https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=BK&feedformat=atomTransitWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T09:03:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.1https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transit_and_SB_375&diff=2458Transit and SB 3752015-06-06T02:12:25Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Mpos.png|thumb|right|300px|Metropolitan Planning Organizations that are subject to SB375. Diagram by Paul Hastings.]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transit's Low-Carbon Role]]<br />
==Overview of SB 375==<br />
Senate Bill 375 was passed in 2008 and directs the California Air Resources Board to set regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Each of California's MPOs are to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will reach greenhouse gas reduction targets through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Aligning regional plans will help the state achieve GHG reduction goals for cars and light trucks set by AB 32, California's landmark climate change legislation. <ref name="one"> [http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm Assembly Bill 32] </ref><br />
<br />
==Impacts on Transit==<br />
SB 375 ties land use and transportation planning together, and emphasizes building [[transit-oriented development]]. The Bill has special provisions and incentives for Transit Priority Projects (TPPs), which must meet several criteria:<br />
# Contains at least 50% residential use. If the project contains 26-50% commercial use, the FAR must be at least 0.75.<br />
# Have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre<br />
# Be located within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor <ref name="two"> [http://sacog.org/mtpscs/the-plan/sustainable-communities-strategy/ceqa-375/ CEQA Benefits of SB 375] </ref><br />
<br />
One incentive for regions to encourage TPPs is significant streamlining of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Additionally, TPPs have special traffic mitigation measures, which include traffic control improvements, street or road improvements, in-lieu fees, transit passes for future residents, or other measures that will avoid or mitigate the traffic impacts. A TPP that meets these requirements does not need to comply with any additional mitigation measures under CEQA. <ref name="two"> </ref><br />
<br />
A second benefit for TPPs is complete exemption from CEQA, but the requirements for total exemption are extremely stringent: the TPP must satisfy three different areas of requirements, including eight environmental criteria, seven land use criteria and affordable housing or open space criteria. <ref name="three"> [http://www.paulhastings.com/assets/publications/1749.pdf The California Air Resources Board Sets Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets Under SB 375] </ref> <br />
<br />
Although the CEQA streamlining and exemption are meant to incentivize TPPs or Sustainable Communities Projects, it remains to be seen whether the incentives are sufficient. Some observers expect that public transit funding will necessarily increase in order to meet the GHG reduction targets, but it is uncertain how funding decisions will change due to SB 375, particularly in light of the budgetary constraints under which most transit agencies are currently operating under. <ref name="three"> </ref><br />
<br />
==How Regional Governments Have Responded==<br />
There has been uncertainty about what form SCSs would take, but several California MPOs have developed SCSs which all emphasize transit.<br />
<br />
*The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) completed their RTP in 2011, the first in California to do so after the passage of SB 375. Although the plan has received criticism for focusing on highway expansion in early years, it includes $53 billion for transit operations and maintenance, which is more money and a higher percentage of funds than before. <ref> [http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aeaken/with_carbs_leadership_sandag_s.html SANDAG still has time to make meaningful change with its SB 375 plan] </ref> Additionally, 84% of new residential growth will be in multifamily housing, more than 80% of which will be in Transit Priority Areas <ref name="four"> [http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/implementation-report/files/implementation-report.pdf A Bold Plan for Sustainable California Communities: A Report on the Implementation of Senate Bill 375] </ref><br />
*The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is currently preparing their 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). The MTP/SCS specifically identifies Transit Priority Areas throughout the region, which are areas located within 1/2 mile of a high-quality transit. The MTP/SCS calls for an additional 272,000 housing units and 380,000 employees to be located within those areas by 2035. <ref> [http://www.sacog.org/sustainable/faq/ FAQ: Transit Priority Areas] </ref><br />
*The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved their RTP/SCS in 2012, with nearly half of the plan's funding devoted to transit. The RTP/SCS also funds 12 major transit expansion projects in LA under Mayor Villaraigosa’s 30-10 plan, and aims to place 87% of all jobs within a half mile of transit service. <ref name="four"> </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Center for a Sustainable California. [http://sustainablecalifornia.berkeley.edu/pubs/SB375-FULL-REPORT.pdf "Make it Work: Implementing Senate Bill 375"]. (2009).<br />
: The Center for a Sustainable California at UC Berkeley prepared this report to analyze implementation challenges of SB 375. Specifically, the report identifies the need for state-supported policies and programs in order to support transit-oriented development.<br />
<br />
Southern California Association for Governments. [http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/scs/CEQAstreamliningChart.pdf "SB 375 and CEQA streamlining"] (2010).<br />
: SCAG provides a chart that explains the CEQA streamlining requirements projects that qualify as TPPs.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=2457Public health and transit2015-06-06T02:08:29Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. 'Travel training' can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [https://211sandiego.communityos.org/zf/profile/service/id/652959 North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training as one of its [[programs for seniors]] and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system.<br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for getting physical activity in daily activities. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://islandpress.org/making-healthy-places “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and public health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transit and Public Health]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=2456Public health and transit2015-06-06T02:07:05Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. 'Travel training' can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [https://211sandiego.communityos.org/zf/profile/service/id/652959 North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training as one of its [[programs for seniors]] and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system.<br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for getting physical activity in daily activities. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://makinghealthyplaces.com/ “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and public health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transit and Public Health]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Programs_for_seniors&diff=2455Programs for seniors2015-06-06T02:03:49Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:OceansideBreeze.jpg|right|thumb|350px|San Diego's North County Transit District offers flex route service for seniors, among other services. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transit and Public Health]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
As the population of the United States ages, the consequences of giving up driving become clearer. As people age, many experience a variety of problems that can impair the ability to drive. For example, vision problems can affect depth perception and the ability to read signs while cognitive problems may reduce reaction time. Physical problems like arthritis may also affect the ability to control a vehicle. Finally, older adults are at great risk of injury and death when they are involved in a crash. For some, the physical frailty that accompanies old age can increase their risk of serious injury or death when they are involved in crashes as pedestrians. <ref>Sheriff, Natasja. The Vancouver Sun. [http://www.vancouversun.com/health/seniors/Driver+seat+safer+than+sidewalk+older+adults/7141056/story.html “Driver’s seat safer than sidewalk for older adults.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
Most seniors want to age in place or, in other words, to remain in their homes as they grow older.<ref>Milken Institute. [http://successfulaging.milkeninstitute.org/bcsa.taf?page=index "Best Cities for Successful Aging."] 2012.</ref> However, the development patterns of many parts of the country are not accommodating to a car-free lifestyle. For many seniors, they must make a tough decision between possibly becoming isolated if they cannot drive or finding other alternatives. Fortunately, there are a wide variety of possible solutions and transportation agencies are working to implement programs that make sense for seniors. These may be paratransit programs similar to [[cost-effective ADA service]], programs that promote transit use, or that make it safer to be an older pedestrian. <br />
<br />
==Types of Programs==<br />
There are many types of programs that transit agencies undertake to serve their older passengers. In one survey, most transit agencies defined age 65 as the age at which people could benefit from programs geared toward seniors.<ref>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/report_public_transportation_programs_seniors_dec_2007.pdf “Public Transportation Programs for Seniors.”] 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
''' Discounted Fares -''' Offering discounted or free fares for seniors is by far the most common practice used by transit agencies to promote senior ridership. This is often done in recognition of the fact that many seniors are low-income and living on a fixed budget. <br />
* Example: Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority offers discounted local and regional fares for seniors.<ref>Valley Transit Authority. [http://www.vta.org/senior/fare/ "Senior Fare."]</ref> <br />
<br />
'''Demand Responsive Service -''' Demand responsive services allow seniors to request transportation services at a future time and can bring passengers directly to their destination. This type of service can also encompass ‘flex routes,’ or fixed-route services that are allowed to deviate a short distance from its typical route to bring passengers closer to their destinations or can even be door-to-door service. The most common destinations for this type of service are medical facilities and grocery stores, followed by recreation centers and senior housing.<ref>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/report_public_transportation_programs_seniors_dec_2007.pdf “Public Transportation Programs for Seniors.”] 2007.</ref> This type of service can be a part of or offered separately from ADA service. This type of service is fairly labor-intensive, though, and [[employee retention]] is an important part of making it cost-effective. <br />
* Example: Los Angeles Department of Transportation operates CityRide, a demand responsive service for people over age 65 and people with disabilities. The service has a high on-time rate and offers great flexibility for its many seniors and low-income passengers. CityRide is also a strong example of cost-effective [[contracting transit operations]].<ref>Los Angeles Department of Transportation. [http://www.ladottransit.com/other/cityride/ “CityRide.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
'''Travel Training - ''' Travel Training programs are intended to circumvent any anxiety or confusion that seniors might have about using the transit system. A staff member or volunteer conducts training by showing seniors step-by-step how to navigate the transit system, from planning trips to paying fares and actually taking the trips alongside them. <br />
* Example: San Diego’s North County Transit District offers a travel training program for people over age 60 who are participating in the county’s mental health system. This is different from a program that is geared strictly toward older adults, but it is a good model for a travel training program.<ref>211 San Diego. [https://211sandiego.communityos.org/zf/profile/service/id/652959 “Mass Transit in North County"]. 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
These programs offer a necessary social service for seniors, but many transit agencies find that they are accompanied by problems. First and foremost, the funding for these programs is difficult to maintain, especially for those services that require dedicated staff for few trips, like demand responsive service. These services also may require additional training for staff. Many transit agencies coordinate with local social service and agencies on aging to provide the best service for older passengers, but this also requires additional staff time.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/report_public_transportation_programs_seniors_dec_2007.pdf “Public Transportation Programs for Seniors.”] 2007.<br />
: This practitioner-focused report from APTA contains the results of a survey of transit agencies and twelve case studies from a range of transit agencies of different sizes throughout the U.S. The twelve case studies offer insight into the broad range of programming in place for serving older passengers. This report is especially useful because it explicitly asked transit providers to describe ‘promising practices’ that had been or could be successful in serving the needs of seniors. Note, though, that many of the policies on fares have changed in the years since 2007, so it is useful to compare the fares and policies listed in the examples with agencies’ present policies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [[media:TCRP Report82.pdf|“TCRP Report 82: Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons.”]] 2002.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this comprehensive report describes population and demographic trends, travel patterns of older persons, and mobility preferences derived from a focus group of older persons. This report also discusses perceptions of the transit industry and of the challenges older passengers faced at the time the survey and focus groups were conducted. The focus groups were conducted with a range of income groups of older adults. This report includes several recommendations for broad improvements to public transit that would make it more appealing to older adults, as well as the challenges for the industry in meeting their needs.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Flexible_transportation_services&diff=2454Flexible transportation services2015-06-06T01:41:22Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:HARTFlexBus.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A HARTFlex Bus in Florida's Hillsborough County. Photo Courtesy of Center for Transportation Research at the University of South Florida.]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
<br />
=== Introduction ===<br />
'''Flexible public transportation services''' is a general term describing a range of strategies typically utilized in local public bus transportation. It is commonly applied to services which incorporate elements of, but are not exclusively fixed-route or demand-responsive models. Compared to those standard models, in some cases flexible services may be more cost-effective, efficient, serve a more broad range of users, or some combination of each. Flexible services may be more common in rural or suburban areas than dense urban areas but examples are found even up to areas with a population of several million.<br /><br />
<br />
Example benefits include cost savings in small urban areas when serving persons with disabilities rather than a strictly demand-response service. First-time public transit users may be encouraged to use a flexible service in suburban communities to connect with regional options. Flexible services such as fixed-route deviation can improve reliability for customers who would otherwise be dependent on an exclusively demand-response system. Agencies may find that a flexible service is a more effective use of resources compared to traditional models <ref>[http://www.apta.com/mc/bus/previous/2012/presentations/Presentations/Hopper-Deviated-Fixed-Route-Service.pdf "'Hopper' Deviated Fixed-Route Service".] Presentation at APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. 2012.</ref>. <br /><br />
<br />
Although flexible transportation services can be beneficial, like any service they can suffer from problems. Difficulties with scheduling around demand (difficult to keep time at high demand, for example), generating ridership, and confusion among consumers have been cited as reasons for discontinuing flexible services. In at least one instance, a flexible service was replaced by a fixed-route service when ridership increased enough to justify the change <ref> Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_140.pdf "A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services."] 2010.</ref>. <br /><br />
<br />
=== Defining Flexible Public Transportation Service ===<br />
Flexible public transportation services can be used in addition to an established service or as a replacement for one. Often a flexible model is used to gain efficiency over a more rigid service type. In some cases the flexible model can provide options for a wider base of users than fixed-route service. Flexible services typically carry only a few passengers per trip, generally more than demand-responsive systems but fewer than would typically be required to justify a fixed-route. <br /><br />
<br />
Agencies should be aware of certain trade-offs in using a flexible service in place of other, traditional types. Flexible services may be more expensive to operate per-trip than fixed-route, although savings can be realized when combining fixed-route and paratransit. Operators should recognize that flexible services tend to be more similar in approach, expense, and expectation to demand-response than fixed-route. The support of more robust technology for communications, scheduling, and dispatch may be required when compared to traditional models. This could increase the start-up cost of a flexible service over other types. Agencies should consider each strategy to establish which seems most appropriate to meet set goals.<br />
==== Core Strategies ====<br />
There are six different approaches to flexible public transportation services, ranging in nature from nearly fixed-route to nearly demand-responsive. The structure of flexible public transportation is dependent on the characteristics of the area served, varying between rural, small urban, and large urban regions. <br />
# '''Route Deviation:''' a defined path and schedule is used to define a service area, but the vehicle(s) may serve requests for pick-up or drop-off within a specified zone around the path. The deviation-zone may or may not be strictly bounded. According to a survey of service operators, the deviation is commonly between one-half and three-quarters of a mile from the route. Three-quarters of a mile from is the distance mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for paratransit service complementing a fixed-route service. This service type is most effective in areas with enough density to support a predictable route and schedule but could benefit from the flexibility of serving origins and destinations that are otherwise off-route.<br />
# '''Point Deviation:''' service is provided within a defined zone with a set of specific stops, but the path between the stops is unspecified and the vehicle will serve locations within the zone on request. Point Deviation can be most effective in an area with specific trip destinations but dispersed origins, or vice-versa.<br />
# '''Demand-Responsive Connector:''' service operates entirely by demand-response, but includes scheduled transfer points connecting with a fixed route. The Connector is an effective option when there are scattered origins but a common destination once connected with the fixed-route system.<br />
# '''Request Stops:''' a scheduled, fixed-route service in which certain stops are served only in response to passenger requests. Generally the vehicle must deviate off the fixed path to serve request stops. This is similar to route deviation, but limited only to specific stops instead of a range of unspecified locations within a zone.<br />
# '''Flexible-Route Segments:''' a portion of an otherwise scheduled fixed-route is operated as demand-response. Assigning a segment of a fixed-route to flexible service can be beneficial in very low-density areas. <br />
# '''Zone Route:''' a primarily demand-response service that has set departure and arrival times at its end points. The Zone Route is effective when there is not a defined corridor to travel, but specific a specific origin or destination exists within an area.<br />
<br /><br />
According to research undertaken by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), route deviation is the most commonly operated flexible service type. This is followed by the use of request stops and the demand-responsive connector.<br /><br />
==== Common Characteristics ====<br />
Most agencies charge the same fare on a flexible route as on the fixed or demand-responsive service. Some agencies charge a different fare for flex-service, more often higher than lower.<br /><br />
<br />
Agencies primarily provide special training for area-famliarization with regards to flexible services. Some agencies also use mobile data terminals or maps, which require additional skills training.<br /><br />
<br />
A core element of flexible public transportation services is a communication plan. A system may include how and when passengers communicate requests for service, whether requests can be negotiated, how drivers are dispatched, and whether other agencies participate in provision of service. A wide variety of options for requesting service are utilized, with some agencies requiring reservations while others allow nearly on-demand service. Dispatching requests to the driver is largely done through two-way radio, although some agencies use cell phones or mobile data terminals. Agencies may also employ automated vehicle location (AVL) as a tool for both operation and consumer information.<br />
===Examples of Flexible Service in California===<br />
* [http://www.omnitrans.org/ Omnitrans], serving the San Bernardino Valley region, is cited as a participant in the study which supports TCRP Report 140 <ref> Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_140.pdf "A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services."] 2010. Page 82.</ref>. Omnitrans utilizes both Zone Routes and a Demand-Responsive Connector under the brand OmniLink to make connections to its fixed-route system. <br />
* The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD), serving California’s Central Valley provides the [http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/maps_and_schedules/hopper.php Hopper Service], which reallocated existing resources to create a deviated-fixed route. This combined both fixed-route and complementary paratransit services to enhance customer satisfaction and improve cost-effectiveness.<br />
<br />
===Examples of Flexible Service Around the Country===<br />
Additional examples of Flexible Transit Services include:<ref> Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_53.pdf "Operational Experiences with Flexible Transit Services."] 2004. Page 5.</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! System !! Principle City !! Flexible Service Name !! Brief Description of Flexible Services<br />
|-<br />
| Capital Area Transit (CAT) || Raleigh, NC || CAT Connector || Demand-responsive connector service in zones replaces most fixed routes evenings, nights, early morning. One daytime zone. <br />
|-<br />
| Central Oklahoma Transit and Parking Authority (COTPA) || Oklahoma City, OK || METRO Link || Point deviation replaces fixed route nights and Sundays. All-day point deviation service in an outlying area. <br />
|-<br />
| Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority || Corpus Christi, TX || Route 67 Bishop Driscoll || Rural route into Corpus Christi with demand responsive<br />
pick-up areas in two rural communities. <br />
|-<br />
| Decatur Public Transit System || Decatur, IL || Decatur Public Transit System || Two on-call stops.<br />
|-<br />
| Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA—The T) || Fort Worth, TX || Rider Request (mostly discontinued Oct. 2003) || Two to three fixed stops at transfer points to the fixed route system, plus demand-responsive service in zones. <br />
|-<br />
| Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) || Richmond, VA || Chesterfield LINK (discontinued July 2003) || Route deviation service for the general public also acting as paratransit in one suburban area. <br />
|-<br />
| Hampton Roads Transit || Hampton, VA || HRT On Call || On-demand route segments. <br />
|-<br />
| Lane Transit District (LTD) || Eugene, OR || Diamond Express || Rural route into Eugene–Springfield provides midday curb-to-curb service in the urban area. <br />
|-<br />
| Madison County Transit || Granite City, IL || EZ Ride (added Aug. 2003) || ADA subscription deviations. (Point deviation service added after completion of this research.) <br />
|-<br />
| Mason County Transit || Shelton, WA || None || Stops marked in schedule as requiring a request. Demand-responsive service in a corridor. Rural route deviation with flexible, informal deviation area, coordinated with areawide dial-a-ride. <br />
|-<br />
| Metro Regional Transit Authority || Akron, OH || Night zones; Town Center Routes || Late night service from downtown to regular bus stops in three or four zones. Route deviation service mainly for reverse commutes.<br />
|-<br />
| Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) || San Diego, CA || Flex Routes 961–964 || Route deviation with narrow bands. <br />
|-<br />
| Minnesota Valley Transit Authority || Burnsville, MN || Flex Routes 420 and 421 Local route 440 || Route deviation in zones approximately 1-mi wide. Eight reservation stops near the route. <br />
|-<br />
| Napa County Transportation Planning Agency (NCTPA) || Napa, CA || St. Helena and Yountville Shuttles || Two route deviation services in small towns.<br />
|-<br />
