Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Under Major Financial Constraints (2014)

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.

104 Three transit agencies provided extensive descriptions of the various ways they partner with public and private organizations to expand service in their communities. Washington Area Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Washington, D.C. Local Government/Agency /Schools Fare Subsidies: WMATA has an agreement with the District of Columbia to provide subsidized travel for DC Public School students. DC students ride WMATA buses and Metrorail trains alongside regular riders, but the students utilize special, subsidized fare media that are available only to DC students. The initial purchase cost of the student fare media is subsidized by the District of Columbia. For example, the student monthly pass costs $64. The student pays $30 toward the overall cost, and the District of Columbia pays the other $34. For each usage of the student monthly pass, the District of Columbia pays an additional $0.95 subsidy to WMATA. DC students can also purchase 10-trip rail and bus passes (at $9.50 and $7.50, respectively), the costs of which are subsidized by the District of Columbia. The student pass products are confi gured to allow travel within the District of Columbia only and are to be used only for school and school-related travel. DC DOT provides specifi c payment for an increased bus-rail transfer discount for riders at Anacostia and Congress Heights stations. Montgomery County, Maryland, has fare reduction programs for students and seniors in Montgomery County. The county reim- burses WMATA for the revenue equivalent. WMATA has partnerships for a prepaid fare program with other agencies, but they are sponsored by a Compact member as a backstop against nonpayment. These include: • Environmental Protection Agency (Arlington) reimburses for employee/visitor riders on specifi c bus routes. • Department of Defense (Alexandria/Fairfax) reimburses for employee/visitor riders on specifi c bus routes. • WMATA previously had an arrangement with the Metropolitan apartment community in Arlington for resident riders on a specifi c bus route. That route was replaced by jurisdictional bus service. but the arrangement continues. The Department of Defense contributes to costs of operation and capital to support service on the 7M (sponsored by Alexan- dria) and 28X (sponsored by Fairfax County). These contributions enabled an expansion of capacity, frequency, and coverage for these routes. An agreement with the United States Coast Guard is being negotiated to support relocation of its headquarters staff to the St. Elizabeth’s campus. This agreement would include contributions to operating and capital costs and a prepaid fare program. Downtown business interests—Business Improvement Districts. WMATA has reached out to Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the Washington region to identify opportunities to partner with such organizations. Ideas being contemplated included interactive kiosks at stations to communicate to Metrorail customers the services and businesses located around the stations and how to reach those businesses. Such services will provide a revenue stream to WMATA while also helping to better connect busi- nesses to transit. Local governments—Public-Private Partnerships. In the past, WMATA has formed partnerships with local governments toward the fi nancing of system expansion. A very successful example is Noma-Gallauadet station, which was funded by means of a unique public–private partnership of WMATA, the local DC government, the federal government, and private landowners. WMATA is currently exploring similar partnership approaches for the funding of another infi ll station in the Potomac Yards area of the city of Alexandria. Local governments—Tax Increment Financing Districts: WMATA is working with Prince George’s County, Maryland, to explore the creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts at Metrorail stations. Such districts would enable the local jurisdiction APPENDIX G Additional Responses to Survey Question #17: “Have You Entered Into Any Partnerships That Have Helped Share the Cost of Providing New or Existing Service?”

