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 13
13
TABLE 13
CHANGES TO THE CIRCULATOR ROUTE FOR NEW MARKETS
No. of Agencies % Agencies
Route Changes and Reasons Responding Responding
Downtown Residential Areas 7 31.8
Employment Sites 7 31.8
Hotels/Convention Center 7 31.8
Retail Sites 6 27.3
No Changes--New Markets Are Incidental 6 27.3
Rail Station 4 18.2
New Transit Center 1 4.5
Other 4 18.2
Total Responding Agencies 22 100
Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
The need for flexibility is supported in Table 13, which agency usually decides on changes, but the city also plays an
shows that only 27% of responding agencies have not changed important role. "Other" responses included the county, a com-
the route of their circulator. No one cause for change domi- munity review/input process, and the state DOT as the fund-
nates. Among the "Other" reasons are historic attractions, edu- ing agency.
cational institutions, and museums.
ADMINISTRATION
DESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR
As seen in Table 17, the transit agency is typically responsible
Table 14 reports on the design of the downtown circulator for day-to-day operation of the downtown circulator. "Other"
route(s). Slightly more than half of respondents have a down- responses included the county and different operators for cir-
town circulator network with more than one route. A single culators in different cities. The results in Table 17 are very
loop route and a combination of different types of routes were similar to those seen in Table 16, the difference being that
the most common responses. "Other" responses included a multiple responses were allowed in Table 16 for who decides
linear route with a loop at one end and a fare-free zone on any proposed changes, whereas Table 17 asked for the sin-
downtown. gle agency primarily responsible for operation.
Table 15 shows who was responsible for the design of the
TABLE 15
circulator. In most cases, the transit agency was responsible RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIAL CIRCULATOR DESIGN
for design of the routing, although the city played a role in
No. of Agencies % Agencies
the routing decisions for almost one-third of the circulators. Responsible Entity Responding Responding
"Other" responses include downtown groups, the county, a Transit Agency 34 81.0
consultant, a university, and designed incrementally. City 13 31.0
Private-Sector Entity 7 16.7
Table 16 shows who decides on any proposed changes to TMA 4 9.5
the downtown circulator. As indicated in Table 13, most cir- Other 7 16.7
culators have been changed after implementation. Table 16 Total Responding Agencies 42 100
reflects current decision-making responsibilities. The transit Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
TMA = Transportation Management Association.
TABLE 14
DESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR TABLE 16
No. of RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHANGES TO THE CIRCULATOR
Design Agencies % Agencies No. of Agencies % Agencies
Responding Responding Responsible Entity Responding Responding
Single Loop Route 13 31.0 Transit Agency 32 76.2
Combination of Different Types of Routes 10 23.8 City 14 33.3
Multiple Loop Routes 7 16.7 Private-Sector Entity 2 4.8
A Single Linear Route 5 11.9 TMA 2 4.8
Multiple Linear Routes 5 11.9 Other 3 7.1
Other 2 4.8 Total Responding Agencies 42 100
Total Responding Agencies 42 100
Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TMA = Transportation Management Association.