| Ottumwa Transit Authority (OTA) || Ottumwa, IA || Ottumwa Transit Authority || Entire transit system is fixed route with some deviations<br />
|-<br />
| Pierce Transit || Tacoma, WA || Key Loop (modified Sept. 2003), Orting Loop || Rural demand-responsive connector operated by paratransit vehicles. <br />
|-<br />
| Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) || Woodbridge, VA || OmniLink || Entire local service is route deviation areawide service with bands around routes. <br />
|-<br />
| Ride Solution (ARC Transit) || Palatka, FL || Ride Solution || Fixed-route general public service built on demand responsive consolidated human services transportation. <br />
|-<br />
| River Valley Metro Mass Transit District || Kankakee, IL || Bourbonnais Flex || Three fixed stops in a demand responsive area in one of three communities served. <br />
|-<br />
| Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) || Venice, FL || SCAT About || Demand-responsive connector service supplements a fixed route on Venice Island. <br />
|-<br />
| St. Joseph Transit || St. Joseph, MO || St. Joseph Transit || Citywide routes with deviations through the city, also serving as paratransit. <br />
|-<br />
| Tillamook County Transportation District || Tillamook, OR || Deviated Fixed Route || Rural routes with flag stops and an informal deviation area. <br />
|-<br />
| Tri-Met || Portland, OR || Cedar Mill Shuttle || Peak-period demand-responsive connector to a transit center. Discontinued in 2009. <ref>[http://trimet.org/pdfs/news/trimet_ord_306_board_memo.pdf TriMet Ordinance No. 306] April 2009</ref><br />
|-<br />
| Winnipeg Transit System || Winnipeg, Manitoba || DART || Suburban demand-responsive connectors in four areas with marked drop-off locations. <br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<references /></div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus-on-shoulder&diff=2453Bus-on-shoulder2015-06-06T01:38:36Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated right-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). It is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time. <br />
<br />
BBS techniques are used in limited parts of the United States and examples are found elsewhere in the world <ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). [http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/tsyn64.pdf Bus Use Of Shoulders]. 2006</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>Minnesota Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]. </ref>.<br />
<br />
== Benefits ==<br />
BBS can be a successful technique for prioritizing and improving bus transit through areas of severe congestion. The appearance of a bus traveling smoothly past heavy traffic congestion can motivate "choice riders" to switch modes. The reduction of travel time and improved reliability is a powerful motivator.<br />
<br />
BBS is a cost-effective strategy for improving transit service travel time and reliability. Because BBS takes advantage of existing freeway space, the costs to implement could be negligible. Some areas have found it important to make improvements to signage or re-stripe lane widths for safety. These costs remain very low compared to removing a lane from general purpose use or constructing a new facility. Agencies could also [[Lane assist technology|investigate advanced technologies for bus guidance]] to improve safe navigation through narrow shoulders.<br />
<br />
Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.<br />
<br />
If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are little to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.<br />
<br />
== Safety concerns ==<br />
However, operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape.<br />
<br />
Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.<br />
<br />
In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.<br />
<br />
== Applications in California ==<br />
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Real-time_information&diff=2452Real-time information2015-06-06T01:27:14Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:SFMTA_RealTime.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) offers real time arrival information on its train platforms. Photo by Flickr user AgentAkit.]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Real-time information, broadly defined, means any information available to transit providers or customers about the current status of vehicles, including approximate locations and predictive arrival times. Most real-time information relies on [[Automatic vehicle location|automatic vehicle location (AVL)]] and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in order to estimate approximate arrival times for passengers and transit system operators. Passengers access real-time arrival and departure information through dynamic signs at stops and stations, or through the [[Internet communications|Internet]] at home or on smartphones. As smartphones become more prevalent, they have made access to third-party scheduling information and apps highly accessible for passengers.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf|“Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Features==<br />
===Mobile technology=== <br />
Because cellular phones and smartphones are so prevalent today, they can be very useful for disseminating real-time transit information. Mobile phones allow passengers to use SMS (or Short Message Service) to access schedule and real-time information via text message. This is a two-way method of communicating wherein the passenger can send a text message to an agency, usually with a code for the stop they want information about. The agency then automatically sends a response with the next bus’ arrival times. These services do not necessarily always use real-time information, instead responding with the next scheduled bus arrival time. However, real time information makes texting more useful to customers.<br />
<br />
===Dynamic messaging signs===<br />
These signs at stops and stations tell passengers when the next transit vehicle will arrive and can warn them if a bus or train is delayed. They are also the most common method for agencies to communicate real-time information to passengers. These can be expensive to implement because of the costs of installation, maintenance, and electricity for operation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
===On-board Annunciators===<br />
Real-time information on-board buses and trains can include automated announcements of next stops and upcoming transfer points. This feature also adds to ADA compliance and relieves drivers from this obligation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153753.aspx "TCRP Research Results Digest 5: Electronic On-Vehicle Passenger Information Displays (Visual and Audible)."] 1995.</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
==Benefits and Costs to Agencies==<br />
Using real-time technology can benefit agencies by improving safety and security, and has been demonstrated to increase customer satisfaction and perceptions of the transit agency. Agencies also benefit from these systems because they reduce the staff time needed to monitor for schedule adherence. <br />
<br />
The costs of implementing these systems varies widely by the size of the agency, type of system, and which amenities the agency chooses to use. Implementing a real-time system also has costs. There are financial costs, which can vary widely depending on the technology, as well as time and staff costs associated with training and maintaining real-time technologies. Sometimes the existing information technology infrastructure and staff are not sufficient, so they must be bolstered. Finally, as mobile technology is constantly changing, it is difficult for transit agencies and even technology developers to keep abreast of changes and to create mobile applications that will work for all versions of the wide variety of platforms available for passengers’ mobile devices.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits to Riders==<br />
Having access to real-time information reduces passengers’ anxiety during wait time. It also reduces time spent waiting when passengers can learn about a delayed bus or other problem prior to arriving at a stop or station. This way, if buses are delayed passengers can make informed decisions about taking alternative routes or modes. After implementing AVL systems, combined with improving real-time information for customers, several agencies saw steep declines in customer complaints.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation==<br />
Transit agencies that want to avoid the expense and risk of building a proprietary system to convey real-time information may work with vendors or produce data using established standards.<br />
<br />
*'''General Transit Feed Specification-Real Time Format (GTFS-RT)''' [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/]: Developed by Google as an extension to [[Providing GTFS data|General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS)]] and released via Creative Commons in 2011, [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/ GTFS-RT] is a software-agnostic standard that allows public transportation agencies to provide realtime updates about their fleet to the public vis-a-vis application developers and Google Maps. The GTFS-RT standard allows transit operators to provide the following:<br />
:* Trip Updates - delays, cancellations, changed routes<br />
:* Service alerts - stop moved, unforeseen events affecting a station, route or the entire network<br />
:* Vehicle positions - information about the vehicles including location and congestion level<br />
:Agencies do not pay Google to use the format display the data on Google Products. The GTFS-realtime specification is a free alternative to NextBus.com for agencies that currently produce or plan to produce real-time arrival data and route or stop specific service alerts. [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/ More information] is available from Google.<br />
<br />
*'''NextBus.com''' is a product offered by Cubic, a multi-national company with a software suite targeted to transit operators. NextBus offers a full-service solution, from GPS installation on vehicles, to communications with users via a desktop and mobile web site. NextBus is the market leader, with more than a dozen transit agencies as customers. [http://www.cubic.com/Transportation/Solutions/Real-Time-Passenger-Information More information] about their products is available from the company. ''This section is provided for informational purposes only and is not an endorsement to purchase the Nextbus product. See [[TransitWiki:General_disclaimer#Commercial Products and Services Appearing on TransitWiki]].''<br />
<br />
*[http://onebusaway.org/ '''The OneBusAway Project'''] is a free open-source software stack that seeks to make it easy for transit operators to build and maintain mobile applications which disseminate predictive real time arrival information. Originally started by a University of Washington Ph.D student named Brian Ferris, the OneBusAway software stack is the foundation for mobile applications maintained by MARTA, Hillsborough Transit in Tampa, Puget Sound, and the New York MTA. To build an application using OneBusAway, transit agencies do not require AVL equipment. [http://onebusaway.org/transit-agency-resources/].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011. <br />
: This recent synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes a literature review and survey of transit providers, with a specific focus on the underlying technology necessary for delivering real-time information to passengers using mobile phones. Survey respondents reported that automatic vehicle location is the most commonly used technology for delivering real-time information and many agencies use third-party developers to develop applications for delivering this information to passengers. <br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems."] 2003. <br />
: This report, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the basics of how real-time information systems work and uses several case studies to demonstrate common agency experiences when using them on bus systems. It is a comprehensive document outlining broad system benefits and costs, customer reactions to the changes, and a literature review. This synthesis evaluates several case studies, including San Luis Obispo’s transit system, which uses a real-time information system that utilizes dynamic messaging signs. The system was developed by the California State Polytechnic University and was fully deployed in 2001.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152927.aspx “TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information.”] 2003.<br />
: This report updates previous reports on traveler information and includes a literature review of a variety of other reports on the same topic. It also examines the possibiliies for transit to take lessons from other industries, such as the airline or parcel delivery industries, in providing information to customers through the internet. The report was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Lane_assist_technology&diff=2451Lane assist technology2015-06-06T01:13:56Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:LaneAssistTechnology.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Lane Assist Technology in Subaru Eyesight-enabled Vehicles Source: youtube]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
[[Category:Bus rapid transit]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Lane assist technology helps prevent car accidents caused when the driver unintentionally drifts out of the lane. The system can alert the driver and even provide countersteering force to the wheel to keep the vehicle from deviating. <br />
<ref> [http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/safety_technology/safety_technology/technology_file/active/lka.html Toyota. "Lane Keeping Assist"] </ref> This technology has been deployed in private vehicles, but is still an emerging technology for transit vehicles.<br />
<br />
==Benefits to Transit==<br />
Lane assist technology has the potential to deploy more [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) systems. Because of the limited right-of-way available to build new lanes for BRT operations, lane assist technology can allow the vehicles to be operated in lanes barely wider than the vehicles themselves, such as in freeway shoulders. In addition to allowing for narrower lane construction, the technology can help buses pull up to stops with an accuracy within centimeters, allowing for faster loading and unloading of passengers, especially those with special needs.<br />
<br />
==Lane Assist Technologies==<br />
The technology can take many forms, each with different advantages and disadvantages in cost, ease of implementation, and reliability.<br />
<br />
===Optical Guidance===<br />
[[Image:Opticalguidance.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Optical guidance device]] Vision-based systems use machine vision equipment (cameras, image processing equipment, pattern recognition algorithms, etc.) to track a painted line in the road, which allows the on-board system to determine the vehicle's position. The system then steers the vehicle, following the trajectory of the painted line. Optically guided bus systems do not require significant infrastructure outlays, but maintenance costs can be high and it is very sensitive to weather conditions that might affect visibility.<ref> [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2007/PRR-2007-21.pdf Shladover. "Lane Assist Systems for Bus Rapid Transit, Volume I: Technology Assessment"] </ref><br />
The TEOR bus system in Rouen, France is the most well-known example of an optically guided BRT system, even though they use it primarily for precision docking. Cameras track a dashed line on the road, while drivers only control the vehicle's speed. Rouen has not applied the technology to automatic steering between stations, instead using it for only short stretches. Drivers have reported satisfaction with the technology, since it reduces stress and allows them to interact with passengers more. <br />
<br />
===Mechanical Guidance===<br />
[[Image:Curbguidedbus.jpeg|right|thumb|250px|Curb guided bus]]<br />
Curb guided buses, also referred to as kerb guided buses, have small guide-wheels attached to the front steering mechanism of the bus. The wheels engage with the vertical side of a guideway curb, which is specifically constructed to guide the vehicle along its route. Away from the curb, the operator controls the vehicle as normal. Curb guidance has been successfully used in many cities and has many advantages. It is extremely reliable to operate, and the mechanical components are easy and straightforward to maintain. However, the infrastructure costs are high, and in many cities there is not enough right-of-way to create a dedicated lane. <br />
<br />
Rail guided buses have a large rubber wheel that is guided by a rail embedded within the pavement. It provides an experience closer to that of a light rail or trolley, and has high infrastructure costs.<br />
<br />
===GPS Guidance===<br />
Minnesota's MetroTransit uses a combination of GPS and other technologies to operate express buses in freeway shoulders. There are many advantages to operating buses on shoulders, such as low infrastructure costs, increased reliability, and faster operations. However, shoulder use is at the driver's discretion and depends on traffic speeds and weather conditions.<ref name=MetroTransit>[http://www.metrotransit.org/transit-advantages.aspx MetroTransit. "Bus-only shoulders move you past congestion"] </ref> Lane assist technology has greatly helped drivers safely operate 9.5 ft. wide buses on 10 ft. wide lanes. <ref>[http://www.its.umn.edu/Research/FeaturedStudies/brt/index.html University of Minnesota ITS Institute. "Bus Rapid Transit-Driver Assist Technology"] </ref><br />
<br />
The system uses GPS satellite positioning technology and an on-board map database of the bus route to continuously identify the location of the bus on the roadway with centimeter-level accuracy <ref name=MetroTransit> </ref>. A head-up display (HUD) mounted between the driver’s face and the windshield shows the location of lane boundaries, helping drivers remain safely on the shoulder even when roads are snow-covered or visibility is low. Information about other vehicles or objects on the roadway, detected by laser sensors mounted on the front and sides of the bus, is also displayed on the HUD to help drivers avoid potential collisions. The HUD displays warnings if the bus starts to drift, and provides countersteering force to keep the vehicle within the lane.<br />
<br />
===Magnetic Guidance===<br />
Magnetic material, such as tape or plugs, are placed in the center of the bus lane, and magnetometers in the vehicle sense the strength of the magnetic field. <ref> [http://www.its.umn.edu/Research/FeaturedStudies/brt/laneassist/LAfinal1.pdf FTA. "Bus Rapid Transit Lane Assist Technology Systems. Volume 1: Technology Assessment"] </ref> Onboard software calculates the location of the vehicle, and then steers it according to the magnetic field. The technology operates well under different weather conditions and can correctly calculate the vehicle's position within centimeters. However, all experiments with magnetically guided buses have been very costly. Additionally, installation of magnetic plugs requires the pavement to be broken, which can cause future pavement problems in cold climates. <br />
<br />
For many years, California PATH has been testing magnetic guidance systems, and they recently have improved the technology's potential for bus steering and precision docking <ref> [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2009/PRR-2009-12.pdf California PATH Program. "Field Demonstration and Tests of Lane Assist/Guidance and Precision Docking Technology"] </ref> In test tracks, PATH has shown the technology's ability to not only steer but also control the speed of the vehicle, creating a true "auto-pilot" system for the bus. Researchers suggest magnetic guidance is a relatively inexpensive addition to a BRT project which would create a light rail-like system at a fraction of the cost of true light rail <ref>[http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/09/05_autobus.shtml UC Berkeley News. "Researchers showcase automated bus that uses magnets to steer through city streets"] </ref>.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2009/PRR-2009-12.pdf "Field Demonstration and Tests of Lane Assist/Guidance and Precision Docking Technology."] 2009.<br />
: This California PATH document reports the improvement and implementation of the magnetic lane guidance and precision docking system on a 60ft articulated bus and the extensive testing in a real-world operation setting. The field studies provided valuable lessons that for the future deployment of the technology on a large, public scale.<br />
<br />
FTA. [http://www.its.umn.edu/Research/FeaturedStudies/brt/laneassist/LAfinal1.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Lane Assist Technology Systems. Volume 1: Technology Assessment."] 2003.<br />
: This report asses various lane assist technologies available for BRT.<br />
<br />
University of Minnesota ITS Institute. [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24900/24937/CTS-04-12Vol1.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Technologies: Assisting Drivers Operating Buses on Road Shoulders Volume 1."] 2005.<br />
: This technical report looks at existing lane assist technologies for buses, and suggests improvements to GPS driver assist systems.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Internet_communications&diff=2450Internet communications2015-06-06T01:11:53Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Internet-messenger.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A statue titled "The Internet Messenger" by Buky Schwartz in Holon, photo by Dr. Avishai Teicher]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The internet is an increasingly important point of communication with regular and potential passengers. An [[agency website]] that is current, clear, and user-friendly can convey information about the transit system that makes the system easier to understand and navigate. Web sites and internet communications that are not clear to users or contain incorrect information could frustrate passengers and reduce trial by potential passengers.<br />
<br />
Over the past few years, internet communications have expanded from one-way communication through agency Web sites to dynamic, interactive communication through internet-based applications and [[social media]] like Facebook and Twitter. This interactive communication is often referred to as [[social media]] or ‘Web 2.0.’ Social media is also commonly used as a quick method for receiving and responding to feedback from passengers.<br />
<br />
Additionally, cell phones with internet access, or smartphones, have proliferated in recent years. These devices allow passengers to access the internet while they are mobile, and can be an important means of delivering [[real-time information]] to passengers.<br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Web 2.0 technologies allow transit agencies to communicate directly with their audiences, rather than going through an intermediary, such as a news outlet, which was necessary in the past. Technologies that enable direct communication between agencies and users also encourage citizen participation and help agencies to be more transparent.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref> Because websites can house large documents and links to other sites, this allows agencies to provide highly detailed information to stakeholders. This is another proactive way to encourage public involvement and to encourage people to learn more about projects on which agencies are seeking comments. <br />
<br />
Internet-based applications like [http://www.nextbus.com/homepage/ Nextbus] can alert customers to delayed vehicles, reducing unexpected wait time and perceptions of unreliability. Twitter and Facebook have also been used by transportation agencies to alert users to emergencies or other unexpected situations. These applications and communications with passengers improve reliability and enhance the overall experience of using transit. Employing Web 2.0 technologies can also improve the image of the agency as modern and user-friendly.<br />
<br />
==Costs==<br />
Technology changes quickly and there is upfront staff time and investment required to ensure that applications remain compatible with users’ platforms and software, as well as making sure that websites are user-friendly and have a modern appearance. As one report by FHWA points out, it is most cost-effective to use existing applications, rather than to develop new ones. Timely responses to public comments can also demand substantial staff time, so it is important for agencies to have a standard protocol for responding to questions and complaints that both meets public expectations and the agency’s goals. In fact, in one survey, agencies reported that staff time was the greatest cost to employing social media in its communications.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.</ref> Developing appropriate measures can also require substantial time and energy. Some agencies use easily quantified statistics, such as re-tweets or Facebook comments, to measure performance, but these are somewhat blunt measures of effectiveness.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
==Equity Concerns==<br />
While social media and Web 2.0 tools can improve communication between agencies and transit users, it is also important to maintain some traditional methods of communication. Op-eds, in-person presentations, and clear wayfinding are all necessary tools for communicating with passengers. Newer technologies should complement traditional communications tools rather than replace them. <br />
<br />
Transit agencies also must recognize that there remains a digital divide between people of different incomes and ages - or differential rates of access to and use of internet-based technologies. <ref>National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America.”] 1995.</ref> Agencies must strike a balance between using resources to improve their more advanced technology communication and serving passengers who may not have access to or an understanding of those technologies. By keeping in mind the needs and tools available to different audiences, transit agencies will be successful in providing clear information to all passengers.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.<br />
: This recent report, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the wide variety of uses for social media in the provision of public transit. It includes lessons learned, policies for managing social media, common challenges and benefits, and case studies of several transit agencies using social media, with one example from California’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tsyn43.pdf "TCRP Synthesis 43: Effective Use of Transit Websites."] 2003.<br />
