Evaluation of Recent Ridership Increases (2004)

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.

Research Results Digest 69 April 2005 C O N T E N T S Summary, 1 Introduction, 2 Overview, 2 Still Relevant Observations, 3 Findings from Recent Transit Ridership Increases, 5 References, 17 Appendix—Summary Reports, 18 Sound Transit, 18 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC)—OmniRide and Virginia Railway Express (VRE), 20 Manatee County Area Transit, 21 Bloomington Public Transit Corporation, 23 Gainesville Regional Transit System, 24 City of Phoenix Public Transit Department, 26 Greensboro Transit Authority, 27 Space Coast Area Transit, 28 Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership (The Rapid), 30 CityBus of Greater Lafayette, 31 Ventura County Transit, 32 Capital Area Transportation Authority, 34 Kalamazoo Metro Transit System, 35 Norwalk Transit System, 37 Knoxville Area Transit, 37 Ames Transit Agency, 40 Santa Clarita Transit, 41 Orange County Transportation Authority, 43 Utah Transit Authority, 44 Denver Regional Transportation District, 46 Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-TRAN), 48 Center Area Transportation Authority, 49 TALTRAN, 51 Snohomish County PTBA (Community Transit), 52 Whatcom Transportation Authority, 53 LAKETRAN, 54 Sarasota County Area Transit, 56 SUMMARY This digest assesses key factors and initiatives that led to ridership increases at 28 transit agencies, nationwide, for the pe- riod 2000 to 2002. This information will be of particular use to transit managers and planners interested in better understanding the various mechanisms and dynamics that have played a role in recent ridership in- creases. Similarly, it should be of interest to those local officials and policy-makers who seek to assure that the most effective use possible is being made of funds and re- sources committed to the design and deliv- ery of public transit services. This assessment of recent ridership in- creases is based on review of transit rider- ship statistics published by APTA, on op- erating statistics reported to and published in the FTA’s National Transit Database, and on interviews and discussions with more than 35 senior transit managers: • APTA Quarterly Transit Ridership Reports from 2000 through 2002 were used to identify 31 systems with the largest reported increases in rider- ship, including 15 systems that had reported increases from 1994 to 1996 and that experienced continued in- creases from 2000 to 2002. • FTA National Transit Database data were used to profile changes in sys- tem operating performance—using passengers per mile, passengers per hour, and cost per passenger mea- sures—over the 2000 to 2002 period as ridership increased. • The interviews were conducted with staff of 28 of the 31 systems to ex- plore what actions, initiatives, or cir- cumstances may have been respon- sible for the ridership increases that took place. Based on the assessment, several gen- eral observations can be made about fac- tors that have contributed to the most sig- nificant ridership increases between 2000 and 2002. As was noted in the report on 1994 to 1996 ridership increases, many of the observations drawn from the current study mirror those made in the earlier stud- ies. In addition, new types of initiatives and responses also played a role in the ridership success stories that were reported. The most significant ridership increases are generally the result of a combination of initiatives or actions. Seldom does a single initiative result in significant or sustained in- creases. Eighteen transit systems in the study showed ridership increases ranging from 17 percent to 57.6 percent between 2000 and 2002. Of these 18 systems, virtually every EVALUATION OF RECENT RIDERSHIP INCREASES This TCRP digest is the final report of Task 51 for Project J-6, “Quick Response for Special Needs.” It should be helpful to transit managers and planners, local officials, and policy-makers. The digest was prepared by Robert G. Stanley and Robert Hyman of Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm-Smith TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration

one indicated that it had undertaken initiatives in more than one of the five identified categories. The initiatives that influenced ridership increases fell into five broad categories: • Service adjustments (including service re- configuration, service expansion, and new ser- vice models). Nearly three-quarters (13 of 18) of the systems indicated that service expan- sion was a major reason behind ridership in- creases. Nearly half (8 of 18 systems) de- scribed major efforts to reconfigure service and/or expand the types of services offered as a major factor leading to increased ridership. • Fare and pricing adaptations (including in- troduction of new fare media and technolo- gies). Half (9 of 18 systems) suggested that fare and pricing initiatives had played a major role in increasing ridership in the period. Pass programs for university students as well as in- troduction of new pass programs and elec- tronic fare media were also cited. • Marketing and information initiatives (in- cluding the application of emerging electronic information technologies). Surprisingly, only 3 of 18 systems indicated that stand-alone marketing campaigns or initiatives were sig- nificant factors in ridership increases. • Shifts in planning orientation (including increased emphasis on strategic planning and customer-oriented planning). Nearly half (8 of 18 systems) indicated that changes in planning orientation were a major factor in ridership increases. Many cited new efforts to understand and monitor customer needs more effectively as an important factor. • New efforts in service coordination, collab- oration, and partnering. More than half (10 of 18 systems) credited collaborative relation- ships for ridership increases. The most fre- quently cited of these were relationships with local universities. Nine of 18 systems were in university communities and cited service from campuses to the community as a major reason for ridership increases. Most of the 18 systems experiencing the highest ridership growth, 2000 to 2002, improved their ability to serve more riders with greater efficiency. Among the transit systems examined in the cur- rent study, there was no apparent correlation between high ridership organizations and community or sys- tem size: • 4 systems have bus fleets ranging from 100 to 500 vehicles; • 14 systems have bus fleets with fewer than 100 vehicles; and • 9 systems—half of those with the largest 2000 to 2002 ridership increases—serve major university populations. INTRODUCTION This digest is a followon to two previous assess- ments of transit ridership increases across the coun- try. The first charted increases in ridership between 1991 and 1993 (TCRP Research Results Digest 4: Transit Ridership Initiative, February 1995). The sec- ond charted increases in ridership between 1994 and 1996 (TCRP Research Results Digest 29: Continu- ing Examination of Successful Transit Ridership Ini- tiatives, August 1998). This digest contains the findings and conclusions of a third round of inquiries into the factors influ- encing recent increases in transit ridership across the country. The digest describes the circumstances and initiatives that are thought to have been most im- portant in achieving ridership increases in commu- nities that have experienced the largest ridership growth in the period from 2000 to 2002. In addition to being the third in a series of TCRP assessments of transit ridership increases, the cur- rent study serves to reinforce a renewed focus at the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on increasing transit ridership. Ridership growth is the first of four “Core Accountabilities” embraced by the FTA (1). Interest in transit ridership increases at the sys- tem level also has been fed by soaring ridership in the last half of the 1990s on the national aggregate level. From 1995 to 2001, transit ridership increased 23 percent, faster than the population (8.4 percent), highway use (14.7 percent), and domestic air travel (12.5 percent) (2). The results of this assessment are intended to further assist the FTA, the transit industry, and oth- ers in attracting and sustaining increased transit use. The results are also intended to assist TCRP in dis- seminating information about transit ridership trends and successful initiatives. OVERVIEW Background and Approach The current study follows the two earlier transit ridership assessment studies carried out for the pe- 2

riod 1991 through 1993 (TCRP Research Results Digest 4, February 1995) and for the period 1994 through 1996 (TCRP Research Results Digest 29, August 1998). In the initial assessment, data from more than 40 systems were collected and interviews were con- ducted with senior managers at 36 transit systems. Of those 36, results from 27 systems provided the basis for the series of findings reported in 1995. The second assessment was carried out for the period 1994 through 1996. It reviewed the 1994 to 1996 ridership experiences of systems that reported the greatest increases in the earlier period and re- viewed the experiences of 20 systems with signifi- cant ridership increases in the 1994 to 1996 period that were not part of the 1991 to 1993 assessment. The current study was carried out following the same general design: • Of systems showing significant ridership in- creases in the 1994 to 1996 period, 15 showed continued ridership increases between 2000 and 2002. • In addition, 16 systems not part of the 1994 to 1996 assessment demonstrated significant rid- ership gains—17.0 to 57.6 percent—between 2000 and 2002. Complete assessments, including interviews, were conducted for 28 of these 31 systems. The result of each is summarized in the Appendix. Data Sources and Systems Selected Data on ridership and performance came from several sources, including statistics available from American Public Transportation Association (APTA); reports of ridership experiences that appeared in APTA’s weekly newspaper, Passenger Transport; and other trade press. Financial and operating per- formance data were taken from FTA’s National Tran- sit Database (NTD). The major statistical source of ridership data was the APTA Quarterly Transit Ridership Reports for 2000, 2001, and 2002, which were used to identify the 31 systems assessed. Table 1 identifies the transit systems that have been the subject of the current assessment. The first column lists systems in which ridership increased markedly and were included in the 1994 to 1996 as- sessment along with their ridership increases for the 2000 to 2002 period. Column two lists the systems in which ridership increased most significantly from 2000 to 2002, but that did not have the same experi- ence in prior periods. Transit System Interviews Interviews were conducted with senior man- agers at 28 of the systems identified in Table 1. In some instances, interviews were conducted with more than one senior manager from a system. A loosely structured set of questions was used to solicit infor- mation about the specific actions and factors that were considered important in generating the rider- ship increases noted. The Appendix captures the most significant points from these interviews. The interview summaries, however, are by no means comprehensive, and no attempts were made to con- firm or validate the summaries after the fact with interviewees. STILL RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS The following observations were included in the prior two ridership assessments. They are restated here because they remain important and valid con- cerns and describe conditions and perspectives that continue to have considerable relevance for any analy- sis of changing transit system performance, includ- ing trends in ridership. External Forces Remain Critical; Collaboration Pays Dividends Prior reports have noted that external forces, fac- tors, and conditions over which transit managers and public policy-makers have little or no control can have far greater effects on transit ridership than tran- sit agency initiatives and aspects of service planning and delivery over which they do have control. The 1991 to 1993 ridership assessment stated, “This no- tion calls into question the balance of effort and en- ergy devoted internally to system and service im- provement strategies compared to the efforts and abilities of transit managers and policy-makers to impact and influence forces, conditions and policies outside the immediate operating environment that have substantial impacts on transit use.” (TCRP Re- search Results Digest 4, p. 5) It is clear from the recent inquiry that the sub- stantial expansion that is taking place in collabora- tive arrangements between transit agencies and out- side organizations and institutions has begun to pay 3

4Table 1 Transit Ridership Increases, 2000 to 2002 Transit Systems with Prior Increases, Transit Systems with Significant Increases, 1994 to 1996 2000 to 2002 Transit System and City % % (1994 to 1996 percentages) Increase Transit System and City Increase Ames Transit Agency 29.8 Sound Transit 57.6 Ames, IA (17.7%) Seattle, WA Santa Clarita Transit 17.0 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation 55.8 Los Angeles, CA (41.7%) Commission—OmniRide Woodbridge, VA Orange County Transportation Authority 14.8 Manatee County Area Transit 45.9 Orange, CA (11.1%) Bradenton, FL Utah Transit Authority 13.9 Bloomington Public Transit Corporation 42.6 Salt Lake City, UT (5.9%) Bloomington, IN Denver Regional Transportation District 12.2 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation 37.2 Denver, CO (9.0%) Commission—Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge, VA C-TRAN 12.0 Gainesville Regional Transit System 37.0 Vancouver, WA (48.0%) Gainesville, FL Omnitrans* 9.8 City of Phoenix Public Transit Department 26.5 San Bernardino, CA (29.6%) Phoenix, AZ Center Area Transportation Authority 9.3 Greensboro Transit Authority 26.4 State College, PA (16.8%) Greensboro, NC TALTRAN 8.4 Space Coast Area Transit 26.0 Tallahassee, FL (11.7%) Cocoa, FL Community Transit 7.4 Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership 25.6 Snohomish County, WA (35.5%) Grand Rapids, MI Whatcom Transportation Authority 3.4 CityBus of Greater Lafayette 24.7 Bellingham, WA (10.3%) Lafayette, IN LAKETRAN 3.3 Ventura County Transit 24.6 Grand River, OH (18.3%) Ventura, CA Sacramento Regional Transit District* 2.0 Capital Area Transportation Authority 24.1 Sacramento, CA (10.2%) Lansing, MI Sarasota County Area Transit 1.8 Kalamazoo Metro Transit System 23.0 Sarasota, FL (37.8%) Kalamazoo, MI LYNX* 0.6 Norwalk Transit System 18.5 Orlando, FL (44.5%) Norwalk, CA Knoxville Area Transit 17.0 Knoxville, TN * Interviews were not conducted.

significant dividends in terms of ridership as well as performance. Performance and What Constitutes Success The initial ridership assessment included a dis- cussion of conflicting or competing goals that fre- quently arise in the planning and delivery of transit services. Among the most obvious competing goals are those related to service coverage (area and hours) versus ridership versus utilization versus budget ad- herence versus subsidy reduction. In other words, there are many ways to define success in the delivery of transit services, and achievement in one of these di- mensions may coincide with a decline in others. In the current assessment, we have been able to document coincident increases in ridership and en- hanced operational and financial performance (mea- sured in passengers per mile, passengers per hour, and cost per passenger) in almost all cases where there have been substantial ridership increases. For the 16 systems with the largest ridership increases 2000 through 2002, performance trends for the period (summarized in the Appendix descriptions) show: • Six systems improved in all three performance measures as ridership increased; • Five systems showed improved performance in two of the three measures; • Four systems showed improved performance in at least one of the three measures; and • Only one system registered declines in all three performance measures as ridership increased. As noted in the prior ridership assessments, there is often a lag between (1) the introduction of new ini- tiatives and attendant cost increases and (2) their ef- fects on ridership and performance measured in tra- ditional ways. Similarly, there is often a lag between new initiatives and market response. Given this dy- namic, it seems noteworthy that there is such strong evidence of enhanced performance concurrent with ridership increases. Finally, the relevance and role of transit in the community generally has continued to emerge as an- other, somewhat intangible, measure of success for the transit industry. In virtually all cases where major increases in ridership have occurred, there is a sense that the role and relevance of the service in the pub- lic’s mind has risen as well, an important dimension in formulating strategies for sustaining critical fi- nancial support for transit. The Importance of Disaggregating the Ridership Data As noted in earlier assessments, aggregate, system-level data probably disguise important rela- tionships and dynamics. The large ridership increases reported and examined in this digest tell only part of the story. Likely, there are valuable stories to be told at the subsystem or subregional level among those systems in which recent ridership trends are not as dramatic. These stories, and the actions that may have led to ridership successes at a more disaggre- gate (e.g., corridor or subarea) level, are increasingly important because breakdowns in our street and high- way systems occur at particular times and in partic- ular locations, not systemwide on a continuous basis. The role of transit in mitigating or avoiding these oc- currences may be best told at the disaggregate level by many more systems than have reported the great- est ridership increases. The experiences of systems serving university communities provide a case in point: innovative, collaborative accommodation of a particular travel market and related institutions may be critically important to a community, although the aggregate, systemwide statistics may not show it. FINDINGS FROM RECENT TRANSIT RIDERSHIP INCREASES Factors Influencing Ridership Trends Table 2 summarizes the positive (+) and nega- tive (−) factors thought to have most influenced the 2000 to 2002 ridership trends in the 28 transit sys- tems assessed as part of this study. The Role of Transit Agency Initiatives Senior transit managers have attributed recent ridership increases to combinations of various tran- sit agency initiatives. The five broad categories of initiatives that emerged from the earlier assessments continue to represent a useful framework for ana- lyzing ridership increases. Table 3 highlights which categories of initiatives along with market segments have been noted by interviewees as being responsi- ble for the most significant ridership increases from 2000 to 2002. The Appendix provides greater detail on each of the experiences noted in the table. The 18 systems noted in the material that follows include the 16 systems that experienced ridership 5 (text continues on page 9)

