-use data across the country. However, the general methodology employing the “four D’s” can provide comparative information at the local level that will assist in understanding the comparative potential of various land-use factors to better support suburban tran- sit options. Further, the terminology and analysis of peaks, ridges, points, and plains accurately describe the best service delivery options for a given disaggregated land-use area. The majority of the effort being expended by transit agen- cies, as reflected by the types of services included in the case studies, involves trying to serve lower-density areas with mul- tiple land uses (residential, schools, commercial, and health- care). The range of solutions, from fixed route to route deviation, has some interesting land-use correlations: • Most services are operating in areas of less than 20,000 trip ends per square mile. This metric appears to be relatively new, and perhaps it will be a new threshold for transit agencies to consider in planning activities. • Trip density in a given area is not a consistent factor in attracting more riders per hour. • Land use with mixed development appears to perform better than land use of one type (e.g., residential or commercial). Clearly, in many instances, land use dictated the types of services provided. For example, on the job access routes in suburban Detroit serving the industrial areas, circulators with direct connections to the worksites were the best fit. However, sometimes land use did not dictate the type of services provided. For example, in Minneapolis, in choosing between route deviation and point deviation, the most important factor was the high number of attractors that needed to be served. Minneapolis thus chose the strict sched- uling of route deviation instead of the flexibility of point deviation because route deviation could serve more attractors than point deviation could serve. The productivity of route- deviation service was significantly higher than that of point- deviation service. As will be discussed further in the detailed case study analysis, the preliminary case study analysis demonstrates several key findings. First, there is a wide range of perspec- tives regarding the role of suburban services, with evidence that coverage is more important than productivity. This per- spective on suburban services differs from the general per- spective on fixed-route services. Productivity, in general, has been the main factor for evaluating fixed-route services. Thus, there sometimes are competing perspectives when evaluating suburban services. Second, recognizing the bene- fits of some of the coverage-oriented programs has resulted in better working relationships between transit agencies and communities, including passage of funding resources legis- lation, as evidenced by the SMART service in suburban Detroit. Conversely, in other areas locales have opted out of the transit district to make their own policy decisions and even provide funding for those services, like has happened for the Met Council area. Obviously, the ability to fund ser- vices that have much lower productivity than many fixed route systems is critical to maintaining sustainability, whether this ability is based on policies to provide area cov- erage, local participation in funding the transit agency, or directly funding the services. 17