Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Providers, Volume II: Research Report (2015)

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.

10 Introduction Many transit agencies across the United States are working with each other to create effective, efficient regional transit networks and to make it easier for their riders to travel across bound- aries and between systems. Four key tasks were undertaken in this research to document these efforts by transit agencies: • The team researched examples of transit integration/coordination across the country and selected 19 exemplary integration efforts to document as “agency profiles,” including two international examples. • A far-reaching literature review was developed to describe not only the scope of transit coordi- nation and integration but also the depth of knowledge that has been generated on this topic. • In-depth case studies were conducted to thoroughly examine the coordination experience in six communities selected by the TCRP project panel from the 19 profiles. During the site visit, the research team conducted several hours of interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders involved in these projects. They also toured facilities and observed operations. • Costs and benefits were assessed for the project profiles and case studies, including a detailed cost–benefit assessment of the ORCA integration effort in Oregon’s Central Puget Sound region. During the first phase of research, recognizing that integration among multiple transit provid- ers is an expansive topic, the research team created five focus areas to organize the breadth of potential integration activities into the following clear and simple framework. C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach Focus Areas Customer-Oriented Focus Areas 1. Services: This focus area includes the coordination of transit services that are perceptible to a transit rider. These projects are mostly focused on efforts that affect “wheels on the road” rather than operational issues and assets that would not be directly perceived by transit riders in their daily use of a system. This could include efforts such as timed transfers, coordinated modal connec- tions, and jointly operated routes and services. 2. Fares: This focus area includes anything related to fare policy, fare media, coordinated fare structures, discounted transfers, universal fare cards, and universal transit passes.

Research Approach 11 Agency Profiles The 19 transit agency profiles were used as a tool to inform the research team and panel in selecting case studies for further research. The profiles include efforts to improve system connec- tivity and usability through better coordination of schedules, fares, and branding across multiple transit providers. They also include examples of resource sharing, transit cooperatives that lobby for funding, joint procurement, joint station and route development, and other “behind the scenes” coordination less visible to the riders. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the 19 profile sites and six case study sites, which were selected by the TCRP project panel from the profiles. The profiles are summarized in Table 2-1. Many of the profiles cover multiple focus areas; however, the research team selected only the one or two focus areas that best reflect the main impetus for the coordination/integration effort. Full profiles are included in Appendix H. Literature Review The research team surveyed over 100 documents, including reports, conference proceedings, and academic papers on a range of relevant topics about transit integration. The review showed that objective evaluations of integration practices are difficult because of a lack of quantitative data and the complexity of accounting for certain costs and benefits. However, most evidence 3. Marketing/Customer Service and Information: This focus area includes any- thing related to customer interfaces such as marketing materials, website development, customer call centers, transit trip planning resources, mobility management, and coordinated signage and wayfinding. This does not include efforts related to fares, which fall into the prior category. Agency-Oriented Focus Areas 4. Operations, Maintenance, and Assets: This focus area includes coordination and integration efforts that relate to the transit agency’s operations and the construction and/or maintenance of capital assets and infrastructure. It is distin- guished from services because it primarily represents the perspective of a tran- sit agency rather than that of a transit rider. In other words, the focus is less on “wheels on the road” and more on the fixed assets of an agency and the oper- ational issues that occur behind the scenes. For example, whereas coordinated transfers would fall under Services (the first focus area), the development and operation of a station that is shared by multiple agencies would appear in this fourth focus area. Efforts under this area could include sharing of vehicles, station development and maintenance, technologies, or vehicle maintenance functions. Transit agency consolidation would be included in this focus area even though consolidation would encompass a number of other focus areas. 5. Administration/Procurement: This focus area includes subjects related to administrative issues and back office functions such as procurement (including vehicles), administrative services, capital and long-range planning, lobbying for and acquiring joint funding, and staff training and human resources. Many of these efforts will be directed toward cost-saving measures that are achieved through bulk purchases and/or sharing resources across multiple partners.

