Transit Systems in College and University Communities (2008)

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.

7TYPE OF INSTITUTION The study surveyed transit providers in college and university communities, and was not limited to those schools that provide transit directly; in many cases, schools are significantly served by a local public transit system instead of, or in addition to, any services provided by the school. Of the organizations complet- ing the survey, 58 identified themselves as from the college or university itself, 32 were from a transit operator (public or private), and seven from the local government (see Figure 1). The three “Other” respondents included a three-way partnership arrangement in Ames, Iowa (see chapter four for a focused case study), home of Iowa State University; a consultant responding for a multi-school system called HEAT serving seven schools in Greensboro, North Carolina; and Clifton Corridor Transportation Management Association, operating services at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Note that respondents were permitted to respond that they represented more than one type of organization; this was the case for six respondents, and therefore, the total number of responses in Figure 1 is 100 while the n is 94. CAMPUS POPULATION Respondents were asked to answer all questions about a sin- gle school; non-schools such as local governments or public transit providers were asked to indicate to which school their survey answers referred (or fill out more than one survey, one for each school). Respondents were also asked to indi- cate the type of school about which they were responding, categorized by the type of degree offered. A majority of cam- puses represented in the sample (81 respondents, or 86%) are four-year universities. Only three (3%) are two-year col- leges, and two (2%) offer graduate courses only. The remain- ing 10 (11%) are four-year colleges offering no graduate curricula. (Two respondents classified the school in two dif- ferent categories; therefore, there are 96 responses in Figure 2 for 94 respondents.) The survey elicited responses from a range of campus types. Campuses with both primarily residential and primarily com- muter populations are included, with a mixture of commuter/ residential being the dominant type of campus, accounting for 52% of the responses. Total student enrollment ranges from 2,800 at the Oregon Institute of Technology to 64,000 at Arizona State University. The following chart (Figure 3) illustrates the number of respondents indicating enrollments within each of the listed ranges. The majority of schools had more than 10,001 students. A full list of schools by size (city population and size of enrollment), as well as the location and the school’s website (frequently a source of additional enrollment information) is presented in Appendix F. Since some individual respondents reported information about the same school (e.g., a public transit provider and the school itself), the enrollments presented in Figure 3 reflect only one response for each individual school, and so 86 responses are shown. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated their school includes multiple campuses (see Table 1). This means that, instead of a single contiguous campus that contains all (or most) university buildings’ functions, the school is comprised of more than one campus in distinct locations. Some respondents described services at one campus location, whereas others also included information about services that run between campuses. HOST COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Respondents indicated that they are located in diverse com- munity settings. The smallest community, Saginaw Valley State University located between Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland, Michigan, has a population of 3,200. At the other end of the spectrum were UCLA and the University of Chicago, situated in two of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. Most campuses surveyed are in urban or small urban areas. Only six are in rural areas (see Figure 4). CAMPUS TRANSIT CHARACTERISTICS Within the various communities, many campuses have access to an array of public transit services on or around campus in addition to any services offered by the school itself (see Fig- ure 5 for responses indicating available services). More than 90% of the campuses surveyed are connected to a local fixed- route bus service, while only 9% can access urban/light rail transit. Most schools reported that they themselves provide accessible or other dial-a-ride services. For example, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Florida each offer services that complement those of the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (Philadelphia) and Regional Transit System (Gainesville), respectively. CHAPTER TWO PROFILES OF SURVEYED COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES

881 10 3 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 4-Year + University 4-Year College 2-Year College Graduate Only Number of Respondents FIGURE 2 Type of school served by transit operator (n = 94). 6 6 7 24 25 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 No data provided <5,000 students 5,000–10,000 students 10,001–20,000 students 20,001–35,000 students >35,000 students Number of Respondents FIGURE 3 What is the overall full- and part-time school enrollment (n = 86)? 58 32 7 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 College/University Transit Operator Local Government Other Number of Respondents FIGURE 1 Type of organization responding to survey (n = 94).

