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 7
7 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS A survey of select transit agencies was conducted to obtain Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The list of responding the perspective of transit agencies regarding the coordination agencies is presented in Appendix B. of bus transit and land development. Sixty transit agencies were selected to participate in the survey. These agencies All but one of the respondents reported that they operated were chosen to participate if they met one or more of the fol- bus transit service in multiple jurisdictions. This is notable lowing criteria: for this project because local governments retain the respon- sibility for land use decisions. A good communications net- · Recommended by a topic panel member, work between local government and the transit agency is · Participated in FTA's BRT demonstration program, critical for the successful integration of transit and land use. · Identified during the literature review, or Developing these networks with multiple jurisdictions can be · Provided balance in terms of size or geographic location. a monumental task for resource-strapped transit agencies. A total of 32 completed surveys were returned in time for inclusion in this report. SECTION B. STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS The survey was divided into the following six sections: This section asked questions about stakeholders in the devel- A. Transit Agency Characteristics opment process and communications among stakeholders. B. Stakeholders and Communications Respondents were asked, "Typically, how does your organi- C. Transit Agency Development Guidelines zation first become aware of future new developments?" D. Transit-Supportive Strategies Multiple responses to this question were allowed so the E. Experience in Integrating Bus Service in New answers total more than the number of respondents. Table 1 Developments illustrates the ways that transit agencies become informed of F. Open-Ended Opinions (In Your Opinion . . .). new developments. The "Other Methods" listed in the table include formal notifications from the state or regional plan- The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The ning agencies and attendance at regularly scheduled planning number of responses to each question is shown in parenthe- meetings. ses on the survey instrument. A summary of the responses by section is provided here. According to the respondents, local jurisdictions, munic- ipalities, and/or counties are primarily responsible for the physical design of public elements within new developments. SECTION A. TRANSIT AGENCY In a few instances, regional planning agencies and states were CHARACTERISTICS cited in addition to the local jurisdictions. Figure 1 illustrates how well these lead agencies supported transit when reviewing The first section provided contact information on the survey plans for new developments. respondents as well as transit agency characteristics in terms of size and modes provided. Of the 32 survey respondents, Several respondents noted that the answer to this question 11 were returned from transit agencies with more than 500 was highly dependent on the jurisdiction. In many areas the buses, 13 from agencies with 100 to 500 buses, 6 from agen- transit agency serves multiple jurisdictions, and some jurisdic- cies with 50 to 100 buses, and 2 from agencies with fewer tions do a better job of considering transit elements than others. than 50 buses. The limited representation by smaller agencies may signify that this issue is not perceived as critical for Communication methods are also highly variable. Once smaller agencies. Respondents represented all areas of the again this is dependent on the jurisdiction. However, it is country as surveys were returned from California, Colorado, also dependent on the size of the development. Larger devel- Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, opments tend to have transit agencies included in the review, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, but smaller developments "fall through the cracks." Both North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, formal and informal communication methods are used