: Though now somewhat outdated, this synthesis report contains key considerations about website development and content that any transit agency might face. Though technology has progressed in the past decade, many transit agencies continue to face issues in displaying large amounts of data in graphics or text tables. This report contains guidance on the formatting and display of transit information.<br />
<br />
Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010. <br />
: This recent report from FHWA focuses on interactive web applications, or Web 2.0, and examines how they are being used by transportation agencies. The report describes the wide array of Web 2.0 tools and their uses, including social media, blogging services, and media-sharing sites. This report also offers case studies of several state Departments of Transportation. <br />
<br />
Transportation Research Board. [http://www.trb.org/conferences/socialmediaonlineworkshop2011.aspx “Keeping up with Communication Technology: An Online Workshop on the Practical Use of Social Media.”] 2011.<br />
: This online resource, which was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board’s Communications Coordinators Council and the Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation, offers powerpoint and video presentations from experts in using social media to engage community members. The presentations include case studies and some very in-depth examples of success in using web-based technology for transit and regional planning. Presentations include using Facebook ads to boost interest in an agency, using social media to improve transparency, and other best practices. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Technology]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=General_Transit_Feed_Specification&diff=2449General Transit Feed Specification2015-06-06T01:09:32Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:GTFS.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A GTFS dataset from a transit agency, showing the schedules, routes, and shapes files. Dataset from San Francisco BART.]]<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information.<br />
The format was developed in 2005, when Trimet in Portland, Oregon began working with Google on incorporating transit agency data in their trip planners.<ref>[http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/05/how-google-and-portlands-trimet-set-the-standard-for-open-transit-data/ How Google and Portland’s TriMet Set the Standard for Open Transit Data] </ref> They came up with Google Transit Feed Specification, which was easily maintainable and could be imported into Google Maps. Google offered their trip planning services for free to any agency that formatted and maintained their transit data in that format, later to become called General Transit Feed Specification. Now, GTFS has become the most popularly-used data format in the world, with increasing numbers of agencies choosing to share their transit data with the public.<br />
<br />
GTFS "feeds" allow public transit agencies to publish their transit data and developers to use that data to write applications. The feeds are represented in a series of text files that are compressed into a ZIP file, and include information such as fixed-route schedules, routes, and bus stop data. Many transit agencies have created and published GTFS data with the primary purpose being integration with Google Maps. However, GTFS data can used by a variety of third-party software applications for many purposes, such as trip planning, ridesharing, and mobile applications.<br />
<br />
==The Many Uses of GTFS Data--A Summary==<br />
"The Many Uses of GTFS Data", published by Antrim and Barbeau (2013), provides an overview of the GTFS opportunities for transit agencies and describes many different uses and benefits that can assist agencies in maximizing their investment in GTFS data.<br />
<br />
===Creating and Maintaining a GTFS Dataset===<br />
Transit agencies must choose between formatting a GTFS dataset in-house or outsourcing the task. The datasets have to be updated when there are schedule changes, and since major transit agencies update their schedules several times a year, some agencies might find greater benefits to outsourcing. If agencies choose to outsource, the cost per route ranges from $200 to $500, depending on the complexity of the route and availability of existing route data. <ref> [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/CoordinatedPlng/google.feasibility.study.pdf Northern California Google Transit Feasibility Study] </ref><br />
<br />
===Disseminating GTFS Data===<br />
Some agencies have chosen to share their transit data with select vendors such as Google Transit. They are typically concerned with legal exposure due to the lack of accuracy of data, loss of control of agency brand, and loss of control of dissemination of transit service information. However, many others feel the benefits of open transit data outweigh the risks, since developers can screen-scrape agency websites, which is not ideal for either party. Currently, over 200 transit agencies in the United States have chosen to openly share their GTFS data. <ref> [http://www.citygoround.org/agencies/ City-Go-Round] </ref><br />
<br />
The Google Transit Partner Program allows public transportation agencies to provide schedules and geographic information to Google Maps and other Google applications that show transit information. The website provides instructions for agencies just starting the GTFS sharing process and gives suggestions on how to create high-quality feeds. <ref> [http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/transit/index.html Google Transit Partner Program] </ref> For agencies that wish to make their data available to everyone, they can share the feeds on websites such as GTFS Data Exchange, which was designed to help developers and transit agencies efficiently share and retrieve GTFS data. <ref> [http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/ GTFS Data Exchange] </ref><br />
<br />
===Applications Based on GTFS===<br />
The following are just a few examples of the types of applications and names of existing application that use GTFS.<br />
*'''Trip planning and maps'''<br />
:[https://maps.google.com Google Maps] is currently implemented for most transit agencies that publish GTFS. Other examples of trip planning applications are [https://www.bing.com/maps/ Bing Maps] and [http://www.opentripplanner.org/ OpenTripPlanner]. A number of other websites graphically map where GTFS data is available (e.g. [http://tracker.geops.ch/ TRAVIC: Transit Visualization Client]) and the types of data available.<br />
*'''Timetable creation'''<br />
:Timetable Publisher is free, open-source software that creates timetables in both HTML and PDF formats. TriMet in Portland, Oregon uses TimeTable Publisher to create all its timetables, as does Hampton Roads Transit in the south-eastern Virginia area.<br />
*'''Data visualization'''<br />
:[https://www.walkscore.com/ WalkScore] is a website that helps people quantify “walkability” of an area by showing the nearby amenities within walking distance. The website also has a Transit Score, that rates how well an address is served by public transportation. These Transit Scores are now shown on a number of other websites, such as real estate websites where they assist potential purchasers rank how well a property is served by public transport.<br />
*'''Accessibility'''<br />
:The Travel Assistant Device (TAD) is designed for sight-impaired or intellectually-disabled passengers. Phones with the application installed give audio and vibrating alerts when it is time for the passenger to pull the stop cord and alight from the bus<br />
*'''Real-time transit information'''<br />
:Newer formats, such as [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/ GTFS-realtime] and [http://bustime.mta.info/wiki/Developers/SIRIIntro SIRI], can be added as an extension to a basic GTFS format so transit agencies can share [[real-time information]]. [http://www.nextbus.com NextBus] is a vendor that provides real-time transit information in many cities, such as for the Los Angeles Metro.<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://transitfeeds.com/ TransitFeeds.com] - An extensive collection of official public transit data from around the world, including GTFS, GTFS-RealTime and more.<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Transit_Feed_Specification Wikipedia page on GTFS]<br />
* [http://www.appropedia.org/General_Transit_Feed_Specification The GTFS page on the Appropedia Wiki], which includes links to [http://www.appropedia.org/Open_Source_Transport_Informatics_tools pages on useful tools for working GTFS data].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/CoordinatedPlng/google.feasibility.study.pdf "Northern California Google Transit Feasibility Study."]. (2009).<br />
:The Shasta RTPA led a study on the feasibility of integrating small-urban and rural public transit service schedules and geographic information with Google Transit. The study makes recommendations on how Google Transit can be improved to address the needs of small rural agencies.<br />
<br />
Florida Department of Transportation. [http://www.locationaware.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SunRail-Electronic-Trip-Planning-Study-Final-Report.pdf "SunRail Electronic Trip Planning Study Final Report"] (2013).<br />
:This report was prepared for the FDOT in advance of their SunRail launch; it analyzes various online trip planning options for SunRail to consider, and includes a section on GTFS's benefits, risks, and applications.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=2448Automated fare media2015-06-06T00:55:03Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bus rapid transit]]<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Transit agencies have traditionally used cash fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards. <br />
<br />
A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.<br />
<br />
Several U.S. transit agencies have also deployed mobile ticketing solutions. They include TriMet, San Diego, Boston, and Dallas. Riders can install applications on their smartphones<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.<br />
<br />
Transit system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
== Interagency coordination ==<br />
Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers. The Bay Area's Clipper Card is a good example of several agencies working together to use a common payment medium.<br />
<br />
==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br />
<br />
Automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br />
<br />
The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<br />
Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br />
<br />
Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html "Fare Collection."]</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
==Resistance to use of smart cards==<br />
There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smart cards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about privacy, and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.<br />
: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment. It was produced through the University of California's PATH program, in cooperation with the State of California's Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, as well as the California Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. The systems studied are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Highway Administration. [http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."] 2001.<br />
: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transit Association. [http://aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Farecard/tabid/331/language/en-US/Default.aspx "Manual of Standards and Practices for Universal Transit Farecards."] 2006-2009.<br />
: This link leads to five chapters of standards for use of contactless fare cards. The chapters were each written between 2006 and 2009 by the American Public Transit Association's Standards program. These standards are practitioner-focused and include an overview of contactless cards in general, as well as more technical chapters on the security and maintenance of systems that use them.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf|“Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.”]] 2009.<br />
: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transit-oriented_development&diff=2447Transit-oriented development2015-06-06T00:52:30Z<p>BK: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:SF_TOD.jpg|right|thumb|350px|San Francisco's transit-oriented development at 4th & King. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
=Introduction=<br />
By definition, transit-oriented development (TOD) and public transit complement one another. The California Department of Transportation defines transit-oriented development this way:<br />
<blockquote><br />
: “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is moderate to higher density development, located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use.”<ref> California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002. </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Note that the ‘transit’ in transit-oriented development can be any type of public transit, including light rail or [[bus rapid transit]]. The State of California took a major step toward promoting transit-oriented development when it enacted the Transit Village Development Planning Act in 1994. The Act gives local governments the flexibility to change land use around transit stations- such as offering density bonuses and reduced parking requirements to developers.<ref> California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002.</ref><br />
<br />
Transit oriented development along existing routes can be a cost-effective way to increase ridership. A TOD can create additional demand for the transit service with only an incremental increase in operations costs to avoid crowding on peak trips. <br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Components=<br />
==Mixed Use==<br />
Caltrans recommends a mix of uses in TODs - housing, and places for shopping and spending time, alongside transit.<br />
<br />
==Pedestrian Access==<br />
Transit-oriented developments must make using transit convenient and attractive for both residents of those developments and people accessing the stations from other areas, as well. <br />
==Design Elements==<br />
Transit-oriented developments should be welcoming and attractive to pedestrians and transit riders. This means they should be designed at a human scale and should fit into the surrounding neighborhood. While design is important for the area around a TOD, Cervero finds that design affects ridership far less than proximity of one's home and place of employment to transit stations.<ref>Cervero, Robert. [[media:Cervero_TOD.pdf|"Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: A product of self-selection and public policies."]] 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
=Benefits=<br />
Transit-oriented development is seen as a useful tool for managing the high rate of expected population growth in California and across the country. By encouraging development patterns that allow for more trips to be made on foot and by transit, TOD can reduce emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and the proportion of households’ budget devoted to transportation. Importantly for transit providers, by increasing the density of activity around transit lines, TOD can increase ridership by up to 40 percent, according to one Caltrans study. Cervero, though, cautions us not to overestimate the effects of TOD on ridership because often the people who would choose to live in a TOD are self-selecting and would be transit riders regardless.<ref>Cervero, Robert. [[media:Cervero_TOD.pdf|"Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: A product of self-selection and public policies."]] 2007.</ref> Dense transit-oriented development can also help reduce transit providers’ operating costs. This is true especially when compared to suburban, low-density development that increases the vehicle miles necessary for serving customers in those areas.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html “Transit-Oriented Development.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
=Challenges=<br />
In some places, local zoning policy is ill-equipped to handle dense development around transit, so TOD developers often need to obtain variances to develop at high densities. Further challenges to creating transit-oriented developments include minimum parking requirements and neighborhood opposition to dense development based on the possible future traffic generated by them. Both of these problems point to the assumption that, although TODs are oriented toward transit use, they must also accommodate cars in the same ways that low-density developments do. However, households in TODs are twice as likely not to own a car as comparable households not located in a TOD. Additionally, minimum parking requirements may create a heavy financial burden for developers. <ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html “Transit-Oriented Development.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
Financial challenges are also a problem for developers and transit agencies in creating TODs. Transit-oriented developments are mixed use by definition, but some lenders have difficulty accurately assessing the feasibility of a variety of uses in a single development. The design-intensive process of creating an appealing TOD also adds to the cost, along with the time and resources required to assemble enough land to support a large number of residences and other uses.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [[media:TOD_Lessons_Learned.pdf|"Transit Oriented Development Lessons Learned."]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Additional Reading=<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [[media:TCRP_TOD_Report.pdf|“Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel.”]] 2008.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this 2008 TCRP report on transit-oriented development specifically analyzes the evidence on the effect that TODs have on travel behavior and auto ownership. <br />
<br />
California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002.<br />
: This study offers a guide to the factors that make Transit-Oriented Developments successful, along with profiles of several developments throughout California. It draws on the experience of practitioners and a literature review. Further information about TOD in California can be found at the [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html Caltrans TOD site]. The Section 3 and the appendix include information about federal and California funding sources for TODs. <br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12347_6932.html FTA Transit Oriented Development Gateway]<br />
: A gateway to federal guidance, reports, and funding programs related to transit oriented development.<br />
<br />
The Center for Transit-Oriented Development. [http://ctod.org/ CTOD.org]<br />
: The Center for Transit-Oriented Development is a partnership between the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Reconnecting America, and Strategic Economics based at the University of California, Berkeley. It offers research and technical assistance to practitioners. It also houses a database of TOD projects across the United States, including completed and planned projects. The Center also hosts webinars relevant to practitioners on subjects such as joint development. <br />
<br />
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. [[media:LoukaitouSideris-TOD.pdf|"A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments?<br />
Lessons from Southern California."]] 2012.<br />
: This article examines two of Los Angeles' newest light rail lines - the Blue and Gold lines - and how their transit-oriented developments fared. Sponsored by the California Department of Transportation and the Southern California Association of Governments, the study sought to answer the question of why development was more successful along the Gold Line corridor than the Blue Line corridor. This study also includes information derived from interviews with developers and architects, along with analysis of market trends to describe the current landscape for TODs in Southern California.<br />
<br />
<br />
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Commission. [http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/TOD/index.htm “New Places, New Choices: Transit-Oriented Development in the Bay Area.”] 2006. <br />
: This report profiles 10 TODs in the San Francisco Bay Area and explains the many benefits that accompany TODs. <br />
<br />
<br />
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/ “Joint Development Program.”] 2010.<br />
: This page of the Los Angeles Metro website describes completed TOD projects and how Metro contributed to their completion. Metro partners with developers to finance and plan TOD projects. This site includes completed and projects in negotiation.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transit-oriented_development&diff=2446Transit-oriented development2015-06-06T00:51:53Z<p>BK: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:SF_TOD.jpg|right|thumb|350px|San Francisco's transit-oriented development at 4th & King. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
=Introduction=<br />
By definition, transit-oriented development (TOD) and public transit complement one another. The California Department of Transportation defines transit-oriented development this way:<br />
<blockquote><br />
: “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is moderate to higher density development, located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use.”<ref>California Department of Transportation. California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002. </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Note that the ‘transit’ in transit-oriented development can be any type of public transit, including light rail or [[bus rapid transit]]. The State of California took a major step toward promoting transit-oriented development when it enacted the Transit Village Development Planning Act in 1994. The Act gives local governments the flexibility to change land use around transit stations- such as offering density bonuses and reduced parking requirements to developers.<ref> California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002.</ref><br />
<br />
Transit oriented development along existing routes can be a cost-effective way to increase ridership. A TOD can create additional demand for the transit service with only an incremental increase in operations costs to avoid crowding on peak trips. <br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Components=<br />
==Mixed Use==<br />
Caltrans recommends a mix of uses in TODs - housing, and places for shopping and spending time, alongside transit.<br />
<br />
==Pedestrian Access==<br />
Transit-oriented developments must make using transit convenient and attractive for both residents of those developments and people accessing the stations from other areas, as well. <br />
==Design Elements==<br />
Transit-oriented developments should be welcoming and attractive to pedestrians and transit riders. This means they should be designed at a human scale and should fit into the surrounding neighborhood. While design is important for the area around a TOD, Cervero finds that design affects ridership far less than proximity of one's home and place of employment to transit stations.<ref>Cervero, Robert. [[media:Cervero_TOD.pdf|"Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: A product of self-selection and public policies."]] 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
=Benefits=<br />
Transit-oriented development is seen as a useful tool for managing the high rate of expected population growth in California and across the country. By encouraging development patterns that allow for more trips to be made on foot and by transit, TOD can reduce emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and the proportion of households’ budget devoted to transportation. Importantly for transit providers, by increasing the density of activity around transit lines, TOD can increase ridership by up to 40 percent, according to one Caltrans study. Cervero, though, cautions us not to overestimate the effects of TOD on ridership because often the people who would choose to live in a TOD are self-selecting and would be transit riders regardless.<ref>Cervero, Robert. [[media:Cervero_TOD.pdf|"Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: A product of self-selection and public policies."]] 2007.</ref> Dense transit-oriented development can also help reduce transit providers’ operating costs. This is true especially when compared to suburban, low-density development that increases the vehicle miles necessary for serving customers in those areas.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html “Transit-Oriented Development.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
=Challenges=<br />
In some places, local zoning policy is ill-equipped to handle dense development around transit, so TOD developers often need to obtain variances to develop at high densities. Further challenges to creating transit-oriented developments include minimum parking requirements and neighborhood opposition to dense development based on the possible future traffic generated by them. Both of these problems point to the assumption that, although TODs are oriented toward transit use, they must also accommodate cars in the same ways that low-density developments do. However, households in TODs are twice as likely not to own a car as comparable households not located in a TOD. Additionally, minimum parking requirements may create a heavy financial burden for developers. <ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html “Transit-Oriented Development.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
Financial challenges are also a problem for developers and transit agencies in creating TODs. Transit-oriented developments are mixed use by definition, but some lenders have difficulty accurately assessing the feasibility of a variety of uses in a single development. The design-intensive process of creating an appealing TOD also adds to the cost, along with the time and resources required to assemble enough land to support a large number of residences and other uses.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [[media:TOD_Lessons_Learned.pdf|"Transit Oriented Development Lessons Learned."]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
