National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of Downtown Circulators

« Previous: Chapter Three - Survey Results: Downtown Circulators
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of 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 27

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.

22 INTRODUCTION This is the second of two chapters presenting the results of a survey of transit agencies regarding downtown circulators. The previous chapter addressed survey results related to the incentive for beginning a downtown circulator, target markets, operation, administration, and marketing. This chapter’s focus is on agencies’ evaluations of the programs. Specific topics include agency satisfaction with the downtown circulator, ben- efits and drawbacks, potential improvements, and lessons learned. RATINGS OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS Table 39 shows transit agencies’ ratings of their downtown cir- culators. Most respondents (72%) rated the circulator as either very successful or somewhat successful. Approximately 10% of respondents gave the circulator a somewhat successful or very unsuccessful rating. Table 40 presents the primary benefits of the downtown cir- culator. These are responses to an open-ended question. The most frequently cited benefits include downtown mobility and circulation, greater downtown access for transit riders, a way for tourists to get around, a means for employees to get around downtown, and positive impacts on transit, including increased ridership and revenue, very frequent downtown service, improved image, and an opportunity to streamline other routes. Table 41 summarizes the drawbacks of downtown circula- tors, based on responses to an open-ended question. The most frequently cited problems involve the tension between provid- ing very frequent and direct service versus serving all locations that want to be served, low speeds resulting from downtown congestion and thus difficulty in maintaining schedules, and negative transit impacts (takes riders from other routes, main- tenance expense, and confusion for regular system riders). Low ridership, expense, irregular demand, and inadequate funding are also concerns. Other issues mentioned by fewer than 10% of respondents are grouped in the “Other” category in the table, including use by transients, marketing the service, and vehicle issues. Eleven percent of all respondents reported no drawbacks. Table 42 provides responses to a question about whether downtown’s changing role (e.g., from a traditional CBD to an activity center with a mix of jobs, retail, and housing) influ- enced the design and operation of the downtown circulator. Most respondents reported either no effect or no significant impact. Several agencies modified the circulator to serve nonresidential trip generators such as hospitals, employ- ment centers, historic sites, retail, schools and universities, and entertainment districts. New residential areas were cited by 13% of respondents. Some of these destinations required changed or expanded times of service. Respondents were asked, “If you could change ONE aspect in the process of designing and implementing the downtown circulator, what would you change?” Table 43 summarizes the results. Improvements related to more and more certain funding from a variety of sources were most frequently mentioned. A variety of other responses were also received, some of which conflicted with each other; for example, more public input ver- sus limited outreach efforts or implement versus discontinue a fare-free zone. This question elicited the greatest variety of comments and the least convergence on a clear set of desired improvements. LESSONS LEARNED Survey respondents shared lessons learned from the plan- ning, implementation, and operation of their downtown circulators. The lessons learned were grouped into ten broad categories, as shown in Table 44. Lessons regarding partner- ships led the list of topic areas, followed by service design and branding. Responses are presented by category here. All comments are reported verbatim as expressed by agency respondents. Partnerships • Partnerships are both easy and essential to success. • Implement circulators as part of an overall downtown development, parking, and circulation plan. • We actually set up a separate nonprofit corporation with the business improvement districts and convention/ tourism bureau to brand the service and use the market- ing expertise of these established groups. • Work closely with downtown business associations and stakeholders to make sure that downtown interests have CHAPTER FOUR AGENCY ASSESSMENT OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS

Drawback No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Frequency/directness vs. coverage 8 18.2 Slow due to congestion downtown; difficult to m aintain schedules 7 15.9 Negative transit impacts 7 15.9 Low ridership 6 13.6 High cost 6 13.6 Irregular dem and; over-capacity at peaks 6 13.6 None 5 11.4 Insufficient funding overall/from partners 4 9.1 Other 22 50.0 Total Responding Agencies 44 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 41 DRAWBACKS OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS 23 strong ownership in circulator service and fare zone, so changes have been carefully and fully discussed before implementation. • Get local support from businesses and attractions to help fund service. • Meet with your business community supporters quarterly to discuss the operations and changes to the routing. • Bring the various stakeholders together when service changes are made to review the reasons behind them and build consensus. Rating No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Very Successful 17 36.2 Som ewhat Successful 17 36.2 Neutral 8 17.0 Som ewhat Unsuccessful 4 8.5 Very Unsuccessful 1 2.1 Total Responding Agencies 47 100 TABLE 39 AGENCY RATING OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Benefit No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Downtown mobility/circulation 17 37.0 Greater downtown access for transit riders 15 32.6 Helps tourists get around 13 28.3 Downtown workers can get around mo re easily 11 23.9 Positive transit impacts 10 21.7 Free/inexpensive fares 8 17.4 Positive image attracts nontransit riders 8 17.4 Supports conventions/other partnerships 8 17.4 Better access for downtown businesses 7 15.2 Supports revitalization/economic developm ent 7 15.2 Reduced downtown parking demand 6 13.0 Other 2 4.3 Total Responding Agencies 47 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 40 PRIMARY BENEFITS OF THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Effect of Downtownís Changing Role No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding None/no significant effect 26 56.5 Modified to serve nonresidential developm ent 8 17.4 Modified to serve new residential areas in downtown 6 13.0 Changed/expanded times of service 4 8.7 Other 7 15.2 Total Responding Agencies 46 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 42 IMPACT OF DOWNTOWN’S CHANGING ROLE ON CIRCULATOR

• Obtain strong community support. This type of imple- mentation could be jointly developed and supported by the City Planning Staff, resident community, and busi- ness stakeholders, in addition to a transit agency. • The downtown circulator is a vital mobility/land use inter- face element in the overall downtown development plan. • To maximize service area and delivery, coordinate with all downtown employers, business associations, cham- bers, downtown residents, and so on to ensure the cir- culator service is all-encompassing. • The most important lesson my agency learned was to enlist a diverse group of “stakeholders” in the design of the service. Government, business, retail, students, etc., were involved, which resulted in better routing and pro- duced a sense of ownership or “buy in” of the circulator. • It helps to have supportive partners that are willing to lobby for the service; possibly a downtown busi- ness association, convention bureau, or some level of government. 24 • A positive lesson learned in our case is that having the sidewalks cleaned and maintained by the business improvement district, along with a special police patrol provided by the business improvement districts, has contributed to the success of the downtown circulator. • Take sufficient time to coordinate with other agencies/ municipalities to be clear on the role of the circulator system. • Get feedback from large employers, visitors bureau, con- vention centers, hotels, etc., to see what their needs are (to avoid duplication if possible with other shuttle opera- tors) to allow you to plan effectively for span of service, route alignment, connections to regional service, etc. • Involving the local government in the planning process has been invaluable. The city’s land development code and land use regulations are supportive of transit and mobility, which has allowed the CBD to grow and thrive along with the success of our circulator. • Business associations have high expectations, low bud- gets, and short attention spans. • Public participation, public participation, public partici- pation. The city, downtown stakeholders, and general public need to own a stake in the downtown circulator. Communication of the public process to all cannot please all, but it provides the information to clarify how the decisions were made. Service Design • Trips could operate frequently enough and consistently so customers do not have to refer to a schedule. • The circulator will not be used unless the service is fre- quent and convenient. • Frequent service is needed during lunch hours to appeal to workers going to lunch. • Competition with other modes can limit ridership. Our city is a 20-min town; that is, most of the suburbs are within a 20-min ride and most of the downtown CBD is within a 20-min walk. If the bus route is too circuitous and the headway lengthy (say greater than 15 min), peo- ple will walk and ridership won’t develop, no matter what the fare is. The fare for our circulator was 10 cents and ridership was still dismal. • The loops must not be too big—no more than 20 to 25 min. Keep it as simple as possible—avoid a lot of side street deviations. • Try to intersect with other through routes at easy to transfer locations. • Try to connect as many “dots” as possible that would serve as destinations for the customers, but in a short route would allow for good frequency. • It is important that service frequency be somewhere between every 10 to 15 min, 20 min at the most. • Frequent headways are important for a successful circulator. • Do not compromise on your headway performance and offer consistent headways for the entire span of service— Im provem ent No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding More funding; support and buy-in from downtown interests 7 17.5 No change/not sure 5 12.5 Dedicated right-of-way/other traffic engineering measures in support 3 7.5 Expanded service area/m ore frequent service 3 7.5 Clear performance targets 2 5.0 Acknowledge need for flexibility 2 5.0 Brand buses and stops 2 5.0 Better forecasts 2 5.0 Better/different vehicles 2 5.0 Other 12 30.0 Total Responding Agencies 40 100 TABLE 43 ONE IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE DOWNTOWN CIRCULATOR Lessons Learned Category No. of Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Partnerships 16 43.2 Service Design 14 37.8 Branding/Image 10 27.0 Fares 7 18.9 Fundi ng Source 6 16.2 Dem and/Criteria 5 13.5 Flexibility 4 10.8 Focus on Particular Market 4 10.8 Vehicles 4 10.8 Operation 3 8.1 Total Responding Agencies 37 100 Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 44 LESSONS LEARNED

