Elements Needed to Create High-Ridership Transit Systems: Interim Guidebook (2005)

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.

6. Partnerships/Coordination Initiatives Introduction An increasingly important category of strategies, actions and initiatives aimed at increasing ridership is partnerships and coordination initiatives. The types of strategies – and specific actions/examples – included this category are shown in Table 6-1. These types of strategies are generally intended to attract and retain riders by improving the availability and/or affordability of transit service – or by making use of transit feasible at all. Thus, each strategy should address one or more of the following mode choice parameters: • Availability of service • Convenience • Cost of using transit – and ease of fare payment • Perceived “image” of the system Descriptions and examples of the various types of partnership and coordination strategies are provided below. Table 6-1: Types of Partnerships and Coordination Initiatives Type of Strategy Specific Actions/Examples Partnerships University/school pass programs Reduced pass price or per trip reimbursement to university (or other school) Travel demand management strategies Employer pass/voucher programs; vanpooling; ride-matching; parking cash-out Subsidized activity center service Subsidized service to office parks or other activity centers Coordination initiatives Consistent regional operating policies Transfer agreements Coordination with social service agencies Mobility manager; access-to-jobs programs Coordination with other transportation agencies Roadway or parking management strategies Promotion of transit-supportive design/TOD Requirements for bus stops/shelters at new developments Seymour Easton Shelton Wilton Redding tamford Monroe Fairfield Ridgefield Milford Norwalk Weston Trumbull Orange Westport Darien St ra tf or d New Canaan Seymour New Haven Woodbridge Bridgeport East West Haven Derby Ansonia Norwalk Transit District Greater Bridgeport Transit District Milford Transit District

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-2 Guidelines and Examples As demonstrated via the examples in Chapter 4, various types of partnership/coordination strategies can be used in a range of service environments. However, some strategies or particular types of initiatives are not well-suited to certain settings or modes. Table 6-2 identifies which environments and modes are generally appropriate for each type of strategy; obviously, though, each specific type of initiative must be designed to reflect the needs and opportunities that exist within the agency’s environment. The different types of partnerships and coordination initiatives are described on the following pages, including examples of each type of strategy. Table 6-2: Applicable Modes/Settings for Types of Partnership/Coordination Initiatives Mode Service Environment Type of Strategy Bus Rail Large Urban Medium Urban Small Urban Rural Suburb CBD University/school pass programs + + + + + + + + Travel demand management strategies + + + + + + + + Subsidized activity center service + – + + + + + + Consistent regional (inter- agency) operating policies + + + + + + + + Coordination with social service agencies + + + + + + + + Coordination with other transportation agencies + + + o – + + + Promotion of transit- supportive design/TOD + + + + + o + + Key: – = not applicable or inappropriate; o = applicable, but may not be cost-effective; + = applicable and appropriate

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-3 Partnerships Transit agencies are increasingly entering into partnerships with other entities that effectively promote the use of transit by the partner entities’ constituents. While there may be various partnership opportunities in a given area, the major types of partnerships transit agencies have developed are as follows:1 • University/school pass programs (e.g., reduced pass price or per trip reimbursement for university or other school) • Travel demand management strategies (e.g., employer pass/voucher programs, vanpooling, rideshare matching, flex-time, parking cash-out) • Subsidized activity center service (e.g., subsidized service to office parks or other activity centers) These types of arrangements/programs are described below, including agency examples of each. University/School Pass Programs Some universities provide their own campus area transit services, but many campuses are served by the local transit operator. Where the latter is the case, many universities have established partnerships with the local transit agencies to provide specially-priced passes or other payment options to students. As discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, such arrangements represent the single most common type of initiative instituted by the agencies reviewed in this study. By providing a low-cost and convenient form of transit payment to the university community, the transit agency typically sees increased ridership. Agencies that serve – and have some type of payment arrangement with -- major universities by and large have significantly higher per capita ridership figures than do other comparably-sized areas. Meanwhile, the university benefits by improving access for its students, faculty and staff, and may ultimately be able to ease on-campus parking requirements by shifting some students and others to transit.2 The university pass/reduced fare arrangement represents one of the oldest types of fare-related transit partnership, with some (e.g., University of Massachusetts- Amherst, University of California-San Diego) dating back several decades. The pass programs, often called “U-Pass” or something similar, feature various 1 Certain other types of ridership strategies, though assigned in this report to other categories, can also clearly involve development of partnerships. Examples include introduction or expansion of a route serving a campus, or a cooperative marketing arrangement with a university. 