09-A-05

PROPOSED TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENT-FY 2008/09

I. PROBLEM TITLE Determination of the Unit Cost of Fare Collection for Selected Electronic Fare Collection Systems. II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT A number of public transit systems already use, or plan to use, a variety of different electronic fare payment devices such as “smart cards” or “cash value” cards. It is generally accepted that riders find these alternatives to be more convenient than using cash for fare payment. However, there is also typically a reduction in the cost of handling and processing fares, but this benefit is usually not well quantified. To enable transit systems that plan to implement new electronic fare payment tools, it would be helpful to learn the experience of other transit systems that already employ these devices to better quantify the cost savings they have realized in collecting and processing fares. III. OBJECTIVE Determine the actual cost savings in fare collecting and processing experienced by transit systems that utilize different electronic fare payment devices such as “smart cards” and “cash value” cards. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED Conduct a survey of a representative cross-section of different-size public transit systems that currently use “smart cards”, or “cash value” cards to determine the annual cost of collecting and processing fares for these electronic fare devices. Compare information to the prior annual cost of fare collecting and processing experienced by these same systems where non-electronic fare payment mechanisms, such as cash or tokens were utilized. Based on this comparative information, identify the approximate annual fare collecting and processing cost savings per transaction experienced by these transit systems. Document the results of this comparative analysis in a report for use by other transit systems for their potential use in determining which electronic fare payment fare payment option is most cost effective. V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD A. Estimated Funding – $100,000 B. Estimated Research Period – 12 Months

2

VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL It is likely that public transit ridership will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. To better accommodate these new riders as well as benefit existing riders, it is imperative that transit systems take advantage of new electronic fare payment technology as soon as possible. Better knowledge of the potential annual cost savings of fare collecting and processing that are likely to be attained if one of these electronic fare payment mechanisms is implemented would be helpful to support the transition to electronic fare payment alternatives. Also better qualification of this benefit would be helpful in obtaining approval to utilize this fare payment alternative. VII. RELATED RESEARCH Although there has been some past work on estimating the cost associated with utilizing electronic fare payment devices, this earlier work was largely done without the benefit of having actual “hard data” on the cost savings actually experienced by systems that used these fare payment tools. IX. PERSON DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM John Dockendorf Bureau of Public Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation P.O. Box 3151 Harrisburg, PA 17105-3151 Telephone: (717) 787-1220 Fax: (717) 772-2985 e-mail: jdockendor@state.pa.us S:\Bureau of Public Transit\_URBAN\CORRESPONDENCE\PROPOSED TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENT 06-04-2008.doc 6200/JD/nf cc: RF

09-A-07

COMTO Problem Statement – June 12, 2008 Emergency Preparedness and Recovery Outreach and Communications to

Vulnerable Populations Problem Statement: The natural disasters encountered by the coastal states in 2005 increased national awareness of the role that public transportation has in planning, response, and recovery with regard to weather-related threats. State departments of transportation and their public transportation divisions were required to communicate and coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies with which they may have had little or no prior exposure. Emergency operation practices for natural disasters, such as hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, and blizzards vary from state to state. In addition to varying on a state level, there may also be institutional differences in how operations and communications are handled among the highway divisions compared to public transportation and rail divisions. Two separate reviews of how transit agencies prepare for emergencies with a focus on vulnerable populations (i.e. transit-dependent, disabled, poor, low English proficiency, racial and ethnic minorities, etc.) were conducted by the Federal Transit Administration’s Office of Civil Rights and the Conference on Minority Transportation Officials respectively. FTA’s 12-month review culminated in the May 1st release of Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas. COMTO’s expedited 2-month review –completed with a white paper entitled Emergency Preparedness and Response for Vulnerable Populations—was the focal point of a June 25, 2007 discussion during its 2007 National Meeting & Training Conference. Both reports summarized existing preparedness and recovery policies and processes regarding vulnerable populations. What is abundantly clear in both reviews is that vulnerable populations - residents who have no other means of transportation when an evacuation is called for - must rely on public assistance. With no discernable means of communications to this specific population, there is a gap of awareness regarding the role of public transit agencies versus the public emergency response operations and the impact on the communities they serve. This gap was appallingly evident during the evacuation of New Orleans residents during Hurricane Katrina. It was evident in the 12-month review conducted by the FTA as well as in the truncated two-month review conducted by COMTO, and it is apparent that this gap still has not been substantially addressed. Objective: The goal of this research is to identify and disseminate best internal and external planning, response, and recovery policies and practices pertaining to weather-related emergencies with an emphasis on specific outreach to vulnerable populations. . Proposed Research: The proposed research goals will be reached through the following activities.

• Identify the best current weather-related emergency communication and response practices in a sample of states;

• Identify lessons learned from recent emergencies (e.g., Hurricane Katrina & Rita in addition to assessment of 2007 hurricane season);

2

• Identify key issues associated with the involvement of state and local public transportation operations in targeting vulnerable populations as specific state and local coordinated emergency planning activities;

• Identify best practice examples of internal and external preparations for communications targeted for vulnerable populations;

• Test results of analysis with a pilot program that mirrors the most effective communications outreach to vulnerable populations to be conducted in cooperation with New Orleans public transportation operations for evacuation of vulnerable populations.

• Capture results of analysis and pilot project through presentations that can be shared with other transit entities seeking to address vulnerable populations for specific outreach, preparation and response during emergency incidents

Research Period: 12 months Problem Funding: $350,000 Urgency and Payoff Potential Without question, more communications strategies need to be developed to address the gap confounded by public transit and public emergency response operations during the Hurricane Katrina and Rita evacuation debacles. There are myriad ways to identify vulnerable populations and provide them with vital information to be used in emergency situations, whether there are advance warning time frames or not. In 2008, the urgency is evident in that not enough has been accomplished on this subject over the past three years. The payoff is and will be saved lives. Relationship to FTA Strategic Goals and Policy Initiatives and TCRP Strategic Priorities This research would serve to address some of the conclusions raised in the FTA study and certainly “Improve Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness,” while “Putting the Transit Customer First,” and “Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advanced Society” and “Continuously Improve Public Transportation.” All of these categories speak to the overlapping relationship this research will provide to both FTA and TCRP goals, initiative and priorities. Related Research: (as mentioned above) FTA’s Transportation Equity in Emergencies: A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20 Metropolitan Areas, and COMTO’s white paper on Emergency Preparedness and Response for Vulnerable Populations Persons Developing the Problem: Julie Cunningham, President & CEO, Conference of Minority Transportation Officials Judith A. Burrell, Principal, BURRELL PROJECT CONSULT Process Used to Develop Problem Statement: Conference of Minority Transportation Officials and Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute

09-A-08

TCRP Problem Statement

NOTE: The NCHRP has allocated $250,000 for this problem statement, contingent upon an additional

$250,000 being provided by TCRP.

AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

NCHRP Research Problem Statement

I. PROBLEM NUMBER NCHRP 2009-G-06

II. PROBLEM TITLE

Development of Multimodal Traveler Information Systems III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

Traveler information services and trip planners, such as 511, have become very effective tools for providing real time traffic information and pre-trip planning. However they require users to choose their modes of travel prior to learning about their options and respective pros and cons (e.g., trip duration, reliability, and cost). Furthermore, the information disseminated by various services (such as dynamic message signal, highway advisory radio, traveler information websites, 511, etc.) is usually modal specific and not integrated. Transportation users are unlikely to be familiar with the variety of transportation choices available along their travel corridor, as a result, default to use of the car, usually a single occupant vehicle (SOV). A multimodal traveler information system is urgently needed to provide transportation users integrated real time travel information and trip planning optimization to help them to choose the most efficient modes and route, and to make multimodal door-door trip plan. This advanced travel information system will help traveler make right transportation decision and attract non-traditional transit riders, as a result, further curb congestion and smooth traffic flow.

2

IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY

Federal Highway Administration, Managing Demand Through Traveler Information Services, Washington, DC: 2005. Report http://www.its.dot.gov/index.htm Intelligent Transportation Systems for Traveler Information: Deployment Benefits and Lessons Learned. FHWA congestion Relief leaflet on Travel Information, 2/27/2007

Jan-Willem Grotenhuis, Bart W. Wiegmans and Piet Rietveld, The Desired Quality of Integrated Multimodal travel Information In Public Transport: Customer needs for Time and Effort savings, Transport Policy, Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2007

Kyriacos C. Mouskosand Joshua Greenfeld, A GIS-Based Multimodal Advanced Traveler Information System, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol 14, 1999.

Chorus, Caspar, Arentze, Theo andTimmermans, Harry J P. Information Impact on Quality of Travel Choices: Analysis of Data from a Multimodal Travel Simulator Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2007 Paper #07-0148 http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html

Daily, D. J., Cathey, F. W.,Maclean, S.D., Design and Realization of a Multi-modal/Multi-Agency Transit Management and Information System., (2003), ITS – University of Washington, Retrieved June 14, 2007 from http://www.its.washington.edu/pubs/itsc2003-multimodal.pdf

V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this proposed project is to develop a true multimodal trip planner based on real-time information that will allow travelers to compare travel alternatives involving automobiles, transit and a combination of both.

VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

Recommended Funding: $500,000 ($250,000 TCRP and $250,000 NCHRP) Research Period: 24 months

VII. URGENCY, PAYOFF POTENTIAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION

A true multimodal information system will offer traveler with multimodal choices when making trip decisions. After a survey of stakeholders in California, majority believe that a multimodal trip planner will make multimodal travel easier. It will facilitate mode shift thereby reducing automobile travels US DOT proposals for integrated Corridor Management are a national priority. An effective traveler information system is needed to move people and goods through multimodal corridors.

3

VIII. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Judith Mac Brine California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (916) 654-8655 judith_macbrine@dot.ca.gov

This problem statement falls under the Caltrans Strategic Research Goals for Mobility and Safety.

IX. PROBLEM MONITOR Judith Mac Brine California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (916) 654-8655 judith_macbrine@dot.ca.gov X. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

Wes Lum California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

September 14, 2007

09-A-09

TCRP Problem Statement Presented by the APTA RTS Operating Practices Committee June 13, 2008 I. PROBLEM TITLE “Enhancing Rail Transit Operating Rule Compliance: Lessons from Commercial Aviation” II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT The issue of commuter rail and rail transit personnel compliance with operational rules remains a significant and growing concern in the public transportation industry. The majority of accidents, incidents, and hazardous conditions are the direct result of non-compliance with rules which were established by transit systems to govern safe operations. While rail transit is an extremely safe mode of transportation, and while the numbers of rule violations that result in serious outcomes involving death or injury are statistically insignificant, the industry as a whole is always looking for methods to further improve its enviable safety record. Just one major accident that stems from non-compliance with rules can call into question the safety of the entire industry, and transit must then prove that its practices are truly effective. In recent times, the issue of rule compliance has been of significant concern to the National Transportation Safety Board and is the subject of several findings in recent accident investigation reports. In the relatively recent past, many rail transit systems, acting independently and through the APTA Rail Transit Standards Program, have examined methods for enhancing rule compliance. These approaches have included the development of a standard for managing employee efficiency checks (monitoring of rule compliance), enhanced training, re-training and certification requirements, offering new approaches to positive reinforcement for addressing violations when they occur, and improving safety with other techniques. These are all valuable and proactive steps, which are intended to minimize the rare instances in which rule violations occur. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences which could occur in the event of a rail transit accident, however, the industry always strives to ensure it is doing everything reasonable and practical to minimize this risk. Even though these steps have been taken, and the industry does have a strong safety record, what else can be done? What other industries offer a similar, if not better, safety record? The aviation industry is one that, due in part to strong regulation and a critical need for safety at all times, may offer lessons for transit on how to achieve even greater rule compliance. While there are some obvious differences between the operational environments in which flight crews and rail transit operational personnel work, the similarities between the industries are many:

• The need to zealously comply with established rules and procedures; • Compliance with external directions (generated by other workers or technology); • Absence of full-time “on-site” supervision while they are performing their duties, • A stressful work environment, often the result of factors outside of their control; • Potential for monotony, as a result of performing the same tasks numerous times during each

work shift (this concern cannot be overstated when it comes to rule compliance); • Interaction with passengers; • The requirement to provide leadership and direct others during safety/security emergency

conditions; • The serious and direct risk of injury or death to passengers, other co-workers, and themselves if

they violate a safety rule.

TCRP Problem Statement: Enhancing Rail Transit Operating Rule Compliance: Lessons from Commercial Aviation

Presented by the APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee Page of 5 --- June 12, 2008

2

Since the commercial aviation industry also has an excellent safety record, we believe that it would be worthwhile to examine the approaches that aviation utilizes to ensure compliance with complex operational rules. While not all activities used in aviation may be directly transferable, the opportunity exists for new approaches to be implemented in rail transit based upon the aviation model. III. OBJECTIVE The general objective of this study is to evaluate and introduce proven methodologies, techniques, and procedures from the aviation industry to the rail transit industry in an effort to further enhance system safety, thus meeting the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Strategic Goal of “Improving Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness.” In particular, the lessons learned in conducting this review could result in modifications to traditional forms of training or retraining, corrective actions, compliance testing, or other aspects of transit worker safety. While the rail transit industry often looks to itself and gains valuable insight into lessons learned from previous incidents or best practices of peer agencies, it may be unaware of what practices work even better in other industries. The detailed objectives of this study would include researching and clearly describing:

• Methodologies for employee qualification • Development of training, retraining, and certification requirements • Employee supervision and control • Employee performance assessment • Response to employee rule violations (both disciplinary and positive approaches) • Management of “person/machine” interface issues – e.g. how safety technology is integrated

into the workplace • Employee fitness for duty issues • Impact on licensing or qualification to perform duties • Other issues, as appropriate, and as discovered

The final work product would include:

• Research synopsis of aviation industry regulations, best practices, lessons learned, and general approach to providing operating employee safety.

• Research synopsis of transit industry regulations, best practices, lessons learned, and general approach to providing operating employee safety.

• Comparison of industry practices and synopsis of aviation applications that may work in transit.

• Toolbox of methodologies and practices linked directly to the objectives listed above that offers transit new approaches (to include appropriately scaled concepts, based on transit funding and other practical issues).

• Recommendations for the rail transit industry to continue its focus on worker safety. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED To meet the objectives listed above, comprehensive research must be conducted, both in the rail transit and commercial aviation industries. It is critical that appropriate regulatory bodies, industry trade groups, labor organizations, private companies, and other affected parties be included in this research. The basic research proposed will include:

TCRP Problem Statement: Enhancing Rail Transit Operating Rule Compliance: Lessons from Commercial Aviation

Presented by the APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee Page of 5 --- June 12, 2008

3

Information Gathering: • Interviews with stakeholders

o Government: FAA, NTSB, FTA, DOT o Labor: ALPA, AFA-CWA, TWU, UTU, ATU o Commercial Airlines: Training Departments, HR, Other Departments o Transit Systems: Training Departments, HR, Other Departments o Industry Trade Groups: APTA, Air Transport Association o Others

• Workshops with airline employees to discuss compliance issues • Request & review of written policies, practices, and procedures • Request & review of regulations & standards • On-site reviews of employee training programs

o Participate in classes o Participate in practical training – e.g. emergency drills

Information Review & Work Product Development: • Workshops with stakeholders to discuss and finalize:

o Proposed Findings o Toolbox Elements o Recommendations for Transit

These steps will ensure that information is properly gathered, understood and presented. The research in this study is critical since these industries are as different as they are similar, and a strong research component will ensure the accuracy and practicality of the final work product. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: A level of effort equivalent to approximately $350,000 will be necessary to accomplish the objectives stated above. This includes travel to Washington DC to meet with TRB Panel officials, as well as travel to interview key stakeholders and to observe practices on-site at airline training centers and FAA offices. Research Period: It is expected that this study would require a level of effort lasting approximately one and a half years from start to conclusion. Included in the one and a half year expectation is a three month period for review and revision of a draft final report. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Given that rail transit continues to grow across America, with new starts and line extensions gaining funding on a regular basis, and new service opening up every year, the rail transit industry is at a critical point in its recent history. More and more systems are providing more service, and this is expected to continue to grow as more Americans switch to public transit. Further complicating this is the fact that institutional knowledge may be spread thin as more systems vie for qualified individuals to operate and

TCRP Problem Statement: Enhancing Rail Transit Operating Rule Compliance: Lessons from Commercial Aviation

Presented by the APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee Page of 5 --- June 12, 2008

4

maintain their rail transit lines. As such, the industry must continue to provide tangible products that contain consistent and applicable advice on improving system safety. The payoff potential for this study is enormous. Even minor accidents involving rail transit vehicles and infrastructure can exceed $100,000. If only four incidents of this magnitude are prevented because of improved employee rule compliance, this study will have paid for itself; and this does not even take into account the less quantifiable cost to any human lives that are harmed or lost in an incident. With more people riding more miles of rail transit every day, the lessons learned from another very safety industry could reap significant rewards for transit. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This proposal directly relates to the FTA’s Strategic Goal #3 – Improving Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness. Furthermore, improved rule compliance can meet the FTA’s other goals, particularly #2 – Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies – in that employees may perform their duties more effectively and offer improved transit service to customers. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH The APTA Rail Transit Standards Program is currently developing a Standard for Roadway Worker Protection, which includes a component on employee rule compliance and is grounded in employee safety. The APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee is developing this Standard and has researched transit practices as part of its work. There does not appear to be other similar work that directly links aviation to rail transit. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM As described in Section X, the Operating Practices (OP) Committee determined that the rail transit safety could be further enhanced by evaluating the practices of other modes of transportation that involve carrying large numbers of people. The OP Committee discussed the potential areas of study and the possible benefits of the study, and the OP Committee was led by its Chair, Gerald Francis, and its Vice Chair, Rudy Crespo. As the leaders of the OP Committee, Mr. Francis and Mr. Crespo are therefore listed as the individuals leading the development of the problem statement. Gerald C. Francis Deputy General Manager Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 600 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-962-1500 Fax: 202-281-5153 gcfrancis@wmata.com

Rudy Crespo Chief Transportation Officer Bay Area Rapid Transit District 300 Lakeside Dr. Oakland, California 94604 Phone: 510-464-6724 Fax 510 464 6117 rcrespo@bart.gov

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT Members of the APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee discussed, debated, and authored this problem statement. The APTA Rail Transit Standards Program was organized as a formal

TCRP Problem Statement: Enhancing Rail Transit Operating Rule Compliance: Lessons from Commercial Aviation

Presented by the APTA Rail Transit Standards Operating Practices Committee Page of 5 --- June 12, 2008

5

program to develop standards for the rail transit industry that enhance transit safety, improve service delivery, increase ridership, and introduce consistency to the ways in which rail transit is operated. The Operating Practices Committee has written and approved fourteen standards that govern issues from operations control center functions to rail transit employee training and emergency preparedness. The OP Committee is currently in the process of overseeing the final approval of a Standard for Rail Transit Operating Employee Hours of Service Requirements and a Standard for Roadway Worker Protection Program Requirements. The Committee determined that, in addition to sharing its own ideas for improving safety, other industries may offer innovative approaches that have not necessarily been considered in the rail transit industry. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

Submitted by Mr. Rudy Crespo, Chief Transportation Officer, Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Submitted via Email on June 12, 2008

Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks

Director Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

09-A-17

TCRP Problem Statement PROBLEM TITLE Bus Turnouts – Benefit or Curse PROBLEM STATEMENT Providing bus stop turnouts is very common requirement for new developments and road projects. While some view turnouts as a transit amenity, others view them as a detriment to providing quality transit service. Buses are delayed while waiting to re-enter traffic. They are often justified on safety grounds, yet evidence of safety benefits is questionable. Is there a greater chance of an accident by buses re-entering traffic or by autos hitting stationary buses stopped in the traffic lane? Does the need for extra right of way impact the location of bus stops resulting in less desirable locations? A related issue is the effectiveness of yield to bus regulation. Is such regulation effective or not? If not, are there strategies that can improve the effectiveness of such regulations? Does the existence of such regulations reduce delay and improve safety of bus pull-outs? These are questions that this research is intended to answer. OBJECTIVE Conduct research necessary to determine the impact of bus pull-outs on transit operations, traffic flow and safety in different road environments. Identify conditions where bus turnouts are appropriate and where they are not. Also determine the same impacts of buses stopping in traffic lanes. Examine alternative bus stop arrangements such as bus stops in turn lanes. Examine the impact of yield to bus laws and determine if they mitigate the negative impacts of buses pulling out of traffic. The desired outcome of the research is to present data in usable form to inform the design of bus stops with a clear understanding of the impact on customers and safety. RESEARCH PROPOSED Research would be focused on the following areas. Research on the Impact of bus turnouts on delay to buses, safety and traffic flow. The research would compare buses pulling out of traffic to load and unload customers to stopping in the traffic lane to load and unload customers. It would take into account different roadway speeds and other factors as well as different designs for bus pull-outs. It would also identify and compare other conditions in which bus stops are located such as wide right traffic lanes or stopping in turn lanes. The impact of turnouts compared to stopping in traffic may depend on road speed, roadway conditions and bus dwell times to load and unload customers. These differences must be recognized. Furthermore delay should be measured in terms of person delay – the number of persons delayed on a bus and length of that delay to the number of persons delayed in automobiles. Research on Yield to bus laws.

2

The impact of yield to bus laws will be examined to determine their effectiveness and the impact they may have on bus stop design and location, in particular if they mitigate against the negative aspects (delay and safety) of bus turnouts. If sufficient funding is available the research can also examine the impact of different approaches of marking the rear of buses to indicate to drivers that they need to yield to a bus pulling into traffic. Research on impact bus pull-outs on location decisions This research would focus on the right of way requirements of bus pull-outs and the impact they have on bus stop location decisions. It would determine if less desirable locations from both a customer and safety perspective result when bus turnouts are required. ESTIMATED FUNDING AND RESEARCH TIME $300,000; 24 months URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Decisions are made daily regarding the design and location of bus stops. Many of these decisions are made based on perception and not solid evidence. Providing a sound basis of information can improve decision making regarding bus stops and result in reduced travel time for buses that can increase ridership and reduce operating costs while improving roadway safety. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES AND TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FTA Strategic Goals and Policy Initiatives: Ridership. Increase transit ridership can occur if there is reduced delay to buses and better bus stop locations. TCRP priorities: Place the Transit Customer First. This project is an attempt to assure that transit customers (or potential customers) are given full consideration in planning and design of bus stops. RELATED RESEARCH TCRP B-6, D-8, H-4, H-7, and H-12; TCRP Synthesis SH-08 PERSONS DEVELOPING THE PROGRAM Ron Kilcoyne Chief Executive Officer Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority 1 Cross Street Bridgeport CT 06610 203-366-7070 ext 106 203-335-9813 FAX E-mail rkilcoyne@gbtabus.com

3

Frank Spielberg Program Manager VHB 8300 Boone Boulevard Suite 700 Vienna VA 22182 Voice: 703-847-3071 FAX: 703-847-0298 E-Mail FSpielberg@VHB.com Paul N. Bay, PE, Transportation Consultant 2509 263rd Court NE Redmond, WA 98053 Phone: (425) 985-0296 Fax: (425) 898-9711 E-mail: paulbay@msn.com PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT Developed by APTA Systems Management and Operations Sub Committee of the Policy and Planning Committee DATE AND SUBMITTED BY June 15, 2008 Rich Weaver American Public Transportation Association Systems Management and Operations Sub Committee/Policy and Planning Committee 1666 K Street NW Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202-496-4800 FAX: 202-496-4321

09-B-03

TCRP Research Problem Statement I. PROBLEM TITLE Maximizing Benefits and Addressing Challenges of Volunteer Driver Transportation Programs II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT Since the mid to late 1970s, the use of volunteers, and particularly volunteer drivers, has become an increasingly popular strategy to accommodate the unmet mobility needs of seniors and, to a certain extent, other transportation-disadvantaged people. This is particularly the case in rural areas where more traditional transit and paratransit strategies are cost prohibitive. Formalized volunteer driver programs have become a staple for many transit and human service agencies, sometimes as a stand-alone program or as one component of a broad array of transportation services. In the last decade, organizations dedicated to the delivery of services to seniors or others solely through volunteer drivers have been formed throughout the United States. The Beverly Foundation, for example, has a database of almost 400 volunteer driver programs reflecting a variety of program models. Examples of different models include:

• TRIP Volunteer Friends model in Riverside, CA • Ride Connection volunteer driver and brokerage program organized by Tri-Met in

Portland, OR • YCCAC paratransit service in York County, ME, that includes a volunteer driver program; • Caregiver program in West Austin, TX, organized by an interfaith community and linked

to seven programs in the Greater Austin area • Independent Transportation Network in Portland, ME.

