National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transit Systems in College and University Communities (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Campus Operations

« Previous: Chapter Two - Profiles of Surveyed College and University Communities
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Campus Operations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Transit Systems in College and University Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14201.
×
Page 18

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.

HOURS OF OPERATION AND FREQUENCY OF SERVICE Respondents were asked how frequently services were avail- able during the most frequent period. This was asked to dis- cover the intensity of services available to campuses—a campus with 30-min frequencies at its busiest hour is served very differently from one with shuttles arriving every 5 min. Thirty respondents (33%) indicated that their service is as frequent as up to every 6 min. Another third indicated that their most frequent services were between 7 to 10 min. Sixteen percent indicated 11- to 15-min frequency, 4% indicated 16- to 20-min frequency, and 13% indicated a frequency of over 20 min. Two respondents (both located in New York City) indicated that 84 vehicles per hour serve the campus at the peak time; this is the most frequent service listed. The least frequent service at peak time listed was once per hour, indi- cated by a semi-rural school. RIDERSHIP Ridership is an important measure by which systems bench- mark their service effectiveness. A full table of ridership data is presented in Appendix E, including the most recent rider- ship figures and responses to a question about trends in rid- ership over time. Almost all operators reporting a trend in ridership experienced an increase over time. In general, these increases were modest—in the range of 1% to 5%—but occasionally were larger (though not all respondents indi- cated the period of the increase). Respondents expressed a full range of comments about the trends in ridership. Some of the most frequent general explanations about increases in rid- ership include the following: • Increasing gas prices, • New routes or increased service levels, • U-Pass agreements or other price incentives, • Growing student enrollment and other demographic shifts, • Decreases in parking availability on campus, • Increased awareness of routes, and • Marketing. The reasons cited for ridership increases may serve as a useful comparison for systems wishing to enhance their ser- vices and address new and changing needs. For example, 12 Mississippi State University in Starkville produced service enhancements by making changes in parking and zoning and streamlining services to bring buses faster to a central hub, and the University of North Texas in Denton experienced a 1,000% growth in ridership over 5 years with a student fee and inter-local agreement. It appears that a number of factors are now coming together to provide a climate that is very favorable for growing system ridership. Five schools reported a decrease in ridership. Two cited outside circumstances: one school pointed to demographic changes, and another transit system indicated that the construc- tion of dense new housing on campus has resulted in increased walking among students. On the other hand, two respondents indicated that more direct service/funding cuts by the school had resulted in a decline in ridership. The April 16, 2007, shootings at Virginia Tech resulted in a modest decline in rid- ership owing to the university allowing students to end their school year early. As one measure of the relative patronage level of the systems, respondents were asked to report on the number of routes that are at “standing room only” capacity at least once per peak period every weekday. Results are indicated in Table 7. Most respondents reported five or fewer routes at standing room only. Interestingly, only two of the respondents who answered the question reported that no routes operated at this level; most systems have at least one route that is very heavily patronized for the capacity level provided. Of course, the number of at-capacity routes will be higher in larger systems; therefore, the proportion of routes a system runs at capacity is also shown. Systems ranged widely in this proportion (see Table 8). Almost half of systems reported that more than half of their routes are at standing-room only on a consistent basis. These figures strongly suggest that the transit that is available to campuses is very well utilized during commute hours. Although only one-quarter of respondents overall have transit ridership goals for the campus transit routes, a higher percentage of university respondents than government/transit agencies has these goals. One-quarter of schools have set rid- ership goals, although less than one-fifth of the government agencies have done so (see Table 9). CHAPTER THREE CAMPUS OPERATIONS

