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.
Transit Systems in College and University Communities is an update of TCRP Synthesis 39, published in 2001. The previous report, Transportation on College and University Campuses, surveyed 30 campus communities, offering information on the planning, implementation, and operation of campus transit systems. This 2008 synthesis broadens the scope of the subject by moving from a campus-based focus to a focus on the com- munities in which the schools are located. The study included a survey that was opened up more extensively to other types of systems, including local and regional transportation systems that served college and university campuses. The result of this current research is a discovery that the array of transit options has grown far beyond the U-Pass, which provides unlimited free rides on transit to eligible individuals, and was the focus of TCRP Synthesis 39. The evidence can be seen in the myriad creative partnerships, new uses of technol- ogy, and other innovative practices to streamline, expand, and market services described in the survey responses, literature review, and case studies. Systems are adapting to new demands and new opportunities to increase transit presence on and around campuses. Because each geographic area is unique, and the circum- stances at each school so varied, the transit and transportation options evidenced in this synthesis cannot be generalized into a single package for all colleges and universities. To illus- trate, 25 systems reported that they have over 200 employees, and 21 systems reported that they have 50 employees or less. In 12 systems, 100% of the employees (including student drivers) are employed by the school, whereas 26 systems have no employees connected to the school. With such diver- sity, clearly there are no âone size fits allâ in transit strategies. Instead, there is a menu of activities and approaches used by schools. The range of responsibilities overseen by transit providers in school communities has increased substantially over time; in other words, the business itself has become more complicated and providers are operating in a complex environment. This synthesis covers a profile of the campusesâ popula- tions and community characteristics with detailed survey information on ⢠Operations, including fuel, staffing, student drivers, and marketing; 34 ⢠Policies and planning, including financing, parking, trans- portation demand management (TDM) programs, bicy- cling, fares, and community integration; and ⢠Technology and âgreenâ innovations. For example, survey results about the use of technology found that global positioning system-based systems are among the most popular, both in current and planned future implementation. The early support for this type of technol- ogy hints that it may provide some of the most substantial gains for the amount of investmentâincluding as a way to market transit as a sleek product and a strong competitor for the single-occupancy vehicle (SOV). Other older technologies, such as radio communications and passenger announcement systems, are also highly utilized. Although systems have reported an overall aim to increase transit ridership, many respondents indicated that an ultimate goal is to shift away from SOV trips to other modes, regardless of what actual alternative mode is used. Thus, in the section on Policies and Planning, a large number of transit providers reported having a discrete budget for TDM programs, which include U-Passes, parking incentives and disincentives, and bicycle facilities. The most popular TDM programs are carpool-related programs, such as preferential carpool and vanpool parking, ridematching to link potential carpoolers, and guaranteed ride home services. On the other hand, some campuses have not maximized the use of parking pricing strategies to achieve the goal of reducing the SOV. This is evidenced by the number of cam- puses that reported relatively low parking prices. For example, nine schools reported charging faculty and staff less than $100 for an entire year of parking. Although transit is already considered a âgreen alternativeâ to driving to campus, a greater focus on environmental aware- ness is causing transit providers to look deeper into their role. Thirty-three respondents indicated that their whole fleet uses fuels other than gasoline or diesel. The most popular âgreenâ fuels are low-sulfur diesel and biodiesel, with compressed natural gas the next most popular choice. A variety of traditional and innovative tools are being used to fund both school-based and non-school systems. The most interesting are interagency partnerships, such as CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS
35 between a university and a local government. The strength of the partnership arises from several parties bringing resources and skills to the table. These partnerships may lend flexibility to a system in times of change, whereby changes in campus population and costs can be approached collec- tively to ensure continuation of service. Moreover, the part- nerships can put systems in a good position to obtain funding from new or expanded sourcesâsuch as revenue streams for which only individual members of the agreement may be eligible. Although this research was very comprehensive on the state of the practice regarding transit systems in college and uni- versity communities, it revealed a number of topics in which further future research is recommended. The following areas were only lightly touched on in the survey results and could benefit from a deeper exploration: ⢠Safety, including late-night transit service, transit emer- gency response planning, and pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with transit; ⢠Impacts of the seasonality of university schedules on tran- sit operations, including operator staffing and training, cyclical vehicle inventory needs, and inconsistent levels of service required; ⢠Transit marketing techniques for university communi- ties, including parent education on transportation alter- natives; and ⢠Emerging technologies, such as web-enabled phones for real-time information and fare payment, which con- tribute to âthe informed traveler.â In an era of increasing campus populations, higher fuel prices, and concern about climate change, transit systems are adapting to new demands and opportunities. They are becom- ing part of a broader transportation network to enhance campus livability, which includes amenities for walking and bicycling as well as customer-friendly delivery of information. Finally, the research revealed emerging partnerships that present tran- sit systems in college and university communities with the opportunity to bridge town and gown boundaries and form stronger community relationships.