https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Sbrumb&feedformat=atomTransitWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:10:06ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.1https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Coordinate_with_private_sector&diff=2514Coordinate with private sector2015-06-10T07:36:34Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Note: Article Under Development=<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The private sector -- namely large employers -- can play a large role in encouraging the use of transit among its employees, often by employing incentives with little cost to the employer.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
<br />
===Parking Cash-Out===<br />
* Allowing employees to use the cash value of their parking space for transit passes, [[Vanpool and Buspool Services|vanpool and buspool services]], carpool services, or other transit services incentivizes the use of commuting alternatives to the car at no direct cost to transit agencies.<br />
<br />
===Transit Pass Subsidies===<br />
<br />
===Direct transit service provision (Google bus)===<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=55468| Donald Shoup. "Evaluating the effects of parking cash out: eight case studies." 1997.]<br />
* [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369508975616| Donald Shoup. "An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements." 2007.]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Coordinate_with_private_sector&diff=2513Coordinate with private sector2015-06-10T07:36:13Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Note: Article Under Development=<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The private sector -- namely large employers -- can play a large role in encouraging the use of transit among its employees, often by employing incentives with little cost to the employer.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
<br />
===Parking Cash-Out===<br />
* Allowing employees to use the cash value of their parking space for transit passes, [[Vanpool and Buspool Services|vanpool and buspool services]], carpool services, or other transit services incentivizes the use of commuting alternatives to the car at no direct cost to transit agencies.<br />
<br />
===Transit Pass Subsidies===<br />
<br />
===Direct transit service provision (Google bus)===<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
===Additional Reading===<br />
<br />
* [http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=55468| Donald Shoup. "Evaluating the effects of parking cash out: eight case studies." 1997.]<br />
* [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369508975616| Donald Shoup. "An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements." 2007.]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Coordinate_with_private_sector&diff=2512Coordinate with private sector2015-06-10T07:35:23Z<p>Sbrumb: Added internal link</p>
<hr />
<div>=Note: Article Under Development=<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The private sector -- namely large employers -- can play a large role in encouraging the use of transit among its employees, often by employing incentives with little cost to the employer.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
<br />
===Parking Cash-Out===<br />
* Allowing employees to use the cash value of their parking space for transit passes, [[Vanpool and Buspool Services|vanpool and buspool services]], carpool services, or other transit services incentivizes the use of commuting alternatives to the car at no direct cost to transit agencies.<br />
<br />
===Transit Pass Subsidies===<br />
<br />
===Direct transit service provision (Google bus)===<br />
<br />
[[Category:Managing transit]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
===Additional Reading===<br />
<br />
* [http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=55468| Donald Shoup. "Evaluating the effects of parking cash out: eight case studies." 1997.]<br />
* [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369508975616| Donald Shoup. "An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements." 2007.]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Paratransit_Vehicles&diff=2511Paratransit Vehicles2015-06-10T04:00:56Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Paratransitvans.gif|400px|thumbnail|right|Various cutaway-style paratransit vehicles]]<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
The market for paratransit vehicles changes rapidly as vendors come and go or as models are replaced with new innovations. Paratransit vehicle procurement for small agencies can be a difficult and time-consuming process. Many state Departments of Transportation engage in statewide vehicle purchases when it may be impractical for individual small agencies to conduct a full [[FTA Procurement|FTA-compliant procurement]]. Whether participating in a DOT-managed procurement or engaging in one at the agency level, administrators should be familiar with the many options on the market.<br />
<br />
== Vehicle Types ==<br />
Paratransit service can be provided with any ADA-compliant transit vehicle ranging from small mini-vans up to full-size heavy duty buses. The various types have advantages and disadvantages in different operating contexts.<br />
=== Small Vehicles ===<br />
A wide array of paratransit vehicles are based on consumer model vans such as the standard '''15-passenger van''' built by Ford or Chevrolet. A wheelchair lift is installed in either the mid-body door on the right side or in the rear doors. These vehicles generally have a more rugged frame and suspension to support the additional weight cantilevered on the lift and while on board. They also commonly have a taller roof cap added to meet ADA requirements for overhead clearance through the doorways and inside the vehicle. The advantage of this style vehicle is its relatively small size for maneuvering in tight spaces versus its passenger capacity, depending on internal configuration. <br />
<br />