13 CHANGES IN SERVICE AND NEW CHALLENGES Seventy percent of respondents reported that changes in cam- pus demographics, student body composition, or student res- idential locations have had an impact on transit cost, service, or effectiveness, whereas only 38% indicate that changes in school administration or school polices have impacted transit service or policies (see Tables 10 and 11). Schools and government/transit agencies had very similar perspectives on which factors have had an impact on transit. ACCESSIBLE PARATRANSIT SERVICES Seventy-three percent of campuses are served by dial-a-ride or other paratransit service. As indicated in Table 12, only half (55%) have every vehicle in their fleet equipped with wheel- chair lifts, and 18% of fleets have lifts on less than half of their vehicles. Low-floor vehicles add to the overall accessibility of a transit service, as they are easier for all to board, including elderly persons and people with physical disabilities who do not use wheelchairs. More than half (53%) of respondents indi- cated low-floor vehicles make up less than half of their fleet, while only 12% of fleets utilize low-floor buses exclusively. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires the accommodation of persons with disabilities on certain transit services. Survey respondents were asked, “How are the operational and funding challenges of meeting ADA require- ments met?” The majority of comments received from schools generally reflected one of two situations: that these demands are simply met within the constraints of the department’s budget or otherwise absorbed, or that all of their vehicles are equipped with lifts and so the needs of people with disabili- ties are met within the context of regular service. For public transit providers and governments, some responded that grants were used to fund the services, whereas others indi- cated that the costs were otherwise integrated into the budget. Several creative methods of providing ADA services were reported. UCLA indicated that it is able to use grants to fund services. CyRide of Ames, Iowa, indicated that it has “contracted with [the] regional transit system to operate our paratransit and save about $125,000 per year” (CyRide 2007). Virginia Tech handles it through aggressive pursuit of part- nerships and/or advertising and the University of California at San Diego uses citation revenues to increase funds. At the University of South Florida, accommodations are provided by the school, but are broken up departmentally—infrastructure improvements are handled by the university’s specific budget for ADA, while transit-specific costs are handled by the oper- ational budget of the transit service. FUEL COSTS AND OTHER FINANCING CHALLENGES When asked “What financing challenges have impacted oper- ations in recent years (e.g., interest rates, insurance costs, fuel costs, etc.)?,” the overwhelming majority (85%) cited rising fuel costs as a financial challenge impacting transit operations in recent years. It is probable that most of these respondents are referring to rising gasoline and diesel prices, but University of California–Irvine and UCLA specifically indicated the high cost of alternative fuels, so the challenge of rising fuel costs cuts across different technologies. Reduced state and federal funding for operations or capital investments was the second most common financial concern. Pullman Transit, serving Washington State University, cites the “loss of state funding” and “limited federal capital dol- lars” as significant challenges; the University of Arkansas is facing “declining subsidies”; and university budget cuts are an obstacle for the University of Arizona. This funding short- fall may help explain why 20% of respondents are struggling to meet operations and maintenance costs and capital improve- ment costs (e.g., vehicle replacement). In response to limited Number of Transit System Routes with Standing-Room Only at Least Once per Peak Period Every Weekday Zero 1 or 2 3–5 6–10 11+ Number of Systems 2 18 24 12 9 n = 65. TABLE 7 HOW MANY TRANSIT SYSTEM ROUTES HAVE STANDING-ROOM ONLY AT LEAST ONCE PER PEAK PERIOD EVERY WEEKDAY? Proportion of Transit System Routes with Standing-Room Only at Least Once per Peak Period Every Weekday Zero 1–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–99% 100% Number of Systems 10 9 13 13 10 10 n = 65. TABLE 8 WHAT PROPORTION OF TRANSIT ROUTES HAVE STANDING-ROOM ONLY AT LEAST ONCE PER PEAK PERIOD EVERY WEEKDAY?