These particular examples have budgets that range from $65,000 to $5,000,000 and provide service in a wide variety of settings including urban, suburban, and rural locations. They also have stood the test of time, averaging more than 18 years of operation. States have also recognized the value of volunteer driver transportation services. For example, volunteer drivers are used extensively by the coordinated community transportation providers in Vermont, in large part due to a statewide insurance policy that covers volunteer drivers. And the state of Maryland has recently initiated a grant program to fund public, private and faith-based organizations with volunteer transportation services for low- and moderate-income seniors. The role of volunteer-based services is one of many important strategies to serve seniors, people with disabilities and those with low incomes. For many customers, the provision of such services can make the difference between mobility and immobility by enabling them to reach both life-sustaining and quality-of-life destinations. Volunteer drivers often can provide a much higher level of assistance and a “personal touch” absent from other modes. For transit agencies, and particularly public transportation providers in rural areas, volunteer drivers can provide a cost-effective way to service remote areas and make crucial longer distance trips to medical centers or dialysis facilities. Indeed, using a volunteer driver is often the only practical way to serve such trips. In all areas, senior centers, churches and faith-based organizations, and other human service agencies rely on volunteers to get seniors and others to agency programs and services, food shopping, religious services, and personal activities such as banking, lifelong learning, and personal shopping. Moreover, with a growing need and limited resources for senior transportation funding, volunteer

-2-

driver programs present a cost-efficient resource to senior and community transportation service delivery networks. We often hear about the success stories at the expense of learning from those that did not succeed. Indeed, the difference between success and lack of success can be traced to many factors such as volunteer driver recruitment and retention strategies, requirements for driver screening and insurance coverage, driver training, driver reimbursement and subsidies, drug and alcohol policies, provision of and maintaining vehicles, vehicle safety and management practices, among many others. Furthermore, although recently retired seniors comprise the vast majority of volunteer drivers, insurance and tax issues, as well as safety concerns, can deter the recruitment and utilization of many older volunteers. Clearly, research on the national level is needed to identify the factors which contribute to the success of volunteer driver programs in different settings. Beyond that, additional research is needed to determine the community benefits of such programs. The areas that have proved problematic for the programs, such as insurance, also need research. The following questions are central to this proposed research:

1. In what settings are volunteer driver programs meeting unmet needs and filling gaps as an alternative or supplement to other service modes in transportation networks?

2. What are the common factors for success for volunteer driver programs? What operational characteristics are central to successful programs and what elements of the program enhance a program’s long-term sustainability?

3. Where volunteer driver programs have not been sustained or have not succeeded, what are the contributing factors and how might they be mitigated?

4. Where, when, and in what ways do volunteer driver programs complement or compete with public and/or private operators; and, in what settings might such programs hinder the growth of public or private providers?

5. What additional metrics beyond those commonly used for demand-response transportation are currently used and should be used to measure the success of volunteer driver programs?

III. OBJECTIVE National research is needed to identify:

1. The optimal role of volunteer drivers for organizations that are responsible for providing/purchasing transportation; and where and when and for which types of trips such benefits and shortcomings materialize;

2. The settings where volunteer driver programs complement vs. compete with other transportation providers;

3. The role of insurance as a major impediment to volunteer drivers programs, 4. Best practice methods, policies and procedures, program elements, operational

characteristics, and models in various settings that will help transit agencies and other organizations such as coordinated systems address the inherent challenges of using volunteer drivers and help increase the likelihood of program success;

5. The best methods and metrics to measure program success.

-3-

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED The proposed research should include a review of the literature in order to ascertain what policies, procedures, and other programmatic elements are currently thought to foster or thwart the success of volunteer driver programs. It will be relevant to look at existing research on transportation options, volunteer drivers, and senior and rural transportation options in general. In addition, the study should review and analyze existing volunteer driver program databases; while these databases exist, not much analysis has been performed. This research should be bolstered by targeted surveys on special topics such as the relationship of volunteer driver programs to paratransit services, private transportation services, and transportation services in rural America. The inclusion of case studies would serve to illustrate exemplary program elements, polices, models, etc., that match certain settings/environments. Each of these research methods is expected to provide insight into the benefits to the community in which they are located, the involvement of other human service and transportation services, and the impact on customers that use the services. The research efforts and case study approach should also incorporate the experience with volunteer driver programs in other countries. There are successful volunteer driver programs in the U.K. and Europe, as well as in Japan, Hong Kong, and São Paulo. For example, the U.K. is experiencing a shift within the health service industry where health care providers are pulling out of non-emergency transport services and relying on volunteer drivers to get people to and from the hospital for appointments. In some rural areas of the U.K., this has resulted in a dearth of volunteer driver capacity for other (non-medical) trips. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $300,000. Research Period: 18 months. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL The planned research will provide a better understanding of (1) how volunteer drivers may be used to provide cost-effective service, especially in areas where more conventional forms of transit and paratransit are not possible or cannot meet all of the needs of persons with limited mobility; (2) the dynamics between volunteer driver programs and other public/private transportation services; and (3) the practices which contribute to program success. As states and regions put together their response to SAFETEA-LU’s requirements for coordinated planning, it is important that entities that are developing strategies for their region consider the benefits and shortcomings of volunteer driver programs as a potential strategy in certain situations. This research will help establish those situations, and provide help toward implementing successful programs or re-structuring or revamping current programs that are struggling. The urgency of this research is heightened by the rapidly increase in the nation’s population of older adults. The current community transportation services that are oriented to older adults are in danger of imploding as the population of older adults increases without sufficient federal funding dedicated to senior transportation. In almost every setting, and especially in rural areas, agencies responsible for senior transportation are looking for ways to stretch the federal and local funding that is available. Volunteer driver programs, in concert with coordination strategies, are certainly a

-4-

resource that can be tapped in certain settings to accomplish this goal. The need to provide to planners and policy-makers with better information about such programs has never been more critical than it is today. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This study is in line with TCRP strategic research goals of increasing ridership (complementary or sole provision of volunteer services creates ride opportunities to meet needs) and capital and operating efficiency (volunteer programs cost less to operate). It also supports the TCRP strategic priorities of placing the customer first (directing volunteer transportation to meet targeted needs) and flourishing in a multimodal environment (volunteer operations are another mode which can complement public and private services). Volunteer driver programs have become a key component in many coordinated community transportation plans and services that have resulted from the FTA’s United We Ride initiatives, SAFETEA-LU requirements, and policy statements from the Federal Inter-Agency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. Volunteer driver programs are also key to the mobility of older adults, and sometimes are the only viable means of public/agency transportation in rural America. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH The Beverly Foundation, established in the late 1970s, is dedicated to fostering new ideas and options to enhance mobility and transportation for older adults, and has focused much of its research activity over the past 10 years on identifying and documenting transportation options for this population. The Foundation currently maintains a database of more than 800 STPs (Supplemental Transportation Programs for seniors) of which almost 400 are volunteer driver programs. The Foundation has also piloted a low-cost, low-maintenance model of volunteer driver transportation delivery (Volunteer Friends) that requires limited infrastructure and limited operational funding.

A number of older studies suggest that the topic is in need of a fresh look. These include: • Care-A-Van and Saint: Addition of Volunteer Division to Model System1 (1991) • Evaluation of the Specialized, Volunteer Transportation Program of the Area IV Agency

on Aging and Community Service2 (1987) • Analysis of Volunteer Driver Systems in Rural Public Transportation3 (1979)

There are also a number of complementary studies that would benefit from the proposed study:

• State Laws on Volunteer Driver Liability Fact Sheet4 • Rural Facts: Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Program5 • Volunteer Transportation Network Handbook6

1 pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=359087 2 ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/ntl/5579.html 3 pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=147461 4 www.aarp.org/research/housing-mobility/transportation/ncsl.html 5 rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/Trn/SVRTfacts.htm

-5-

On the international front, the UK Department for Transport recently conducted a review of voluntary transport,7 while the Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older People’s Forum has produced a report on transport to hospitals in Hamble le Rice, which contains useful data on travel modes and stakeholder perceptions.8 IX. PERSONS DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Will Rodman

Principal Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 10 High Street, Suite 903 Boston, MA 02110 T: (617) 521-9405; F: (617) 521-9409 www.nelsonnygaard.com

Harold Morgan

Director of Research & Education Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association 3849 Farragut Ave., Kensington, MD 20895 T: (301) 946-5701; F: (301) 946-4641 hmorgan@tlpa.org

Helen Kerschner, Ph.D. President and CEO Beverly Foundation 566 El Dorado #100 Pasadena, CA 91101 T: (626) 792-2292; F (626) 792-6117 hkerschner@beverlyfoundation.org X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT The need for research on volunteer driver programs originated at the Paratransit Committee last year. The Research Problem Statement was subsequently written by the three authors noted above and submitted, with endorsements from the Paratransit Committee as well as the Rural and Accessible Committees. The topic continues to be significant. For example, the Paratransit Committee recently received a request from a county planning commission in New Hampshire searching for research on how volunteer drivers can be integrated into a brokerage. This statement is strongly endorsed by the Paratransit Committee and has also been endorsed again by the Rural Committee and the Committee on Accessible Transportation and Mobility. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

6 www1.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1572 7 www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/voluntary/ 8 www.espopf.org.uk/sic_transit.pdf

-6-

Submitted by: Buffy Ellis Chair of Paratransit Committee KFH Group, Inc. 4920 Elm St, Suite 350 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: 301-951-8660 bellis@kfhgroup.com Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 T: (202) 334-3089; F: (202) 334-2006 cjenks@nas.edu

09-B-05

TCRP Problem Statement I. PROBLEM TITLE Evaluation of the decentralized control strategies (“zoning”) for paratransit services II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT The passage of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) revolutionized the requirements and expectations for transit agencies, forcing them to provide demand responsive paratransit services to the disabled. As a consequence, the demand for this type of services has experienced tremendous growth in the last dozen years, nearly doubling their ridership. The operating costs have tremendously increased as well and, because these services are currently still not cost-effective, transit agencies are forced to rely on heavy subsidies from the federal government. A few transit agencies in the U.S., mainly the ones operating within very large cities (such as Los Angeles), adopt decentralized control strategies, the so called “zoning”, as opposed to a centralized one. These operating practices consist in dividing the whole (large) service area into several independent sub-areas, served and operated by different providers, with the intent to ensure an easier, smoother and less costly management of the entire operations. Zoning practices are also preferred by drivers, which would be assigned to more familiar and confined areas. Different “zoning” operating practices may exist, depending on whether vehicle transfers are allowed or not or other smaller technicalities. Demand responsive services rely on “ridesharing” to significantly reduce their mileage and operating costs. However, the “zoning” might cause to considerably increase the costs of these services, because additional constraints are added to the system; the ridesharing might be reduced and the so called deadhead miles (miles driven with no customers onboard) increase along with the operating costs. Furthermore, customers having pick-up and drop-off location in different sub-areas may be required to rely on two different providers for their trip and/or perform undesired transfers between vehicles. In summary, zoning strategies may provide significant advantages in managing the whole paratransit systems, but may also cause more driven mileage and less customer satisfaction. III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to study the impact of the “zoning” practice for paratransit agencies, identifying what circumstances would justify its use and providing recommendations and guidelines to decision makers with the aim to maximize the overall service productivity. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED The proposed research will respond to the need of quantifying the benefit and costs associated with the operating practice of “zoning” to help in the design of the organizational structure of paratransit agencies and will consist of the following key points:

• Review of the current practices adopted by paratransit agencies concerning the decentralized vs. centralized control strategy.

• Identify the costs structure associated with the management of paratransit service providers and particularly the relationships between the cost and the size of the service area.

2

• Perform simulation analyses to analyze the “zoning” effect on the operating costs for different demand distribution and size of service area. Also, analyze the possibly significant impact of different scheduling practices on the overall performance, within the “zoning” scenarios. Extensive sensitivity analyses will also be performed to embrace a wide variety of scenarios.

• With the goal of minimizing the overall cost, identify break-even points in terms of demand distribution, size of service areas, typology of customers and possibly other variables, which would represent switching points between a centralized and a decentralized (“zoning”) control strategy.

• Conduct case studies by collecting representative actual demand data from paratransit agencies. Ideally, we will consider three representative cases (“small”, “medium” and “large” agencies).

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $250,000-300,000. Research Period: 2-3 yrs. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Demand for partransit services consistently increased during the last 10-15 years and transit agencies are struggling to cope with the associated high and raising operating costs. In addition, urban sprawl, one of the most obvious phenomena of the last few decades, will only contribute to further increase the demand for these services and simultaneously enlarge the service area. Under these circumstances, transit agencies may be interested in organizing themselves in a decentralized fashion (“zoning”). A few of them are already adopting it. However, this operating practice has not been thoroughly evaluated in all its aspect yet. A quantification of the benefit and cost associated with it will be beneficial the transit business to maximize the productivity of their service. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The proposed research will directly address the following FTA and TCRP strategic priorities:

• Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies: A better understanding of the benefits and costs of “zoning” will enable transit agencies to make better decisions about their organizational forms and ultimately contribute to contain their already high costs of maintaining and operating their services.

• Continuously Improve Public Transportation: Public transportation as a whole will benefit from this study. In fact, while the “zoning” control strategy is currently and specifically related to paratransit services, future developments of the industry might also include an extensive use of flexible or demand responsive service for traditional transportation services for the general public.

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH PATH/CALTRANS: “Productivity and cost-effectiveness of demand responsive transit systems” – completed (P.I.: Maged Dessouky) IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Luca Quadrifoglio, Ph.D. Assistant Professor

3

Zachry Department of Civil Engineering CE/TTI Building, Room 301I Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3136 Tel: 979-458-4171/Fax: 979-845-6481 X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This problem statement has been developed by Dr. Luca Quadrifoglio (Texas A&M University). XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Luca Quadrifoglio, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Zachry Department of Civil Engineering CE/TTI Building, Room 301I Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3136 Tel: 979-458-4171/Fax: 979-845-6481 Submitted on June 12th, 2008 Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks Director, CRP Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

09-B-06

TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENT

I. Research to Increase Transit Advertising Revenues II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT Sale of advertising in public transit facilities and vehicles is a nearly $1 billion industry

generating approximately $500 million annually to transit authorities. Yet transit advertising revenue is less than half of one percent of total US ad expenditures. The other 99.5% of advertising revenues goes to television, radio, billboards, the internet, newspapers, magazines, and other media.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), as a service to its transit agency

members, has set out to boost transit’s share of national advertising expenditures. This is one of several self-help, revenue-generating strategies to enable the transit industry to keep fares down and sustain service to its customers.

To increase transit advertising revenues, APTA supported a recent TCRP study, Practical

Measures To Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues (B-33). Preliminary results from Project B-33 indicate that a key impedance to increasing transit advertising revenues is the lack of an audience measurement system that can demonstrate the value of transit advertising to potential advertisers. Other more lucrative media, such as radio and television, have standardized audience measurement systems. These standardized audience measures are successful because they give media buyers confidence that ads will deliver messages to the right audiences cost effectively.

The proposed research to develop an audience measurement system for transit is expected

to increase transit advertising revenue. Each additional tenth of one percent of advertising market share will generate upwards of $125 million in annual revenue to transit authorities.

III. OBJECTIVE The overall objective of this project is to develop an audience measurement system to

sharply boost advertising revenue for transit systems. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED Surveys of media buyers and advertisers conducted for TCRP B-33 indicate that the

absence of credible and accepted audience measurement data limits the sale of transit advertising. The proposed research would remove this barrier by defining and validating an audience measurement system for transit advertising.

The proposed research would not only build upon the findings of TCRP Project B-33, but

would also build upon recent work by the Traffic Audit Bureau, based in New York City, which developed and tested a similar system for billboard advertising last year.

Practical Measures To Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues TCRP Problem Statement 2005

Page 2 of 4

The development of a transit audience measurement system would put transit on par with

more successful media such as television and radio in the eyes of advertisers and media planners. These more lucrative media enjoy independent audience measurement systems that assure advertisers and media buyers of credible audience reach and frequency information. Prospective advertisers rely heavily on audience measurement information to decide where to advertise (television vs radio vs internet vs transit, etc), and to document the cost effectiveness of the money they invest in advertising to reach a particular audience. TCRP Project B-33 is finding that development of this kind of system for transit will be the single most effective step the transit industry can take to grow advertising revenues.

The research will consist of the following components:

1. Development of audience measurement methodologies for all types of transit advertising, including bus exteriors and interiors, bus shelters, and rail station and rolling stock.

2. Defining uniform data collection standards for transit systems to adopt as part of a national network of transit ad sales that present a uniform face to advertisers.

3. Testing and validation of the new audience measurement methods in multiple transit markets.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

Recommended Funding: Funding is requested in the amount of $375,000. This funding would leverage an estimated additional $250,000 in contributions from the private sector.

Research Period: This research could be accomplished in fifteen months, including three

months for review and revision of a report. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL

Recent trends in the advertising industry have begun to weaken traditional advertising media. Television advertising, in particular, which has long dominated national advertising sales, faces both media fragmentation due to a mushrooming spectrum of cable and satellite channels, and commercial-skipping technologies such as TIVO. These trends begin to decrease the attractiveness of TV as a medium for advertisers. In this context, transit advertising can potentially generate more revenue to transit agencies. Unlike TV, it cannot be turned off, zapped, fast forwarded, or easily ignored. With more than 370,000 bus, 13,000 subway and rail, and 32,000 shelter and kiosk displays, transit advertising has the power to deliver an advertiser’s message on a local, regional, and national stage. Transit advertising can also be targeted geographically to allow for ad message customization along demographic and psychographic lines. Transit offers a variety of media that can target nearly any segment of metropolitan populations, including bus riders, train riders, and autoists and pedestrians (via advertising on the outside of transit vehicles and facilities).

Practical Measures To Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues TCRP Problem Statement 2005

Page 3 of 4

Given the aforementioned trends in the advertising industry, public transit has a window of opportunity to increase its share of the $250 billion a year spent annually on advertising in the United States. Audience measurement research is a vital step to this end.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This program has the potential to support each and every one of the FTA strategic

initiatives and TCRP Strategic Priorities via the generation of hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues for the transit industry. These new revenues could be deployed to support operations, maintenance, expansion, emergency preparedness, technological innovations, energy programs, and other initiatives of interest to both FTA and TCRP.

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH This study would build on two TCRP studies (TCRP Synthesis 51 issued in 2004 and

TCRP B-33, Practical Measures To Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues expected to be issued this year), as well as independent studies conducted by the Traffic Audit Bureau on behalf of the billboard industry to boost billboard advertising revenues. It is anticipated that the billboard audience measurement system in particular will facilitate the development of similar methods for transit advertising. According to independent Wall Street analysts from Wachovia, the new billboard audience measurement system is forecast to double billboard advertising revenues over the next 3-4 years. A similar boost for transit would generate approximately $500 million annually to support transit services around the country. To maximize continuity with previous and parallel efforts to increase transit advertising revenues, if this proposal is funded, it is recommended that the oversight panel include representatives from the Traffic Audit Bureau, Titan Outdoor, CBS Outdoor, Lamar Advertising, the APTA Marketing and Communications Committee, major ad agencies that purchase ads on behalf of clients, and major advertisers.

IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Aaron Weinstein Chair, APTA Marketing and Communications Committee Department Manager, BART Marketing and Research 300 Lakeside Drive, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94618 510-464-6199 510-464-7175 (fax) aweinst@bart.gov

Carol G. Smith Director, Research & Analysis MARTA

Practical Measures To Increase Transit Industry Advertising Revenues TCRP Problem Statement 2005

Page 4 of 4

2424 Piedmont Road, N.E. 2nd Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30324 404.848.5727 404.848.5320 (fax) cgsmith@itsmarta.com

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT

This problem statement is being submitted by the American Public Transit Association Marketing and Communications Committee. The topic covered in this application comes out of the Strategic Plan recently adopted by APTA, and specifically addresses the goal of improved Economic Vitality.

XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted on June 13, 2008 to: Christopher W. Jenks Manager, TCRP Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

09-B-10

TCRP Problem Statement I. PROBLEM TITLE Next Steps for Car-Sharing: Strategies, Challenges, and Impacts II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT In the past eight years, transit agencies from Seattle to Washington, DC have partnered with car-sharing operators with the goals of improving station access, increasing ridership, and providing wider mobility options for customers. TCRP Report 108, Car-Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds provided a comprehensive overview of the development of car-sharing, the geographic and demographic markets where it succeeds, and the impacts on vehicle ownership and travel behavior. It has proved valuable not only to transit agency staff but also to other partners such as local governments, universities, and developers. While the report concluded that car-sharing overall has a strong role in reducing vehicle travel and boosting transit ridership, it provided little data on the mobility impacts of key submarkets where transit and urban planners need specific information. For example, agency staff often needs to know the impacts of car-sharing on access mode share, on parking demand in joint development projects, and on travel behavior for welfare-to-work recipients. Sustainable development requirements also bring new needs for standardized indicators revealing how each mode of travel can help in reducing negative impacts (environment, pollution, car ownership) and facilitating travel for all populations segments (increasing access to a flexible mode of travel). Since the TCRP Report 108 was published in 2005, some systems have experienced impressive increases in terms of members and available cars and stations. With these new numbers, car-sharing organizations are facing new challenges and need to develop methods and tools as advanced as those available for transit and traffic modeling to manage this growth and experiencing alternative types of services. Moreover, competition between car-sharing suppliers is arising in new areas, generating needs to better assess this transportation supply and integrate it with existing transit networks. Again, in the current quest for sustainable alternatives, transit agencies as well as urban planners need more guidance and understanding with respect to car-sharing supply, impact on individual and collective travel behavior and interaction between networks and modes to increase overall accessibility. In addition, transit agencies have expressed interest in helping extend the sharing concept to bicycles and low-speed electric vehicles (for example, to improve mobility for seniors). III. OBJECTIVE Anticipated products would include: • A website to provide a “clearinghouse” for car-sharing impacts data (the need for which was

documented in TCRP Report 108); • Guidance with respect to the gathering of data to assess the car-sharing markets and estimate

performance indicators of the systems; • Guidance on how to estimate car-sharing impacts for specific submarkets

• business members • car-sharing vehicles at transit stations • car-sharing vehicles incorporated into development projects • low-income, elderly and other population segments • welfare-to-work recipients; and

• Guidance on how to estimate the contribution of car-sharing on attaining a more sustainable transport system, namely with respect to accessibility (equity) and environment (VMT and car ownership).