105 to capture value from new development at the stations and use those new revenues to reinvest in transit-supporting amenities and infrastructure (such as parking structures, roads, and bus loops) that serve to drive new ridership and also facilitate transit-oriented development. San Joaquin Regional Transit District in Stockton, California • Stockton Unifi ed School District (SUSD)—RTD sells discounted student passes to the SUSD. SUSD distributes the passes to students qualifi ed for school bus service and no longer provides school bus transportation to its students. Students can use passes to ride to and from school, work, entertainment, etc. The cost of increased service capacity is offset by revenue from passes sold to SUSD. • San Joaquin Delta Community College. SJRTD is promoting a similar program to encourage students to shift from cars to public transportation. • Stockton Police District. SJRTD contracted for one offi cer to provide regular police service at transit facilities and onboard the buses. • SUSD Police. SJRTD contracted for one offi cer to provide regular police service at transit facilities and onboard the buses. • City of Stockton. Provides support for various transit projects (e.g., signal prioritization for BRT routes, bus bench and shelter installation). • United Cerebral Palsy and American Logistics, Inc. These agencies provide paratransit services at a lower cost. • Downtown Stockton Alliance. SJRTD has a marketing partnership with the alliance that includes cost-sharing to promote downtown establishments and the use of public transit to get around downtown. • Stuff the Bus food drive partners (food banks, city of Lodi, city of Escalon, and city of Manteca). There is an annual food drive spearheaded by San Joaquin RTD to help collect food for those in need within the community, reinforcing the positive image of the transit agency in the community. • Proterra, Inc. Through this partnership, San Joaquin RTD was awarded a California Energy Commission grant in the amount of $2.56 million toward an electric bus demonstration project valued at more than $4 million. Two electric buses are scheduled to be launched in 2013. This effort supports SJRTD’s strategic initiatives by reducing energy consumption, waste, and pollu- tion while fostering vendor innovation and new technologies. Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority in Nashville, Tennessee For almost 10 years, the Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has stressed the importance of its employer-based fare programs under the commuter benefi ts program known as EasyRide. The EasyRide program is a fl exible program that is tailored to the needs of employers and employees. The success and growth of this program, which is administered by 1.5 FTEs, has helped increase overall system ridership since its inception. During calendar year 2012, the program saw a 9.6% increase in ridership among the program’s top fi ve participants over the same period in 2011, representing more than 1.1 million passenger trips. Funding contracts with EasyRide partners are often issued on an annual basis and have proved to be a helpful additional revenue source for MTA. The program growth has required the addition of a full-time employee to administer it, but it is believed to be a necessary and good investment based upon the size and scope of the program. Currently, there are more than 30 program participants and various levels of participation and ridership. Though a good portion of the EasyRide passengers are using available capacity, some trips have experienced crowding as a result of the level of participation by the employees. The MTA has made adjustments in equipment assignments accordingly. A few examples of successful types of partnerships are included in the following:. 1. U-Pass Program. MTA worked with a large local university to develop a university pass (U-Pass) program that targeted employees and graduate students. This cooperative effort grew out of a relationship with an MTA board member. The university was interested because of serious parking issues. The university had encouraged carpools and vanpools by providing preferential parking but not under a broader umbrella with transit benefi ts. The U-pass program uses existing employer identifi cation cards that have been tested for compatibility with MTA’s fareboxes. MTA does issue EasyRide cards for its other programs, but here the university controls the cards. The benefi ts of this arrangement are that MTA does not have to issue separate fare cards to the employees, and the university does not have to share any personal data on its employees with MTA. The university receives a single bill each month from MTA based on a negotiated per-swipe rate. The U-pass program has expanded to include medical center employees, faculty, and graduate students. Because payment is on a

106 per-swipe basis, the university reviews usage and reports any unauthorized use to MTA, which can then program its fareboxes not to accept an unauthorized ID. Monthly ridership in the U-pass program began at 14,000 in 2004. In 2008, ridership reached 56,000 in one month when gaso- line prices were near their peak. Today, ridership averages around 40,000 passenger trips each month. As one of the region’s major employers, the university set an example that other public employers soon followed, including other area universities. MTA empha- sizes the importance of the U-pass program in generating interest among other major employers, including the state and the city. 2. State Employees. The second EasyRide program described by MTA is with the state of Tennessee. The state is the biggest employer in Nashville, with several state agencies located downtown, and the state had been providing an employee shuttle between its offi ces and parking lots across downtown. State offi cials saw and read media reports on the university program and asked, “How do we get this deal for our employees?” This interest led MTA to consider how to price the EasyRide program. MTA mirrored the state program on the approach taken with the university program, realizing that the EasyRide program needed to be fl exible because each employer is different. MTA sets prices based on proximity to transit, origin-destination patterns, and transfer rates, with higher prices associated