National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators (2011)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14499.
×
Page 21

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.

10 INTRODUCTION This is the first of two chapters presenting the results of a sur- vey of transit agencies regarding the development, deployment, and sustainability of downtown circulator systems. The survey was designed to elicit information on the origin of the circulator, target markets, route structure, administration, marketing, day- to-day operation, barriers, constraints, and obstacles to success, and an assessment of how well the program met its objectives. Thirty-seven completed surveys were received from 42 agencies (almost all were transit agencies) approved by the panel for inclusion in the sample, a response rate of 88%. In addition, 41 agencies responded to an invitation to all APTA members to participate in the survey, for a total of 78 transit agencies in the final sample. The transit agen- cies ranged in size from fewer than 25 to more than 2,000 fixed-route transit vehicles. This chapter analyzes survey results related to the impetus for beginning a downtown circulator, target markets, opera- tion, administration, and marketing. Chapter four discusses survey results related to the responding agencies’ assessment of their programs. DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS, NOW AND IN THE PAST Table 3 summarizes survey responses regarding downtown circulators. More than 60% of respondents reported that a downtown circulator is operating within their agency’s service area. Inadequate funding and cost were the most common rea- sons that agencies did not implement a downtown circulator. Table 4 summarizes responses from these 13 agencies. In Table 4 and all subsequent tables where multiple responses were allowed, the sum of the number of agencies responding does not equal the total number of agencies responding. Survey respondents included 18 agencies that had discon- tinued operation of a downtown trolley. Table 5 presents the reasons for discontinuation of downtown circulators. Low ridership was cited by a majority of respondents as a reason for discontinuation. Low productivity, loss of funding source, and cost were other reasons frequently cited. Four transit agencies that do not currently have downtown circulators within their service area indicated that they do oper- ate a fare-free zone in downtown. Because a fare-free zone is functionally similar to a downtown circulator, these agencies were asked to complete the survey. Three transit agencies indi- cated that they do not operate or oversee the operation of the downtown circulator, and terminated the survey. The remainder of this chapter focuses on the 48 responding agencies that operate or oversee operation of a downtown circulator or offer a downtown fare-free zone. BEGINNINGS Table 6 shows the primary reason for implementing a down- town circulator. The transit agency, downtown organizations, and elected officials can all play a major role in the decision to begin operation of a circulator. Among “Other” responses were a combination of these factors, connections to parking facilities, and a nostalgic vehicle for downtown. Table 7 illustrates a wide variety of purposes or goals of a downtown circulator. This question is asked in a slightly dif- ferent way later, in terms of the primary market served by the circulator (the responses are provided in the next section). Multiple responses were allowed to this question and therefore most of the goals in Table 7 were mentioned by a majority of respondents. As an agency begins to design a circulator route tradeoffs emerge and the question of the primary market to be served becomes more important. Among the various goals in the table, the most frequent response was improving general mobility throughout the downtown area. “Other” purposes included connecting downtown with universities, cruise ships, casinos and resorts, and historic sites. The transit agency, downtown business interests, and elected officials were also most likely to be stakeholders in the downtown circulator. Table 8 indicates that a majority of sur- vey respondents included each of these three groups among the key stakeholders who played an active role in bringing this concept to implementation and in continuing to support it. “Other” includes convention/visitors bureaus, universities, state and county governments, regional planning agencies, and economic development agencies. Stakeholders can build and maintain support for a down- town circulator. A “champion,” someone who leads the effort to begin such a service, plays a critical role in mov- ing from concept to implementation. Respondents were asked to name the primary champion for the downtown cir- CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS: DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS

11 kets. Despite the phrasing of this question, 16% of respondents reported multiple markets. Among the “Other” responses were school children, people running errands, all city residents, day laborers, and transit riders. The difficulty in identifying a primary market for the down- town circulator is shown in Table 11, where only two respon- dents indicated that the primary market identified is the only market for the circulator. A majority of respondents (68%) listed downtown residents as a secondary market, with visitors and shoppers also receiving attention. Downtown residents and shoppers were infrequent primary markets, but this table suggests that they are important. Two of the “Other” responses indicated that downtown residents are an emerging market, and various others noted court-related activities, universities, and all markets mentioned. Has the market for the downtown circulator changed over the years? A majority of respondents answered no to this ques- tion; however, it is somewhat surprising how many replied yes, as shown in Table 12. This suggests a need to be flexible after the circulator is implemented and to track development trends in downtown. Statu s No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Currently Operating 47 60.3 Formerly Operated but Discontinued 18 23.1 Never Operated 13 16.7 Total Responding Agencies 78 100 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% owing to rounding. TABLE 3 STATUS OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS Reasons for Noni mp lementation No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Lack of Funding 8 61.5 Cost 7 53.8 Downtown Is too Small 4 30.8 Downtown Is Well-Served by Existing Routes 3 23.1 Lack of Interest from Downtown Businesses/Employers 1 7.7 Lack of Interest from Transit Industry 1 7.7 Other 4 30.8 Total Responding Agencies 13 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 4 REASONS FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING A DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Reasons for Discontinuation No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Low Ridership 10 55.6 Low Productivity 8 44.4 Funding Source Was Discontinued 7 38.9 Cost of Providing Service 6 33.3 Lack of Support from the Private Sector 3 16.7 Other 6 33.3 Total Responding Agencies 18 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 5 REASONS FOR DISCONTINUING A DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR culator. Table 9 shows that the agency general manager was most frequently named as the champion, followed by down- town interests and city elected officials. Three respondents cited multiple champions. MARKET FOR THE CIRCULATOR The survey asked respondents to define the primary market for the circulator. Table 10 indicates that employees (35%) and tourists/visitors (26%) are the most likely primary mar- Primary Reason No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit agency desire to provide better connections within downtown 14 32.6 Requests from downtown businesses/ em ployers or Transportation Managem ent Association 9 20.9 Elected officials encouraged or dictated im plem entation 6 14.0 Downtown transit center moved to new location; need to continue to serve heart of downtown 3 7.0 Request from downtown convention center or hotels 1 2.3 Opportunity for public–private partnership with private-sector funding 1 2.3 New rail service required connection to downtown 1 2.3 Other 8 18.6 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 TABLE 6 PRIMARY REASON FOR IMPLEMENTING A DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR

Changing Market No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No 23 53.5 Yes 20 46.5 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 12 Primary Reason No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Improve general mobility throughout the downtown area 38 88.4 Encourage public transit use by employees 27 62.8 Provide a way to get around for convention goers 25 58.1 Encourage public transit use by shoppers 24 55.8 Provide a way to get around for visitors in downtown hotels 24 55.8 Support a ìpark once ” concept, where the circulator connects parking and downtown connections 24 55.8 Encourage downtown revitalization 21 48.8 Serve residential areas in or near downtown 20 46.5 Connect a rail station to the heart of downtown 14 32.6 Connect a new transit center to the heart of downtown 8 18.6 Other 5 11.6 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 7 MAIN PURPOSES OR GOALS OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Stakeholders No. of Agencies % Agencies Responding Transit Agency 39 90.7 City Elected Officials 31 72.1 Downtown Businesses/Em ployers 28 65.1 Downtown Hotels 14 32.6 Downtown Convention Center 12 27.9 TMA 6 14.0 Other 13 30.2 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TMA = Transportation Management Association. Champion No. of Agencies % Agencies Responding Agency General Manager 15 34.9 Downtown Interests (em ployers, convention center, hotels, partnership) 9 20.9 City Elected Officials 7 16.3 Others in Transit Agency 5 11.6 Multiple Champions 3 7.0 TMA 2 4.7 Other 2 4.7 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TMA = Transportation Management Association. TABLE 8 STAKEHOLDERS TABLE 9 PRIMARY CHAMPION OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Primary Market No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Em ployees 15 34.9 Tourists/Visitors 11 25.6 Multiple Markets 7 16.3 Downtown Residents 3 7.0 Shoppers 2 4.7 Other 5 11.6 Total Responding Agencies 43 100.0 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 10 PRIMARY MARKET FOR THE CIRCULATOR Other Markets No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Downtown Residents 28 68.3 Visitors 20 48.8 Shoppers 17 41.5 Em ployees 14 34.1 None, Sole Focus on Prim ary Market 2 4.9 Other 10 24.4 Total Responding Agencies 43 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 11 OTHER MARKETS FOR THE CIRCULATOR TABLE 12 CHANGING MARKET FOR THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR

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

Table 18 shows the nature of the interaction in the eight cases where the transit agency does not have primary respon- sibility for day-to-day operations. The relationship between the responsible entity and the transit agency is characterized by cooperation; no respondent reported a hostile relationship with the transit agency. Table 19 presents funding sources for the downtown cir- culator. The most common arrangement (41% of respon- dents) is for the transit agency to pay all costs; however, there are a variety of other funding situations. “Other” responses included more complex combinations of funding sources; partial or full funding from the state, the county, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO); and park- 14 ing authorities; and fare subsidies from the city or the pri- vate sector. Half of the respondents indicated that the tran- sit agency does not use federal funds for the downtown circulator, 44% indicated that federal funds were used, and 6% were not sure. Table 20 elaborates on private-sector contributions. The private sector participates in circulator funding primarily through downtown businesses or business improvement dis- tricts. “Other” responses include a ski resort, private develop- ment revenue, and the TMA, but largely redirecting county grants and taxes back to the county. OPERATION Several different types of vehicles are used as downtown circulators, as shown in Table 21. Replica trolleys and his- toric streetcars are appealing, but many agencies use regular transit buses. These are often differentiated with a special paint scheme or other means of branding, as indicated in Table 22. The “Other” vehicle in Table 21 is a single-car, light rail vehicle. Tables 23 and 24 indicate that the transit agency is most likely to purchase and maintain the vehicles. “Other” pur- chasers include the county, TMA, contractor, MPO, and stu- dent government. “Other” maintainers include the county and a combination of the county and the contractor. Responsible Entity No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit Agency 32 76.2 City 4 9.5 Private-Sector Entity 2 4.8 TMA 1 2.4 Other 3 7.1 Total Responding Agencies 42 100 TMA = Transportation Management Association. TABLE 18 INTERACTION WITH THE TRANSIT AGENCY REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR TABLE 17 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Nature of Interaction No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Cooperation—Contact as Needed 4 50.0 Close Cooperation—Frequent Contact (at least weekly) 3 37.5 Neutral—The Circulator Is Viewed as a Separate Entity 1 12.5 Total Responding Agencies 8 100 Funding Source No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit agency pays all costs 17 40.5 Transit agency splits costs with private sector 7 16.7 Transit agency splits costs with city/other public entity 6 14.3 City pays all costs 5 11.9 Grant to city specifically for the circulator 2 4.8 Grant to transit agency specifically for the circulator 1 2.4 City splits costs with private sector 1 2.4 Other 10 23.8 Total Responding Agencies 42 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 19 FUNDING FOR THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR

15 Table 25 shows start and end times for the downtown cir- culator by day of the week. The most common start time is during the 6:00 a.m. hour on weekdays, during the 9:00 a.m. hour on Saturday, and during the 10:00 a.m. hour on Sunday. The most common end time (defined as the start time of the final trip) is during the 6:00 p.m. hour on weekdays and Sun- day and at or after midnight on Saturday. Table 26 shows spans of service and headways for the downtown circulator by day of the week. The table reports median, minimum, and maximum spans and headways. Most respondents provided the prevailing headway throughout the day, but several reported a range of headways. Prevailing headway and range of headways are shown separately in Table 26. Span of service is longest on weekdays and shortest on Sunday. Median prevailing headways are 15 min on week- days and Saturday and 12 min on Sunday. The apparent anomaly of more frequent service on Sunday occurs because only 24 circulators out of a total of 45 operate on Sunday and these have the most frequent service. Median ranges of head- ways are shortest on weekdays and longest on Sunday. Table 27 indicates that the majority of respondents do not charge a fare on their downtown circulator. The fare is a nom- inal amount (20 or 25 cents) for 6 of the 16 systems that spec- ified a fare. One surprise noted in the table is that seven agencies charge $1.00 or more for downtown circulator ser- vice. Three of these agencies have tourists as their primary market, including two that charge the highest fare ($2.00). In three other cases, the downtown circulator fare is less than the base adult fare on the transit system. In the seventh case, the fare for the downtown circulator is identical to the regular transit fare. A wide variety of fare media is accepted on the downtown circulator, as shown in Table 28. Cash is almost universally accepted, and transit agency passes are also a common means of payment. “Other” responses include a smart card or regional electronic monthly pass, an all-day individual or family circu- lator pass, no fare for seniors, and occasional prepaid fare agreement with a specific convention that allows attendees to ride free with their convention ID. Introduction of or revisions to a downtown circulator route might offer the opportunity to restructure other routes in the downtown area. Most respondents indicated that this did not occur (see Table 29); however, 13 agencies did change other routes as a result of the circulator. In most cases, these agen- cies streamlined routes in the downtown area and facilitated transfers between regular routes and the circulator. Agencies have taken different approaches to the integration of the downtown circulator with the transit network, as shown in Table 30. Connections are provided at major transfer points for the majority of circulators. Almost 20% of respondents indicated that there is no integration and that the circulator is separate from the rest of the transit system. Lack of integration Private-Sector Entity No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Downtown Businesses or Business Im provem ent Districts 5 50.0 TMA 1 10.0 Tourism Organization 1 10.0 Other 3 30.0 Total Responding Agencies 10 100 TMA = Transportation Management Association. TABLE 20 PRIVATE-SECTOR FUNDING OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS Vehicle No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Rubber Tired Trolley/Historic Streetcar 13 31.7 Transit Bus 30 Feet or Larger 7 17.1 Transit Bus Under 30 Feet 7 17.1 Mix of Vehicles 7 17.1 Electric or Electric-Hybrid Vehicle 3 7.3 Cutaway 1 2.4 Steel Wheel Trolley 1 2.4 Van 1 2.4 Other 1 2.4 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 21 VEHICLES USED AS DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS Specially Branded ? No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 26 63.4 No 15 36.6 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 TABLE 22 BRANDING OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR VEHICLES Vehicle Purchaser No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit Agency 32 78.0 City 4 9.8 Other 5 12.2 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 TABLE 23 WHO PURCHASES THE VEHICLES? Vehicle Maintainer No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit Agency 27 65.9 Contractor 10 24.4 City 2 4.9 Other 2 4.9 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 TABLE 24 WHO MAINTAINS THE VEHICLES?