2

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED The first set of tasks will serve to update the research documented in TCRP Report 108, providing the baseline data on the number of operators, etc. This will set the stage for the following tasks. Update TCRP Report 108 Findings 1. Update literature review. TCRP Report 108 included a comprehensive annotated bibliography of car-sharing literature. The contractor will update this resource to include more recent research. 2. Update inventory of car-sharing operators and partner transit agencies. TCRP Report 108 listed car-sharing operators and described partnership arrangements with transit agencies. To design the surveys in subsequent tasks, this baseline data will need to be updated. This task should also discuss experience with new technologies and markets such as pre-paid car-sharing and lease sharing, including European examples, and other “sharing” concepts such as bicycle sharing. Data collection and methods 3. Identify data needs and data collection methods for operators. Guidance on how to estimate the impacts of car-sharing on attaining higher sustainability in daily travels will rely on specific variables and attributes of the systems. Based on the experience of partners and operators, best practices in data collection methods as well as data to be collected will be identified. 4. Design clearing house. The contractor will design and implement a web-based clearinghouse to facilitate the sharing of car-sharing impact studies. This will allow operators and partners to conduct their own surveys according to a common methodology. For example, Arlington County (Virginia), BART District (San Francisco Bay Area), SANDAG (San Diego) and King County Metro (Washington) have all designed independent studies to measure the impacts of car-sharing in isolation. This means that not only are potential synergies lost but also that agencies find it difficult to benchmark their performance against peer systems. The following tasks will provide an opportunity to field-test the clearinghouse in practice. If possible, the clearinghouse should be designed to allow non-US operators and partners to share their data. Car-Sharing Impacts for Specific Submarkets 5. Neighborhood car-sharing. The contractor will assess the impacts of car-sharing in primarily residential and mixed-use neighborhoods, including impacts on transit ridership, vehicle ownership, and travel. 6. Car-sharing at transit stations. The contractor will assess the impacts of car-sharing at rail stations and other transit nodes. This will include the extent to which car-sharing is being used as an access/egress mode when the final destination is beyond walking distance. The impacts on transit ridership and revenue are of most interest, along with more general information on changes in vehicle ownership and travel. 7. Business car-sharing. Almost all studies of car-sharing impacts to date have focused on residentially based car-sharing or included all car-sharing members without disaggregating the results. While car-sharing at the workplace can also be expected to reduce travel, as employees no longer need to drive to work to have a car available during the day, the impacts may not be comparable to the residential market. The contractor will assess the impacts of business car-sharing, focusing on vehicle travel and transit ridership, and the extent to which employers have reduced or eliminated vehicle fleets. Data will be collected from participating members and companies, where available. Where possible, the results should segment impacts from car-sharing as part of a transportation demand management program and car-sharing as a fleet replacement mechanism. 8. Car-sharing in new developments. Cities have often approved lower parking requirements for residential and mixed-use projects that incorporate car-sharing, in some cases as part of transit-oriented developments or planned communities. This is important for transit agencies, as such developments reinforce the use of alternative transportation modes among residents by providing fewer parking spaces.

3

Other cities, such as San Francisco, have mandated the inclusion of car-sharing through zoning codes. Overall, each car-sharing vehicle takes up to 15 private cars off the road, but it is difficult to translate this into decisions on parking and car-sharing vehicle provision, not least because actual adoption rates of car-sharing among residents is uncertain. The contractor will provide guidance on estimating parking reductions and vehicle needs in new development projects. 9. Low-income members. Car-sharing is being targeted at low-income residents as part of Job Access Reverse Commute programs in King County, WA and the San Francisco Bay Area. The contractor will assess the impacts of these and similar programs, focusing on overall travel behavior including transit ridership. The contractor will also assess barriers to serving this market, such as lack of Internet access, credit cards, or drivers’ licenses and provide any case studies of where and how these are being overcome. Car-Sharing Impacts on sustainability 9. Sustainability indicators for car-sharing. The contractor will propose a series of indicators to assess the contribution of car-sharing services to more sustainable transportation systems in urban areas, based on data collection guidance proposed previously. Procurement and Integration 10. Car-sharing procurement. The contractor will review strategies for transit agencies and other partner organizations in procuring car-sharing, focusing on instances where there are competing operators. 11. Parking integration. The contractor will review experiences integrating car-sharing with parking management strategies, including Parking Benefit Districts and similar programs. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Estimated funding: $300,000 Research period: 24 months VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Flexcar and Zipcar merged into one for-profit venture in October 2007. Carsharing continues to grow throughout North America. Zipcar is now the larges operator in the world, serving three different countries. Denver, Pittsburgh, Austin, and Atlanta are just some of the new potential markets, while established markets can expect to see more competition. Transit agencies urgently need guidance to harness this expansion to best achieve their goals. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This project links to the following FTA Strategic Goals and TCRP Strategic Priorities:

o Increase transit ridership. Nearly 40% of survey respondents in the previous TCRP research stated that they used transit more often because of their involvement with car-sharing. Partly, this is due to car-sharing’s use as an access/egress mode for the “last mile,” allowing transit to serve destinations that are outside of walking distance. Partly, it is due to car-sharing’s overall impact on reducing vehicle travel.

o Enable transit to operate in a technologically advanced society. Car-sharing is a technologically advanced mode of transportation that uses automated web-reservations and self-serve smartcard access.

o Flourish in the multimodal environment. Car-sharing helps transit agencies fulfill their role as mobility managers, taking responsibility for multi-modal alternatives to the private auto.

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH

4

TCRP Report 108 summarizes the relevant completed research. To the best of our knowledge, there is no closely relevant research in progress or pending. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Developed by: Dr. Susan Shaheen Transportation Sustainability Research Center University of California-Berkeley 1301 S.46th Street, Bldg. 190 Richmond, CA 94804-4648 Tel: (510) 665-3483 Fax: (510) 665-2183 sashaheen@tsrc.berkeley.edu Adam Millard-Ball, Stanford University Catherine Morency, École Polytechnique de Montréal Deborah Matherly, Louis Berger Group, Inc. X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This problem statement has been developed by the TRB Subcommittee on Car-Sharing and Station Cars (AP020 (1)), together with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates (the contractor for TCRP Report 108). XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted on June 15, 2008 by AP020 (committee members and friends):

Dr. Susan Shaheen

Chair, TRB Committee AP020, Emerging and Innovative Public Transport Systems and Technology

Adam Millard-Ball, Stanford University Catherine Morency, École Polytechnique de Montréal Deborah Matherly, Louis Berger Group, Inc.

09-B-11

I. PROBLEM TITLE Shared-Use Vehicle Systems: Expanding Car-sharing to Other Modes for Improved Transit Linkages II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT During the past decade, there has been tremendous activity and developments in car-sharing programs. One strong area of interest has been in its potential use with transit agencies. In fact, transit agencies from Seattle to Washington, DC have partnered with car-sharing operators with the goals of improving station access, increasing ridership, and providing wider mobility options for customers. Thus far, car-sharing has had only limited impact on solving this “first-mile last-mile” problem. Based on recent discussions within TRB’s committee on New Public Transportation Systems and Technology (AP020), it is recognized that better transit connectivity could be realized if the car-sharing concept was extended to other transportation modes, such as bicycles and low-speed vehicles (e.g., neighborhood electric vehicles, Segway Human Transporters, scooters, etc.). The term Shared-Use Vehicle Systems was coined to encompass the sharing of any type of vehicle, using the car-sharing model. There are already many successful bike-sharing operations, primarily in Europe. Other transit-oriented developments are also looking to incorporate a wide variety of modes to satisfy numerous mobility needs. In terms of transit operations, additional modes beyond the car tend to be more flexible, primarily due to parking and space constraints. In 2004-2005, a TCRP project was carried out to better understand the impacts of car-sharing on transit, result in TCRP Report 108, Car-Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds. This provided a comprehensive overview of the development of car-sharing, the geographic and demographic markets where it succeeds, and the impacts on vehicle ownership and travel behavior. It has proved valuable not only to transit agency staff but also to other partners such as local governments, universities, and developers. It is proposed to carry out a similar study that would extend this research to a broader range of transportation modes, i.e., understanding how Shared-Use Vehicle Systems can improve transit operations. Shared-Use Vehicle Systems are likely to have a strong role in reducing vehicle travel and boosting transit ridership, however there is little information on the mobility impacts of key markets where transit planners need specific information. III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to examine other shared-use modes that could potentially improve transit operations. This research would identify current and potential roles of shared-use vehicle systems in enhancing mobility as part of the overall transportation system. In addition, the research would assess the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the alternative modes used in a shared setting. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED To satisfy the objectives, potential research tasks include:

• Preparing a state-of-the-practice report on shared-use vehicles systems (with a focus on alternative modes beyond the car), addressing worldwide experience. The state-of-the-practice report shall include but not be limited to a classification of the different types of systems (e.g. bike-sharing). The report should address different services or products, ownership, partnerships, operation, technology, sales and marketing, rate structure, revenues, and service initiation.

• Conducting a market segmentation analysis that identifies the characteristics of current and

potential customers for shared-use vehicle system services;

2

• Developing preliminary scenarios for successful implementation of these services, considering different transportation modes, market settings, providers, sponsors, and operators of the shared-use vehicle services;

• Identifying current and potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of these systems,

including, but not limited to, impacts on congestion, mobility, transit use, air quality, energy use, employment, and travel behavior (e.g., trip chaining);

• Defining the elements that are critical to the success of different types of shared-use vehicle

services, including, for example, availability, density, and transit access, etc.; Also identify potential barriers to the initiation of these services and identify strategies to overcome the barriers. Barriers may include, for example, insurance coverage, subsidies, tax credits, zoning requirements, start-up costs, access, and interoperability.

• Defining the factors that enhance the success of shared-use vehicle services including, for example,

favorable zoning provisions, local government support, transit agency support, and business support.

• Developing recommendations for successful implementation of these alternative mode services that

consider market settings, providers, sponsors, and operators. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Estimated funding: $300,000 Research period: 24 months VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Recent increases in energy costs have pushed travelers more towards transit. Nevertheless, getting to and from transit stations remains a key problem, where shared-use vehicles can have a large impact. This research will not only identify potential solutions to this problem, but will also evaluate its environmental, economic, and social impacts. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This project links to the following FTA Strategic Goals and TCRP Strategic Priorities:

• Increase transit ridership. Nearly 40% of survey respondents in the previous TCRP research stated that they used transit more often because of their involvement with car-sharing. Partly, this is due to car-sharing’s use as an access/egress mode for the “last mile,” allowing transit to serve destinations that are outside of walking distance. Partly, it is due to car-sharing’s overall impact on reducing vehicle travel. By looking beyond cars to other modes, these impacts can be even greater.

• Enable transit to operate in a technologically advanced society. Shared-Use Vehicle Systems are technologically advanced in that they will use automated web-reservations and self-serve smartcard access.

• Flourish in the multimodal environment. Multi-modal shared-use systems will help transit agencies fulfill their role as mobility managers, taking responsibility for multi-modal alternatives to the private auto.

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH

3

TCRP Report 108 summarizes the relevant completed research for car-sharing. This would be extended to alternative modes in shared-use settings. To the best of our knowledge, there is no closely relevant research in progress or pending.

4

IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Developed by: Matthew Barth Dr. Susan Shaheen Center for Environmental Research and Technology TSRC University of California, Riverside University of California-Berkeley 1084 Columbia Avenue 1301 S.46th Street, Bldg. 190 Riverside, CA 92507 Richmond, CA 94804-4648 Tel: (951) 781-5782 Tel: (510) 665-3483 Fax: (951) 781-5790 Fax: (510) 665-2183 barth@cert.ucr.edu sashaheen@tsrc.berkeley.edu X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT

This problem statement has been developed by the TRB committee on Emerging and Innovative Public Transport Systems and Technology (AP020).

XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted on June 15, 2008 by:

Matthew Barth and Susan Shaheen

Chair, TRB Committee AP020, Emerging and Innovative Public Transport Systems and

Technology

09-B-14

A Proposal to TRB

From:

American Public Works Association/ National RTAP

And

Community Transportation Association of America PROBLEM TITLE: Issues in Coordination of Transportation for Veterans RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT: For many citizens, public transportation is the only option for access to health care, education, jobs, businesses and entertainment. Either through choice or circumstance (age, disability, wealth, etc.), many people rely upon public transportation to maintain their quality of life. However, transportation for military veterans can be encumbered with regulatory and/or legislative barriers to coordination that can hamper the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of transportation options available to others. Since 2001, America has been engaged in armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hostilities have taken a toll on U.S. forces, currently totaling tens of thousands of casualties, many of which are permanent disabilities that may restrict veterans from personal mobility. In addition, veterans from World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars as well as other conflicts like Desert Storm have needs for transportation stemming from age or injury. Since many veterans who return from duty are permanently disabled, a substantial amount of veteran transportation is for medical and rehabilitation purposes. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs offers several programs that provide transportation services in order to assist veterans in accessing medical and other benefits and programs. These services are integral in assisting wounded veterans in attaining needed medical assistance and recouping from their injuries. However, in many communities (especially rural communities), these programs may not be effectively coordinated with public transportation options – limiting the effectiveness and accessibility of transportation options for veterans. In order to effectively address the transportation needs of a newly growing veteran population, it is essential that veterans transportation programs are effectively coordinated with local public and para-transit providers in order to maximize efficiencies and expand service area. This is particularly true in rural communities where resources, personnel, and funding are limited but service areas can run two to three times the size of their urban and suburban counterparts. There is a real need for information and data available to veterans and veterans’ advocates and organizations, all levels of government, and public transportation providers in order to identify current barriers in coordinating veterans transportation programs with local and regional public transportation providers. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study will research and gather information on legislative, policy, and procedural restrictions on veteran transportation programs overseen by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The research will focus on identifying the transportation programs offered to

2

veterans as well as limitations on coordination of these programs with local and regional public transportation systems. Specifically veterans’ transportation programs will be surveyed to identify type of service provided, operations data on these systems (number of vehicles, trips provided, number of customers, etc.), identification of relevant public transportation options available to veterans, identification of any veterans’ programs that are coordinated with (through) the local public transportation provider, and identification of policies and regulations overseeing veterans’ programs vehicle procurement especially in regards to ADA compliance. In addition, researchers will work with veterans transportation providers and local public transit operators to identify transportation gaps for veterans as well as opportunities and/or barriers to transportation coordination. The end result will be a substantive and detailed report on the level of transportation coverage available to veterans as well as suggested areas in which legislators, Federal, state, and local government, and veteran and public transportation providers can work to improve coordination and expand transportation opportunities for veterans. This information will be useful for Federal and state governments, including legislators and department of transportation and veteran affairs, as well as national, regional, state and local transportation providers and associations and veterans organizations and advocates. RESEARCH PROPOSED: Analysis will include an in-depth data collection of information on the characteristics of veteran transportation programs, levels of transit service available to veterans, coverage areas served and with public transportation options available, types of transit service provided, and determination of areas with a lack of available transportation and reasons for said gaps in service. Research may include analysis of DOT and VA statistics as well as written survey and in-depth personal interviews with industry leaders. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD: Recommended Funding: It is estimated that $200,000 will be needed to complete this project. Of this total, data collection is estimated to cost $100,000; the convening of representatives of affected parties $50,000 and the analysis, preparation and distribution of the final report $50,000. Research Period: Time needed to complete this project is estimated at one year. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL: With the ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as an aging veteran population from World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm, there is a growing population of veterans in need of accessible, quality transportation. However several programs targeted at veteran transportation may contain legislative or regulatory barriers to coordination and accessibility of transportation provision. Identification of coordination barriers will assist lawmakers, government and industry leaders and transportation providers to address challenges in providing transportation to veterans. This information will result in a better coordinated transportation systems and programs available to veterans, in turn resulting in more effectively and efficiently implement public transportation systems. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: Federal Transit Administration Ridership Goal—Understanding the current levels of transportation service available and utilized by veterans will allow federal, state and local government and transit providers to improve service delivery, coordinate and expand programs and clear the way for expanded service and ridership.

3

Security Readiness—Identifying service gaps and coordination barriers will allow systems to better communicate and coordinate in implementing service. This increased coordination will also include security preparedness procedures and policies that will result in a more effective and expanded level of operations for public transportation. Project Planning and Oversight—Identifying current service levels and programs available for veterans will allow service providers and state and federal agencies to coordinate programs and improve efficiency of operations. Strategic Management of Human Capital—Gaining information on the different characteristics of veteran transportation programs and current levels of coordination with public transit will allow providers and funding and support agencies to identify training gaps, areas for coordination and strategies for management progress. Transit Cooperative Research Program Place the Customer First – America is seeing an increase in the veteran population that may utilize public transportation, especially seniors and veterans with disabilities. As these populations continue to grow, veterans will benefit from more effective, coordinated transportation to allow them access to the same opportunities and quality of life that many citizens take for granted. Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advanced Society—As pointed out in the Urgency and Payoff discussion, there is no current source of information on levels of technology use by veterans transportation programs or on different examples of technology applicable to these programs. Continuously Improve Public Transportation—The project would dramatically improve transportation opportunities for veterans by identifying opportunities and challenges currently existing in coordinating veterans programs with local service currently provided. More importantly, this research will provide crucial data that will inform state and federal funding and support programs that will help to improve and expand existing services for veterans. Flourish in the Multimodal Environment—This information will help identify levels of service existing across the country. This information will be identified through a process including state and local practitioners to help identify areas for coordination. Revitalize Transit Organizations—By identifying different levels of service and characteristics of veteran transportation programs, as well as identifying existing challenges to coordination, this research will identify strategies and opportunities for increased coordination of transportation options for veterans. In addition state and federal funding and support programs will be able to utilize this information to continue and expand programs to support veteran transportation. RELATED RESEARCH: Issue: America's Veterans and Their Mobility Needs (CTAA) - http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=254&z=37 The American Connection: Meeting the Special Transportation Needs of Our Military, Our Veterans and Their Families - http://www.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/vetlinks1.pdf PERSONS DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM: American Public Works Association Peter B. King, Executive Director, APWA; pking@apwa.net David Barr, Director, National RTAP, c/o APWA; dbarr@apwa.net 1401 K Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-218-6722; fax 202-218-6723; and

4

Community Transportation Association of America Dale Marsico, Executive Director, CTAA; Marsico@ctaa.org and Charles Dickson, Associate Director, CTAA; Dickson@ctaa.org 1341 G Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-628-1480; fax 202-737-9197 PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT: The National Rural Transit Assistance Program is overseen by an eleven member National RTAP Review Board, comprised of state DOT representatives and local transit operators. During the March 2008 RTAP Board meeting, members of the National RTAP Review Board discussed specific concerns of member Lyn Hellegaard (Missoula, MT) regarding difficulties in coordinating transportation service provision for veterans in her community. During the conversations, it was determined that with the growing population of veterans returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the aging veteran population from previous conflicts that there was a real need rising for quality information on veteran transportation programs. Furthermore, this need was couched in terms of how local transit providers can coordinate with veterans programs in order to provide expanded transportation opportunities and increase operating efficiency. This discussion ended with an agreement that research and data collection on this issue was needed to develop the type of information needed in order for DOT-FTA, National RTAP, Veterans Administration, legislators, veterans, local providers and other stakeholders to ensure abundant access to transportation for U.S. veterans in order to maintain a high quality of life. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY: __6/15/08______________ _______________________________________ (date) (name)

09-B-15

TCRP Problem Statement PROBLEM TITLE Improving Transit Integration among Multiple Transit Providers PROBLEM STATEMENT Improved integration of transit services, particularly where multiple providers are involved can be one of the most cost effective and significant methods of increasing transit usage and market share. As the United States grows by 100 million persons in the next 30 years and most of this growth occurs in expanding metropolitan areas or mega-regions, the importance to comprehensive integration of transit services will grow in importance. Transit systems that carry over 90% of US transit riders interface with one or more other transit agencies. This occurs in both large urban areas and many smaller communities. Individual travel needs often transcend a particular transit agency service area. However, the seamlessness that exists in our street and road systems, where every city, county and state government is responsible for portions of the system, but individuals can drive from any point to any point oblivious of the multiple agencies involved, is not as prevalent in transit service. There is a consensus that public transportation should be seamless, and many specific efforts to improve integration have reaped significant increases in transit ridership; however these efforts tend to be piece meal, generally focused on one element of integration such as fares; and not comprehensive or universal as is common in other developed countries. This would indicate that integration of public transport services analogous to what exists among the highway system could reap dramatic increases in transit use and improve the overall stature and image of transit in many communities. While each region has its unique characteristics and history, the barriers to successful integration and the benefits that accrue tend to be universal. Identifying how the challenges to integration have been successfully addressed and measuring the benefits that have resulted from integration can provide the information needed for successful implementation. This will assist areas that have partial integration of transit services implement the additional elements needed for total integration. (For example a region may have a universal fare instrument but limited schedule and route integration.). As regions grow, new transit systems may be created or existing systems that currently do not connect with each other expand their service area to the point that they do. With a better understanding of how to address challenges and measures of the benefits; comprehensive integration can be in place when the linkages are established. OBJECTIVE The best approach to integrate transit services provided by multiple transit operators may vary from region to region, however the challenges to and benefits of achieving successful integration tend to be universal. This research would examine approaches to successful integration of transit service, particularly among multiple providers. Each approach would be evaluated to determine the effectiveness in addressing institutional concerns; balancing local

2

and regional perspectives in fare integration; service design and schedule coordination; promotion and public information; design and location of transfer facilities; distribution of fare revenues and funding; consolidating overlapping special services often provided by non transit agencies; and any other issue that inhibits or enhances true transit integration. The research will examine the journey to implementation as this can highlight how to overcome existing barriers to optimum public transport integration. It will also identify and measure the benefits that have been achieved from integration. The final report will provide information that can be used by decision makers to determine which approach is most appropriate for a particular region, how to address the challenges and the steps needed to achieve optimum transit integration and the benefits that will accrue for successful integration. RESEARCH PROPOSED Review all aspects of transit integration (institutional, fares, service planning and scheduling, marketing and public information, funding, capital planning, etc.) in a representative cross section of large and small urban areas. Identify the challenges that needed to be overcome prior to implementation. The benefits, disbenefits, and outcomes of each approach would be identified. Reasons for success or failure toward achieving transit integration would be examined. The benefits of true transit integration would be measured. Among the most successful models of transit integration identified, articulate information that can assist decision makers in determining which model is most appropriate for a particular region, how challenges were overcome, the steps are needed to achieve full transit integration and the benefits that resulted from integration. The Verkerhs Verbunds or transit federations common in German regions could be researched for applicability in the US. ESTIMATED FUNDING AND RESEARCH TIME $300,000; 2 years URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Improving public transport integration could be one of the most cost effective strategies to increase transit usage. Travel patterns are not dictated by transit agency service boundaries. In many urban areas, both large and small, lack of transit service integration results in inferior service to the customer. In other cases duplicative services by multiple organizations wastes resources that could be more effectively deployed. Despite consensus that transit integration or seamlessness is needed to make transit more competitive with the auto and consequently increase transit market share; progress is spotty. A document that can articulate the benefits of integration, the models that work and the steps needed to implement an effective model will be a tremendous tool for bringing about true transit integration. The results would be increased transit market share and more cost-effective delivery of service with existing resources. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES AND TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FTA Strategic Goals: Increasing Ridership. Empirical evidence indicates that regions with the best integration among transit providers and modes have the highest per capita transit ridership. There is significant potential for dramatic increase in transit use.

3

TCRP priorities: Place the customer first. The aim if this study is to better address customer needs, particularly among those who do/would use multiple public transport providers. Flourish in the Multimodal Environment. Better integration will increase transit usage and reduce duplicative or excess capacity. PERSONS DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Ron Kilcoyne Chief Executive Officer Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority 1 Cross Street Bridgeport CT 06610 203-366-7070 ext 106 203-335-9813 FAX E-mail rkilcoyne@gbtabus.com April Manlapaz, AICP Senior Transit Planner URS Corporation 700 Third Street South, #600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.373.6357 612.370.1378 E-mail April_Manlapaz@URSCorp.com Paul N. Bay, PE, Transportation Consultant 2509 263rd Court NE Redmond, WA 98053 Phone: (425) 985-0296 Fax :( 425) 898-9711 E-mail: paulbay@msn.com PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT Developed by APTA Systems Management and Operations Sub Committee of the Policy and Planning Committee DATE AND SUBMITTED BY June 15, 2008 Rich Weaver American Public Transportation Association Systems Management and Operations Sub Committee/Policy and Planning Committee 1666 K Street NW Washington DC 20006

4

Phone: 202-496-4800 FAX: 202-496-4321

09-B-16

OUTLINE FOR TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENTS

I. PROBLEM TITLE Policy Options to Address Root Causes of Paratransit No-Shows and Late Cancellations II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

No-Shows and cancellations are a common problem that impacts the smallest (Rural) to the largest (Urban and Urban / Suburban) paratransit systems. It is equally detrimental to both the provider and the passenger. If one was to study the root causes, it might point to policy changes that would require concessions from both the passengers and the provider. I think that little is done to find the root cause and it is easier to just create a policy that penalizes a passenger after a random number of one or another or in some cases a combination of causes.

