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.

4. Selection of Strategies Introduction Identifying strategies, actions and initiatives that can cost-effectively increase an agency’s ridership thus require the agency to identify and understand (1) the nature of the external factors affecting demand, (2) gaps in existing service – and opportunities for improvements, and (3) the service requirements of key market segments. The agency can then select strategies that address the identified types of needs – and that are appropriate to the particular service environment. An agency may choose to focus on a specific market segment and select a single type of strategy/initiative – or alternatively may opt for a broader set of strategies that target multiple segments. Considerations in choosing individual types of strategies are addressed in Chapters 5-8; this chapter discusses the selection of appropriate strategies for different types of service environments, including a review of the characteristics and common elements of successful agency examples. Service Environments and Strategies Beyond targeting different market segments, one of the keys to developing transit strategies that maximize ridership is to identify the most appropriate type(s) of services for specific service environments. While transit service has typically focused on the urban core, for instance, the increasing dispersion of employment and residences throughout metropolitan areas has increased the need for suburban-oriented transit services. Exurban and rural areas obviously require different approaches as well, and more specialized environments (e.g., downtown areas, college campus areas or major tourist attractions) may also merit consideration of specially-designed services. Identifying Types of Service Environments Service environments can be defined in different ways. The FTA, on its Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership website, has categorized its entries by population, for instance: • Rural area (under 50,000) • Small urbanized (50,000 – 200,000) • Medium urbanized (200,000 – 1 million) • Large urbanized (over 1 million in population) For some types of strategies -- service design considerations in particular -- it is useful to define more specific environments, including different types of suburban

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-2 settings as well as downtown areas and other specialized settings. While transit is provided in a broad range of environments, the following categories can be used to further define many agencies’ services: • Metropolitan – Service (often more than one mode) covers multiple types of settings within a metropolitan area; examples include agencies such as Chicago Transit Authority, Miami-Dade Transit Agency and Denver Regional Transit District. • Suburban – Service is focused on a suburban area or a stand-alone town/community within a metropolitan area; examples include the individual municipal services (e.g., Montebello Bus Lines, Culver CityBus, Santa Clarita Transit) in the Los Angeles area, or local services outside of Washington, DC (e.g., the Fairfax, VA Connector; Alexandria, VA DASH and Ride-On in Montgomery County, MD). • Downtown/Central Business District – Service is focused on the urban core, either on the downtown/CDB area or one or more urban neighborhoods; examples include the LADOT’s DASH intracommunity services in urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles. • Regional – Service covers multiple jurisdictions in a region; examples include commuter rail services such as Metra (Chicago area), SCRRA (Los Angeles area) and VRE (Washington, DC area). Finally, service may operate within or have a special market focus, such as • Tourist center – Examples include service in major tourist locations such as Las Vegas (NV) and Orlando (FL). • College area – This includes large campuses within metropolitan areas (e.g., University of Washington in Seattle, University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and Cleveland State University in Cleveland), as well as stand-alone “college towns” (e.g., Ann Arbor, MI; Chapel Hill, NC and Davis, CA). As discussed later in this chapter and in Appendix A, services designed to focus on such markets can be quite effective at generating ridership. One of these types of environment that has proven particularly challenging to transit agencies is the suburban environment. Effectively serving the increasingly dispersed travel patterns in suburban settings represents perhaps the single greatest challenge facing the transit industry. Suburban population and jobs have both grown much faster than in the central city: the population increase in the suburbs between 1990 and 2000 was two and half times the growth rate in central cities, and nearly three-quarters of job growth during the 1990’s occurred

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-3 in suburban areas. The crux of the suburban transit issue is summarized in TCRP Report 55 (Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation, 1999): “Average residential and employment densities today are not only much lower than a decade or more ago, but trip origins and destinations are also far more spread out. Nationwide, the share of work trips both beginning and ending in the suburbs, for instance, increased from 38 percent in 1970 to 52 percent in 1990. Traditional commuting paths are being replaced by a patchwork of radial, crosstown, lateral and reverse-direction travel. Increasingly, there is a mismatch between the geometry of traditional highway, bus, and rail networks, which mostly follow a hub-and-spoke pattern, and the geography of commuting, which seemingly moves in all directions. This has led to more circuitous trip making and increased suburban congestion.” (p. 4) Complicating the challenge of adequately serving suburban areas is the fact that there are a number of different types of suburban environments, each requiring a somewhat different focus. TCRP Report 55 identified six basic types of suburban land use environments: • “Residential suburbs, which occupy much of suburbia’s land mass, range from large-lot, single-family tract subdivisions to more compact settings, with a mixture of housing stock. • Balanced mixed use suburbs typically feature a mixture of housing, employment and commercial land uses. • Suburban campuses, which proliferated during the 1980’s, mainly comprise office parks, industrial estates, and low-density business centers. Most are master planned projects configured like university campuses. • Edge cities, the massive suburban downtowns that blossomed throughout metropolitan America in the 1980’s, feature many of the same land use mixes and sometimes match the employment densities of traditional downtowns. • Suburban corridors differ from many of the other operating settings in that they are linearly configured, often made up of an assemblage of land uses aligned along an axial thoroughfare or freeway. • Exurban corporate enclaves. . . is largely a 1990’s phenomenon. Research has documented the leapfrogging of new commercial developments into favored corridors and exurban frontiers in many growing parts of the country.” (p. 8)