=Additional Reading=<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [[media:TCRP_TOD_Report.pdf|“Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel.”]] 2008.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this 2008 TCRP report on transit-oriented development specifically analyzes the evidence on the effect that TODs have on travel behavior and auto ownership. <br />
<br />
California Department of Transportation. [[media:Caltrans_TOD_Study.pdf|“Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California.”]] 2002.<br />
: This study offers a guide to the factors that make Transit-Oriented Developments successful, along with profiles of several developments throughout California. It draws on the experience of practitioners and a literature review. Further information about TOD in California can be found at the [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.html Caltrans TOD site]. The Section 3 and the appendix include information about federal and California funding sources for TODs. <br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/12347_6932.html FTA Transit Oriented Development Gateway]<br />
: A gateway to federal guidance, reports, and funding programs related to transit oriented development.<br />
<br />
The Center for Transit-Oriented Development. [http://ctod.org/ CTOD.org]<br />
: The Center for Transit-Oriented Development is a partnership between the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Reconnecting America, and Strategic Economics based at the University of California, Berkeley. It offers research and technical assistance to practitioners. It also houses a database of TOD projects across the United States, including completed and planned projects. The Center also hosts webinars relevant to practitioners on subjects such as joint development. <br />
<br />
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. [[media:LoukaitouSideris-TOD.pdf|"A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments?<br />
Lessons from Southern California."]] 2012.<br />
: This article examines two of Los Angeles' newest light rail lines - the Blue and Gold lines - and how their transit-oriented developments fared. Sponsored by the California Department of Transportation and the Southern California Association of Governments, the study sought to answer the question of why development was more successful along the Gold Line corridor than the Blue Line corridor. This study also includes information derived from interviews with developers and architects, along with analysis of market trends to describe the current landscape for TODs in Southern California.<br />
<br />
<br />
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Commission. [http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/TOD/index.htm “New Places, New Choices: Transit-Oriented Development in the Bay Area.”] 2006. <br />
: This report profiles 10 TODs in the San Francisco Bay Area and explains the many benefits that accompany TODs. <br />
<br />
<br />
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/ “Joint Development Program.”] 2010.<br />
: This page of the Los Angeles Metro website describes completed TOD projects and how Metro contributed to their completion. Metro partners with developers to finance and plan TOD projects. This site includes completed and projects in negotiation.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=2445Pedestrian connections2015-06-06T00:19:05Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are well-maintained sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station. Pedestrian connections share some of the benefits of [[bicycle connections]] <br />
Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the [[out-of-vehicle experience]] at transit stops by providing amenities that offer information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle waiting experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience. [[Bus stop spacing and location]] can have an important effect on whether people use transit because it will determine the catchment area of the line, or how far people will walk to arrive at stations. <br />
<br />
==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br />
The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable, and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However, the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements that "promote walking as a viable form of utilitarian travel, pedestrian safety, and an integral link within the overall transportation system."<ref>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/ "Call for Projects."]</ref> Los Angeles County Metro also has a specific program for pedestrian planning and has sponsored at least one symposium in the past to promote discussion and exchange of strategies to improve the pedestrian experience.<ref>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/pedestrian_symposium/images/Metros-2010-Pedestrian-Symposium-Agenda-FINAL.pdf "Metro's 2010 Pedestrian Planning Symposium."]</ref><br />
<br />
Agencies may want to give careful attention to ensuring:<br />
* An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br />
* Sufficient safe street crossings, because virtually every transit trip involves crossing the street at the departure or return.<br />
* Protection from the elements, such as shade trees along sidewalks.<br />
<br />
For discussion of pedestrian environment at stops and stations, see the section on how to improve [[out-of-vehicle experience]] for transit users.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159782.aspx “TCRP Report 125: Guidebook for Mitigating Fixed-Route Bus-and-Pedestrian Collisions.”] 2008.<br />
: This guidebook is focused specifically on preventing or remedying dangerous situations where collisions between buses and pedestrians are likely or common. Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, it describes the four most common types of collisions and ways that agencies can mitigate them. The guidebook draws on commentary from stakeholders and several case studies. <br />
<br />
<br />
WalkingInfo.org. [http://www.walkinginfo.org/develop/sample-plans.cfm?/pp/exem2005.htm “Pedestrian Plans.”]<br />
: This website, sponsored by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, maintains a running list of pedestrian and bicycle master plans. There are examples from around the country, including a technical report on creating bicycle and pedestrian facilities by Caltrans. That technical report also includes traditional and innovative practices for traffic calming.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
[[Category:Transit and Public Health]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=2444Out-of-vehicle experience2015-06-06T00:10:22Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other measures can improve the transit experience.<br />
<br />
The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud, or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br />
* [[Real-time information]] reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br />
* Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br />
<br />
===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br />
* Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time. However, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, such as good lighting, protection from the elements, and a comfortable place to sit.<br />
<br />
===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br />
<br />
Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and their willingness to use transit. Factors include the presence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them. Curb cuts and safe crossings are especially important for people who use wheelchairs or strollers. See [[Pedestrian connections]] for further discussion.<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements." 2008.]<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br />
* [http://www.its.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/06/Appendix-A.pdf Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. "The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior." 2006.]<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. "Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership." 2009.]<br />
* [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=2443Out-of-vehicle experience2015-06-06T00:08:16Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other measures can improve the transit experience.<br />
<br />
The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud, or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br />
* [[Real-time information]] reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br />
* Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br />
<br />
===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br />
* Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time. However, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, such as good lighting, protection from the elements, and a comfortable place to sit.<br />
<br />
===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br />
<br />
Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and their willingness to use transit. Factors include the presence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them. Curb cuts and safe crossings are especially important for people who use wheelchairs or strollers. See [[Pedestrian connections]] for further discussion.<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements." 2008.]<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br />
* [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. "The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior." 2006.]<br />
* [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. "Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership." 2009.]<br />
* [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Last_mile_connections&diff=2442Last mile connections2015-06-06T00:04:45Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Passenger boarding.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Emery Go-Round provides local transit connections to fill in the gap from the nearest BART station. ]]<br />
== Intro ==<br />
The "last-mile" or "first and last-mile" connection describes the beginning or end of an individual trip made primarily by public transportation. In many cases, people will walk to transit if it is close enough. However, on either end of a public transit trip, the origin or destination may be difficult or impossible to access by a short walk. This gap from public transit to destination is termed a ''last mile connection''. <br />
<br />
Intercity rail is a common example: a traveler reaches their local train station, but after getting off the train has no way to access the final destination. The traveler might have driven to the train station at the start, or perhaps they took a local bus or walked. The train carries them a long distance to another city where the final destination is too far to walk to from the station. Without some form of connection in the destination city, travelers become effectively stranded near the end. This example can be applied to any mode of transit.<br />
<br />
== Last Mile Connections ==<br />
In reality, the last mile connection is more complex than the example above. Walking is often an acceptable connection, but typically only for short distances. Transit agencies may be concerned about major destinations that are more than 1/4 mile away from the nearest transit stop. Sometimes even walking is not an option, perhaps because of lacking infrastructure. In other cases, a long-distance line like a train may serve destinations with infrequent or nonexistent transit service.<br />
<br />
There are many strategies for providing last mile connections:<br />
=== Pedestrians and Cyclists ===<br />
[[Pedestrian connections|ADA-compliant pedestrian infrastructure]] is a foundation of local travel anywhere, and is especially important in planning transit service. Transit planners must be cautious about assessing a potential rider base by simply drawing a 1/4 mile circle around stops. Geographic or urban barriers may prevent walking to transit<ref>Walker, Jarrett. "Basics: Walking Distance to Transit". Human Transit blog. Accessed 4 February 2014. http://www.humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html</ref>. <br />
<br />
Bicycling extends the range of mobility and improves access, if it is safe (or even possible) to bike. It is important for transit agencies to provide high-quality [[Bike Parking At Transit Stations]]. Additionally, use of bikes differs by mode. For example, many agencies provide bicycle racks on the front of a bus, but will not allow bikes inside <ref>LACMTA. http://www.metro.net/bikes/</ref> <ref>SFMTA. http://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/bicycling/bikes-muni</ref> . This means that on low-frequency bus systems, a two or three-position bike rack may significantly limit the cycling-bus combination at peak. If the bike rack on the bus is full and there is no bike parking available near busy stops, some potential riders may choose not to take the bus. For rail systems, some agencies allow bikes on board, especially for light rail, but may not for street cars. Regional heavy and commuter rail systems sometimes have specific racks in train cars <ref>Metrolink. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news/promotions_detail/title/Bike_Guidelines</ref>. Foldable bicycles are growing in popularity with commuters in some areas and may be allowable where standard bikes are not (such as on board a streetcar). <br />
<br />
Bike share is a next-step to providing good infrastructure. Advanced bike share programs may be more challenging to implement in smaller, isolated cities. Instead, it may be more practical to make arrangements with local bike shops to have information or bike rentals near transit. <br />
<br />
=== Wayfinding ===<br />
Information is not a physical connection, but is critical for transit users to successfully navigate a system. Wayfinding can be a city-wide visual style for signs directing to common destinations, or as simple as a good bus schedule pamphlet. Agencies should carefully present information, focusing on clarity and simplicity. Information should be presented as if the reader is unfamiliar with the area to accommodate visitors and newcomers. Wayfinding can also include [[out-of-vehicle experience]].<br />
<br />
=== Local Transit ===<br />
Local transit connections to regional transit can include shuttle buses or regular stops by fixed-route service. For example, Emeryville, CA, provides a free bus shuttle system connecting to the nearest BART station<ref>NPR. "How a Free Bus Shuttle Helped a Small Town Take Off" November 13, 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/13/243955769/how-a-free-bus-shuttle-helped-make-a-small-town-take-off</ref><ref>Emeryville TMA. Emery Go Round website. Accessed 4 February 2014. http://www.emerygoround.com/maps---schedules.html</ref>. Connecting local and regional service can be challenging. If the local service is infrequent, long waits for connections will turn off passengers. Timing local service to connect, or even wait for regional service is an option, but may decrease reliability elsewhere on the route.<br />
<br />
=== Taxis ===<br />
Taxis are a heavily-regulated, but otherwise overlooked alternative for last mile connections. While taxis proliferate around airports, hotels, and nightclubs, their role in public transit is less clear <ref>Kaing, E. K. (2012). The taxi: Friend or foe? understanding planners' perceptions of the taxi industry. (Order No. 1511792, University of California, Los Angeles). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 107. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1021391072?accountid=14512. (1021391072).</ref>. Transit planners may consider contracting with taxi services to enhance transit access. In some cities, especially in tourist centers and warmer climates, "pedi-cabs" (bicycle taxis) can also provide these connections over a smaller area.<br />
<br />
=== Car Sharing and Ride Sharing Apps ===<br />
Car sharing, such as ZipCar, Car2Go, and many others, can provide the highest level of connection and flexibility. Availability of shared cars around major transit stations can allow transit riders to reach their final destination quickly. However, this is probably most practical for occasional transit users and for long-distance modes like intercity rail. Further research is needed.<br />
<br />
Another emerging application of smartphone technology in transportation is ride sharing apps such as Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar. These apps match up vetted drivers with riders in an ad-hoc taxi-like system <ref>Deakin, Elizabeth et al. "Dynamic Ridesharing". http://www.uctc.net/access/40/access40_dynamicridesharing.shtml. Access Magazine. 2012. Issue 40. </ref>. Although the ability to manage or directly incorporate this new alternative into the transit network remains in question, transit planners should be aware of the existence and growth in the ride sharing app market.<br />
<br />
=== Zoning and Density ===<br />
Although outside the control of most transit agencies, zoning and density affect how transit agencies deliver service. In some areas, a light rail or major bus line may not serve the full potential customer base because low density and sprawl spread customers out of walking range. Planning for [[park-and-rides]] at major stations can encourage some users to make the short drive and use transit for the majority of the trip<ref>NPR. "Rail Planners Aim To Re-Train L.A.'s Car Culture" April 30, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/179992119/re-training-los-angeles-car-culture</ref>. However, working with communities to encourage [[Transit-oriented development|density around transit]] is important.<br />
<br />
== Additional Reading ==<br />
Flamm, Bradley and Rivasplata, Charles. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1104-bicycle-policy-transit-accessibility-first-last-mile.pdf "Perceptions of Bicycle-Friendly Policy Impacts on Accessibility to Transit Services: The First and Last Mile Bridge"]. January 2014. Mineta Transportation Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Cost_effective_vehicle_purchases&diff=2441Cost effective vehicle purchases2015-06-06T00:00:16Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:MetroHybrid.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A hybrid Los Angeles Metro bus in 2009. Photo by Mike Bottone, via Flickr user Metro Transportation Library and Archive.]]<br />
=Introduction=<br />
The decision to purchase a vehicle requires careful consideration of up-front vehicle acquistion costs, and later vehicle operations and maintenance costs. With the increase in the costs of fuel and maintenance labor, fuel efficient, reliable vehicles are now more valuable than in the past. Cost-effective vehicle procurement is an important part of maintaining a reliable fleet that can run efficiently and for long hours. The problem of ‘peaking’ adds to these problems. Peaking refers to the high number of vehicles needed to accommodate the high numbers of passengers that converge on the system during morning and evening rush hours. This means that transit systems have to obtain and maintain more vehicles than are needed during off-peak hours. <br />
<br />
State and local governments are eligible to receive funds for capital costs, like vehicles, from the federal Department of Transportation through several programs, like the Surface Transportation Program, the Bus and Bus Facilities Program, and others, though they must follow certain guidelines and meet eligibility requirements.<ref>US Department of Transportation, Livability. [http://www.dot.gov/livability/grants-programs.html “Grants and Programs.”]</ref> This is important to note because the availability of capital funding is the best predictor of the age at which transit agencies retire vehicles.<ref>Federal Transit Administration.[[media:Useful_Life_of_Buses.pdf |“Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans.”]] 2007.</ref> Another important resource for California's transit providers is the California Transit Association. The Association's mission is to advocate for public transit and share resources, including research and surveys, among member organizations.<ref>California Transit Association.[http://www.caltransit.org/node/58 "Strategic Plan."] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
=Regulations Affecting Procurement=<br />
One study by the Federal Transit Administration found that several federal and state policies and regulations affect procurement and service-life length. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act has had an effect on the technology sought in vehicles, including on-board annunciators and reliable lifts. The FTA’s own minimum requirements for the span of time a vehicle must be in service before it can be retired without a penalty was also found to alter expectations for service-life of vehicles among practitioners - its 12-year minimum for 40-foot buses became the expectation of the service-life, rather than the minimum. Most importantly, though, they found that these regulations have a relatively minor effect on service-life of vehicles, especially when compared with the low-bid procurement process. The low-bid procurement process was found to degrade the lifespan and quality of the vehicles obtained in order to accept the lowest possible price. Accepting a low bid should not be prioritized over obtaining high-quality, long-lasting vehicles.<ref>Federal Transit Administration.[[media:Useful_Life_of_Buses.pdf |“Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans.”]] 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Emissions Regulations==<br />
<br />
The SAFETEA-LU transportation legislation specifically names diesel retrofits as a cost-effective method for reducing emissions to meet federal air quality standards, and this method has been studied by the EPA and the Transportation Research Board. New transit vehicle purchases may even be eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds (CMAQ). <ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/policy_and_guidance/2008_guidance/index.cfm “Final Program Guidance: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
California’s air quality goals also affect the parameters that transit providers have to work within when procuring vehicles. The California Air Resources Board requires that fleets reduce their overall emissions, including particulate matter and nitrous oxide from fleet vehicles. The Air Resources Board also has specific requirements for urban buses, separate from an agency’s average fleet emissions.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> Additionally, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has separate, specific requirements for Southern California transit agencies and other government agencies that manage fleets of 15 or more vehicles. It requires that new vehicle purchases must be lower emission vehicles or vehicles that use alternative fuels.<ref>US Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center. [http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC/CA California Incentives and Laws for Acquisition / Fuel Use.“] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Buy America Requirements==<br />
Agencies receiving funds from the Federal Transit Administration must purchase vehicles that are made up of 60 percent domestic parts and assembled in the United States under the US Department of Transportation’s Buy America requirement. There are three possible reasons for the FTA to waive this requirement: if the requirement is not in the public interest; if the parts or components are not produced in a sufficient enough quantity; and if fulfilling the requirement would add over 25 percent to the cost.<ref> United States Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.gov/buyamerica/index.html “Buy America.”]</ref> Although waivers are available for this requirement, one study found that many small, rural providers had difficulty fulfilling it when procuring paratransit vehicles.<ref>National Cooperative Highway Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158998.aspx “Research Results Digest 319: Buy America Issues Associated with the State DOT Procurement of Paratransit Vehicles Using FTA Funds.”] 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
=Fuel Considerations=<br />
Emissions regulations aside, the rising cost of traditional fuels makes using alternative fuels more attractive. However, it is important to consider the costs of vehicles and the wide variety of alternative fuels, such as ethanol or electricity. The majority of buses currently run on diesel gas, but natural gas and other alternatives are gaining footing because of their advantages in cost and availability. The benefits of making the switch to an alternative fuel must also be balanced with the possible costs of re-training staff to handle the fuel and retrofitting garages and fuel pumps.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165390.aspx "TCRP Report 146: Guidebook for Evaluating Fuel Choices for Post-2010 Bus Procurements."] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
=Case Studies=<br />
==California Transit Finance Corporation==<br />
[http://www.caltransit.org/node/2160 CTFC] is a non-profit corporation established to assist California Transit Association members with capital finance and vehicle purchases. See more information at [[California Transit Finance Corporation]].<br />
==German Case Study==<br />
Buehler and Pucher examined the elements of a successful increase in transit efficiency in Germany in one case study. They found that purchasing new vehicles, and sharing them among transit agencies, was a part of improving the financial sustainability of Germany's transit system, along with reducing labor costs and [[fare reform]].<ref> Buehler, Ralph and John Pucher. [[media:MakingTransportFinanciallySustainable.pdf|"Making Public Transport Financially Sustainable."]] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=Additional Reading=<br />
United States Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13054_6037.html “Best Practices Procurement Manual.”] 2003.<br />
: The Federal Transit Administration created this manual to assist both grantees and contractors in navigating the process of administering contracts for the purpose of procuring capital investments for transit. The manual includes best practices for meeting federal requirements, as well as for long-term planning for procurement. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=1036 “TCRP Report 61: Analyzing the Costs of Operating Small Transit Vehicles; User’s Guide.”] 2000. <br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this link includes both the report and the user-friendly Microsoft Excel tool for evaluating costs. The tool asks the user to input baseline information into an Excel form and it produces a report based on the type of vehicle being purchased and how the transit provider intends to use it. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165390.aspx "TCRP Report 146: Guidebook for Evaluating Fuel Choices for Post-2010 Bus Procurements."] 2011.<br />