III. OBJECTIVE

The objective of the research is to identify policy options to address root causes of paratransit no-shows and late cancellations.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED

The researchers would survey a few systems that are large and small (determined by the number of daily trips), including systems from the north east and the south west (using similar # of daily trips). I am sure there other sample groups as well. The survey would include:

• over a month’s period the number of No-Shows and cancellations, the number responsible for only one, and the number responsible for between 3 and 6, and those for 7 and over

• do they have a policy, if so what is it • do they have the ability to change the situation that caused the No-Shows and cancellations, • have they made any changes in regard to the service and passenger policy • did these changes show a significant impact, using a rating system

Analysis of the survey results should provide explanations of the pros and cons of various policy options and the likely effects of those policies on riders and service providers. Review of those results with riders, rider representatives, and service providers should lead to refinements. Workshops to that end should be held as part of the project.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $100,000 for the survey only; $250,000 recommended for the full project. Research Period: 15 months, including 3 months for review and revision of a draft final report. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL Development of policy alternatives that are responsive to the root causes of riders not showing up or

making late cancellations will likely improve community relations, and thereby improve public support for transit. It will also likely lead to improved efficiency and effectiveness of paratransit services. Because

2

these services are expensive and growing, even modest improvements in no-shows and late cancellations are likely to have measurable benefits to riders and service providers.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This problem supports making transit the mode of choice; placing the customer first; and increasing

ridership. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH I am not aware of research on root causes of paratransit no-shows and late cancellations that is focused on

developing policy alternatives. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

Clifford Hymowitz Mobility & Disability Specialist Town of Brookhaven One Independence Hill Farmingville, NY 11738 chymowitz@brookhaven.org

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This problem statement is the product of an individual. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

Clifford Hymowitz Mobility & Disability Specialist Town of Brookhaven One Independence Hill Farmingville, NY 11738 chymowitz@brookhaven.org Submitted June 14, 2008

Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks Director Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

×ò ÐÎÑÞÔÛÓ Ì×ÌÔÛß²¿´§­·­ ±º Ó±¾·´·¬§ Ü»ª·½» Í¿º»¬§ ×­­«»­ º±® ¾±¬¸ п­­»²¹»®­ ¿²¼ Ì®¿²­·¬Ñ°»®¿¬±®­

××ò ÎÛÍÛßÎÝØ ÐÎÑÞÔÛÓ ÍÌßÌÛÓÛÒÌ̸·­ ·­ ¿ ´±²¹ó¬·³» ·­­«» ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ¼®·ª»² ¾§ ¬¸» ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¿²¼ ±º¬»² »¨½»°¬·±²¿´´§°±­·¬·ª» ¿¼ª¿²½»­ ·² °»®­±²¿´ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±® °»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ °¸§­·½¿´¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ò ɸ»»´½¸¿·®­ô ­½±±¬»®­ô ¿²¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ »¯«·°³»²¬ ¿®» ¾»½±³·²¹ ´¿®¹»®ô¸»¿ª·»®ô ¿²¼ ©·¬¸ ­¬®«½¬«®¿´ ¿²¼ ¼»­·¹² ½¸¿²¹»­ ¿²¼ ²«³»®±«­ ²»©¿½½±«¬®»³»²¬­ ²±¬ »²ª·­·±²»¼ ©¸»² ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ­»½«®»³»²¬ ­§­¬»³­ ¿²¼ ª»¸·½´»¼»­·¹² ¹«·¼»´·²»­ ©»®» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ò ߬ ¬¸» ­¿³» ¬·³»ô ¬¸»®» ¿®» º·²·¬» °¸§­·½¿´´·³·¬¿¬·±²­ ±² ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ­°¿½» ±® ©»·¹¸¬ó¾»¿®·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ­¿º»´§¬®¿²­°±®¬ ­«½¸ »¯«·°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ±½½«°¿²¬ ±² °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬ ¿²¼ °¿®¿¬®¿²­·¬ª»¸·½´»­ò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´´§ô ¬®¿²­·¬ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ °»®­±²²»´ ¿®» ¾»½±³·²¹ ±´¼»® ¿²¼ ·²³¿²§ ½¿­»­ô ´»­­ ¿¹·´»ò ̸·­ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º ´»­­ ¿¹·´» ­¬¿ºº ¿²¼ ´¿®¹»®ô ¸»¿ª·»®ô¿²¼ñ±® ¼·ºº»®»²¬´§óN­¸¿°»¼N ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ ·­ ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ¿ ­·¬«¿¬·±² ©¸»®» ·¬ ·­·²½®»¿­·²¹´§ ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± ¿¼»¯«¿¬»´§ ¿²¼ ­¿º»´§ ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ³¿²§ ®·¼»®­ò ɸ·´»­±³» ±º ¬¸»­» ´¿®¹»® ¼»ª·½»­ ¿®» ¬¸» ®»­«´¬ ±º ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ¬®»²¼ ±º °»±°´» ¹»¬¬·²¹´¿®¹»®ô ·² ³¿²§ ½¿­»­ ¬¸» ´¿®¹»® ¼»ª·½»­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² °«®½¸¿­»¼ ±® °®±ª·¼»¼©·¬¸±«¬ ½±²­·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ­«½¸ ¼»ª·½»­ò ײ ³¿²§ ½¿­»­ôÚ»¼»®¿´ ¿¹»²½·»­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ¬¸» Ý»²¬»®­ º±® Ó»¼·½¿®» ¿²¼ Ó»¼·½¿·¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸»Ê»¬»®¿²­ ß¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·±² ¿®» °®»­½®·¾·²¹ ¿²¼ñ±® °®±½«®·²¹ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ ±² ¬¸»¾¿­·­ ±º ´±©»­¬ ½±­¬ô ²±¬ ©¸¿¬ ³±­¬ »ºº»½¬·ª»´§ ­«·¬­ ¬¸» ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´K­ ´·º»­¬§´»¿²¼ñ±® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ²»»¼­ò Ó¿²§ ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´­ô ±² ¬¸»·® ±©² ±® ©·¬¸¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿­­·­¬¿²½»ô ¹»¬ ¼»ª·½»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ¿½¬«¿´´§ ´¿¾»´»¼ ¾§ ¬¸»³¿²«º¿½¬«®»® ¿­ N²±¬ ·²¬»²¼»¼ º±® «­» ·² ¿ ³±ª·²¹ ª»¸·½´»ôM ¿²¼ ¬¸»² ¿®»­«®°®·­»¼ ©¸»² ·¬ ·­ ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¬¸»­» ¼»ª·½»­ ±² °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬ª»¸·½´»­ò

̸» ­·¬«¿¬·±² ·­ ®¿°·¼´§ ¾»½±³·²¹ »¨¿½»®¾¿¬»¼ ¾§ ±¬¸»® °»²¼·²¹ ®»¹«´¿¬±®§¿½¬·±²­ò Ѳ Ó¿§ íðô îððèô ߬¬±®²»§ Ù»²»®¿´ Ó«µ¿­»§ ­·¹²»¼ °®±°±­»¼®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ¬± ®»ª·­» ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ö«­¬·½»K­ øܱÖ÷ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ±² ¬¸»ß³»®·½¿²­ ©·¬¸ Ü·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ ß½¬ øßÜß÷ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ·¬­ ßÜß Í¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±®ß½½»­­·¾´» Ü»­·¹²ò ß­ ±º ¬¸» ­«¾³·¬¬¿´ ¼»¿¼´·²» º±® ¬¸·­ Ю±¾´»³ ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ô ¬¸»º±®³¿´ Ò±¬·½» ±º Ю±°±­»¼ Ϋ´»³¿µ·²¹ øÒÐÎÓ÷ ¸¿¼ ²±¬ §»¬ ¿°°»¿®»¼ ·² ¬¸»Ú»¼»®¿´ λ¹·­¬»®ô ¾«¬ ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ¸¿­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¿² Nß¼ª¿²½»¼ Ì»¨¬M ±º ¬¸»°®±°±­»¼ ®«´»­ò ɸ·´» ¬¸» º±½«­ ±º ¬¸» ÒÐÎÓ ·­ º¿½·´·¬·»­ô ·¬ ¿´­± °®±°±­»­ ¬± ¿¼¼¿ ²»© ¼»º·²·¬·±² º±® N±¬¸»® °±©»®»¼ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ôM ¬¸»®»¾§ »¨°¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸»°±¬»²¬·¿´ ­½±°» ±º N©¸»»´½¸¿·®­M ¬¸¿¬ ³¿§ ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ·²°«¾´·½ ­°¿½»­ò ɸ·´» ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² øÜÑÌ÷ ¸¿­ ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬¿«¬¸±®·¬§ ¬± ¼»º·²» ©¸¿¬ ·­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ¾» ¬®¿²­°±®¬»¼ ±² °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬ ª»¸·½´»­ô¸·­¬±®§ ¸¿­ ­¸±©² ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ­·³·´¿® °®±°±­¿´ ¿²¼ñ±® ¿¼±°¬·±² ³¿§ ¾» ´·µ»´§ º®±³ÜÑÌò

ݱ²½«®®»²¬´§ô ¬¸» ß®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ ¿²¼ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Þ¿®®·»®­ ݱ³°´·¿²½» Þ±¿®¼øß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼÷ ·­­«»¼ ¬¸» »¯«·ª¿´»²¬ ±º ¿² ß¼ª¿²½» ÒÐÎÓ ·² îððé ¬± ®»¯«»­¬

·²°«¬ ·²¬± ¿ °»²¼·²¹ «°¼¿¬» ±º ¬¸»·® ßÜß ß½½»­­·¾·´·¬§ Ù«·¼»´·²»­ øßÜßßÙ÷ º±®Þ«­»­ ¿²¼ Ê¿²­ò ß³±²¹ ±¬¸»® °®±°±­¿´­ô ·¬ ¿°°»¿®­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼ ·­°´¿²²·²¹ ¬± ¾®±¿¼»² ¬¸» ¼»º·²·¬·±² ±º ©¸¿¬ «²¬·´ ²±© ¸¿­ ¾»»² µ²±©² ¿­ ¿N½±³³±² ©¸»»´½¸¿·®M ¬¸¿¬ ³«­¬ ¾» ¬®¿²­°±®¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ êêð °±«²¼­ ©¸»²±½½«°·»¼ò ̸»®» ·­ ¿ ½±²½»®² ¬¸¿¬ô ¾»½¿«­» ±º ª»®§ ®»¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬¿®§ ½±²­¬®¿·²­ô¬¸» ß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼K­ °®±°±­»¼ ­±´«¬·±²­ ¬± ¬¸»­» ®»¿´ °®±¾´»³­ ¸¿ª» ²±¬ ¾»»²»ª¿´«¿¬»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ­½·»²¬·º·½ ®»­»¿®½¸ ¬¸¿¬ ½±«´¼ ¾»²»º·¬ ¾±¬¸ ±«®½±«²¬®§K­ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­§­¬»³­ ¿²¼ °»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ ¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ò

×××ò ÑÞÖÛÝÌ×ÊÛ̸» °«®°±­» ±º ¬¸·­ °®±¶»½¬ ·­ ¬± ½±²¼«½¬ ¿ ­½·»²¬·º·½¿´´§ ª¿´·¼ ­¬«¼§ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²»¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ©»·¹¸¬ô ­·¦»ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¼»­·¹² ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·­¬·½­ ±º ©¸»»´½¸¿·®­ ¿²¼±¬¸»® ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿² ¾» ­¿º»´§ øº±® ¬¸» «­»® ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® °¿­­»²¹»®­K­¿º»¬§ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ¬¸» ¼®·ª»®K­÷ ¬®¿²­°±®¬»¼ ±² °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬ ª»¸·½´»­ò ̸»®»­»¿®½¸ ³«­¬ ¾» ¼¿¬¿ó¾¿­»¼ ¿²¼ ­¿¬·­º§ ½±³³±² »²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¿²¼ ¿²¿´§¬·½¿´°®·²½·°´»­ò ɸ·´» ¬¸» ®»­»¿®½¸ ³«­¬ ¾» ­½·»²¬·º·½¿´´§ ª¿´·¼ ¿²¼ ®»­«´¬ ·²·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ·² ¬¸» ­¿º» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ±º ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´­ô ·¬ ³«­¬ ¿´­± ®»½±¹²·¦» ¬¸¿¬±²» ±º ¬¸» °®·³¿®§ ¼»­·®»¼ ±«¬½±³»­ ·­ ¿² ·²½®»¿­» ·² ¬¸» ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ ³±¾·´·¬§ ±º°»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ ¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ò

×Êò ÎÛÍÛßÎÝØ ÐÎÑÐÑÍÛÜײ ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬®¿²­·¬ ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ ¿²¼ °»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ ¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ô ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬°¿²»´ ­¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» °»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ µ²±©´»¼¹» ±º ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² »²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¿²¼»®¹±²±³·½­ô ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª»­ ±º ¬®¿²­·¬ ´¿¾±®ô ¿²¼ ÒØÌÍß ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»º»¼»®¿´ ¿¹»²½·»­ò ̸» ·²¬»¹®·¬§ ±º ¬¸» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ ß½¿¼»³·»­ ¿²¼ ±º ÌÎÞ º±® ®·¹±®¿²¼ ±¾¶»½¬·ª·¬§ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ½¿®»º«´´§ °®±¬»½¬»¼ò

ß­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ­¬«¼§ô ¬¸» ·²¬»®ó®»´¿¬·±² ±º ª¿®·±«­ ¿½½»­­·¾·´·¬§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ²»»¼­¬± ¾» ³±®» ½±³°®»¸»²­·ª»´§ ¿²¼ ­½·»²¬·º·½¿´´§ »ª¿´«¿¬»¼ò ׺ô º±® »¨¿³°´»ô ¬¸»ß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼ ®»¯«·®»­ ¬¸¿¬ ´¿®¹»® ½¸¿·®­ ¾» ¬®¿²­°±®¬»¼ô ¾«¬ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ­·³·´¿®´§¿¼¼®»­­ ¬¸» ¼·³»²­·±²­ ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ »´»ª¿¬±®­ô ©¸¿¬ ¹±±¼ ¼±»­ ¬¸¿¬¿½½±³°´·­¸á Í·³·´¿®´§ô ÜÑÌ ¸¿­ ·­­«»¼ NßÜß Ü·­¿¾·´·¬§ Ô¿© Ù«·¼¿²½»M ¬¸¿¬·²¼·½¿¬»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­§­¬»³­ ­¸±«´¼ ¿´´±© °»®­±²­ ©·¬¸ ¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ ¬± «­»Í»¹©¿§­x ±² ª»¸·½´»­ô §»¬ ¬¸»®» ¿®» ­±³» ³«²·½·°¿´·¬·»­ ¬¸¿¬ °®±¸·¾·¬ ¬¸»³ º®±³«­·²¹ ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ±® °«¾´·½ ­¬®»»¬­ º±® ¿½½»­­ò

̸» °®±¶»½¬ ­¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿¬ ¿ ³·²·³«³æ Ô·¬»®¿¬«®» ­»¿®½¸ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½«®®»²¬ ¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¿½½»­­ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ô

ײ¬»®²¿¬·±²¿´ »¨¿³°´»­ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½´«¼»¼ò λª·»© ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ©¸¿¬ ¬»­¬·²¹ ¸¿­ ¾»»² ¼±²»

º±® ½®¿­¸ó©±®¬¸·²»­­ ±® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¾·´·¬§ò λª·»© ¬¸» ËòÍò ª±´«²¬¿®§ ·²¼«­¬®§ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ NÉÝ ïçM ¿²¼ ±²¹±·²¹ ©±®µ ¾§

¬¸» ßÒÍ×ñÎÛÍÒß Ý±³³·¬¬»» ±² ɸ»»´½¸¿·®­ ¿²¼ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²øÝÑÉØßÌ÷ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ·²¬»®²¿¬·±²¿´ ¿°°®±¿½¸»­ ¬± ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¾·´·¬§ ±º©¸»»´½¸¿·®­ò

×¼»²¬·º§ ½«®®»²¬ ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·±² ½¸¿´´»²¹»­ ¿²¼ ·¼»²¬·º§ ¬¸» ª¿®·±«­­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ½«®®»²¬´§ «­»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿½½»­­·¾·´·¬§ò Ûª¿´«¿¬» ¬¸»­» ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­º±® ­¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ ¿½½»°¬¿¾·´·¬§ò

Ü»¬»®³·²» ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ­·¦» ¿²¼ ©»·¹¸¬ ´·³·¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿² ¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼±² »¨·­¬·²¹ °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² »¯«·°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¼»¬»®³·²» ·ºó±®ó¸±©®»¿¼·´§ ¿½¸·»ª¿¾´» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²­ ½±«´¼ ·²½®»¿­» ¿½½»­­·¾·´·¬§ò Û­¬·³¿¬» ¬¸»½±­¬ ¿²¼ ·³°¿½¬­ ±º ­«½¸ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²­ò

Í«®ª»§ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­§­¬»³­ º±® ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ½´¿·³­ô ­»¬¬´»³»²¬­ô ¿²¼ ´¿©­«·¬­®»´¿¬·²¹ ¬± ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ­¿º»¬§ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬·°ó±ª»®·²½·¼»²¬­ ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ±¬¸»® ¿½½·¼»²¬ ±® ½®¿­¸ ­·¬«¿¬·±²­ò ײ½´«¼» ®»´»ª¿²¬É±®µ»®­ ݱ³°»²­¿¬·±² ¼¿¬¿ ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²¬ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ò

×¼»²¬·º§ ¿²§ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ ¬¸¿¬ ½±«´¼ ¿´´±© ¬¸» ­¿º» ¬®¿²­°±®¬ ±º¼»ª·½»­ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿²²±¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¾» ­¿º»´§ ¬®¿²­°±®¬»¼ ±² ¿ °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬ª»¸·½´»ò

Êò ÛÍÌ×ÓßÌÛ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÐÎÑÞÔÛÓ ÚËÒÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÎÛÍÛßÎÝØ ÐÛÎ×ÑÜλ½±³³»²¼»¼ Ú«²¼·²¹æ Ü«» ¬± ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ½±³°´»¨·¬·»­ ¿²¼ °±´·¬·½¿´­»²­·¬·ª·¬·»­ ±º ¬¸·­ ¬±°·½ô ¿ ¾«¼¹»¬ ±º ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ üëððôððð ·­ ´·µ»´§ ¬± ¾» ²»½»­­¿®§ò

λ­»¿®½¸ л®·±¼æ Ü«» ¬± ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ½±³°´»¨·¬·»­ ¿²¼ °±´·¬·½¿´ ­»²­·¬·ª·¬·»­ ±º¬¸·­ ¬±°·½ô ¿ ³·²·³«³ ±º îì ³±²¬¸­ ·­ ´·µ»´§ ¬± ¾» ²»½»­­¿®§ ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸»°®±¶»½¬ò ر©»ª»®ô ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» «®¹»²½§ ±º ¬¸» ·­­«»­ô ¿²§ ©¿§ ¬± »¨°»¼·¬» ¬¸»®»­»¿®½¸ ©±«´¼ ¾» ª»®§ «­»º«´ò

Ê×ò ËÎÙÛÒÝÇ ßÒÜ ÐßÇÑÚÚ ÐÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔ̸·­ °®±¶»½¬ ¸¿­ ´±²¹ ¾»»² ²»»¼»¼ ¬± ­«°°´»³»²¬ ¼¿¬»¼ ®»­»¿®½¸ ±² ­¿º»¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ±º ©¸»»´½¸¿·®­ ¿²¼ ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½»­ô ³±­¬ ±º ©¸·½¸ ·­ ­»ª»®¿´¼»½¿¼»­ ±´¼ ¿²¼ ©¸·½¸ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ®»½±¹²·¦» ¬¸» ©·¼» ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ²»© »¯«·°³»²¬¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬±¼¿§ò ̸» «®¹»²½§ ±º ¬¸» ³¿¬¬»® ·­ ¾»½±³·²¹ ½®·¬·½¿´ ©·¬¸ ¿¹»²½·»­­«½¸ ¿­ ¬¸» Ü»°¬ò ±º Ö«­¬·½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼ °®»°¿®·²¹ ¬± °®±³«´¹¿¬» ©·¼»ó®¿²¹·²¹ ²»© ®«´»­ ±² ¬¸» ¾¿­·­ ±º ¿²»½¼±¬¿´ ½±²½»®²­ ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ­«¾­¬¿²¬·ª»»ª·¼»²½»ò ̸» °¿§±ºº ©·´´ ¾» ­¿º»® ¿²¼ »¿­·»® ¬®¿²­°±®¬ º±® ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½» «­»®­ô¿´´ ±¬¸»® °¿­­»²¹»®­ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ±¬¸»® ½«­¬±³»®­ ©·¬¸ ¼·­¿¾·´·¬·»­ô ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬±°»®¿¬·²¹ °»®­±²²»´ò

̸·­ ®»­»¿®½¸ ·­ »¨°´·½·¬´§ °®±°±­»¼ ¬± ·²½®»¿­» ¬¸» ³±¾·´·¬§ ±°¬·±²­ ¿²¼ »¿­» ¬¸»°®±½»­­ ±º ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º±® ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½» «­»®­ò ˲¼»® ²± ½·®½«³­¬¿²½»­ ·­¬¸» ¹±¿´ ±º ¬¸·­ °®±¶»½¬ ¬± ®»¼«½» ¬¸» ³±¾·´·¬§ ±º ­±³» ³±¾·´·¬§ ¼»ª·½» «­»®­ò ̸»½±²¼«½¬ ±º ¬¸» ­¬«¼§ ³«­¬ ¾» ­»²­·¬·ª» ¬± ­«½¸ «²·²¬»²¼»¼ ½±²½»®²­ò

Ê××ò ÎÛÔßÌ×ÑÒÍØ×Ð ÌÑ ÚÌß ÍÌÎßÌÛÙ×Ý ÙÑßÔÍ ßÒÜ ÐÑÔ×ÝÇ ×Ò×Ì×ßÌ×ÊÛÍ¿²¼ ÌÝÎÐ ÍÌÎßÌÛÙ×Ý ÐÎ×ÑÎ×Ì×ÛÍ

̸·­ °®±°±­»¼ ®»­»¿®½¸ ­«°°±®¬­ ¿´´ º±«® ±º ÚÌßK­ ͬ®¿¬»¹·½ λ­»¿®½¸ Ù±¿´­æ

øï÷ ײ½®»¿­·²¹ η¼»®­¸·°æøî÷ ׳°®±ª·²¹ Ý¿°·¬¿´ ¿²¼ Ñ°»®¿¬·²¹ Ûºº·½·»²½·»­æøí÷ ׳°®±ª·²¹ Í¿º»¬§ô Í»½«®·¬§ ¿²¼ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ю»°¿®»¼²»­­æøì÷ Ю±¬»½¬·²¹ ¬¸» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬ ¿²¼ Ю±³±¬·²¹ Û²»®¹§ ײ¼»°»²¼»²½»æ

̸·­ °®±¶»½¬ ·­ ¿´­± ·² º«®¬¸»®¿²½» ±º ¿´´ º·ª» ±º ÌÝÎÐK­ ͬ®¿¬»¹·½ Ю·±®·¬·»­æ×ò д¿½» ¬¸» Ì®¿²­·¬ Ý«­¬±³»® Ú·®­¬××ò Û²¿¾´» Ì®¿²­·¬ ¬± Ñ°»®¿¬» ·² ¿ Ì»½¸²±´±¹·½¿´´§ ß¼ª¿²½»¼ ͱ½·»¬§×××ò ݱ²¬·²«±«­´§ ׳°®±ª» Ы¾´·½ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²×Êò Ú´±«®·­¸ ·² ¬¸» Ó«´¬·³±¼¿´ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬Êò λª·¬¿´·¦» Ì®¿²­·¬ Ñ®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²­

