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.

8INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes findings from a literature review related to downtown circulators. A TRIS search was con- ducted to aid the review, using keywords such as “circulator,” “downtown circulator,” “downtown shuttle,” “downtown trol- ley,” and “downtown and transit.” OVERVIEW OF DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS The most detailed review of multiple downtown circulators is a 2005 study by Perk et al. (1). This report reviewed five down- town circulators from around the country and reported on three case studies in Florida. Several conclusions were drawn from the analysis, including: • There is no one-size-fits-all approach; circulator sys- tems are designed for a variety of purposes. Each circu- lator reviewed has unique aspects, making comparisons difficult. • Frequency, reliability, and good connections with other transit modes are service elements associated with successful circulators. Relatively high levels of population and/or employment density are also important. • The circulator rider is likely to be unfamiliar with tran- sit; therefore, simplicity in routing and ample signage is necessary. • Ideally the circulator service is customized for the pur- pose it is serving. Downtown employees have no inter- est in a tour of local attractions. • Nominal or no fares encourage ridership. • A strong customer perspective and customer-service orientation tends to lead to success. • It is important for the circulator to have its own identity. • Marketing for the circulator may need to be different from marketing for the transit system as a whole. • Local partnerships are important. • It is likely that a mixture of funding sources will be used for a downtown circulator. Ohland (2004) summarized streetcars and trolleys in rela- tion to their role in urban revitalization projects (2). This arti- cle focused on the Pearl District in Portland, Oregon, and also discussed successful implementations in San Diego and Tampa. SPECIFIC CIRCULATORS Several studies and articles reported on the details of specific downtown circulators. The LINK downtown circulator in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been the subject of two detailed articles. White and Malloy (2008) examined design, implementation, and evaluation of the LINK service (3). This paper detailed the efforts of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in planning and operating the route, from an inclusive plan- ning process to an innovative marketing campaign to survey research used to bring service more in line with riders’ trans- portation needs. In August 2003, AATA introduced the 3.2-mile LINK route, which connected downtown districts and the University of Michigan campus. For the first year of operation ridership remained low, peaking at 282 riders per weekday and 9 passengers per service hour. During this time, AATA conducted two onboard rider surveys. The results of these surveys inspired several service changes introduced in June and August 2004, which lead to a near doubling in rider- ship. By March 2005, ridership had hit 821 average weekday riders and 23 passengers per service hour. The success of the service enabled the LINK to continue a modified route with funding shared between the AATA, University of Michigan, and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Cornillie (2006) examined the funding and planning evolu- tion of the LINK service in Ann Arbor (4). The paper notes the use of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant in service implementation and stresses the importance of an ongoing planning process that continued to engage stakeholders and led to the successful redesign of the route. In an article describing changes in ABQ Ride, the transit agency serving Albuquerque, New Mexico, Martinez (2008) reported on the launch of a free downtown circulator in 2007 (5). The circulator was designed to connect the Rail Runner commuter rail station (also the location of the ABQ Ride Transit Center) to shopping and employment destinations in the heart of downtown Albuquerque. Two examples of downtown circulators in Arkansas have been described in the literature. Bell (2009) discusses the impacts of Central Arkansas Transit’s streetcar line on the Little Rock metropolitan area (6). The streetcar line provides a new image for transit as well as a new mobility option in Little Rock. Simpson (2004) described how the trolley sys- tem that Eureka Springs Transit operates meets the needs of CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

9visiting tourists and benefits the town’s permanent residents and businesses (7). The primary focus of an article by Hanson (2003) is on managing parking in downtown Indianapolis, but it also dis- cusses plans for a circulator or electric bus linking downtown attractions and a People Mover, a high-tech elevated rail ser- vice connecting medical facilities (8). Hanson stresses the need for proactive collaboration among city government, law enforcement agencies, private parking operators, and busi- nesses to make sure parking complements economic devel- opment. Hurst (2005) describes the People Mover system in downtown Indianapolis and presents the project experience after two years of operation (9). Liu and Lau (2008) documented a feasibility study of an automatic people mover application for Newark, New Jersey (10). The paper considered potential benefits of replacing the current loop, a small bus circulation system in downtown Newark, with automatic people mover technology. Potential benefits include reduction in passenger walking, waiting and overall travel time, and provision of an anchor for downtown business development. Fox and Lancaster (2006) documented development of vin- tage rail trolley service in Memphis, Tennessee, and presented considerations for integration of light rail regional service on the existing system (11). Topics included public perceptions of the existing trolley system and proposed light rail system, infrastructure elements that need to be addressed, and planning coordination in the Memphis region. Bogren (2009) provides an overview of streetcar and trol- ley urban transit development in Seattle, Washington (12). The author’s primary emphasis is on attracting employers and encouraging job creation. Appendix E of TCRP Report 117 (2007) summarizes design and operational impacts of the LYMMO system, a bus rapid transit downtown circulator in Orlando, Florida (13). A primary goal of LYMMO is to connect parking garages at the fringe of downtown and the transit center with downtown des- tinations. Given the focus of TCRP Report 117, the design, traffic operational, and safety elements of the system receive the greatest attention. Krambeck and Emerson (2008) present the perspective of the Downtown Development Authority in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in planning a downtown streetcar (14). The authors noted that a primary benefit is that by using a streetcar as a vehicle for economic development the Authority needs only to put up a minimal amount of funding to achieve significant investment in the downtown area. Hickey and Delgado (2007) describe how the city of Miami is considering a circulator system to provide local connectivity by means of an urban transit system from the downtown Miami central business district (CBD) to the Miami Design District and adjacent redeveloping areas (15). This paper identified the range of credible vehicle options within this alternative by first determining vehicle require- ments based on the latest physical design for the streetcar alternative, then compared those requirements with a range of candidate vehicles currently available in the North American market. Volinski and Perk (2000) prepared a feasibility study to determine whether or not local circulator systems could be designed and funded in Miami (16). It notes that “the key to feasibility is funding” and identifies several possible routes and funding sources. SUMMARY The literature review supports the initial observation that there is not a significant body of research documenting downtown circulators. Many of the reports described in this chapter are cursory in nature, providing either a broad overview of trends or an introductory description of a particular circulator without in-depth analysis. A few are more thorough, delving into details on the planning and implementation of a specific down- town circulator or reviewing common factors over several case studies. These reports provide a good starting point for this study. The next two chapters present the results of a survey of transit agencies regarding downtown circulator systems. The survey results provide a snapshot of the state of the art as it exists today with regard to downtown circulators.