2 For additional discussion of university pass arrangements, see TCRP Report 94, Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies (Update), 2003.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-4 formats, including the following:3 • The university pays the transit agency an annual lump sum per student in return for unlimited transit use for each participating student, faculty and staff member; this type of arrangement has been given the generic name “Unlimited Access.”4 In this option, the student typically need only present his/her campus ID card to board a transit vehicle. • The university purchases monthly (or perhaps semester or even full school year) passes from the transit agency, either at the regular price or at a reduced price, and then sells them to interested students – usually at a significant price reduction. These may be specially-designed passes (either electronic or flash passes) issued by the agency, or special stickers affixed to campus ID cards. (Exhibit 6-1 shows an example of a Upass issued by CT TRANSIT in Hartford.) Exhibit 6-1: Example of Upass • The transit agency actually reads the university’s student/faculty/staff ID cards directly in the fare collection equipment. A predetermined cost per ride is then billed to the university, based on the total uses of the cards during a month (or semester). Examples of this arrangement include OCTA (Orange Co., CA), which has agreements with University of California-Irvine and California State University-Fullerton; and Big Blue Bus (Santa Monica, CA), which has a partnership with UCLA. In some cases, arrangements involve a single university or college, while in others, the transit agency provides the same basic deal to any interested institution. In Chicago, for instance, the CTA’s U-PASS program is available to any university/college in the area; 22 universities or colleges are participating. In Atlanta, the MARTA U-Pass program has expanded from 4 colleges/universities when it was introduced in 1998 to 25. Where implemented, university pass programs have typically proven quite successful at increasing transit ridership, while also providing guaranteed revenue to the transit agency.5 Examples of the impacts are as follows: • An analysis of unlimited access programs by researchers at UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies found that such programs seem to have 3 Another strategy that has been introduced by some agencies whose service is focused on the university community is to offer low (or free) fares on the entire system (i.e., rather than just to university students, faculty and staff). This strategy is discussed in Chapter 8 , Fare Collection/Structure Initiatives. 4 J. Brown et al. “Unlimited Access,” Transportation (vol. 28 pp. 233-267), 2001 5 Ibid.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-5 resulted in a net average ridership increase of over 7%/year at 13 transit agencies with university programs for the two years immediately following introduction of the program.6 At five universities that collected ridership data before the initiation of the pass program, in the first year student transit ridership increased between 71% and 200%; in subsequent years, there were annual increases of 2-10%. • In Chicago, more than 40,000 eligible college students are using the CTA’s U-PASS program, accounting for over 10 million rides per year; a quarter to a third of these are considered to be new transit rides, and half of total U-PASS ridership is felt to take place in midday/evening hours.7 • In Seattle, 86% of eligible university students, faculty and staff participate in the U-PASS program, accounting for over 8 million rides per year (more than 10% of all Metro and Community Transit rides); 45% of these are estimated to be new transit rides.8 Moreover, these programs can build “brand loyalty” to the transit system. In Chicago, for example, the vast majority of survey respondents said that they would continue to use CTA after graduation. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District - Metro Student Pass Program small urbanized (50,000 - 200,000) The University of California at Santa Cruz worked with Santa Cruz METRO to establish a university transit pass program. A student ID entitles the holder to unlimited free rides on any METRO route, which encourages students to ride transit whenever possible. For UCSC staff and faculty, a quarterly bus pass provides the same benefit. The university makes payments to METRO on a per-student basis, the funds for which come from a transportation fee added to each student’s tuition. Ridership has increased on routes serving the uni- versity. Thus, university-transit agency partnerships are capable of generating significant increases in ridership, while also building interest in continuing to use transit after graduation. However, it is important to recognize the cost and revenue implications of such programs; key concerns are as follows: 6 Ibid. 7 TCRP Report 94 8 Ibid.