: Because fuel-efficiency and use of alternative fuels have become so important to obtaining funding and to the missions of transit agencies, this guide is especially useful for comparing the many options of alternative fuels. The link also includes the Microsoft Excel-based tool that was developed for evaluating the life-cycle costs and emissions of the different types of fuels and buses.<br />
<br />
<br />
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Board. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/156159.aspx “NCHRP Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management.”] 2005.<br />
: This report and accompanying ISO tool offer a framework for analyzing decisions across modes and goals. Because asset management can have a variety of goals - preservation or increasing efficiency, for example - state DOTs and other public agencies may need more complex decision-making tools. This report explains how to use the two tools developed by the authors - AssetManager NT and AssetManager PT, designed to analyze decisions for short- or long-term. The tools developed and this report address concerns beyond the scope of transit planners’ usual work (like pavement management, for example), but the tool is intended to be useful for a variety of uses within state and local DOTs. <br />
<br />
<br />
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158998.aspx “Research Results Digest 319: Buy America Issues Associated with the State DOT Procurement of Paratransit Vehicles Using FTA Funds.”] 2007.<br />
: This report is the result of an investigation into how Buy America requirements affect small, rural transit providers when procuring paratransit vehicles. The report uses a literature review and interviews to make suggestions for changes to the requirements that might make satisfying it easier for a wide range of transit providers. <br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Procurement/tabid/338/language/en-US/Default.aspx “Technology Terms and Conditions White Paper.”] 2011.<br />
: This white paper specifically addresses best practices for transit providers when procuring information technology. This can range from basic computers to complex software and mobile data collection systems. This guide is especially useful because it describes each common component of a contract for information technology and the benefits, risks, and common approaches associated with each. Although not about vehicle procurement, this topic is relevant as transit providers rely on intelligent transportation systems to improve service.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Vanpool_and_Buspool_Services&diff=2440Vanpool and Buspool Services2015-06-05T23:32:23Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Vanpool.jpeg|framed|right|An image advertising LA Metro's Vanpool Program]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Vanpool and buspool services are similar to carpool services, but on a larger scale. They are employed for a variety of reasons, including:<br />
<br />
# To connect residents living in low-density regions with local employment centers<br />
# To provide an affordable alternative to the automobile for home-to-work travel<br />
# To provide a door-to-door transportation service in areas where public transit doesn’t exist or paratransit is too costly to operate<ref>[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c5.pdf "Vanpools and Buspools:Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes." TCRP, 2005]</ref><br />
<br />
Vanpool and buspool services are typically operated either by an individual, under the auspices of a public or private program, directly by the government, or by an employer. Funding sources can include public agencies, private employers, a combination of public and private sources (as a part of a public-private partnership), or nonprofit organizations such as Best Workplaces for Commuters. <ref>[http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/vanpoolbenefits_07.pdf "Vanpool Benefits:Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters." Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA, 2005]</ref> Tax breaks are also available for vanpool services, as part of a national effort to decrease congestion. <ref>[http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/clearinghouse/commutebenefits/ "Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits Summary Table." National Center for Transit Research, 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are several user benefits of vanpool and buspool services. They reduce the collective cost of gas and private auto insurance, they provide access to commuter tax benefits, they provide access to high occupancy vehicle lanes, and they operate on a fixed schedule, ensuring users will get to their destination on time.<br />
<br />
<br />
California has one of the most robust vanpool programs in the country. Established in 2012, the California Vanpool Authority (Calvans) was created primarily to serve the mobility needs of agricultural workers in the Central Valley. To learn more about Calvans, read Transitwiki’s article on the California [http://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority Vanpool Authority].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
Conrick, Amy [http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/Ben_Franklin_Rural_Vanpool_10_08.pdf "Vanpools: A Viable Option in Rural Regions."] <br />
<br />
Ride Arrangers: Denver Regional Council of Governments. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_98.pdf "Vanpool Guidebook."] <br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP Synthesis 98. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_98.pdf "Ride-Sharing as a Complement to Transit."] 2012.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Vanpool_and_Buspool_Services&diff=2439Vanpool and Buspool Services2015-06-05T23:31:55Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Vanpool.jpeg|framed|right|An image advertising LA Metro's Vanpool Program]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Vanpool and buspool services are similar to carpool services, but on a larger scale. They are employed for a variety of reasons, including:<br />
<br />
# To connect residents living in low-density regions with local employment centers<br />
# To provide an affordable alternative to the automobile for home-to-work travel<br />
# To provide a door-to-door transportation service in areas where public transit doesn’t exist or paratransit is too costly to operate<ref>[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c5.pdf "Vanpools and Buspools:Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes." TCRP, 2005]</ref><br />
<br />
Vanpool and buspool services are typically operated either by an individual, under the auspices of a public or private program, directly by the government, or by an employer. Funding sources can include public agencies, private employers, a combination of public and private sources (as a part of a public-private partnership), or nonprofit organizations such as Best Workplaces for Commuters. <ref>[http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/vanpoolbenefits_07.pdf "Vanpool Benefits:Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters." Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA, 2005]</ref> Tax breaks are also available for vanpool services, as part of a national effort to decrease congestion. <ref>[http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/clearinghouse/commutebenefits/ "Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits Summary Table." National Center for Transit Research, 2013]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There are several user benefits of vanpool and buspool services. They reduce the collective cost of gas and private auto insurance, they provide access to commuter tax benefits, they provide access to high occupancy vehicle lanes, and they operate on a fixed schedule, ensuring users will get to their destination on time.<br />
<br />
<br />
California has one of the most robust vanpool programs in the country. Established in 2012, the California Vanpool Authority (Calvans) was created primarily to serve the mobility needs of agricultural workers in the Central Valley. To learn more about Calvans, read Transitwiki’s article on the California [http://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority "Vanpool Authority"].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
Conrick, Amy [http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/Ben_Franklin_Rural_Vanpool_10_08.pdf "Vanpools: A Viable Option in Rural Regions."] <br />
<br />
Ride Arrangers: Denver Regional Council of Governments. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_98.pdf "Vanpool Guidebook."] <br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP Synthesis 98. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_98.pdf "Ride-Sharing as a Complement to Transit."] 2012.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Value-capture_finance&diff=2422Value-capture finance2015-05-16T01:41:17Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Lacono-value-capture.png|right|thumb|250px|A Value Capture Model Created by Michael Iacono et al. (University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, 2009)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
New transit capital projects produce a great deal of value. Some of this value is captured by the agency, some by riders, other value is captured by drivers who may experience congestion reduction. Considerable value is captured by owners of property near transit facilities. The accessibility of these properties increases virtually overnight, and as firms and households are willing to pay more in rent or purchase price for nearby spaces, the value of these buildings increases. Value-capture finance attempts to divert some of this value back to the public or transit agency, which is responsible for financing the facility. Such a model can increase the cost-effectiveness of transit delivery.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
===Land value tax===<br />
Split role taxation with separate rates for improvements and land. Typically, land and improvements are valued separately, but taxed with a single rate. In split-role taxation, land is taxed using a separate (and often higher) rate than improvements. Such a tax structure creates market incentives to maximize a property’s use (redevelop low density parcels and parking lots), especially when assessments of land value are based on the “highest-and-best use,” which captures value from an increase in accessibility (due to the transit line) and an increase in potential activity (due to zoning/density). <br />
<br />
Land value tax is not widely used outside of Pennsylvania. Using a land value tax to fund a fixed-route transit line or stations can create political pressure to increase density and land values, which can increase available square footage near transit but also cause gentrification pressures. Land value taxation may be unlikely or illegal in California due to proposition 13 limits on tax increases.<br />
<br />
===Tax increment financing===<br />
Tax Increment Financing is one of the most common forms of value capture finance, and has typically used to finance redevelopment. With TIF, a property’s overall tax rate doesn’t change because of the TIF district, but taxes on increases in assessment value are diverted from conventional uses to finance the redevelopment. Redevelopment projects can lead to significant increases in property values if they are transformative for a neighborhood. <br />
<br />
===Special assessment districts===<br />
Special assessments are fees charged to property owners that are used for a public improvement that benefits the property. Special assessments have been used to finance streetlight operations and maintenance, streetcars, and other infrastructure. <br />
<br />
In California, a special assessment must provide special benefits defined as "a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute 'special benefit.'"<ref>[http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/financing/chap3.html California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. A Planner's Guide to Financing Public Improvements: Special Assessments.]</ref> Additionally, the assessment area must be confined to those properties that will receive the special benefit, and the amount of the assessment must be based on a factor other than property value. Assessments meeting these and other requirements are eligible for a one-half voter approval threshold. Assessments not meeting these definitions are considered special taxes, which require the approval of 2/3rds of voters. <br />
<br />
Infrastructure Financing Districts are a specific form of special assessment districts under the consideration of the State legislature. <br />
<br />
The timing of benefits and tax assessments does not always align. When used to finance fixed guideway transit capital projects, a special assessment must be considered in advance of receiving a full funding agreement from the Federal Transit Administration. In this case, the revenues from the special assessment would be part of a local funding package that would be leveraged with federal funds. Because the special assessment must be approved before an area commits to a transit line, this leaves several years between when the assessment begins and when the benefits of the transit line are realized.<br />
<br />
Special Assessments were considered to partially fund stations for the Los Angeles Red Line, but ultimately were not used <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/j631vx2469u22645/ Peter Stopher. “Financing urban rail projects: The case of Los Angeles.” 1993].</ref> Assessments can not be based on property value, but rather some other attribute such as street frontage, floor area, distance from improvement, land area.<br />
<br />
===Development impact fees===<br />
Development impact fees (or mitigation fees) are charges assessed to new developments to finance new infrastructure needed for developments or to mitigate some of the negative effects a new development may have on the community. Development impact fees could be assessed regionally, subregionally, or locally to fund new transit infrastructure, or could be assessed in areas within walking distance of fixed route transit stations. Developers are unlikely to oppose such fees if they see direct benefit from the improvement projects, or if the fees are small compared to their total budgets. Additionally, developers of new projects can bundle these fees into their “cost of doing business,” and these fees might be more popular than assessments which apply to existing buildings.<br />
<br />
Where increases in assessment value are capped (as in California), TIF redistributions can lead to real reductions in property tax revenue for conventional uses. In California, the property value increases spurred by a catalytic project (e.g., a fixed-rail transit line) would only be realized on sale when properties are re-assessed to current market values. This can delay realization of funds, which reduces total funds available for bonding at project initialization.<br />
<br />
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) is considering a Transportation Sustainability Program that harmonizes California Environmental Quality Act implementation with the calculation of development impact fees. The Program administers a Transportation Sustainability Fee based on a square foot of developments anticipated impacts to the automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks.<ref>[http://www.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/documents/2-7-12item13transpsustainabilityprogram.pdf San Francisco County Transportation Authority. "Transportation Sustainability Program." 2012]</ref> One attribute of the program that the SFCTA values as fairer than current impact mitigation methods is that, rather than requiring a single project in an area mitigate the cumulative impacts of all prior projects, the fee spreads mitigation funding over all new projects.<br />
<br />
===Negotiated exactions===<br />
Negotiated exactions are similar to development impact fees, but negotiated on a case-by-case basis rather than set as a policy and determined through a formula.<br />
<br />
===Joint development===<br />
<div id="Jointdevelopment"></div><br />
[[File:Wilshire western.jpg|thumb|Wilshire Western joint development in Los Angeles]]<br />
Joint development is real estate development on publicly-owned property in conjunction with a fixed-route transit facility. Some of the proceeds from the joint development project are used to finance the transit facility. This strategy can be especially effective in raising money for transit for several reasons. First, new developments can capture significant funds relatively quickly if a property is developed and sold within a few years of a transit facilities opening. This increases bonding capacity by bringing revenues forward versus other assessment mechanisms. Second, joint-developments can be well-integrated with the transit system, potentially with portals that open directly into the developments. Third, public entities often accumulate property adjacent to transit facility construction for staging and other purposes. By increasing density of these properties and orienting the property to the transit facility, the public can capture value far in excess of any other financing mechanism. Joint development is widely utilized by MTR Hong Kong to minimize public subsidy required for new transit facilities.<br />
<br />
===Air rights===<br />
Air rights are a valuable asset to transit agencies building in dense urban centers. Transit agencies can realize value from their air rights through transfers, sales, or leases. An air right transfer involves transferring rights to develop in the air directly above an underutilized parcel to an adjacent or nearby parcel which seeks entitlements to build higher or denser than currently allowed by the planning code. This process often transfers development rights from a public parcel that may be open space, a historic structure, museum, library, or other building where entitlements to build additional density will not be used in the future. Air rights directly above a transit facility can be sold or leased to a private entity to create a development in the air space above the transit facility. In the case of transit, air rights might be transferred above tunneled rights-of-ways, station boxes, or storage and maintenance facilities. Air rights above station boxes can be sold to private developers and used for transit-oriented developments. When a public entity transfers air rights, it typically has less involvement in the development process than under a [[Value-capture finance#joint development|joint development]] scenario.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional reading==<br />
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies. [http://www.cts.umn.edu/Research/Featured/ValueCapture/index.html|"Value Capture Finance for Transportation Finance."] 2009.<br />
: The Minnesota legislature commissioned this 2009 study of value-capture financing strategies for transit. The report not only contains an overview of the strategies, but also includes commentary on the political and social viability of each strategy and recommends legislative changes needed for Minnesota to pursue each the strategies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. [http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf Jeffrey Smith and Thomas Gihring. "Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography."] 2011.<br />
: This review of various studies about how transit creates new value to the communities it serves provides a brief introduction to the subject and references some case studies where this value has been captured to aid in funding transit capital and operations expenses. This report is a useful starting point for the individual who is looking for specifics and is willing to search the document to find studies that might relate. From the Victoria Transport Policy Institute.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fogarty, Nadine, Nancy Eaton, Dena Belzer, and Gloriah Ohland. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. [http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ctodvalcapture110508v2.pdf "Capturing the Value of Transit."] 2008.<br />
: Reconnecting America's Center for Transit Oriented-Development Development produced this report to guide agencies through value measurement and capture. The report begins with an overview of methods used to measure the value created by new transit service. Then, the authors discuss the benefits and drawbacks of capturing value from both existing and new developments within an area. The authors then present details on four commonly-employed strategies: assessment districts, tax-increment financing, joint development, and development impact fees.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles <br />
<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/09_September/20120919P&PItem24.pdf Value Capture Finance - Transit Investment Dividends.] : A Staff Report on best practices for value capture finance.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2421MAP-212015-05-16T01:34:51Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Parsons Brinckerhoff. [http://www.pbtransportationupdate.com/pdfs/legislation/map%2021%20nswg%20transit%20summary.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Transit Title."] Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2420MAP-212015-05-16T01:34:04Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Parsons Brinckerhoff. [http://www.pbtransportationupdate.com/pdfs/legislation/map%2021%20nswg%20transit%20summary.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Transit Title".] Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2416Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:21:06Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf "Deep Discount Group Pass Programs as Instruments for Increasing Transit Revenue and Ridership."] 2004. <br />
: This research paper explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver. There is an associated Access Magazine article that can be found on the Access website at http://www.accessmagazine.org</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2413Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:19:47Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf "Deep Discount Group Pass Programs as Instruments for Increasing Transit Revenue and Ridership."] 2004. <br />
: This research paper explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver. There is an associated Access Magazine article that can be found on the Access website at [http://www.accessmagazine.org/]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2412Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:18:12Z<p>BK: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf "Deep Discount Group Pass Programs as Instruments for Increasing Transit Revenue and Ridership."] 2004. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2411Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:15:57Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf "Discounting Transit Passes."]2005. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2408Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:15:19Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf|"Discounting Transit Passes."]2005. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2407Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:14:40Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf |"Discounting Transit Passes."]2005. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2404Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:13:40Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=crp_fac|"Discounting Transit Passes."]2005. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2403Fare pricing and reform2015-05-16T01:05:45Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|x250px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[Category:Market Response]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, as well as require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.<br />
<br />
===Differentiated Pricing===<br />
Differentiated fares are considered by many analysts to be more efficient, effective, and equitable. They better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. However, differentiated fares would be a radical departure from flat fares and many agencies are wary of potentially harming low-income and/or transit-dependent riders, not to mention wary of potential negative media attention. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in 2012, 23 percent of transit operators nationwide currently use distance-based pricing, and only 6 percent use time-based pricing. <ref> [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx "2012 Transit Fact Book"] </ref> <br />
<br />
Transit agencies are understandably worried about losing riders if fares were based on distance traveled. However, distance-based fares could also attract new passengers for inexpensively priced short trips, whereas before they may have found $1.50 too much for a four block ride. Ridership gains and losses depend on many factors, and most transit agencies have not conducted market research on customer responses to fare reform; nevertheless, this suggests that there are ample opportunities to gain more information on the likely gains and losses that would accompany differentiated pricing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, recent technology has made it much more feasible to collect differentiated fares. [[Automated fare media]] such as electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards, smart cards, and even cell phones enable differential fare collection in a way that a paper based system cannot. Because automated fare media provide the technological base for more complex fare structures, agencies should consider the possibility of adopting different pricing structures in the future when making capital investments in fareboxes and turnstiles. This may eliminate or reduce expensive barriers to implementing differential pricing.<br />
<br />
*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''<br />
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.<br />
<br />
:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.<br />
<br />
:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.<br />
<br />
===Fare-Free Transit===<br />
Fare-free transit is a topic has recently been receiving more media attention. There are many advocates for fare-free transit, who argue that eliminating fares would lead to faster loading and unloading times, less confusion over fares, and lower administrative costs. People would also feel more motivated to use public transit. However, there are also many disadvantages to consider. Fareboxes can cover a considerable percentage of agencies' operating costs, which is especially true for larger agencies, and removing fareboxes would require some agencies to look for other funding. Past experiments with fare-free transit saw operating costs skyrocket as demand exceeded capacity, creating even larger revenue shortfalls. Additionally, some of the fare-free demonstrations experienced increases in vandalism and "hooliganism", which drove away many regular bus commuters. <ref name="Perone">[http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF_rpt.pdf Advantages and Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy] </ref><br />