Ê×××ò ÎÛÔßÌÛÜ ÎÛÍÛßÎÝØײ ¬¸» ïçèð­ô N½®¿­¸ ¬»­¬·²¹M ±º ©¸»»´½¸¿·®­ô °®·³¿®·´§ ³¿²«¿´ ±²»­ô ·¼»²¬·º·»¼­¿º»¬§ ·­­«»­ º±® ¾±¬¸ ±½½«°¿²¬­ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® °¿­­»²¹»®­ ±² ¬®¿²­·¬ ª»¸·½´»­ò ̸¿¬´»ª»´ ±º ®·¹±®±«­ »¨¿³·²¿¬·±² ¸¿­ ²±¬ ¾»»² ®»°»¿¬»¼ ·² ®»½»²¬ §»¿®­ ±® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»°´»¬¸±®¿ ±º ²»© ¼»ª·½»­ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± «­»®­ò ײ¬»®°®»¬¿¬·±²­ ±º ÜÑÌK­ ßÜß®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ »³°¸¿­·­ ½·ª·´ ®·¹¸¬­ ±ª»® ­¿º»¬§ô §»¬ ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬®¿²­·¬ ±°»®¿¬±®­½±²¬·²«»­ ¿²¼ ·²½®»¿­»­ò ß³±²¹ ¬¸» ³±­¬ ®»½»²¬ ®»­»¿®½¸ ±² ¬¸·­ ¬±°·½ô º®±³ ¿ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ­±«®½»­ ø¿´¬¸±«¹¸ ¬¸» º·®­¬ ¬©± ´·­¬»¼ ¿®» ²±¬ ©·¼»´§ µ²±©² ±® ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»÷ô·²½´«¼»­æ

ʱ´°» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ͧ­¬»³­ Ý»²¬»®ô þÌ®·óɸ»»´»¼ ͽ±±¬»®­Ì®¿²­°±®¬»¼ ±² Þ«­»­ ¿²¼ Ê¿²­æ ß­­»­­³»²¬ ±º Í»½«®»³»²¬ ¿²¼ λ­¬®¿·²¬×­­«»­þ øÚ·²¿´ λ°±®¬ ѽ¬±¾»® ïççë÷

ß² ¿®¬·½´» ¾§ ¬¸» Ü»°¬ò ±º Ê»¬»®¿²­ ߺº¿·®­ô ·² ¬¸» Ö±«®²¿´ ±º λ¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±²Î»­»¿®½¸ ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ô Nß°°®±°®·¿¬» °®±¬»½¬·±² º±® ©¸»»´½¸¿·® ®·¼»®­ ±²°«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­·¬þ øîððí÷ ½±²½´«¼»¼ ·² °¿®¬ ¬¸¿¬ N­¬«¼·»­ ­°¿²²·²¹ í𠧻¿®­ ·²¼·½¿¬»¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ´¿®¹» ¬®¿²­·¬ ¾«­ ·­ ±²» ±º ¬¸» ­¿º»­¬ º±®³­ ±º ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²ô ­± ¬¸¿¬©¸»»´½¸¿·® ®·¼»®­ ¼± ²±¬ º¿½» «²¼«» ®·­µ ±º ·²¶«®§ ±² ¬¸»­» ¾«­»­òM

ÌÝÎРͧ²¬¸»­·­ ýëðæ ß½½±³³±¼¿¬·±² ±º ݱ³³±² ɸ»»´½¸¿·®­ ±² Ì®¿²­·¬Þ«­»­ Ë­·²¹ λ¿®óÚ¿½·²¹ б­·¬·±² øîððì÷

Ю±¶»½¬ ßÝÌ×ÑÒ ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ­±±² ®»´»¿­» ¿ ®»°±®¬ »²¬·¬´»¼ Nͬ¿¬«­ λ°±®¬ ±²¬¸» Ë­» ±º ɸ»»´½¸¿·®­ ¿²¼ Ѭ¸»® Ó±¾·´·¬§ Ü»ª·½»­ ±² Ы¾´·½ ¿²¼ Ю·ª¿¬»Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²òM ɸ·´» ¬¸·­ ¼±½«³»²¬ ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ½±²¬®·¾«¬·±²¬± ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ´·¬»®¿¬«®»ô ·¬­ °«®°±­» ©¿­ ²±¬ ¿­ »¨¬»²­·ª» ±® ·²ó¼»°¬¸ ¿­ ·­ ­¬·´´²»»¼»¼ò

×Èò ÐÛÎÍÑÒøÍ÷ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐ×ÒÙ ÌØÛ ÐÎÑÞÔÛÓ̸» Ю±¾´»³ ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ ©¿­ ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¾§ ³»³¾»®­ ±º ¬¸» ßÐÌß ß½½»­­Ý±³³·¬¬»» ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼»¼ ¼·­½«­­·±²­ ©·¬¸ ÚÌß ­¬¿ºº ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ °»®­±²²»´ò

Èò ÐÎÑÝÛÍÍ ËÍÛÜ ÌÑ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐ ÐÎÑÞÔÛÓ ÍÌßÌÛÓÛÒÌ̸» °®±¾´»³ ­¬¿¬»³»²¬ ·­ ¬¸» ®»­«´¬ ±º ´±²¹ó±²¹±·²¹ ¼·­½«­­·±²­ ¿³±²¹³»³¾»®­ ±º ¬¸» ßÐÌß ß½½»­­ ݱ³³·¬¬»»ô ¿²¼ ·¬­ ­«¾³·¬¬¿´ ¸¿­ ¾»»² »²¼±®­»¼¾§ ¬¸¿¬ ½±³³·¬¬»»ò ׬ ·­ ±«® «²¼»®­¬¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ­»²·±® ÚÌß ±ºº·½·¿´­ ­¸¿®» ³¿²§ ±º¬¸»­» ½±²½»®²­ ¿²¼ ¿®» ­«¾³·¬¬·²¹ ¿ Ю±¾´»³ ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ ®»´¿¬·²¹ ¬± ­·³·´¿®·­­«»­ò É» ¸¿ª» ©±®µ»¼ ¬± ­»»µ ¿ ­»²­·¬·ª»ô §»¬ ­½·»²¬·º·½ô ®»ª·»© ±º ¬¸» ·­­«»­¼»­½®·¾»¼ò ̸» ­·¬«¿¬·±² ·­ ¾»·²¹ ¾®±«¹¸¬ ¬± ·³³»¼·¿½§ ¾§ ®»½»²¬ ¿²¼ °»²¼·²¹®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ½¸¿²¹»­ ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» Ü»°¬ò ±º Ö«­¬·½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ß½½»­­ Þ±¿®¼òß ­¿º»® ±°»®¿¬·²¹ »²ª·®±²³»²¬ º±® ¿´´ °¿­­»²¹»®­ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ °»®­±²²»´ ®»¯«·®»­¾»¬¬»® ¼¿¬¿ ¿²¼ ³±®» ·²º±®³»¼ ¼»½·­·±²ó³¿µ·²¹ ¬¸¿² ·­ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ò ײ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¬¸» ßÐÌß Þ«­ Í¿º»¬§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¸¿­ ¾»»² ·²ª»­¬·¹¿¬·²¹ ­·³·´¿®½±²½»®²­ô ¿²¼ ¬¸·­ °®±¾´»³ ­¬¿¬»³»²¬ ¸¿­ ¾»»² »²¼±®­»¼ ¾§ ¬¸»·® ݸ¿·® ±²¾»¸¿´º ±º ¬¸» ݱ³³·¬¬»»K­ »ºº±®¬­ò

È×ò ÜßÌÛ ßÒÜ ÍËÞÓ×ÌÌÛÜ ÞÇÖ«²» ïëô îððè

η½µ ο³¿½·»®Ê·½»óݸ¿·®ô ßÐÌß ß½½»­­ ݱ³³·¬¬»»Ù»²»®¿´ Ó¿²¿¹»®ô Ý»²¬®¿´ ݱ²¬®¿ ݱ­¬¿ Ì®¿²­·¬ ß«¬¸±®·¬§îìéé ß®²±´¼ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ É¿§Ý±²½±®¼ô Ýß çìëîð

и±²»æ çîëòêéêòïçéêÚ¿¨æ çîëòêèéòéíðêÛ³¿·´æ ®¿³¿½·»®à½½½¬¿ò±®¹

09-B-17

TCRP Problem Statement I. PROBLEM TITLE Public Transportation for Persons with Disabilities using Mobility Devices II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT There has been a remarkable advancement in the technological development of mobility devices – such as power scooters, power chairs, and IBOTs in the past decade. The technological development in these mobility aids has significantly increased mobility for many people with disabilities, and enhanced their options for greater independence and participation in community life. Unfortunately, the technological development has occurred without regard to accessibility on public transportation vehicles. Public transit providers are expressing concerns about transporting disabled persons with these mobility devices. The bus driver is faced with increasing difficulties in loading, securing, and unloading of disabled persons using certain power scooters, power chairs, and IBOT’s. III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to identify and quantify the difficulties facing public transportation drivers in loading, securing, and unloading people with disabilities who use heavy/ oversized mobility aids; estimate the extent of the problems; develop tool kits for drivers and the disabled persons using these new mobility devices to access public transportation; and provide recommended solutions. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED the research project would begin with an extensive literature search of transit, engineering ,rehabilitation and related sources to identify all information that is currently available on this topic. This research should:

• identify difficulties at each stage of the process of loading, securing, and unloading of disabled persons using these mobility aids;

• identify the types of mobility aids that cannot be accommodated on the different sizes vehicles used in public transportation;

• estimate the number of disabled persons using these types of mobility aids and their locations;

• estimate the proportion of disabled persons with these mobility aids who wish to use public transportation;

• estimate the proportion of people with these types of mobility aids who cannot ride public transportation because they cannot fit onto the vehicle or be safely secured;

• determine the extent of the difficulties in the transit industry and the disabled community; • measure the time delays and economic costs of breakdowns in the process; • evaluate the impact on the driver and disabled person during this process in terms of

health and safety;

2

• identify and measure the structural impact on transit vehicles; • identify and recommend good practices that are currently being used by transit providers

to address this issue; and • examine if standards should be proposed / established for mobility aids to be used in

Public Transportation. Lastly, this research shall also analyze the economic and social impact of changes in the dimensions and capacity weight loads of ramps and lifts that are being proposed in the draft update of the guidelines of the U. S. Access Board, and make recommendations for viable solutions as appropriate. The oversight panel for this project should include a balanced cross – section of transit personnel, people with disabilities, and technical and rehabilitation professionals.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD The estimated budget for this research would be $500,000. The time needed to complete this research would be 24 months. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) mandated that people with disabilities have access on public transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the transportation provisions of the ADA, including accessibility standards for transportation vehicles. These regulations were published in 1991, based on guidelines that were developed by the U.S. Access Board. Since that time, these regulations have been modified very slightly and may not be reflective of the changing technology of mobility devices. In 2006, the Board began the process of updating and refreshing the guidelines. Some of the proposed changes include raising the weight load and dimensional standards that were established in 1991 as minimums. These proposed changes will have economic and social costs to the Transit Industry, the disabled community, bus manufacturers, manufacturers of securing devices, ramp and lift manufacturers, mobility aid manufacturers, government agencies providing funding for the purchase of these mobility devices, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The results of this study would be critical in defining the magnitude of the problem and in determining the realistic need for the DOT to revise the regulations. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS and POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This project meets TCRP’s strategic priorities of placing the customer first; enabling transit to operate in a technologically advanced society; continuously improving public transportation; flourishing in the multimodal system; and revitalizing transit organizations. Research in response to this problem will produce results that contribute tothe major FTA goals including increasing ridership, and improving operating efficiencies.

3

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH Easter Seals Project Action, American Public Transportation Association- Access Committee, and the Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh may have done some preliminary research on this issue. The literature is consistent on the need for data and analysis to determine the extent of the problem and the number of disabled persons using these mobility aids who cannot be served by public transportation. IX. PERSON DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Mokhtee Ahmad Regional Administrator FTA Region VII Suite 404, 901 Locust Street Kansas City, Mo 64106 X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT The impetus for this project began with concerns expressed by rural and small transit system operators in Region VII at a conference meeting with FTA Administrator James Simpson. This research problem statement is endorsed by FTA. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Mokhtee Ahmad Regional Administrator FTA Region VII 816 – 329 -3930 March 3, 2007

09-C-03

P.O. BOX 1687 – Lakeland, Florida 33802 – 863-688-7433

June 10, 2008 To: Mr. Christopher W. Jenks, Secretary TCRP Oversight and Projects Selection Committee From: Glen Goddard, Maintenance Manager & Norman Whittaker, Operations Manager Lakeland Area Mass Transit District d.b.a. Citrus Connection Re: TCRP Research Problem Statement Problem Title: Mobility Aid accommodation, securement and Passenger safety Objective: With the introduction of a wide variety of powered mobility aids to consumer’s that use mobility aids to maintain their independence a number of various designs and sizes are now in use. Several of these newer and larger powered mobility aids cannot be properly secured to prevent movement. Changes to the design and layout of mobility aid (wheel chair) securement points and method of securing the mobility aid need to researched and a retrofit made available to the transit agencies. In addition to the proper securing of mobility aids with the size and weight increases in the various mobility aids the max weight capacity of the wheel chair lifts of 600 pounds needs to be increased to 850 pounds to match the lift capacity of the newer paratransit lifts in use. There are citizens that cannot use transit services due the combined weight of themselves and the powered mobility exceed the lift capacity on fixed route buses. Research needs to be done on the incorporation of infant and small children safety seating. There are laws is some states that require infants and small children to be placed in car seats in vehicles. To increase ridership, safety of passengers and better compliance with the ADA acts this research is needed. This research into the modification of current fixed route buses in service should provide a means of retrofitting or upgrading transit buses in use at the least amount of cost to the transit agencies to upgrade their fleets. Design improvements and upgrades need to be included in all new fixed route transit buses being manufactured.

2

The estimated cost of funding needed cannot be determined by the individual transit agencies as it will require the manufactures engineering departments to be involved with field upgrades and new vehicle design incorporation. Urgency and payoff This research is urgently needed to meet the needs of customer safety and security. Payoff of the research and upgrades will address customer safety concerns, all transit agencies to provide better accommodation in accordance with current ADA Act and Title 6 Reduce green house gases, increase ridership and enhance customer service. This problem statement was developed from customer comments and agency concern for the customers that use public transportation Agency personal involved in this problem statement Norman Whitaker Glen Goddard Operations manager Maintenance Manager Lakeland Area Mass Transit District Lakeland Area Mass Transit District Fax 863-327-1356 Fax 863-327-1350 Phone 863-688-7433 ext 109 Phone 863-688-7433 ext 126 P.O. Box 1687 P.O. Box 1687 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Lakeland, Florida 33802 d.b.a. Citrus Connection email nwhitaker@ridecitrus.com email ggoddard@ridecitrus.com

09-C-08

Electric Trolley Bus Technology with Catenary Power and with Batteries Beyond the End of the Wire

I. PROBLEM TITLE Documenting the Potential of Electric Trolley Bus technology II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

In the 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush called attention to our addiction to imported oil and the problems it created. He described how this addiction has distorted our national economy with deficits in our balance of payments, and he called upon America to break the addiction. Of the road transportation options available to United States the only ones that are not ultimately dependent on a fossil-fuel based propulsion system are battery powered vehicles and electric trolley buses. Both of these technologies minimize locally emitted pollution by using electricity that can be generated remotely using renewable technologies such as hydro-electric, wind and solar. Where these clean natural energy sources are not available, remote generation of electricity at a highly efficient fossil or nuclear generation station offers the potential of minimal local emission where the power is generated and zero emission where it is consumed. Electric vehicles date from about 1900, and electric trolley buses, initially developed during the 1920’s, were widely used in the transition from streetcars to diesel buses in the 1950’s. Electric trolley buses are considered old technology and have fallen out of favor. But six cities in North America and numerous cities in Europe and Asia have electric trolley bus systems and voice strong support for their continued operation.

III. OBJECTIVE Document the operational characteristics and costs for the design, construction and operation of a

modern electric trolley bus service based on the North American operating conditions and focusing on the experience within the United States (Sound Transit, Muni, MBTA, and the Dayton RTA).

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED Investigate and report on the current state of the electric trolley bus technology, cost structure,

service capabilities and maintenance requirements. The report should investigate near-term innovations being developed locally and internationally.

The analysis should also include an evaluation of the opportunity for utilizing batteries and electric

drive systems technology developed for hybrid-electric buses on an electric trolley bus. This evaluation should consider the merit of operation beyond the end of the catenary for passenger gathering and distribution. The extension would be powered by on-board batteries charged while the bus is operated under the catenary. This should be explored in light of battery and drive systems being developed for “plug-in” hybrid electric propulsion for automobiles and trucks.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: Nine professional staff months of effort is required costing $125,000.

Administrative support, half-time, of one-half staff year costing $30,000, will bring the total cost to $155,000.

Research Period: The research period for this effort should be six months with an additional three

months for review and revision of a draft final report, for a total of nine months.

2

VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL If the United States is to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, it will be through the use of

technologies the do not require the use of on-board petroleum-based fuel. Within the transportation sector, the options for zero petroleum-based propulsion are limited to electric automobiles, electric trucks, electrified trains, and electric trolley buses. Aircraft and domestic water transportation are limited to fossil or chemical fuels and can use electric-drive propulsion en route only if the electricity is generated from an on-board fuel supply.

Automobiles with battery electric systems have demonstrated the ability to operate for 50 to 100

miles between battery charges but require an extended time period for recharging. Electric trains operate under a continuous catenary for their power supply but are limited to railroad tracks with overhead catenaries. Electric trucks have a limited use in mining and industrial sites.

All of these systems lack the capabilities needed to demonstrate large-scale transportation services,

such as the flexibility to operate offline on adjacent streets and roads without costly centenary and traction power systems. An electric trolley bus could be powered by a traction power/overhead wire system and equipped with the battery systems found on today’s hybrid buses. This modernized configuration would have the capability to operate continuously despite a vehicle breakdown under the catenary and with route extensions beyond the power lines. There would be no local emissions and no use of foreign oil.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA RESEARCH GOALS and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Three of the five FTA Strategic Research Goals are addressed by the problem statement (in order): 2. Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies 4. Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Independence The TCRP Strategic Priorities are enhanced: II. Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advance Society ` VIII. RELATED RESEARCH I have been unable to identify any recent research on electric trolley bus technology or service. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

John G. Bell FTA Program Management 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Suite E46-330 Washington, DC 20590 Phone 202 366-4977

Tony Zakel FTA Program Management 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Suite E46-332 Washington, DC 20590 Fax 202 366-7951

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT The project was developed by John Bell and discussed with Tony Zakel and the TRB Light Rail

Committee, Electric Trolley Bus Sub-Committee (AP065). XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted on June 16, 2008 by: John G. Bell, Anthony Zakel

09-D-01

Cooperative Research Program Transportation Research Board, National Research Council

Transit Cooperative Research Program

Research Problem Statement Problem Title: Reducing Flangeway Gaps at Railroad Crossings to Better Accommodate Pedestrians Problem Statement: The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) require that gaps in pedestrian paths (sidewalks and crosswalks) not exceed 1/2 inch. The Draft Guidelines for Accessible Rights of Way (June 17, 2002) allow pedestrian paths crossing railroads at grade to have a 2-1/2 inch gap on the inside of the rail for the railroad car’s wheel flanges (3 inches are allowed for tracks carrying freight). The Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended that this exception expire since these larger gaps can trap wheelchair wheels (manual and motorized, motorized mobility scooter wheels, other mobility aids (i.e. a walker, a cane, crutches or braces) and in some cases, the feet of pedestrians. That committee recognized, however, that no technology exists to reduce the gap without increasing the likelihood of train derailment. Flangeway fillers that are currently available do not hold up to the weights and speeds of travel common on freight systems. That committee stressed the need for research to find a solution to this problem. This problem exists for both heavy and light rail. However the problem is more critical at heavy rail crossings, particularly where there is freight train traffic. As an increasing amount of light rail installations interface with current street infrastructure more pedestrians, particularly those using mobility aids, will be affected by this issue. Many heavy and light rail commuter stations have access to the platforms, which cross the tracks. Finally, communities are installing paved, pedestrian paths that cross railroads separately from roadways and sidewalks. Literature Search Summary: Despite the mention in DOT reports as early as 1980, no research related to this matter since that time is known to exist. Limited commercial entities have developed flangeway fillers but these technologies have not received extensive objective evaluation. There is significant anecdotal information on the limited success of existing technologies. Studies are needed to evaluate the success of light rail treatments and to research and develop solutions for heavy rail crossings. Research Objective: The objective of this research is to develop promising designs for a flangeway gap that meet ADAAG requirements for pedestrian path gaps and do not endanger trains. Successful designs will be rigorously field tested in a subsequent effort.

Task 1. Search existing documents and resources, including existing or recent installations or concepts. While it is believed that no successful installations exist except in very low speed, low rail-traffic situations, there is always the possibility that this belief is not correct. In cases where flangeway fillers have been installed but have failed, the failure mode should be described.

2

Task 2. Test flangeway fillers or other concepts to scientifically document the reasons for failure with the goal of seeing how the designs could be changed to allow them to be successful. This research could also develop parameters for successful performance. Task 3. As designs are developed, evaluate them for two basic safety criteria. First, providing for the safe passage of trains without derailment under actual conditions of service, including climate, weather, and grade crossing environment conditions such as dirt, debris, and casual vandalism. Second, but equally important, is to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians, particularly those using mobility aids, under these same conditions. For flangeway fillers, this second criteria means that after the passage of a train they will reliably return to a position that provides a safe crossing for pedestrians and mobility aid users that have, through previous use of that crossing, come to expect that flangeway gaps at that crossing will not be present. Task 4: Complete a final report recommending one or more solutions. The final report would be expected to address estimated costs to construct and install each of the solutions. It could also contain a plan for implementation over a given period.