Table 2 Recent Ridership Experiences and Contributing Factors 1994–1996 2000–2002 % % Key Factors Influencing Transit System and City Increase Increase 2000–2002 Transit Ridership Trends Sound Transit * 57.6 • Regional institutional reorganization with Seattle, WA revised/rationalized roles, responsibilities, functions (+) • Service expansion (commuter rail, regional bus, light rail transit) (+) • Regional pass program (+) • Vehicle amenities (+) • Slow economic growth (−) Potomac and Rappahannock * 55.8 • Service reconfiguration in response to market Transportation shifts/demands (+) Commission (PRTC)— • Expanded use of employer-based fare media OmniRide (MetroChek) (+) Woodbridge, VA • Elimination of parking charges (+) • Aggressive, sustained program in service quality/ customer satisfaction (+) • Strong regional economic growth, population growth/dispersion (+) Manatee County Area Transit * 45.9 • Introduction of free localized service (beach/ Bradenton, FL resort community) (+) • Periodic free-ride days (+) • New community outreach program (+) • Strong population, job growth (+) Bloomington Public Transit * 42.6 • Takeover of off-campus Indiana University (IU) Corporation route (+) Bloomington, IN • Introduction of free IU student use through IU fees program (+) • Student-based marketing/orientation, including “Free Week” every September (+) • Coordination with IU on-campus circulation routes/service (+) • Significant enrollment increases at IU (+) Potomac and Rappahannock * 37.2 • (See PRTC description above) Transportation Commission— Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge, VA Gainesville Regional Transit * 37.0 • Service expansion to serve University of Florida System (U of F)–oriented housing and overall student Gainesville, FL travel demands (+) • Unlimited access agreement for U of F students (+) • Downtown area land use policy directing developer support for pedestrians, transit (+) City of Phoenix Public * 26.5 • Service expansion and amenity programs through Transit Department 2000 sales tax referendum (+) Phoenix, AZ • Introduction of “Rapid Bus” service (+) • Phoenix transit department staff-in-the-field policy (+) • Community-based planning initiatives for neighborhood services (+) • Fully contracted service provision (+) 6

Table 2 (Continued) 1994–1996 2000–2002 % % Key Factors Influencing Transit System and City Increase Increase 2000–2002 Transit Ridership Trends Greensboro Transit Authority * 26.4 • New vehicles (+) Greensboro, NC • New depot (+) • Expanded customer service staff (+) Space Coast Area Transit * 26.0 • Service expansion and increased frequency to Cocoa, FL under-served market(s) (+) • Major route restructuring (+) • Free student ride program (+) • Increased emphasis on reliability, performance (+) • Increased coordination with health and human service agencies (+) Grand Rapids Interurban * 25.6 • Bus service expansion through regional service Transit Partnership structure/focus and added millage (+) Grand Rapids, MI • Bridge reconstruction and transit alternatives (+) • Partnering with Grand Valley State University (+) • Embraced the “mobility management” role/ responsibility to facilitate innovation (+) CityBus of Greater Lafayette * 24.7 • Service expansion as part of Purdue University Lafayette, IN shift away from parking lot construction (+) • University fee-based, unlimited free-ride program for Purdue students and faculty (+) • Introduction of childcare facilities in proximity to main transfer site (+) • Collaboration with private childcare providers for use of City Bus space (+) Ventura County Transit * 24.6 • Minor service additions (+) Ventura, CA • Technology deployments—Smartcard, real-time online vehicle status for customers (+) • Strong commitment to customer input (+) • Strong economic growth (+) Capital Area Transportation * 24.1 • Takeover of Michigan State University (MSU) Authority bus service (+) Lansing, MI • Restructuring and expansion of service to MSU (+) • Incentive-based performance and funding arrangement with MSU (+) • Semester-long pass program (+) • City requirement that off-campus student housing developers build the cost of transit service into rental rates (+) • Purchase-of-service arrangements with state departments for shuttle services (+) • Long-term purchase-of-service arrangements with townships for demand-responsive services (+) 7 (continued on next page)

8Table 2 (Continued) 1994–1996 2000–2002 % % Key Factors Influencing Transit System and City Increase Increase 2000–2002 Transit Ridership Trends Kalamazoo Metro Transit System * 23.0 • Permanent service expansion from a demonstra- Kalamazoo, MI tion designed from a market research study (+) • Takeover of Western Michigan University (WMU) service and unlimited student access through WMU fees (+) Norwalk Transit System * 18.5 • Expanded paratransit services (+) Norwalk, CA • Takeover of an LACMTA route (+) • Shuttle connection to MetroLink commuter rail (+) Knoxville Area Transit * 17.0 • Reconfiguration, improvements, and customer Knoxville, TN service training on downtown trolley services (+) • Introduction of Job Access reverse commute services (+) • Collaboration with housing managers to expand service to University of Tennessee (+) Ames Transit Agency 17.7 29.8 • Partnership with Iowa State University: reduced Ames, IA headways (+) Santa Clarita Transit 41.7 17.0 • High population growth (+) Los Angeles, CA • Increased provision of rides to children for transport to school (+) • Route restructuring as transit hub moved to better location (+) • Service expansion (+) • Service expansion restricted by insufficient maintenance facility space (−) Orange County 11.1 14.8 • Strong economy (+) Transportation Authority • Discounted passes, university passes (+) Orange, CA • Major route restructuring (+) • Service expansion on new route network (+) Utah Transit Authority 5.9 13.9 • Introduction of light rail service (+) Salt Lake City, UT • Promotional free-pass offer (+) • Increased emphasis on quality of service (+) • Development of regionwide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program (+) • Reorganization of Utah Transit Authority (+) Denver Regional 9.0 12.2 • Strong economy (+) Transportation District • Introduction of light rail service (+) Denver, CO • Expansion of innovative service strategies: • “Theme routes” in Boulder (+) • Call-and-ride services instead of fixed-route service in outlying areas (+) • Vanpools instead of fixed-route service in some areas (+) • Gradual fare increases

9Table 2 (Continued) 1994–1996 2000–2002 % % Key Factors Influencing Transit System and City Increase Increase 2000–2002 Transit Ridership Trends C-TRAN 48.0 12.0 • Recapturing riders lost after service cuts due Vancouver, WA to elimination of motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) (+) Center Area Transportation 16.8 9.3 • Increased off-campus student housing, with Authority owners providing transit passes to tenants (+) State College, PA • Service expansion on-campus, including park-and-ride services (+) • Service cuts off-campus (−) • Fare increase from $1.00 to $1.25 (−) TALTRAN 11.7 8.4 • Minor service expansion (+) Tallahassee, FL • Urban infilling from student housing (+) • Improvement in on-time performance (+) • Web site with online schedule information (+) Community Transit 35.5 7.4 • Recapturing riders lost after service cuts due to Snohomish County, WA elimination of MVET; sales tax increase allowed services to be restored Whatcom Transportation Authority 10.3 3.4 • Partnership with University of Washington: Bellingham, WA • Discounted student pass (+) • Expansion of service (+) LAKETRAN 18.3 3.3 • Service expansion: Additional park-and-ride Grand River, OH lots (+) • New student pass program with community college (+) • Employer pass subsidy program for Christmas season mall workers (+) Sarasota County Area Transit 37.8 1.8 • High population growth (+) Sarasota, FL • Policies to switch paratransit riders to fixed-route buses (+) • Lack of funds prevented recommended service expansions (−) * Ridership for 1994 to 1996 was not evaluated for systems exhibiting the largest increases for 2000 to 2002. increases between 17 and 57.6 percent from 2000 to 2002 and the two systems from the prior analysis pe- riod (1994 to 1996) that also had increases in this range between 2000 and 2002 (Ames Transit Agency and Santa Clarita Transit). The following sections discuss the initiative cat- egories that appear as columns in Table 3. Service Adjustments This category includes service reconfiguration, service expansion, and new service models. Nearly three-quarters (13 of 18) of the systems indicated that service expansion was a major reason behind ridership increases. Nearly half (8 of 18 systems) described major efforts to reconfigure service and/or expand the types of services offered as a major fac- tor leading to increased ridership. The most noteworthy of these experiences include outgrowths of the reorganization of transit services in the Seattle (Washington) region. The outgrowths in- volved rationalization of local and regional roles in service planning and delivery, service expansion, and (text continues on page 16)

Table 3 Selected Ridership Experiences and Key Initiatives % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/Pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments Sound Transit 57.6 Seattle, WA Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission— OmniRide and 55.8 Virginia Railway 37.2 Express Woodbridge, VA Manatee County 45.9 Area Transit Bradenton, FL Bloomington 42.6 Public Transit Corporation Bloomington, IN Gainesville 37.0 Regional Transit System Gainesville, FL Introduced 13 new regional bus routes, commuter rail service Modernized bus fleet Extended operating hours Introduced free trolleybus service Made minor route improvements Acquired route previously operated by university Significantly expanded fleet Added routes, in- creased frequency of service (espe- cially on univer- sity routes) Expanded fleet Regional commuters Regional commuters University riders University riders Contracts opera- tion of bus sys- tems to local county systems Connects transit to neighboring transit agency Closely coordi- nates with univer- sity transit system Focuses on cus- tomer feedback (rider surveys, web-based notifications, “Meet-the- Management” program) Holds public meetings to solicit community feedback Works with de- velopers of off- campus housing to ensure good transit access Solicits customer input through public forums, meetings, and citizen advisory board Works with de- velopers of off- campus housing to ensure good transit access Ads in news- papers, on television Information at student orienta- tion and ads in student newspa- pers and on cable television Flyers at student orientation Effort to promote service enhance- ments to a non- university route Integrated regionwide fare structure with regional transit pass Expanded transit pass benefit pro- gram for federal workers Offers free- ride days periodically Introduced free university pass Offers free rides for public for one week in September each year Introduced free university pass program in 1997

Table 3 (Continued) % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/Pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments City of Phoenix 26.5 Public Transit Department Phoenix, AZ Greensboro 26.4 Transit Authority Greensboro, NC Space Coast 26.0 Area Transit Cocoa, FL Grand Rapids 25.6 Interurban Transit Partnership Grand Rapids, MI CityBus of 24.7 Greater Lafayette Lafayette, IN Expanded system, expanded com- muter bus Increased fre- quency of service, introduced Sun- day service Expanded fleet Maintained schedule reliabil- ity by using sup- port vehicles Added new equipment and new depot Restructured routes (major) and increased frequency Expanded fleet Improved on-time performance Expanded service and increased fre- quency to mitigate a high- way bridge reconstruction Added routes, extended hours, added park-and- ride lots to com- pensate for de- creased parking on campus University riders Used community- based planning initiative for cir- culator service in Ahwatukee area Coordinates with senior homes and health and human services agencies Partnered with university to pro- vide shuttle services Enjoys strong po- litical support Owns two child- care facilities near CityBus service and leases them to childcare provider Solicits customer input through open meetings and rider advisory committee Maintains close customer contact, including em- ployee who solic- its rider input on buses Acts as mobility manager as well as service provider Community newspapers and local cable Representatives in the field to answer rider questions whenever service changes are made Introduced sum- mertime free rides for schoolchildren Introduced free university pass for students and faculty (continued on next page)

Table 3 (Continued) % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/Pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments Ventura County 24.6 Transit Ventura, CA Capital Area 24.1 Transportation Authority Lansing, MI Kalamazoo Metro 23.0 Transit System Kalamazoo, MI Expanded service (minor) Acquired opera- tion of university bus system Restructured uni- versity service, increased frequency Acquired six routes previously operated by university Expanded evening service University riders University riders Partnered with local university to serve campus Student housing developers pro- vide free transit passes to tenants Collaborated with state government to provide park- and-ride service to state offices Partnered with townships to pro- vide demand- response service for outlying areas Partnered with university Emphasizes making service simple to use: NextBus, elec- tronic arrival signs in terminals, online router Solicits passenger input through annual rider survey Conducts regular market research program to deter- mine desired services Radio ads Community outreach Introduced SmartCard technology Provides free uni- versity pass for students

Table 3 (Continued) % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/Pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments Norwalk Transit 18.5 System Norwalk, CA Knoxville Area 17.0 Transit Knoxville, TN Ames Transit 29.8 Agency Ames, IA Santa Clarita 17.0 Transit Los Angeles, CA Orange County 14.8 Transportation Authority Orange, CA Acquired route previously oper- ated by LACMTA Expanded para- transit service Changed routes (minor) Overhauled downtown trol- leybus (reduced headways, restructured routes, updated equipment) Introduced night and Sunday service Reduced headways Moved transfer station to more ef- ficient location Added commuter service Converted from hub/spoke to grid Increased service hours Increased frequency University riders Residents University riders School children Commuters Entire market University students Provides park- and-ride shuttle for a regional commuter rail sta- tion Partnered with student housing to provide service to campus Partnerships to provide shuttles to sporting events Partnered with university Partnered with universities Obtains advice from citizen ad- vocacy program Hired first cus- tomer service manager Used passenger surveys in strate- gic planning ini- tiative to make changes to service Used time sav- ings in origin/ destination-based planning Introduced new customer-based advisory committee Award-winning television and print ads Free semester bus passes sent to all university students Ambassadors Program with customers Hub to grid mar- keting program Introduced SmartCard tech- nology in 1998 Provides students with free use of system through university buyout Implemented online pass sales Introduced day pass Introduced university pass programs (continued on next page)