Another method modifies consumer model '''mini-vans with a lowered floor'''. These products use a ramp instead of a lift, in the right-side door or the rear hatch. Many models are available with the ability to remove the front passenger and/or driver seats to accommodate more than one wheelchair, or even allow a wheelchair user to operate the vehicle. The commercial/government models of these vehicles are sold to meet ADA specifications and generally come with manual (unpowered) ramps. <br />
[[File:Amerivan.jpeg|300px|thumbnail|right|The ElDorado Amerivan is an example of a mini-van conversion for paratransit use.]]<br />
These vehicles have the benefit of being time-efficient for operators. The small size allows greater flexibility to maneuver than larger paratransit vehicles. The manual ramp reduces risk of equipment failure and can simplify the boarding process for clients, saving the operator time. However, their greatest disadvantage is also their small size; these vehicles can technically accommodate two "common" wheelchairs, but one larger wheelchair may negate the space needed to carry another rider simultaneously. However, operators may be able to simultaneously carry a person using a wheelchair and other clients not using mobility devices who can sit on the OEM bench seat in the rear or the front passenger seat, if present.<br />
<br />
Agencies purchasing vehicles using any Federal grants must be aware that as of 2013, no consumer mini-van conversion is available that meets [http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12921.html Buy America requirements]. Under FTA procurement regulations, a "small purchase" threshold of $100,000 may allow purchase of one or two such vehicles without triggering the Buy America requirements. However, agencies conducting a procurement over this amount would have to apply for a waiver.<br />
<br />
A third option in the small vehicle category is a relative newcomer. The "'''MV-1'''" is a custom and purpose-built accessible vehicle, blending the two previous styles together. The MV-1 meets Buy America and ADA requirements. The original developer of the MV-1, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Production_Group Vehicle Production Group], shut down production in 2013. According to the [http://www.mv-1.us/press-release.html MV-1 website], Mobility Ventures, LLC has taken over ownership and operations for production of the van and expects to resume in the future.<br />
<br />
=== Medium Vehicles ===<br />
Another commonly used class of paratransit vehicle is the cutaway bus, also known as a minibus. The vehicle is built with a bus body on top of a truck chassis such as those made by Ford or Chevrolet. They typically have a wheelchair lift and seat up to 15 passengers (including the driver). They can be configured with many different seating arrangements. Some agencies maximize number of wheelchair securement positions; others may balance with fixed-seats. Some agencies may also purchase these vehicles for shopper shuttle services and install luggage racks or other amenities. They may range in size from narrow-body to full 102" width. Vehicle length can be equally varied; in paratransit applications lengths of 20' to 25' are common. <br />
<br />
A recent innovation in the field is the low-floor cutaway. The low-floor design allows riders with limited mobility easier entry and exit by removing the need to climb stairs in the vehicle. These vehicles generally have an automatic "kneeling" suspension which lowers the vehicle a few inches to curb height when the door is opened. These cutaways use a ramp instead of wheelchair lift. <br />
<br />
The advantage of cutaway style vehicles is their greater carrying capacity for all users and flexibility of options. Depending on specifications, cutaways can be used for both paratransit and [[Flexible transportation services|flexible]] or low-volume fixed-route services. Cutaways are generally larger and more expensive than van-based options. Cutaways are more customizable for agency-specific needs, but this also has the consequence of more options to familiarize oneself with.<br />
<br />
=== Large Vehicles ===<br />
Cutaways can be purchased at lengths over 25' and may be used for large group paratransit service. Agencies may also use large (29'-40') transit buses for paratransit service, although this is uncommon.<br />
<br />
== Further Reading ==<br />
[http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/NCHRP_RRD_315.pdf Centralized Versus Decentralized State Procurement Of Paratransit Vehicles For the Federal Section 5310 Program] National Cooperative Highway Research Program. May 2007.<br />
<br />
[http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/NCHRP_RRD_319.pdf Buy America Issues Associated with State DOT Procurement of Paratransit Vehicles Using FTA Funds]. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. July 2007.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Investment and planning]]<br />
[[Category:Cost effective vehicle purchases]]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Cost_effective_vehicle_purchases&diff=2510Cost effective vehicle purchases2015-06-10T03:59:34Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Additional Reading */</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 assessment of transit|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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Fare_pricing_and_reform&diff=2509Fare pricing and reform2015-06-10T03:37:50Z<p>Sbrumb: </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, and 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 />
==Fare Strategies==<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 />
=== Group Fares ===<br />
<br />
Transit agencies can offer [[Deep Discount Group Pass|deep discount group passes]] to employers and universities. In a 2004 dissertation, Cornelius Nuworsoo explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.<ref> [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."] </ref> There is an associated Access Magazine article that can be found on the Access website at http://www.accessmagazine.org<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 />
===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 />
==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.</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=2508Main Page2015-06-10T03:18:37Z<p>Sbrumb: StreetsWiki displays "subscription expired" as of November 2014 :(</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div id="mf-blog" title="TransitWiki.org Mobile"><br />