25 variations in headway only confuse people and result in the lose of choice riders. Protect this at all costs and cut your span or route length before considering any length- ening of headway. The 10-min headway is a sweet spot and draws in choice riders who would otherwise not choose transit. Try to meet this criterion even though it is expensive. • Make it simple. • Connectivity to the entire public transit system is important. • Using some portions of the fixed guideway for regular fixed-route service has increased our revenue-miles on the fixed guideway segment as well as removed bus traf- fic from the general use lanes within some parts of the CBD. This was not something originally thought of when first developing the downtown circulator route and would be something to consider in planning new routes. • Popularity of the circulator led to reductions on other routes first and loss of revenue/ridership, whereas the cir- culator (which essentially replaced walking trips) was unchanged. • While maintaining regular contact with business com- munity supporters, maintain your role as the expert in the design of efficient transit service. • We resisted outside pressure to change the route in ways that from a planning perspective did not make sense. • Do not duplicate existing fixed-route bus service. It is important that circulators only be implemented to fill in “gaps” in the transit system. Branding and Attracting New Riders • The downtown circulator is the “face” of your transit sys- tem to citizens and visitors. Friendly drivers, attractive vehicles (such as trolleys), open air sides (weather per- mitting), and frequent headways are all important for a successful circulator. • Build a strong brand identity with support from the busi- ness community. • Service definitely needs to be branded to stand out from the rest of the transit service. This is extremely important if the potential users are tourists or visitors to a city who would not be familiar with transit. • Branding of the service and the buses to stand out from the regular transit fleet is a must, especially if the target market is nontransit users. • A buy-in from the transit union to allow for a special selection of drivers that are trained as community ambassadors/visitor guides is important if going for the convention and tourist market rather than normal transit users. • Design a unique and interesting paint and graphics scheme. • Although our buses were branded in a whimsical, fun, eye-catching way, many critics believed the service would be even more popular with the tourists if we used trolley-themed vehicles. • The downtown circulator will be nonriders’ exposure to transit. • Think a lot about the numbering or naming. • Set aside a good amount of resources for marketing. It is important that the service be highly differentiated from other transit. • Provide good route descriptions, route maps, and sim- ple fare information. Fares • Free fare was a good choice. High ridership is the suc- cess measure for a downtown circulator. • Make it free. Your ridership will be greater and the lit- tle revenue associated with a modest fare isn’t worth the cost to manage the fareboxes. • Make the shuttle free, and do not change the route. Resist outside pressure to charge a fare. • Because the circulator is free the service is very popular within the CBD. • No fare is nice, or some small amount such as 25 or 50 cents per ride. • The existence of a Ride Free Area (RFA) in our major downtown has encouraged other local cities to ask the transit agency to establish RFAs in their downtown areas, and several studies have been done to look at set- ting up one or more additional RFAs. However, the advent of a fiscal crisis has led to new questions about the effectiveness of an RFA and the amount of fare revenue lost. At a time when multiple urban centers have devel- oped outside the traditional downtown, the existence of an RFA seems very downtown-centric. However, the RFA remains politically popular in some quarters, as it has been part of the local transit landscape for such a long time, and it remains to be seen whether concerns about increasing system revenues to close the transit budget deficit will result in reconsideration of the RFA. • Take time to think about the fare. Funding Source • A subsidy is required to operate; circulators don’t make money. • Funding for the operations is provided by the city and paid for through parking revenues and tax increment funds from the downtown community redevelopment agency. • Identify a stable, reliable funding source (in our case, the parking tax provides 75% of the operating cost). You can’t make this work based on voluntary contributions. • A free or low fare requires some dedicated funding to support the service. • Carefully define infrastructure responsibilities and require that some percentage of the operating costs and/or infra- structure costs be reimbursed from either the municipal- ity or a business improvement district. Not all of the issues were anticipated in our case.