Table 3 (Continued) % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments Utah Transit 13.9 Authority Salt Lake City, UT Denver Regional 12.2 Transportation District Denver, CO C-TRAN 12.0 Vancouver, WA Center Area 9.3 Transportation Authority State College, PA TALTRAN 8.4 Tallahassee, FL Introduced light rail service Increased emphasis on quality Opened South- west Corridor light rail service Further developed Boulder “theme” routes Substituted call- and-ride service Introduced light rail service Increased emphasis on qual- ity service Expanded vanpool Reduced service caused by loss of MVET Expanded park-and-ride services Increased campus service to university Increased use of reserve fleet Lengthened routes Residents Subregional markets Commuters Riders lost with MVET funding loss (1999) University students University students Engages in sustained local coalition building Collaborates with local communities Collaborates with contract providers Collaborates with Fannie Mae on “Smart Com- mute” mortgage program Collaborates with university on service and fare programs Reorganized to manage mobility Introduced regionwide TDM program Actively involved in City’s site review process Analyzed operations to improve performance Recognition and approval rating-based campaigns Introduction of a heavily used web site Offered promo- tional free pass Reduced off-peak fares; in- creased peak fares Offers university subsidized pass programs for fac- ulty and students Continued university pass programs

Table 3 (Continued) % Ridership Transit System and Increase Market City 2000–2002 Service Fares/Pricing Marketing Planning Partnering Segments Community Transit 7.4 Snohomish County, WA Whatcom 3.4 Transportation Authority Bellingham, WA LAKETRAN 3.3 Grand River, OH Sarasota County 1.8 Area Transit Sarasota, FL Added morning peak service Added rural route deviation services Added park-and- ride lots and com- muter service Combined transit center and minor league baseball stadium parking Installed bike racks on all local buses Adjusted service to capture para- transit riders Riders lost with MVET funding loss (1999) University students Riders lost with MVET funding loss (1999) Commuters Students Collaborates with Sound Transit on regional service Collaborates with university Collaborates with Cleveland RTA and local communities Collaborates with developers on transit-friendly design Considering a shift to a regional authority with taxing power Focused demo- graphic research and use Newspaper coupon program for targeted routes Extensive com- munity involve- ment programs Senior marketing program Introduced a di- rect sale dis- counted student pass for univer- sity students Continued sum- mertime $0.10 youth fare Offers various low-fare special events Introduced community col- lege student pass program Introduced monthly commuter pass program

the addition of new modes as part of the long-term de- velopment of a fully integrated regional system. A number of the other most significant increases in ridership from 2000 to 2002 involved expanding service to universities across the country, including: • Bloomington, Indiana (Indiana University); • Gainesville, Florida (University of Florida); • Grand Rapids, Michigan (Grand Valley State University); • Lafayette, Indiana (Purdue University); • Lansing, Michigan (Michigan State University); • Kalamazoo, Michigan (Western Michigan University); • Knoxville, Tennessee (University of Tennes- see); and • Ames, Iowa (Iowa State University). Other significant increases are tied in part to ser- vice adjustments focused on specific markets and/or driven by heightened attention given to customer- based service quality, including Phoenix (Arizona) and OmniRide and the Virginia Railway Express of the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Com- mission (PRTC) in Woodbridge (Virginia). (Denver [Colorado] also made noteworthy service adjust- ments, although the overall change in ridership was not as significant.) Fare and Pricing Adaptation This category includes the introduction of new fare media and technologies. Half (9 of 18 systems) suggested that fare and pricing initiatives had played a major role in increasing ridership in the period. Pass programs for university students as well as introduction of new pass programs and electronic fare media were also cited. Among the other pricing initiatives that have had positive impacts on ridership were the elimination of parking charges for the PRTC OmniRide commuter bus service (Virginia), the reduced off-peak fares in- stituted in Denver (Colorado), and new unlimited access for university students and faculty through arrangements at a number of the universities men- tioned previously. Marketing and Information Initiatives This category includes initiatives that apply emerging electronic information technologies to in- crease ridership. Surprisingly, few systems indicated that stand-alone marketing campaigns or initiatives were significant factors in ridership increases. How- ever, each system has supported other ridership ini- tiatives, particularly service expansion, with aggres- sive marketing, public information, and advertising activities of various kinds. Shifts in Planning Orientation This category includes initiatives that increase emphasis on strategic planning and customer-oriented planning. Nearly half (8 of 18 systems) indicated that changes in planning orientation were a major factor in ridership increases. Many cited new efforts to understand and monitor customer needs more ef- fectively as an important factor. These efforts in- clude a “Meet the Management” program at Wood- bridge (Virginia), staff field presence to assist riders through service changes and expansion in Phoenix (Arizona), and broadened involvement of transit agen- cies and leadership in various community develop- ment activities in Gainesville (Florida), Lafayette (Indiana), and Lansing (Michigan). (State College, Pennsylvania, also shifted its orientation toward the university community, although ridership increases were not as significant.) Service Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering More than half (10 of 18 systems) credited col- laborative relationships for ridership increases. The most frequently cited of these were relationships with local universities. Nine of 18 systems were in univer- sity communities and cited service in and through campuses as well as to and from the neighboring community as a major reason for ridership increases. Also noted were collaborative arrangements with: • Other operating agencies in the Seattle (Wash- ington) region and Norwalk (California); • Adjacent jurisdictions in Bradenton (Florida); • Health and human service agencies, provid- ers, and organizations in Cocoa (Florida) and Lafayette (Indiana); and • Developers in Bloomington (Indiana), Gaines- ville (Florida), and Lansing (Michigan). Other systems with smaller 2000 to 2002 rider- ship increases also engaged in noteworthy collabo- 16

rative activities as described in the Appendix, in- cluding Grand River (Ohio), Denver (Colorado), State College (Pennsylvania), and Sarasota (Florida). These experiences, whether viewed individually or together, continue to suggest that there are inno- vative and continuously evolving means to pursue significant increases in transit ridership. REFERENCES 1. FTA. Four Core Accountabilities. www.fta.dot.gov/ documents/core_account_2003results.pdf 2. APTA. House Testimony on How Public Trans- portation Serves and Benefits U.S. Communities, April 17, 2002. www.apta.com/government_affairs/ positions/aptatest/04172002.cfm. 17

APPENDIX—SUMMARY REPORTS
Sound Transit Seattle, Washington Contact: Mike Bergman, Policy and Planning Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a 58 percent increase in ridership for Sound Transit. The circumstances surrounding this extraordinary increase are somewhat unique however, involving significant reorganization and expansion of service in the Seattle metropolitan region following approval of an ambitious Sound Moves regional plan in 1996. Within the region, Sound Transit is responsible for regional scale transit services that will eventually involve integrated regional bus services, commuter rail service (the “Sounder”), and light rail services. In designing and delivering planned regional services on a relatively limited network, Sound Transit works in close cooperation with the region’s three counties, King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County, which retain responsibility for local transit services. The substantial increase in Sound Transit ridership for 2000 to 2002 results largely from the fact that 2000 was the first full year that Sound Transit services were phased into operation, when 13 of 20 planned regional bus routes began operation. In 2004, six more routes have been added; service on one remaining route is yet to be started. Annual ridership on the re- gional bus system for 2002 was approximately 6.4 million trips, representing 86 percent of Sound Transit’s total ridership for the year. Sounder commuter rail service also began in 2000 with two round trips daily between Seat- tle and Tacoma and was expanded in 2003 to three round trips daily. Sound Transit’s light rail service began over a 1.5-mile segment serving a Sounder rail station in August 2003. Con- struction is scheduled to begin on the Central Link from downtown to the SEATAC Airport in November 2004, with operation scheduled to begin in 2009. Despite the obvious relationship between increased ridership and major service expansion, there are several unique aspects to the very successful planning and operation of Sound Tran- sit services in the 2000 to 2002 period. System Performance The substantial ridership increases over the 2000 to 2002 period have occurred during a time when economic activity in the region was slow. Even so, boardings per hour on the Sound Transit regional bus system grew from 15 in 2000 to more than 21 in 2002, and boardings per trip have remain constant as the system has been expanded. Cost recovery on the Sound Tran- sit bus system paralleled that of the local county services. The focus of performance measurement on the regional system is somewhat unique because of principles adopted as part of the Sound Moves plan. Cost recovery plays a large role in the formula by which local jurisdictions support Sound Transit services. Secondly, there is re- quirement for “subarea equity” in service planning and operation so that benefits received in each of five defined subareas equal expenditures required. Service planning is, therefore, guided and performance measured first as a function of fiscal balance not strictly driven by “transit demand.” Service Adjustments and Planning Orientation More than Commuter Service. The goal of the regional bus system was to enhance service in selected corridors in the region that could support two-way, all-day express service. The sys- tem envisioned, therefore, has been limited in scope and focused on 20 corridors. Planning and introduction of increased service was carried out in three phases: 1. Service enhancements on routes served by the three county systems that could support two-way, all-day express service; i.e., existing markets. Operation of enhanced services on these routes was taken over by Sound Transit. 2. Service enhancements by Sound Transit in corridors that represented developing markets and could be built up from the strongest peak-hour/peak-direction travel patterns. 3. Service enhancements that represent new links and new corridors. All Sound Transit regional bus services also use the region’s HOV network, which involves 100 miles of HOV facilities in King County alone. In addition, a new program is now underway involving expanded park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, and freeway access ramps to further enhance speed and reliability of both the Sound Transit services as well as county transit services over the entire regional network. Fare and Pricing Policy The adoption of the 1996 Sound Moves plan and the formation of Sound Transit also included a commitment to an integrated regionwide fare structure and system built around a regional transit pass program, “Puget Pass,” managed by Sound Transit. The pass is denominated in zones values and includes a universal transfer provision whereby transfers from local bus sys- tems cover the base fare cost of Sound Transit bus service. Plans are underway to advance to a “smartcard”-based system in the future. Marketing and Information Initiatives Sound Transit itself does little in the way of pure promotion and advertising. Because Sound Transit’s regional bus system is a relatively small part of the overall regional transit network, Sound Transit relies on the marketing and outreach programs already established in the three county transit systems to market its services, including specifically designed joint promotional programs. Equipment and Amenities In addition to the speed and reliability initiatives noted earlier, Sound Transit is also attempting to cater to customers’ interest in comfort and amenities by operating buses that have high seat backs, luggage racks, reading lights, and air conditioning, a relatively new step for the region. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Sound Transit is also unique in that it does not directly operate the bus system. The local county systems operate and maintain the Sound Transit equipment through a partnership. The Sound Transit equipment maintains its own identity and Sound Transit’s role is management of the system to assure the quality of the customer’s experience and efficiency and effective- ness of the operation. 18 19

Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC)— OmniRide and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Woodbridge, Virginia Contact: Alfred H. Harf, Executive Director Summary PRTC purchases and directs service delivery in the Northern Virginia area of Washington, D.C. PRTC services include commuter bus (OmniRide), local bus (OmniLink), commuter rail (VRE), and ridesharing services, both car and vanpools. Over the 2000 to 2002 period, ridership on the OmniRide bus services increased 56 percent and ridership on VRE increased 37 percent. These substantial increases were the result of major fleet enhancements, expanded use of Metrochek fare options, reconfiguration of ser- vices to meet market demands, and a sustained focus on service quality. In addition, ridership growth has been spurred by a strong regional economy and continuing population growth and dispersion in northern Virginia. Performance Over the two-year period, National Transit Database (NTD) data indicate that performance on both the OmniRide system and VRE has improved as ridership has increased. As ridership grew 56 percent on PRTC bus services, passengers per hour increased 14 percent, passengers per mile grew 37 percent, and cost per passenger declined 22 percent. The same pattern has held true for VRE. The 37 percent increase in ridership was accompa- nied by a 26 percent increase in passengers per hour, a 29 percent increase in passengers per mile, and a reduction of 10 percent in cost per passenger based on NTD data. Service Adjustments Modernization of the PRTC bus fleet has been an important factor in recent ridership in- creases. Three-quarters of the OmniRide fleet is now less than three years old. As vehicles have been purchased, they have been outfitted with more customer amenities including cour- tesy lighting, reclining seats, and more comfortable upholstery. Recent purchases have in- cluded 57 passenger vehicles, the largest available. The same attention to fleet enhancements has been applied on the OmniLink local bus service. Increases in OmniLink local bus services have also resulted from adjustments in service con- figuration. Following the elimination of VRE parking charges as part of an effort to recapture riders following a rail accident, ridership on feeder services fell. Services and resources were switched to expand other services in response to rider demand. Regular route hours were ex- tended from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. The extended evening hours appealed to a large regional retail job market with evening work schedules, contributing sub- stantially to the ridership increases. Fare and Pricing Policy Another major factor in the PRTC ridership increases was the Presidential Executive Order 13150 signed by then-President Clinton in April 2000 to provide a transit pass trans- portation fringe benefit program in the capital region. Prior to the Executive Order, Federal agencies had a variety of programs in place and less than 20 percent of PRTC riders were en- rolled. Following the Executive Order, Federal employees using the “Metrochek” fringe ben- efit has risen to 50 percent of riders. Planning Orientation PRTC maintains a rigorous focus on customer satisfaction and feedback. Rider customer sat- isfaction surveys are carried out quarterly and PRTC has been able to assemble and main- tain a larger customer comment database. PRTC also manages web-based customer com- munications systems that allow real-time notice to customers about service disruptions or schedule changes. Of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 daily riders, it is estimated that 4,000 are web subscribers. The strong customer orientation and commitment to customer service excellence has become an ingrained philosophy at VRE as well. Part of this commitment is born out through a “Meet- the Management” program that allows customers to interact freely with management. Two or three times a year, management staff visit stations offering riders coffee and donuts and question-and-answer opportunities.
Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) Bradenton, Florida Contact: Ralph Heseler, Transit Manager Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 46 percent on the MCAT. Much of the growth is because of the introduction of the free Manatee Trolley service on Anna Maria Island. In addition, MCAT made minor route changes to improve performance. External factors included significant population growth during the period and job growth in the service sector. Relatively little infill occurred in the area; most development has sprawled farther into the northern and eastern parts of the County. Traffic has been steadily worsening in the area; congestion is increasingly present year-round, rather than just in wintertime. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour rose 28 percent; passengers per mile rose 20 per- cent; and the cost per passenger declined 18 percent. In large part, these numbers reflect the success of the newly introduced Manatee Trolley. Service Adjustments The largest service adjustment, and a major contributor to ridership growth, was the addition of the free Manatee Trolley in 2002. This trolley serves Anna Maria Island, a beach and re- sort community. Trolleys run seven days per week from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Bus service from the mainland connects six days per week and, on Sundays and holidays, a park-and-ride shuttle from the mainland provides access. The trolley buses now account for up to 40 per- cent of total MCAT ridership in peak season (wintertime). 20 21