funding and rising costs, many respondents have had to raise fares and/or cut service. Labor costs, plus the rising cost of employee health insurance, are a financial concern for 37% of respondents, and roughly one in five indicated other insurance costs have impacted their transit operations (see Figure 6). Additionally, 14% of the systems are feeling strained owing to increased passenger demand as a result of campus growth or other factors, as reflected in the University of Pennsylvania’s state- ment, “we are constantly requested to do more with less.” The following profile, as reported through an interview with a representative of Chapel Hill Transit, serving the Uni- versity of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, illustrates how one system approaches the challenge of funding transit services through a special partnership arrangement. Profile: Funding Partnership Provides Free Transit in Chapel Hill, NC Everyone rides free on Chapel Hill Transit, thanks to a unique funding partnership among the North Carolina towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). The free fare system went into effect in January 2001, raising the ridership in 1 year from 3 million annually to 4.2 million riders in 2002. Ridership for Fiscal Year 2008 to 2009 is projected to be 6.8 million riders. The free fare system is an outgrowth of a partnership that began at the instigation of Mayor Howard Lee in the early 1970s. Chapel Hill committed itself to growth that sustained the town’s charm—tree-lined streets and building heights limited to three stories (except for the hospital). To accomplish this, transit had to be a key element of the town’s vision. A study committee, funded by a federal grant, examined the feasibility of a per- manent community transit system. Town voters approved a $350,000 bond referendum for local capital match and a 10 cents per $100 valuation ad valorem tax to support operations. Chapel Hill Transit, a department of the town government, began 14 operations in August 1974; when the UNC Student Government’s shuttle system merged into Chapel Hill Transit, the funding part- nership for shared service began. Carrboro began purchasing transit services in 1977 and merged into the system in 1980, bringing its own ad valorem tax to pay for its share of the service. The system now consists of 31 routes with 99 buses and 15 lift- equipped vans. The routes also serve five public park-and-ride lots and six UNC off-campus lots. The free fare system includes the EZ Rider paratransit service and a Shared Ride Feeder ser- vice to the fixed routes. The Feeder service is available on a demand response basis for residents who live more than 2 mi from a bus stop. The system uses a formula to determine each partner’s share of the financing. The total required amount is as follows: Total Budgeted System Expenses Less Operating Revenue, Federal Assistance, and State Maintenance Assist Program (SMAP). Since UNC has approximately 11 routes solely dedicated to the university and university hospitals, this amount is deducted from the balance to be shared and is attributed directly to the school. The split is then determined for each partner based on population (2008 population figures: Chapel Hill: 51,519; Carrboro: 16,782; UNC students: 29,800; UNC faculty and staff: 19,800). The annual operating budget of $15 million is an Enterprise Fund separate from the town’s General Fund, which includes • Ad valorem property taxes at 4.8 cents per $100 valuation: $2.6 million; • FTA Section 5307 funds: $1.115 million; • SMAP: $3.4 million; • UNC contract: $5.7 million; • Town of Carrboro contract: $1 million; • Tarheel Express Shuttle farebox: $400,000 (from ticket sales to provide shuttle from park-and-ride lots to football and bas- ketball games); and • Miscellaneous revenues (e.g., bus advertising, interest income). The funding formula for the partnership is set annually through a negotiated contract. A Transit Partnership Committee, comprised of representatives from both towns, UNC, and citi- zens, meets monthly. They negotiate issues such as how long a new route primarily serving one partner should be solely that partner’s responsibility before being added to the formula for shared cost—in this example, the decision was 3 years. Other challenging issues have included whether to reduce service or raise student fees. Based on a spring 2007 survey, approximately 90% of the riders are affiliated with UNC. The sources for UNC’s share of the funding partnership are parking permits and fines, a departmental assessment based on payroll, and student fees. Student fees are currently set at $92.25 per year; of that amount, $62 is dedicated to Chapel Hill Transit % of School Respondents % of Govít. or Transit Agency Respondents Yes 26% 18% No 74% 82% n = 56. TABLE 9 DO YOU HAVE A GOAL FOR TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ON ROUTES SERVING THE CAMPUS? % of Total Respondents % of School Respondents % of Government or Transit Agency Respondents Yes 69 70 70 No 31 30 30 n = 70. TABLE 10 HAVE CHANGES IN CAMPUS DEMOGRAPHICS, STUDENT BODY COMPOSITION, OR STUDENT RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS/GEOGRAPHY IMPACTED TRANSIT COST, SERVICE, OR EFFECTIVENESS?