9To gather information about the size of the systems in the respondent pool, respondents were also asked how many bus routes serve the campus (see Table 2). (Additional ways of understanding the “size” of responding transit systems are covered in chapter two.) Table 2 shows how many routes each respondent indicated serve the campus; most respondents indicated that between one and five routes serve the campus. The survey asked about the structure of the coverage for the transit system provided at the school in order to understand whether the system is geared toward the campus community or the wider population of a city. Most respondents indicated that the system was either centered on the school (which would be typical of a campus shuttle system) or a mixture of campus-centered and community-centered service. Table 3 indicates the results. The survey respondents were able either to provide details about just one transit service serving a campus or to aggregate responses for multiple services. The respondents’ replies are indicated in Table 4 as to which services their survey answers would apply. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated their answers would apply to local fixed-route bus transit and on-campus circulator shuttles. Between one-quarter and one-third of respondents offered service details about parking shuttles, accessible paratransit, and other on-call services. In general, the college and university respondents focused on on-campus shuttles (79% of school respondents), while 92% of the gov- ernment agencies and transit providers shared details about local fixed-route bus services. A full list of the survey respon- dents can be found in Appendix C. Respondents were asked to indicate the purpose served by transit for the school. Government entities and transit agencies tended to report that transit serves two primary purposes for the school: to link the campus with the surrounding community Rural 7% Semi-Rural 13% Suburban/Small Urban 45% Urban 35% FIGURE 4 How would you classify the school’s immediate setting (n = 94)? % of Total Respondents Yes 43% No 57% n = 75. TABLE 1 DOES THE SCHOOL HAVE MULTIPLE CAMPUSES SERVED BY TRANSIT? 30% 9% 30% 41% 53% 59% 73% 74% 91% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Urban/Light Rail Transit Regional/Commuter Rail Intercity Scheduled Coach Service Parking Shuttle(s) Other On-Call (e.g., night escort shuttle) Dial-a-Ride/Accessible Paratransit On-Campus Circulator/Shuttle(s) Local Fixed-Route Bus Transit % of Total Respondents FIGURE 5 What types of transit serve the school (n = 66)?

10 Ninety-seven percent of the government and transit agen- cies indicated their service was open to the public; however only 61% of schools open all of their service to the public. Twenty-two percent of school respondents exclude the public from all of their transit service. SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION Respondents were asked to indicate who manages or contracts for the transit service that is provided at the school. This question was designed to allow respondents to indicate how the service is contractually structured, which may be more complex than just a direct operation on the part of the school or the local transit provider (see these results listed in Table 6). For nearly half of the campuses reporting, the college or uni- versity operates the transit system. For 18% of schools, the community’s public transit provider or local government operates the system. Hybrid administration models account for the remaining third of the responses, including formal partnerships between some combination of the school, the local government, and/or the public transit agency. Some of these arrangements may sim- ply be a direct contract agreement between a school and a local transit agency that provides a wider range of community ser- vices. This is the case at the University of Texas at Austin, where the campus shuttles are contracted from Capital Metro. Some contracts are between entities other than the university administration. For example, Transfort of Fort Collins, Col- orado, indicates that the campus services at Colorado State Uni- versity are provided under a three-year partnership between itself and the student leadership. Other “hybrid” systems may be due to the structure of the transit system itself, where the transit system is a department of another government entity. Other arrangements describe collaborative agreements between agencies and/or the school. This is the case in Ithaca, New York, between Cornell University, Tompkins County, and the city of Ithaca. (See chapter four for a focused case study of a three-way partnership arrangement in Ames, Iowa.) % of Total Respondents Transit Service Intercity Scheduled Coach Service 10 Local Fixed-Route Bus Transit 65 On-Cam pus Circulator/Shuttle(s) 66 Parking Shuttle(s) 30 Dial-a-Ride/Accessible Paratransit 36 Other On-Call (e.g., night escort shuttles) 24 Other 1 n = 94. TABLE 4 FOR WHICH OF THESE TRANSIT SERVICES WILL YOU BE PROVIDING SERVICE DETAILS? % of Total Responses Purpose Served % of School Respondents % of Govít. or Transit Agency Respondents On-Campus Circulation 79 93 62 Inter-campus Circulation (multiple campuses) 35 43 19 Link Between Campus and City 73 64 84 Park-and-Ride 47 54 43 Night/Evening Safety 54 63 41 Accessible Services 53 55 49 n = 92. TABLE 5 WHAT PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) DOES TRANSIT SERVE FOR THE SCHOOL? Number of Bus Routes Serving Campus 1–5 6–10 11–20 21+ Number of Systems 30 29 22 8 n = 89. TABLE 2 HOW MANY BUS ROUTES SERVE THE CAMPUS? % of Total Respondents Structure of Coverage Centered on School 40 Centered on Surrounding Community 9 Both 52 n = 93. TABLE 3 HOW IS THE COVERAGE OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM STRUCTURED? and to provide on-campus circulation. Not surprisingly, responses from schools indicated that the primary purpose is on-campus circulation, with a generally even balance between all other purposes as listed in Table 5, which shows the pur- poses listed by respondents, in total as well as broken down by the type of respondent.

11 In a reversal of traditional roles, in rural Macomb, Illinois, where students comprise over half the local population, West- ern Illinois University operates the transit that serves the entire community. The fairly large number of respondents (31) who reported a hybrid administration between the school and the public transit operator or school and local government suggests that partnership arrangements are viewed as an effective way to deliver transit to both a school and the wider community. % of Respondents Campus Operated 48 Public Transit Provider as Operator 18 Hybrid 33 n = 92. TABLE 6 WHO MANAGES OR CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED AT THE SCHOOL?