This service was meant to help alleviate the heavy traffic congestion on the island, which has only one main road running its length. Rider surveys indicate that the majority of the pas- sengers would have driven in the absence of trolley service, and MCAT calculates it is keep- ing 800 cars per day off the road. The service is funded by grant funding and county money; MCAT hopes to obtain sufficient funding to keep the service free after the grant expires. In addition, MCAT made several minor route changes in 1999 that helped improve its ontime performance by streamlining the route structures. It has recently begun a new program of in- creasing the efficiency of all its routes (see below). Fare and Pricing Policy MCAT continued to offer occasional free ride days every two or three months during the pe- riod. These boost ridership numbers, but more importantly encourages people to try the tran- sit system and see how easy it is to use. MCAT also continued to offer a three-month sum- mer discount pass for schoolchildren; however, this is not a major contributor to ridership. Fares remained unchanged during the period, with the exception of the free trolley service in- troduced in 2002 (see below). Marketing Programs and Initiatives MCAT increased its advertising in local newspapers over the period. It also continued to ad- vertise on the local government access cable channel and, for several months, placed ads on regular television. It is now embarking on a community outreach program, described below. Planning Orientation As well as annual transit development plans (TDPs), MCAT formed a blue-ribbon task force to hold public meetings throughout the County, in which the community expressed strong in- terest in more service. MCAT also conducted a public transportation system analysis (PTSA) examining bicounty ridership. MCAT is starting a new community outreach program to educate people on how the sys- tem works, especially for those in outlying areas. It plans to convert a bus to a mobile in- formation center that will be parked in different communities. As well as generating inter- est in MCAT services, this will help the transit agency identify the level of interest in different communities. MCAT is now systematically examining its routes one by one to find ways to increase ef- ficiency, improve ontime performance, and eliminate unproductive route segments. This is particularly needed as worsening traffic congestion has made it harder to keep buses on time, and MCAT is focused on ways to minimize unnecessary legs that leave its buses stuck in traffic. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives MCAT coordinates with the neighboring Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) on transit connections at two locations. During the period, MCAT expanded to all-day service to one of those connections. 22 23
Bloomington Public Transit Corporation (BT) Bloomington, Indiana Contact: Lewis May, General Manager Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 43 percent on the BT sys- tem. Two events in August 2000 accounted for most of this growth: the introduction of free rides for Indiana University students; and the acquisition of a route previously operated by the university. Most of the ridership increase occurred in that first year, though BT reports that ridership continues to grow several percentage points each year. University enrollment has slowly increased over the years as well, and two-thirds of BT’s rid- ers are students. However, it does not operate the university oncampus circulator routes. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour declined two percent but passengers per mile rose 22 percent. Overall, the cost per passenger declined 14 percent. These numbers reflect the greatly increased student ridership on the system. Service Adjustments BT took over a route previously operated by the university in August 2000, adding 200 to 300,000 riders per year to its system. The route had been the only off-campus route still op- erated by the university. In preparation for the start of the UPass, BT increased its fleet by 50 percent. Because of the short lead time when the university signed the contract, BT chose to buy used buses, which it plans to finish replacing within the next few years. It also made minor changes to its routes in preparation for the UPass. In general, BT continually tweaks its routes to further improve service. It has also steadily ex- panded service for the general public. Fare and Pricing Policy By far the most important factor in BT’s ridership increase was the introduction of the “U-Pass Partnership” in August 2000. Students pay a mandatory transportation fee as part of tuition, part of which is then passed on to BT. In return, students ride the buses for free with a valid university identification card. Interestingly, some of the campus routes operated by the uni- versity still charge a fee, although the university hopes to eventually offer those at no cost. This action was actually initiated by students who wanted to find ways to address traffic and parking issues. They worked with the transit agency and the university administration to as- semble a proposal. BT considers it a win-win situation: it boosted ridership, provided an im- portant revenue source, and improves access for students. The student fees are sufficient to cover the cost of providing the additional service.

24 25 Base fares remained otherwise unchanged during the period. Base fares are $0.75 per ride, with monthly passes sold for $25. Marketing Programs and Initiatives BT initiated a large marketing effort to introduce the UPass program. It continues to provide information at freshman orientation. In addition, it targets students through student news- papers and cable television. Because of the relatively small size of Bloomington, BT is able to buy cable advertising at a cost of only $7.00 for a 30-second spot on major cable channels. Every September, in conjunction with the university transit system and the area’s rural tran- sit system, BT sponsors “Free Week,” in which all buses are free for all riders for seven days. As well as generating a large spike in ridership, it introduces the transit system to new riders. Planning Orientation BT is part of the City’s design/review process and, as such, provides recommendations to make development more transit friendly and to prompt the addition of transit amenities. The past decade has seen an explosion of off-campus housing that provided a ready-made market for BT’s services, and the system has worked particularly closely with these residential de- velopers to ensure good transit access. As well as infill by student housing, development has also occurred on the perimeters of town, creating a challenge for BT to effectively serve these areas. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Though it does not operate the university oncampus circulator routes, BT closely coordinates with the university transit system. Both systems share one operating facility, making such co- ordination easier.
Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) Gainesville, Florida Contact: Shenley Neely, Chief Transit Planner Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 37 percent on the RTS. In large part, this is because of the continuing success of its partnership with the University of Florida to provide unlimited access for students on both on- and off-campus routes. This pro- gram was instituted in 1997, and RTS continually expanded service through the study period to meet demand. RTS reports that only recently has the ridership growth leveled off as the program matures. The potential for future growth is limited by the need for capital to further expand the bus fleet. In addition, the university grew slowly over the period. Like many university campuses, stu- dents increasingly live off campus and parking is scarce at the University, fueling demand for transit. Students account for 70 to 80 percent of ridership on the RTS. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour rose eight percent; passengers per mile rose 28 per- cent; while the cost per passenger remained steady. The difference in increases between pas- sengers per hour and passengers per mile may be because of the reduction in average speed resulting from increased crowding. Service Adjustments In response to the increasing demand from students, RTS has steadily added routes, increased frequency of service, and put additional buses into service during the period. Some changes were made on non-university routes as well. In particular, RTS increased the frequency of service and restructured routes in the less affluent east side of Gainesville. In general, RTS takes advantage of breaks in the academic year to make schedule changes. When the university agreement was instituted in 1997, RTS purchased an additional 20 buses with an SIB (State Infrastructure Bank) loan and STP money. To add new university routes, RTS received funding for operating expenses from state DOT grants and university funding. The university pays RTS by the number of revenue and service hours incurred. The growth in student ridership has helped RTS gain more formula-based money. Future growth for RTS is constrained by the need to acquire more equipment; however, the 50-50 Federal match is difficult for RTS to meet. It receives little funding from the City, and its university contracts are only meant to cover operating expenses. Fare and Pricing Policy Fares remained unchanged during the period. However, the university did increase the trans- portation fee per credit hour that it charges to students. Marketing Programs and Initiatives RTS actively promoted its services to students through flyers and information during orien- tation. It also launched a marketing effort to promote the increased service offered to the east side of Gainesville during the period (see above). Planning Orientation RTS actively seeks input from its customers through public forums, meetings, and its citi- zen advisory board. It revised its TDP annually, with major updates every five years. RTS often makes use of the university’s transportation research center to assist in planning new strategies. RTS benefits from city policy that exempts developers from meeting roadway level of service requirements in the downtown area (known as the “Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area”), in return for meeting requirements for pedestrian connectivity and transit access. RTS is closely involved in a new city planning effort, called “Plan East Gainesville,” that hopes to revitalize East Gainesville by using bus rapid transit and other transit improvements to spur economic growth.

Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives RTS is involved in supplying transit to new residential developments. Though new student housing in the area tends towards isolated gated-style residential communities, developers compete to be on transit routes. In one recent development, RTS agreed to provide bus ser- vice running through the streets of a development to better serve its residents; generally, the system avoids entering developments because of the extra time it adds.
City of Phoenix Public Transit Department Phoenix, Arizona Contacts: Steven P. Brown, Deputy Director, Operations and Planning Dale Hardy Sandi Harrison Summary City of Phoenix public transit services represent approximately 60 percent of the transit ser- vice available in the region and carries approximately 70 percent of the ridership in the re- gion. All services in Phoenix are contracted through two fixed-route providers, one demand- responsive provider, and two providers running local circulator services. Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate that ridership on the City of Phoenix system increased 27 percent. The in- crease was largely the result of service improvements and system expansion following a 2000 referendum that dedicated an additional four-tenths of a percent of sales tax revenue for bus, rail, and transit operations. Performance During the period following the 2000 referendum, service was extended and added as a mat- ter of policy to establish a new service base for Phoenix. As a result, as service was expanded, passengers per mile and per hour suffered very small declines and cost per passenger rose slightly according to data from the NTD. Today, performance in terms of passengers per mile is improving slightly month to month. Service Adjustments Initial service expansion following the 2000 referendum was carried out without putting ad- ditional vehicles in service. Sunday service, which had not been provided for 30 years, was reinstituted and Saturday services increased. In 2001, 96 new vehicles were placed in service allowing frequencies to be increased on the most heavily used routes. During the period, miles of service increased approximately 20 percent each year. Today there is 50 percent more service in place than there was in 2000. The funding referendum also included support for shelters and other amenities that are felt to have had a positive impact on ridership. In addition, new “Rapid” bus service is being provided in four commuting corridors and expansion of the service is planned for a fifth corridor, all sup- ported by a system of park-and-ride lots. The Rapid service is provided with 56 new 45-foot composite buses with commuter configuration and amenities. 26 27 Another funding initiative is scheduled for November 2004. Approximately two-thirds of the revenue from the proposed 1/2-cent sales tax extension would go to highways and one-third to transit in its various forms. If passed, the revenue measure is expected to provide for a dou- bling of current services levels in the next 20 years. The current 1/2-cent sales tax is predom- inately for highway construction, with more than 98 percent of the revenues being used for that purpose. Fare and Pricing Policy No significant changes were made is fares or fare policy during the period. Marketing Programs and Initiatives Transit marketing is conceived and carried out with a regional perspective and focus. The largest interest has come from “community” newspapers, reflecting their desires to cater to very localized market needs. Also, a “Transit Now” local cable program is produced every two months. The most significant and successful marketing initiative, however, has been Phoenix Transit Department’s commitment to be in the field personally to meet with and assist individual rid- ers at critical locations as service changes are made. The effort is an attempt to “make people feel comfortable” in seeking out and using transit. Typically, this field support is initiated one to two weeks ahead of the planned changes and through implementation. The one-on-one en- counters are thought to be highly successful creating and maintaining a positive image for transit as well as helping to insure successful transitions in services. Planning Orientation The entire set of Phoenix Transit Department services is provided through private contrac- tors. A very successful community-based planning initiative was used for the planning of cir- culator services in the Ahwatukee area of Phoenix. This area of approximately 75,000 resi- dents within the City of Phoenix has been underserved by transit service in the past. The curvilinear street network and a mountain park that limited access to the rest of the City of Phoenix provided challenges to the provision of transit service by standard 40-foot buses. Uti- lizing a planning group of nearly 40 area residents, staff assisted them in developing new cir- culator service that served destinations they deemed important, traveling on neighborhood streets, using 23-foot 16-passenger “cutaway” style vehicles. The service has been very suc- cessful, establishing the standard planning process that will be used as future neighborhood circulator services are planned.
Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA) Greensboro, North Carolina Contact: Nancy Nichols, General Manager Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 26 percent on the GTA sys- tem. The agency could not point to any particular reason for its growth in ridership over that period.

28 29 GTA offers hourly service on most of its routes. Although it has not added service, it has im- proved the quality of the service it offers. This has included the acquisition of new equipment and construction of a new depot, complete with customer service representative to answer questions about the transit system. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, though passengers per hour remained the same and passengers per mile declined four percent, the overall cost per passenger declined 18 percent. Service Adjustments Ridership has increased so much that the system began using support vehicles to improve re- liability, though frequency of service was not increased. Instead, GTA staged extra buses along the route that come into service when a driver reports running 10 minutes late or hav- ing 10 standees. GTA plans to soon expand its paratransit service to cover the whole city. Fare and Pricing Policy Fares remained unchanged during the period. A university pass will be offered in fall of 2004 for the first time. However, the hourly service may serve as a barrier to student interest. Planning Orientation GTA prides itself on its responsiveness to customer input. It holds many open meetings and encourages citizens to attend its board meetings. Transit representatives attend community meetings to answer questions on transit. GTA also has a rider advisory committee, whose members get input from other passengers and receive free bus passes in return. A driver ad- visory committee is composed of bus drivers who provide their insights into ways to improve service. GTA has ambitious plans. As the result of a recent study and recommendations, it hopes to double its ridership within five years. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives GTA often works with developers to ensure that developments are transit accessible, and is working to improve that process.
Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) Cocoa, Florida Contact: Jim Liesenfelt, Transit Director Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 26 percent on the SCAT sys- tem. Ridership initiatives that helped spur the growth include an expansion of service that tapped into the area’s latent demand for transit; a major restructuring of routes and schedules that better served the area and made transfers more practical and more convenient; and an in- creased emphasis on reliability and ontime performance. In addition, population grew sig- nificantly throughout the period. However, the major ridership gains were made in areas that were already fully developed. SCAT has served the area since 1974. However, fixed-route service did not begin until 1991. Its routes cover both the mainland and a barrier island. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour rose nine percent; passengers per mile declined 22 percent; and the cost per passenger declined four percent. Service Adjustments In October 2001, SCAT began a series of major changes that greatly expanded and improved its service in the northern part of the County. The changes were made partly in response to an increased focus by the Board of County Commissioners on riders other than the elderly and disabled, who were SCAT’s traditional customers. SCAT was also able to take advantage of the increasing number of vanpool services offered by elderly and disabled service centers to shift its own resources into fixed-route service. As part of the service expansion, SCAT restructured its routes to simplify the routing and make transfers easier. It significantly increased frequency of service, so that many routes had half-hour headways and none longer than one hour, which also served to make transfers more convenient. It added a beach trolley route and lengthened the hours of operation of its buses. SCAT expanded its fleet in order to provide the new service, though it has generally decreased the size of its buses as they were replaced. This was done both to make the buses fuller and for better maneuverability in shopping centers. Part of the restructuring was also geared towards improving ontime performance and relia- bility; in particular, much greater emphasis was put on making schedules more realistic. In addition, to make its service more visible and easier to use, SCAT began to prominently post bus stop signs showing the route number, hours, and schedule. SCAT noted that the service expansions seemed to tap into a latent demand for transit ser- vices. Prior to this, SCAT was perceived as a service mostly for the elderly and disabled. The addition of the new service and a newer fleet of buses changed its public image. At the same time, SCAT continued to expand its paratransit fleet and noted that demand easily kept pace with the additional capacity provided. Fare and Pricing Policy In the summer of 2001, SCAT introduced a special program for schoolchildren, who could ride free by showing a library card. The program continues today, and generates a spike of several percentage points in ridership. As well as increasing ridership in the summer, the pro- gram introduces schoolchildren to SCAT’s services. SCAT has seen an increasing number of schoolchildren using its buses to get to school during the academic year. Base fares remained unchanged during the period, at $1.00.