12 Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Providers suggests that integration practices are typically net positive developments wherever they are applied. The challenges of integration, which can be significant, may be underrepresented in the literature. It is an ongoing, often difficult process that engages agencies with different cultures, policies, and personalities. Mutually establishing a well-defined goal or set of goals at the outset is vital for keeping collaboration activities oriented to and measurable against a desired result. The literature makes it clear that specific integration activities must be carefully adapted to their context. The full literature review can be found in Appendix G. Case Studies The research team conducted site visits during the summer of 2013 to six regions of the coun- try where multiple transit agencies have exhibited successful levels of coordination/integration. These six sites were selected by the TCRP project panel from 19 profiles of notable examples of integration previously developed by the research team. From the 19 profiles, the “best” case study candidate(s) within each focus area was(were) selected. Ensuring a representative mix of system sizes and types and broad geographic representation were also considerations in site selection. Figure 2-1. Map of transit integration and coordination locations used for agency profiles and case studies.

Research Approach 13 9 NJ Transit New Jersey Transit Statewide New Jersey Trenton Transit Center hosting multiple operators; passenger information about multiple operators; development of the "Capitol Connector,” co- branded buses serving downtown Trenton. X X 5 Model Orlando Regionally Efficient Travel Management Coordination Center (MORE TMCC) LYNX, Polk County Transit, Citrus Connection, six human service agencies Orlando Florida Use of web-based scheduling system to foster coordination of fares, fare policy, service delivery, and cost sharing between public transit, human service agencies, and veterans’ services. X X 6 Quad Cities Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District (MetroLINK), Bettendorf Transit, Citibus IA: Davenport, Bettendorf IL: Rock Island, Moline Iowa and Illinois Universal fare card and creation of a riverfront circulator that serves four city downtowns in two states. X X 7 CATA/Clinton Transit/Eaton Capital Area Transportation Authority, Clinton Transit, Eaton Lansing Michigan Coordinated transfers at county borders; joint vehicle procurement. X X 8 Suburban Transit Association (STA) Southwest Metro Transit, Plymouth MetroLink, Maple Grove Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, Shakopee Transit, Prior Lake Transit, Metro Transit Eden Prairie, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, St. Paul Minnesota Integrated regional fare structure and joint information and marketing. X X No. Name of Integration Example Transit Agency/ Agencies Profiled City/ Jurisdiction State/ Country Description Focus Area Se rv ic es Fa re s M ar ke tin g/ C us t. Se rv ic e & In fo . O ps / M ai nt en an ce / As se ts Ad m in ./ Pr oc ur em en t Domestic 1 Valley Metro Valley Metro Maricopa County Arizona Unified market and branding; ongoing unification efforts. X 2 Butte County B-Line Butte Regional Transit (B-Line), Chico Area Transit, Oroville Area Transit, Butte County Transit Butte County California Consolidation of six systems into one unified system. X 3 MTC Transit Sustainability Study Metropolitan Transportation Commission, AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, Golden Gate Ferry, SamTrans, SF Muni, Santa Clara VTA San Francisco Bay Area California MPO mandate for cost reductions and for increased regional coordination. X X 4 LYNX FlexBus Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Orlando Florida Use of technology to serve suburban riders according to user requests in real- time rather than fixed route/schedule. X X Table 2-1. Summary of agency profiles and focus areas. (continued on next page)

14 Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Providers 17 Linx Mobility Management Co-op Public transit, human service transportation, and private carriers Greater Yellowstone Region Wyoming, Idaho and Montana 19-member mobility management cooperative facilitating access to public, private, and human services transportation services. X X International 18 Urban Transit Association (ATUQ) 9 public transportation organizations in Quebec Montreal, Quebec Canada Transit association formed to influence government decisions and coordinate services. X 19 Madrid Regional Transportation Consortium (CRTM) Urban bus, suburban bus, private bus concessionaires, subway, suburban rail, light rail, trams Madrid Spain Agency responsible for physical, administrative, and fare structure integration of the regional system. X X 13 McAllen Central Station McAllen Metro (McAllen Express) McAllen Texas Co-development of a local bus/transfer hub for regional bus service, including domestic and international services. X 14 Dallas-Fort Worth Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Commuter Rail Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) Dallas Texas Jointly operated [contracted] commuter rail service and regional fare agreement. X 15 Addison/Rutland County Connector Addison County Transit Resources, Marble Valley Regional Transit District Middlebury, Rutland Vermont Jointly operated 45-mile daily commuter service plus ongoing efforts to share resources and develop joint systems. X 16 ORCA Universal Fare Card Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro Transit, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, Washington State Ferries Puget Sound Washington Regional universal fare card valid on seven transportation providers. X 11 Northwest Transit Alliance Columbia County Rider, Sunset Empire Transportation District, Tillamook County Transportation District, Benton County Transit, Lincoln County Transit Columbia Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, and Benton Counties Oregon Five transit providers operating and marketed under a single brand that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. X X 12 PAAC Busways Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Sharing of separated fixed- guideway busways between multiple operators and regional transit hub. X No. Name of Integration Example Transit Agency/ Agencies Profiled City/ Jurisdiction State/ Country Description Focus Area Se rv ic es Fa re s M ar ke tin g/ C us t. Se rv ic e & In fo . O ps / M ai nt en an ce / As se ts Ad m in ./ Pr oc ur em en t 10 Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) Cities of Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Cary, and North Carolina State University and Triangle Transit Authority Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Cary North Carolina Development of a regional call center, joint marketing, joint procurement, a regional fare program, and a joint maintenance facility. X X Table 2-1. (Continued).