TABLE 28 FARE MEDIA ACCEPTED ON DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Fare Media No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Cash 17 94.4 Transit Agency Monthly Passes 14 77.8 Transit Agency Day Passes 12 66.7 Transit Agency Other Passes 12 66.7 Transit Agency Transfers 8 44.4 Transfers Within Circulator System 6 33.3 Downtown Circulator Passes 4 22.2 Tokens 4 22.2 Other 5 27.8 Total Responding Agencies 18 100% Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. 16 Weekday Saturday Sunday Time No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Start Time Before 6 a.m. 10 22.2 4 12.5 3 12.5 6–6:59 a.m. 15 33.3 3 9.4 1 4.2 7–7:59 a.m. 7 15.6 3 9.4 2 8.3 8–8:59 a.m. 4 8.9 5 15.6 3 12.5 9–9:59 a.m. 4 8.9 9 28.1 5 20.8 10–10:59 a.m. 3 6.7 6 18.8 8 33.3 11 a.m. and after 2 4.4 2 6.3 2 8.3 Total 45 100 32 100 24 100 End Time Before 5 p.m. 2 4.4 — — 1 4.2 5–5:59 p.m. 6 13.3 6 18.8 4 16.7 6–6:59 p.m. 10 22.2 7 21.9 7 29.2 7–7:59 p.m. 8 17.8 4 12.5 3 12.5 8–8:59 p.m. 2 4.4 — — 1 4.2 9–9:59 p.m. 4 8.9 1 3.1 1 4.2 10–10:59 p.m. 2 4.4 1 3.1 1 4.2 11–11:59 p.m. 4 8.9 4 12.5 1 4.2 12 a.m. and after 7 15.6 9 28.1 5 20.8 Total 45 100 32 100 24 100 TABLE 25 START AND END TIMES FOR DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS BY DAY OF THE WEEK Measure Weekday Saturday Sunday Median Span 13: 00 11: 25 9:38 Minim um Span 3:00 6:29 5:51 Maximu m Span 21: 00 20: 30 19: 30 Median Prevailing Headway 15 15 12 Minim um Prevailing Headway 6 3.75 3.75 Maximu m Prevailing Headway 60 60 60 Median Headway Range 10 to 15 12 to 15 12.5 to 17.5 Minim um Headway Range 1.25 to 3.75 7 to 10 7 to 10 Maxim um Headway Range 20 to 30 20 to 30 20 to 30 TABLE 26 SPANS OF SERVICE AND HEADWAYS FOR DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS BY DAY OF THE WEEK Fare No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Free 23 54.8 20 to 25 Cents 6 14.3 50 to 75 Cents 4 9.5 $1.00 or Hi gher 7 16.7 Fare Not Specified 2 4.8 Total Responding Agencies 42 100 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 27 DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR FARE