Marketing Programs and Initiatives A special marketing effort was introduced for the free schoolchild program in 2002, in which SCAT distributed brochures to every eligible child in the local schools. Previously, in 2001, SCAT had left marketing up to the local library system, which did not have the resources to launch such an effort. SCAT has now hired a consultant to do a marketing study and determine which parts are most effective. As part of that study, focus groups are being formed of frequent, infrequent, and potential riders to learn what marketing will appeal to them. As well as maintaining an Inter- net site, SCAT currently buys radio and television advertising, and has won numerous awards for its ads. Planning Orientation SCAT credits some of its success to its ability to have close contact with the passengers be- cause of its small size. Bus drivers pass on input from customers, and even the administrative staff talks to passengers who come to the office to buy passes. In addition, SCAT has one em- ployee gather input by riding buses three days per week and talking to passengers and drivers about what can be improved. SCAT is now preparing to do a ridership survey of its full sys- tem to gather quantitative data on its riders. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives SCAT coordinates with health and human services agencies to provide service for the elderly and disabled, and works closely with senior homes. Development in the area has continued to be relatively low density, and SCAT does not work closely with residential developers. However, it often works with shopping centers to locate bus stops, as its buses often enter the shopping centers to directly serve the storefronts.
Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership (The Rapid) Grand Rapids, Michigan Contact: Peter Varga, Executive Director/CEO Conrad Venema, Long Range Planner Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership on The Rapid of 26 percent. The increase was largely the result of a renewed and expanded commitment to public trans- portation on the part of the six surrounding jurisdictions, a commitment that revised The Rapid’s governance and institutional structure on a regional scale and provided increased funding through a successful mileage referendum at the time of the reorganization. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour rose more than 15 percent, passengers per mile rose nearly 13 percent, and cost per passenger declined nearly five percent. Improved performance in the midst of service expansion was made possible by aggressive service monitoring on a monthly basis that continues through to today. 30 31 Service Adjustments In early 2000, a highway bridge rebuilding project began that essentially shut a major high- way to and through Grand Rapids. To mitigate the anticipated traffic problems, the State sup- ported bus service expansion and frequency improvements and HOV-based services in major corridors. A predictable spike in transit ridership occurred over the succeeding nine months. Following the construction period, ridership dipped a little but is coming back up again since the millage passed as part of the creation of the Interurban Transit Partnership provided funds to retain most of the service improvements originally supported by state funds. In late 2003, another millage was passed by a 65 percent vote in all six cities, allowing The Rapid to again plan for expansion of service. Planning Orientation The Interurban Transit Partnership has been operating since its inception as mobility man- ager in the region as well as a service provider. One arm of its Development Division has taken on the role of “mobility solutions, inc.,” to facilitate solutions and partnerships to the entire of range of mobility problems. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives The success of The Rapid is partly because of the broad and deep support transit enjoys in the region and that led up to the creation of Partnership. In addition to garnering the sup- port of a large majority of citizens who enacted two millage increases, political leaders in all six member jurisdictions have also been supportive of the Partnership. The Partnership has also aggressively partnered with Grand Valley State University to develop shuttle ser- vices that link its two 10,000-student campuses. Service has been so successful that head- ways have been dropped 30 minutes to 20 minutes and now to 15 minutes, with plans to go to 10 minutes. Finally, the Partnership has engaged with the City of Grand Rapids in development of a down- town shuttle service.
CityBus of Greater Lafayette Lafayette, Indiana Contact: Martin B. Sennett, General Manager Summary CityBus ridership increased 25 percent from 2000 to 2002. The major impetus for the increase came from a decision by Purdue University, with persistent encouragement by CityBus, to provide Purdue students and faculty with unlimited access to CityBus services. Performance Over the two-year period, NTD data indicate that performance on the CityBus system improved as ridership increased. As ridership grew 25 percent, passengers per hour increased 14 percent, passengers per mile grew 18 percent, and cost per passenger declined eight percent.

32 33 Service Adjustments Growth on the campus of 38,000 students has necessitated a building program that replaced surface parking lots with university buildings. The resulting circulation and access needs provided the impetus for the unlimited pass program. As a result of the additional demand from Purdue students and faculty, new routes were added to the system, weekend hours were extended, and a partnership formed with the University to develop necessary park- and-ride lots. Fare and Pricing Policy The unlimited access program for Purdue University students and faculty relies on a univer- sity identification card for boarding and is supported through tuition payments, approximately $1.0 million of which is paid to CityBus annually to offset related service costs. Prior to the introduction of the unlimited access program, individual passes were marketed and sold to university students and faculty with only minimal impact of CityBus ridership. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Ridership increases at CityBus were also a result of initiatives to provide childcare facilities and services in proximity to CityBus service. The first childcare facility opened in 1998 a half block from the main CityBus transfer site. A second was opened in September 2002 as part of a $57 million joint development project. The impetus for the childcare initiatives came, in part, from opportunities made available through the Federal Livable Communities and Welfare-to- Work initiatives. The childcare services are provided in facilities owned by CityBus and leased to a non-profit childcare provider. They handle more than 70 children daily with all ages under one roof to ease parent travel. CityBus estimates that 40 to 50 percent of the children served arrive by bus and are drawn from a combination of graduate student and worker households.
Ventura County Transit (VISTA) Ventura, California Contact: Ginger Gherardi, Executive Director Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 25 percent on the VISTA sys- tem. The system began service in 1994 and has been steadily expanding since then. It credits its continued ridership increases to increasing awareness of its services as the system matures, increasing efforts to make its service more user friendly through information services, and its offering of high-quality, courteous service. In addition, the region enjoyed a strong economy during the period, though population growth has not been a significant factor in the area. VISTA is not an urban system. It serves primarily to connect local transit systems through- out the County. Its buses are long-distance commuter coaches running routes up to 70 miles long, with stops typically eight to 15 miles apart. Many of its riders are discretionary riders; i.e., passengers who also own cars. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance improved as well. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour rose 40 percent; passengers per mile stayed steady; and the cost per passenger declined 36 percent. In large part, these numbers reflect increased ridership on a system with steady service levels. Service Adjustments Relatively few service adjustments were made. During the period, Sunday service was added on several routes. Service was also added to serve Cal State Channel Islands, a new univer- sity campus. Minor route changes were made as well, primarily lengthening some of the routes. As a result of increasing crowding on the buses, VISTA began running “tripper” buses be- hind the regular buses on some routes to pick up the overflow. The system is now acquiring larger buses to eliminate this problem. Fare and Pricing Policy In 2002, VISTA introduced SmartCard technology to its buses, enabling passengers to use one pass to ride anywhere in the County. No fare changes were made during the period. Fares range between $1.00 and $1.50. Marketing Programs and Initiatives VISTA continues a marketing effort that includes radio advertising and community outreach through activities such as annual elementary school contests. Planning Orientation VISTA has continually focused on making its service simple to understand and use. In the past few years (in large part beginning in 2002), the system has introduced a number of tech- nological innovations to this end. As well as the SmartCard discussed above, it offers the NextBus service to allow passengers to check on the Internet for the real-time status of buses in the system; it also installed electronic signs in terminals displaying arrival times of the next bus. It also offers an online router service and a dialup center that customers can call for in- formation. According to VISTA, 90 percent of residents in its service areas have household computers, and can use the system’s online services. The transit system is also very focused on getting customer input. It conducts passenger sur- veys on its buses every year, and has made changes based on input received. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives VISTA collaborates with Cal State Channel Islands to serve its campus. The university sub- sidizes VISTA’s service.

Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) Lansing, Michigan Contacts: Sandy Draggoo, Executive Director Debbie Alexander, Assistant Executive Director Summary Over the 2000 to 2002 period, CATA ridership increased 25 percent, mostly because of arrangements made to serve the 45,000 student Michigan State University campus (MSU). In addition to fully integrating into the CATA system what previously had been independently run university bus service, CATA benefited from a unique arrangement involving the City of East Lansing, MSU, and CATA in successful efforts to serve several large, new private hous- ing developments catering to the university community. Performance With the substantial growth in ridership, performance of the CATA system improved as well. NTD data indicate that passengers per hour increased seven percent, passengers per mile in- creased 14 percent, and cost per passenger declined eight percent in the period. Service Adjustments During the period in question, CATA took over full operation of an independently run MSU bus system. For the first year, no new service was added while CATA gauged the market and trip patterns. Subsequently, however, the MSU service was totally restructured, including in- creased frequencies and consistent hours and schedules. In addition, an additional route was added to provide circulator service between academic buildings. As a result, ridership on the MSU services grew from 950,000 annually to nearly 2.7 million in 2002. Demand has been such that articulated vehicles are in use on the system. As part of the arrangement, CATA retains the right to add service unilaterally as demand in- creases in order to maintain an effective and efficient overall operation on behalf of users. When added services are needed, a 30-day “demand”test is conducted where new services are operated at CATA’s expense. If the additional services meet pre-set passenger per hour stan- dards, MSU automatically takes responsibility for funding the additional service. As service is added, the cost is charged back to the university under this arrangement. Fare and Pricing Policy Prior to taking over the university service, fares were paid by students through the purchase of individual ride tickets sold from a limited number of outlets. The transition to CATA ser- vice did not involve pre-payment for service by the university, however. Instead, students in- dependently purchase semester-long passes or pay cash to ride. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives During the 2000 to 2002 period, CATA initiated a number of new, innovative arrangements that brought new riders to the system as well as enlarging the image, role, and appreciation of transit in the community. 34 35 The Housing/Land Use/Transit Initiative. Approximately 17,000 students are housed on the MSU campus, leaving a huge student population housed throughout the community. As a re- sult of this demand, private developers have built outlying residential developments marketed and managed exclusively for students. Four major housing developments have been built for this purpose beginning in 1999. They generally lie within five to six miles of the campus within a 3/4-square-mile area and provide nearly 3,000 beds. Residents lease individual beds regardless of size of the unit, providing a more attractive arrangement for students. As part of the agreement to bring the development into conformity with zoning requirements, developers were required to work with CATA to make a high level of public transportation available. As a result, the developers purchase passes from CATA for residents—one pass per bed in a unit is required—with the cost of the pass built into the rental price to cover the cost of CATA service. The result is high levels of usage and greatly improved safety, particularly as residents move onto the CATA service during hours when walking the local roads has proven a danger. Service levels are managed much like the arrangement with the university; i.e., a base level of service was defined as that which was in operation prior to this new arrange- ment. Service is added (or reduced) as demand requires through the same type of “demand” test described above, although the test runs for a period of 15 rather than 30 days. The cost of added service is split with the developers and worked back into the lease cost of each bed. The State Department of Management and Budget Initiative. Land previously used for sur- face parking by state employees was converted for state building construction, causing park- ing shortages and congestion in downtown Lansing. CATA and the State of Michigan De- partment of Management and Budget collaborated in development of a shuttle service from a remote leased parking lot, connecting with other lots. Service ran on five-minute intervals in the peak periods and 15-minute intervals in the off peak. The cost of the service was paid from the budget of the Department of Management and Budget and fares from customers, thereby enlarging the resource base for transit in the region. At its peak, the shuttle carried nearly 13,000 riders per month. ReadiRide. As in most outlying suburban areas, it is often difficult to operate economically with large buses on fixed-route services. Realizing this, CATA and two townships in the region have worked out an arrangement to provide publicly available four-hour demand- responsive service rather than standard fixed-route service offered from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday. The townships pay for a negotiated level of services from their own funds and riders are charged a flat $1.00 fare (or half fare for qualifying riders). One of the two townships passed a special mill levy to fund the service for 10 years.
Kalamazoo Metro Transit System (Metro Transit) Kalamazoo, Michigan Contact: William J. Schomisch, Transportation Director Summary Metro Transit is a city system that operates 21 routes but provides service to six adjacent juris- dictions. For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a ridership increase of 23 per- cent on the Kalamazoo system. The increase occurred through a combination of initiatives, including a permanent service expansion following a demonstration and funding referendum and a new arrangement to provide service to Western Michigan University.

36 37 Performance As ridership was increasing, performance on the system was also improving. Over the two- year period, NTD data indicate that passengers per hour increased 16 percent and passengers per mile increased 23 percent while cost per passenger stayed the same. Today the system op- erates with an average of 26 passengers per hour, reflecting the impact of increasingly high use by university students. Service Adjustments The ridership increases from 2000 to 2002 began as a result of a service expansion demon- stration that was planned in response to market research conducted regularly by Metro Tran- sit. The expansion involved a four-month expansion of evening service from 7:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. The demonstration was made possible by special support from the State. The suc- cess of the expansion led to doubling the existing 1/2-mil levy for transit to 1.0 mil, a measure that is renewed by referendum every three years. Metro Transit service configuration is radial and a new downtown transfer center combining local bus, Amtrak, and regional commuter rail services is in advanced stages of planning. Marketing Programs and Initiatives To support the three-year cycle of millage renewal referenda, Metro Transit conducts a reg- ular market research program to determine what improvements or shift in service orientation is desired in the community. Prior to the 2000 to 2002 period, surveys revealed that the high- est priority service change was to add evening service and secondly to add Saturday service. In response, Saturday service was increased to provide consistent service six days a week fol- lowing the expansion of evening service. The most recent survey, completed in fall 2003, indicates the next priority is to further ex- pand evening service to midnight, making it possible to better serve evening shift workers. Metro Transit expects another boost in ridership from this improvement although no firm es- timates have been made yet from the detailed survey data. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Perhaps the more important impetus for the 2000 to 2002 ridership increases came from an agreement with Western Michigan University to take over service the university had previ- ously operated with vehicles and drivers leased from Metro Transit. The decision was driven by university concern over parking and congestion on campus as enrollment has grown to more than 29,000 students. As a result, Metro Transit took over direct operation of two routes on campus and four routes that directly serve the campus. The services are operated on a full schedule for only the fall and winter semesters. The uni- versity pays Metro Transit $1.9 million annually, up from $400,000 when the switch was made. Funding comes from university parking fees and all students are provided unlimited access to the Metro Transit system year-round. More than one million riders per year use the university services. Publicity from the success of the university partnership has also drawn positive attention to the entire Metro Transit system, with a presumably positive impact on ridership as well.
Norwalk Transit System (NTS) Norwalk, California Contact: Rita Peralta, Transit Grants Analyst Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 19 percent on NTS. The sys- tem expanded its paratransit offerings in 2002 and took over operation of an LACMTA bus route, which added significantly to ridership. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance remained largely un- changed. According to NTD data, passengers per hour rose two percent; passengers per mile rose five percent; and the cost per passenger remained unchanged. Service Adjustments In 2002, NTS took over operation of the eastern segment of an MTA bus line. Earlier in the year, it expanded its paratransit offerings by lowering the eligible age for dial-a-ride service and expanding its “Get-Around” route deviation service. In addition, some minor adjustments fixed routes were made in 2000 to improve service. Fare and Pricing Policy No fare policies were changed during the period. However, the system did introduce a Smart- Card system in 1998. Marketing Programs and Initiatives No major changes were made in marketing in the period. NTS continued community charity drives such as its “Wrap-A-Bus” and “Stuff-A-Bus” programs. In general, it buys relatively little advertising. It also performs travel training at senior centers to provide more information about how to use its services. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives To enhance MetroLink commuter rail service that runs through NTS’ service area, it provides a shuttle bus to off-site parking to alleviate parking problems at the train station.
Knoxville Area Transit (KAT) Knoxville, Tennessee Contact: Robert Schneider, Director of Program Administration Summary Between 2000 and 2002, data indicate an increase in ridership of 17 percent on the KAT system. Much of the growth is because of the complete revamping of the downtown trolley,