15 and the remainder goes to other transit services on campus not operated by Chapel Hill Transit. Because of its free fare service, Chapel Hill Transit has been able to increase its federal funds, which are based on ridership. As part of its strategy to increase ridership, it has also added $40,000 in the budget for marketing. In addition, the public can see the convenience of transit through new technology announc- ing when the next bus will arrive (see extended technology description in chapter five). These light-emitting diode signs have been placed at all park-and-ride lots, at key bus stops on the UNC campus, and on each bus traveling through the com- munity. The next bus arrival is also available on the town’s website (M. Margotta, Budget Finance Manager, Transportation Department, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, personal communication, Mar. 20, 2008). STAFFING AND WORKFORCE CHARACTERISTICS The survey asked a question about how many persons the transit system employs (see Table 13). Systems reported a wide range of staff sizes, commensurate on the whole with the different sizes of transit systems. Although some of these systems are much broader and larger than others (including transit serving larger cities), many of the school-based systems have a significant number of employees and have grown into small industries of their own. Respondents were also asked to indicate how many (or what proportion) of their workers are direct employees or students of the school. Table 14 shows that only 12 operators exclu- sively use staff affiliated with the school (those employed directly by the university). The rest likely represent a combi- nation of scenarios. For public transit operators and govern- ments, this is expected as their target customer audience (and hiring pool) is broader. For schools, however, this may indi- cate that contracting out for employees takes place. Indeed, the comments received in response to a number of the other questions (including seasonality discussed later in this chapter) support this conclusion. STUDENT DRIVERS The use of student drivers has become commonplace. Indeed, since half of the systems responding replied affirmatively to a question asking whether they allow student drivers (65% of them actively recruit student drivers), the use of students as a major component of the school transit workforce has become standard practice. College and university systems are more likely (53% versus 42%) than government or transit agencies to allow student drivers, and far more likely to actively recruit student drivers than government and transit agencies. Only three of the 28 schools that permit student drivers do not actively recruit. Using students as drivers provides cost-savings opportu- nities. Student drivers are likely recruited since their wage rate would be lower than a more experienced transit operator, and since they work part-time they typically do not qualify for extended benefits. Moreover, although one might assume that these student drivers would generally need more training, the survey responses indicated that systems that rely on student drivers do not spend the extra resources providing them with special training beyond what is given to other drivers. No government or transit agency provides extra training; the six systems that offer special student driver training are colleges or universities. Eighteen systems indicated that their student drivers are subject to restrictions that may not apply to other drivers. Eight systems reported an age limit (six reported age 21, and two reported age 18). This may overlap in part with the stated requirement that drivers all have commercial drivers licenses (CDLs), which is typical for transit bus drivers; one respon- dent, however, indicated that their age 21 minimum was a requirement for coverage under insurance rather than (or in addition to) a CDL requirement. Two systems noted a clean driving record requirement, and two indicated a drug testing requirement. Three systems limit the number of hours that students may work (one stated no overtime, and one caps the hours per week to 25). Finally, three systems had unique requirements: one has a grade point average limitation of 2.0 minimum, one has a limited geographic service area in which students may drive, and one limits students to driving only small vehicles (fewer than eight passengers). Those schools that offer special training reported a range of curricula. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor realizes that % of Total Respondents % of School Respondents % of Government or Transit Agency Respondents Yes 38 37 35% No 62 63 65% n = 71. TABLE 11 HAVE CHANGES IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION OR POLICIES CHANGED TRANSIT SERVICE AND/OR POLICIES? Percentage of Transit Vehicles with Amenity Zero <50% >50% 100% Wheelchair Lifts 1% 17% 13% 55% Low Floors 14% 39% 25% 12% n = 84. TABLE 12 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TRANSIT VEHICLES HAS THE FOLLOWING ACCESSIBILITY-RELATED AMENITIES?

most students do not enter with a CDL; they therefore “train vehicle skills, routes, passenger relations, system dynamics, [and] geography.” Rutgers in New Brunswick, New Jersey, echoes the sentiment about passenger relations: “Our student drivers are also community service officers who are trained on how to help the community,” while the University of South Florida in Tampa provides similar training to get the CDL. Two schools indicated that extra training also comes with heightened testing requirements: Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland, requires drivers to pass a long road test, and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia conducts quar- terly safety classes plus semi-annual driving evaluations. Profile: Student Drivers Serve at CyRide, Ames, Iowa The transit system in the university city of Ames, Iowa, offers an example of a blended transit system that serves both university affiliates and the public at large. CyRide, named after Iowa State University’s Cyclones, is operated by the city of Ames under a funding partnership among the city, the university, and the stu- dent body government. (For a more extensive examination of CyRide’s partnership origins and funding structure, see a sepa- rate case study in chapter four.) Ames Transit Agency (CyRide’s official name) operates 10 routes, three of which are exclusive to Iowa State University. The system employs 24 full-time drivers as well as 83 part-time drivers, of whom 57 (69%) are students. (Part-time is defined as working 15 h to 39 h per week.) Students also serve as dispatchers, bus cleaners, and trainers. Serving transit in a community in which university students comprise more than half of the population has presented chal- lenges that CyRide has addressed with programmatic innovation. In this moderately-sized community of 52,000, recruitment of students is necessary to fill the driver slots. This need is exacer- bated by the low unemployment rate in Ames (2% in 2008). The primary means of recruitment is the Job Board on the campus. Students are attracted to CyRide because the starting pay is $11.36/h, which is better than most other jobs posted. As CyRide employees, they receive sick pay and vacation pay if they work over 20 hours per week. Job openings are also announced on the buses’ destination signs (“CyRide Hiring”) and are spread word- of-mouth by other student drivers. 