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-4 The authors note that each of these “. . . represents a distinct operating setting that poses unique challenges to America’s public transit industry.” (p. 2) Hemily (Trends Affecting Public Transit’s Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Actions) suggests that edge cities in particular actually offer “. . . a relative opportunity to transit systems. They do represent a concentration of office and retail that creates a generator for transit ridership, more so than dispersed office parks in ‘Edgeless Cities’ or strip shopping mall.” (p. 11) Considerations in identifying appropriate types of strategies for different types of settings are discussed in the next section. Identifying Strategies for Different Service Environments General Applicability While most of the strategies aimed at increasing ridership are not tied to a specific type of setting or service environment, some will be more effective (or efficient) in certain environments. In particular, certain strategies (e.g., any involving fixed guideways or major capital investments) are unlikely to be cost- effective solutions in rural and small urban areas. Moreover, while most strategies are not mode-specific, several are either inappropriate or infeasible with rail services (i.e., those related to flexible service designs). The particular types of strategies used in each type of service environment are discussed in the remainder of this chapter and in Appendix A. Applicability for Suburban Environments As suggested above, addressing the needs of suburban areas represents a particular challenge – and opportunity -- to transit agencies. Report 55 explains that there are “. . . two basic categories of actions used to improve existing suburban networks:” (p. 10) • Actions to modify and improve the overall suburban transit framework – These represent the first step in mobility strategies of most suburban operators and are generally taken at a system level. They include the following: o Establishing a transit centers concept and timed transfer program o Enhancing line haul services, express buses and limited services. • Actions that create supporting/complementary services – This group includes those activities undertaken by transit operators to enhance and complete their network. Featured among these actions are the following: o Internal, local area circulators o Shuttle links

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-5 o Subscription buses o Vanpools. Table 4-1 identifies which of these types of actions are appropriate for each of the six suburban categories. (Examples of the different types of actions are identified in Appendix A and Chapters 5-8.) Developing a Family of Services In line with the above discussion regarding different suburban environments, transit agencies are increasingly recognizing the need for a mix of products/services. As suggested in Chapter 3, it is becoming more and more apparent that “one size does not fit all.” Rather, a metropolitan area is likely to be best served with an integrated network of different types and levels of service – a family of services targeted to different market segments and service environments. Such an approach is exemplified in the basic elements defined as part of a service restructuring study undertaken by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) in the Buffalo (NY) region in the mid-1990’s1: Table 4-1: Matrix of Suburban Transit Service Strategies and Land Use Environments Type of Action Residential suburbs Balanced mix- use suburbs Suburban campuses Edge cities Suburban corridors Exurban enclaves Modifications to overall framework Transit centers ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Express routes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Limited routes ■ ■ ■ ■ Actions creating complementary or supporting services Fixed route circulators ■ ■ ■ ■ Route deviation circulators ■ ■ Demand response circulators ■ ■ Rail station to employment shuttles ■ ■ ■ ■ Residence to bus/rail shuttle: fixed route ■ ■ Residence to bus/rail shuttle: route deviation ■ Residence to bus/rail shuttle: demand response ■ Midday employee shuttles ■ ■ ■ Subscription bus ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Vanpools ■ ■ ■ Source: TCRP Report 55 (Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation, 1999), p. 18 1 (Multisystems, Inc. et al., Transportation Restructuring Study for Western New York -- Final Report, December 1997, p. 6-1.)

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-6 • Provide different services in the urban, suburban and rural areas designed to meet each area’s specific needs: The plan built on the existing bus and LRT network and existing transit hubs, adding innovative and more flexible services to enhance collection and distribution around an expanded group of hubs. • Establish transit hubs at key locations throughout the region: It was suggested that the hubs include well-lit and weather-protected waiting areas, as well as parking and improved user information. • Strengthen fixed route services along major corridors between hubs: Performance of all routes was reviewed, and recommendations were developed for improving service in selected corridors and modifying poorly performing routes or replacing them with alternative services. • Develop local circulation and feeder services around hubs: In low density suburban and rural areas, flexible services using small vehicles were recommended. These included community-based circulators and services targeting specific activity centers such as shopping malls, employment centers and college campuses. • Introduce services targeted to particular markets: Recommended target markets included inner city reverse commuters, groups of workers to specific employment centers and seniors and other transit dependent people. • Incorporate supporting/complementary elements: Recommendations included expansion of the guaranteed ride home and employer-subsidized transit pass programs, as well as improvements for pedestrians and accommodations for bicycles. • Collaborate with private and non-profit organizations to enhance the effectiveness of the transportation network: These recommendations focused on coordinating efforts with private and non-profit paratransit carriers and human service agency-funded transportation programs. Of course, providing a mix of products/services also applies to other categories of strategies/actions. For example, most agencies offer a range of fare payment options, often including one or more discounted prepaid passes as well as multi- ride instruments (e.g., 10-ride tickets, stored value farecards or packs of tokens). With the properly-designed mix of options and prices, sometimes incorporating strategies such as “deep discounting,” many agencies have succeeded at generating increased ridership levels without losing revenue (or, alternatively, raising revenue without losing ridership).