Estimate Funding And Research Period:

Total Funds Requested: $400,000 Research Period: 30 months

Urgency, Payoff Potential, And Implementation: Very High to Meet ADA Requirements The number of crosswalks and sidewalks crossing railroad tracks is not known but is considerable, particularly in areas with light rail transit. The U.S. Access Board has resisted pressure to terminate the exemption for railroad tracks but this may change. If successful, the research will increase the safety and efficiency of pedestrians using wheelchairs who cross railroad tracks, while not substantially impeding the public safety benefits derived from the use of rail facilities by passengers and freight instead of alternative, less-safe, modes. Submitted By: TRB Committee AHB60 – Highway-Rail Grade Crossing AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation Sponsor and Supporter of the Problem Statement: TRB Committee ABE60 – Accessible Transportation and Mobility Person(S) Developing The Problem April 2008 Paul Worley North Carolina DOT William Browder American Association of Railroads Richard Raub Raub Associates, Portland 9/22/2008

09-D-02 National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council

Submission of Research Problem Statement

I. PROBLEM NUMBER To Be Assigned by TRB II. PROBLEM TITLE Bicycles Negotiating Flangeway Gaps at Skewed Highway-Rail Grade Crossings III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT As a reference, the Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) require that gaps in pedestrian paths (sidewalks and crosswalks) not exceed 1/2 inch. The Draft Guidelines for Accessible Rights of Way (June 17, 2002) contain an exception allowing pedestrian paths crossing railroads at grade to have a 2-1/2 inch gap on the inside of the rail to accommodate railroad car wheel flanges. This particular gap is generally referred to as a “flangeway gap” so it is clearly defined as a railroad industry term. The Guidelines also allow a 3 inch flangeway gap if freight trains operate over the grade crossing. PROBLEM STATEMENT SUMMARY The 2-1/2” or 3” flangeway gaps at grade crossings are required for safe operation of the railroad equipment, however they pose special problems to bicycles if the roadway crosses the track at an extreme or “skewed” angle. In this situation, the front bicycle wheel can drop into the flangeway causing the bicycle wheel to abruptly turn, resulting in the bicyclist losing control and/or falling. While studying the similar dangers that flangeways pose to wheelchairs, the ADA’s Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended that this exception expire. However, more bicycles than wheelchairs generally transverse skewed crossings so the problem is more common to bicyclists. The Advisory Committee recognized that there was no presently available technology or product capable of reducing or minimizing the gap danger to wheelchairs and bicycles that can withstand normal operating wear and tear of a railroad environment, particularly due to physical damage sustained from wheel flange contact and wear at passenger train speeds. Some product designs involving rigid guards or similar means could pose a significant derailment hazard if they failed under service. Other products such as pour-in or strip application of flange way or “gap” fillers are incapable of withstanding the weight and speed of railroad wheels common on passenger and freight rail systems. The Advisory Committee stressed the need for further research to find a workable solution to this

2

important problem. A TRB committee on grade crossings has recommended research be conducted on this problem, however to date, no known research has been conducted and the problem is continuing. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY Although several Federal and State Agencies and industry organizations have historically discussed this issue and offered significant concerns, there is no known technical or authoritative research related specifically to addressing the problem of bicycles negotiating flangeway gaps at skewed highway-rail grade crossings. IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The objective of this Problem Statement research request is to identify possible innovative new product designs for railroad flangeway gap materials that both meet ADAAG safety requirements for pedestrian pathway gaps, are economical and easily installed, are maintainable in an operating railroad or rail transit environment, and pose no danger to trains in the event of product failure. Any proposed flangeway gap filler design must be exhaustively field tested to ensure it meets all of the above criteria prior to industry acceptance. Research Problem Task 1: Perform a search of all known documents that exist regarding grade crossing flangeway filler design and materials involving existing and recent grade crossing installations. While it is believed that no successful installations exist with a suitable flangeway filler other than in very low speed, low rail-traffic locations, some material or engineering design could be adapted to adequately address all engineering, maintenance, and safety concerns. In cases where existing flangeway filler product designs have been installed but have failed through usage, the specific product and failure mode should be researched and described. Research Problem Task 2: Test flangeway fillers or other concepts to document and confirm the reasons for failure with the immediate goal of possibly improving the existing product or design to meet the industry needs for a flangeway filler capable of existing with minimal wear in an environment where passenger and freight trains are common. This research would then be used to develop operating characteristics for a flangeway performance specification that would be introduced to the industry for comments, preliminary material and installation method testing, etc. Research Problem Task 3: As each alternative product design is developed, it must be evaluated for the ability to safely allow the passage of trains without derailment under actual conditions of service, including climate, weather (snow/ice), and other grade crossing environmental conditions such as sand, road salts, oils, rain, dirt, roadway debris, wear, and vandalism. In addition, each alternative product design must provide a safe crossing for bicycle users at skewed crossings under similar conditions. For “pour in” or “lay in” flangeway

3

filler products, this second criteria means that upon the passage of a train, the flange way filler product must reliably deflect and return to a condition that provides a safe crossing for bicycle users. Research Problem Task 4: In the absence of a suitable product to fill the flangeway, inventory and evaluate alternative design treatments for use at highly skewed crossings such as signage, pavement markings, “jug handles” and other options. V. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Estimated Total Funds Required: $250,000 Research Period: 12 months VI. URGENCY, RESEARCH PAYOFF POTENTIAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The actual numbers of crosswalks, sidewalks, and bicyclists crossing railroad grade crossings in the U.S. are presently not being tracked, but they are known to be considerable, particularly in areas with passenger / commuter / light rail trains operating in conjunction with freight rail trains. The U.S. Access Board has considered terminating the ADAAG Guideline exemption pertaining to railroad track flangeway gaps, however this was deemed impractical at present due to the critical need to maintain safe passenger and freight railroad operations. It is therefore recommended that the worsening problem of bicycles negotiating flangeway gaps at skewed highway-rail grade crossings be properly researched to improve safety at highway-grade crossings, pedestrian walkways If selected, the research problem solution will significantly increase the safety and efficiency of bicyclists crossing railroad tracks, while at the same time providing a safe operating environment for both passenger and freight railroad equipment. It will also reduce accidents and claims resulting from them. VII. INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT Alex P. Goff, PMP, Director- Rail Systems Engineering, URS Corporation, Program Manager – Systems, MBTA Greenbush Commuter Rail Line Project. (Member – APTA Rail Grade Crossing Sub-Committee; Vice-Chairman AREMA Rail Transit Committee, TRB Member) VIII. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT Problem Statement developed by A.P. Goff, based upon actual project experience in Massachusetts on the recently completed MBTA Greenbush Commuter Rail Project. Includes technical discussions with Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Federal Railroad Administration, Association of American Railroads, and APTA Rail Grade Crossing Sub-Committee. IX. SUBMITTED ON March 31, 2008 BY Alex P. Goff, PMP Cell Phone 860-841-4633, Email: al.goff@wgint.com

09-D-03

TCRP Problem Statement

I. Problem Title Design Guidelines for Bus Stops in Shopping Centers II. Research Problem Statement

In preparing land use ordinances for Pennsylvania municipalities, there has been an increased interest in “bus stops” in shopping centers. This would include “big box” developments, strip developments, and malls. The primary issues would include:

• Basic bus stop design • Location of bus stops in relationship to the location of retail stores and parking

areas • Number and size of bus stops needed? Relating the need for bus stops relative to

the size of retail stores (in square feet). III. Objective

Provide clear, concise guidelines for inclusion in municipal land development standards of when bus stops are needed, and where they should be located.

IV. Research Proposed

This should encompass two elements. First is bus stop design that is climate-related. The second is a brief review of existing bus stops in shopping centers. What works? This should include physical design of the bus stop; its location relative to retail stores, internal traffic and parking areas; size, based upon expected use; and when bus stops should be required, based upon expected usage.

V. Estimate of the Problem Funding and Research Period Budget: Estimated less than $150,000 (one professional staff year) VI. Urgency and Payoff Potential

From our research, we have found no data, guidance, etc. on this topic. It would be helpful to local municipalities in fashioning intelligent land use standards and should prove helpful to local transit operations to increase safe connections to attractive trip ends.

2

VII. Relationship to FTA Strategic Goals and Policy Initiatives and TCRP Strategic

Priorities

This research most closely fits Goal 1—increasing ridership—by increasing stops in attractive trip ends; and (2) improving capital efficiency. Bus stops could be required of the developer eliminating that capital cost to the transit operator.

VIII. Related Research

Could not find any

IX. Person(s) Developing the Problem Tom Graney, President GCCA* 224 North Broad Street Grove City, PA 16127 *A small planning consulting firm X. Process Used to Develop Problem Statement

Developer writes local development ordinance and was frustrated by a lack of usable information.

XI. Date and Submitted By

Date: May 20, 2008 Tom Graney, President

GCCA 224 North Broad Street Grove City, PA 16127

09-D-04

Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board, National Research Council

Transit Cooperative Research Program

Research Problem Statement Problem Title: At-Grade Railroad Warning Devices for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Problem Statement: There are a growing number of rail related deaths to pedestrians and bicyclists in this country. With the nation walking, jogging, and biking at a growing rate, the need to find and define a better and wider range of pedestrian warning devices is required. Where the need is especially important is for light-rail and heavy rail, especially commuter service, in Federal Railroad Administration “quiet zones.” Devices such as bells, flashers, gates, and back gates have been deployed to warn pedestrians. With lights or bells, an otherwise preoccupied pedestrian, e.g. on a cell phone or listening to an iPod®, can miss these signals. Persons walk around pedestrian or back gates thinking that they can safely cross in front of the approaching train. The results generally is fatal. Tests done many years ago by railroads indicated that the use of the train horn and bell was one of, if not the best form of, warning pedestrians. However, where the crossings are “quiet,” the train horn may not be sounded such that the pedestrian has sufficient time to react. There is an increasing movement within this country to establish “quiet zone” crossings. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has joined many local communities and agencies to assist them in mitigating the use of horns at public grade crossings. This assistance has led to many improvements to crossings that may not have qualified for federal funding under the section 250 funding. To this degree, the FRA has been instrumental in bringing improvements to grade crossings that otherwise would have had to wait years. At the same time, little is done to ensure that pedestrian traffic is also mitigated when a “quiet zone” crossing or corridor is implemented. In fact, FRA calculator does not account for pedestrians in quiet zones. This is understandable since warning devices and the need thereof has been tailored toward the automobiles. Many organizations both national and federal have established and standardize warning devices for automobiles. Rail properties across the US use these standards as the basis for their own installations to meet the spirit and requirements set forth by these organizations. However, to date almost all have shied away from defining or establishing requirements for pedestrian-based crossings or crossings that have a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. As a result, such traffic is not taken into account when planning and establishing required warning devices for “at-grade” crossings. Literature Search Summary: While Federal reports show pedestrian fatalities at grade crossing, limited research is available on this subject.

2

Research Objectives: Develop and test methods that will help identify the proximity of a train both audibly and visually, and mechanisms that help prevent pedestrian from entering occupied tracks. Recommended tasks for this project will be: Task 1 – Synthesis of Pedestrian-Bicycle Warning Systems This task will identify: a) current U.S. and international practices involving pedestrian treatments at “at-grade” crossings, b) known manufacturers of warning devices, especially those tailored to pedestrians, regardless of whether these devices have ever been deployed at “at-grade rail crossings, c) research and evaluation related to warning pedestrians and bicyclists of approaching trains. Task 2 – Identify Designs and Prospective Devices From the work completed in Task 1, identify a set of most promising devices for testing regardless of the status of current use. Task 3 – Develop Testing Protocol A. Solicit rail, federal, state, or commuter agencies for participation in bad provision of sites to test and evaluate the proposed devices. B. Working with the appropriate agencies and TCRP panel, select up to 4 of the most promising designs for testing. Task 4 – Develop Baseline Develop a baseline of the proposed location (s) using video monitoring during train events. The proposed crossings should be studied for a three month period when during times of the year when the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is known to be at its peak. Task 5 – Test Designs Install up to four prototype devices at known high traffic pedestrians crossings. The installation should be readies to be in place at/during the same season of the year that Task 4 was performed. The installation should be completed by railroad personnel, highly trained in rail warning devices. This is especially true to the fact that prototyping usually requires little tweaks that only maintenance personnel can perform in accordance with the CFR 49 Part 234. Part of the test will be to use installed video equipment installed to monitor the installation for approximately the same period of time (minimum of three months) as Task 4 evaluation to determine the effects of the prototype warning devices. Task 6 - Final Report Upon the completion of Task 5, compare the results between Task 4 and 5 to make determinations as to the effects of the different devices installed. In addition to the video monitoring, conduct meetings with stake holders to determine their thoughts and observations during the demonstration period.

3

Estimate of Funding and Research Period: The estimated funding for this project is $500,000 to complete the tasks noted above. The research project will require at least 24 months to complete. Urgency/Payoff: High Because of increasing number of pedestrian-train interactions, any reduction of pedestrians placing themselves in dangerous positions when a train is approaching an at-grade crossing will be cost effective. Committee Developing the Problem: Transportation Research Board Committee AHB60, Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Committee Date and Person Developing the Problem: May 2008 Terry Byrne Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.(VBH) 9/22/2008

09-D-07

OUTLINE FOR TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENTS

I. PROBLEM TITLE Update of TCRP Report 57, Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

TCRP Report 57, Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit provides guidelines and descriptions for the design of various types of light rail transit track. The track structure types covered include ballasted, direct fixation (“ballastless”), and embedded track. The components of the various track types are discussed in detail. The guidelines consider the characteristics and interfaces of vehicle wheels and rail, track and wheel gauges, rail sections, alignments, speeds, and track moduli. The handbook includes chapters on vehicles, alignment, track structures, track components, special trackwork, aerial structure/bridges, corrosion control, noise and vibration, signals, and traction power. These chapters provide insight into considerations that affect track design and require interface coordination. Since its original publication in 2000, this handbook has been extensively used in the design of light rail transit track systems and is now being used as the basis for the development of AREMA/APTA light rail track design standards. However, there is a need for portions of the handbook to be updated based on advancements that have taken place since 2000 before the material can be adopted as AREMA/APTA standards. Information on several additional subjects not fully covered in the original handbook (e.g., stray current, restraining rail issues, ride quality standards and measuring methods) also need to be addressed in more detail in an updated handbook.

III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research would be to update TCRP Report 57, Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit

for use in the development of AREMA/APTA light rail track design standards. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED

This research will review each section of existing Report 57, identify those sections that are in need of revision, and prepare and execute research plans necessary to update each section. The research will also identify additional sections that need to be added and will provide the necessary material for those sections. Finally, information will be provided that weighs the cost-effectiveness, maintenance requirements, and constructability tradeoffs of the various types of track for use by track designers.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $500,000 Research Period: 18 months VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL

Transit agencies frequently build new light rail transit (LRT) systems, procure light rail vehicles (LRVs), and undertake track improvements to existing systems to increase operating speeds, enhance service and expand ridership. This research will provide needed technical input into the newly initiated AREMA/APTA light rail track design standards process. These standards will assist in minimizing capital and maintenance costs associated with such efforts.

2

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This project is consistent with the following FTA Strategic Goals and TCRP Strategic Priorities: FTA Strategic Goal (2): Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies FTA Strategic Goal (3): Improving Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness TCRP Strategic Goal II: Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advanced Society TCRP Strategic Goal III: Continuously Improve Public Transportation VIII. RELATED RESEARCH TCRP Project D-7, Joint Track-Related Research With the Association of American Railroads/Transportation

Technology Center, Inc., has produced research that will be helpful in updating several sections of Report 57. this research will be incorporated, as appropriate.

IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Developed by:

Christopher Jenks, Director Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board 500 fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 202/334-3089 202/334-2006 cjenks@nas.edu On behalf of:

Richard Brown, Phoenix Metro, and Chair, APTA Track, Noise & Vibration Technical Forum Bruce Smith, Chair, TRB Rail Transit Systems Committee

Bill Moorhead, TRAMMCO, LLC

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT State whether this problem statement is the product of an individual, a formal committee, or another group. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted by Christopher Jenks, TRB on behalf of: Richard Brown, Phoenix Metro, and Chair, APTA Track, Noise & Vibration Technical Forum Bruce Smith, Chair, TRB Rail Transit Systems Committee Bill Moorhead, TRAMMCO, LLC

09-D-10 TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of

Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

#19.doc 1 of 8 June 15, 2008

I. PROBLEM TITLE Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters I.a. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ride Quality (RQ) is an important component of the rail transit rider’s experience and the acceptability of the rail transit mode for his use. The classic track alignment formulae used to maintain the RQ within acceptable tolerance levels are based on ancient passenger train standards dating to the 1930’s, and are not based on any of the recent research into whole-body response to vibrations and accelerations, as they now are in Europe. This research proposes to determine rail transit comfort and safety limits of RQ in a scientific manner, taking into account time of exposure and short-term phenomena, which are not considered in existing alignment recommended practice. It is anticipated that the proposed RQ research will be able to capitalize on the freight railroads’ extensive research into Performance-based Track Geometry (PBTG), and the coincidental development of excellent portable recording instrument packages which are directly adaptable to this research. Private research, such as Amtrak’s Track Quality Index (TQI) development program, can also be a valuable resource. The beneficial results of this vital research will be threefold:

1. The development of a standardized RQ measuring protocol for rail transit that will assure uniform test quality and comparable results regardless of the location or equipment

2. The definitive determination of the g-forces and vibratory modes that can be experienced in single and multiple planes by both passengers and vehicles for all rail transit modes, in both a safe and comfortable manner, and to publish the results in a respected Manual of Recommended Practice to govern future track alignment designs

3. The establishment of the correlation between track condition degradation and the changes in RQ to be used by operating Agencies to monitor track conditions in a continuous or frequent manner to supplement track geometry data, if available, or to be used as a low-cost, stand-alone track condition monitoring system

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT The track geometry and alignment practices and formulae published in best practices manuals such as the AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering, design guides such as TCRP Report 57, and Agency-formulated track criteria and standards are universally used in the design of the track structures of North American rail transit systems. The reasoning behind using these respected sources is that by following the practices and formulae the tracks will interact with the guided vehicles in a manner that will provide a safe and comfortable ride for the passengers. It is also assumed these same rules and results apply to freight trains. However, as is the case with many individual practices rooted in venerable railroad engineering art, it is not at all certain that the results are as the designers intended, given the difference in vehicle types and ride characteristics, the much sharper curves and often truncated spirals typically used in rail transit. The reason for the evident disconnect between the current track design practices and the desired vehicle ride quality (RQ) is primarily due to a lack of any up-to-date, scientifically established passenger response criteria as it relates to rail transit RQ parameters. In addition, there are no standardized testing and measurement methods and systems to verify those parameters. The need to establish passenger comfort and safety criteria and the ability to use such criteria to verify the correlation between track alignment and geometry features and the vehicles’ intended dynamic responses, and how that relates to passenger comfort and safety, is the basic purpose of this research. The RQ issue has turned out to be a major stumbling block in the joint APTA/AREMA effort to re-write the sections of the AREMA Manual dealing with track geometry and alignment practices, primarily in Chapter 12. It is especially troublesome as it relates to embedded tracks for street-running vehicles, such as streetcars, trolleys, and Light Rail Vehicles (LRV’s), whether shared or segregated trackways, because

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 2 of 8 June 15, 2008

the track designer is not free to choose the ideal alignment from the RQ standpoint. The AREMA Manual has recommended practices appropriate for trains with conventional passenger or freight equipment that generally has relatively modest acceleration and braking characteristics, and is intended to run on tracks with “normal” superelevation and spirals, and reverse curve separation, and generous vertical curve radii and lengths. In street-running, most of these factors are vastly different, including the ability of the vehicles to accelerate and brake rapidly in concert with the prevailing rubber-tired road traffic, and alignment and geometry details that must follow the street surface alignment, not always ideal from a railroad engineering and ride comfort viewpoint. But the same issues of using less than perfect alignments occur in all rail transit modes, because of real estate considerations, existing ROW’s, and cost considerations; street-running has been exemplified here as it is the mode with arguably the least independent control over the design alignment and geometry details. The relationship between track alignment/geometry and vehicle ride quality/safety have the following important connections for all rail transit modes:

• The alignment and geometry parameters, and the maintenance condition of the track fundamentally determine the ride quality and thereby passenger comfort and safety, also controlled by adherence to appropriate civil speeds and proper train handling

• Ride quality and safety are closely related in respect to the possibility of flange climb or overturning derailments, loosely based on the old premise that from a safety standpoint, the maximum safe L/V ratio could exceed the comfortable L/V by roughly 2:1

• Anomalies in the track where there are excessive L/V ratios, possibly coupled with acceleration or braking, often characterized as “jolts”, may cause passenger discomfort, or even injury, when they are at the upper limits and/or of long duration, even though there is no risk to the vehicle

• Not all rail vehicles respond to the track alignment and geometry in the same way; therefore, one vehicle may have a much “rougher” ride over a given stretch of track than another

At present, there are no appropriate and generally accepted passenger ride comfort/safety standards published in an authoritative work in North America that are applicable to any and all rail transit modes. There has been much valuable research done in this area by a number of researchers, however, the results are published as information and have not been incorporated into the industry standards or recommended practices that govern track design. Most of the recent studies and research are related to high-speed passenger rail, not the same issue at hand, here. It is now left to the track designer to make his own decisions regarding non-adherence to AREMA recommended practice and/or Agency criteria when the layout will not allow the track to be actually built to those recommended or prescribed practices and criteria. Interestingly and fortunately, there is great interest in the freight railroad community in exactly the same considerations, driven more by concerns for derailment prevention, but which also is considering potential lading and equipment damage resulting from excessive g-forces experienced during train transits over severe track perturbations, especially combined anomalies. The research project is called “Performance-based Track Geometry” (PBTG) and uses the vehicles’ responses to the track during transit to determine the actual condition the train “sees”, rather than static measurements of the alignment and geometry parameters. This allows the researcher to correlate multiple-occurring track alignment/geometry anomalies and the resulting freight car performance, not possible from track measurements, alone. PBTG is an important new research concept and potential track maintenance tool, and is an ongoing project at this time, and is being developed and considered for use in a related form by some transit Agencies, such as BART, and the new Austin, TX Capital Transit commuter rail Agency. This research leans heavily on earlier work done by AMTRAK, rock and roll rock-off studies, and many others in developing a Track Quality Index (TQI) for essentially this same purpose. In AMTRAK’s case, the TQI addressed passengers comfort as well as safety. As a result of the intense interest in PBTG, and also privately funded research done for a number of rail transit Agencies experiencing RQ or wheel/rail interaction issues, several sources have developed measuring instrumentation packages and analysis software that are adequate to accurately measure vehicle responses to the track, are user-friendly, and can be easily and economically deployed on

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 3 of 8 June 15, 2008

vehicles in the field in short time frames, and are not prohibitive in first-cost. This is extremely fortunate; as such instrumentation is exactly what is needed to facilitate the proposed research. III. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE There are actually three research objectives in our proposal, which are listed in order of occurrence, not in order of importance:

1. Objective 1 is to develop at inception the standard protocol for the use of measuring instrumentation packages and analysis software, so that measurements taken on different properties and in different vehicles are as directly comparable as possible. For instance, measuring at floor level and/or seat-back level, longitudinal and lateral location in the vehicle; speed control – acceleration and braking combined with forces in other directions, etc., all must be decided and codified. It is important that the protocol permits the capture of all the data necessary, and in a repeatable manner

2. Objective 2, which is the most important, is to determine definitively the g-forces and vibratory modes that can be experienced in single and multiple planes by both passengers and vehicles for all rail transit modes, in both a comfortable and safe manner. This research would quantify the comfort and safety limits for, but not limited to:

a) Yaw (lateral acceleration) b) Pitch (vertical acceleration) c) Roll (vehicle body rotation) d) Vehicle body bending modes (2 planes) e) Longitudinal accelerations (traction and braking) f) All above combined in various combinations of force levels and time durations g) Establish exposure time limits for single and various combinations of forces, especially “jolts” h) Determine the comfort and safety results from different seating arrangements and standee

supports i) Determine the mathematical relationship between car body roll and its true effect on Eu

calculations j) Establish an index of how track degradation amplifies the RQ and safety issues k) Correlate vehicle suspension characteristics with the resulting effects on RQ l) Develop recommended practice design guides related to track design, maintenance, and

vehicle handling criteria, and possibly vehicle design criteria, where appropriate

3. Objective 3 is to establish the correlation between track condition degradation and the changes in RQ to be used by operating Agencies to monitor track conditions in a continuous or frequent manner to supplement track geometry data, if available, or to be used as a stand-alone track condition monitoring system for Agencies too small to have full-blown in-house track geometry measuring capability. Present reliance on visual track inspections is not likely to find track anomalies until they are gross defects, and it is well-known that it makes economic and practical sense to address track defects as early as possible in their occurrence when the correction is easier and less costly.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED We are envisioning the main research effort is to determine the acceleration limits in intensity and exposure time in all planes, separate and combined, that are acceptable to passengers, both seated and standing, from a ride comfort standpoint and are acceptable as well from a safety standpoint. Also, determine if trip time has a significant effect on the acceptability limits of RQ. It is especially important to determine the time exposure limits associated with high-g jolts, as most studies of human response to potentially uncomfortable stimuli find that exposure time is an important predictor of acceptability vs non-acceptability. To do this, it will be necessary to develop a Ride Quality Index (RQI) based on on-board

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 4 of 8 June 15, 2008

testing on existing rail transit systems and quite likely in a captive environment, as well, such as a test track suited for the purpose, with human subject volunteers and/or paid subjects. The results of this human response testing will facilitate the creation of a Track Quality Index/Vehicle Interaction Index (TQI/VII) that is directly correlated with vehicle and passenger responses, and shows the values of all interacting factors of alignment, geometry, and train handling that must be controlled to keep the combined parameters within appropriate limits to assure safe and comfortable operations of all transit modes, as noted above in III. 2., with the necessary prior accomplishment of III. 1. to facilitate the field and lab measuring necessary for this project. Item III. 3. will be done cooperatively at a later time by operating Agencies with help from the researchers who perform this work on a site- and vehicle-specific basis. It may be found in this effort that there are general rules that transcend site and vehicle specifics that will provide a simplified application of the RQ data to many Agencies without extensive baseline testing. The measurement protocol developed in III. 1. should be available to participating Agencies so they may do in-house measuring that adheres to the established standards. The three research objectives can be accomplished through the following suggested phases: Phase 1:

1. A literature search of prior research work or currently under way, especially private studies carried out in North America and in Europe, which could be pertinent, and can possibly be incorporated into this research, especially the potentially synergistic relationship between the needs of this research and the Performance-based Track Geometry project, which is well along; combine the efforts of this research and PBTG, where it is practical.

2. A study of present practices on a significant number of operating Agencies, both North American and European, stressing those that operate similar vehicles on similar tracks, comparing their track design and maintenance criteria, vehicles and operating rules

3. Reviewing the commercially available multiple-axis acceleration and recording systems; developing the optimal system with a vendor or in-house by the researcher, or a combination of both; again, piggybacking onto the ongoing PBTG project

4. Perform sample field-testing on three or more transit systems to generate baseline data, which will include monitoring passenger responses correlated to the accelerations experienced, including after-ride interviews and TV monitoring during the ride; this may be done with measuring equipment that may be less than optimal, but is adequate to obtain quality data

5. Publication of Phase 1 Report describing the methods and results of these activities. Phase 2: If the results in Phase 1 indicate that the collection of this RQ data is conducive to reaching the research objectives in III. 2. & III. 3., design a testing program for various rail transit modes, with the idea that the Agencies will bear part or all of the field-testing cost; the data analysis and rendering to be paid for, at least partially, by this project.

1. Develop a list of candidate Agencies; approach them with a testing and cost proposal 2. Perform vehicle and track testing as described on as many cooperating Agencies and vehicle and

track types as possible, depending on budget and Agency participation regarding costs, using refined passenger response data collection methods gained from the experience in Phase 1 (it probably will be necessary to use the services of skilled human response psychologists and volunteer or paid subjects to make sure the passenger responses to RQ variables are evaluated correctly)

3. Publish the Phase 2 Report, comparing the passenger responses to dynamic forces and time of exposure and the track and vehicle interaction results (TQI/VII) and the implications of this information as regards track and vehicle design criteria and recommended practices; this information is to be shared with the APTA and AREMA parties responsible for drafting

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 5 of 8 June 15, 2008

recommended practices for the AREMA Manual, and any other authoritative industry standard, and including the FTA and NTSB for safety criteria review.

Phase 3: If the verification test results in Phase 2 are positive, then Phase 3 will be implemented, predicated on additional transit Agencies volunteering to do the testing and data analysis primarily at their expense.

1. If the benefits are substantial on an improved maintenance performance and cost/benefit basis, then have other Agencies volunteer to perform similar tests at their expense, with the researcher to correlate the results into usable industry norms, methods and recommended practices

2. Publish the Phase 3 Report, and provide all the research results to the aforementioned organizations empowered to draft the information into a form suitable for inclusion in a Manual of “best & recommended practices” used universally by the rail transit industry and, where appropriate, to be incorporated into APTA Rail Transit Safety Standards.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: The research is envisioned as being in three (3) Phases so that positive results in a Phase will result in activating further research in the next Phase; negative results will result in research termination at the end of the Phase in question or a modification to the project scope. The Phases, as listed above, are estimated to require the time and funding as listed below: Phase 1 Phase 1 is estimated to require funding in the $70,000 to $85,000 range. It is anticipated that the literature search, integration of this research and PBTG combined with developing the measuring protocol, Agency practices profiling and computer modeling can be done simultaneously. Phase 2 Phase 2 will require funding in the $155,000 to $175,000 range, based on the facilities and vehicles being Agency furnished, operated and maintained at no cost to TCRP, and that the Agencies will defray some of the out-of-pocket testing costs, and the human subjects are volunteers. The research effort will require the installation and monitoring of the instrumentation required, but may not require a full-time presence at the test sites, depending on the data collection and storage or transmission capability of the measuring system package. The analysis of the data and development of recommended practices will be fully funded by this research project, except for parts that may be applicable to Phase 3. Phase 3 Phase 3 is estimated to require funding in the $30,000 to $45,000 range, depending on how many Agencies volunteer for the test program and support it financially, and how closely the researchers have to monitor their activities and progress. Total Funding Required: Based on the premise that the research is promising and that all three Phases are implemented, the total funding requirement will be in the $255,000 to $305,000 range. Research Period: In each Phase listed, time is allowed for drafting the Final Report. We estimate that the Phase 1 literature search, integration with PBTG research, developing the measuring protocol, profiling of current practices, demo field testing and computer modeling will take six(6) to eight (8) months. The Phase 2 field testing and verification will take from ten (10) months to

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 6 of 8 June 15, 2008

sixteen (16) months; however, a full-time researcher’s presence is not required. The researcher(s) will make periodic visits to monitor the instrumentation and make wear and noise/vibration measurements, probably at about two (2) week to one (1) month intervals after installation of the test equipment. The Phase 2 report can possibly take up to four (4) months to complete, as there is a great deal of data to analyze. Phase 3 will probably extend over at least one (1) year, perhaps more, depending on the number of volunteer Agencies, and how extensive research support is required for their testing and application analysis. The most feasible arrangement would be for the research team to instruct Agency maintenance engineering and/or vehicle engineering personnel in the proper way to use the measuring system and to save the data; it may be possible for the Agencies to employ appropriate software in-house to analyze the data and to establish useful correlations between RQ data and maintenance needs applicable to their property. In some cases, the Agency may wish to own the testing equipment for continued testing, as is currently planned by the Austin, TX commuter rail Agency. The total Research Period is estimated to extend over approximately 2½ to 3 years. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL The urgency of the proposed RQ and TQI/VII development research program is driven by seven (7) considerations:

1. the potential safety issues involved; as we don’t presently know the actual safety margin inherent in track design and maintenance criteria as they are currently applied

2. the ride quality and possible passenger injury associated with sudden lateral accelerations possibly coupled with accelerations in other planes, especially longitudinal, are a possible significant risk factor that is not analyzed properly at present

3. the possible reduction in timetable times without adversely affecting passenger comfort or safety 4. the possible reduction in rail and vehicle/wheel wear, resulting from improved track alignment and

geometry design and better maintenance practices to reduce degradation 5. reduced life-cycle costs and maintenance requirements by addressing maintenance needs before

the catastrophe phase 6. improved vehicle suspension design and improved tracking; lower vehicle maintenance 7. Having happier, more comfortable passengers

No impediments to applying the results of this research are foreseen, except as it may make obsolete the current track criteria, standard plan books and recommended practices currently in use by many Agencies. New installations should not present any real problems to implementation. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC

PRIORITIES The research is pertinent to at least three FTA Initiatives: (2) Improving Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness - helping transit Agencies increase safety; (3) Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies – limiting the escalation of operating costs, which often cascade over into capital programs; and, (4) Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Interdependence – reducing rolling resistance uses less energy, improving wheel and rail wear and generation of heavy-metal dust/filings reduces environmental pollution, and may also reduce noise and vibration substantially. In these Initiative areas, improved RQl will result in less derailment risk and reduced rail wear would improve operating safety, reduced noise generation, and also reduce life-cycle costs. Reduction of rail wear reduces the frequency of replacement, which not only lowers operating costs, but also reduces the track outages required for rail relay. Track outages open access that can be an opportunity for vandals to enter the property and damage facilities. Regarding the TCRP Strategic Priorities, the research envisioned applies to I. Place the Transit Customer First, as the potentially smoother, quieter, more comfortable ride fits in this category. This is especially

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 7 of 8 June 15, 2008

true for elderly or physically-challenged patrons, who may find being a standee in a “jolting” train is not an option for them, and therefore don’t use public transit. In addition, the reduced track outages for maintenance and less vehicle maintenance result in better adherence to operating schedules and less inconvenience and annoyance to the customers. The research also has implications in III. Continuously Improve Public Transportation, based on the then demonstrated ability to measure track degradation early-on resulting in improvements to safety, operations and customer satisfaction. If the research results in a more comfortable, quieter, lower-maintenance installation, then the research will also satisfy the requirements of V. Revitalize Transit Organizations, by reducing the track and roadway staffing necessary to lubricate, adjust, and maintain the trackage, leading to a “Work Better – Cost Less” result. In addition, the application of advanced technology and methods to improve performance and reduce repetitive maintenance chores will attract higher-caliber, more technically qualified employees, resulting in a safer, better maintained and lower life-cycle cost system. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH The Transportation Test Center, Inc. (TTCI) at Pueblo, Colorado, is currently conducting research on frog guard rails, and under the TCRP D-7 Project, has researched some of the RQ issues, especially in turnouts; that work is now completed and published. Also, TTCI recently completed research and prepared a report on “Wheel Flange Climb Derailment Criteria” which is directly applicable to this proposed research. The aforementioned Performance-based Track Geometry ongoing research being done at TTCI in cooperation with several freight railroads. IX. PERSONS DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

1. Anthony P. Bohara, P.E.

Director Track and Civil Engineering Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 1234 Market St., 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 P: 215-580-8278 F: 215-580-8282 E-mail: abohara@septa.org

2. James T. Nelson, P.E.

Vice President Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. 5776 Broadway Oakland, CA 94618 P: 510-658-6719 F: 510-652-4441 E-mail: jnelson@wiai.com

3. Steven Abramopaulos, P.E. Superintendent of Maintenance Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) 120 Academy St Jersey City, NJ 07302-3110 P: (201) 216-7027 F: (201) 216-6059 E-mail: sabramop@panynj.gov

4. William H. Moorhead Principal TRAMMCO, LLC 1 Eagle Nest Lane Smithfield, VA 23430 P: 757-356-9317 F: 757-356-1317 E-mail: trammco@mindspring.com

TCRP FY09 Problem Statement: Establishing Passenger Acceptance of Rail Transit Ride Quality Parameters

(Continued)

#19.doc 8 of 8 June 15, 2008

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This Problem Statement was developed under the sponsorship of one APTA Technical Forum, one TRB Committee, and one AREMA Technical Committee: 1. APTA Track, Noise and Vibration Technical Forum; Richard A. Brown, Chair 2. TRB Committee AP080; Rail Transit System Design, Bruce R. Smith, Chair 3. AREMA Committee 12 Rail Transit, Keith Powley, Chair XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted: June 15, 2008 (anticipated) Submitted By: Anthony P. Bohara (refer to Section IX, above)

09-D-11 TCRP FY 09 Problem Statement: Guidelines for Developing Performance Based,

Transit Track Safety Criteria I. PROBLEM TITLE

Guidelines for Developing Performance Based, Transit Track Safety Criteria

I.a. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rail transit Agencies often have different vehicles, track gauge, wheel profiles and track geometry standards that make it extremely difficult to write comprehensive track safety criteria that are universally applicable. Both the FRA Track Safety Standards and APTA Rail Transit Task Force-developed “Standards for Inspection and Maintenance of Fixed Structure – Transit Track” must be tailored by each Agency to be practical and suitable. The objective of this research is to create a “how to” guide for developing individualized, system-specific, performance based track safety criteria that are based on passenger vehicle characteristics (such as vehicle size, truck design, wheel profiles, solid axles, and/or independently rotating wheels), transit track geometries and transit track components, taking into account the construction and maintenance tolerances and wear limits of all components involved in the vehicle/track interaction. The proposed research will review the development of the FRA track safety limits, the APTA I&M Standards noted above, AREMA Recommended Practice, and other similar publications and evaluate the applicability of those practices and methodology to the development of transit track safety limits. This information, supported by research in areas not now fully understood and by Performance-based Track Geometry validation, will be used to develop the “how to” computer program that can be used to tailor the safety criteria to the specific vehicle/track interface issues of any Agency. The result will be the enhanced safety inherent in having each Agency’s track safety criteria accurately matched to its particular conditions, and also for the Agency to be fully compliant with any statutory requirements and the FRA or the APTA I&M Standards, whichever is/are applicable.

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT .

The Rail Transit Agencies of North America do not have a unified system of track safety criteria. The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Track Safety Standards were developed for the railroad industry. Although not applicable by statute, these standards are commonly used as a template by many transit agencies and for the minimum track safety standards developed in-house. However, because the Rail Transit industry does not share common equipment or even track gage and wheel profiles as the railroads do, the FRA railroad standards do not address many issues specific to individual Rail Transit properties. In order to provide operational assistance to its members in this area, the American Public Transit Association Rail Transit Task Force (RT-S-FS-008-01) developed, “Standards for Inspection and Maintenance of Fixed Structure – Transit Track”. This standard is an excellent template for Transit Systems and is quite comprehensive in scope, but it is also fairly general in nature as it is intended as a model for all Rail Transit systems. The APTA document is intended as a safety guideline for each transit system to use in developing the Agency's own standards. However, each transit system that adopts standards that differ from the APTA standards must document their changes and provide the engineering basis for those differences. In many cases, the engineering basis for specific standards differences is either lost in antiquity or has been developed empirically over time and lacks adequate theoretical support to comply with the documentation requirements, which causes compliance problems. Because of its comprehensive nature, the above referenced APTA “Standard” does not differentiate among the various track designs, wheel profiles and wheel/rail interfaces nor the associated vehicle dynamics issues that actually exist. Each Transit system is different; not very many systems have the same vehicle, and thus there are many different wheel / rail interfaces throughout North America. The current TCRP Panel D-7 in concert with TTCI recently published guidelines for Transit Flange Wheel Climb. Current research is discovering and documenting how the wheel profile plays a major role in wheel climb accidents. In fact, the choice of wheel flange can significantly increase or decrease the potential for a particular vehicle to derail under otherwise identical conditions. These flange profiles vary substantially among the systems, and need to be taken into account in the development of Agency-specific track safety standards.

TCRP FY 09 Problem Statement: Guidelines for Developing Performance Based, Transit Track Safety Criteria

#20.doc Page 2 of 5 June 15, 2008

From a practical standpoint, the North American Railroad and Transit industries depend on the AREMA Manual of Recommended Practices and the AREMA Portfolio of Trackwork Plans for controlling the design, manufacture and installation of materials used in the construction and maintenance of track, especially for special trackwork. This reliance on the AREMA Manual further complicates the issue, as transit operators have long recognized the potential incompatibility of their transit wheels with the AREMA switch designs and they have developed designs of their own or imported European designs to obtain improved life and ride comfort. This is especially true of Agencies with street-running trackage. The divergence between railroad and transit equipment, the physical layout and track geometry as well as operating conditions negates the possibility that the AREMA Recommended Practices and Plans can be applied uniformly to all Rail Transit systems. This lack of applicability of a widely respected Manual emphasizes the pressing need for a methodology to develop minimum track safety criteria that addresses the track component and vehicle design combinations unique to each system. To summarize, all the Rail Transit agencies have steel wheels, steel rails and other general similarities, but there are significant differences in the designs of their vehicles and track structure systems. The minimum safety standards for each property will necessarily have different details to address the design issues of their specific transit vehicles, track structure and unique track geometries, and their interactions. We believe what is needed is not a “one size fits all” approach to developing Standards, but rather a system of performance based criteria, i.e. a “how to” guide, for developing minimum safety criteria for each rail system that is not regulated by the FRA. This effort is not intended to compete or conflict with the APTA effort, AREMA or the FRA Track Safety Standards. Rather, this effort is to build on APTA, AREMA and FRA in order to create a uniform, practical, and theoretically sound method that enables each Agency to develop or improve its own Transit Track Safety Standards. The improved standards would be compliant with all applicable APTA and industry standards, yet fit the conditions unique to that Agency’s system.

III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to create a “how to” guide for developing individualized, system-specific, performance based track safety criteria that are based on passenger vehicle characteristics (such as vehicle size, truck design, wheel profiles, solid axles, and independently rotating wheels), transit track geometries and transit track components. The research should redevelop, through engineering analysis, the limits to be applied to track gage, check gage, back-to-back gage, track surface, cross level and alignment, and especially the combinations thereof. Vmax limits for maximum vehicle speeds on curves shall also be examined through this research. This research may also discover unrecognized adverse interactions between vehicles and track. The compilation of the research shall be the “how to guidelines” which will incorporate the vehicle characteristics into the development of the guide and to provide the practical and theoretical basis for specific recommendations. The “how to guide” shall establish the formulae and methodology which can be universally applied to produce track safety standards for a specific vehicle or fleet of vehicles, and the track structure systems on which they operate.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED

Phase 1: Review the development of the FRA track safety limits, the APTA Rail Transit Task Force report,

”Standards for the Inspection and Maintenance of Fixed Structures – Transit Track”, AREMA Recommended Practice, and other similar publications and evaluate the applicability of those practices and methodology to the development of transit track safety limits. Summarize the findings to identify where additional investigation, analysis and testing are required in order to develop the guide.

Phase 2: Complete the additional research identified in Phase 1. Develop the “how to” guide based upon the

findings of Phase 1 as well as the additional research. Phase 3: Create computer program or programmed spreadsheet that will allow Transit Properties to input their

specific vehicle and track data that will output recommended track geometry safety limits based upon that found in Phase 1 and 2.

Phase 4: Using the data from Phases 1 through 3, field validate the recommendations from Phase 2 and 3, with

particular emphasis on Direct Fixation and Embedded track forms unique to the transit environment.

TCRP FY 09 Problem Statement: Guidelines for Developing Performance Based, Transit Track Safety Criteria

#20.doc Page 3 of 5 June 15, 2008

Field validations should include track strength measurements. If necessary, update results from Phase 2 and 3.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD

FUNDING: Phase 1: $ 50,000 Phase 2: $120,000 Phase 3: $80,000 Phase 4: $150,000 TOTAL: $400,000 Note: If insufficient funding were available for all phases then the efforts of incremental phases would be

beneficial. RESEARH PERIOD: Phase 1: 3 MONTHS Phase 2: 9 MONTHS Phase 3: 6 MONTHS Phase 3: 12 MONTHS

TOTAL: 30 MONTHS

VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL

The potential payoff is high, particularly for transit systems with non-FRA regulated track. The current research concerning wheel flange climb clearly shows the importance of this single factor on safety and preventing derailments. With the results of this proposed research, the transit agencies will be able to concentrate on their primary tasks of operations and maintenance, rather than .on an effort to justify their existing track standards. This effort is needed as quickly as possible so that transit properties will have a guide for developing their own APTA-compliant standards that builds on the existing APTA I&M Standards as well as the basic FRA Standards and AREMA Recommended Practices that underlie all Safety Standards.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP STRATEGIC

PRIORITIES

This research will help Transit Agencies improve their operations (and possibly increase operating speeds), their inspection programs and maintenance programs to enhance safety and improve reliability thus “Improving Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness,” and indirectly “Increasing Ridership” by virtue of improved comfort levels and better on-time performance. Regarding the TCRP Strategic Priorities, the development of performance based track safety criteria enhances “Place the Customer First,” as the development and implementation of appropriate standards will result in improved service with fewer delays, less noise, and a more comfortable ride. Although infrastructure improvements are not readily visible to the average patron, the resulting improved operations are definitely apparent. Improved track safety standards also mesh with the priorities to “Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advanced Society” and to “Continuously Improve Public Transportation.” Additionally, a uniform method of performance based track safety criteria will enable Transit organizations to develop better track safety

TCRP FY 09 Problem Statement: Guidelines for Developing Performance Based, Transit Track Safety Criteria

#20.doc Page 4 of 5 June 15, 2008

standards, which in-turn will help Transit organizations to “Work Better and Cost Less” while “Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies.”

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH

Other related research was recently completed by TTCI under the TCRP Program: Wheel Flange Climb Safety Criteria, and Transit Switch Design. Both of these efforts produced valuable information that can be used in developing appropriate Safety Criteria using the “how to” guide proposed herein. Refer to following:

• TCRP Report 71, Track-Related Research, Vol. 5: Flange Climb Criteria and Wheel / Rail Profile Management and Maintenance Guidelines for Transit Operations

• TCRP Report 71, Track-Related Research, Vol. 2: Transit Switch Design Analysis (Phase I) APTA and AREMA have very recently entered into a cooperative agreement whereby the future development of infrastructure Recommended Practices relating to rail transit will be within AREMA’s purview, with support from affected APTA groups, Committees and Technical Forums. Conversely, if the new documents are “Criteria” covering rail transit infrastructure or operations, then APTA will develop and disseminate these criteria, with possible formative input from AREMA or individual AREMA members. We do not see that this development between APTA and AREMA will have significant effect on the need for the research advocated and proposed herein.

IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

Anthony P. Bohara Director, Track and Civil Engineering Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Agency (SEPTA) 1234 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Ph: 215-580-8278 Fax: 215-580-8282 Email: abohara@septa.org Michael O Brown Oqhmbho` k Sq̀ bj Dmf hmddq Kaiser Center Building 9th Floor, Room 909 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-464-6505 Fax: 510-464-6818 E-mail: Mbrown1@bart.gov William H Moorhead Principal TRAMMCO LLC P O Box 922 Smithfield, VA 23431-0922 Ph: 757-356-9317 Fax: 757-356-1317 Email: trammco@mindspring.com

TCRP FY 09 Problem Statement: Guidelines for Developing Performance Based, Transit Track Safety Criteria

#20.doc Page 5 of 5 June 15, 2008

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT

This problem statement was developed under recommendation of the following Technical Forum and Committee:

1. TRB Committee AP080, Rail Transit System Design, Bruce R. Smith, Chair 2. APTA Track, Noise and Vibration Technical Forum, Richard A. Brown, Chair.

XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Date Submitted: June 15, 2008 Submitted By: Anthony P. Bohara (see Section IX, above).

09-G-01

PROPOSED TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENT (Revised)

I. PROBLEM TITLE A Guidebook for Guaranteed Maximum Price negotiation for CM-at-Risk Project Delivery Method

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT CM-at-Risk (CMR) is a project delivery method that is gaining acceptance among transit agencies. This is an alternative approach to the traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) delivery method. In CMR, a contractor is selected based on qualifications by the owner in the early stages of project development, usually during early stages of design. The CMR will work as a member of the project development team along with the design consultant and the owner. The CMR’s contribution is in the form of providing constructability feedback and construction know-how to the project team in an effort to achieve a more efficient design. Another service provided by the CMR is to provide realistic cost estimates for project during various phases of design. It is understood that during the design phase the CMR will be hired for constructing the project at a not-to-exceed price, agreed upon by the owner and the CMR. The not-to-exceed price for the construction phase, generally known as the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is negotiated sometime during the design phase. There is no consistent approach in negotiating this price. Some transit agencies negotiate the GMP at the 60% design complete while others negotiate this at an earlier or later date. One of the problems reported by transit and non-transit public agencies using CMR approach is the difficulty involved at arriving at a reasonable GMP in a timely fashion. The length of negotiations culminating in a GMP can adversely affect the project and detract from the strengths of the CMR delivery method. It may cause delay in the project and postpone the date when the owner can obtain a reliable cost estimate and may create an adversarial relationship between the owner and the CMR. Because it is usually difficult for the owner to switch to a DBB approach during a CMR project, any negative feelings between the parties is likely to extend to the construction phase and affect the project success. III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to develop a guidebook to be used by transit agencies for fair and expedient negotiation of the GMP in a CMR project delivery method. The guidebook will also contain several relevant case studies where experience of transit agencies with GMP negotiation is described and analyzed.

