|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
5
cHAprER Two
SURVEY FINDINGS
METHODOLOGY
A survey of transit agencies was conducted to gather in-
formation on the nature of transit services and programs being
provided to accommodate increasing suburb-to-suburb travel.
The survey (see Appendix A) was intended to elicit basic op-
erating information from agencies on the type of transit service
being provided including such aspects as mode, number of vehi-
cles. fare structure, ridership, and hours of operation. The sur-
vey also included qualitative questions regarding why the
service was developed, performance criteria used for evaluation
purposes, agency involvement in site design and land use issues,
marketing techniques, and transportation management associ-
ation/transportation management organization (TMA/TMO)
interaction.
RESPONSES
The survey was mailed to 37 transit agencies across the
United States and Canada, some of which had responded to an
earlier 1993 reverse commute survey by the American Public
Transit Association (APTA). The APTA survey asked agen-
cies to indicate whether they also operated suburb-to-suburb
services.
Twenty-eight agencies (76 percent) responded to the survey
for this synthesis; substantial telephone follow-up was re-
quired to obtain this level of response. Of these 28 agencies,
23 provide some form of suburb-to-suburb transit. Four of
these agencies were selected for case studies. A complete list
of the 23 agencies that provide suburb-to-suburb services is
included in Appendix B.
SURVEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Key survey findings of the 23 agencies with some form of
suburb-to-suburb service are analyzed and discussed next.
Detailed responses to each of the survey questions may be
found in Appendix C; in many cases, the total number of re-
sponses does not equal the total number of respondents since
most questions had the possibility of multiple answers (he.,
"check all that apply").
Service Implementation
The majority of respondents (87 percent) indicated that
their services were implemented due to increases in suburban
travel. About 33 percent of the respondents indicated that they
had implemented services due to clean air compliance or trip
reduction mandates. Three respondents indicated that suburb-
to-suburb services are not new and have been an integral part
of their agencies' services for some time.
Mode of Service
As expected, buses operating on fixed routes were the most
commonly used mode for providing suburb-to-suburb transit
service with 20 out of 23 agencies using them. Shuttle services
frown rail ranked second at 39 percent. Many agencies use both
12.2-m (40-ft) and smaller buses to provide suburb-to-suburb
service.
For agencies using fixed route buses, system size varied
from 4 buses at Clark County Public Transportation Benefit
Area Authority (C-TRAN) in Vancouver, Washington to 330
buses at MTA Long Island Bus (LI Bus) in New York; this
range is indicative of the variation in size of agencies respond-
ing arid the fact that there is not a"typical" operator of suburb-
to-suburb service. The range of demand-response vehicles
(buses and vans) providing suburb-to-suburb service ravaged
from 14 at Space Coast Area Transit in Cocoa, Florida to 316
at PACE in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Appendix D reports
the number of vehicles used by responding agencies in both
fixed route and demand-responsive suburb-to-suburb services.
The majority of agencies reported that their services were
initiated in the late 1980s or early 1990s. This coincides with
the suburban development boom of the 1980s and the fact that
most services were initiated in response to increased suburban
travel needs.
Target Ridership
Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that com-
muters were their target riders. All other categories ranked a
close second with several responses each for shoppers, stu-
dents, senior citizens, and transportation disadvantaged.
"Other" responses included rail and multi-modal commuters
and employees of businesses served, both of which could be
grouped in the commuter category above. Thus, for 22 out of
23 agencies, commuters are the target market for ridership.
Number of Riders and Ridership
Trends
Ridership varied greatly due to the variation in size of
agencies responding. For example, C-TRAN (with 4 vehicles)
reported that 600 passengers were carried on an average
weekday. MTA LI Bus reported that its fixed route service
(with 300 vehicles) carried approximately 82,000 passengers
OI1 an average weekday. Seventy-four percent of respondents
indicated that ridership on suburb-to-suburb services was
"up"; the category "steady" ranked next. Only two agencies
reported that their ridership was on a downward trend. Aver-
age weekday ridership, as reported by each transit agency, is
found in Appendi>; D.
OCR for page 6
6
Service Evaluation Criteria
Fifty-seven percent of the agencies surveyed use the same
criteria to evaluate their routes. One of the agencies that use
separate criteria to evaluate suburb-to-suburb services is BC
Transit in Surrey, British Columbia where lower levels of
performance for suburban services are acceptable. BC Transit
considers suburb-to-suburb services to reinforce regional pol-
icy. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (Metropolitan
Council) in St. Paul, Minnesota provides a $4.00 maximum
subsidy per passenger for suburb-to-suburb service, versus a
subsidy of $3.25-$3.85 for local radial, all-day express. and
peak express services, when suburban services do not meet
such performance criteria as passengers per trip and passen-
gers per platform hour. When the maximum subsidy is
reached, the agency evaluates services for redesign or termi-
nation. Seattle Metro uses passengers per trip and passengers
per platform hour to evaluate suburb-to-suburb services,
which are placed in a separate class from other services as
well. Individual routes are compared to others within the sub-
urb-to-suburb class and the bottom 10 percent are evaluated
annually for possible termination.
Destinations Served
The most common destinations for suburb-to-suburb serv-
ices were shopping centers/malls and office parks as types of
developments proliferate in the suburbs. Other destinations that
were closely ranked included industrial parks, schools/training
centers, residential developments, and medical facilities. Sub-
urban mixed-use developments being served by transit may
account for the close rankings of the four distinct types of
development. Recreational centers/parks were ranked last,
probably because suburban parks are generally auto-oriented,
and public green space is a rare commodity in many U.S.
suburbs.