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-6 • Agencies must carefully design the pricing parameters of university pass programs so as to minimize the potential negative revenue impact. In particular, the agreement should be structured so that it allows the agency to increase the amount paid per person so as to reflect actual usage rates. • Depending on the success of the program (i.e., at attracting riders), there may be added costs to the agency, i.e., due to the need to provide additional service to meet the increased demand. In Seattle, Metro’s costs have risen considerably with the provision of additional service to the UW campus; however, UW pays a portion of the increased costs, and Metro’s revenue recovery rate for the new services has been comparable to its systemwide average. Travel Demand Management Strategies Travel demand management (TDM) comprises a range of strategies aimed at reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting and peak period traffic congestion. Some of these strategies focus on encouraging transit use (e.g., pass/voucher programs) while others involve facilitating ridesharing (i.e., vanpool programs or rideshare matching in private autos) or simply spreading out the commuting period (e.g., through allowing flex-time); finally, some TDM strategies (e.g., parking “cash-out” arrangements or dedicated transit or high-occupancy vehicle lanes) are generally intended to provide incentives to use some form of high-occupancy mode. Transit agencies can promote TDM in general (both transit and non-transit aspects), often through coordination with other public agencies, and can also play a key role through partnerships with employers to facilitate – and possibly subsidize – employees’ use of transit to commute to/from work. Strategies involving coordination with other agencies are discussed below, under Coordination Initiatives. This section focuses on employer-oriented transit benefit programs. Transit/employer programs were originally limited to the distribution of monthly passes by employers to their employees, often with at least a partial subsidy of the pass price. The programs subsequently became more flexible with the introduction of transit vouchers that the employees could use to acquire the transit payment option of their choice. In the last decade, these basic approaches have evolved and broadened, fueled both by a steady increase in the tax-free transit benefit employees could receive and the emergence of electronic payment technologies. Key types of employer-oriented transit benefit programs and strategies now in place include the following: • Pass programs – In these programs, employers buys passes for employees and distribute them at worksites. The passes are often subsidized, all or in part. In addition to monthly pass programs, a number

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-7 of agencies have adopted annual pass programs in which employers purchase annual passes for employees (at significantly less than the normal monthly cost of passes) based on a predetermined formula set by the transit agency. Exhibit 6-2: Example of stored-value vouchers • Transit voucher programs – In these programs, employees receive vouchers that can then be redeemed for transit passes or other payment options. In some cases, the vouchers are in the form of stored value farecards that can be used directly for fare payment (see Exhibit 6-2). • Automated benefits distribution programs -- Other strategies for distributing transit benefits to employees are emerging as well, including the ability to automatically download the value of the benefit to an employee’s smart card. Such programs are greatly facilitated by the existence of the “commuter choice” benefits program.9 Commuter Choice allows employers to let their employees set aside up to $105 a month, or $1260 a year, of their pre-tax salary to pay for transit or vanpool commuting, and $200 a month ($2400 a year) for qualified parking expenses. Prior to TEA-21, commuter benefits had been allowed only in the form of a direct employer subsidy to an employee. A number of states have also introduced their own legislation providing state tax credits to employers who offer Commuter Choice benefits to their employees; these states include Maryland, Delaware, Oregon and Georgia. The aforementioned approaches through which employers have worked with transit agencies to provide transit benefits are reviewed below. Annual pass programs -- Annual pass programs are offered by several agencies, including Denver RTD (Eco Pass), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (E Pass), Metro (Minneapolis) Transit (MetroPass), King Co. Metro (FlexPass) and Portland Tri-Met (PASSport). Such programs made participation convenient for both employers and employees. However, it is important in establishing these programs that transit agencies structure pricing in such a way that they protect themselves against losing revenue; the pricing should be able to capture at least some revenue from the new trips being generated. Since all employees at a company receive an unlimited-use pass, the transit agency can expect to see an increase in commuter ridership. However, since initial pass prices are normally based on pre-program transit mode share, the pass may become under-priced if 9 Commuter Choice is a provision of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) that was signed into law in June 1998. TEA-21, along with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, amended Internal Revenue Code Section 132(f) that already provided certain commuter program tax benefits. This tax code amendment significantly improved the status of employer-sponsored commute incentive programs.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-8 mode share assumptions are not updated regularly. Denver RTD’s announced intention to discontinue its Eco Pass program due to excessive revenue loss demonstrates the danger of failing to adequately update the pricing assumptions and formula. Transit voucher programs -- Beyond the direct distribution of passes, employers can provide transit benefits for employees through strategies such as voucher programs. In programs such as TransitCheck (New York City area), CommuterCheck (San Francisco, Denver, Boston, elsewhere), and Metrochek (Washington, DC), employees are given vouchers that can be redeemed for transit passes or other payment options. In some cases (e.g., New York City and Washington), the vouchers are in the form of stored value farecards, and can thus be used directly for fare payment where accepted – or redeemed for fare options for other agencies in the applicable region. Automated benefits distribution programs -- The emergence of electronic payment media such as smart cards has created new strategies for distributing transit benefits to employees. One approach, mentioned above, is the direct provision of stored value farecards, as is done in Washington, New York and Chicago. A variation introduced in 2000 in New York City is the Premium TransitChek designed for City employees and other large employers. In this program, TransitCenter issues employees special MetroCards once a year. The City or employer deducts the cost of a 30-day pass from the employees’ paychecks each month and transfers these funds – along with an active list – to TransitCenter; as long as an employee’s payment status remains active, his/her card will remain active. The use of smart cards further expands the ability to automatically distribute transit benefits. The existing examples of such a strategy are WMATA’s “SmartBenefits” program (launched in September 2000), the CTA’s Chicago Card Plus (introduced in 2004) and the TransLink card in the San Francisco Bay Area (pilot tested in 2002 and now being rolled out in the region). In the WMATA program, an employer establishes an account for each participating employee (and subsequently identifies any changes to an employee's status) via a WMATA website. Each month, the employee can then automatically download the value of the benefit to his/her SmarTrip smart card at any WMATA farecard vending machine. As of 2003, over 550 employers and 17,000 employees were participating in the SmartBenefits program; while participation was growing at a slower pace than the agency had anticipated, the concept should take greater hold as the number of employees at each company using the SmarTrip card increases – and once SmarTrip is expanded to other services in the region over the next few years. The Chicago Card Plus and TransLink programs also involve automated downloading of transit benefits. Chicago Card Plus is an account- based card system; those cardholders not receiving transit benefits directly from their employers must establish a credit card-backed account with the CTA to use the card.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-9 The combination of commuter choice legislation and the emergence of electronic payment technologies has resulted in a range of distribution strategies that facilitate the provision of transit benefits to employees. The major impacts on and benefits to transit agencies, employees and employers from these types of strategies include the following: • Annual pass programs, provision of vouchers in the form of electronic farecards, and automated download options (like SmartBenefits) are particularly convenient for employees, since they do not require them to go out of their way to purchase separate fare instruments. • These programs also represent convenient mechanisms for employers to manage the distribution of commute benefits to employees. Besides providing a tangible benefit to their employees, employers benefit from such programs through payroll tax savings, as well as the potential to reduce parking requirements. • Such programs help employers address state or local trip reduction ordinances; the existence of such requirements was a key factor leading to the establishment both KC Metro’s and Tri-Met’s annual pass programs. • Such programs typically result in increased transit usage. For instance, in Seattle, FlexPass has resulted in an average increase in employees’ transit use in the first year of the company’s participation of over 90%. In Portland, the average employee increase has been measured at 57% during the first year; PASSport passes account for over 7% of Tri-Met’s overall system ridership. In New York, a 1994 survey indicated an average of over 240 additional transit rides per year per TransitChek recipient. Thus, employer pass and voucher programs have been shown to benefit employees, employers and transit agencies. Clearly, the simpler – and less costly – it is for employers to administer these programs, the more likely they will be to participate. Similarly, the more convenient it is for employees to take advantage of commuter benefits, the more likely they will be to use transit to get to and from work. Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro Transit (MT) Metropass (Annual Employer-Based Pass Program) large urbanized (over 1,000,000) Metro Transit in Minneapolis/St. Paul (MN) runs the Metropass program, under which area employers subsidize annual transit passes for their employees. This program helped to strengthen links between Metro Transit and the business community. The program has also significantly contributed to the agency’s recent ridership gains. Between 2000 and 2004, ridership rose 41% .

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-10 Subsidized Activity Center Service As indicated in Chapter 5, employers (private or public), developers or other entities may also be involved in partnerships with transit agencies through subsidizing transit service to/from key activity centers. The most common form of such an arrangement is a shuttle service that provides a link between a transit hub (e.g., a commuter rail station or an intermodal center) and an office park or other large employment site. In order to help attract and retain employees – and possibly to minimize the amount of parking necessary – employers may be willing to sponsor such services or at least participate in their funding. Some type of fare subsidy may be involved as well; for example, fares may be waived with an employee identification card or the employer may provide a transit pass or voucher, as discussed in the previous section. As noted in TCRP Report 55, such shuttle services “by their nature serve niche markets; that is, a small portion of the total travel market commuting to any one location. Thus, on a regional basis, the number of trips as a percentage of all trips is rather small; the key is to capture a reasonable mode share of the trips that originate within the corridor served by regional bus or rail.” (p. 54) Report 55 further points out that “Shuttle programs have to be carefully designed and tailored to the markets they serve in order to be effective. Given their relatively small markets, they have to have hours and headways tailored to the travel patterns of the local market and cannot overextend schedules.” (p. 55) Examples of privately-sponsored shuttle services include the Metra “Shuttle Bug” (summarized in the inset) and the following, both operated by Central Contra Costa County (CA) Transit Authority outside of San Francisco:10 • Route 960 connects Walnut Creek BART station and Bishop Ranch Business Park. Bishop Ranch is basically an “edge city,” with more than 60,000 employees. The developer, Subset Development, jointly sponsors the service with the California Department of Transportation. Bishop Ranch workers ride free, while the general public can ride for $1.25. The design and marketing of the service have apparently been quite successful, as evidenced by the fact that Route 960’s productivity has been nearly 16 passengers per hour – compared to a productivity of under 7 passengers per hour for the regular transit route that had served the corridor prior to the implementation of Route 960. As of the late 1990’s, ridership was over 270 per day. • Route 991 connects the BART Concord station to three business parks. Employers at these business parks agreed to help subsidize the route as a condition of their receipt of building permits. As is the case with Route 960, employees can ride for free (by presenting their employee ID card or 10 The two CCCTA examples come from TCRP Report 55, Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation, 1999 (p. 55).

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-11 a special farecard); the general public must pay the normal transit fare. The route is relatively lightly used, about 80 passengers per day, but the employers are apparently satisfied with the service. Of course, such services can also be subsidized solely by public agencies, typically for employees traveling to/from a particular local, state or federal agency location. For example, the Nashville MTA operates two shuttles under contract to the State of Tennessee. The MTA bills the State for vehicle hours of service at a specified contract rate. State employees ride the shuttles for free, by presenting their state ID cards – and have priority access to the buses. However, the contract allows the MTA to carry paying passengers on a space-available basis; non-state employees wishing to ride these buses currently pay a fare of $0.25, and this represents additional revenue for the transit agency. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation – Metra (NIRCRC) Shuttle Bug & Other Linking Services large urbanized (over 1,000,000) In order to better serve the reverse commute and suburb-to-suburb commute markets of the Chicago area, Metra runs a program that seeks to link corporate campuses with suburban rail stations. Through public-private partnerships, over 30 employers help subsidize more than 17 shuttle routes. Employers have a large say in determining the schedule and routing of each shuttle, and on-going monitoring of service en- sures that the shuttles continue to meet the needs of the employees. Between 2003 and 2004, ridership in this program rose 12% .

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-12 Coordination Initiatives Other types of strategies involve coordination with other entities – either other transit agencies in the region or non-transit entities – to better facilitate or promote the use of transit. Key types of strategies in this area include: • Consistent regional (inter-agency) operating policies (e.g., transfer agreements) • Coordination with social service agencies (e.g., mobility manager, access-to-jobs programs) • Coordination with other transportation agencies (e.g., roadway or parking management strategies) • Promotion of transit-supportive design (e.g., requirements for bus stops/shelters at new developments) and transit-oriented development (e.g., creation of a “transit village” around a rail station) These types of initiatives are described below, including agency examples. Consistent Regional Operating Policies Many regions in the US include are served by multiple transit agencies operating in adjacent – and sometimes overlapping – service areas. Within these multi- agency regions, the extent of consistent operating policies varies significantly. In some areas, agencies have made concerted efforts to integrate one or more types of functions or policies with neighboring agencies, while in others, the agencies each continue to operate independently and make unilateral decisions. The most common functional area of regional integration to date has been fare policy and payments. With travel patterns increasingly requiring transferring between adjoining transit agencies’ services, there has been a growing emphasis on the development of multi-agency agreements and integrated regional payment arrangements. In fact, agencies are moving from simple inter-agency transfer agreements to more comprehensive integrated regional payment options. A number of agencies currently have some type of joint pass arrangement with at least one other agency. In other cases, agencies have transfer – or fare upgrade – provisions with agencies with which they intersect.11 For example, in the Washington, DC area, WMATA and eight neighboring bus agencies offer a joint one-day pass that can be used on WMATA’s Metrobus and the other services; WMATA and all but one of these agencies also has a regional 11 The emergence of electronic payment options, particularly smart cards, has facilitated an increasing focus on integrated multi-agency payment systems – i.e., introducing a regional farecard that is accepted at any participating agency. This strategy is discussed in Chapter 8, Fare Collection/Structure Initiatives.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-13 bus transfer agreement. In the Los Angeles area, a regional pass -- EZ Transit Pass -- is accepted by LACMTA and 17 other agencies; there is also an inter- agency transfer agreement in the region. In the Central Puget Sound Region (Seattle, WA), a regional pass -- the Puget Pass – is accepted by seven agencies (including the Washington State Ferry); five of these agencies also accept each other’s transfers. Norwalk Transit District – Wheels (NTD) Coastal Link service medium urbanized (200,000 - 1,000,000) The Norwalk (CT) Transit District partnered with two neighboring transit agencies (Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority, and Milford Transit District) to create the “Coastal Link” bus route, which travels along the U.S. 1 corridor through 6 different municipalities. The agencies agreed to operate in each other’s districts and accept each other’s fares in order to provide a seamless service for the rider. This trip previously would have required two uncoordinated transfers between three different systems with three different fares. Ridership along this corridor has increased by more than 200% since introduction of the Coastal Link. Easton Shelton Wilton Redding Monroe Fairfield dgefield Milford Norwalk We ston Trumbull Orange Westport Darien St ra tf or d w Canaan N Bridgeport West Haven Derby Norwalk Transit District Greater Bridgeport Transit District Milford Transit District Of course, inter-agency integration can cover several other functional areas as well. A recent study completed the California PATH Program, Transit Service Integration Practices: An Assessment of U.S. Experiences (2005), identified the following basic types of inter-agency integration: • Infrastructure integration (i.e., shared stops/stations, inter-agency joint operation of routes, coordinated route restructuring, or inter-agency joint equipment purchases) • Schedule integration (i.e., inter-agency schedule coordination or timed transfers) • Fare integration (i.e., inter-agency free/reduced price transfers or regional pass) • Information integration (i.e., inter-agency trip itinerary planning, inter- agency real time trip information dissemination, inter-agency dissemination of maps/schedules, inter-agency marketing, or inter-agency sharing of operational/planning data)

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-14 • Special events/emergency conditions integration (i.e., inter-agency planning for events or emergency conditions) The PATH report identifies and discusses examples of each of these types of integration, based on a literature review, survey and case studies. Fifty-six of the sixty agencies that responded to the survey indicated that they had put in place – or were in the process of implementing – one or more of these types of integration; moreover, nearly 75% of the respondents indicated some level of involvement (past or present) in at least four of the areas. (Strategies associated with these functional areas are described further – and examples are provided – in other chapters of this report.) Coordination with Social Service Agencies Coordination between transit agencies and social service programs can benefit both parties, by increasing transit ridership and maximizing the effective use of ever tighter social service agency resources. Examples of such coordination include: • Mobility manager programs – A transit agency might act as the central manager or coordinator of a range of public and privately-operated services. • Access to jobs programs – Transit agencies can play a key role in providing access to jobs for former welfare recipients. These types of strategies are discussed below. Mobility manager programs -- Given that most areas feature a range of public and privately-operated transportation services, there may well be opportunities to improve the overall cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. One approach to minimize duplication and gaps in services within a region is to establish a single entity to manage multiple services and/or to serve as an information clearinghouse. This type of structure is commonly known as a Mobility Manager or Coordinator. In many communities, the transit agency may well be the most appropriate entity to carry out that function. One of the general objectives of the Mobility Manager should be to continually look for ways to provide more cost-effective and appropriate types of transportation for each trip, on behalf of the sponsoring agencies. For example, vanpools and dedicated shuttle services offer lower-cost alternatives to advance- reservation, demand-responsive paratransit services. This is especially true where (1) a certain critical mass of riders makes roughly the same trip every day, and (2) where the users can either cover the cost of the service in a cooperative

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-15 cost-sharing arrangement or have a sponsor (developer, employer, college or human service agency) fund some or all of the cost. Such shifts are easier to effect, in terms of both administration and operations, if a single entity has centralized oversight of a broad family of services. The Mobility Manager should be able to assemble the critical mass of programs to generate savings worthy of the effort associated with coordination and would reduce the marginal efforts needed to achieve efficiencies in each program. The Mobility Manager should provide oversight and arrange for the provision of a variety of transportation services, including for example local circulation services and other more specialized services which may be operated by a mix of private for-profit, not-for- profit and/or public carriers. Access to jobs programs -- Federal welfare reform legislation, passed in 1996, radically changed the American welfare system, emphasizing the move of individuals from welfare to work.12 In implementing the resulting welfare reform programs, states and localities quickly realized the importance of ensuring access to reliable and affordable transportation services for those residents attempting to make this transition. MTA Long Island Bus (LIB) Transit and Social Service Agency Collaboration to Enhance Access to Jobs large urbanized (over 1,000,000) New York’s Long Island Bus worked with the Department of Social Services and other state agencies to identify transit needs relating to reverse commuters and the welfare-to-work program. Through joint collaboration on grants, the agencies were able to fund new routes, as well as service extensions on existing routes. To date, over 1.5 million passenger trips have been generated through these efforts. System ridership increased nearly 3% from 2002 to 2003. Addressing welfare to work transportation issues has required creation of new collaborations among public agencies and private organizations, establishment of new transportation services, and development of innovative funding strategies. However, an important element of all access to jobs programs has been the provision of a mechanism for individuals to pay for these services, in terms of both subsidization of travel and furnishing the actual payment media. This has resulted in various types of special transit payment arrangements. In some cases, welfare recipients are directly provided with transit passes (or other fare 12 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) replaced the Aid for Families with Dependent Children program with block grant funding and mandatory work requirements. The new welfare program imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits and a two-year deadline for placing most recipients in jobs, job training, or vocational education programs.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-16 media) for specified periods of time. In other cases, recipients must purchase their own fare media, and then may be reimbursed (e.g., by the responsible social service agency). Finally, where new services are created specifically to address access to jobs needs, the service may be free to eligible users – whereas members of the general public using the service would have to pay a fare. Access to jobs partnerships have been shown to increase transit ridership and to benefit eligible riders by providing affordable access to employment and training sites. However, since these programs often involve participation by a number of different entities, it is important that the participants clearly understand – and be sensitive to -- each other’s goals and concerns in developing and implementing the program. Coordination with Other Transportation Agencies As discussed in Chapter 2, existing transportation conditions related to factors such as parking availability/pricing and traffic levels can have a major impact on transit demand. Conversely, transit can play a key role in controlling congestion. Therefore, it should be of mutual benefit for transit agencies to coordinate wherever possible with local, regional or state agencies (e.g., city or county traffic/highway departments, MPO’s, or state DOT’s) in the planning/development of the following types of efforts:13 • Roadway management strategies include establishment of various types of dedicated HOV/transit lanes or rights-of-way. • Parking management strategies tend to focus on establishment of downtown parking restrictions and/or parking surcharges. Such efforts are discussed below. Roadway management strategies -- Specific forms of these strategies that should contribute to increased demand for transit include: • Downtown transit malls and bus lanes • Exclusive busways and BRT rights-of-way • Dedicated HOV lanes (for buses as well as carpools and vanpools) 13 Other types of strategies requiring such coordination include transit-supportive design (discussed in the next section) and transit signal priority systems (discussed in Chapter 5).

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-17 There has been considerable coordination of transit and other transportation agency efforts in the roadway management area. For instance, transit malls have been established in a number of US cities, including Denver, Minneapolis, Dallas, and Portland (OR). Exclusive busways have been implemented in Pittsburgh, Miami and Northern New Jersey, while BRT systems with dedicated rights-of- way (for at least a portion of the total system) are in place or under development in such locations as Boston, Orlando, and Las Vegas. Finally, many highways have dedicated HOV lanes; examples include major arterials in Washington (DC), Houston and Seattle. While HOV lanes can also be used by carpools and vanpools, all of these types of efforts offer transit users distinct travel time advantages over driving alone, and thus serve to enhance the relative attractiveness of transit service. Parking management strategies -- Examples of possible forms of parking- related initiatives that should contribute to increased demand for transit include: • Establishment of a cap on downtown parking spaces • Allowance of maximum parking ratios for new commercial developments • Prohibition of construction of new freestanding garages • Increase in parking meter rates, reduction in maximum allowable meter stay, or expansion of short-term metering • Establishment of residential parking permit program (i.e., with substantial fines for parking without a permit) While a number of US cities have at one time or another implemented one or more of these strategies – typically in an effort to control downtown traffic congestion – the actual coordination of transit agency and other transportation agency efforts in their development has been limited. The most notable example of parking-transit policy coordination is in Portland, OR, where combined transit and parking initiatives have been in place for over thirty years; transit measures developed in combination with a range of parking restrictions include the aforementioned transit mall and a fare-free zone (Fareless Square). Another notable example is in Bellevue, WA, where the city has initiated a series of transit, parking and other demand management initiatives in response to growing downtown traffic congestion. Thus, while traffic levels and parking availability/pricing are generally considered external factors affecting transit usage, transit agencies should seek to coordinate with other transportation agencies that are developing approaches to manage local transportation conditions. Strategies such as dedicated bus lanes or parking restrictions combined with transit improvements can help to control traffic congestion while generating increased demand for transit.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-18 Promotion of Transit-Supportive Design and TOD The integration of transit and land use/development planning represents another form of coordination intended to promote transit usage. Two related types of strategies have been employed by transit agencies and local governments in an effort to insure that new developments are conducive to the use of transit: • Transit-supportive design guidelines are promulgated by transit agencies to guide developers in designing and constructing “transit- friendly” buildings and sites. • Transit-oriented development (TOD) generally refers to compact mixed- use development in the vicinity of a transit station or transfer center that has been designed to facilitate transit usage. These strategies are discussed briefly below. Transit-supportive design – As many as a quarter of US transit agencies have developed or adopted some form of transit-supportive design guidelines.14 TCRP Report 55 says of these guidelines, “Beside imparting technical design information, guidelines promote coordination among stakeholders, encourage long-range planning for transit, emphasize the importance of transit design considerations during project review, and educate the general public about transit issues. Some of the more effective guidelines provide examples of ‘good design practices’ that developers can emulate.” (p. 19) Such guidelines typically suggest and describe design features that will (1) help to make development sites conducive to pedestrian access to transit facilities or bus stops, and (2) facilitate efficient bus operations within or approaching the site. Notable examples of comprehensive design guidelines documents include the following: • Snohomish County (WA) Transit -- A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation; there is also an accompanying videotape • Portland Tri-Met – Planning and Design for Transit • Central Contra Costa County Transit Authority – Coordination o Property Development and Improvements (this was one of the first such documents, produced in 1982). Transit-oriented development – Transit-oriented development is defined differently in different locations. Indeed, as noted in TCRP Report 102 (Transit- Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects), “There is no universally accepted definition of TOD, because development that would be considered dense, pedestrian-friendly, and transit- supportive in a middle-size city in the Midwest would be viewed quite differently 14 TCRP Report 55, p. 19

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 6-19 in the heart of Manhattan or the District of Columbia.” (p. 5) Report 102 presents the definitions of TOD adopted by ten different transit agencies; they vary in their details, although “. . . most focus on the design characteristics of transit- supportive environments.” (p. 7) The most frequently cited characteristics among these definitions are high-quality walking environments and mixed land uses; moreover, several definitions link TOD to increased transit ridership. As noted in the TCRP Report, there is general “. . . agreement within the professional transit community as to what constitutes a TOD: a pattern of dense, diverse, pedestrian- friendly land uses near transit nodes that, under the right conditions, translates into higher patronage.” (p. 7) CityBus of Greater Lafayette Transit-Oriented Development for Small Cities small urbanized (50,000 - 200,000) The City of Lafayette, Indiana, created the James Riehle Plaza as an intermodal station serving trains as well as local and regional bus service. Since it opened in 1995, a significant amount of transit- oriented development has emerged in the area, including a childcare center, retail, offices, and residential development. Ridership on the system has increased 117% in four years. There are many examples of TOD around the US. While most examples are focused on rail stations, a considerable number are associated with bus service. TCRP Report 102 identified more than 100 TODs, based primarily on a survey of transit agencies. The regions responding to the survey featuring the largest numbers of examples are San Francisco, Washington (DC), Portland (OR), Atlanta and Dallas.15 While TOD can have a variety of benefits to a community or a region, Report 102 points out that “The most direct benefit of TOD is increased ridership and the associated revenue gains. Research shows that residents living near stations are five to six times more likely to commute via transit than are other residents in a region.” (p. S-6) The mixed-use aspects of many TODs are also important in their potential to generate transit trips during off-peak periods (i.e., for restaurants, stores and entertainment attractions), as well as during the peak commute periods. 15 TCRP Report 102, Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects (2004)