with greater proximity, more origin and destination patterns that can be served by transit, and lower transfer rates. Transit was generally a convenient option for state employees, because most state agencies are downtown and MTA’s route net- work has its primary hub downtown, with few transfers required. As a free benefi t for participating in the EasyRide program, MTA maps employee residences by ZIP code for the employer to estimate participation levels for employer budgeting. As is the case with the universities, the state receives a single monthly bill from MTA based on the negotiated per-swipe rate. A major difference is that MTA issues EasyRide cards for all state employees. The state is responsible for distribution. In the event of a lost card, MTA will produce a new card on its existing production schedule. Cards for newly hired employees are also produced on this schedule. MTA will bill $10 to replace a lost card. An employee who leaves the state turns in his/her EasyRide pass before leaving employment with the state. The cards expire in 999 days (related to farebox technology), but it only takes approximately a minute to reprogram an expired card. A protocol was developed and implemented to reissue expiring cards. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is MTA’s point of contact. TDOT enters the data on state employees and sends it to MTA. MTA prints and tests the EasyRide passes. TDOT then distributes the passes through individual departments to the employees. TDOT uses a portion of one staff member’s time to oversee the program and analyze monthly reports. Through its fareboxes, MTA obtains and provides data on employee use of the program to employers. Employers differ in their interest in analyzing employee use. The state of Tennessee established this program for work commute trips only, not for general use. Thus, the state monitors the details of employee use and calls in employees who ride in noncommute times to clarify the program’s intent. The state warns the employee the fi rst time, but repeat offenders can lose their pass privilege. This is an example of MTA’s guiding philosophy for the EasyRide program: the employers decide the rules, including how employees can use the pass. Employers pay on a per-swipe basis, not a per-employee basis, and have a greater incentive to control costs by controlling usage. Under this philosophy, card design is based on employer specifi cations. The state design features a strik- ing photograph. 3. Municipal Employees. MTA found that other public-sector employees began asking for a similar program once the state pro- gram was implemented. The metropolitan Nashville government worked to establish its own EasyRide program with MTA. Metro Nashville established a pretax program under which Metro Nashville employees purchased an EasyRide 31-day card. Other munici- pal employees became aware of this (the employees are the major impetus for this program) and again wanted cards of their own similar to what they knew other area employers offered. With support from the metro government, the program became available to all general service employees (GSEs). Program use is limited solely for work commutes. MTA issues the EasyRide cards for GSE employees. Part of the challenge in the Metro Nashville program is that city employment sites are less centralized. Other employers not in the EasyRide program can purchase individual passes and take advantage of pretax benefi ts. MTA prints and issues Mobility Checks, which serve as transit currency within the Nashville region. With the recent increase in the federal transportation benefi t cap to $240 per month, the most expensive pass on the commuter rail system now falls within the cap. The MTA has also developed a close working relationship with the Metro Nashville Public Schools. Under agreement with MTA, transit cards are issued to public school students who fi nancially qualify for transit support. With a number of charter and magnet

107 schools located across the county, MTA service fi lls in the gap. Traditional yellow school buses focus on transporting students between an area school and a nearby neighborhood. MTA offers the ability to go crosstown or to other areas of the city, opening up additional learning opportunities and school choice for students and their families. The majority of the cards are issued in the fall during the new school year and are valid through the end of the month when the school year is complete. Nearly 4,800 cards were issued this school year. Often a simple Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is used as the agreement between MTA and its EasyRide partners; how- ever, traditional boilerplate contracts have been used between the two entities to run the program. Factors Contributing to Success Several factors have contributed to the success of the MTA EasyRide program: • Role of the media. Several well-placed stories created a buzz and led to other employers calling MTA. The state became interested as a result of publicity surrounding the university program, and Metro Nashville became interested as a result of publicity surrounding the state program. • Changed perceptions about transit. The EasyRide program cuts across socioeconomic lines and helps MTA promote its ser- vices to a broader market. • Public employer perceptions. Public employers view EasyRide as a cost-effective benefi t to provide to their employers. • Program fl exibility. Employers can tailor the program to meet their needs. An emergency ride home program is also helpful in this regard. • A proactive approach. MTA organized a half-day symposium to introduce the EasyRide concept to university personnel. MTA staff worked extensively with the state before they decided that it was ready. MTA continues to take an aggressive approach to seeking new employer partners in both the public and private sectors. • Program champions. MTA CEO Paul J. Ballard has championed the program for the agency, as have Nashville Mayor Karl Dean, area university leaders, and the Secretary of the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Resistance can arise with a decision maker who has no experience with transit. Positive stories in the news media once the initial program was up and running and program champions at public agencies helped to overcome this resistance in