Fares
Flat fares used by 43 percent of the responding agencies
were the most common type of fare structure for suburb-to-
suburb services. Distance-based or zone fares ranked second.
"Other" responses included new service promotional fares, a
paratransit zone fare, and a free fare for shuttle service to rail
stations.
Respondents were asked to provide fare ranges by mode
and to note whether ranges differed by mode. The fares ranged
from free to a high of $3.00 per trip; the average was $1.25.
Higher fares tended to be for more customized, demand-
responsive, and express services. A complete listing of fares
by transit agency is provided in Appendix D.
Incentives Provided
Most agencies provided some incentives to encourage rid-
ers to use their service. Eighty-three percent of agencies sur-
veyed use transit pass programs. Nearly 66 percent conduct
outreach to the business community and nearly 33 percent
provide guaranteed ride home programs. The Suburban
Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)
in Detroit has a "get a job/get a ride" program, which
provides one month of free bus service for new employees
and an unconditional moneyback guarantee on all services.
Involvement in Site Design and
Land Use
More than one-half of the agencies surveyed (14 out of 23)
indicated that they are involved in site design and land use is-
sues on a routine basis. Several agencies, including the Mass
Transit Administration (MTA) of Maryland in Baltimore; C-
TRAN in Vancouver, Washington; PACE in Arlington
Heights, Illinois; Metropolitan Council in St. Paul. Minnesota;
and New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit), in Newark, have pro-
duced guidelines for site design/access criteria, which are dis-
tributed to the development community. NJ Transit's guide-
lines contain a transit friendly checklist, which is included in
Appendix E.
Use of Technologies
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they used any
specific technologies such as timed transfers, priority treat-
ments, advanced public transit systems (APTS), or route de-
viation to provide or enhance service delivery. Seventy-four
percent of the respondents used timed transfers. Priority treat-
ments were used by only 26 percent of the respondents, but
ranked second in terms of technologies used. NJ Transit noted
its flex routes, preferential access to rail stations, and new
services, including fixed route. route deviation, and de-
mand-responsive services. OC Transpo cited its ability to
determine the time of the next bus via an automated tele-
phone system, schedule display monitors at major stations,
printed timetables at many bus stops, marketing targeted
specifically at employers in these areas, and seamless integration
of sentences with the rest of the regular route network.
Marketing Techniques
Two-thirds of the respondents reported using different mar-
keting techniques for suburb-to-suburb services from those
used to promote regular fixed route services. GRATA reported
using many of the same marketing techniques for its suburb-
to-suburb and fixed route services, but also indicated the ne-
cessity to target marketing efforts to the business community
for flew suburban circulator routes. NJ Transit reported several
marketing techniques. including working through seven
TMAs in the state as well as sending direct mail to employers
and employees to inform them of suburb-to-suburb services.
Sail Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) in San Carlos,
California reported that marketing plans are submitted by
employers with various marketing techniques for its regional
rail shuttle bus program. Westchester County Department of
Transportation (WCDOT) in White Plains, New York reported
greater employer-based efforts and campaigns to highlight its
"family of services" concept.
OCR for page 7
Representative terms from entire chapter:
fixed route
7
Relationship with Transportation
Management Associations
More than one-half of the agencies surveyed have
ThIAs/TMOs in their suburban service areas. Transit agencies
had mixed responses regarding whether the TMAs/TMOs
were important to the success of the agency's suburban serv-
ice. The MIA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) provides techni-
cal assistance to the TMAs on Long Island. MTA LIRR staff
serve as members on several TMA boards. The seven TMAs
on Long Island help promote MTA LIRR services. The Mont-
gomery County Division of Transit Services in Maryland op-
erates a transportation management district (TMD), which ac-
tively markets and promotes service in its business district.
WCDC)T reported that "The TM() is a very important element
in terms of marketing and service development. There is a
formal relationship between the county and the TMV." Seattle
Metro reported that the "TMA is helpful in service issues. Two
TMAs are proactive in promoting and advertising transit
service to employees. Metro has had successful cooperation in
financing and production of marketing information."
On the negative side, one transit agency responded, "We
have nixed results with TMAs. They are not an important
element in marketing and have not generated any significant
ridership for us. We do maintain formal membership with
them. We have concerns over TMA marketing practices and
have not encouraged them to market our services." Another
agency responded, '1MAs are new to the local scene where
our services have been around for a long time. Due to fiscal
constraints, we are not able to respond to most service requests."
Additional Information Requested
At the end of the survey, additional information that could
not be readily obtained through the survey questions was re-
quested, including the following: details on materials that di-
rectly relate to suburb-to-suburb services such as marketing
materials, service descriptions, newspaper articles, photo-
graphs, and customer-oriented information; and information
on innovative practices. Many agencies provided additional
information, which was then used to help select the case
studies described in Chapter 3 and to discuss elements of suc-
cess in Chapter 4.
Analysis
The surveys and discussion held with transit providers fo-
cused on the changes made to meet suburban service needs,
such as the development of marketing strategies, special
advertising, access to employers, and special fares and
services. It was found that many of these new services
were lacking a common system for describing and under-
standing suburban consumer behavior, and there appears
to be no uniform performance monitoring methodology
among the transit agencies surveyed for detailing travel
activity and transit service response with regard to funding
implications.
There is lack of a reporting process for the service changes
made to record the specifics of the physical changes made,
such as changes in service frequency, fares, area coverage,
schedule adherence, vehicle configuration, and service quality.
There is also lack of a more rigorous process for measuring
the actual travel activity and its financial consequences. Many
agencies reported a sense of success in that they discerned
greater popularity of their servicers), i.e., greater use of the
system. However, detailed ridership and financial statistics
were not often