Research Approach 15 The case studies are the centerpiece of this research. This in-depth case study approach was carried out because it offers a rich set of information on motivations (e.g., cost considerations, service improvements, political climate) as well as challenges, agency staff and customer experi- ence, and outcomes. The site visits allowed research team members to thoroughly examine the coordination experience in each community, where they conducted several hours of interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders involved in these projects. They also toured facilities and observed operations. The six case studies are briefly described beginning in Table 2-2. Full case studies can be found in Appendixes A–F. Integration Effort Summary Valley Metro, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ The Maricopa County Regional Transportation Planning Authority, also known as Valley Metro, is the regional transit authority for the majority of the Phoenix metro area. Some of Valley Metro’s early success has been in coordinating the appearance of the system by consolidating passenger systems, such as service branding, fares, and some capital projects. This case study is referred to as “Valley Metro” or “the Phoenix metropolitan region” throughout this document. Butte County B-Line, Butte County, CA Butte Regional Transit, known to the public as B-Line, represents the consolidation of six separate transit operations in a mix of rural communities, fast-growing towns, and one small urban area. Today, the primary transit services in Butte County are administered by the metropolitan planning organization and operate as a single, unified system that provides a mix of fixed-route bus services and paratransit operations. This case study is referred to as “Butte County” throughout this document. Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN The Minneapolis-Saint Paul region, or Twin Cities, illustrates an array of initiatives and policy direction that encourages—in some instances, mandates—that the region’s transit providers work together. The Twin Cities’ regional transit network consists primarily of one major transit provider, Metro Transit, which operates the services in and around Minneapolis and Saint Paul, working with six smaller transit providers that serve the region’s vast suburbs and provide links to major destinations. Among the coordinated efforts are a regional fare structure, a unified route numbering scheme, a regional vehicle fleet and procurement program, shared operations protocols for transit facilities, and regional performance standards. This case study is referred to as “Twin Cities” or “Minneapolis” throughout this document. Research Triangle, NC The Research Triangle, comprising Wake, Durham, and Orange Counties, contains the cities of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, which form the three points of the triangle. Although an initial consolidation effort under a single regional operator failed, the region has successfully accomplished a contractual merger and nine seamless transportation projects, including a regional bus plan, regional paratransit service, and a regional call center. This case study is referred to as “Research Triangle” or “North Carolina” throughout this document. Central Station, McAllen, TX Central Station is a multimodal bus terminal located in downtown McAllen, Texas. The terminal was designed as a focal point for local transit service and regional intercity bus operators, including Mexican bus operators. Additionally, both the transit services and the multimodal hub were intended as economic development projects, especially when the decision was made to develop the station in a downtown location. This case study is referred to as “McAllen” or “McAllen Central Station” throughout this document. ORCA Universal Fare Card, Central Puget Sound, WA The ORCA card, which stands for “One Regional Card for All,” is a contactless smart card that can be utilized for fare payment on seven public transportation providers in the four-county Central Puget Sound region. ORCA is the current iteration of a long history of fare integration efforts in the Central Puget Sound region. This case study is referred to as “the Central Puget Sound region” or “ORCA” throughout this document. Table 2-2. Case study summaries.