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-7 Many agencies have also discovered the value of utilizing targeted marketing programs, and in fact, as mentioned earlier, FTA is sponsoring a series of “individualized marketing” demonstrations. Finally, with regard to disseminating information to riders, agencies are beginning to utilize a range of automated pre- trip and real-time transit information applications to supplement traditional information strategies. (Examples of use of the various types of strategies are included in Appendix A and Chapters 5-8.) Identifying Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Potential Strategies Selecting appropriate strategies also requires identifying the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. TCRP Report 28 reviewed the cost- effectiveness of various service concepts at contributing to ridership increases at approximately 60 US transit agencies. Of the 40 concepts considered, the researchers determined that 13 were effective at increasing total system ridership (see Table 4-2). The researchers conducted a preliminary assessment of the cost-effectiveness of these concepts, estimating the capital and operating cost “. . . for each new trip gained for a transit system by each transit service concept, both initially and over time.” (p. 45) The results of this assessment are shown in Table 4-2. The costs represented in the table are in comparison to average peak period bus service unit costs: “low” costs are roughly equivalent to the average peak bus unit cost, “very low” costs are lower than the average unit cost, “moderate” costs are up to 50% higher than the average unit cost, “high” costs are up to twice the average unit cost, and “very high” translates to at least twice the average unit cost. Based on this analysis, the authors concluded “The preliminary cost- effectiveness assessments suggest that some of the effective concepts are often relatively inexpensive to implement in many cases (e.g., travel training, vanpool incentives, reverse commute, and route restructuring). Others are very expensive per ride and should be carefully considered before being implemented as a way to target new markets.” (p. 49) Cost considerations for different types of service and fare collection strategies are discussed in Chapters 5 and 8, respectively. The next section reviews considerations in evaluating ridership impacts, including: what are the tradeoffs with other goals and what types of measures should be used?

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-8 Table 4-2: Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness of Successful Service Concepts Estimated Cost per New Net Trip Initially Long Term Successful Service Concepts Capital Operating Total Capital Operating Total Feeder Services None to low Low to moderate Low Low Low to Moderate Low Service to Large Employers None to low Low to moderate Low to Moderate Low Low to Moderate Low to moderate Express Buses None to low Moderate Low to Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Reverse Commute Services None to low Low Low Low Low Low Vanpool Incentives Low to moderate Very low to low Low Low to moderate Very low Low Fare Incentives NA None to low Very low to low NA Very low to low Low Park-n-Ride Moderate to high Moderate Moderate to high Low Moderate Moderate Travel Training NA Low to moderate Low NA Low Low Route Restructuring None to low None to low Low Low Low Low Community Buses Moderate Low to moderate Moderate Moderate Low to moderate Moderate Special Events Low to moderate Low Low Low Low Low Commuter Rail Very high High to very high Very high Low to moderate High Moderate to high Light Rail High to very high High to very high High to very high Low to moderate Moderate to high Moderate to high Note: costs compared to average peak period bus service unit costs Source: TCRP Report 28, Transit Markets for the Future – The Challenge of Change, 1998 (p. 48 – Table 20) Evaluating Ridership Impacts The first step in identifying successful examples of achieving and sustaining high ridership is defining how to measure “success.” Achieving high ridership can be a significant challenge due simply to the various types of external factors discussed in Chapter 2. Moreover, transit agencies invariably face a certain level of natural attrition of ridership, losing regular riders who move to a new city, change jobs (and can no longer use transit to commute), graduate from school, buy cars, or otherwise stop using transit on a regular basis. Thus, in order to experience a net gain in ridership, an agency must attract enough new riders – and/or expand usage by existing riders – to more than offset the level of attrition. Conversely, an agency showing a net ridership loss may actually be successfully attracting new riders, but simply not enough to replace those leaving the system.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-9 Considering Tradeoffs Related to Competing Goals Evaluating ridership success is also complicated by the fact that transit agencies must deal with the reality of competing goals and constraints; in particular, every agency must inevitably make trade-offs between trying to increase ridership and needing to (1) increase – or at least maintain – operating revenue, and (2) control – if not reduce – costs. As explained in TCRP Research Results Digest (RRD) No. 4, and reiterated in RRD No. 29, “increasing absolute ridership levels is not the sole or even primary criterion for ‘success’ across the industry. Success can be and is defined in a variety of ways. Frequently, ridership is combined with or even subordinated to financial and budgetary objectives. Relatively few systems are free to pursue increased ridership with unconstrained resources; relatively few systems can sustain the quality and performance of expanded service without increased funding” (p. 5). This tension between ridership and revenue goals often constrains consideration of fare-related initiatives, for example. While an agency may be tempted to reduce fares – or perhaps introduce a new low-priced pass – in an effort to attract riders, budget constraints may prohibit consideration of such an option. Similarly, the ridership growth resulting from a service expansion must be weighed against the increased costs. Other types of goals that may compete with increasing ridership include equity considerations (e.g., requiring or preventing certain types of service improvements or fare incentives that are targeted to certain markets) and political considerations (e.g., requiring the continuation of poorly-utilized service on certain routes favored by board members or local policy-makers). It is important to consider the impacts of these types of trade-offs in attempting to identify successful examples of achieving and sustaining high ridership. TCRP RRD 4 further notes that, in light of competing goals, “success is often defined informally as minimizing the ridership losses from measures taken to increase revenues or constrain costs” (p. 5). Identifying Ridership Evaluation Measures Measures that can be used to evaluate the success of ridership strategies include changes/trends in the following: • Systemwide ridership (e.g., increased from the previous year, or continued growth – or at least sustained levels – over several consecutive years) • Market share of particular target markets (e.g., increased ridership among market segments such as commuters, college students, seniors or mid- day riders) • Per capita ridership (e.g., high level compared to other agencies within a similar type of service environment)

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-10 • Productivity (e.g., increased passengers per hour from the previous year) The most appropriate measure(s) in any particular instance will depend to some extent on the types of ridership strategies or initiatives an agency has implemented. In considering systemwide marketing or service restructuring programs, for example, broad measures such as systemwide ridership growth or high per capita ridership are appropriate. If an agency is expanding service only on certain routes, however, it may be more appropriate to consider productivity measures, rather than simply looking at the total change in ridership. For, if the number of passengers per hour declines on a targeted route, a particular action may not be considered “successful” in terms of cost-effectiveness despite an increase in absolute ridership. Meanwhile, for strategies that are targeted to specific markets, a significant increase in that particular market share may represent the most useful indicator of the initiative’s success. The remainder of this chapter discusses the characteristics and common elements of successful agency examples of use of ridership strategies. Elements of Successful Strategies Task 2 of this study involved the identification of examples of transit agency strategies, actions and initiatives that have proven successful at generating – and in many cases sustaining – significant ridership increases. The results of this analysis are detailed in Appendix A; the key findings/conclusions of this effort are reviewed below. Characteristics of Successful US Examples Sources of Examples As explained in Appendix A, a set of 207 individual strategies or projects recently utilized by 97 US transit agencies to increase ridership was compiled and reviewed. These examples came from the following sources: • Previous research – Ridership trends over the past several years were reviewed for the examples presented in earlier studies of ridership strategies. Just over a third of the agencies considered were able to produce at least as much ridership growth between 1999 and 2003 as they had in 1994-1996. These agencies, as well as several others that experienced ridership gains of 10% or more in 1999-2003, were included in our list of successful examples. • FTA’s Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership database – Many of the projects reported on this website were used in our list of successful examples.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-11 • Other sources, including newsletter/magazine articles – Several examples were selected from recent articles detailing agencies’ efforts and results. For each of the examples selected, systemwide ridership impacts for the past four years, as well as population changes and productivity information, were provided. The review also considered, where available, the reported ridership impacts of the different types of strategies (e.g., the change in demand on a particular route or a change in market share for a particular segment). Most of the agencies experienced systemwide ridership growth between 1999 and 2003. However, also included were a number of agencies that did not see overall ridership gains but significantly increased demand or market share on a targeted route/corridor/market segment. • Nearly three-quarters of these agencies experienced systemwide ridership increases between 1999 and 2003; nearly half saw gains of 10% or more, while a third had growth of 20% or more. This level of growth is noteworthy, as the transit industry overall saw less than a 2.8% aggregate ridership gain during these four years – and a 2.3% aggregate loss between 2001 and 2003. Types of Strategies/Actions/Initiatives Used The agencies reviewed here reported using the full range of types of ridership strategies, and many agencies used more than 1 strategy: • Nearly 40% (38 of 97) of the agencies identified a combination of 2 or more types of strategies (e.g., operating/service adjustments and fare collection); 6 of these agencies deployed strategies from 3 or more categories. Moreover, 12 of the agencies that used only 1 category deployed 2 or more projects within that category. Over half of the agencies therefore indicated use of more than 1 project in an effort to boost ridership. A total of 8 agencies each identified 5 or more individual projects. The overall average was just over 2 projects per agency.2 • While all of the possible combinations of types of strategies were used, operating/service adjustments and marketing/promotional initiatives represent the most common pairing. It is natural to combine marketing with service or other improvements, in order to inform the public about the changes being introduced. • Operating/service adjustments were the most common type of strategy, being deployed by nearly 60% of the agencies (57 agencies). Nearly 40% 2 As noted in Appendix A, the list of strategies reviewed represented only those identified by the agencies as examples. Many of these agencies have actually utilized additional strategies in recent years in an effort to generate higher ridership. Thus, while it is useful to review the distribution of different categories of strategies identified by these agencies, it is important to remember that we have not assembled an exhaustive list of the ridership initiatives each agency has undertaken.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-12 of the agencies used partnership/coordination initiatives (36 agencies) and about 30% used marketing/promotional initiatives (30 agencies), while about a quarter deployed fare collection/structure initiatives (22 agencies). o Among the 43 large urban area agencies, the distribution of types of strategies was relatively even: 12 – 21 of each type. o Among the other 2 groups, operating/service adjustments were much more predominant; over 75% of the agencies in medium urban areas, for instance, used operating/service adjustments, as opposed to 41% partnership/coordination, 24% marketing/promotional and 17% fare collection/structure projects. The distribution of the specific types of projects reported by all of the agencies is summarized in Table 4-3. Key points include the following: • The most widely used subcategory of actions was routing/coverage adjustments (43 projects, or 21% of all projects). This was followed by partnerships (35, or 17%) and marketing/promotion initiatives (32, or 15%). These were used considerably more than the next most common subcategory, information improvements (19, or 9%). The least used were fare structure changes (9, or 4%) and coordination (11, or 5%). • With regard to specific types of project, the most common were university/school pass programs (24 projects), increased route coverage (23 projects), and general marketing/promotional campaigns (23 projects), each representing more than 10% of all projects; these were followed by route restructuring (13 projects) and improved payment convenience initiatives (13 projects). o Among the large urban area agencies, the most popular types of project were general marketing/promotional campaigns (14 projects), university/school pass programs (10) and improved payment convenience initiatives (9). o Among the medium urban area agencies, the most common types of project were increased route coverage (9 projects) and general marketing/promotional campaigns (8). o Among the small urban/rural area agencies, university/school pass programs (8 projects) and increased route coverage (8) were by far the most popular types of project.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-13 Table 4-3: Frequency of Use by Type of Project (All Areas) Category/Subcategory Type of Strategy Number of Projects Operating/Service Adjustments 81 Routing/coverage adjustments 43 Increased route coverage 23 Route restructuring 13 Improved schedule/route coordination 7 Scheduling/frequency adjustments 11 Increased service frequency 4 Increased span of service 4 Improved reliability/on-time performance 3 New types of service 13 Improved travel speed/reduced stops 9 Targeted services 4 Improved amenities 14 Passenger facility improvements 9 New/improved vehicles 3 Increased security 1 Increased safety 1 Partnerships/Coordination 49 Partnerships 35 University/school pass programs 24 Travel demand management strategies 12 Privately-subsidized activity center service 3 Coordination 11 Consistent regional (inter-agency) operating policies 2 Coordination with social service agencies 7 Coordination with other transportation agencies - Promotion of transit-supportive design/TOD 2 Marketing/Promotional and Information Initiatives 51 Marketing/promotional initiatives 32 Targeted marketing/promotions 9 General marketing/promotions 23 Information improvements 19 Improved informational materials 8 Improved customer information/assistance 4 Automated transit traveler information 7 Fare Collection/Fare Structure Initiatives 26 Fare collection improvements 17 Improved payment convenience 13 Regional payment integration 4 Fare structure changes 9 Fare structure simplification 2 Fare reduction 7 Ridership and Productivity Impacts Beyond absolute ridership changes, it is useful to examine the impact of ridership-enhancing strategies on service productivity.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-14 Table 4-4: Large Urban Agencies with Highest Ridership Growth (’99 - ‘03)* Type of Strategies Identified Agency % Ridership change (’99-’03) Rides per capita (’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Pasco Co. Public Transit (FL) 697% 1.2 X Los Angeles DOT (CA) 272% 2.8 X X Tempe Transit (AZ) 156% 40.0 X Virginia Railway Express (VA/DC) 83% 4.7 X Fairfax Connector (VA) 59% 7.6 X X Montebello Bus Lines (CA) 48% 36.0 X Johnson Co. Transit (KS) 38% 1.4 X Ft. Worth Transportation Authority (TX) 36% 12.3 X Broward Co. Division of Transportation (FL) 36% 22.1 X Santa Clarita Transit (CA) 35% 19.4 X X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). • Nearly two-thirds of these agencies (63 of 97) experienced reductions in productivity between 1999 and 2003; this includes 39 agencies (40%) that had gained ridership during the period. This resulted from the fact that, while most of these agencies had increased the amount of service provided, the growth in demand fell short of the increase in service (revenue-vehicle hours). • Thus, while these agencies were successful at raising ridership, their service effectiveness – and hence their cost-effectiveness (cost per rider) – was reduced somewhat. This underscores the need for agencies to carefully consider the tradeoff between increasing ridership and controlling costs. Relationship between Types of Strategies and Ridership Those agencies that experienced the largest percentage systemwide ridership increases between 1999-2003 deployed strategies spread among all four categories of strategies, although operating/service adjustments were most common, followed by marketing/promotional and informational initiatives: • Among the agencies in large urban areas, operating/service adjustments and/or marketing/promotional initiatives were utilized by the 3 agencies that experienced the highest ridership gains (Pasco County, FL; Los Angeles DOT; and Tempe (AZ) Transit). Among the 21 agencies in this category that had ridership increases of 10% or more, 14 used operating/service adjustments, 8 marketing/promotional efforts, 5 fare collection/structure initiatives and 2 partnership/coordination projects. (The types of strategies identified by the large urban area agencies with the ten largest ridership increases are summarized in Table 4-4.)

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-15 Table 4-5: Medium Urban Agencies with Highest Ridership Growth (’99 - ‘03)* Type of Strategies Identified Agency % Ridership change (’99-’03) Rides per capita (’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Portage Area Regional Trans. Auth. (Kent, OH) 102% 0.8 X Capital Area Trans. Auth. (Lansing, MI) 79% 27.6 X Ventura Intercity Service Transit (CA) 60% 2.8 X X Chapel Hill Transit (NC) 52% 92.2 X Interurban Transit Partnership (Grand Rapids, MI) 39% 11.2 X X Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) 33% 17.5 X X X X Connecticut DOT (Hartford, CT) 28% 1.5 X X Salem-Keiser Transit (OR) 28% 24.9 X Lee Co. Transit (Ft. Myers, FL) 26% 8.3 X Cape Cod Regional Transit Auth. (Hyannis, MA) 22% 0.1 X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). • In the medium urban area category, the 2 agencies with the highest increases (PARTA in Kent, OH; and CATA in Lansing, MI) reported operating/service adjustments only. Among the 13 agencies in this category that had ridership gains of 10% or more, 9 used operating/service adjustments, 6 marketing/promotional efforts, 4 partnership/coordination projects and 3 fare collection/structure initiatives. (The types of strategies identified by the medium urban area agencies with the ten largest ridership increases are summarized in Table 4-5.) • The 3 small urban/rural agencies with the highest increases (CATA in State College, PA; RTS in Gainesville, FL; and CityBus in Lafayette, IN) all had partnership/coordination projects, although one of them (CityBus) also deployed a fare collection/structure initiative. Among the 12 agencies in this category that had ridership gains of 10% or more, 7 used operating/service adjustments, 5 partnership/coordination projects, 3 fare collection/structure initiatives, and 2 marketing/promotional efforts. (The types of strategies identified by the small urban/rural area agencies with the ten largest ridership increases are summarized in Table 4-6.) Relationship between Geography/Population Change and Ridership The geographical distribution of the highest gaining agencies (i.e., 10% or greater growth over the four-year period) differs markedly for the 3 area size categories: • In the large urban areas, the high growth agencies are, as might be expected, concentrated in the west coast, south and mid-Atlantic regions: 9 of the 21 agencies are on the west coast (primarily Southern California), 5 are in the mid-Atlantic region (in and around Washington, DC), and 3 are in Florida; only 1 is in the northeast and none are in the midwest.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-16 Table 4-6: Small Urban/Rural Agencies with Highest Ridership Growth (’99 - ‘03)* Type of Strategies Identified Agency % Ridership change (’99-’03) Rides per capita (’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Centre Area Trans. Auth. (State College, PA) 101% 72.3 X CityBus of Greater Lafayette (IN) 84% 35.8 X X Regional Transit System (Gainesville, FL) 84% 56.2 X Fargo Metro Area Transit (ND) 45% 5.1 X Santa Maria Area Transit (CA) 44% 6.2 X X Kalamazoo Transit Division (MI) 38% 15.9 X Logan Transit District (UT) 36% 18.5 X University Transport System (Davis, CA) 34% 47.6 X Bangor Area Comp. Transit System (ME) 33% 9.9 X X Cheyenne Transit Program (WY) 20% 3.4 X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). • In contrast, more of the highest ridership medium urban systems (6 agencies) are located in the midwest and northeast than in the south or west coast (5 agencies). • The majority (58%) of the small urban/rural agencies are located in the northeast and midwest; only 3 are on the west coast or south. While population growth is clearly one of many factors contributing to ridership growth, there is no evidence among these examples of a strong correlation between the extent of the population change and the level of ridership change: • For the large urban areas, there is significant variation in the rate of population growth among the highest ridership agencies; moreover, the 2 areas that experienced the greatest population increases (Las Vegas and San Juan) actually lost riders during the evaluation period. Conversely, the Los Angeles area, home of 6 of the agencies with the highest ridership gains, had the smallest population growth among all of these areas. • The 3 medium urban area agencies with the highest ridership increases experienced relatively modest population growth – or in 1 case, a significant loss; meanwhile, 3 of the highest growth areas lost riders during the 4 year period. • Among the small urban/rural agencies, there is even less of a correlation between population change and ridership: nearly half (7 of 13) of the areas with the largest population increases were not among the higher ridership gainers, while 7 of the 12 agencies with the highest ridership

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-17 gains were not among the areas showing the highest population increases. Table 4-7: Large Urban Agencies with Highest Per Capita Ridership* Type of Strategies Identified Agency Rides per capita (’03) % Ridership change (’99-’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Washington Metro Area Transit Auth. (DC) 299.5 10% X X MTA New York City Transit (NY) 146.8 8% X Chicago Transit Authority (IL) 127.5 2% X X X X Southeastern Penn. Trans. Auth. (Philadelphia, PA) 95.8 4% X Massachusetts Bay Trans. Auth. (Boston, MA) 85.6 10% X Tri-Co. Metro. Transit District (Portland, OR) 77.8 20% X X King Co. Dept. of Transportation (Seattle, WA) 53.6 (1%) X Miami-Dade Transit Agency (FL) 41.5 2% X Greater Cleveland Regional Trans. Auth. (OH) 42.0 (12%) X X X Tempe Transit (AZ) 40.0 156% X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). Per Capita Usage As indicated above, per capita ridership represents another means of comparing agencies’ success at generating transit usage.3 Key findings related to this measure are as follows: • More than two-thirds (66, or 68%) of the 97 agencies carry 10 or more riders per capita per year; 26 (27%) carry 25 or more; 11 (11%) carry 50 or more. o Among the large urban areas, there is no clear correlation between type of strategies used and per capita ridership levels. The agencies with per capita figures of 25 or higher identified using all 4 types of strategies in virtually equal numbers: 7 agencies used operating/service adjustments, while the other 3 categories were each used by 6 agencies; 6 of these 16 agencies deployed 2 or more types of strategies, and 3 each used 3 or more types. (Table 4-7 shows the types of strategies identified by the large urban areas with the ten highest per capita ridership figures.) 3 As discussed in Appendix A (p. A-18), while per capita ridership is a useful measure, it is strongly affected by the definition of each agency’s service area. The service area is determined by such factors as the types of modes operated by the agency (e.g., whether it includes commuter rail) and the existence of other agencies serving the same region or metropolitan area. Thus, two agencies located in cities of comparable sizes can have rather different service area populations. This should be kept in mind in reviewing per capita figures.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-18 o Among the medium urban areas, operating/service adjustments were used by 14 of the 19 agencies with per capita ridership figures of 10 or higher. The other 3 types of strategies saw lower levels of usage: 9 agencies used partnership/coordination initiatives, 6 used Table 4-8: Medium Urban Agencies with Highest Per Capita Ridership* Type of Strategies Identified Agency Rides per capita (’03) % Ridership change (’99-’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Chapel Hill Transit (NC) 92.2 52% X Capital Area Trans. Auth. (Lansing, MI) 27.6 79% X Regional Transportation Comm. (Reno, NV) 25.4 6% X Salem-Keiser Transit (OR) 24.9 28% X Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (MI) 19.8 0% X X Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) 17.5 33% X X X X Corpus Christi Regional Trans. Authority (TX) 16.4 (8) X X South Bend Public Transportation Corp. (IN) 16.3 (4%) X Norwalk Transit District (CT) 16.3 (5%) X Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority (CT) 16.2 (9%) X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). marketing/promotional initiatives, and 4 fare collection/structure initiatives; 9 of these agencies deployed 2 or more types of strategies, and 3 each used 3 or more types. While operating/service adjustments predominated in this group, however, the agency with by far the highest per capita ridership used only a fare collection strategy (the elimination of fares). (Table 4-8 shows the types of strategies identified by the medium urban areas with the ten highest per capita ridership figures.) o Among the small urban/rural areas, the agencies with per capita ridership figures of 10 or higher most often deployed partnership/coordination strategies (11) and operating/service adjustments (8); fare collection/structure and marketing/promotional initiatives were used by 3 and 2 agencies, respectively. The agencies in this size category were more apt to use a single type of strategy than those in the larger areas: 5 agencies deployed 2 types of strategies, while none used 3 or more types. (Table 4-9 shows the types of strategies identified by the small urban/rural areas with the ten highest per capita ridership figures.) • As would be expected, the bulk of the highest usage agencies are located in large urban areas; 7 (64%) of the over 50 group, 16 (62%) of those over 25 and 30 (45%) of those over 10. However, the small urban/rural group has the next largest percentages of high usage agencies: 3 (27%) of the over 50 group, 6 (23%) of those over 25 and 17 (26%) of those over 10.