Nashville. A willing- ness to design the program with fl exibility built in is helpful with employers who are not familiar with transit. Lessons Learned MTA is an excellent example of a successful program for both public as well as for private-sector employers. Lessons learned include: • Find a champion and a corporate leader that will pave the way. • Design a fl exible program that the employer can tailor to meet its needs. • Start wherever you can and build on successes. The announcement of the fi rst participant helped secure the participation of subsequent partners. Operation of the EasyRide program does entail the engagement of a number of departments and the employment of 1.5 FTE. The program is overseen by a program manager who is a point of contact for the program and conducts outside sales. A full-time employee in the Planning Department oversees the data base, issuing of cards, reporting, bill coordination, and point-of-contact between the EasyRide employer coordinators. The CFO helps establish pricing along with the Planning Director. The Finance Department coordinates billing and ridership with the Scheduling and Planning departments. Procurement manages contracts and MOUs. IT is the point of contact for farebox-related issues and farebox data storage, as well as for ordering card stock. The Com- munications Department helps promote the program and Operations ensures that all program policies are followed by drivers and supervisors. Customer Care answers some policy questions but more often schedule and route information. Program savings have only come through regrouping internally and discussing policies or procedures that have either been effective or ineffective. Processes have been developed and altered to help streamline a number of routine activities. A tracking system has been developed to track when replacement cards have been issued and money has been either received or a bill is issued to recoup the appropriate fee. Billing and ridership reporting has been refi ned (and has gone paperless) to ensure accuracy the fi rst time. Though a dollar fi gure can’t be clearly measured, savings have come through better time management by all staff.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation NEED SPINE WIDTH TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR SHERRY LITTLE Spartan Solutions LLC MEMBERS MICHAEL ALLEGRA Utah Transit Authority JOHN BARTOSIEWICZ McDonald Transit Associates RAUL BRAVO Raul V. Bravo & Associates JOHN CATOE The Catoe Group GRACE CRUNICAN San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District CAROLYN FLOWERS Charlotte Area Transit System ANGELA IANNUZZIELLO AECOM PAUL JABLONSKI San Diego Metropolitan Transit System IAN JARVIS South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority RONALD KILCOYNE Lane Transit District RALPH LARISON HERZOG JOHN LEWIS LYNX-Central Florida RTA JONATHAN H. MCDONALD Atkins North America THERESE MCMILLAN FTA E. SUSAN MEYER Spokane Transit Authority BRADFORD MILLER Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority KEITH PARKER Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority RICHARD SARLES Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority JAMES STEM United Transportation Union GARY THOMAS Dallas Area Rapid Transit MATTHEW O. TUCKER North County Transit District PHILLIP WASHINGTON Denver Regional Transit District PATRICIA WEAVER University of Kansas EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY APTA ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRB FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT AASHTO VICTOR MENDEZ FHWA TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS SANDERS APTA SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TRB TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS VICTORIA A. ARROYO, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC SCOTT E. BENNETT, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. STEWART FOTHERINGHAM, Professor and Director, Centre for Geoinformatics, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, Fife, United Kingdom JOHN S. HALIKOWSKI, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort SUSAN HANSON, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA STEVE HEMINGER, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA JEFFREY D. HOLT, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah GARY P. LAGRANGE, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, LA MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany ABBAS MOHADDES, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA DONALD A. OSTERBERG, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI STEVEN W. PALMER, Vice President of Transportation, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Mooresville, NC SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor, University of Texas, Austin HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN GARY C. THOMAS, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX PAUL TROMBINO III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO EX OFFICIO MEMBERS THOMAS P. BOSTICK (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC ALISON JANE CONWAY, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, NY, and Chair, TRB Young Member Council ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT DAVID J. FRIEDMAN, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT JOHN T. GRAY II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT PAUL N. JAENICHEN, SR., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT THERESE W. MCMILLAN, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, and Acting Deputy Secretary, U.S. DOT ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. DOT CRAIG A. RUTLAND, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA GREGORY D. WINFREE, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC * Membership as of May 2014.* Membership as of February 2014.

92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Under Major Financial Constraints TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMTCRP SYNTHESIS 112 TCR P SYN TH ESIS 112 M aintaining Transit Effectiveness Under M ajor Financial Constraints NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 648 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Transit Practice Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration