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

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.

50 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes key findings, presents conclusions from this synthesis project, and offers areas for future study. Findings from the surveys and particularly the case studies identify and assess the factors contributing to the success or failure of downtown circulators. The chapter is organized in five sections: • Circulator Design and Implementation • Agency Assessments of Downtown Circulators • Lessons Learned—Survey Respondents • Lessons Learned—Case Studies • Conclusions and Areas of Future Study The future research needs offered here focus on extending the synthesis findings to understand similarities and differ- ences between public-sector and private-sector employers and to enhance the effectiveness of these programs. CIRCULATOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION • The impetus to begin a downtown circulator usually comes from the transit agency, downtown organiza- tions, or elected officials. These agencies and groups are the major stakeholders in the circulator. Improving mobility throughout downtown was usually cited as the purpose of the circulator, although several other goals were also reported by a majority of respondents. • A program champion is helpful, particularly in the implementation phase. The champion of the circulator is typically either the transit agency general manager, a member of a downtown interest, or an elected official. • The most common funding arrangement is for the tran- sit agency to pay all costs, although there are a variety of other funding situations. The private sector partici- pates in circulator funding primarily through downtown businesses or business improvement districts. Half of the respondents indicated that the transit agency does not use federal funds for their downtown circulators. • Twenty-three percent of respondents discontinued, and 17% never implemented, a downtown circulator. Inad- equate funding and cost were the principal reasons for never implementing a circulator; low ridership was the major reason for discontinuation. Low productivity, loss of the funding source, and cost also played a role in discontinuation. • Employees and tourists and visitors are the most com- mon primary markets for a downtown circulator; how- ever, nearly all respondents reported that the circulator was designed to serve more than one market. Close to one-half of respondents indicated that the market for the circulator has changed over time, suggesting the need for flexibility in designing service. Almost 75% of respondents have changed the routing of the circulator to serve emerging markets in or near downtown. • Slightly more than half of respondents with a down- town circulator operate a network with more than one route. A single loop route and a combination of differ- ent types of routes were the most common. The transit agency is typically responsible for the design modifica- tion of the route, as well as for day-to-day operation. There are several interesting examples of successful cir- culators operated by city departments of transportation (DOTs). • Operating parameters vary, depending on the market for the circulator. The most common start time is dur- ing 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 is during the 6:00 p.m. hour on weekdays and Sunday and at or after midnight on Saturday. The average span of service is longest on weekdays and shortest on Sunday. Median prevailing headways are 15 min on weekdays and Sat- urday and 12 min on Sunday (this is the result of less frequent circulator systems not operating on Sunday). • Most respondents do not charge a fare on their down- town circulator. The fare is a nominal amount (20 or 25 cents) for 6 of the 16 systems that do charge a fare. A wide variety of fare media is accepted on the down- town circulator. • Introduction of or revisions to a downtown circulator route might offer the opportunity to restructure other routes in the downtown area. Most respondents indi- cated 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. More than 80% of respondents reported no issues related to complementary ADA service asso- ciated with the downtown circulator. • Agencies have taken different approaches to the inte- gration of the downtown circulator with the transit net- work. Connections are provided at major transfer points CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS

51 for the majority of circulators, but almost 20% of respon- dents indicated that there is no integration and that the circulator is separate from the rest of the transit system. • A majority of respondents named the transit agency as having overall responsibility for marketing. Agencies promoting tourism, hotels, the convention center, and downtown employers are likely to participate in mar- keting efforts. A wide variety of marketing activities are undertaken for downtown circulators. • Survey respondents assessed various elements in terms of whether they were constraining factors in the start-up and ongoing operation of the downtown circulator. Funding is the only element characterized as a major constraint at a majority of agencies. Operating funding dominated the list of major constraints. • For all circulators in the sample, the median ridership was 600 on weekdays (30 circulators), 1,100 on Satur- day (20 circulators), and 1,500 on Sunday (16 circula- tors). Median productivity (measured as riders per revenue hour) was 23 on weekdays and 26 on both Sat- urday and Sunday. These results are misleading, because circulators with high ridership are more likely to operate on Saturday and Sunday. After controlling for the num- ber of days per week of operation, median ridership and productivity are highest on weekdays. Median ridership and productivity are generally proportional to service area population; downtown circulators in larger cities have higher ridership and are more productive. Down- town circulators oriented toward tourists and visitors have the highest median ridership and productivity. Cir- culators in Charlotte, Long Beach, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Santa Barbara rank highest in the tourist/ visitor category in terms of ridership. AGENCY ASSESSMENTS OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS • Results regarding the success of the downtown circula- tor 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 downtown, and positive impacts on transit (increased ridership and revenue, very frequent downtown service, improved image, 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 (a circulator takes riders from other routes, maintenance 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 gener- ators such as hospitals, employment centers, historic sites, retail, schools and universities, and entertainment dis- tricts. New residential areas were cited by 13% of respon- dents. 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 whether to 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 Survey respondents shared lessons learned from the planning, implementation, and operation of downtown circulators. The lessons learned were grouped into ten broad categories. Lessons regarding partnerships led the list of topic areas, fol- lowed by service design and branding/attracting new riders. • Partnerships are important when planning and imple- menting a downtown circulator. Although funding part- nerships are ideal, these are the exception rather than the rule. The process of enlisting a diverse group of stake- holders early on in the design of the service results in valuable input regarding routing decisions as well as ownership in the circulator concept. Partnerships provide political support for the circulator and change the per- ception of transit in the business community. Ongoing communication once the circulator is in operation is of great value in maintaining interest and support. • Frequent service is one key to success. Respondents cited 10 min or better as an ideal frequency, whereas the median frequency of downtown circulators was reported as 10 to 15 min. Short routes mitigate the cost of fre- quent operation while still connecting as many destina- tions as possible. Simple and direct routes are important, as are consistent, clockface headways. • Branding the downtown circulator with a unique, inter- esting paint and graphics scheme to make the vehicles stand out is especially important if the target market is visitors and tourists. The downtown circulator is the face of the transit system to visitors and nontransit users who work or live downtown. • Friendly operators knowledgeable about downtown are important for attracting new riders. Some respondents reported working with their operators’ union to select and train drivers who can double as downtown ambassadors.

52 • No fare or a nominal fare is a positive factor for down- town circulators. There are always tradeoffs involved with no fare, but they contribute to the simplicity of rid- ing the circulator. • A stable, reliable funding source is ideal. Two pitfalls of using general transit or city funds are: (1) circulator ser- vice is vulnerable to funding cuts in tight economic times, because most downtowns are well-served by existing routes; and (2) circulators may be so politically popular that other, more vital service is cut first. • An “If you build it, they will come” approach is not realistic. A new circulator will not bring new customers to a struggling downtown. It is important to establish realistic performance targets and to communicate these to stakeholders at the outset. • Flexibility is important, especially given the changing role of downtown in many cities. Most respondents have changed their circulator in response to changes in downtown. It is important to track changes to the down- town landscape and adjust service accordingly. • Maintenance issues are sometimes overlooked in the decision of what type of vehicles to use. Higher main- tenance costs may be acceptable if an environmentally friendly electric or hybrid vehicle is used; however, the agency needs to be aware of these costs when making the decision. LESSONS LEARNED—CASE STUDIES • Capital Metro in Austin, Texas, implemented a down- town shuttle, the ‘Dillo, in the 1970s. The ‘Dillo went through several transformations as an iconic part of downtown before being discontinued in 2009 owing to budget issues (the only case study of a service no longer in existence). Part of its demise was the result of the impact of instituting a fare; if a fare is charged, it needs to be easy to understand and pay, and that may mean different things for a young, tech-savvy market. Use of branded and comfortable vehicles is important. Plan- ning for traffic flow and integration of the circulator into the existing transit network, with anchor destina- tions at either end of the route, helps to ensure success. Measures of success include the support of a wide group of stakeholders who wanted it to succeed and iconic branding and marketing that enhanced the image of transit in Austin. Its discontinuation was a result of low ridership and duplication with other routes. • Baltimore City DOT recently implemented the Charm City Circulator after three unsuccessful attempts to estab- lish a downtown circulator over the past 20 years. Two of the three planned routes began operation in 2010. The DOT emphasized simple, readily understandable routes, even though this meant that all