17 may be reasonable if the circulator market is tourists and visi- tors, and this is the case in five of the eight agencies that reported no integration. Table 31 shows that more than 80% of respondents reported no issues related to complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service associated with the downtown circulator. ADA issues that have arisen include mandated free complementary ADA service, a lower fare for ADA service within three-quarters of a mile of the downtown circulator, and difficulty maintaining various style mechanical lifts on a mixed fleet of vintage rail trolleys. Survey respondents described various elements in terms of whether they were constraining factors in the start-up and ongoing operation of the downtown circulator. Table 32 summarizes the results. Funding issues are the only elements characterized as major constraints at a majority of programs. “Other” issues include city-requested expansion without willingness to increase the city’s subsidy and the cost and added maintenance of specially designed buses for the circu- lator service. Respondents also answered an open-ended question to describe the major constraint affecting a given program. Table 33 summarizes the responses. Examples of specific responses are noted here: To be successful the routes need to operate much more fre- quently. Our system is at capacity. We need more buses and funds to operate to expand this service or we take it away from other areas. Currently these routes are not particularly high producers so there is no logic in taking from others to increase these. Identifying the market was difficult because there were elements that could be useful for all shoppers, lunchtime, evening events, or commuters. However, there was limited funding, so it was impossible to serve all those markets effectively. We settled on lunchtime trips as the primary market. The City does not receive any regional transit money for the ser- vices and must use local funds for the services. There are high expectations from our stakeholders for services, and these cannot be met with our current funding levels. It is difficult to get all the stakeholders to agree on the purpose of the service. Zero local (i.e., city and county) funding available. Trolley fund- ing must be from agency general fund and is at the expense of other more productive services. Routing tends to stretch in order to cover more destinations. Stretching the route creates a longer ride which discourages ridership and it also creates the need for additional vehicles in order to maintain frequency. More vehicles = more cost. The trolley routes are a ‘nice to have.’ The resources devoted to the trolley routes may be more effectively spent on other routes. MARKETING Table 34 shows the responsibilities for marketing the down- town circulator. A majority of respondents named the transit agency as having primary responsibility for marketing. Agen- cies promoting tourism, hotels, the convention center, and downtown employers are likely to participate in marketing efforts. A wide variety of marketing activities are undertaken for downtown circulators. Table 35 shows marketing activities mentioned by at least 10% of all respondents. Interesting marketing activities not included in Table 35 include pocket Changes to Other Routes No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No 27 67.5 Yes 13 32.5 Total Responding Agencies 40 100 TABLE 29 CHANGES TO OTHER ROUTES AS A RESULT OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Means of Integration No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Connections at Major Transfer Points 33 80.5 Added Stops on Circulator 11 26.8 No Integration—Circulator Is Separate 8 19.5 No Duplication of Existing Route Segm ents 7 17.1 Fewer Stops on Circulator 1 2.4 Other 3 7.3 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 30 INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR WITH OTHER TRANSIT ROUTES ADA Issues No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No 34 82.9 Yes 5 12.2 Unsure 2 4.9 Total Responding Agencies 41 100 TABLE 31 ADA ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CIRCULATOR

18 Potential Constraint Major Constraint Minor Constraint Not a Constraint No. of Agencies Responding Funding in general 56% 18% 26% 39 Inability to identify a long- range funding source 40% 25% 35% 40 Parking policies in downtown 15% 35% 50% 40 Cooperation with new partners 8% 41% 51% 39 Difficulty in defining the route 18% 30% 53% 40 Maintaining interest among stakeholders 10% 38% 53% 40 Difficulty in defining the target market 8% 35% 58% 40 Use of federal funds 11% 32% 58% 38 Disagreements on fares/fare instruments 5% 23% 73% 40 Downtown–neighborhood tension 0% 18% 82% 39 Other 33% 0% 67% 6 Note: Percentages do not necessarily add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 32 RATINGS OF POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS Constraint No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Operating Funding 16 57.1 Target Markets/Conflicting Interests 3 10.7 Parking Issues in Downtown 3 10.7 Justifiable? Nice to Have, but Not Necessary 2 7.1 Other 4 14.3 Total Responding Agencies 28 100 Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 33 MAJOR CONSTRAINTS FACING DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS Primary Responsibility Also Participates Entity No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit Agency 27 69.2 7 17.9 City 7 17.9 13 33.3 Downtown Businesses 1 2.6 17 43.6 TMA 1 2.6 7 17.9 Agencies Promoting Tourism 1 2.6 24 61.5 Convention Center — — 16 41.0 Hotels — — 20 51.3 Downtown Employers — — 10 25.6 Other — — 4 10.3 Primary Responsibility Shared Am ong Multiple Agencies 2 5.1 Total 39 100.0 39 100.0 Note: Multiple responses allowed for “participates in marketing”; percentages do not add to 100%. TMA = Transportation Management Association. TABLE 34 RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARKETING THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR

19 schedules, direct mail, video in hotels and on vehicles, unique shelters, and guerrilla marketing (flash mobs, a Twitter phe- nomenon in which a message is sent out to meet at a certain place and time). RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY Ridership and productivity numbers can be broken down in a variety of ways. Table 36 presents ridership and productivity by service area population (used as a proxy for size of down- town). The table shows median ridership and productivity fig- ures because averages can be unduly influenced by a few very high ridership systems. Median ridership and productivity is generally proportional to service area population. It should also be noted that reported productivity figures sometimes implied an unusually high or low number of revenue hours; it is possible that some respondents misinterpreted the question. In Table 36, higher median ridership and productivity on weekends compared with weekdays is unexpected. The expla- nation is that circulators with high ridership are more likely to operate on Saturday and Sunday. Table 37 presents median ridership and productivity by the number of days per week that the downtown circulator is in operation. Weekday-only circu- lators have the lowest median ridership and productivity, whereas 7-day-a-week circulators have the highest. Table 38 reports on downtown circulator ridership and pro- ductivity by day of the week and primary market for circulator service. Agencies reported the primary market for the circula- tor, but the large majority indicated that the primary market was not the sole market served. Downtown circulators ori- ented toward tourists and visitors had the highest median rid- ership and productivity. Circulators in Charlotte, Long Beach, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Santa Barbara ranked highest in this category in terms of ridership. SUMMARY A total of 78 agencies reported on their experiences with downtown circulators. Sixty percent currently operate a circu- lator, whereas 23% discontinued and 17% never implemented Activity No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Website (agency and other) 13 35.1 Brochures 10 27.0 Cross-promotions with Downtown Groups/Others 9 24.3 Special Events Prom otions 8 21.6 Schedule Distribution 8 21.6 Print Media Ads (newspapers, hotel publications) 7 18.9 Flyers 7 18.9 Signage at Stops/in Downtown 7 18.9 General Prom otions 7 18.9 Partnerships with Hotels/Conventions 6 16.2 Vehicle Branding 4 10.8 Wayfinding Ma ps 4 10.8 Total Responding Agencies 37 100 Note: Percentages do not necessarily add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 35 MARKETING ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Measure Service Area Population Num ber Weekday Saturday Sunday All 30 850 1,119 1,530 Under 500,000 13 450 550 450 500,000 to 1,000,000 8 1,100 500 1,460 Ridership Over 1,000,000 9 4,376 5,200 2,700 All 30 23 26 26 Under 500,000 13 15 19 23 500,000 to 1,000,000 8 18 22 23 Productivity (riders per revenue hour) Over 1,000,000 9 45 33 29 TABLE 36 MEDIAN RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR BY DAY OF THE WEEK AND SERVICE AREA POPULATION