16 Employment of student drivers differs in some ways from other types of employees. Drivers typically work part-time for 5 or 6 years before becoming full-time and receiving full bene- fits, so no students generally receive health benefits. Full-time drivers belong to the Operating Engineers union, and one or two students have also joined. Although there is no policy against employing freshmen, CyRide encourages sophomores and older to apply as drivers due to their perceived higher level of maturity. Safety is a chief concern when student drivers are hired, so recruits may have no more than two violations on their driv- ing record, and no incidents of driving while intoxicated. Pro- gressive, CyRide’s property insurance company, checks only on driving records, and is not concerned about the age of the student drivers. Collision insurance is provided by the city’s self-insurance. CyRide has an extensive driver training program of 120 to 130 h on its 40-ft buses, which includes out-of-service and in-service driving. As a result, it has won national safety records for its per- formance. It has only five or six claims a year, usually not total- ing more than $10,000 annually. According to Tom Davenport, Transit Coordinator, it is easier to train students than to train former truck drivers, who must unlearn bad habits (T. Davenport, Transit Coordinator, CyRide, Ames, Iowa, personal communica- tion, Mar. 21, 2008). A high turnover rate means that training is a continuous activ- ity; student drivers tend to have somewhat different employment cycles than full-time workers for several reasons. At the end of the school year, CyRide loses 10 to 15 students and about 15 to 20 take a leave of absence to work summer jobs with more hours. It must then conduct hiring in August and train the new hires. During the school year, the buses operate for 250 service hours per day and 93% of the riders are students. Consequently, although student drivers are less available seasonally, demand is also lower; the service is reduced to 120 h in summer. Finally, 9% 11% 11% 12% 14% 22% 25% 26% 85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Capital Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs Employee Health Insurance, Benefits Increased Demand & Growth Insurance Costs Labor, Wages Reduced Funding Sources Fuel Costs % of Total Respondents FIGURE 6 Financial challenges cited by survey respondents (n = 74). Number of Transit System Employees 1–50 51–100 101–200 201+ Number of Systems 21 15 17 25 n = 78. TABLE 13 HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES THE TRANSIT SYSTEM EMPLOY?

17 CyRide is often the first structured job that a student has held. A few want the freedom to take off when they feel like it and find that they no longer have a job when they return. Two or three quit each semester when they get their grades after the first midterm. However, despite the headaches that turnover creates, the overall quality of student drivers “is worth it,” according to Sheri Kyras, Director of Transit. She came to CyRide from a more urban transit system and notes that students bring new ideas and excitement to the workplace: “They are more edu- cated than the typical urban driver and have better customer service skills.” And the system is well thought of by the public, she says, as a professionally run organization (S. Kyras, Direc- tor of Transit, CyRide, Ames, Iowa, personal communication, Mar. 21, 2008). MARKETING TO NEW RIDERS It is often not enough to simply provide transit services to a campus. To make members of the school community aware of services provided, the transit operator must advertise its existence and use. In college and university communities, operators face the particular challenge of certain turnover of incoming and outgoing students every year—often coming from completely different communities and different levels of transit riding experience—in addition to any turnover in faculty and staff. The survey asked a question about how transit systems advertise their services to potential riders. Respondents reported utilizing a variety of tools; results are indicated in Figure 7. Advertising occurs during freshman orientation or pre-matriculation events on 92% of campuses and more than four-fifths utilize brochures and the school’s website. Transportation management associations (TMAs) are multi-institution task forces that coordinate and adminis- ter transportation demand management (TDM) programs for an area. One of their services frequently provides consoli- dated advertising campaigns for constituent members, which usually include transit service providers. However, TMAs were reported to be the least common transit advertising technique. Bus wraps (exterior bus advertising) are also infrequently used. University transit providers reported that they take advan- tage of opportunities to advertise the transit service online to potential customers. For example, 83% of those organizations that reported posting transit system maps or schedules on a school or transit agency website (in response to the question described by Figure 7) also indicated they incorporate online advertising in an attempt to market the service. In other words, only 17% of systems are posting customer informa- tion online, but not directly advertising the transit service online. Proportion of Transit Employees That Are Students/Direct Employees Zero 1%–25% 26%–50% 51%–75% 76%–99% 100% Number of Systems 27 11 3 2 5 12 n = 60. TABLE 14 WHAT PROPORTION OF TRANSIT SERVICE EMPLOYEES ARE STUDENTS OR DIRECT EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL? 92% 84% 81% 60% 59% 45% 11% 5% 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Freshman Orientation Brochures School Website Signs New Employee Materials Flyers Bus Wraps TMA Other % of Total Respondents FIGURE 7 How is the transit service advertised to potential riders (n = 60)?