introduction of a job-access reverse commute program, better marketing, and a stronger em- phasis on customer service. In addition, Knoxville’s downtown is undergoing a surge in downtown redevelopment that has brought residents and business downtown. Knoxville is the recipient of a Federal “Em- powerment Zone” grant, which supplies $100 million over 10 years for redevelopment. A new, $100 million convention center opened during the period and the downtown historical center is being rebuilt. Plans are being developed for a new transit center downtown as well. KAT has been able to fund many of the service expansions through public-private partner- ships, the Federal Jobs Access grant, or other grants such as CMAQ. Performance Through the two-year period of ridership growth, system performance was maintained. Ac- cording to NTD data, passengers per hour declined six percent; passengers per mile rose five percent; and the cost per passenger declined one percent. Service Adjustments The largest service adjustment, and a major contributor to ridership growth, was a complete overhaul of KAT’s downtown circulator trolley service. Although the service had been in place since 1986, it had suffered budget cuts, used aging equipment, and was experiencing declining ridership. To combat this, a trolley service strategic plan was developed and im- plemented in the summer of 1999. The routes were restructured, headways reduced, more and better signage was installed, and a visitor-oriented trolley map was developed. The drivers were given new uniforms and the look of the trolley equipment was completely changed to give it a cleaner and more antique look, with more brass, classic maroon colors, and fewer advertisements. An “ambassador” training program was also instituted for trolley bus drivers, in which the employees were given free passes to try downtown attractions and restaurants in order to be able to make recommendations to riders. As a result, the new trolley service quickly doubled its ridership, and accounts for 40 to 50 per- cent of total system ridership. The service is free to the public, and its use continues to expand. KAT rerouted the trolleys to directly serve the new convention center and has experienced sig- nificant ridership from that. In addition, with construction making downtown parking less con- venient, KAT has noted riders beginning to use it as a shuttle to access parking lots farther away. KAT is now in the process of acquiring hybrid-electric trolleys for its fleet. As part of a Job Access Reverse Commute program, KAT also instituted a night bus and Sun- day service in the summer of 2000, open to any member of the public. The service combines four fixed routes (less than the daytime route system) with a demand-response feeder bus, and free transfers. Ridership on this service adds four or five percent to KAT’s total. Initial growth in ridership on this service was very large, as people learned about the service, and has since leveled off. Nonetheless, it accounts for four or five percent of KAT’s total ridership. In a partnership with private student housing developers, KAT introduced two lines providing direct service to the University of Tennessee campus from housing developments. Although not in the study period, it also greatly expanded its service at the university in January 2003, introducing fixed routes with short (five-minute) headways, ADA service, and late night shut- tles to the residence halls. It has seen significant ridership gains from this new service. 38 39 In addition, KAT has replaced much of its fleet in the past few years. As well as getting newer equipment on the streets, it has used the opportunity to buy buses better suited to its cus- tomer’s desires. For instance, customers have expressed interest in smaller buses in residen- tial communities (see below). Fare and Pricing Policy KAT did not make any changes to its basic fare structure in this period. It continued to offer discount passes to university students, but more intense marketing of them led to a significant increase in their use (see below). In addition, the new night and Sunday service was instituted with free transfers (unlike the rest of the KAT system). Marketing Programs and Initiatives KAT improved its marketing and image over the period. Its television and print ads have won several APTA awards. As well as acquiring new equipment, it also improved its schedules and maps, making them easier to read and more modern looking. Though it does not do this any more, it had several eye-catching bus wraps during the period, and tied some marketing programs to the wraps. For instance, the bus wrapped with an ad for a local television station would be free on certain days. KAT increased the effectiveness of its university marketing starting in August 1999 by mail- ing free bus passes to students, valid for one semester. Students can qualify for discount passes, but many were not aware of the program or of how transit could be useful to them. KAT received no university funding for this and meant it as a marketing effort to introduce students to its service and encourage some to buy passes the following semester. Planning Orientation KAT increased its emphasis on customer input during the study period. In 2001, it hired its first customer service manager. It also in 2001 created the “2010 Action Plan,” a strategic planning initiative that put a strong focus on finding out what its customers really wanted. An outside con- sultant was brought in, and passenger profile surveys were conducted that showed interest in more frequent, direct, and convenient service, more flexible services, and smaller vehicles for neighborhood service. KAT began implementing changes in the summer of 2002 in direct re- sponse to these suggestions, focusing on improving on the services at which it was best. As well as getting customer input, KAT credits these activities with marketing its services. Related activities include customer appreciation days held at its transfer points and attendance at community meetings. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives During the period, two separate student apartment complexes approached KAT to institute direct service to campus. These services have been very popular, even though students still need to buy bus passes. The convenience of the service and the low cost of the pass in com- parison to parking make it an attractive option for the students. The housing complexes con- sider it highly successful as well; in fact, the second complex did not approach KAT until it has seen how successful the service was, and even subsidized the service. Moreover, KAT has found that once they have bought the bus pass, the students use transit for more than just the trip to campus.

40 41 KAT worked closely with the Central Business Improvement District to revamp the down- town trolley service (see above). It paid special attention to what the businesses looked for in the trolley service through numerous consultations with them. It serves numerous groups in Knoxville’s downtown. It also has partnerships with both the minor league hockey and baseball teams to provide game-day shuttle service, subsidized by the teams. KAT regularly provides shuttle services for University of Tennessee sporting and concert events, and its relationship with the univer- sity has become even more important with the new campus service offered starting in 2003 (see above).
Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) Ames, Iowa Contact: Bob Bourne, Executive Director Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a ridership increase of nearly 30 percent on the Ames systems. The circumstances surrounding the increase parallel those that led to significant ridership increases in each of the two prior study periods (1991–1993 and 1994–1996). In each period, the main driver behind substantial ridership increases has been the maturing relationship with and service design catering to the 27,000-member student body of Iowa State University. System Performance Over the 2000–2002 period, as ridership rose nearly 30 percent, productivity on the system improved as well with 49 passengers per hour in the peak. Service Adjustments Significant service adjustments were made in the period as part of a multi-year agreement with Iowa State students to “buy out” full use of the system (i.e., student fees through the Uni- versity support free use of the system for students using student identification). As part of this arrangement, significant improvements were made in the frequency of service: • Most 20-minute headways were reduced to 10 minutes, which had the effective drawing out increases in discretionary trip-making; • Saturday and Sunday headways were reduced from 70 minutes to 35 minutes; and • Late Friday and Saturday headways were reduced to 15 minutes. Fare and Pricing Policy The student fee developed as part of the “buy out” package was set to both: 1) offset the lost revenue from free travel by students; and 2) pay for the operating costs growing out of the service adjustments described. Service Coordination and Collaboration The CyRide story is clearly one of an evolving, collaborative, and mutually beneficial rela- tionship with the most important institution and largest trip generator in the Ames area. While the transit market is expected to remain stable, the actions taken to produce this remarkable pattern of ridership increases may have pushed market share to its limit. CyRide staff is un- certain whether ridership increases of the scale experienced most recently can continue, or where the market may lie that would produce them.
Santa Clarita Transit Los Angeles, California Contact: Bob Murphy, Transportation Manager Summary Ridership on the Santa Clarita Transit system grew 17 percent from 2000 to 2002. The area experienced large population growth during the period, and continues to do so. Overall, tran- sit managers feel that the new fleet of buses the agency is putting on the streets and its reli- able, high-quality service are their most effective marketing tools, and have helped encour- age the use of transit even among non-traditional markets. Service Adjustments Santa Clarita Transit made several service improvements over the period. In January 2001, it moved the hub of its hub-and-spoke system to a new, better-located transfer station that cut travel times by 15 minutes for many passengers. It added a new commuter route in 1999 to serve UCLA and Century City. It also changed a local route to serve a new neighborhood, which required it to increase headways. It plans to expand that service upon delivery of new vehicles next year. Over the period, Santa Clarita Transit embarked on a program of vehicle replacement de- signed to turn over the entire fleet but has been restricted in its growth potential because of maintenance facility constraints over this period. Its 80 vehicles shared a facility with the pub- lic works department. Santa Clarita Transit is currently building a 12-acre site that is sched- uled to open in March 2005. Santa Clarita Transit plans to begin a new local fixed route to the San Fernando Valley next year, and expects to have good ridership numbers on it from reverse commuters coming into the Santa Clarita Valley for work. Even now, some of its commuter buses to Los Angeles re- turn to the Santa Clarita Valley in revenue service in the mornings with workers making the reverse commute. Fare and Pricing Policy Santa Clarita Transit implemented a two-phase fare increase in 2001 and 2002, raising fares on local routes from $0.75 to $1.00 and passes from $20 to $25 per month. Commuter bus fares also increased about 15 percent. A discounted monthly pass program for junior high and high school students was ended in 2002, with no reduction in ridership. The local school district has become more dependent on Santa Clarita Transit services to get students to school during this period, as discussed below.

Santa Clarita Transit implemented online pass sales near the end of the study period, becom- ing the first system in the Los Angeles area to do so. These sales have shown good growth for both commuter express and local services. The agency also is in development of a frequent rider program, in which riders who buy 11 passes would get the 12th for free. Marketing Programs and Initiatives Santa Clarita Transit reduced its media buy over the period, in part because it suffered oper- ational problems and abuses from the use of clip-out coupons in local papers. It did continue to participate in Los Angeles county-coordinated efforts to promote transit as part of APTA’s “PT2” campaign. It also continues to provide free-ride tickets for transportation management organizations (TMOs) in corporate developments. Planning Orientation Santa Clarita Transit continued to actively solicit feedback from its users during the period. The “Ambassador Program” is a focus group of 15 users of its premium routes and commuter bus services. The group meets monthly to discuss issues with the transit service, and receives free monthly passes in return. A similar advisory group exists for its local routes. A more for- mal committee for the city manager provides advice on paratransit; this committee is com- posed of both riders (seniors and disabled) and their service providers. In addition, Santa Clarita Transit is required to hold an annual “unmet needs” hearing to get community feedback. The agency specifically notifies citizens who have sent in suggestions over the year of the meeting to allow them the opportunity to comment. As Santa Clarita Tran- sit has expanded its bus service, comments received have shifted focus from service levels to the provision of amenities. In response, the agency is planning to upgrade and replace all its old shelters. Santa Clarita Transit is also now part of the City’s “Big Picture” program, which is a major citywide effort to solicit community input on urban planning. In terms of community planning, Santa Clarita Transit works to improve bus and pedestrian access in new developments. Over time, the City and transit agency have developed a close working relationship with the primary developer in the area. However, the low transit devel- opment fee charged to residential developments prevents Santa Clarita Transit from raising significant funds through this mechanism to meet the new transit needs created. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Santa Clarita Transit’s responsibility for transporting schoolchildren increased over the pe- riod as the number of pupils and schools rapidly grew even while the school district decreased its own yellow bus service. Santa Clarita Transit tries, not always successfully, to serve the school campuses with bus routes that are also useful to other transit riders. Unfortunately, not all of the school district’s new campuses are well located for transit access, creating service and budget issues for Santa Clarita Transit. With new vehicle purchases, the agency plans to be able to provide service to all the new campuses by August 2005. Santa Clarita Transit continues to participate in the Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association, and is cooperating with the Los Angeles MTA in implementing integrated Smart Card technology. It also coordinates with Los Angeles County to promote Santa Clarita Tran- sit’s goals and standards in the nearby unincorporated areas, which are outside City of Santa Clarita’s control. The County pays a share of the costs of providing service to these areas. 42 43
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Orange, California Contact: Rick Teichert, Director of Operations, Scott Holmes, Jorge Duran Summary Ridership on OCTA services increased more than 12 percent in the 2000 to 2002 period largely as a result of OCTA initiatives that capitalized on continuing local economic strength and a strong local job market. It became evident leading up to this period, however, that the OCTA’s route structure made it increasingly difficult to add effective service quickly enough to meet growing needs. In response, a full-scale route restructuring program called the “Straight-Lining Project” was undertaken along with supporting marketing and pricing ini- tiatives, as described below. The resulting grid system has attracted more riders, made it eas- ier to grow the system more quickly, and has made partnering easier across a number of ac- tivities including marketing, employer programs, and pas programs. Fare and Pricing Policy Chronologically, the base for the 2000 to 2002 ridership increases was established, in part, through fare and pricing adjustments and strategies implemented in July 1999 that grew out of a two-year study. Prior to 1999, fares had not been changed since 1991. Part of the ini- tiative involved introduction of a “Day Pass” that was introduced at a discounted $2.00 rate for six months, and the elimination of transfers. The Day Pass fare today is $2.50. In Janu- ary 2000, and the pass began using magnetic swipe technology to increases the convenience for users. During the period, university pass programs were also introduced for two of the major col- leges in the County, Cal State Fullerton and UC Irvine. The university pass program is now being expanded to serve other higher education institutions in the County. Service Adjustments The route restructuring program involved converting the OCTA system from a transit center/ hub-oriented route structure to a grid network. While the initial conversion maintained roughly the same number of service hours as had been provided previously, service hours eventually were increased approximately 10 percent in 2001. Approximately one-third of the increase went to frequency increases on selected lines; the remainder went to schedule main- tenance and the addition of a major new route and multiple route extensions. In addition, four routes went to 24-hour service. Initially, ridership declined a little as riders reacclimated themselves to the new network. De- spite the small dip, ridership over the 2000 to 2002 period eventually increased significantly in response to restructuring. Marketing Programs and Initiatives A major marketing campaign, “Point-to-Point,” was carried out to support the route restruc- turing program, with the assistance of contractors and a budget of several hundred thousand dollars. The program involved onboard advertising and announcements, “wraps” on bus ex- teriors, and mailers to homes and businesses. In addition, route-specific actions, including dis- tribution of free-ride coupons, were carried out.