===Welcome to TransitWiki.org===<br />
[[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|right|A Los Angeles Metro articulated bus travels along the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley|300px]]TransitWiki.org is developed and maintained by transit planners for transit planners. The goal of the site is to facilitate information transfer among transit agencies to accelerate the successful implementation of cost-effective strategies to improve transit service. On this site you'll find basic information about strategies, examples of their implementation, and links to reports and guidance from the American Public Transportation Association, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, University Transportation Centers, Caltrans, and local agencies. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Mass Transportation funds Transitwiki and outreach and coordination efforts with California's transit agencies.<br />
<br />
* '''[[Table of Contents|See all articles on TransitWiki]]'''<br />
<br />
{{TransitWiki_News}}<br />
<br />
==About TransitWiki==<br />
This site is based on the MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia and many other sites across the web. If you're familiar with how to navigate or edit Wikipedia, then TransitWiki.org should be straight forward. If not, see the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]. The [http://www.its.ucla.edu/ UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies] expands and maintains the TransitWiki.org community, with funding from the [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/index.html Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation]. Transit stakeholders across the state can contribute the site following our '''[[Help:Contents#Guidelines_for_Editing_Pages_and_Contributing_New_Content|guidelines]]'''. TransitWiki is an implementation tool of the <br />
[[File:California STSP - Recommendations for Caltrans.pdf|California STSP - Recommendations for Caltrans]]<br />
<br />
===Contact===<br />
Please contact [mailto:transitwiki@luskin.ucla.edu transitwiki@luskin.ucla.edu] regarding questions, article suggestions, or to request a group training session (for public employees in California). <br />
<br />
Follow us on Twitter at [http://twitter.com/TransitWiki @TransitWiki]<br />
<br />
===Other Transportation Wiki Resources===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_transport Public Transport resources on Wikipedia]<br />
</div></div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=General_Transit_Feed_Specification&diff=2507General Transit Feed Specification2015-06-10T02:46:55Z<p>Sbrumb: </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|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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=2506Automated fare media2015-06-10T02:45:51Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Resistance to use of smart cards */</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 Issues|privacy issues]], 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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority&diff=2504California Vanpool Authority2015-06-10T02:39:09Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Funding */</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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Vanpool_and_Buspool_Services&diff=2503Vanpool and Buspool Services2015-06-10T02:34:42Z<p>Sbrumb: </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 Services|paratransit services]] are 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|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 />
Vanpool and bus services offer several benefits to users. They reduce the collective cost of gas and private auto insurance, provide access to commuter tax benefits and high occupancy vehicle lanes, and operate on a fixed schedule, ensuring users will get to their destination on time.<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.<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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transit_and_Civil_Rights&diff=2502Transit and Civil Rights2015-06-10T02:18:32Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Bus Riders Union.jpg|thumbnail|Los Angeles' [[Bus Riders Union]] protests LA Metro's fare hike in Union Station. Source: Streetsblog USA]]<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against racial or ethnic groups (so called “protected classes”) by any federal financial recipient and is enforced by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) civil rights regulations<ref>49 C.F.R. § 21.5(b)(2)</ref> which provides that “[n]o person or group of persons shall be discriminated against with regard to the routing, scheduling, or quality of service of transportation service furnished as a part of the project on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Frequency of service, age and quality of vehicles assigned to routes, quality of stations serving different routes, and location of routes may not be determined on the basis of race, color, or national origin”<ref>49 CFR part 21, Appendix C, Section (3)(iii).</ref> The DOT regulations make clear that even policies or practices that unintentionally produce “disparate impacts” are prohibited. Disparate impact refers to a facially neutral policy or practice that disproportionately affects members of a protected group where the recipient’s policy or practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification and where one or more alternatives would serve the same legitimate objectives but with less disproportionate effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin.<br />
<br />