a downtown circulator. Inadequate funding and cost were the principal reasons for never implementing a circulator. Low ridership was the major reason for discontinuation. Low pro- ductivity, loss of the funding source, and cost also played a role in discontinuation. In most cases, the impetus to begin a downtown circu- lator came from the transit agency, downtown organiza- tions, and elected officials. These agencies and groups were the major stakeholders in the circulator. Improving mobility throughout downtown was most often cited as the purpose of the circulator, although several other goals were also reported by a majority of respondents. The champion of the circulator was typically either the transit agency gen- eral manager, a member of a downtown interest, or an elected official. Employees and tourists/visitors are the most common pri- mary markets for a downtown circulator, but nearly all agen- cies reported that the circulator was designed to serve more than one market. Close to half of respondents indicated that the market for the circulator had changed over time, suggest- ing the need for flexibility in designing service. Almost 75% of respondents have changed the routing of the circulator to serve new markets. Slightly more than half of respondents have a downtown circulator network with more than one route. A single loop route and a combination of different types of routes were the most common responses. The transit agency is typically 20 responsible for the original design of and any changes to the route, as well as for day-to-day operation. The most common funding arrangement (41% of respon- dents) is for the transit agency to pay all costs; however, there are a variety of other funding situations. The private sector par- ticipates in circulator funding primarily through downtown businesses or business improvement districts. Half of the respondents indicated that the transit agency does not use fed- eral funds for the downtown circulator. Several different types of vehicles are used as downtown circulators. Replica trolleys and historic streetcars are very appealing; however, many agencies use regular transit buses. These are often differentiated with a special paint scheme or other means of branding. The transit agency is most likely to purchase and maintain the vehicles. The most common start time is during the 6:00 a.m. hour on weekdays, during the 9:00 a.m. hour on Saturday, and during the 10:00 a.m. hour on Sunday. The most common end time (defined as the start time of the final trip) is during the 6:00 p.m. hour on weekdays and Sunday and at or after mid- night on Saturday. Span of service is longest on weekdays and shortest on Sunday. Median prevailing headways are 15 min on weekdays and Saturday and 12 min on Sunday (this is owing to less frequent circulators not operating on Sunday). Most respondents do not charge a fare on their downtown circulator. When a fare is charged it is a nominal amount (20 or Measure Days of Operation Nu mb er Weekday Saturday Sunday All 30 850 1,119 1,530 Weekday onl y 10 396 — — Weekday/Saturday 4 513 375 — Ridership 7 days a week 16 2,247 1,911 1,530 All 30 23 26 26 Weekday onl y 10 10 — — Weekday/Saturday 4 17 15 — Productivity (riders per revenue hour) 7 days a week 16 34 29 29 TABLE 37 MEDIAN RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR BY DAY OF THE WEEK AND DAYS OF OPERATION Measure Prim ary Market Nu mb er Weekday Saturday Sunday All 30 850 1,119 1,530 Em ployees 12 688 1,119 1,115 Tourists/Visitors 8 1,300 1,911 1,556 Ridership Multiple/Other 10 446 434 231 All 30 23 26 26 Em ployees 12 30 26 27 Tourists/Visitors 8 25 33 29 Productivity (riders per revenue hour) Multiple/Other 10 15 17 14 TABLE 38 MEDIAN RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR BY DAY OF THE WEEK AND PRIMARY MARKET

21 25 cents) for 6 of the 16 systems that specified a fare. A wide variety of fare media is accepted on the downtown circulator. Introduction of, or revisions to, a downtown circulator route might offer the opportunity to restructure other routes in the downtown area. Most respondents noted that introduction of the circulator did not result in changes to other routes. Agencies that did change other routes typically streamlined routes in the downtown area and facilitated transfers between regular routes and the circulator. Agencies have taken different approaches to the integration of the downtown circulator with the transit net- work. Connections are provided at major transfer points for the majority of circulators, but almost 20% of respondents indi- cated that there is no integration and that the circulator is sepa- rate from the rest of the transit system. More than 80% of respondents reported no issues related to complementary ADA service associated with the downtown circulator. Survey respondents described various elements in terms of whether they were constraining factors in the start-up and ongoing operation of the downtown circulator. Funding issues are the only elements characterized as major constraints at a majority of agencies. Operating funding dominated the list of major constraints. A majority of respondents named the transit agency as having overall responsibility for marketing. Agencies pro- moting tourism, hotels, the convention center, and downtown employers are likely to participate in marketing efforts. A wide variety of marketing activities are undertaken for down- town circulators. For all circulators in the sample, the median ridership was 600 on weekdays (30 circulators), 1,100 on Saturday (20 cir- culators), and 1,500 on Sunday (16 circulators). Median productivity (measured as riders per revenue hour) was 23 on weekdays and 26 on both Saturday and Sunday. These results are misleading, because circulators with high rider- ship are more likely to operate on Saturday and Sunday. After controlling for the number of days per week of oper- ation, median ridership and productivity are highest on weekdays. Median ridership and productivity is generally proportional to service area population; downtown circula- tors in larger cities have higher ridership and are more pro- ductive. Downtown circulators oriented toward tourists and visitors had the highest median ridership and productiv- ity. Circulators in Charlotte, Long Beach, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Santa Barbara ranked highest in the tourist/ visitor category in terms of ridership.

Next: Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of Downtown Circulators »
Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 87: Practices in the Development and Deployment of Downtown Circulators explores the development, deployment, and sustainability of downtown circulator systems.

  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!