• If the service will be “free,” get the full cost of the ser- vice paid upfront from sponsors. Demand/Criteria • If planners say it will not work or ridership will be low, listen. • Make sure that the demand for the service is real and not just a public relations exercise for the businesses involved. • Much of the success of our downtown circulator is because there was already a large potential customer base in place. It is probably not realistic to expect that “if you build it they will come”; that is, that a new circulator will bring customers to a struggling downtown. • Set performance criteria and governance structures up front. • Work closely with stakeholders to make sure that there are clear performance targets. Flexibility • Work closely with stakeholders to make sure that adjust- ments can be made in the future depending on perfor- mance levels and budget availability. In our case, downtown interests have strong ownership in our circu- lator service and fare zone, so changes have been care- fully and fully discussed before implementation. • Be reactive to your environment to maximize the effi- ciency of your service. • Build in a regular cycle of reviewing your downtown cir- culator service to ensure that you are capturing changes to the downtown landscape. • Start with a very small scale in the area and service span thought to be most useful for success. In our case, the rid- ership did not materialize. Although the circulator was not a success, the cost exposure was relatively small. On the other hand, this leaves some room for debate about whether a more expensive approach (unique vehicle and marketing blitz) may have led to a better outcome. Markets • You can’t please everyone all of the time. • Do not try to be all things to all people. This tends to spread the service too thinly and make it lose focus on any particular mission (i.e., is it supposed to be primarily for employment circulation, housing, noontime lunch shuttle, etc.). • What is the purpose or target market for the service? In our case, it was to serve the convention and visitors mar- ket. Try to connect destinations for the customers with a short route that allows for good frequency. • A few years ago, the agency offered a “corresponding” Lunch Trolley along an abbreviated route in the same 26 downtown area. This was scrapped on account of a lack of utilization, and likely because of the short distance from point A to point B. Vehicles • The faux trolley buses operated on the downtown circu- lator became prohibitively expensive to maintain in later years. Every part was a special order and only specific maintenance personnel had the knowledge base to work on them. • One factor that has made our shuttle very popular and well known is the use of clean and quiet battery– electric shuttles. However, an agency considering a similar technology needs to understand the special maintenance needs to keep a specialized fleet such as this in operation. • Perhaps use a rubber-tired “vintage”-style themed trolley instead of the 29-foot buses we used. • Use ADA accessible ramps instead of mechanical lifts at streetcar station platforms if low-floor vehicles are not an option. Maintenance of mechanical lifts is expensive and disruptive to patrons with disabilities when failures occur. Operation • Pay close attention to stop spacing and traffic signal coordination issues. • Explore strategies to make the circulator faster and thus more convenient. • Double the recovery/layover time you think you need. SUMMARY This chapter has described surveyed agency assessments of downtown circulators. Findings include: • Results regarding the success of the downtown circulator are positive. Thirty-six percent of survey respondents rated the circulator as very successful and 36% rated it as somewhat successful. • The primary benefits of the downtown circulator include improved downtown mobility and circulation, greater downtown access for transit riders, a way for tourists to get around, a means for employees to get around down- town, and positive impacts on transit (increased ridership and revenue, very frequent downtown service, and an opportunity to streamline other routes). • Drawbacks to the downtown circulator involve the ten- sion between providing very frequent and direct service versus serving all locations that want to be served, low speeds owing to downtown congestion, difficulty in maintaining schedules, and negative transit impacts (circulator takes riders from other routes, maintenance

27 expense, and confusion for regular system riders). Low ridership, expense, irregular demand, and inadequate funding are also concerns. Eleven percent of survey respondents reported no drawbacks. • Most respondents reported no significant impact to the design and operation of the downtown circulator as a result of downtown’s changing role. Several agencies modified the circulator to serve nonresidential trip gen- erators, such as hospitals, employment centers, historic sites, retail, schools and universities, and entertainment districts. New residential areas were cited by 13% of respondents. Some of these destinations required changed or expanded times of service. • Improvements related to more and more certain funding from a variety of sources were most frequently men- tioned. Many other responses were also received, some of which conflicted with each other; for example, more public input versus limited outreach efforts or imple- ment versus discontinue a fare-free zone. This question elicited the greatest variety of comments and the least convergence on a clear set of desired improvements. • Survey respondents shared lessons learned from the plan- ning, implementation, and operation of downtown cir- culators. The lessons learned were grouped into ten broad categories. Lessons regarding partnerships led the list of topic areas, followed by service design, and brand- ing/attracting new riders. A total of 82 responses are provided within these 10 categories. The following chapter describes findings from seven case studies that explore issues related to the downtown circula- tors in greater detail.

Next: Chapter Five - Case Studies »
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!