Transit operators must comply with civil rights requirements in making operational decisions about services and in contracting practices and procedures.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest 7, The Impact of Civil rights Litigation Under Title VI and Related Laws on Transit Decision Making, June 1997</ref> This includes establishing disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) hiring programs required by federal regulations.<ref> 49 C.F.R. Part 23</ref> Protected groups include women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and Asian-Indian Americans. Transit agencies that receive federal funds must submit compliance reports to the FTA every three years. Private individuals may sue transit operators for intentional violations of Title VI, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that they may not sue to enforce the DOT's disparate impact regulations. They may however file an administrative complaint with the FTA, which can take actions including withholding federal funds from the recipient. There have been complaints filed with the FTA regarding the allocation of funds between bus and rail, service and fare changes, and disparities in service and/or equipment, though these have generally been resolved favorably to the transit providers<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest 27, Civil Rights Implications of the Allocation of Funds between Bus and Rail, July 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==FTA Guidance==<br />
<br />
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides transit agencies with guidance<ref>Circular 4702.1B (Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients), effective October 1, 2012 (77 FR 52116, August 28, 2012).</ref> to ensure compliance with these regulations and that the agency achieves the overarching objective of fair distribution of the adverse impacts of, or burdens associated with its transit programs, policies, and activities. The Circular is intended to ensure that transit providers meet their nondiscrimination Title VI obligations All fixed-route transit providers must adopt quantitative system-wide service standards and policies for each mode including: (1) Vehicle loads (passengers per vehicle or passengers per seat); (2) Vehicle headways (time interval between two vehicles travelling in the same direction on the same route); (3) On-time performance (runs completed as scheduled); and (4) Service availability (distribution of routes in the service area, for example, percentage of population within ¼ mile of a transit stop)<ref>FTA Circular C 4702.1B, Ch. 4, ¶ 4.</ref> Large urban transit agencies (those that operate 50 or more fixed route vehicles in peak service and are located in urbanized areas of 200,000 or more people) must compare these indicators for those census tracts, blocks, block groups, or traffic analysis zones (TAZs) with above average percentages of minority or low-income resident populations with the figures for their service area as a whole.<ref>Id. ¶¶ 5 & 6</ref><br />
<br />
If any significant system-wide service and fare changes, such as new rail construction to serve suburban commuters or reducing existing bus service, have either a disparate impact on minority populations or a represent a disproportionate burden on low income populations[1] the agency must analyze any actions it can take to minimize, mitigate, or offset any such effects. Typically, this involves a determination whether a higher proportion of minority or low income persons (based on ridership or population data) will be impacted by the change compared to the overall population or ridership in the service area. Changes affecting minority riders may be implemented only if they are substantially justified and there is no less discriminatory alternative. <br />
<br />
Footnotes<br />
<br />
[1]Note that low-income populations are not a protected class under the statute, though they are covered by agency rules addressing environmental justice (EJ). Although there is an administrative distinction between the required Title VI analysis transit agencies must perform and the EJ analysis conducted as part of NEPA reviews, the impacts on both minority and low income populations from transit service and fare changes are governed by the Title VI Circular.<br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest 7, [http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP%20LRD%2007.PDF The Impact of Civil Rights Litigation Under Title VI and Related Laws on Transit Decision Making,] June 1997.<br />
<br />
:A summary of legal decisions related to DOT affirmative action programs for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) and disparate impact regulations. Provides good background information but readers should be cautious since the article is not up to date and legal standards may have changed.<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest 27, [http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_LRD_27.pdf Civil Rights Implications of the Allocation of Funds between Bus and Rail,] July 2008.<br />
<br />
:This report expands on and updates TCRP Legal Research Digest 7 with regards to Title VI requirements. Readers should note that legal standards may have changed since its publication.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
[[Category: Managing transit]]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Template:TransitWiki_News&diff=2501Template:TransitWiki News2015-06-10T02:11:09Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Recent News */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Recent News ==<br />
<br />
; 2015-06-08<br />
* Reports and documents from California transit agencies are now searchable using the [https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=007639499277394316884:red7wfkqqm0 California Transit Agency Google Custom Search Engine]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=2500Main Page2015-06-10T02:09:36Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div id="mf-blog" title="TransitWiki.org Mobile"><br />
===Welcome to TransitWiki.org===<br />
[[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|right|A Los Angeles Metro articulated bus travels along the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley|300px]]TransitWiki.org is developed and maintained by transit planners for transit planners. The goal of the site is to facilitate information transfer among transit agencies to accelerate the successful implementation of cost-effective strategies to improve transit service. On this site you'll find basic information about strategies, examples of their implementation, and links to reports and guidance from the American Public Transportation Association, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, University Transportation Centers, Caltrans, and local agencies. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Mass Transportation funds Transitwiki and outreach and coordination efforts with California's transit agencies.<br />
<br />
* '''[[Table of Contents|See all articles on TransitWiki]]'''<br />
<br />
{{TransitWiki_News}}<br />
<br />
==About TransitWiki==<br />
This site is based on the MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia and many other sites across the web. If you're familiar with how to navigate or edit Wikipedia, then TransitWiki.org should be straight forward. If not, see the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]. The [http://www.its.ucla.edu/ UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies] expands and maintains the TransitWiki.org community, with funding from the [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/index.html Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation]. Transit stakeholders across the state can contribute the site following our '''[[Help:Contents#Guidelines_for_Editing_Pages_and_Contributing_New_Content|guidelines]]'''. TransitWiki is an implementation tool of the <br />
[[File:California STSP - Recommendations for Caltrans.pdf|California STSP - Recommendations for Caltrans]]<br />
<br />
===Contact===<br />
Please contact [mailto:transitwiki@luskin.ucla.edu transitwiki@luskin.ucla.edu] regarding questions, article suggestions, or to request a group training session (for public employees in California). <br />
<br />
Follow us on Twitter at [http://twitter.com/TransitWiki @TransitWiki]<br />
<br />
===Other Transportation Wiki Resources===<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_transport Public Transport resources on Wikipedia]<br />
* [http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/ Streetswiki] for pedestrian & bike strategies.<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Template:TransitWiki_News&diff=2499Template:TransitWiki News2015-06-10T02:08:07Z<p>Sbrumb: Created page with "== Recent News == ; 2015-06-08 * Reports and documents from California Transit Agencies are now searchable using the [https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=0076394992773943..."</p>
<hr />
<div>== Recent News ==<br />
<br />
; 2015-06-08<br />
* Reports and documents from California Transit Agencies are now searchable using the [https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=007639499277394316884:red7wfkqqm0 California Transit Agency Google Custom Search Engine]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Coordinate_with_other_modes&diff=2498Coordinate with other modes2015-06-10T01:25:32Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Background==<br />
<br />
Improving [[Pedestrian connections|pedestrian connections]] and [[Bicycle connections|bicycle connections]] to transit stops can increase the willingness of travelers to choose transit and the distance they are willing to travel. These linkages can help make the critical [[Last mile connections|last-mile connection]] between transit stations and trip destinations.<br />
<br />
==Strategies==<br />
<br />
===Improvements to pedestrian connections===<br />
Provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians<br />
* The sidewalk network<br />
* Sufficient safe street crossings<br />
* Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees<br />
For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see Improvements to out-of-vehicle experience for transit users sections<br />
<br />
===Improvements to bicycle connections===<br />
Bicycles extend the range of transit riders from their point of origin to the transit station and then from the transit station to their destination.<br />
* Lanes, parking and other infrastructure -- can encourage more individuals to use their bikes for last-mile connections to station and put more citizens within reach of transit stations.<br />
* On-road treatments<br />
* Parking at station<br />
* Bike racks on buses<br />
* Policies -- i.e. allowing carrying bikes on trains, designated train cars<br />
'''Further reading:''' [http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2825.html San José State University. "Bicycling Access and Egress to Transit: Informing the Possibilities." 2011.]<br />
<br />
===Park-and-Rides===<br />
Opportunity costs<br />
* Value of land being used for parking<br />
* Versus value of other uses for that land (residential, commercial, etc)<br />
* Further reading: [http://www.cnt.org/repository/PavedOver-Final.pdf| Center for Neighborhood Technology. "Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?. 2005]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=2497Millennials2015-06-10T01:22:45Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>ARTICLE IN PROGRESS<br />
<br />
==Introduction==<br />
One of the truly bright spots for public transit has been the emergence of millennials, those born between 1982 and 2003. As numerous studies have shown,<ref>Hadley Malcolm, "Millennials prefer cities with good public transit," USA Today, http://usat.ly/1hq7N3J</ref> driving rates are down for millennials compared to earlier generations and they are showing a greater propensity for urban living. Saving money, convenience, exercise and lifestyle choice are major reasons young people are turning away from cars toward transit. Public transit providers should position themselves to take advantage of this emerging trend. Questions remain as to whether millennials' attitudes represents a long term trend or just the consequence of a weak economic recovery that will change as they age, start families and pay off their student loans, though some studies suggest that their travel behavior may well persist.<ref name=shaver></ref><br />
<br />