16 Improving Transit Integration Among Multiple Providers The site visits clarified that most case studies fit into multiple focus areas and should be seen as a complex mixture of integration activities. Each case study was identified as having a primary focus area as follows: Customer-Oriented Focus Areas • Focus Area 1: Services: – Research Triangle, NC – Butte County B-Line, Butte County, CA • Focus Area 2: Fares – ORCA Universal Fare Card, Central Puget Sound Region, WA • Focus Area 3: Marketing/Customer Service and Information – Valley Metro, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ Agency-Oriented Focus Areas • Focus Area 4: Operations, Maintenance, Assets – Central Station, McAllen, TX • Focus Area 5: Administration/Procurement – Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN The six case studies selected for this research are examples of agencies or operations that have moved far along the continuum of integration described in Chapter 1. As shown in Figure 2-2, three of the cases are highly collaborative, two have made some moves toward consolidation, and one has embraced consolidation. For purposes of this discussion, the word “integration” is used as a general term to encompass both collaboration and consolidation efforts along the continuum. Collectively, the six regions have implemented many successful joint integration activities, listed in Table 2-3. Detailed information on the activities can be found in the individual case studies included in the appendixes. This report is designed to convey to readers the most important lessons from the case studies, supplemented by information gleaned from the profiles. However, to gain a broader and deeper understanding of project implementation, readers are encouraged to read the full case studies. Each case is a fascinating story of how personalities, external circumstances, regional demographics, geog- raphies, and other unique local conditions came together to create these integration projects. Fur- ther, if an agency is interested in pursuing a specific type of integration project, it is worthwhile to read the details of relevant case studies to glean project-specific lessons and guidance on implementation. The following chapter relates the findings of this research, drawing some broad conclusions and calling out common themes that emerged from the sum of all the tasks, but particularly the case studies. These six case study regions have all been working on efforts toward coordination/integration for a number of years. Because they have worked through many issues and matured in their inter- actions, they have valuable lessons that are transferable to other regions of North America. For the most part, the conclusions drawn are relatively general; there can be pitfalls in drawing more detailed Source: KFH Group, Inc. Figure 2-2. Case studies on continuum of integration.

Research Approach 17 conclusions because regions and local conditions can vary greatly. Chapter 3 seeks to describe the benefits and challenges agencies can encounter in improving integration among multiple providers, how some of the most challenging issues can be addressed, and the lessons learned from this research that can be applicable to other transit agencies interested in improving coordination and integration. Chapter 4 describes key lessons from an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the project profiles and case studies. Profile Coordination/Integration Activities Valley Metro, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ Central call center for multiple providers Development of a regional transit system Development of unified brand (Valley Metro) Development of service standards and guidelines Integrated fare system Integrated passenger information system Regionalization of paratransit service Butte County B-Line, Butte County, CA Consolidated bus purchases Consolidation of transit providers Contractual mergers of some agencies or functions Development of unified brand (B-Line) Elimination of duplicate services along main corridors, connecting cities Regional planning Single lead agency and policy board for transit operations Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN Central call center for multiple providers Centralized fare revenue collection and distribution for regional passes Coordinated service along main corridors, connecting cities Common technologies shared by transit providers Development of service standards and guidelines Real-time information Regional transit fleet Regional planning Regionalization of paratransit service Shared facilities Unified regional fare policies Unified regional fare medium Unified passenger information, marketing Research Triangle, NC Bus and Rail Investment Plan for two counties Central call center for multiple providers Coordinated service along main corridors, connecting cities Contractual merger of one local service with regional service Joint bus purchases Joint marketing, branding, signage Joint maintenance, shared facilities Joint technical committees Joint training Joint usage of software for scheduling, vehicle location, passenger counts Real-time information Regional fare passes Regional planning Regionalization of paratransit service (partial) Central Station, McAllen, TX Centralized transportation hub for multiple providers with high customer amenity Coordinated service along main corridors, connecting cities Regional planning ORCA Universal Fare Card, Central Puget Sound Region, WA Centralized fare revenue collection and distribution for regional passes Regional planning Unified regional fare medium Unified regional fare policies and free transfers between operators Table 2-3. Integration activities by case study.