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-19 • The relatively high per capita ridership figures at a number of agencies in both the small urban/rural and medium urban categories can be attributed, at least in part, to their presence in a particular service environment: 8 of the 10 highest levels among the small urban/rural agencies (see Table 4- Table 4-9: Small Urban/Rural Agencies with Highest Per Capita Riders)* Type of Strategies Identified Agency Rides per capita (’03) % Ridership change (’99-’03) Oper. / service Partner. / coord. Mktng / prom. / info. Fare collec. / struc. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (IL) 74.6 8% X Centre Area Trans. Auth. (State College, PA) 72.3 101% X Regional Transit System (Gainesville, FL) 56.2 84% X University Transport System (Davis, CA) 47.6 34% X CityBus of Greater Lafayette (IN) 35.8 84% X X Tompkins Consol. Area Transit (Ithaca, NY) 28.7 19% X X Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (CA) 24.1 (3%) X X Chittenden Co. Trans. Authority (Burlington, VT) 19.0 7% X Logan Transit District (UT) 18.5 36% X Whatcom Trans. Authority (Bellingham, WA) 17.6 4% X X * This list covers only those agencies reviewed in this study (see Appendix A). 9), as well as 3 of the 5 highest levels among medium urban agencies (see Table 4-8), occur at agencies in major university towns. In addition, 2 of the other small urban/rural agencies – as well as 5 of the medium urban agencies – with 10 or more rides per capita feature university-oriented strategies. The large urban group also includes substantial use of university-oriented strategies, as half of the agencies with per capita ridership levels of 25 or greater – and 4 of 7 agencies carrying 50 or more – have deployed such strategies. • Among those with per capita usage figures of 10 or more, 31 (47%) are located in the northeast (17) or midwest (14), and 10 are in California. The others are relatively evenly distributed among the other parts of the country. Among those with levels of 25 or higher, 11 of 27 (41%) are in the midwest (6) or northeast (5). Among those with levels over 50, 4 are in the northeast. • Among the large urban area agencies, the highest per capita usage levels are, as expected, by and large associated with the largest – and highest ridership – agencies, and these are predominantly older, more mature systems located in the northeast, midwest and mid-Atlantic regions (see Table 4-7).

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-20 • As can be seen in Tables 4-5 through 4-9, the agencies with the highest per capita ridership figures are not necessarily the agencies that have had the highest percentage ridership increases. o In the large urban group, only half of the agencies that experienced 20% or more ridership growth (1999-2003) are among the higher per capita ridership agencies. o For the medium and small groups, this figure is 55% and 70%, respectively. In each of these categories, though, there is considerable overlap among the agencies with the highest per capita levels: the 2 medium urban area agencies with the highest per capita usage levels also had among the 4 highest ridership increases; and 5 of the 6 small urban/rural agencies with per capita usage levels over 25 also had among the 4 highest ridership increases. Successful Examples from Abroad Despite the much higher rates of transit usage outside of the US, it was felt that inclusion of examples from abroad would provide useful information for US agencies. Thus, 28 selected ridership strategies, representing 17 agencies from Canada, Mexico, Europe and South America were included in this review (see Appendix A). Key points from the review of examples from abroad are as follows. Factors Influencing High Ridership A range of elements contributes to the high transit mode share abroad, and certain factors relate to an underlying physical, economic and political environment favoring transit that are simply not present in most US cities. These factors include very high fuel prices and densely developed (and often physically constrained) towns and cities. However, certain practices and policies used in other countries could be given further consideration in US cities. The key elements include: • Emphasis on convenient, reliable and comfortable transit service (e.g., provision of transit priority in mixed traffic, long spacing between stops, advanced information systems and improved passenger amenities) • Policies/practices making transit competitive with the automobile (e.g., implementation of central city parking limits and restricted auto use in certain areas) • Comprehensive integration of land use/development policies and transit planning (e.g., formal rules and guidelines on making development designs and street improvements conducive to transit service). Types of Strategies

TCRP H-32: Interim Guidebook 4-21 A set of examples of innovative transit efforts from these countries was developed. The key types of strategies represented were: • Bus rapid transit and other premium bus services • Real-time traveler information systems • Smart card-based regional payment systems The success of such strategies has led US agencies to begin to adopt them in the past few years. While it is unlikely that most – if any – US cities will ever be able to approach the levels of transit usage found in these countries, continued expansion of the types of approaches studied here will doubtless bolster the efforts of US agencies to increase ridership. Conclusions The review of examples from both the US and abroad has shown that transit agencies in all types of environment have successfully utilized a broad range of strategies to increase ridership – if not systemwide then at least within a targeted market segment, route or corridor. External factors, as discussed in Chapter 2, doubtless played major roles in producing ridership change in many of the locations studied here. Nevertheless, these agency strategies – often used in combination – have apparently been key factors in their own right. While operating and service adjustments were the most frequently used type of strategy, these agencies have demonstrated the effective usage of various marketing and fare-related actions as well. Moreover, partnerships and coordination with entities such as universities, employers and social service agencies have proven effective at tapping key markets; university/school pass programs actually represented the single most widely used strategy. However, there is no clear evidence from this review that any particular type of strategy is significantly more effective at boosting demand than the others. These agencies identified an average of just over two strategies apiece, and the largest ridership gains were attributable to different types and combinations of strategies. What has become clear is the importance of each agency (1) identifying its own needs and opportunities and (2) selecting one or more strategies that it feels will address these needs/opportunities. As discussed in Chapter 3, this requires developing an understanding of the gaps and inefficiencies in the existing service network as well as characteristics and service needs of different market segments. The following chapters present guidance on selecting and implementing appropriate strategies.