One factor is that they are more likely to be highly tech saavy then their parents. This trend toward transit use is linked in part to the availability of smart phone apps that allow transit users more flexible and spontaneous options, reducing some of the advantages of automobile use.<ref name=williams>Mantill Williams, “Millenial Generation Desires Multi-Modal Transportation System,” Transit News, October 1, 2013. http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2013/Pages/131001_Millennials.aspx</ref> Millennials find public transit especially convenient since it allows opportunities to work or socialize on digital media while travelling.<ref name=benet>Benet J. Wilson, “Millennials and Money: Give Us More Transit Options,” April 14, 2015 http://businessjournalism.org/2015/04/millennials-and-money-give-us-more-transit-options/</ref> Another factor is that they appear to be far more interested in living in cities than earlier generations, which has broad implications for businesses that locate in urban areas.<br />
<br />
==Changing Lifestyles==<br />
A recent study by the APTA<ref>American Public Transit Association, "Millenials and Mobility: Understanding the Millenial Mind Set," http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf</ref> found that millennials, especially those entering the working world with accumulated student debt, are interested in saving money, making time for exercise and social activities, and being part of a community. They are also more concerned about environmental issues and using new technology. This six city survey of 18 to 24 year olds found that they would like to see more reliable public transit systems that offer [[Real-time information|real-time information]] about route choices, local amenities, and opportunities to stay connected. They would also like the option to [[Automated fare media|use their smartphones for payment]]. Public transit is appealing to millennials because it is considered affordable and better for the environment, and offers opportunities for being part of a community. Survey respondents indicated that bicycling, riding buses and streetcars, and walking were more preferred modes than driving, though unsurprisingly actual transit use trailed car use (as a driver or passenger). About a quarter of respondents stated they used ride-sharing services at least a few times a week. The key here is that millennials are more likely to view public transit as part of a multimodal lifestyle that can include public transit.<br />
<br />
The APTA study found nearly 70 percent of those aged 18 to 34 use multiple modes of travel each week, and that public transit ranks highest. This trend is linked in part to the availability of smartphone apps that allow transit users more flexible and spontaneous options, reducing some of the advantages of automobile use.<ref name=williams></ref> Nearly half say they have tried to replace driving with other alternatives compared to a third of older individuals.<ref name=varga>Peter Varga, “Millennials shifting commuter trends: Column,” May 4, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/04/peter-varga-millennials-transportation/8577831/</ref> There is emerging evidence this is not just a fad. A web based survey conducted by the Transit Center, "Who’s On Board: The 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey," sought to better understand the underlying attitudes that shape travel behavior. It found that employed persons and students are both more likely to use transit, as are ethnic minorities. Having children or not does not seem to be much of a factor, which the authors suggest may open possibilities to extend transit into traditional family neighborhoods that are typically not seen as amenable to transit. Younger parents are more likely to take transit than older parents regardless of income, which suggests that these attitudes may persist for some time.<br />
<br />
==Urban Living==<br />
There is a growing trend among younger people toward living in urban areas, even those who are parents of young children. While the APTA survey found that transportation and pedestrian amenities were a strong attraction for those without children, young parents also found the availability of public transit a reason to live in urban areas. Whether these trends continue as families age remains to be seen but this is already a significant shift from earlier generations that public transit can capitalize on. Another trend for transit planners to be aware of is the presence of Millennial “hot spots” or concentration of those less likely to drive and more likely to use ride-sharing services or public transit. Residents of these areas want to feel more connected to their community. Stressing the health, environmental, and affordability advantages of public transit should be especially appealing to these potential customers.<br />
<br />
A study by the Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America found that most Millennials prefer living where they have a variety of transportation options. A majority reported that they could not afford to live in areas without public transportation and nearly all supported investing in public transportation as a way to create jobs and improve the economy. One reason millennials find urban areas attractive is because they offer more options for multimodal travel.<ref name=benet></ref> Another report by Mobility Lab found that millennials who grew up automobile friendly circumstances have decidedly rejected cars in favor of public transit and may continue to do so. By contrast, Baby Boomers whose early years were spent in much more transit friendly environments have grown accustomed to the suburban lifestyle and are unlikely to change at least until they reach an age where they can no longer drive. Both situations offer challenges but also opportunities for transit providers. One key finding in this report was that parents are no less likely to use transit than non-parents which suggests that changing attitudes toward transit may remain even as Millennials grow older and start raising their own families.<ref name=mackie>Paul Mackie, “Millennials Sticking With Transit, Boomers Sticking With Cars.” Mobility Lab, September 18, 2014. http://mobilitylab.org/2014/09/18/millennials-sticking-with-transit-boomers-sticking-with-cars/</ref><br />
<br />