stakeholders were not pleased. A stable, reliable funding source (a portion of the city parking tax) is essential; previous efforts showed that reliance on voluntary contributions does not work. The DOT dedicated 5% of operating funds to marketing, recognizing that circulator service needs to be highly differentiated from other transit services. Success can be measured quantitatively, based on ridership and produc- tivity, but certain intangibles need to be included in the definition of success. In Baltimore’s case, the intangibles include added confidence in downtown and the breadth of support from elected officials, downtown interests, and the transit agency. • CTTRANSIT began operation of a downtown circulator in Hartford in September 2005. The market for the circu- lator is clearly defined as tourists and visitors; the circu- lator is a single loop route 2.5 miles in length connecting the convention center and the hotels. Important lessons learned included the importance of defining the target market, operating frequent service on a short route that connects major downtown destinations, branding of the service and the buses for the tourist and visitor market, obtaining buy-in from the transit union to allow for a spe- cial selection of drivers that are trained as community ambassadors/visitor guides, no fare, and working with partners willing to lobby for the service. Success is mea- sured partly but not entirely on ridership, and the defini- tion of success goes back to the reason for starting the service. The downtown circulator is an important sales tool for the Convention and Visitors Bureau and provides an advantage in competing for convention business. • The city of Los Angeles DOT (LADOT) began opera- tion of the Downtown DASH in 1985. Since that time, the downtown circulator system has grown to six week- day and three weekend routes throughout downtown Los Angeles. Coordination with other agencies is impor- tant in clarifying the role of the downtown circulator. Obtaining feedback from various downtown interests helps LADOT to understand its needs and plan service effectively. Frequent service, clarity regarding the mar- ket for Downtown DASH, ease of use, service quality, and a distinctive brand are essential to success. Review- ing service performance on a regular cycle ensures that changes to the downtown landscape and neighboring areas are identified. LADOT views ridership as the best indicator of success, especially given its diverse customer base in downtown Los Angeles. • Transit Authority of River City (TARC) began opera- tion of a downtown circulator in Louisville in 1987 as part of a revitalization plan for 4th Street, and in 1996 replaced buses with trolleys on a downtown circulator route along Main and Market Streets. With support from art galleries and local businesses, TARC also operates trolleys on the first and last Friday of each month. The downtown circulators provide greater exposure to tran- sit for community members who do not ride the bus. Appearances matter, both in terms of public reaction and the trolleys’ contribution to a positive image of down- town. This builds support for transit among key stake- holders. Frequent service (every 7 to 10 min on both routes) is necessary to attract riders. A dedicated lane or signal priority to increase speeds would be desirable.

53 The special Friday night trolleys are extremely valuable in associating TARC with the vibrancy of the community. The need to communicate clearly with decision makers and stakeholders at all stages is vital to success; stake- holders need to be on board as part of the experiment, not after the fact. Measuring success involves the answer to the question: why are we doing this? If the vibrancy and attractiveness of downtown is the answer, then it is important to develop metrics in addition to rid- ership, such as how many people come downtown. • The Central Philadelphia transportation management association (TMA), affiliated with the Center City Dis- trict, manages the downtown circulator known as the Phlash. Mayor (and subsequently Governor) Rendell has been the lead champion of Phlash service. The mar- ket for the Phlash is clearly defined as tourists and visitors. The primary benefit of the Phlash is that it pro- vides a low-cost, easy link, aimed primarily at visitors, between downtown Philadelphia’s historic destinations and the city’s cultural attractions. The primary draw- back of the downtown circulator is funding; other draw- backs include its seasonal nature, with no service from November through April, and difficulty meeting head- ways consistently as a result of downtown traffic. The TMA offers a single lesson learned: a subsidy is required to operate; the circulator does not make money. Success is measured by ridership and also by the number of sat- isfied riders. Rider satisfaction is the TMA’s most important goal: making visitors to Philadelphia feel welcome and putting them at ease on how to get around to all the major attractions in the city. • The District DOT (DDOT) funds and oversees the DC Circulator network in Washington, D.C. The primary market for the DC Circulator was originally downtown employees. As the circulator system has expanded into other neighborhoods, markets have changed: employees are the dominant market during the day, but the focus shifts to entertainment at night. The DC Circulator routes have fewer stops than a typical transit route, giving the impression among riders that you can get anywhere within 10 min. DDOT is committed to frequent service, preferring to cut span of service or route length to pre- serve the 10-min frequency. Success is measured by rid- ership, by riders’ preference for the circulator over other modes, and by the ability to attract choice