Transit Station and Stop Adoption Programs (2013)

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.

8 chapter three SURVEY RESULTS From an Internet search targeting adopt-a-stop programs, a diverse group of large, small, urban, suburban, and rural systems throughout the United States was selected to receive a copy of the survey. The survey had 52 questions and is included as Appendix A of this report. Of the 37 agencies and organizations that received the sur- vey, 30 completed it for an 81% response rate. Twenty-eight of the respondents have an adopt-a-stop program in place. Two do not currently have programs, but reported that they previously had a program. Responses came from 18 states and the District of Columbia. It was discovered that most adopt-a- stop programs (78%) are managed by transit agencies. Of the remainder, five community organizations and a local govern- ment agency were identified as serving as a liaison or partner with the local transit authority to operate the program. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS Almost 90% of the agencies operate bus systems, approxi- mately 25% operate rail, and about 63% operate their own paratransit system (many agencies contract out for para- transit services). Almost all (97%) of the programs serve urban areas, 68% serve suburban areas, and about one-third serve rural areas as well. Of the two agencies reporting that they previously had an adopt-a-stop program, one program is on hold pending review (Miami–Dade Transit), and the other program was cancelled (New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority), primarily because it was determined that the benefits were not sufficient to justify agency resources required to manage the program. The agency respondent noted that it was difficult to sustain local commitments to maintain stations and there were concerns over quality of volunteer work and liability. Two other programs, King County, Seattle, Washington, and Pace Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights, Illinois, no longer actively recruit new volunteers owing to a lack of funds, but maintain the programs for existing volunteers. More than half of the agencies surveyed have programs that have been in place for more than six years. Organizations rather than individuals are more likely to adopt stops and more than 55% of the agencies reported that more than 25 stops or stations have been adopted since their program began. Most programs (82%) allow for the adoption of furnished or sheltered stops with benches and/or enclosures. Surpris- ingly, however, about one-third also allow adoption of open access facilities such as a bus hub, light rail, or multimodal station. These usually require that volunteers undergo addi- tional safety training, and insurance and indemnity issues become concerns. SIMILARITIES OF PROGRAMS Although one may initially assume that adopt-a-stop pro- grams are primarily created to augment agency resources, this is not the case. Overwhelmingly, survey respondents reported that adopt-a-stop programs are a means to “enhance station/stop appearance” (78%) and “encourage citizen involvement, pride, and ownership in their respective com- munities” (85%) (Figure 2). Agencies welcome volunteers from every sector (i.e., individuals; local businesses; not-for-profit organizations; city and state agencies; and civic organizations such as Elk, Moose, Jaycees, and Rotary). Several agencies reported that they invite high school students who need to fulfill school community service requirements. Only one organization, the Regional Transportation District (RTD)–Denver, reported having a full-time staff person. The other programs incorporate the duties into a des- ignated employee’s job responsibilities, and those employees typically spend fewer than 16 hours per month administering the adopt-a-stop program. Seventy-two percent (72%) of agencies surveyed reported that the annual budget for their adopt-a-stop program is less than $5,000 per year. Furthermore, comments revealed that agencies typically spend only about $500 to $1,000 per year. The money is used for some basic cleaning supplies, tran- sit passes, and signage. No program has a dedicated bud- get. Adopt-a-stop budgets are usually part of the agency’s operations budget (54%) or maintenance budget (38%). The remainder is funded by the marketing budget or sponsor fees. Several respondents commented that a designated budget for the adopt-a-stop program would allow for more choices and better service. Website and social media were the most frequently cited tools used to recruit volunteers in addition to the traditional

9 public relations and marketing tools such as advertising at station stops, press releases, and presentations at community events. Not only do agencies recruit volunteer workers, but two agencies reported that they also solicit donations (money and supplies) for their programs. Volunteers appear primarily to come from businesses and organizations located near a stop that needs attention or are individuals who hear about the program by word of mouth. As one respondent from a statewide transit agency noted “it’s contagious” and volunteers want to be part of the community effort. While adopters usually request a stop based on loca- tions near their home or business, one respondent noted that occasionally someone calls and asks “where is the need” and then the agency reviews passenger boarding data to offer a list of stops with high activity to choose from. Public recognition in the form of a plaque or sign at the stop is the most frequently cited incentive provided to vol- unteers (65%); along with public recognition at events, in media, or on a website (57%); and certificates of appreciation (42%). Although respondents reported that complimentary or discounted transit passes were the least used incentive (38%), a few respondents suggested that transit passes given to individual volunteers are the main driver of their program. Two agencies hold annual recognitions banquets for their volunteers and one coordinator reported that handwritten thank-you notes “were very well received.” If a plaque is installed at a stop or station, it is usually paid for by the transit agency (65%) or sponsors and volunteers (18%). The remaining 17% require a fee ranging from $35 to $100 to be submitted with the volunteer’s application. In each instance, these fees were subsequently used to purchase plaques or trash cans for the adopted stop. MANAGING VOLUNTEERS Most respondents (92%) require volunteers to sign a contract or an agreement that spells out the volunteers’ responsibili- ties and 73% of the respondents reported that volunteers are required to sign a waiver of responsibility for injury. Long- term commitments are rarely required. Usually, volunteers are just asked to notify the agency when they no longer wish to participate in the program. Only one respondent reported that individual volunteers are required to pass a background check. All of those that responded to the survey reported that volunteers’ responsibilities include picking up and/or remov- ing trash (Figure 3). Reporting vandalism or other damage is a task for 23 of the programs. Snow removal is part of the volunteer responsibilities in about one-third of the pro- grams surveyed. Several respondents revealed that snow removal assistance was the incentive to start their adopt-a- stop programs. Typically, volunteers are discouraged and/ or restricted from handling hazardous materials, removing FIGURE 2 Reasons for initiating an adopt-a-stop program.

10 broken glass, removing graffiti (although several agencies do permit graffiti removal), or altering or fixing stops or fixtures. Only a small number of respondents reported that they use volunteers (20%) to tend gardens. More than half of the respondents do not track volunteer hours. For those that do, respondents reported that collecting hours tends to be inconsistent and often more trouble than it is worth. Most respondents indicated that their transit agencies do not limit the number of stops or stations that a volunteer can adopt (73%). A few agencies believe that imposing limits allows adopters to perform better at their adopted stop. One respondent did not want to overload volunteers with snow removal at too many stops. Only those agencies who give out transit passes to vol- unteers have policies to manage abuse of incentives (i.e., any volunteers who misuse passes are removed from the program.) TRAINING VOLUNTEERS Most volunteers receive training for their duties through printed procedures and guidelines (80%), usually short, one-page descriptions of volunteer duties. Almost half of the agencies also schedule individual sessions as volunteers enlist. Volunteers are not typically trained to avoid or defuse confrontations with the public and no respondents reported any injuries to volunteers while working. Although less than one-third of the agencies provide identification badges, vests, or other means of identifying volunteers as ambassadors for the agency, five agencies did indicate that they provide vol- unteers with reflective vests and/or safety gloves. Programs that allow volunteers to adopt open access sites (e.g., bus hub, light rail, multimodal station) require volun- teers to go through additional safety training. EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON AGENCY In general, agency maintenance departments are grateful for the extra help in maintaining stops and these programs free up manpower for other areas of responsibility. One respondent from a suburban transit agency commented that any time an adopter empties a trash receptacle it saves one hour of maintenance time once travel time for the main- tenance worker is accounted for. However, the survey results did not indicate any direct, quantifiable reductions in operating or maintenance costs stemming from adopt-a- stop programs. One respondent thought the program had reduced the burden on departments, especially following a major snowstorm. One respondent reported that issues with a union (not specified) prevented stops from being included in the adopt- a-stop program. In general, respondents were not unionized (23%) or the union had no concerns (69%). Only 20% of the respondents insure against risk of inju- ries resulting from volunteer work and these are almost FIGURE 3 Volunteer responsibilities.

11 always those agencies that use volunteers at transit hubs and train stations. MEASURES OF SUCCESS Respondents use a variety of tools to evaluate the success of the adopt-a-stop programs: the number of stops or stations adopted (69%), feedback from community and businesses (65%), staff check-ups of cleanliness of adopted station and stops (61%), and incidence of vandalism, including graffiti (46%). As long as volunteers stay in the program and addi- tional volunteers continue to step forward, the programs are deemed successful. Respondents did not stress cost savings as a key impact, and this is consistent with their comments that the overall purpose of the adopt-a-stop programs is to enhance community involvement. Respondents reported that transit riders as well as volunteers readily contact the transit agency when stops or stations are in need of care. Overwhelmingly, respondents view their adopt-a-stop programs to be a success (73%). One agency rated its pro- gram as unsuccessful. That agency’s respondent commented that the program has been in operation less than a year and that getting volunteers had been challenging. Respondents tended to view their programs as evolving and stressed the need for their agencies to contribute more resources and to develop a stronger marketing and promotional campaign. The survey responses indicated that the key challenges to operating an adopt-a-stop program are recruiting a sufficient number of volunteers (35%), monitoring program perfor- mance (31%), and funding (11%). However, it is interesting to note that although the survey responses point to a variety of challenges, the “comments” revealed that recruiting vol- unteers is the dominant challenge. Improved relations with the community (58%) and cleaner, safer stations and stops (31%) were reported as the top ben- efits of the program (Figure 4). Individual comments from respondents supported these figures. Improved community relations was repeatedly mentioned as being an important factor in the comments section of multiple survey ques- tions to adopt programs. Better use of agency resources and attracting choice riders were not determined to be as impor- tant outcomes of the programs. Feedback from riders is collected by the typical tools (i.e., surveys, public meetings, and website). However, more than half (56%) of the respondents reported that feedback from riders is not solicited. FIGURE 4 Program benefits.