Despite all the talk of smartphone technology, the Transit Center study found that that staying connected to the internet is not a strong predictor of greater transit use. Instead, the most important reasons that young people are attracted to transit is reliability and speed and the most critical factors in increasing transit use particularly among Millennials relate to the communities where they live. Many, the study finds, would rather live in higher density mixed use neighborhoods. Since shorter work commutes are associated with greater transit use, one way to increase transit patronage is to locate jobs and housing closer together, as well as encouraging a better mix of housing, shops and businesses, all things that also make transit more viable. This is backed up by findings that workers who receive transit benefits from their employers are much more likely to commute by transit than those who do not. Again, having children seem to be much less of a factor. The change in attitudes may truly be generational rather than merely due to temporary economic or social circumstances. The authors conclude that transit providers could increase ridership by focusing on improving service for those in their 30s and 40s who would prefer taking transit but find it inconvenient or the service inadequate. <ref>Transit Center, Who’s On Board: The 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey. http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/WhosOnBoard2014-ForWeb.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
==Employment Trends==<br />
Businesses are also finding that urban living is a critical factor in recruiting new employees. A recent report by the Ohio PIRG Education Fund urged states to expand transportation spending in order to attract and keep young workers.<ref name=benet></ref> Companies are relocating from suburban car-centric office parks to urban locations accessible to transit to court younger workers who prefer living in urban areas. Traditional office parks are investing in new housing, restaurants, pedestrian amenities, and upgrading bus and shuttle services to meet changing lifestyles. Plans to invest in new rail lines to attract businesses are taking shape in areas such as Northern Virginia, Denver and Phoenix. Even North Carolina’s famous Research Triangle is planning a light rail line to connect to local college campuses. Maryland is looking for ways to better connect existing Metro lines to residential locations and well as promoting more mixed use office parks. One executive noted that “I can’t compete unless they can get to us without driving.”<ref name=shaver>Katherine Shaver and Bill Turque, "Suburbs such as Montgomery County Rethink Transit to Court Millennials," The Washington Post, March 29, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/yearning-for-car-averse-millennials-suburbs-turn-to-transit/2015/03/29/cb916cd8-d259-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Barriers and Opportunities==<br />
Among the identified barriers to transit use for Millennials are accessibility, convenience, travel time and lack of connection to other modes. Some of these concerns can be addressed through improved messaging systems, greater information access, and “experience planning.” The APTA recommends increasing transit use by installing smartphone charging stations, and using smartphones for fare collection, and improving pedestrian access to transit facilities. Offering continuous wi-fi connections to transit riders was another suggestion to come out of their study. Providing riders with more reliable and user-friendly digital tools with real-time information for trip planning, including suggestions related to travel options based on weather conditions, costs, opportunities for alternative travel (bicycling, ride-sharing, walking, etc.) as well as creating apps that provide information on local areas such as history, food or upcoming events, could greatly assist public transit operators to speak to the needs and lifestyles of millennials.<ref name=williams></ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
American Public Transit Association, "Millenials and Mobility: Understanding the Millenial Mind Set," http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf<br />
<br />
: With evidence suggesting that driving rates are down for the "Millennial Generation," those born between 1982 and 2003, this report looks at the mindsets behind this trend to understand the implication for public transportation in the United States, using in-depth interviews and a survey of 1,000 people in six cities attractive to Millennials.<br />
<br />
Transit Center, Who’s On Board: The 2014 Mobility Attitudes Survey, http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/WhosOnBoard2014-ForWeb.pdf<br />
<br />
: This web-based study prepared for the Transit Center examines differences in attitude and behavior among the US population with respect to public transportation and neighborhood choice in cities with well-developed transit systems and others with less developed transit systems.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Transportation_Infrastructure_Finance_and_Innovation_Act_(TIFIA)&diff=2496Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)2015-06-10T01:16:53Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Examples of TIFIA Funded Projects */</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 finance|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 />
==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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_Riders_Union&diff=2495Bus Riders Union2015-06-10T01:08:35Z<p>Sbrumb: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:BRU.png|thumbnail|right|The BRU organizes demonstrations wearing yellow shirts.]]<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
The Bus Riders Union (BRU) is a [[Transit and Civil Rights|transit civil rights]] activism group started in 1992 in Los Angeles, CA. The BRU is a part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). The BRU formed in opposition to the policies of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or MTA)<ref name="Bus Riders Union">http://www.thestrategycenter.org/project/bus-riders-union/about</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1994, a coalition including the BRU, LSCS, Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a class action civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on allegedly racist and discriminatory policies. The suit charged that LACMTA used Federal funds in a discriminatory manner, which is prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by devoting a disproportionate amount of funding to subways and new buses to typically white suburbs at the expense of immigrant and minority urban areas<ref name="Bus Riders Union" />. <br />