44 45 Planning Orientation The restructuring effort was supported through origin and destination-based planning, mod- eling, and analysis focused, in part, on estimated time savings and travel time increases under various scenarios. The planning effort allowed changes and improvements to the new system as plan implementation proceeded. In addition, a major public outreach effort was undertaken and the involvement of early skeptics of the restructuring program has contin- ued, as described below. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Part of the success of the OCTA restructuring initiative came from the introduction and con- tinued expansion of the university pass program; i.e., sustained involvement and partnering with the university community in Orange County. In addition, early skeptics of the restructuring program were brought into a citizen’s advisory committee to review the changes from a customer perspective. This effort resulted in the de- velopment of a set of more than 95 recommendations for consideration by the Authority and the original group eventually evolved into the “Transit Advocates of Orange County” that has been involved in advising the Authority on follow-up to the restructuring program.
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, Utah Contact: Carole Verschoor, Chief Communications Officer Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a ridership increase of nearly 15 percent on the UTA system. Although UTA had undertaken effective programs that resulted in rider- ship increases in each of the prior two study periods, the circumstances surrounding the 2000–2002 increase are unique. This is the period during which transit as well as highways in the Salt Lake City region were being expanded and enhanced dramatically in anticipation of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. While ridership in the post-Olympic period declined as expected, it has since begun to in- crease again as continued improvement and expansion takes place on the multimodal UTA system. Service Adjustments System expansion played a large part in the 2002 ridership increases: • The first 15 miles of UTA’s light rail system, TRAX, opened in December of 1999; • Three counties—Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber—passed a 1/4 cent sales tax in November 2000 to support UTA expansion; • A second light rail project, the 2.5-mile TRAX University line, was opened in December 2001; • Acquisition of Union Pacific rights-of-way began, ultimately providing UTA with 175 miles of rail corridors for commuter rail service; and • Preliminary discussions of fundamental reorganization at UTA began, reflecting the agency’s evolution from a bus company to a multimodal mobility provider and manager for the region. In addition to the service expansion taking place, UTA conducted a market-based study of trip-making and services in the Provo-Orem part of the region. The result was a significant bus route redesign that reduced service on non-productive routes and expanded service to key destinations and along primary travel corridors. Much of this effort enhanced services to the areas two universities, BYU and Utah Valley State College. Fare and Pricing Policy In April 2001, concurrent with the addition of light rail and as part of the run-up to the Olympics, UTA launched a ridership campaign around a special pass offer. Residents who contacted UTA during the promotion received five day passes and customized route infor- mation. The program resulted in more than 6.8 percent of households responding and 200,000 passes being redeemed. Bus ridership alone increased 2.6 percent. Analysis of the promotion revealed that two-thirds of the residents contacted UTA via the agency’s web site, demonstrating that value of state-of-the-art communications technologies in the design and delivery of transit service. Perhaps more importantly, the promotion allowed UTA to de- velop a database of individual UTA users that has proven helpful in continued service plan- ning and analysis. Marketing Programs and Initiatives UTA has carried out innovative and effective marketing programs for a number of years. A television and newspaper campaign in September 2001 encouraged bus ridership by demon- strating that UTA service could be faster than the car. Another campaign in November 2001, prior to the opening of the TRAX University light rail line, concentrated on “branding” the new line and noted that it had been opened early and within budget. Throughout these and other marketing campaigns, UTA’s public approval rating rose to 73 percent and now stands at 85 percent. Planning Orientation Somewhat before the 2000–2001 period, UTA leadership began exploring the notion that the nature of the organization was changing dramatically from a bus operator to a manager of mo- bility across the region on an increasingly multimodal network. Following the successful ser- vice to residents and visitors during the Olympics, the scope and direction of this change was examined in detail with participation by a wide range of internal and external stakeholders both inside and outside the UTA organization. The result was a fundamental reorganization that has taken place successfully over the past two years. TCRP Report 97, “Emerging New Paradigms: A Guide to Fundamental Change in Local Public Transportation Organizations,” describes this change in greater detail. The reorganization was based in large part on shifting the strategic mission and role of UTA to from operation of its assets to a preeminent concern for the quality of the travel experience regardless of what assets were being used. Enhanced market research, improved monitoring of service quality, and enhanced communications to benefit customers are at the core of this new mission and organization. In addition, day-to-day service design and management is now the responsibility of several new “business units” implemented according to a combination of geography and service modes.

Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Overall mobility throughout the Salt Lake City region was enhanced and UTA ridership in- creased dramatically through the development of a regionwide transportation demand man- agement (TDM) program. The joint program was based on the goal of reducing local “back- ground traffic” during the Olympic Games by 20 percent. With UTA services as the backbone of the TDM plan, background traffic was actually reduced 30 percent. In addition to the collaboration that has taken place in the reorganization of the UTA, support for expansion and improvement of public transportation services has been sustained through a number of coalitions that have been formed throughout the region and primarily composed of elected local officials. These coalitions have been extremely important in a 1,400-square- mile service area covering six counties, two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and a future commuter rail system that will run through some 38 municipalities. The collab- oration has come about through a combination of visionary leadership by senior managers at UTA and a new organizational structure that allows senior leadership to direct more attention to building an understanding of and support for the long-term transit vision.
Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Denver, Colorado Contacts: Cal Marsella, General Manager Tony McCaulay, Director, Customer Services Joe Smith Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate that ridership on the RTD system in- creased more than 12 percent. Much of the increase was driven by riders on the new South- west Corridor light rail line that began service in July 2000, as well as new, innovative ser- vice arrangements instituted in and around the City of Boulder. Increased ridership was also influenced by the strong, full-employment economy in the Denver region during the two-year period. Service Adjustments Significant increases in ridership took place on the RTD system during the 2000 to 2002 pe- riod as a result of service expansion and a series of innovative service adjustments and ini- tiatives. Perhaps the most significant step was the opening of the eventual 14-mile Southwest Corridor light rail line running between downtown Denver and Littleton, Colorado, to the south. Analysis of the ridership on this, the first of several planned LRT lines in the region, indicated that 35 percent of the Southwest LRT riders were new to transit. In addition to the introduction of light rail to the Denver region, ridership increases occurred over the period in response to a continuing series of initiatives that have resulted in unique service strategies and partnerships. These have allowed RTD to substitute effective, innova- tive services while eliminating costly traditional services: • Boulder “theme routes.” In the Boulder, Colorado area, home of the University of Colorado, a series of “theme routes” has been developed over recent years, each with a separate iden- tity and market focus. They include the HOP, SKIP, JUMP, LEAP, BOUND, STAMPEDE, 46 47 DASH, and DART services. The services are operated by RTD under a variety of specific joint funding arrangements with the City of Boulder and surrounding jurisdictions. As an example, the Boulder SKIP service along Broadway was shifted from traditional RTD ser- vice with 40-foot buses to a higher frequency service (reduced to six minutes from 12 min- utes) using smaller vehicles. Boulder citizens participated in establishing vehicle specifi- cations and each theme service has its own brand identity and exterior vehicle design scheme created by local artists. The funding arrangement has as its base the cost of RTD’s former traditional bus service with added costs being shared with the City of Boulder. In the first year, ridership went from 21,000 on RTD’s traditional service to more than 61,000 on the new service. A 60 percent increase in cost has produced a 110 percent increase in ridership. • TMAs and direct service operation. At least one Transportation Management Association (TMA) in the region, SETA in the Tech Center area, is directly operating a circulator ser- vice called “Link” that is underwritten by RTD under an intergovernmental agreement. • “Call and Ride” services. Begun in 2000, RTD’s “Call and Ride” services are provided in smaller, outlying suburbs where traditional fixed-route services cannot be cost effective. Typically, one or two vehicles are operated under private contract and given a localized identity and a defined service area in which to operate. Service hours typically range from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. RTD provides the vehicles, which are available through both ad- vanced reservation and real-time, on-the-fly call-in. A basic service standard—three to five passengers per hour—is monitored and many of the eight “Call and Ride” services are op- erating at near double the standard. Local communities do the marketing and the substitu- tion of these services for traditional fixed-route service saves RTD considerable money while maintaining effective basic service in the community. • Vanpools. RTD began subsidizing vanpools in 2002 and now has 40 vans in operation car- rying more than 800 people daily. The program is run through the Denver Regional Coun- cil of Governments (DRCOG), the region’s MPO, with RTD funding. In the case of both Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, Colorado, the vanpool program has allowed RTD to eliminate costly and under-utilized fixed-route services into Denver. Currently efforts are underway by RTD to further expand and innovate in service delivery through: potential arrangements with taxi operators to provide access to the new TREX light rail line; examination of car-sharing services; and through ongoing demonstration of real-time bus arrival information systems at 16 locations. Fare and Pricing Policy RTD was one of the initial innovators in fare policy with the introduction of its annual Eco Pass for employees and organization members in the region. Recent efforts to evaluate the pricing of Eco Pass have led to increases that are intended to more closely relate price and the value of services based on pass use. RTD also has introduced a monthly “Teen Pass” in co- operation with local schools districts that sell passes at a discount to students at participating schools. Unlike many transit systems, RTD has adopted a strategy of regular fare increases through a program that has reduced off-peak fares, but instituted a series of annual peak fare increases in nickel increments to go from $1.00 to $1.25. RTD is moving toward a stored-value fare system in the future.

48 49 Marketing Programs and Initiatives RTD marketing resources are generally focused on new routes and services together with a shift toward more successful routes in an effort to spur increases in off-peak use. In addition, marketing initiatives are undertaken by TMAs and by local communities for “Call and Ride” services. Planning Orientation By state law, RTD must contract out half of its services and meets its requirement with two fixed-route and five demand-responsive providers. RTD estimates that there is a $22 per hour avoidable cost differential between RTD services and its contracted services (which could be greater if RTD had to pay taxes that private operators pay). The reliance on contract services has heightened the strategic and operational importance of Quality Assurance/Quality Con- trol in managing contracts within RTD. QA/QC, therefore, is an area where RTD is focusing its capacity-building efforts. As suggested in the discussion above, the RTD is very aggressive about instituting a “family of services” concept that can effectively serve varied needs in the regional and do so in the most cost-effective way possible. The result of the programs described above has, in the eyes of RTD managers and staff, created a more responsive agency with happier clients—both rid- ers and supporting jurisdictions. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives RTD’s family-of-services strategy is built in large part on wide-ranging coordination and sus- tained relationships with local jurisdictions in designing and tailoring a wide range of ser- vices. In addition: • RTD actively encourages and supports the formation and operation of TMAs in the Den- ver region as an important way to reach communities and individual riders. More than a half dozen TMAs perform a variety of roles from pass sales to direct operation of services, as noted above. • Denver Public Schools, in cooperation with RTD, is planning to terminate yellow school bus service and provide transportation through the use of RTD passes. RTD, in turn, will add service as necessary and the school district will shift its hours to avoid adversely im- pacting peak-period service. • Discussions are underway with the regional taxi providers to fashion arrangements that will make more formal use of taxis as a feeder to the new T-REX light rail line.
Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-TRAN) Vancouver, Washington Contact: Scott Patterson, Director, Community Services and Planning Summary After significant ridership increases in the 1990s, including a 48 percent gain from 1994 to 1996, ridership rose just four percent 2000 to 2002 at C-TRAN. Like the experience in other Washington state transit systems, however, the increases were largely the result of recaptur- ing riders that were lost during the State’s 1999 Initiative 695 tax revolt that included elimi- nation of the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET), a major source of funding for transit across the State. Loss of the MVET caused a 40 percent decrease in operating revenue and necessitated a 20 per- cent reduction in service. The cuts resulted in a significant dip in ridership. Today C-TRAN ridership has risen to 6.7 million annual passengers in comparison to a pre-Initiative 695 high of 8.0 million. Since Initiative 695, C-TRAN has been able to stabilize service levels through support from reserves and refocus its marketing programs more effectively on specific markets to generate continued ridership increases again being experienced. Consideration is being given to a fu- ture initiative that would potentially add additional sales tax revenue in an amount that would largely make up for the loss of the MVET funds. The C-TRAN experience dramatizes the critical importance of adequate, stable, and reliable funding in the pursuit of increased ridership. It also demonstrates the latent potential for in- creased transit use when services are increased or restored. As an example, despite the severe loss of funding and reductions in service, the role of C-TRAN in serving the greater Portland, Oregon, region has continued to expand. Park-and-ride lots serving C-TRAN commuters along the I5 corridor are now full at 6:45 a.m. and new lots are being constructed to maintain a high level of service in the face of growing demand.
Center Area Transportation Authority (CATA) State College, Pennsylvania Contact: Hugh Mose, General Manager Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a ridership increase of more than nine percent on the CATA system. CATA serves a market dominated by the presence of Penn State University, near the downtown area. The circumstances surrounding the increase parallel those that led to significant ridership increases in the prior study period (1994–1996). In each period, the main driver has been working closely with the university and its community to put in place mutually beneficial services. Remarkably, CATA attained this ridership increase in a period in which it actually reduced total service levels. CATA reports that it has lost community ridership in recent years, but has compensated with increased campus ridership. In part, this is because of university policies meant to reduce cam- pus congestion by encouraging the use of free shuttles from park-and-ride lots at the edge of campus. Many riders who previously used transit for commutes from off-campus origins find it more convenient to drive to the park-and-ride lots; this is especially pronounced for those who had to pay for bus passes. The popularity of this option grew significantly over the study period. Another important factor increasing ridership has been the suburbanization of student hous- ing. More students are choosing to live farther from campus, and there has been an explosion of student housing beyond walking range of the campus. Though many have cars, CATA has