riders. DDOT attributes this to direct service connecting major activity centers, an attractive price, the limited number of stops, and distinctive, comfortable buses. CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS OF FUTURE STUDY • Funding is critical to success. A stable, reliable fund- ing source is necessary. Funding, especially operating funding, was the only factor cited as a major constraint by a majority of survey respondents, and is also a dom- inant factor among agencies that discontinued or never implemented a downtown circulator. • Branding of the service, vehicles, and stops is imper- ative to establish the circulator’s identity, particu- larly if the target market is tourists and visitors and/or nontransit riders. Successful downtown circu- lators have their own identity through a distinctive graphic and paint scheme that stands out in a busy downtown. The downtown circulators serve as the face of the transit system to tourists and downtown employ- ees and residents; thus, branding can enhance the over- all image of the transit system. Customer friendly operators who function as downtown ambassadors are an important part of the branding. • Simple linear routes with frequent and reliable ser- vice, no fares, and clockface headways are most attractive to riders. Frequent service and simplicity in route design and fare payment are emphasized repeat- edly in the survey results and case studies. Loop routes may be the best option in certain cases (see for example the Hartford case study). Queue-jumpers or signal pri- ority can speed up the circulator trips in congested downtown traffic and increase reliability. A circulator can provide the opportunity for a restructuring or stream- lining of other routes in downtown, although most sur- vey respondents have not done so. Free or nominal fares are attractive. The experience in Austin, Texas, pro- vides food for thought: a major component of the down- town circulator market was young people in the first or second job out of college. Paying electronically and being able to purchase electronic media at locations that they frequented would have been second nature to this tech-savvy demographic. One rule for attracting non- transit riders is: nothing can be inconvenient or they will not ride. • The most common target markets for downtown circulators are employees and tourists and visitors. Most survey respondents indicated that, although there may be a single primary market, they also serve other markets. In downtown circulator systems with multiple routes each route may serve a slightly different market. Interestingly, downtown circulators oriented toward the visitor/tourist market had the highest median ridership and productivity. • Partnerships are vital in building a successful down- town circulator. Many agencies naturally think of part- nerships in financial terms, but these are the exception and not the rule. Partnerships are very important in pro- viding political support for the circulator and are a means to change the perception of transit in the business community. • Size does matter. Median daily weekday ridership for downtown circulators at agencies with a service area population under 500,000 (a proxy for size of down- town) was 450. Only 2 of these 13 agencies reported a daily ridership as high as 1,000 on their circulators; both are oriented toward the tourist market, and one only operates during the winter in a ski resort area. There are other definitions of success than ridership, but

54 small cities can anticipate limited ridership for a down- town circulator. Findings from this synthesis suggest four major areas of future study: • Effective strategies for a downtown circulator in down- towns of various sizes and composition. The case stud- ies present examples of downtown circulators oriented toward different markets and in different downtown environments. How does a city or transit agency make a decision as to which market to serve? Do tourist and visitor downtown circulators require a certain size of downtown or special attractions? Is the combination of a convention center and nearby hotels sufficient to jus- tify a circulator? Is there a minimum employment den- sity that warrants an employee-based circulator? • Who should operate the downtown circulator? In four of the seven case studies the regional transit agency was not the operator of the downtown circulator. This fre- quently reflects a regional focus on the part of the transit agency and a willingness to have municipal partners or the private sector operate local shuttles, in downtown or elsewhere. How do factors such as expertise, flexibility, politics, stakeholders, and access to funding sources (to name only a few) affect this decision? Several of the downtown circulators operated by a city DOT or private- sector agency are relatively new. As their circulators mature, it would be interesting to see if these are differ- ent in significant ways from circulators operated by tran- sit agencies. • Measures of success. The case studies cited both quan- titative and qualitative measures of success. Who decides whether a downtown circulator is successful? How do intangible measures of success fare over time, partic- ularly in times of tight budgets? Are intangible mea- sures more prominent if there is a dedicated funding source? Does the measure of success change over time? The case study agencies all discussed and defined success, but further research in this area would be illuminating. • Applicability of lessons from downtown circulators to other areas. Can experiences with downtown circulators be applied elsewhere? Are there lessons for neighbor- hood circulators or for circulators serving rail stations outside of downtown areas? How do these lessons apply?