SEASONALITY OF SERVICE The seasonality of the school year can present major problems for attracting, training, and retaining staff to work for school- oriented transit agencies. Summer is generally a slow period during which the campus is less populated and therefore service requirements are lower. This can have impacts on operator staffing and training, vehicle inventories, service consistencies, and other areas of operations. The survey asked how the seasonality of the school year is handled by the tran- sit service. Almost everyone who responded to the question (almost 50) indicated (directly or implied) that the seasonality does result in some action, generally in seasonal service cuts. Many respondents, however, did not read the question as ask- ing about how staff fluctuations are handled (and full-time workers’ needs accommodated); many simply stated that service is cut, so it is possible in many cases that workers are simply laid off or given no work for the summer. Others stated explicitly that this is the case. A number of respondents offered information about bal- ancing employees’ needs with operating efficiency. Several respondents stated that their use of student drivers solves the problem; student employees “naturally” follow the school schedule. Several others replied that use of contract workers addresses the issue, although this may be more from the per- spective of transit systems’ hiring and cost needs rather than addressing the desire of employees to work full-time year- round. Some also indicated that giving summer vacation time is a strategy that can be used to offset the problem. HANDLING SPECIAL EVENTS Special events such as sports, games, and other large attractions can pose a challenge for transit services. On-campus parking may not be able to accommodate the demand, and the heavy congestion generated by cars circling to find spaces and get around the campus can be unattractive and frustrating to cam- pus residents and the surrounding community alike. Almost 18 all respondents answering a question about how special events are handled responded that they have methods to deal with the extra strain by adding more service to existing lines or using an in-house or contracted charter service to provide relief. A few indicated that they do not handle special events at all, although some may have understood the question to be asking about whether buses or vans may be hired case-by-case for smaller university events (such as field trips) rather than about how the transit service handles the large amount of traffic generated by big special events (such as sports events, concerts, graduation, etc.). Note also that this study was con- ducted prior to new FTA charter regulations going into effect in spring 2008, which may have impacts on transportation services provided at and around campuses. Additional study to investigate the impacts of these regulations is suggested. Only one respondent, the University of Washington, indi- cated that it has an extensive action plan for handling sellout (72,000-person capacity) special events at Husky Stadium. The school is held responsible for reducing the number of driving trips. Its program involves other elements of the school’s TDM program, as well as special game-time carpool parking pricing incentives, free use of King County Metro by showing the bus driver a game ticket, plus five special additional bus routes operated for games only, free park-and ride service with cour- tesy shuttles, and other measures that encourage more efficient means of travel to and from games. The effort also involves an extensive survey mandated by the city of Seattle of game atten- dees to determine mode share and other travel characteristics. Their report indicates that the strategies used are highly suc- cessful at encouraging high transit and walking mode share, and in particular the carpool pricing incentives result in a higher proportion of non-SOV parking during games (University of Washington Transportation Office 2006). As noted in the earlier profile of Chapel Hill Transit, shut- tles are provided from park-and-ride lots to University of North Carolina football and basketball games. The shuttles are financed by a portion of the ticket sales for the games, amounting to $400,000 per year in revenues.

Next: Chapter Four - Campus Policies and Planning »
Transit Systems in College and University Communities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 78: Transit Systems in College and University Communities has released a report that explores practices and trends in the areas of campus transit operations, policies, and planning, with a special focus area in technology and environmental innovations. The report also examines innovative partnership strategies used to enhance services for students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!