<br />
The matter was settled before the trial and resulted in the 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree Compliance. <br />
<br />
<br />
== History and Future Goals ==<br />
<br />
=== 1996 MTA/BRU Consent Decree ===<br />
The 10 year decree mandated several changes<ref>Burgos, R., & Pulido, L. (1998). The politics of gender in the Los Angeles bus riders' union/Sindicato de Pasajeros. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 9(3), 75-82.</ref>:<br />
* Reinstating a monthly and biweekly bus pass and creation of weekly bus pass<br />
* Reducing bus fares<br />
* Establishing the Joint Working Group (joint BRU and MTA policy making body that oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree)<br />
* Reducing of bus overcrowding<br />
* Creating service lines to major centers of employment, education and healthcare throughout the county<br />
* Prioritizing buses and rides for the transit-dependent<br />
<br />
=== Activism ===<br />
==== Stop the Transit Cuts Campaign ====<br />
The BRU works to stop the elimination and reduction of bus service. As of 2011, they campaigned to stop the bus cuts of 11 lines and the reduction of 16 others <ref>http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/mta-slashing-bus-service-attacking-civil-rights-bus-riders "MTA slashing bus service"</ref>. <br />
<br />
==== No Fare Hike Campaign ====<br />
The bus fare on MTA buses was stable for 10 years due to the 1996 Consent Decree. The BRU opposed plans for LACMTA's 1997 fare increases proposal that increased a daily pass from $3 to $5 claiming that the increases hurt minorities and leads to an increase of automobile users and carbon emissions. The LACTMA admitted that ridersip decreased by 5% within a year after the fare increases. In addition, ridership increased by 41% between 1982-1985 when fares were reduced<ref>http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/no-fare-hike</ref>.<br />
<br />
==== Clean Air and Economic Justice Plan for Measure R Campaign ====<br />
The BRU reaches out the city and LACMTA leaders. In the past, the BRU has brought pressure to Mayor Antonio Villagoirosa to support Measure R. After Measure R was passed, the BRU has continued to pressure the MTA to use the funds allocated by Measure R and not redirect funds to highway and rail.<ref>http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/clean-air-and-economic-justice-plan-measure-r</ref>.<br />
<br />
=== Future Goals ===<br />
The BRU's main goals are to provide transit users equal access with a clean, safe, and affordable user experience. Some of their specific goals include<ref name="Bus Riders Union" />:<br />
<br />
* $20 Monthly Bus Pass<br />
* 50-cent Fare with Free Transfer<br />
* Double the 2,500 Clean Fuel Bus Fleet to 5,000<br />
* Freeze Rail Spending<br />
* Full Implementation of civil rights Consent Decree<br />
* $10 Student Bus Pass Sold at Schools (K-12, College, and Adult School)<br />
<br />
== Opposing Views ==<br />
Critics of the BRU argue for the need to consider other forms of transit in addition to buses. <br />
<br />
Advocates of rail argue that rail is need to restrict sprawl, reduce air pollution by promoting mass transit, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. In addition, the federal subsidies for rail construction were either used by the states or lost, "use it or lose it."<ref name="grengs">Grengs, Joe (2002). Community-Based Planning as a Source of Political Change: The Transit Equity Movement of the Bus Rider's Union. ''Journal of the American Planning Association'', 68(2), 165-175.</ref><br />
<br />
The BRU and transportation scholars do not always agree on how transit fare structures should change.<ref name="grengs" /><br />
== Further Reading ==<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Other_models&diff=2494Other models2015-06-10T00:44:47Z<p>Sbrumb: Fixed broken redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Contracting transit operations]]</div>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Vanpool_and_Buspool_Services&diff=2493Vanpool and Buspool Services2015-06-10T00:21:58Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Introduction */</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|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 />
There are several user benefits of vanpool and buspool services. They reduce the collective cost of gas and private auto insurance, provide access to commuter tax benefits and high occupancy vehicle lanes, and operate on a fixed schedule, ensuring users will get to their destination on time.<br />
<br />
California has one of the most robust vanpool programs in the country. Established in 2012, the [http://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority California Vanpool Authority] (Calvans) was created primarily to serve the mobility needs of agricultural workers in the Central Valley.<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>Sbrumbhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Vanpool_and_Buspool_Services&diff=2492Vanpool and Buspool Services2015-06-10T00:21:29Z<p>Sbrumb: /* Introduction */</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|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 />
There are several user benefits of vanpool and buspool services. They reduce the collective cost of gas and private auto insurance, provide access to commuter tax benefits and high occupancy vehicle lanes, and operate on a fixed schedule, ensuring users will get to their destination on time.<br />
<br />
California has one of the most robust vanpool programs in the country. Established in 2012, the [http://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=California_Vanpool_Authority Vanpool Authority] (Calvans) was created primarily to serve the mobility needs of agricultural workers in the Central Valley.<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>Sbrumb