<br />
Overall, the advantages of fare-free transit seem to be greater for smaller agencies or for limited portions of service. Smaller systems have a low farebox recovery, which might be canceled out by the cost of collection. For example, the transit system in Commerce, California is the oldest fare-free system, operating since 1962. They serve fewer than one million riders a year, and generally do not experience problem riders. <ref name="Perone"> </ref> Chapel Hill Transit, which has been fare-free since 2002, also had a low farebox recovery rate, at about 10 percent. The agency managed to cover the revenue gap with extra funding from the university and taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <ref>[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/03/how-free-transit-works-united-states/4887/ How Fare-Free Transit Works in the United States] </ref> Other important issues to consider when going fare-free are maintaining service quality, providing paratransit, and security. <br />
<br />
*'''San Francisco Muni Study'''<br />
:In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase <ref> [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Free ride? Fat chance: Muni fares will stay] </ref>. <br />
<br />
===Fares Based on Ability to Pay===<br />
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref> [http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981. <br />
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt-94.pdf|"Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003. <br />
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf|"Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.<br />
: This document, a chapter in "TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes," summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.<br />
<br />
Nuworsoo, C. [http://www.uctc.net/access/26/Access%2026%20-%2005%20-%20Discounting%20Transit%20Passes.pdf|"Discounting Transit Passes."]2005. <br />
: This Access magazine article explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Transit_Finance_Corporation&diff=2402California Transit Finance Corporation2015-05-16T00:59:32Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:CTA Transit California Logo.png|right|thumb|350px|California Transit Association Logo (Parent Organization of the California Transit Finance Corporation) ]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The California Transit Finance Corporation (CTFC) was founded by the California Transit Association in 1990 as a non-profit public-benefit corporation. The CTFC's primary activity is to acquire and lease transit buses to member agencies of the California Transit Association using Certificates of Participation. The CTFC also provides innovative financing for capital and maintenance projects and short-term cash-flow through Revenue Anticipation Notes.<br />
<br />
==Certificates of Participation==<br />
A Certificate of Participation (COP) is one way of financing capital projects without obtaining long-term debt. The California Transit Finance Corporation purchases and leases vehicles using COPs. First, the CTFC finds an agency wishing to lease a vehicle without incurring long term indebtedness. Next, the CTFC purchases vehicles and issues debt with the same duration as the lease. Finally, the CTFC leases the vehicle to the agency. The agency does not have to worry about selling the vehicle at the end of the lease. Additionally, COPs can enable agencies which cannot issue debt without voter-approval to more easily obtain and utilize capital equipment or facilities without putting the long-term assets and liabilities on their accounting books. COPs also allow the CTFC to pool vehicle purchases and financing between multiple agencies, resulting in higher volumes and lower per-vehicle purchase and financing costs.<br />
<br />
Agencies can use FTA Section 9 funds to subsidize principal and interest payments on certificates of participation, resulting in lower annual service fees for transit vehicles, "computers, maintenance of way and other heavy equipment, maintenance of effort rail equipment, radio equipment, bus garages, property or structures for park and ride, and other buildings or facilities used for mass transit purposes"<ref>[http://www.transportation-finance.org/pdf/funding_financing/financing/mechanisms/bonding_debt_instruments/transitcop_details.pdf Certificates Of Participation Involving FTA 49 U.S.C. § 5307 (“Section 9”)]. Federal Transit Administration.</ref> However, the funding is subject to the U.S. Congress's appropriations process. Therefore, some agencies choose to use more reliable funds for service fee payments and use Section 9 funds, should they materialize, for other projects.<br />
<br />
==Revenue Anticipation Notes==<br />
Revenue Anticipation Notes, known as Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRAN) or Bond Anticipation Notes (BAN), provide short-term financing to fill funding gaps created by delayed appropriations, unexpected tax shortfalls, or other circumstances. Revenue Anticipation Notes allow transit agencies to overcome temporary cash-flow shortages.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
[http://www.transportation-finance.org/pdf/funding_financing/financing/mechanisms/bonding_debt_instruments/culvercop_casestudy.pdf Case Study—$9.66 Million California Transit Finance Corporation Certificates of Participation, 1996 Series A.] The CTFC issued COPs to partially-finance an expanded and renovated bus maintenance facility for the City of Culver City's Municipal Bus Lines. The lease payments were structured so that they would not encumber the City's general revenues. The Culver City and the CTFC also used bond insurance to enhance the COPs rating to AAA levels, bringing future payments down.<br />
(City of Culver City, California)<br />
<br />
[http://caltransit.org/cta/assets/File/Newsletter%20files/CTFC%20Brochure.pdf California Transit Finance Corporation] Brochure. A short-brochure about the CTFC, from the California Transit Association.<br />
<br />
[http://www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/financing/bonding_debt_instruments/certificates_of_participation.aspx American Association of State Highway Transportation Officers. "Certificates of Participation."] This overview of Certificates of Participation links several case studies.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Advertising&diff=2401Advertising2015-05-16T00:45:43Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[File:LA-Metro-bus-ad.JPG|right|thumb|350px|Advertising on a Los Angeles Metro bus]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Advertising on transit vehicles and facilities can produce new or increased local revenues from non-standard sources. Many agencies are re-evaluating advertising as a potential revenue source to fill funding gaps. Advertising on transit facilities and vehicles creates nearly $1 billion per year in sales, with roughly half of this amount going to transit agencies. However, in 2007 only 0.3% of U.S. advertising dollars went to transit <ref name="one33">[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues. 2009.]</ref>. Transit agencies and operators seeking increased revenues from advertising can usually find ways to do so, as a survey adverting planners accustomed to working with traditional channels identified a range of options to improve transit advertising.<ref name="one33"></ref><br />
<br />
==Key Considerations==<br />
<br />
===Need to Restructure===<br />
While there are a number of measures an advertising sales department can implement on their own, TCRP Report 133 makes several suggestions that require buy-in or actions from upper management, including restructuring the entire department or contracting out the function.<ref name="one33">http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
===Advertising Policy===<br />
Government-run transit agencies must consider how the first amendment affects their ability to approve or deny advertisements based on content alone. Generally, transit agencies will need well-defined standards and a system in place to determine compliance with those standards. Have your inside or outside council review this [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_33.pdf TCRP Legal Research Digest 33] on developing and implementing a transit advertising policy.<br />
<br />
==Operating a Transit Advertising Sales Program==<br />
With few exceptions, transit operators that offer out-of-home advertising opportunities generally bid out their programs using a competitive process. Companies handle advertising sales on a contract basis include CBS Outdoor, Titan Advertising, Lamar Advertising, and Clear Channel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Alpers, Jane. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf "TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues."] 2009.<br />
: This 107-page report is a great starting point for consultants, department heads, and agency management considering restructuring an agencies advertising sales operations in order to maximize revenue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_33.pdf "TCRP Legal Research Digest 33: Developing and Implementing a Transit Advertising Policy."] 2010.<br />
: If your agency's legal council is not already familiar with laws and cases related to advertising on property owned or managed by your agency, they should review this document.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_51.pdf "TCRP Synthesis 51: Transit Advertising Sales Agreements."] 2004.<br />
: This 110-page report contains specific guidance on how your advertising sales department can structure agreements and consider how to balance revenue generating advertisements with public service advertisements.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transportation_Infrastructure_Finance_and_Innovation_Act_(TIFIA)&diff=2398Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)2015-04-24T23:57:52Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Tifia.gif|right|thumb|350px|TIFIA logo from Federal Highway Administration]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program was authorized in 1998. The program was created because state and local governments that sought to finance large-scale transportation projects with tolls and other forms of user-backed revenue often had difficulty obtaining financing at reasonable rates due to the uncertainties associated with these revenue streams. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ "TIFIA Defined."] </ref> TIFIA provides federal credit assistance with fixed rates that are often lower than what most borrowers can obtain in the private market. By providing greater access to capital, TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that might otherwise be delayed because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Changes Under MAP-21===<br />
[[MAP-21]] greatly expanded TIFIA's lending capacity, when Congress authorized $1.75 billion in budget authority for the program. Each dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance; under the new MAP-21 funding level, the USDOT expects to be able to offer about $17 billion in credit assistance. That in turn could leverage $20-$30 billion in transportation infrastructure investment. <ref> Department of Transportation. [http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/BertramChris_TIFIA-NACTO.pdf “MAP-21 and Transportation Financing Under the TIFIA Credit Program.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
Most eligible project types and project costs retain their previous TIFIA eligibility. There are new provisions for "rural infrastructure projects", which include a reduced interest rate as well as lowering the minimum project cost from $50 million to $25 million. The maximum loan amount has been increased. Other changes include a rolling admissions process and removal of discretionary selection criteria.<br />
<br />
One change to the TIFIA program allows the loans to be subordinated to pre-existing debt in some cases. This has been criticized by some, since it exposes the federal government to more risk, but it could help transit agencies by making it easier to attract private capital for the matching dollars <ref> DC Streetsblog. [http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/07/03/americas-transpo-loan-program-to-reward-punctuality-not-innovation "Under New Bill, America’s Transpo Loan Program Ignores National Goals."] 2012 </ref><br />
<br />
==Credit Assistance and Benefits==<br />
The TIFIA program offers three types of financial assistance.<br />
<br />
* '''Direct Loan''' - Offers flexible repayment terms and provides combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs. Maximum term of 35 years from substantial completion. Repayments can start up to five years after substantial completion to allow time for facility construction and ramp-up. Up to 49% of total cost.<br />
<br />
* '''Loan Guarantee''' - Provides full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal Government and guarantees a borrower's repayments to non-Federal lender. Loan repayments to lender must commence no later than five years after substantial completion of project. <br />
<br />
* '''Standby Line of Credit''' - Represents a secondary source of funding in the form of a contingent Federal loan to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations, available up to 10 years after substantial completion of project. Up to 33% of total cost.<br />
<br />
TIFIA loans are negotiated between the USDOT and the borrower and are based on the project's economics and characteristics. The amount of credit assistance cannot exceed 33% of total anticipated eligible project costs. <br />
<br />
==Program Eligibility and Requirements==<br />
<br />
Any project eligible for federal assistance through existing surface transportation programs is also eligible for the TIFIA program. Examples of eligible projects include:<br />
* Transit<br />
* Rail<br />
* Highways<br />
* International bridges and tunnels<br />
* Freight rail facilities<br />
* Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)<br />
* Intermodal projects, including those that facilitate access into and out of a port<br />
* Projects eligible for assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49<br />
<br />
Cost requirements include a minimum capital cost of $50 million (or 33.3% of a state's annual apportionment of federal-aid funds), $25 million for "rural infrastructure projects", or $15 million for ITS. Also, the project must be supported by user charges or other non-federal funding sources.<br />
<br />
==Examples of TIFIA Funded Projects==<br />
*The Staten Island Ferries and Ferry Terminals project consisted of construction and acquisition of three ferry boats and redevelopment of two ferry terminals. The project received $159.2 million in direct loans, which was paid off in 2006, 27 years ahead of schedule. This project introduced to transportation finance the structure of scheduled and mandatory debt service. It was the first time such a structure was used for a transportation project and has since become a standard provision of many TIFIA loans that have uncertain revenues pledged, such as toll road revenue. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_staten_island.htm "Project Profiles. Staten Island Ferries and Terminals"] </ref><br />
<br />
*In 2010, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) in the Bay Area secured $171 million from the TIFIA program to build a new Transbay Transit Center, a multimodal transportation hub that houses 11 transportation systems, including BART, Caltrain, and Greyhound. <ref> Transbay Joint Powers Authority. [http://transbaycenter.org/project/program-overview "Transbay Transit Center"] </ref> Sources for repayment of the TIFIA loan include tax increment from state-owned parcels (98% of revenues) and passenger facility charges (PFCs) from AC Transit (2% of revenues). This is the first TIFIA loan secured by value capture revenues from real estate taxes on surrounding transit oriented development. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_transit.htm "Project Profiles. Transbay Transit Center"] </ref><br />
<br />
*Since the passage of MAP-21, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) has made plans to use the TIFIA program to expedite twelve important transportation projects. By using TIFIA funds in conjunction with Measure R funds, LACTMA expects to complete the twelve Measure R projects within 10 years, as opposed to 30. <ref> Northridge-Chatsworth Patch. [http://northridge.patch.com/articles/congress-oks-transportation-bill-expected-to-speed-up-l-a-projects "Congress OKs Transportation Bill Expected to Speed Up L.A. Projects"] </ref> Currently, Metro is seeking for TIFIA funds to pay for the first phase of the Westside Subway Extension to La Cienega Boulevard and also the Regional Connector. <ref> The Source. [http://thesource.metro.net/2012/12/11/metro-sends-inquiry-to-washington-about-use-of-tifia-loans-for-two-projects/ “Metro sends inquiry to Washington about use of TIFIA loans for two projects.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
[http://www.dot.gov/tifia DOT's TIFIA Program Page.] Contains additional information in transit project eligibility, financing structure, and sample transit projects.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/tifia.cfm USDOT Federal Highway Administration] Fact Sheet. The FHWA provides a fact sheet containing the basics of the TIFIA program.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ Direct Loan Current Interest Rate] Website provides the up-to-date interest rate for a 35-year loan.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/guidance_applications/tifia_applications.htm TIFIA Guidance and Application Forms] Innovative Program Delivery website provides the TIFIA program guide, letter of interest form, and application forms.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Special_Event_and_Game_Day_Services&diff=2397Special Event and Game Day Services2015-04-24T23:55:34Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
[[File:Specialeventtransportation.jpg|thumbnail|right|A Muni light rail vehicle approaches AT&T Park on game day. Source: www.sfmta.com ]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Game day and special event services are transportation services employed by agencies at a time and place that coincides with an activity that affects the travel demand of the system. Examples of such events include sports games, parades, fairs, concerts, conventions, and other sporadic, heavily attended activities. <ref>[http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/clearinghouse/commutebenefits/ "Transportation Planning and Management for Special Events." National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003]</ref><br />
<br />
==Transit Agency Strategies==<br />
Strategies that transit agencies use to improve mobility during special events include:<br />
<br />
===Motorist Information===<br />
Communicating to motorists about an upcoming or current special event can have a significant impact on local travel patterns at the time of the event. Communication techniques include (1) temporary roadway signage, (2) radio updates, (3) media partnerships, and (4) in-house information campaigns. These techniques have varying effects on travel patterns depending on whether they are employed before, during or after the event.<br />
<br />
===Traffic Management===<br />
To manage private vehicle traffic during special events, transit agencies have several tools at their disposal. Among these are (1) traffic control devices, including traffic cones, portable traffic signs, and portable traffic signals; (2) traffic patrol and law enforcement, including police and civilian patrols and traffic management teams with varying levels of authority, mobility, and coverage; (3) electronic surveillance tools, including loop detectors and video surveillance; (4) signalization techniques, including timed signalization, traffic-responsive, and metering on freeway ramps; and (5) road modifications including temporary treatments (lane closures, contraflow lanes) and permanent treatments (roadway construction, roadway expansions, intersection and interchange installation).<br />
<br />
===Travel Demand Management===<br />
Travel demand management tools in addressing special event travel demand include (1) improvements to mass transit, including new transit routes, transit-only lanes, new stations, and new ticket booths or ticket vending machines; (2) parking management strategies, including park-and-ride lots, demand-based pricing, and electronic parking guidance systems that display how many spots are available in a given location; and (3) incentives for shifting mode use or travel time, including high occupancy vehicle lanes, high occupancy toll lanes, and infrastructure improvements for people who bicycle or walk. <br />
<br />
Together, these strategies can benefit travelers by reducing delay, reducing overall traffic demand, and improving safety. Funding for such mitigation strategies can come from several different sources. At the federal level, the most common funding sources are the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). At the state level, the most common funding sources are the state departments of transportation. Private partners and event organizers can also be significant sources of funding.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
National Center for Transit Research. [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-09.pdf "Special Event Transportation Service Planning and Operations Strategies for Transit."] 2006 <br />
<br />
Robbins, Derek, Dickinson, Janet and Calver, Steven. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jtr.639/abstract "Planning Transport for Special Events: A Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda for Research."]. International Journal of Tourism Research. 2007.<br />
<br />
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. [http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm48.htm "Special Event Transport Management."] 2012.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transportation_Infrastructure_Finance_and_Innovation_Act_(TIFIA)&diff=2396Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)2015-04-24T23:52:15Z<p>BK: bart</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Tifia.gif|right|thumb|350px|TIFIA logo from Federal Highway Administration]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program was authorized in 1998. The program was created because state and local governments that sought to finance large-scale transportation projects with tolls and other forms of user-backed revenue often had difficulty obtaining financing at reasonable rates due to the uncertainties associated with these revenue streams. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ "TIFIA Defined."] </ref> TIFIA provides federal credit assistance with fixed rates that are often lower than what most borrowers can obtain in the private market. By providing greater access to capital, TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that might otherwise be delayed because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Changes Under MAP-21===<br />
[[MAP-21]] greatly expanded TIFIA's lending capacity, when Congress authorized $1.75 billion in budget authority for the program. Each dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance; under the new MAP-21 funding level, the USDOT expects to be able to offer about $17 billion in credit assistance. That in turn could leverage $20-$30 billion in transportation infrastructure investment. <ref> Department of Transportation. [http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/BertramChris_TIFIA-NACTO.pdf “MAP-21 and Transportation Financing Under the TIFIA Credit Program.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
Most eligible project types and project costs retain their previous TIFIA eligibility. There are new provisions for "rural infrastructure projects", which include a reduced interest rate as well as lowering the minimum project cost from $50 million to $25 million. The maximum loan amount has been increased. Other changes include a rolling admissions process and removal of discretionary selection criteria.<br />
<br />
One change to the TIFIA program allows the loans to be subordinated to pre-existing debt in some cases. This has been criticized by some, since it exposes the federal government to more risk, but it could help transit agencies by making it easier to attract private capital for the matching dollars <ref> DC Streetsblog. [http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/07/03/americas-transpo-loan-program-to-reward-punctuality-not-innovation "Under New Bill, America’s Transpo Loan Program Ignores National Goals."] 2012 </ref><br />
<br />
==Credit Assistance and Benefits==<br />
The TIFIA program offers three types of financial assistance.<br />
<br />
* '''Direct Loan''' - Offers flexible repayment terms and provides combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs. Maximum term of 35 years from substantial completion. Repayments can start up to five years after substantial completion to allow time for facility construction and ramp-up. Up to 49% of total cost.<br />
<br />
* '''Loan Guarantee''' - Provides full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal Government and guarantees a borrower's repayments to non-Federal lender. Loan repayments to lender must commence no later than five years after substantial completion of project. <br />
<br />
* '''Standby Line of Credit''' - Represents a secondary source of funding in the form of a contingent Federal loan to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations, available up to 10 years after substantial completion of project. Up to 33% of total cost.<br />
<br />
TIFIA loans are negotiated between the USDOT and the borrower and are based on the project's economics and characteristics. The amount of credit assistance cannot exceed 33% of total anticipated eligible project costs. <br />
<br />
==Program Eligibility and Requirements==<br />
<br />
Any project eligible for federal assistance through existing surface transportation programs is also eligible for the TIFIA program. Examples of eligible projects include:<br />
* Transit<br />
* Rail<br />
* Highways<br />
* International bridges and tunnels<br />
* Freight rail facilities<br />
* Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)<br />
* Intermodal projects, including those that facilitate access into and out of a port<br />
* Projects eligible for assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49<br />
<br />