been successful in attracting riders by getting apartment complexes to provide free transit passes to tenants. CATA has no dedicated sales tax, instead relying largely on Federal and state funds, with a relatively small proportion received from local municipalities. State funds have not grown proportionate to growth in the CATA community, forcing service adjustments over the past few years. Service Adjustments Numerous service adjustments were made in the period in response to expanding park-and- ride facilities on campus and funding constraints. CATA was forced to cut almost one-fifth of its service over the period, discontinuing several routes. However, although service off- campus was reduced, CATA actually grew service on campus during the same period. Fare and Pricing Policy Because of budgetary constraints, CATA raised its base fare from $1.00 to $1.25 in July 2002, with corresponding increases in bus passes and tokens. Mr. Mose felt this had a strong nega- tive effect on ridership because of both price and the relative inconvenience of the new fare. He also feels this fare is at the upper limit of what riders are willing to pay because most trips are so short and parking is cheap and plentiful in the area. Marketing Programs/Initiatives CATA does relatively little direct marketing to students, focusing more on non-students and senior citizens. CATA teamed up with Fannie Mae in a “Smart Commute” program, in which homebuyers in transit corridors could qualify for larger mortgages in recognition of the costs savings the buyers would theoretically gain from transit access. However, the initiative did not generate much involvement. Planning Orientation CATA is actively involved in site plan review and works closely with local planning officials to ensure that new developments have adequate transit amenities, including sidewalks pro- viding accessibility to the street and bus stops, bus pull-offs, and bus shelters. In addition, CATA has succeeded in getting transit requirements placed on developers in order to get site approval. For instance, a new complex might be required to invest in a new traffic signal or find ways to get its tenants to take transit, in order to reduce the traffic impacts caused by its development. Developers have taken notice of CATA’s involvement, and some have made commitments to ongoing transit support. In part, developers see provision of transit ameni- ties as an attraction to potential residents, who often have disposable income but are still in- terested in transit. As student housing has moved farther from campus, CATA has actively promoted the use of transit for these commuters. In particular, CATA has been successful in negotiating contracts with apartment complex owners to provide free transit passes for tenants. In this program, the owners pre-pay for the service. Ten apartment complexes are part of this program, and ac- count for about half the ridership generated off-campus. 50 51 Service Coordination and Collaboration CATA continues to work closely to support university transportation needs. In the “Ride for Five” program, the university provides full-time faculty and staff with a choice between a $5.00 monthly bus pass or $5.00 monthly remote parking, connected to the campus by free shuttles. The monthly bus passes in this program are heavily subsidized by the university; CATA wholesales them at $40 each. A free-fare zone for regular CATA buses supplements the free campus loop buses. Though improving service on-campus, riders continuing to destinations off-campus can get crowded out by loop riders. In addition, a potential for abuse is created by riders who board for free in the zone but continue outside it. A route to a suburban shopping mall was discontinued be- cause of this abuse; in general, it is not a problem on most routes. However, the university has not been willing to consider unlimited access for its students, nor to provide support for buses that leave the campus, even to the nearby downtown.
TALTRAN Tallahassee, Florida Contact: Dewayne Carver (AICP), Interim Transit Planning Administrator Summary Ridership on TALTRAN services increased more than eight percent in the 2000 to 2002 pe- riod. Much of the increase resulted from urban infilling, particularly from student housing, that increased demand along TALTRAN routes. This infilling is expected to continue; a large student housing complex is slated to open downtown in 2005. Unlike many urban markets, TALTRAN’s ridership levels benefited from the presence of the state capitol and growing universities that softened the effects of the economic slow down. TALTRAN has no dedicated taxing source and relies on city, state, and Federal dollars. In re- cent years, its budget has grown only with inflation. Nonetheless, it succeeded in increasing service along key routes while still maintaining ontime service. Service Adjustments Though TALTRAN’s budget has essentially only kept pace with inflation, it stretched its re- sources to increase service levels during the period. To increase frequency of service on heav- ily traveled routes, it began running its reserve buses as “wildcat” buses between the regularly scheduled buses to pick up extra passengers. It also lengthened several routes to reach new lo- cations. However, as ridership continues to increase, it is becoming more difficult to sustain the expanded service levels without excessively increasing overtime costs. Its budget has in- creased to keep pace with fuel and wage increases, but not with increased service levels. Fare and Pricing Policy No fare changes were made during the period. TALTRAN continued its student pass program with Tallahassee Community College, Florida A & M, and Florida State University. A state employee pass program started in 1996 is now being phased out. In addition, TALTRAN briefly piloted a fare-free program with local high schools.

52 53 Marketing Programs and Initiatives TALTRAN does not put a strong emphasis on marketing campaigns. However, as noted above, it operates several fare-free programs with local universities. Planning Orientation In 2000, TALTRAN completed a transit development plan. Thirty of the 55 recommenda- tions have been implemented already; the remainder requires additional funding. Two of the key actions implemented in the period were a comprehensive operations analysis to improve ontime performance and other operational characteristics, and the creation of a now heavily used web site that enables its riders to access bus schedules online. The new city commission is interested in exploring other possible changes and ways to re- duce costs. One option being considered is a major overhaul of the route structure, including shifting away from the current hub-and-spoke system. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives TALTRAN’s association with local universities continues to be among its most important collaborations. In addition to the fare-free programs, it operates oncampus bus systems. Since the study period, it has further increased these service contracts. TALTRAN and the univer- sities are looking at ways to reduce costs in the future for these contracts.
Snohomish County PTBA (Community Transit) Snohomish County, Washington Contact: Tim Brakke, Manager of Services and Facilities Development Summary After double-digit annual ridership increases in the late 1990s, ridership increased more than seven percent from 2000 to 2002 at the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation in suburban Seattle. The increases, however, are largely the result of re- capturing riders that were lost during the State’s 1999 tax revolt that included elimination of the motor vehicle excise tax, a major source of funding for transit. Loss of the MVET caused Community Transit to substantially cut service in 2000, including all Saturday and Sunday services and service on low productivity weekday routes. Later in November 2000, a sales tax increase was passed to replace the lost MVET funding and services cut earlier were restored with attendant increases in ridership. The increases over the 2000 to 2002 period occurred largely in 2001. The experience dramatizes the critical importance of adequate, stable, and reliable funding in the pursuit of increased ridership. It also demon- strates the latent potential for increased transit use when services are increased or restored. Planning Orientation Although not a factor in the 2000–2002 ridership increases, leaders in the three-county region have formed the “Regional Transportation Improvement District” to fund multimodal im- provements through enactment of new revenue sources. To date, no definitive proposal has been developed nor scheduled for ballot consideration. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Community Transit is one of three county systems working in collaboration with Sound Tran- sit in the Seattle region to fully integrate local services with expanding multimodal regional transit services (see Sound Transit profile).
Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) Bellingham, Washington Contact: Rick Nicholson, Transportation Services Specialist Summary Between 1994 and 1996, ridership on the Whatcom system increases more than 10 percent. Over the more recent period, 2000 to 2002, however, data indicate that ridership growth has slowed to around 3.5 percent. Though more recent increases are smaller, ridership increases on the Whatcom system are, in large part, related to the needs of and agency response to the University of Washington student population. Service Adjustments Morning peak services have been increased as a result of increasing demand stemming from the university pass program described below. Consideration is being given to introducing ar- ticulated buses to accommodate a.m. peak demand. New route deviation services have also been added to rural portions of the area but these have had a relatively minor impact on ridership. Fare and Pricing Policy The vast majority of the ridership increase between 2000 and 2002 was spurred by a student initiative in 2000 that resulted in development and marketing of a $15 per quarter discounted student pass. Fully half of the university students purchase the pass and the sales have grown from approximately 3,000 passes per academic quarter to more than 5,500 per quarter. The passes are sold directly through the university’s parking office and are not part of the uni- versity’s fee structure. Increased pass sales and use are responsible for ridership increases throughout the system. Consideration is now being given to an Eco pass program. Marketing Programs and Initiatives Marketing of the university pass is directed through the university’s parking office. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives Concern on behalf of the university about campus access and parking combined with the non- binding student referendum supporting improvement of all transportation signaled the be- ginning of the current partnership.

LAKETRAN Grand River, Ohio Contacts: Dale Madison, Director of Development Jesse Baginski, Director of Public Relations and Marketing Summary For the two-year period 2000 to 2002, data indicate a ridership increase of 3.3 percent on the LAKETRAN system. LAKETRAN primarily serves a suburban environment and includes commuter routes to downtown Cleveland. Dial-A-Ride (paratransit) is one of its most im- portant services, accounting for one-third of its budget and two-thirds of its ridership; LAKETRAN is the seventh largest directly operated paratransit system in the United States. Moreover, the senior population is expected to grow significantly in coming years. The suburban orientation of LAKETRAN cushioned the blow of the recession and helped keep its ridership steady in comparison to urban ridership in nearby Cleveland. In particular, LAKETRAN saw its commuter ridership grow significantly, as the addition of new facilities made commuting by bus easier. LAKETRAN focuses on providing a high quality of service, particularly on its commuter bus lines. The local route system is more spartan, with most lines being served about once an hour by low-floor buses. Service Adjustments Service expansion played a large part in ridership increases for LAKETRAN’s commuter buses. LAKETRAN opened three new park-and-ride lots in 2001 and 2002 and added service to accommodate the ridership. It has added two more lots since then, one of which filled an additional 70 spaces within one week. The other lot is an indoor transit center built in part- nership with a minor league baseball stadium. The transit center and the stadium share park- ing (with an understanding that commuters will be gone by game time), and the agency is al- lowed free use of the minor league team’s logo. In addition, the agency promotes express service to the games. Bike racks were installed on all local buses by 2003 (after the study period), and are cited for boosting ridership. An average of 331 users per month uses the racks. Fare and Pricing Policy LAKETRAN fares have remained unchanged since 1985. LAKETRAN continues to imple- ment a summertime youth fare of just 10 cents, which it has done for more than a decade. The program is very popular, particularly for trips to malls. In the fall of 2001, LAKETRAN implemented $0.25 “Liberty Fares” on local routes for a two-month period. The initiative gained 10,000 riders for that period. LAKETRAN also has a policy of letting veterans ride free during the week of Veterans Day. Near the beginning of the study period, LAKETRAN implemented a student pass program with the local community college that has been steadily growing in popularity. Its growth is because of a combination of increasing awareness of the program, growth in enrollment at the 54 55 community college, and decreased parking availability in the area. To further increase aware- ness, LAKETRAN has been asked by the college to visit the campus with bus information. During the study period, LAKETRAN implemented a program to provide temporary mall employees with bus passes during the Christmas shopping season. Employees bought the passes and were reimbursed by their employers. Although moderately successful, employers lost interest in the program as the recession loosened the labor market. In 2003, LAKETRAN implemented monthly commuter passes for the first time. Marketing Programs and Initiatives LAKETRAN uses research and demographic information to formulate its marketing plans each year (in fact, the agency plans to present its marketing development process at the 2004 APTA conference). Although its marketing budget has been steadily reduced since 2001 (by about 15 percent each year), the agency continues actively promoting a number of marketing efforts. Good relations with the local newspaper allow it to advertise cost effectively. LAKETRAN often uses coupon offers to increase ridership on targeted routes; the agency closely tracks the origin and use of the coupons for data gathering purposes. The agency’s new “Where You Want To Go” highlights destinations that can be reached by bus. LAKETRAN has increased its visibility in the community over the years through its support of community causes. It instituted a canned-food drive in which patrons could pay their fares with canned goods for two days, and another in which citizens were challenged to fill a bus with food. It runs a one-day event at a bus facility for fourth graders to teach the principles of labor and capital economics, which reaches out to families that are otherwise unaware of LAKETRAN’s activities. These efforts have enhanced public perception of the agency. The agency is now beginning a new marketing plan for seniors that involves weekly trips to senior centers to do trip planning with both seniors and their caregivers (such as family). In addition, LAKETRAN has a new initiative to work more closely with the local Hispanic com- munity to better meet their needs. Planning Orientation Though emphasis in the study period was on preserving the status quo, since the renewal of its 0.25 percent sales tax levy in 2004, the LAKETRAN leadership has begun to shifting its focus to service enhancements. Potential changes might include decreasing headways and implementing Sunday service. LAKETRAN is currently experimenting with an Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system both for customer service and to increase the efficiency of its system through real-time dispatching and the ability to have greater flexibility in scheduling; the program may be eligible for CMAQ funding. Similarly, the agency is upgrading its para- transit scheduling software. However, the agency notes that it will be difficult to add more service at present levels of funding. LAKETRAN does not currently plan to outsource its paratransit operations, as the agency cost structure is competitive with that of outside providers. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives LAKETRAN has joined the Cleveland RTA is promoting employer pass subsidy programs. In particular, they run promotions monthly in the Federal office building in Cleveland.

56 57 In communities redeveloping streetscapes, LAKETRAN has worked with merchants to put bus shelters in front of their stores in exchange for free bus advertising, in an effort to high- light the benefits of partnering with public transit to increase foot traffic and employee access.
Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Sarasota, Florida Contact: Philip A. Lieberman, Transit Planner Summary Ridership on SCAT services increased almost two percent in the 2000 to 2002 period. Ac- cording to the agency, in subsequent years, ridership has grown more quickly, averaging about seven percent per year. This is occurring in an area with very high population growth (population is growing even faster than increases in ridership). Although many of the new residents of the area are relatively affluent, move into fringe areas, and may not make use of transit, they help support service industries whose workers are heavy transit users. The agency is currently focused on maintaining service levels in the face of flat budget pro- jections for the near future, rather than expansion of service and budgets. Plans are underway to form a regional transit authority that will exercise more taxing authority. Fare and Pricing Policy No fare changes were made during the period. SCAT continues to offer free transfers to the neighboring Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) at the juncture of their systems. Use of these transfers increased as a result of increases in service levels offered by MCAT on those routes. Service Adjustments During the period, SCAT began aggressively implementing policies to encourage paratransit riders to switch to fixed-route buses, including stricter enforcement of eligibility requirements and implementing a system of trunk lines for long-haul paratransit riders. These changes were implemented as a cost-cutting measure. As the elderly population grew in Sarasota, use of para- transit increased at a rate that was not financially sustainable. Paratransit ridership continues to increase, but the agency has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars with these measures. In addition, the agency extended one of its routes to a new industrial area. Marketing Programs and Initiatives SCAT’s marketing program and budget shrank over the period, reducing the quantity of ad- vertisements and free-ride coupons offered. SCAT no longer has a full-time marketing coor- dinator, as this position now focuses on a two-county commuter assistance program. Planning Orientation SCAT experienced a major shift in planning focus over the study period. Its 1999 Transit De- velopment Plan (TDP) was very ambitious and recommended major service expansions. However, because of a lack of local financial support, these plans were shelved until more funding becomes available. Instead, the focus has changed to reducing costs by tightening the route structure and eliminating service if necessary, while planning to form a regional au- thority with more ability to levy taxes and support expansion. The TDP adopted in fiscal year 2002 reflects these new priorities. SCAT is now hiring consultants to lay out options for this regional authority, using other ex- amples of regional authorities in Florida to clarify the legal and financial alternatives. Options being considered include the integration of SCAT and neighboring MCAT into one agency. Though the planning process is in the initial stages, managers hope to achieve the restructur- ing within about three years. In terms of community planning, during the period, leadership changes at SCAT that brought it closer to the transportation planning section of the county government have allowed it to become more aggressive in working with developers for transit amenities and support. It has also implemented revisions to the roadway design manual requiring better design of transit amenities in new developments. However, SCAT has not been able to resolve “concurrency” issues—i.e., receiving funding from large developments to support increases in transit ser- vice needed to serve that development. Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnering Initiatives In addition to coordination with neighboring transit agencies as noted above, the City of Venice provides funding to SCAT to help fund a route serving its community.