Cost requirements include a minimum capital cost of $50 million (or 33.3% of a state's annual apportionment of federal-aid funds), $25 million for "rural infrastructure projects", or $15 million for ITS. Also, the project must be supported by user charges or other non-federal funding sources.<br />
<br />
==Examples of TIFIA Funded Projects==<br />
*The Staten Island Ferries and Ferry Terminals project consisted of construction and acquisition of three ferry boats and redevelopment of two ferry terminals. The project received $159.2 million in direct loans, which was paid off in 2006, 27 years ahead of schedule. This project introduced to transportation finance the structure of scheduled and mandatory debt service. It was the first time such a structure was used for a transportation project and has since become a standard provision of many TIFIA loans that have uncertain revenues pledged, such as toll road revenue. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_staten_island.htm "Project Profiles. Staten Island Ferries and Terminals"] </ref><br />
<br />
*In 2010, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) in the Bay Area secured $171 million from the TIFIA program to build a new Transbay Transit Center, a multimodal transportation hub that houses 11 transportation systems, including BART, Caltrain, and Greyhound. <ref> Transbay Joint Powers Authority. [http://transbaycenter.org/project/program-overview "Transbay Transit Center"] </ref> Sources for repayment of the TIFIA loan include tax increment from state-owned parcels (98% of revenues) and passenger facility charges (PFCs) from AC Transit (2% of revenues). This is the first TIFIA loan secured by value capture revenues from real estate taxes on surrounding transit oriented development. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_transit.htm "Project Profiles. Transbay Transit Center"] </ref><br />
<br />
*Since the passage of MAP-21, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) has made plans to use the TIFIA program to expedite twelve important transportation projects. By using TIFIA funds in conjunction with Measure R funds, LACTMA expects to complete the twelve Measure R projects within 10 years, as opposed to 30. <ref> Northridge-Chatsworth Patch. [http://northridge.patch.com/articles/congress-oks-transportation-bill-expected-to-speed-up-l-a-projects "Congress OKs Transportation Bill Expected to Speed Up L.A. Projects"] </ref> Currently, Metro is seeking for TIFIA funds to pay for the first phase of the Westside Subway Extension to La Cienega Boulevard and also the Regional Connector. <ref> The Source. [http://thesource.metro.net/2012/12/11/metro-sends-inquiry-to-washington-about-use-of-tifia-loans-for-two-projects/ “Metro sends inquiry to Washington about use of TIFIA loans for two projects.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/12861.html FTA's TIFIA Program Page.] Contains additional information in transit project eligibility, financing structure, and sample transit projects.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/tifia.cfm USDOT Federal Highway Administration] Fact Sheet. The FHWA provides a fact sheet containing the basics of the TIFIA program.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ Direct Loan Current Interest Rate] Website provides the up-to-date interest rate for a 35-year loan.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/guidance_applications/tifia_applications.htm TIFIA Guidance and Application Forms] Innovative Program Delivery website provides the TIFIA program guide, letter of interest form, and application forms.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transportation_Infrastructure_Finance_and_Innovation_Act_(TIFIA)&diff=2395Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)2015-04-24T23:46:30Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Tifia.gif|right|thumb|350px|TIFIA logo from Federal Highway Administration]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program was authorized in 1998. The program was created because state and local governments that sought to finance large-scale transportation projects with tolls and other forms of user-backed revenue often had difficulty obtaining financing at reasonable rates due to the uncertainties associated with these revenue streams. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ "TIFIA Defined."] </ref> TIFIA provides federal credit assistance with fixed rates that are often lower than what most borrowers can obtain in the private market. By providing greater access to capital, TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that might otherwise be delayed because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Changes Under MAP-21===<br />
[[MAP-21]] greatly expanded TIFIA's lending capacity, when Congress authorized $1.75 billion in budget authority for the program. Each dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance; under the new MAP-21 funding level, the USDOT expects to be able to offer about $17 billion in credit assistance. That in turn could leverage $20-$30 billion in transportation infrastructure investment. <ref> Department of Transportation. [http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/BertramChris_TIFIA-NACTO.pdf “MAP-21 and Transportation Financing Under the TIFIA Credit Program.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
Most eligible project types and project costs retain their previous TIFIA eligibility. There are new provisions for "rural infrastructure projects", which include a reduced interest rate as well as lowering the minimum project cost from $50 million to $25 million. The maximum loan amount has been increased. Other changes include a rolling admissions process and removal of discretionary selection criteria.<br />
<br />
One change to the TIFIA program allows the loans to be subordinated to pre-existing debt in some cases. This has been criticized by some, since it exposes the federal government to more risk, but it could help transit agencies by making it easier to attract private capital for the matching dollars <ref> DC Streetsblog. [http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/07/03/americas-transpo-loan-program-to-reward-punctuality-not-innovation/ "Under New Bill, America’s Transpo Loan Program Ignores National Goals."] 2012 </ref><br />
<br />
==Credit Assistance and Benefits==<br />
The TIFIA program offers three types of financial assistance.<br />
<br />
* '''Direct Loan''' - Offers flexible repayment terms and provides combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs. Maximum term of 35 years from substantial completion. Repayments can start up to five years after substantial completion to allow time for facility construction and ramp-up. Up to 49% of total cost.<br />
<br />
* '''Loan Guarantee''' - Provides full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal Government and guarantees a borrower's repayments to non-Federal lender. Loan repayments to lender must commence no later than five years after substantial completion of project. <br />
<br />
* '''Standby Line of Credit''' - Represents a secondary source of funding in the form of a contingent Federal loan to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations, available up to 10 years after substantial completion of project. Up to 33% of total cost.<br />
<br />
TIFIA loans are negotiated between the USDOT and the borrower and are based on the project's economics and characteristics. The amount of credit assistance cannot exceed 33% of total anticipated eligible project costs. <br />
<br />
==Program Eligibility and Requirements==<br />
<br />
Any project eligible for federal assistance through existing surface transportation programs is also eligible for the TIFIA program. Examples of eligible projects include:<br />
* Transit<br />
* Rail<br />
* Highways<br />
* International bridges and tunnels<br />
* Freight rail facilities<br />
* Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)<br />
* Intermodal projects, including those that facilitate access into and out of a port<br />
* Projects eligible for assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49<br />
<br />
Cost requirements include a minimum capital cost of $50 million (or 33.3% of a state's annual apportionment of federal-aid funds), $25 million for "rural infrastructure projects", or $15 million for ITS. Also, the project must be supported by user charges or other non-federal funding sources.<br />
<br />
==Examples of TIFIA Funded Projects==<br />
*The Staten Island Ferries and Ferry Terminals project consisted of construction and acquisition of three ferry boats and redevelopment of two ferry terminals. The project received $159.2 million in direct loans, which was paid off in 2006, 27 years ahead of schedule. This project introduced to transportation finance the structure of scheduled and mandatory debt service. It was the first time such a structure was used for a transportation project and has since become a standard provision of many TIFIA loans that have uncertain revenues pledged, such as toll road revenue. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_staten_island.htm "Project Profiles. Staten Island Ferries and Terminals"] </ref><br />
<br />
*In 2010, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) in the Bay Area secured $171 million from the TIFIA program to build a new Transbay Transit Center, a multimodal transportation hub that houses 11 transportation systems, including BART, Caltrain, and Greyhound. <ref> Transbay Joint Powers Authority. [http://transbaycenter.org/project/program-overview "Transbay Transit Center"] </ref> Sources for repayment of the TIFIA loan include tax increment from state-owned parcels (98% of revenues) and passenger facility charges (PFCs) from AC Transit (2% of revenues). This is the first TIFIA loan secured by value capture revenues from real estate taxes on surrounding transit oriented development. <ref> Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_transit.htm "Project Profiles. Transbay Transit Center"] </ref><br />
<br />
*Since the passage of MAP-21, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) has made plans to use the TIFIA program to expedite twelve important transportation projects. By using TIFIA funds in conjunction with Measure R funds, LACTMA expects to complete the twelve Measure R projects within 10 years, as opposed to 30. <ref> Northridge-Chatsworth Patch. [http://northridge.patch.com/articles/congress-oks-transportation-bill-expected-to-speed-up-l-a-projects "Congress OKs Transportation Bill Expected to Speed Up L.A. Projects"] </ref> Currently, Metro is seeking for TIFIA funds to pay for the first phase of the Westside Subway Extension to La Cienega Boulevard and also the Regional Connector. <ref> The Source. [http://thesource.metro.net/2012/12/11/metro-sends-inquiry-to-washington-about-use-of-tifia-loans-for-two-projects/ “Metro sends inquiry to Washington about use of TIFIA loans for two projects.”]2012.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/12861.html FTA's TIFIA Program Page.] Contains additional information in transit project eligibility, financing structure, and sample transit projects.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/tifia.cfm USDOT Federal Highway Administration] Fact Sheet. The FHWA provides a fact sheet containing the basics of the TIFIA program.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/ Direct Loan Current Interest Rate] Website provides the up-to-date interest rate for a 35-year loan.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/guidance_applications/tifia_applications.htm TIFIA Guidance and Application Forms] Innovative Program Delivery website provides the TIFIA program guide, letter of interest form, and application forms.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority&diff=2394California Vanpool Authority2015-04-24T23:43:42Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
[[Category:Managing transit]] <br />
[[File:Calvans promo photo.jpg|thumbnail|right|A Caltrans van Source: California Vanpool Authority]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
The '''California Vanpool Authority''' (also known as '''CalVans''') is a Joint Powers Authority formed in 2012. The Authority evolved from a vanpool program established by Kings County in 2001. The Authority's vanpool services connect residents in areas with low population density with employment centers, operate at 100% cost recovery, and generate operating funds for fixed route transit and paratransit in the areas it serves.<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The vanpool program was established in 2001 by Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCPTA)to fill a gap created when Caltrans ceased operating vanpools to state facilities. Beginning with a single van serving state correctional employees, it expanded to include agricultural workers in 2002. The agricultural vanpool project was established as a pilot program called AITS (Agricultural Industries Transportation Services) funded by in part by a JARC grant. <br />
<br />
AITS sought to be a safer, low-cost alternative to private "raiteros" linking residences with agricultural jobs. According to Hughes, these agricultural workers travel an average of 85 miles per day. The AITS program was originally started after a 2002 accident with a private van killed 13 agricultural workers [1]. To keep cost of service low, the Authority transitions used vans to AITS participants. AITS vans are outfitted with rugged interior flooring, water coolers, and toolboxes for use in agricultural settings. The Authority bills for AITS services weekly as agricultural workers are paid weekly. AITS vans have been used to transport agricultural workers to seasonal jobs in the Imperial Valley, which increases the utilization rate of the vans and allows workers based elsewhere in the state to stay employed during the winter growing season.<br />
<br />
By 2011, the CalVans program expanded to 18 counties, providing over 400 vans to agricultural and non-agricultural vanpools. The California Vanpool Authority Joint Powers Authority was formed in 2012 to allow multiple stakeholders to have oversight over the growing program.<br />
<br />
==Service model==<br />
The public Authority owns and manages the operation of Vanpools. This publicly-owned model contrasts with the private model offered by VPSI Inc, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and other companies that has been more common in California. [http://www.sanbenitorideshare.org/vanpool.htm San Benito County] also offers public vanpool services. <br />
<br />
Individuals who wish to commute with their co-workers may apply to form a vanpool and be a driver. Drivers must meet certain conditions and agree to manage and operate the van in a non-profit manner. The Authority pays fuel and maintenance expenses.<br />
<br />
Having a driver who is responsible for making payments, acquiring new passengers, and managing day-to-day operations reduces labor costs that might be incurred by a centrally-administered vanpool program. According to Hughes, the CalVans model allows it to accept the 30-40% applicants who would be declined by for-profit vanpool companies due to poor credit. Because of this, he sees the service as providing a lifeline to individuals who would not otherwise be able to access jobs. Additionally, Hughes said that a leasee who loses a job or is unable to maintain payments can return a van if needed because the van can be reassigned to other routes as the system continues to grow.<br />
<br />
CalVans tracks demand for vanpools that is not currently being realized: requests for vanpools on routes and times that don't currently exist. Tracking these routes allows potential users to express interest, and allows CalVans to convert suggested routes to operating routes when sufficient demand exists. CalVans for non-agricultural workers are billed monthly. The capital cost of vans is amortized over 5 years, at which point the monthly rate charged for the vanpool decreases.<br />
<br />
==Funding==<br />
The Kings County Area Public Transit Authority Board originally decided to pursue vanpools only if they could achieve 100% recovery of operating and capital costs. The program has been financially self-sustaining from the day it began, according to Hughes. In contrast to some privately operated vanpool providers, the public Authority reports operations data to the National Transit Database. This makes the authority's members eligible for federal formula funds. <br />
<br />
The ability to generate revenues in excess of expenses is not uncommon for publicly-sponsored vanpools in California. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has sponsored vanpools since 2007. During this time, the MTA has subsidized vanpools an average of $1.48 per passenger trip, but has received $6.88 per passenger trip in federal formula funds.<ref>[http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/02_February/20110224RBMItem8.pdf LACMTA "Metro Vanpool Program Funding." 2011]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC)===<br />
Federal funds formulas for small urbanized areas have historically included demographic factors but not service characteristics. SAFETEA-LU established Section 5307 funding for cities that offer high levels of transit service relative to their size <ref>[http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Table_6_FY_2014_STIC.pdf FY 2014 Small Transit Intensive Cities Performance Data and Apportionments] Federal Transit Administration. 2014.]</ref>. The program has brought new operating funds to communities that CalVans serves, and have been key in the Authority's expansion. KCAPTA and other agencies have used these funds to expand vanpool service and to cover operating fund deficiencies for fixed route transit.<br />
<br />
===Job Access / Reverse Commute (JARC)===<br />
The Authority has used section 5316 funds to fund a portion of the AITS program and currently uses these funds to provide vouchers to new vanpool riders in select counties.<br />
<br />
===State and Local Transportation Funds===<br />
State funds that are in excess of what is available to meet local transit needs can be used to purchase new vans. This was enabled by Assembly Bill 276.<br />
<br />
===Urbanized Area Formula Program===<br />
CalVans serves multiple Urbanized Areas (UZAs) in California. Calvans service can generate formula funds for member agencies which act as CalVans sponsors.<br />
<br />
==Joint Powers Authority Members==<br />
As of January 2012, the following local government entities are members of the Joint Powers Authority:<br />
* Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments <br />
* Fresno Area Council of Governments <br />
* Kings County Association of Governments<br />
* Madera County Transportation Commission <br />
* Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency <br />
* Sacramento Area Council of Governments <br />
* Santa Barbara County Association of Governments <br />
* Tulare County Association of Governments<br />
* Ventura County Transportation Commission <br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
Portions of the content appearing on this page are based on an interview between Juan Matute and Ron Hughes on September 9, 2011 and an email exchange in March of 2012.<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
===External Links===<br />
[http://www.calvans.org/ CalVans web site]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_private_partnership&diff=2393Public private partnership2015-04-24T23:23:19Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Publicprivatepartnershipvenn.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Venn Diagram of a Public Private Partnership (PPP)]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies engage in some form of public-private partnerships. An agency that engages with a private-sector firm to design or construct a transit plaza is engaging in a simple public-private partnership that distributes risk and responsibility between itself and private sectors to accomplish a project with a public benefit. Recently, as government has tightened its fiscal belt, transit agencies and other stakeholders have become interested in public-private partnerships as a means of attracting additional funding or accelerating project completion. However, public private-partnerships are often misunderstood. A public-private partnership must confer some benefit (usually a rate of return on capital) to the private sector partner. <br />
<br />
===Risk transfer===<br />
One argument in favor of a public-private partnership is that the arrangement allows the public sector to offload some risk related to project design, finance, construction, operations, and maintenance. Design-build contracts are popular because the structure allows a single party to manage risks related to designing and constructing an infrastructure project. Risks related to costs of constructing a specific design element or certain design flaws can be reduced. A design-build-operate-maintain contract can allow a single party to manage design and construction elements that may impact operation or maintenance costs, rather than allowing parties to transfer risk and costs to other parties. Public-private partnerships can create incentives for early project delivery or penalize late project delivery and transfer risk that fare revenues or other fees are less than expected due to lower than forecast ridership. Under certain arrangements where no revenue guarantee exists, the entity responsible for operating the transit facility will bear the risk of any shortfall in funds from operations.<br />
<br />
===Additionality===<br />
Public private partnerships can lead to investments in infrastructure that would have otherwise been delayed or not made at all. In these cases, the partnership provides an additional investment that would not be possible if the public sector were to rely solely on its own support. Engaging in a public private partnership that produces additional investment is not a choice between exclusive public support and a partnership with private support, but rather a choice between pursuing the investment under a private-sector partnership and not pursuing the investment at all.<br />
<br />
===Flexibility===<br />
Certain contracting arrangements better accommodate necessary adaptations to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Multi-year projects can face conditions that were not expected during the project planning and onset phases. For example, a multi-year subway construction project using a public-private partnership may be better able to take advantage of new tunnel boring technology than a contract in which the builder is restricted by certain design criteria.<br />
<br />
==Public-private partnership structures==<br />
Several permutations are possible to transfer tasks, responsibilities, risks, and ownership from the public to the private sector. These include:<br />
* '''BOT''' - Build Operate Transfer<br />
* '''BOOT''' - Build Own Operate Transfer<br />
* '''BOO''' - Build Own Operate<br />
* '''BLT''' - Build Lease Transfer<br />
* '''DB''' - Design Build<br />
* '''DBB''' - Design Bid Build<br />
* '''DBFO''' - Design Build Finance Operate<br />
* '''DCMF''' - Design Construct Manage Finance<br />
<br />
==Types of PPPs for Transit Agencies==<br />
In transportation, a public private partnership "involves one or more aspects of the funding, financing, planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a transportation facility" <ref>[http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/apta_ppp_white_paper_final.pdf "Public-Private Partnerships in Public Transportation: Policies and Principles for the Transit Industry."] American Public Transportation Association Task Force on Public Private Partnerships. 2008.</ref> In practice, this can take several forms.<br />
<br />
===Contracting===<br />
Agencies use private sector contractors to provide some or all ancillary and core services. Contracting may range from purchasing (using an external printing company to print schedules), to contracting ancillary services (e.g. using an outside payroll company), to [[contracting transit operations]] - their core service. Agencies must evaluate ancillary and core service outsourcing on a case-by-case basis to understand what may gained and what may be lost.<br />
<br />
===Tolling===<br />
Although transit already levies a toll-for-service, many automobile facilities do not. Imposing a toll on a previously free facility used by automobiles can both generate revenues and demand for transit. Tolling is typically not politically popular, though providing something new in return for the toll can reduce opposition. Tolling can be used in a BOT, BOOT, DBFO, or DCMF arrangement to provide payments to a private-sector partner which contributed capital and expertise to develop the transportation facility. Tolling generates new revenues, and new revenues are often required to make a public private partnership feasible.<br />
<br />
===Financing===<br />
Private capital typically requires a higher rate of return than public capital. This is because dividends paid on municipal bonds are usually untaxed, and the private sector requires a profit margin while the public sector does not. Nevertheless, public private partnerships can bring new investment capital to a project that will produce new revenues or will increase the public entity's capacity to service debt or pay fees to the private sector partner. Using private financing can be a way for the public sector to move long-term liabilities off of their balance sheet.<br />
<br />
===Real Estate===<br />
Real estate developers can support transit indirectly through development projects that are supportive of transit. Such transit-oriented development bring not only additional ridership, but also additional political support for the transit system. Under a joint-development scenario, a transit agency works with the private sector to develop a publicly-owned parcel. See more information on joint-development and related strategies at the [[value-capture finance#Joint development|article on value-capture finance]]<br />
<br />
==Public Perception of Public-Private Partnerships==<br />
Members of the public will likely perceive that the partnership grant profits to the private sector at the public's expense. A public relations strategy from an early stage should focus on how the partnership enables the project to be built more quickly or more completely under a partnership.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
American Public Transportation Association Task Force on Public Private Partnerships. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/apta_ppp_white_paper_final.pdf "Public-Private Partnerships in Public Transportation: Policies and Principles for the Transit Industry."] 2008.<br />
<br />
: This short resource is one of few transit-specific sources available on public private partnerships. The eight page publication contains common issues to consider as well as principles that should guide transit agencies considering public private partnerships.<br />
<br />
E. R. Yescombe. ''Public Private Partnerships: Principles of Policy and Finance''. Elsevier Finance. 2007. ([http://www.worldcat.org/title/public-private-partnerships-principles-of-policy-and-finance/oclc/124066063 find in a library or purchase])<br />
<br />
: This postgraduate-level textbook is an in-depth resource for evaluating and entering into public private partnerships. It's a useful resource for someone with prior knowledge of transit capital project management or project finance who is considering various PPP structures and is seeking to evaluate risk transfer and rates of return. Many portions of this book will not be accessible to the general reader.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_private_partnership&diff=2392Public private partnership2015-04-24T23:21:25Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Publicprivatepartnershipvenn.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Venn Diagram of a Public Private Partnership (PPP)]]<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Most transit agencies engage in some form of public-private partnerships. An agency that engages with a private-sector firm to design or construct a transit plaza is engaging in a simple public-private partnership that distributes risk and responsibility between itself and private sectors to accomplish a project with a public benefit. Recently, as government has tightened its fiscal belt, transit agencies and other stakeholders have become interested in public-private partnerships as a means of attracting additional funding or accelerating project completion. However, public private-partnerships are often misunderstood. A public-private partnership must confer some benefit (usually a rate of return on capital) to the private sector partner. <br />
<br />
===Risk transfer===<br />
One argument in favor of a public-private partnership is that the arrangement allows the public sector to offload some risk related to project design, finance, construction, operations, and maintenance. Design-build contracts are popular because the structure allows a single party to manage risks related to designing and constructing an infrastructure project. Risks related to costs of constructing a specific design element or certain design flaws can be reduced. A design-build-operate-maintain contract can allow a single party to manage design and construction elements that may impact operation or maintenance costs, rather than allowing parties to transfer risk and costs to other parties. Public-private partnerships can create incentives for early project delivery or penalize late project delivery and transfer risk that fare revenues or other fees are less than expected due to lower than forecast ridership. Under certain arrangements where no revenue guarantee exists, the entity responsible for operating the transit facility will bear the risk of any shortfall in funds from operations.<br />
<br />
===Additionality===<br />
Public private partnerships can lead to investments in infrastructure that would have otherwise been delayed or not made at all. In these cases, the partnership provides an additional investment that would not be possible if the public sector were to rely solely on its own support. Engaging in a public private partnership that produces additional investment is not a choice between exclusive public support and a partnership with private support, but rather a choice between pursuing the investment under a private-sector partnership and not pursuing the investment at all.<br />
<br />
===Flexibility===<br />
Certain contracting arrangements better accommodate necessary adaptations to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Multi-year projects can face conditions that were not expected during the project planning and onset phases. For example, a multi-year subway construction project using a public-private partnership may be better able to take advantage of new tunnel boring technology than a contract in which the builder is restricted by certain design criteria.<br />
<br />
==Public-private partnership structures==<br />
Several permutations are possible to transfer tasks, responsibilities, risks, and ownership from the public to the private sector. These include:<br />
* '''BOT''' - Build Operate Transfer<br />
* '''BOOT''' - Build Own Operate Transfer<br />
* '''BOO''' - Build Own Operate<br />
* '''BLT''' - Build Lease Transfer<br />
* '''DB''' - Design Build<br />
* '''DBB''' - Design Bid Build<br />
* '''DBFO''' - Design Build Finance Operate<br />
* '''DCMF''' - Design Construct Manage Finance<br />
<br />
==Types of PPPs for Transit Agencies==<br />
In transportation, a public private partnership "involves one or more aspects of the funding, financing, planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a transportation facility" <ref>[http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/apta_ppp_white_paper_final.pdf "Public-Private Partnerships in Public Transportation: Policies and Principles for the Transit Industry."] American Public Transportation Association Task Force on Public Private Partnerships. 2008.</ref> In practice, this can take several forms.<br />
<br />
===Contracting===<br />
Agencies use private sector contractors to provide some or all ancillary and core services. Contracting may range from purchasing (using an external printing company to print schedules), to contracting ancillary services (e.g. using an outside payroll company), to [[contracting transit operations]] - their core service. Agencies must evaluate ancillary and core service outsourcing on a case-by-case basis to understand what may gained and what may be lost.<br />
<br />
===Tolling===<br />
Although transit already levies a toll-for-service, many automobile facilities do not. Imposing a toll on a previously free facility used by automobiles can both generate revenues and demand for transit. Tolling is typically not politically popular, though providing something new in return for the toll can reduce opposition. Tolling can be used in a BOT, BOOT, DBFO, or DCMF arrangement to provide payments to a private-sector partner which contributed capital and expertise to develop the transportation facility. Tolling generates new revenues, and new revenues are often required to make a public private partnership feasible.<br />
<br />
===Financing===<br />
Private capital typically requires a higher rate of return than public capital. This is because dividends paid on municipal bonds are usually untaxed, and the private sector requires a profit margin while the public sector does not. Nevertheless, public private partnerships can bring new investment capital to a project that will produce new revenues or will increase the public entity's capacity to service debt or pay fees to the private sector partner. Using private financing can be a way for the public sector to move long-term liabilities off of their balance sheet.<br />
<br />
===Real Estate===<br />
Real estate developers can support transit indirectly through development projects that are supportive of transit. Such transit-oriented development bring not only additional ridership, but also additional political support for the transit system. Under a joint-development scenario, a transit agency works with the private sector to develop a publicly-owned parcel. See more information on joint-development and related strategies at the [[value-capture finance#Joint development|article on value-capture finance]]<br />
<br />
==Public Perception of Public-Private Partnerships==<br />
Members of the public will likely perceive that the partnership grant profits to the private sector at the public's expense. A public relations strategy from an early stage should focus on how the partnership enables the project to be built more quickly or more completely under a partnership.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
American Public Transportation Association Task Force on Public Private Partnerships. [http://www.ncppp.org/publications/TransitDenver_0806/APTA_RoundtableWhitePaper_080612.pdf "Public-Private Partnerships in Public Transportation: Policies and Principles for the Transit Industry."] 2008.<br />
<br />
: This short resource is one of few transit-specific sources available on public private partnerships. The eight page publication contains common issues to consider as well as principles that should guide transit agencies considering public private partnerships.<br />
<br />
E. R. Yescombe. ''Public Private Partnerships: Principles of Policy and Finance''. Elsevier Finance. 2007. ([http://www.worldcat.org/title/public-private-partnerships-principles-of-policy-and-finance/oclc/124066063 find in a library or purchase])<br />
<br />
: This postgraduate-level textbook is an in-depth resource for evaluating and entering into public private partnerships. It's a useful resource for someone with prior knowledge of transit capital project management or project finance who is considering various PPP structures and is seeking to evaluate risk transfer and rates of return. Many portions of this book will not be accessible to the general reader.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2391MAP-212015-04-24T23:18:23Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2390MAP-212015-04-24T23:17:17Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2389MAP-212015-04-24T23:15:05Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf. "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2388MAP-212015-04-24T23:14:01Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf. "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2387MAP-212015-04-24T23:11:23Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions". 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf. "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2386MAP-212015-04-24T23:10:00Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions". 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf. "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=MAP-21&diff=2385MAP-212015-04-24T23:09:24Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:MAP21logo.png|thumb|right|300px|]]<br />
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
In July 2012, Congress enacted a surface transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), providing federal transportation funding for the fiscal years 2013 and 2014.<br />
<br />
Major policy changes include:<br />
<br />
*Major increase in federally backed [[Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)]] loans, which could help regions speed up transit plans. Projects are now evaluated only on creditworthiness and a first-come, first-served basis <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/the-promises-and-perils-of-map-21/. "The Promises ad Perils of MAP-21".] 2012. </ref><br />
*Consolidation of 90 highway and transit programs into roughly 30 programs. Earmarks for specific projects were eliminated, as well as many discretionary programs; nearly all the money is apportioned under the new overarching programs.<br />
*Modifications of definitions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (Section 5302), which now allows it to be become eligible for funding that was previously only allowed for fixed guideway systems. <br />
*New performance measures, with an emphasis on performance measurement implementation, rather than performance-based funding; MAP-21 imposes no financial penalty for states and MPOs that fail to make progress toward performance goals, and funding decisions for any given project are not explicitly tied to performance criteria. The USDOT will establish measures for goals that include interstate highway performance, pavement conditions, fatalities and injuries, and transit safety. Under current law, there is no requirement for transit agencies to evaluate or report on the state of their infrastructure. Under MAP-21, transit agencies are required to develop asset management plans, which include capital asset inventories, condition assessments, decision support tools, and investment prioritization. <ref> Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. [http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/policy-updates/-/blogs/map-21-performance-measures-and-performance-based-funding. "MAP-21, Performance Measures, and Performance-Based Funding".] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
Additionally, the bill cut some discretionary funding programs. Historically, formulas funneling money to states and transit agencies have distributed 80 percent of federal highway and transit money, but MAP-21 boosts that percentage to over 92%, leaving less than eight percent of funds to be spent under the direction of USDOT <ref> Urban Land Institute. [http://www.uli.org/infrastructure-initiative/usdot-talks-map-21-with-uli/. "USDOT Talks MAP-21 with ULI".] 2012.</ref> This change will make funding more predictable, but will limit the amount available for transit agencies.<br />
<br />
==Transit Programs==<br />
Overall, MAP-21 slightly increased formula funds for transit agencies and slightly reduced funds for new construction. The bill provides $10.578 billion for transit in FY2013 and $10.695 billion in FY2014. Transit programs include formula funding and competitive funding.<br />
<br />
===Formula Funding===<br />
*Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307): Can be used for new capital projects and to cover operating costs.<br />
*Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310): Grants for capital and operating expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities.<br />
*State of Good Repair Grants (Section 5337): New program focusing on maintenance projects for existing fixed-guideway rail and bus systems, including vehicles, track, structures, communications, etc. Projects are limited to replacement and rehabilitation, or capital projects required to maintain public transportation systems in a state of good repair<br />
*Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339): New grant program that replaces the old competitive bus funding program. Grants will be for purchase, rehabilitation, and repair of buses and bus facilities. Each year, $65.5 million will be allocated with each State receiving $1.25 million and each territory (including DC and Puerto Rico) receiving $500,000. The remaining funding will be distributed by formula based on population, vehicle revenue miles and passenger miles. This program requires a 20 percent local match <ref> Federal Transit Administration. [www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions"]. </ref><br />
<br />
===Competitive Funding===<br />
*New Starts: Traditional New Starts program funding has been for projects with fixed guideawys, but MAP-21 now allows [[bus rapid transit]] (BRT) projects to qualify for funding as long as the buses have their own travel lane for the majority of the route (compared to the entirety of the route, as in previous requirements). Additionally, grants can be used to expand rail or BRT capacity, by increasing existing passenger capacity by at least ten percent. These "core capacity" projects are capital improvements that address issues such as overcrowding by adding station entrances, double-tracking, or lengthening platforms.<br />
<br />
===TOD Pilot Program===<br />
This is a new discretionary funding program for transit-oriented development. The bill establishes a national policy “encouraging mixed use, transit-oriented development”; while having little immediate effect, it can help promote TOD. <ref> Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions". 2012. </ref> Only communities with new projects are eligible to apply. Eligible projects include comprehensive planning in corridors with new rail, bus rapid transit, or core capacity projects. The comprehensive plans should seek to enhance ridership, facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, enable mixed-use development, etc.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP21_essay_style_summary_v5_MASTER.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Public Transportation Programs".] 2012. Summary provides a quick overview of new and consolidated transportation programs.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MAP-21-external-summary-FINAL-03-26-12.pdf. "Summary of MAP-21 Provisions".] 2012. Summary of the provisions and programs within the bill.<br />
<br />
Transportation for America. [http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAP-21-Handbook-Web.pdf. "Making the Most of MAP-21"] A guide to MAP-21 for communities to use.<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/chap53MAP21.pdf. "Federal transit law as amended by MAP-21".] 2012. This is Chapter 53 of title 49 of United States Code, as amended by MAP-21. It details the changes in definitions.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Advertising&diff=2384Advertising2015-04-24T23:04:57Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[File:LA-Metro-bus-ad.JPG|right|thumb|350px|Advertising on a Los Angeles Metro bus]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Advertising on transit vehicles and facilities can produce new or increased local revenues from non-standard sources. Many agencies are re-evaluating advertising as a potential revenue source to fill funding gaps. Advertising on transit facilities and vehicles creates nearly $1 billion per year in sales, with roughly half of this amount going to transit agencies. However, in 2007 only 0.3% of U.S. advertising dollars went to transit <ref name="one33">[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues. 2009.]</ref>. Transit agencies and operators seeking increased revenues from advertising can usually find ways to do so, as a survey adverting planners accustomed to working with traditional channels identified a range of options to improve transit advertising.<ref name="one33"></ref><br />
<br />
==Key Considerations==<br />
<br />
===Need to Restructure===<br />
While there are a number of measures an advertising sales department can implement on their own, TCRP Report 133 makes several suggestions that require buy-in or actions from upper management, including restructuring the entire department or contracting out the function.<ref name="one33">http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
===Advertising Policy===<br />
Government-run transit agencies must consider how the first amendment affects their ability to approve or deny advertisements based on content alone. Generally, transit agencies will need well-defined standards and a system in place to determine compliance with those standards. Have your inside or outside council review this [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_33.pdf TCRP Legal Research Digest 33] on developing and implementing a transit advertising policy.<br />
<br />
==Operating a Transit Advertising Sales Program==<br />
With few exceptions, transit operators that offer out-of-home advertising opportunities generally bid out their programs using a competitive process. Companies handle advertising sales on a contract basis include CBS Outdoor, Titan Advertising, Lamar Advertising, and Clear Channel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Alpers, Jane. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf "TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues."] 2009.<br />
: This 107-page report is a great starting point for consultants, department heads, and agency management considering restructuring an agencies advertising sales operations in order to maximize revenue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1532 "TCRP Legal Research Digest 13: Developing and Implementing a Transit Advertising Policy."] 2010.<br />
: If your agency's legal council is not already familiar with laws and cases related to advertising on property owned or managed by your agency, they should review this document.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_51.pdf "TCRP Synthesis 51: Transit Advertising Sales Agreements."] 2004.<br />
: This 110-page report contains specific guidance on how your advertising sales department can structure agreements and consider how to balance revenue generating advertisements with public service advertisements.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Advertising&diff=2383Advertising2015-04-24T23:03:14Z<p>BK: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[File:LA-Metro-bus-ad.JPG|right|thumb|350px|Advertising on a Los Angeles Metro bus]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Advertising on transit vehicles and facilities can produce new or increased local revenues from non-standard sources. Many agencies are re-evaluating advertising as a potential revenue source to fill funding gaps. Advertising on transit facilities and vehicles creates nearly $1 billion per year in sales, with roughly half of this amount going to transit agencies. However, in 2007 only 0.3% of U.S. advertising dollars went to transit <ref name="one33">[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues. 2009.]</ref>. Transit agencies and operators seeking increased revenues from advertising can usually find ways to do so, as a survey adverting planners accustomed to working with traditional channels identified a range of options to improve transit advertising.<ref name="one33"></ref><br />
<br />
==Key Considerations==<br />
<br />
===Need to Restructure===<br />
While there are a number of measures an advertising sales department can implement on their own, TCRP Report 133 makes several suggestions that require buy-in or actions from upper management, including restructuring the entire department or contracting out the function.<ref name="one33">http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
===Advertising Policy===<br />
Government-run transit agencies must consider how the first amendment affects their ability to approve or deny advertisements based on content alone. Generally, transit agencies will need well-defined standards and a system in place to determine compliance with those standards. Have your inside or outside council review this [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_33.pdf TCRP Legal Research Digest 33] on developing and implementing a transit advertising policy.<br />
<br />
==Operating a Transit Advertising Sales Program==<br />
With few exceptions, transit operators that offer out-of-home advertising opportunities generally bid out their programs using a competitive process. Companies handle advertising sales on a contract basis include CBS Outdoor, Titan Advertising, Lamar Advertising, and Clear Channel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Alpers, Jane. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf "TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues."] 2009.<br />
: This 107-page report is a great starting point for consultants, department heads, and agency management considering restructuring an agencies advertising sales operations in order to maximize revenue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1532 "TCRP Legal Research Digest 13: Developing and Implementing a Transit Advertising Policy."] 2010.<br />
: If your agency's legal council is not already familiar with laws and cases related to advertising on property owned or managed by your agency, they should review this document.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1103 "TCRP Synthesis 51: Transit Advertising Sales Agreements."] 2004.<br />
: This 110-page report contains specific guidance on how your advertising sales department can structure agreements and consider how to balance revenue generating advertisements with public service advertisements.</div>BKhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Advertising&diff=2382Advertising2015-04-24T23:01:52Z<p>BK: fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Finance and revenue]]<br />
[[File:LA-Metro-bus-ad.JPG|right|thumb|350px|Advertising on a Los Angeles Metro bus]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Advertising on transit vehicles and facilities can produce new or increased local revenues from non-standard sources. Many agencies are re-evaluating advertising as a potential revenue source to fill funding gaps. Advertising on transit facilities and vehicles creates nearly $1 billion per year in sales, with roughly half of this amount going to transit agencies. However, in 2007 only 0.3% of U.S. advertising dollars went to transit <ref name="one33">[http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1500 TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues. 2009.]</ref>. Transit agencies and operators seeking increased revenues from advertising can usually find ways to do so, as a survey adverting planners accustomed to working with traditional channels identified a range of options to improve transit advertising.<ref name="one33"></ref><br />
<br />
==Key Considerations==<br />
<br />
===Need to Restructure===<br />
While there are a number of measures an advertising sales department can implement on their own, TCRP Report 133 makes several suggestions that require buy-in or actions from upper management, including restructuring the entire department or contracting out the function.<ref name="one33">http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
===Advertising Policy===<br />
Government-run transit agencies must consider how the first amendment affects their ability to approve or deny advertisements based on content alone. Generally, transit agencies will need well-defined standards and a system in place to determine compliance with those standards. Have your inside or outside council review this [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_33.pdf TCRP Legal Research Digest 33] on developing and implementing a transit advertising policy.<br />
<br />
==Operating a Transit Advertising Sales Program==<br />
With few exceptions, transit operators that offer out-of-home advertising opportunities generally bid out their programs using a competitive process. Companies handle advertising sales on a contract basis include CBS Outdoor, Titan Advertising, Lamar Advertising, and Clear Channel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Alpers, Jane. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_133.pdf "TCRP Report 133: Practical Measures to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues."] 2009.<br />
: This 107-page report is a great starting point for consultants, department heads, and agency management considering restructuring an agencies advertising sales operations in order to maximize revenue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1532 "TCRP Legal Research Digest 13: Developing and Implementing a Transit Advertising Policy."] 2010.<br />
: If your agency's legal council is not already familiar with laws and cases related to advertising on property owned or managed by your agency, they should review this document.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/publications.pl?mode=abstract&cat_id=23&pub_id=1103 "TCRP Synthesis 51: Transit Advertising Sales Agreements."] 2004.<br />
: This 110-page report contains specific guidance on how your advertising sales department can structure agreements and consider how to balance revenue generating advertisements with public service advertisements.</div>BK