2

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED This objective can be achieved by a study of the process of negotiating the GMP as practiced by transit and other public agencies who have used the CMR approach. Furthermore, the experience of the private project owners using the CMR approach needs to be considered carefully. Public agencies’ experience with CMR dates back only about a decade, after federal laws allowed the use of alternative project delivery methods; private owners on the other hand, have been using this approach for a much longer period of time. It is important to examine the motivation of private owners who opted for the CMR approach and see if these were consistent with the public sector motivations. A carefully designed survey may be utilized to collect the necessary information. Based on the results of the survey and the literature search, the factors that can impede the agreement on GMP will be identified. These impediments could be certain features of the project, state and federal regulations (such as requiring all the subcontracts to be advertised and bid, hence requiring complete design packages for subcontracts), the nature of GMP incentives (such as the cost savings bonus which in some cases motivates the CMR to try to negotiate a GMP as high as possible), the way inflation and other uncertainties will be handled in the budget, etc. For each of the impediments identified, possible remedial actions should be envisaged. The type of information that should be provided in the guidebook would include major problem areas in negotiating GMPs given the type of project, timing of the GMP negotiations, responsibilities of the CMR for negotiating the GMP with the owner in a timely fashion, contract clauses that have been effective in resolving some of the identified impediments, and the nature and format of incentive clauses on cost savings. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD The recommended budget for the proposed research is $300,000. The project should take about 15 months to complete plus three months for review and revision of the final draft. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL The proposed research is urgently needed by transit agencies interested in using the CMR project delivery method. Currently there are major difficulties in negotiating CMR projects that add months to project duration and detracts from the strength of the CMR delivery method. One of the first types of information that a transit agency seeks when deciding on CMR is to find out what other agencies have done in this area and what have been their experience. The guidebook would be an effective means to disseminate this information to transit agencies.

3

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES The proposed research clearly responds to the FTA’s second strategic research goal, i.e., Improving Capital and Operating Efficiencies. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH Currently, an ongoing research project sponsored by the TCRP is studying project delivery methods. This research is G-08: “A guidebook for the evaluation of project delivery methods.” IX. PERSON DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Ali Touran, P.E. Associate Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northeastern University 400 SN Boston, MA 02115. Phone: (617) 373-5508 Fax: (617) 373-4419 X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT During work on the TCRP G-08 project, we have encountered this issue in CMR process. So this research idea is an outcome of the research just completed. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY May 27, 2008 Ali Touran

09-G-09

OUTLINE FOR TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENTS

I. PROBLEM TITLE Fuel Purchasing Strategies for Public Transit Agencies II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

Transit agencies in America have experienced an increase in fuel prices of approximately 166% over the past four years. This continued trend is limiting their ability to provide the essential services that are required to serve passengers. Therefore, it is extremely important to develop purchasing strategies that will permit the Agencies to deal effectively with the changes in the fuel market. The increase in fuel prices has affected the way that transit agencies conduct business. This increase has negatively impacted their budget, and limited their resources for expansion. Consequently this has delayed their ability to perform service improvements, and capital improvements. The increase in fuel prices has a direct impact on their fuel budget as well as an indirect impact on the purchase of all petroleum- based products. Additionally, it increases the cost of all purchases that have transportation components associated with them. As a result of the increase in fuel, residents across America are depending more on Public Transportation. This dependency increases the demand for service which creates an increasing need for transit service expansion. As these demands increase the cost of transportation increases and the cost of maintaining an infrastructure increases simultaneously. The ability for a transit agency to increase revenues is limited. A main revenue source is fares and without the ability of expanding services or frequency due to budget constraints, this source is restricted. Other options are to increase fares and reduce service. This is not a positive solution for a market that is demanding an increase of service. Another concern from rising gasoline prices is that there has been a decline by the general population in driving, and thus a decline in fuel purchasing and sales taxes revenues that are per-gallon based and that are dedicated to transit. The end result is that the will be that there will be less revenue for the Transit property, further straining the limited revenues to meet the rise in passenger volume and expectations. Therefore, it is critical for Transit Agencies to implement different strategies such as using future contracts, derivates, swap strategies, spot market, joint purchasing, etc.). Strategies should take into account the size of the agencies and which strategies work best for agencies of different sizes, with different funding sources, and have limitations imposed by federal, state and local governments.

III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to develop and evaluation different fuel purchasing strategies that will

benefit public transportation agencies as fuel prices continue to increase, hindering their ability to perform their basic functions of transporting passengers and inhibiting their ability to expand service in a market that is expanding.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED Provide a statement of the specific research proposed, how it relates to the general problem statement

in Section II and, if possible, the research approach and the tasks envisioned. Through surveys determine the different type of purchasing strategies being used or that could be

used by Transit Agencies to deal with ever increasing costs of purchasing fuel and petroleum-based products.

2

Evaluate the different strategies for Transit Agencies of differing sizes, jurisdictions and with differing revenue sources. Purchasing fuel practice at transit properties across America needs to be reviewed and evaluated.

Provide guidelines that could be used by Transit Agencies to help them determine the best way to

purchase fuel and petroleum-based products. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD This study should take about one year to complete at an estimated cost of $300,000.00. VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL This is an extremely urgent matter as it affects all of the Transit Agencies across North America. As

Transit Agency costs are increasing, of which fuel and associated products is a major component, transit revenues are decreasing. These events are taking place in an environment in which the demand for transit service is increasing. Transit Managers need information on how to purchase fuel and associated products in the most cost-effective manner.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Categorize this problem statement using the FTA strategic initiatives and the TCRP Strategic

Priorities.

“Fuel Purchasing Strategies for Public Transit Agencies”

This problem statement is in accordance with several of the FTA strategic initiatives. The savings that will be generated by the transit agencies will enable them to expand their transit system and therefore increase ridership. This would be accomplished by either adding new service or improving the frequency of current service. Additionally, as passenger continue to demand more public transportation it will protect the environment and promote energy independence by limiting the number of personal vehicles in the street on a daily basis. This can only be accomplished by providing a reliable and dependable system. .

This problem Statement also covers the TCRP Strategic Priorities. As mentioned previously these gains will allow transit agencies to continuously improve public transportation and revitalize several agencies that due to the high price of fuel might be reducing service or going out of business. Therefore, negatively impacting the residents in their communities

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH None apparent. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Provide the specifics (i.e., name, title, address, telephone, and fax numbers) for the person(s) who

developed the problem. Hugh C. Chen, Deputy Director Miami-Dade Transit 701 NW First Court 17th Floor Miami, FL 33136 Voice: 786 469 5434 Fax: 786 469 5584

3

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT Problem statement was developed by Bus Operations staff in informal meetings. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted by Hugh C. Chen, Deputy Director, Miami-Dade Transit on June 13, 2008. . Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks Director Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

09-H-02PROPOSED TCR} PROBLEM SI'ATEMENT - FY 2OO8/09

I. PROBLEM TITLE

Determin¿tion of ltre impact of the significant increase in the price of gasoline on publictransportation ridership.

II. RESEARCH PROBLBM STATEMENT

Now that gasoline pricos have escalated to, and stabilized at, at least th¡ee dollarsper gallon throughourt the nation, it would be helpful to deterrnine rvhat impact tfris majorpnoe increase has had on public transportation ridership. The knowledge would behelpful to enable publio transportation systems to take action now, suoh as buying nervvehicles, and hiring and training additional staff, to belter enable them to acoornmodatothe likely growth in transit ridership in the near-frrture as gasoline prices continue toosoalate.

IIi. OBJECTTVE

Determine the quantitative impact that the sígnificant increase in the price of gasoline has

had on public tansportation ridership in the past three yeaxs.

rv. RBSEARCIIIR9POSEÞ

Conduct a national surrey of the nation's public transit systems to help determinethe impact that the increase in the price of gasoline has had on public trausportationridership, Based on tho rosults of their 6urvey, condLtct more detailed research of selectedpublic transportation systems to better target, arLd refine, this general ridership growthestimate and accurâtely assess the impaot that the inoreases iu gasoline prices ¿lone have

had on prlbliç transportation ridership.

v. EST]MA1E-QF.PROBLEM FI.TNpING ANp RESIIÀRCI{ IEBJOD

A. Recommeudç<L Eu¡¡ling$150,000

B. Rocomrrerid.ed Research PeriodL2-15 Months

VI, URGENC.-Y ANÞ PAYOFF POTENTLq.L

Since it is likeiy that the price of gacoliûÊ will continue to increase in the near-

future, it would be very helpfirl for public transportation systems to know norv r¡,hat the

probable impaot that these future gasoline price changes will havo on future ridership.The knowledgo witl onable these systems to begin obtaining a suffioient numbEr of now

vehicles" and to begin hiring and training additional now staff, so that they car betteraccommodate these additional now ridors,

EØlZØ :gvd SNVI1 DIISNd UNã 9E.ÞZ_ZLL_LIL TZ:ET AØØ7,løE/ÞØ

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FT,{ STRATEGIC COALS ANÞ POLICY INITIATIVESAND.IÇ.RP STRATEGIC PRIOzuTIES

The proposed study is directly related to increasing ridership which is FTA's higheststrategic resoaroh goal. Also it is direotly relatod to fwo of TCRP's rop five strategicpriorities - "placing the customer firsf', and "continuously improving publictransportation."

vrtr. REL.A.TEp RESEAB.CH

Although there have been some recent studres on strategies to increase ridership, none ofthese studies explicitly focused on the impact of higher gasoline prices on publiotransportation ridership.

IX. PBRSON(,S.) DBVELOPING THE PROBLEM

John DockendorfBureau of Publio TransportationPenrrsylvarria Departmerrt of TransportationP.O. Box 3151Hanisburg, PA 17105-3 151

Telephone: {7 17) 787 -1220FAX: (717)7't2-2e8se-nrail: j dockedoíåstatqpaüÊ

X. DATE-A'|\I"D SUBMITTEÞ BY

eØlEØ 39Vd SNV¡I- D]IãNd UNã 9B6Z.ZLL_LIL Ï¿:9T BøØZ/ØE/ÞØ

09-H-10

TCRP Problem Statement I. PROBLEM TITLE

Developing, Implementing and Expanding Urban Transit Districts

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

Problem: The lack of information available to small rural and urban providers to assist transit boards and managers in determining when resources should be devoted to seeking an urban transit district to generate a sustainable funding sources result in many unsuccessful campaigns and wasted scarce resources. Many small urban and rural transit boards and managers are unfamiliar with Urban

Transit Districts, other than knowing this could generate a secure funding source for their

transit operations. Many times they are in a position of competing with local projects such as

school and safety bonds or major community enhancement projects as ballot measures.

This problem not only is a barrier to rural communities sustaining and expanding public

transit for their citizens, but also limits the transit provider’s ability to effectively and

efficiently manage their operations and/or address safety and security situations that come

from being under staffed with aging equipment well past its useful life. By not fully

understanding or having a resource for best practices on urban transit districts, transit

operators are unable to make the persuasive arguments necessary to secure broad community

support. Many rural transit operations are housed within small Councils on Aging or Senior

Centers and find themselves pitted against their own agency or on the “short end” when mill

levy increases are sought. Most Directors believe transit is a drain on resources better spent

on meal programs, ombudsman and in-home services.

Most small urban and rural transit agencies cannot afford to underwrite the cost of an

expensive marketing campaign, which may require several attempts to achieve success. The

volunteer boards do not have the will to pursue something that might become a 10-year or

longer project involving many false starts. The false starts can result in waning community

interest thereby further compounding the obstacles to forming a transit district.

III. OBJECTIVE

2

The objective of the cost and feasibility analysis is to research successful best practices

and provide analytical tools for determining the outcome for success in seeking an urban

transit district. The analysis would also include comparisons and recommendations of the

most cost effective promotional/marketing option(s) to maximize the funding available. It

would be desirable to include materials proven to be unsuccessful and possible explanations

as to why. This would give transit boards and managers the ability to learn from mistakes

made by their peers without the unnecessary expense of repeating those errors.

The analytical tools would provide a comparison of environmental factors present, such

as other competing bonds, mill levies, demographic, population, etc., in communities that

were successful and those that were not..

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED

Task 1. Review current best practices to include successful and unsuccessful public

relation campaigns.

Task 2. Complete an analysis of methodology used to determine boundaries to include

influencing items such as voting districts, demographics, necessary tax base, determining

potential riders, etc.

Task 3. Complete an analysis of legal codes for urban transit districts, designation of

floating levy as opposed to fixed levy and their respective benefits, possibly outlining how

they differ from state to state. Addressing issues of placing a request for a UTD on the same

ballot with the levy request and whether UTD requests have been more successful during

regular election cycles or special cycles (i.e. special school or senior mill levy ballot

measures). It would be desirable to include which groups supported the transit agencies UTD

request.

Task 4. Complete an analysis of feasibility and methodology used to determine the

necessity for expansion of current UTD or creating more than one urban district, served by

one provider as a best practice.

3

Task 5. Compose resource guide that can be distributed to various programs/agencies for

development, implementation and expansion of urban transit districts. The guidebook will

present results from all previous tasks. It will describe the process of designing,

implementing and managing a multi-faceted communication system.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH

PERIOD

Recommended Funding: $250,000

Research Period: 18 to 24 months.

VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL

Many small rural agencies are experiencing significant budget cuts due to state and local

governments attempting to balance their budgets. State DOT’s who once diverted highway

funds to transit are ceasing the practice as construction material costs skyrocket and stall road

improvement projects. Rural transit providers have long had difficulty in raising match for

rolling stock. When coupled with the impact of current fuel prices, raising capital match has

become impossible in many rural areas, as resources need to be diverted to operations.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY

INITIATIVES AND TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This is a “missing” link for transit boards and managers to successfully understand and

analyze the benefits of pursuing an urban transit district. A transit agency who can mount a

successful public relations campaign for the creation of an Urban Transit District in small

urban and rural communities will be able to produce a sustainable service or expanded

service to meet their community’s needs, possibly saving the community from decline as

people move out to larger cities who provide transit service.

Solving the lack of understanding and implementation for the many small providers who

experience this situation could result in:

1. Increased ridership through sustainable or expanded service capabilities.

4

2. Improved capital and operational efficiencies can be achieved through better planning

and capital replacement schedules based on a reliable, sustainable funding source.

3. Protecting the Environment and Promoting Energy Independence: This could be

positively affected by the transit agencies ability to purchase the most energy efficient

vehicles at a much faster rate since they would be able to raise the necessary match

for state capital assistance grant programs, be able to lease newer vehicles or have the

ability purchase vehicles outright as community needs dictate.

The problem also falls under the following TCRP strategic priorities categories

I. Place the Transit Customer First: This could be seen as putting the customer first by

providing a sustainable, reliable transportation system for a community.

II. Enable Transit to Operate in a Technologically Advanced Society: Many rural transit

providers dream about one day having funding to secure the latest technology to support

their rider’s needs, but without a secure funding source it will remain a dream without the

ability to effectively plan for decades.

III. Continuously Improve Public Transportation: Improvements will be found through

transit systems being able to staff at the appropriate levels. Currently many rural transit

agency managers are also dispatchers, drivers, grant writers, HR director, mechanics and

janitorial staff. Having appropriate funding to hire staff will allow the transit manager the

ability to analyze their system, determine unmet needs and develop relations with

coordinating partners in their communities. This will allow for management to become

proactive in regards to service enhancements such as weekend and late night service to

expand the interaction of seniors and disabled individuals in another aspect of their

community. The tertiary improvement will be sufficient staffing to allow for adequate

planning to facilitate maximum, efficient use of all present and future resources.

IV. Flourish in the Multimodal Environment: Adequate funding found in the UTD will

allow transit systems to purchase bike racks, improve passenger stop facilities and

promote other travel modes. The first thing most transit managers cut in a tight funding

environment is the marketing/advertising budget, rarely allowing for the promotion or

education of their community on the benefits of alternative modes. The formation and

5

formulation of the UTD is the foundation of sustainable transportation in any given

geographic area, never more so than in rural areas.

V. Revitalize Transit Organizations: Many small urban and rural systems are currently

facing six figure deficits due to sky rocketing fuel prices, inability to pass mill levy

increases, decreases in state and local governmental funding support. These systems are

looking at decreasing or eliminating service altogether. A sustainable funding source

would revitalize many of these systems and communities.

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH

TCRP R-31 Funding Strategies for Public Transportation

TCRP R-34 Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Rural Public Transportation

TCRP R-122 Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation

IX. PERSON DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM

Lyn Hellegaard, State Coordinator Judy Shostak, Executive Director Montana Transit Association Lake County Council on Aging 2820 S. Higgins Avenue 528 Main Street S.W. Missoula, MT 59801 Ronan, Montana 59864 Phone: (406) 327-8707 (406) 676-2367 Fax: (406) 327-8711 (406) 676-2365 mrtma2@montana.com coa@ronan.net

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT

This problem statement is primarily the work of Lyn Hellegaard, State Coordinator for

the Montana Transit Association and Judy Shostak, Executive Director, Lake County

Council on Aging. It was identified following discussions with Kelly Shawn, Community

Transportation Association of America; Sharna Paddock, BitterRoot Bus and Joanne

Verwolf, Summit Independent Living Center.

XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

June 10, 2008

6

Lyn Hellegaard, State Coordinator Judy Shostak, Executive Director Montana Transit Association Lake County Council on Aging 2820 S. Higgins Avenue 528 Main Street, S.W. Missoula, MT 59801 Ronan, Montana 59864 Phone: (406) 327-8707 (406) 676-2367 Fax: (406) 327-8711 (406) 676-2365 mrtma2@montana.com coa@ronan.net

09-H-12

OUTLINE FOR TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENTS

I. PROBLEM TITLE

Multi-modal highway improvements: Barriers to including transit improvements in on-going highway capital and operations programs

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

For a number of years many State Departments of Transportation have emphasized the need to seek multi-modal solutions to transportation problems. In most cases, this has taken the form of developing and fostering professional expertise in transit and in developing subsidy programs especially for transit services and infrastructure. What has generally not been explored by State DOTs is how their own on-going highway improvement and operations programs can be applied to improve the efficiency and reliability of bus transit services. Accordingly, except when BRT projects are sought, most State DOTs and MPOs continue to promote projects that are modal specific. Highway rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, continue to design for total vehicle flow and ignore improvements to traffic signals and ROW design which can benefit bus transit services that utilize the roads subject to the project..

The purpose of this study is to identify highway design and operations program areas which can be directed to improve bus transit reliability and efficiency with minor changes to current design practices and standards, examine reasons why such practices have not been emphasized in the past, and to develop guidelines for implementing changes to those programs. The ultimate goal of the study is to put forth a methodology which can extend the continuous improvement strategies for highways to the transit services that utilize improved highway segments.

III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to develop a final report which:

1. Identifies on-going highway improvement programs and project types that can be of benefit to bus transit services.

2. Identifies the institutional barriers that may exist to the accommodation of bus transit concerns to these programs/project types in State DOTs, MPOs and transit providers.

3. Provide guidelines for actions to overcome the institutional barriers identified.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED

The research will have four main phases: A literature search; the development of 4-5 case studies; the identification of institutional barriers and the development of strategies to address them; a final report which summarizes the methodology, case studies and presents the research’s findings and suggested strategies. The first phase literature search will focus on two areas: the development of a list of highway improvements which positively impact bus transit reliability and operational

2

efficiency and a search through recent Public Administration literature on processes for implementing policy changes in state agencies, particularly state departments of transportation. It is assume that the first search will focus on recent BRT reports and publications which describe highway ROW and traffic signal improvements needed to implement BRT services. A technical memo summarizing the literature search and presenting significant findings would be the expected product for this phase. The second phase will focus on the development of two technical memos. The first will be recommendations for the 4-5 case studies that will form the backbone of this study. Initial thoughts for the case studies are that they should focus on states where BRT services have either been advanced or are on a clear track for implementation. The focus on BRT projects is encouraged since many of the highway improvements that benefit transit are generally called for in BRT proposals. Accordingly, those states that have had to address BRT projects will have a history of having to deal with design issues that may conflict with existing practices. Accordingly, these states should be a good source of information on problems and possible barriers that may limit the ongoing inclusion of transit oriented highway improvements in their design processes. Other criteria for choosing case studies may include qualitative assessments of whether a State DOT is highly centralized or decentralized as well as the perceived role of the MPO in making highway related project recommendations. The second technical memo for this phase would present the case studies themselves. The case studies would focus on the history of the development of the BRT project(s) and in particular surface internal concerns raised about the BRT related improvements by the State DOT and MPO. The role of the transit operator sponsoring the BRT project would also be detailed and particular attention would focus on how the operator worked to resolve any issues/concerns that were raised by the State DOT and MPO. In addition to the history of the BRT project(s) development, questions would be asked of senior management at the State DOT, MPO and transit operator as to the feasibility of incorporating the need and feasibility of transit oriented highway improvements in the on-going design requirements for traffic signal programs as well as highway rehabilitation and reconstruction design standards. The third phase will focus on the development of a technical memo which uses the information gained from the case study effort to identify the likely institutional barriers to implementing transit oriented highway improvements that are either within or between a State DOT, MPO and transit operator. This memo will also draw on the literature search on organizational change to develop strategies for addressing the barriers. Lastly, a final report which presents the findings of the technical memos will be developed as the final product for the study.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $400,000 Research Period: 24 months VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL With transportation funding sources becoming scarce, this project will identify ways to

continuously improve both transit services and highway conditions. Completion of the project will enable State DOTs, MPOs and transit providers to further maximize the

3

benefits of on-going transportation improvement projects and will greatly foster the further implementation of statewide multi-modal development policies.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This problem statement best conforms to FTA’s Strategic Goal of “Improving Capital and

Operating Efficiencies”, especially “What technical, process and operational advances best contribute to better decision-making and cost-effective management of the planning, design and construction of major transit investments?”

It also conforms to three of TCRP’s Strategic Priorities:

• I. Place the Transit Customer First: especially “The importance of the transit rider as well as the community at large as the customer was a principal outcome of the TCRP Future Search.

• To . IV. Flourish in the Multimodal Environment: especially

“Continuously Improve Public Transportation

• V. Revitalize Transit Organizations: Information technologies, changes in the work force, and new roles and partnerships are revolutionizing the workplace. By reinventing themselves, transit organizations can “Work Better – Cost Less.”

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH None. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Alan M. Warde Policy and Program Division New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, 6th Floor Albany, NY 12232 Phone: 518-457-5121 awarde@dot.state.ny.us X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This problem statement was developed solely by Alan M. Warde. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

Alan M. Warde’s professional career at NYS Department of Transportation has spanned over 29 years. Most of this was spent working on transit related matters with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and various other NYS transit operators. For the last several years, his duties have been expanded to a more statewide transportation focus. Current tasks include the drafting of the department’s proposed five year capital program as well as the development of truck related legislation.

Alan is current a member of TCRP panel G-11 which is advancing a project entitled “A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public

4

Transportation Industry” and is also a member of the panel for NCHRP project 08-62 “Transportation Performance Management Programs – Insight from Practitioners”.

Submit to: Christopher W. Jenks Director Cooperative Research Programs Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 202/334-3089 FAX 202/334-2006

09-H-19

TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENT

I. PROBLEM TITLE

Creating a Mobility/Accessibility Index: Assessing the State of Mobility and Accessibility in Communities

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

Currently, transportation policy and political decision-makers often overlook the lack of transportation mobility options and the state of accessibility to goods and essential services in poorer neighborhoods and communities. Instead they favor addressing more apparent congestion and existing high traffic flow issues within their regions where those issues create very visible traffic, air quality, energy consumption problems. The lack of transportation mobility in low-income areas is not as readily recognized and certainly not as quickly addressed. The lack of mobility and accessibility is an issue that quite frankly doesn’t visibly show up for decision-makers, though they may recognize these areas need other social services, are sources of crime, and lack economic vitality. Public decision-makers and transportation policy groups don’t have readily available tools to assist them at looking how the state of transportation mobility affects these communities. These are transportation problems that simply do not show up on their radar. Instead, transportation and transit decision-makers tend to concentrate on creating infrastructure in areas of existing high demand travel while planners focus on origin and destination studies, travel flow analyses and capital infrastructure to address the existing traffic and transportation problems that are easily seen and measured. How do we assess the accessibility to jobs, goods, and services of a community where incomes are high, the average household owns 3-4 cars and has access to high frequency transit service and express lanes, additionally has available a variety of other transportation options, and has a variety of goods and services are easily reachable, and compare that to the accessibility of a low income neighborhood where car ownership is limited or non-existent, the cars that are available are old and unreliable, and jobs, goods, and services choices are much more remote to the community. In one community transportation movement is high, and in the other, travel may be far less due to lack of meaningful options. Travel demand models perpetuate the problem. The models tell us that people from higher income areas make more daily trips than lower income people, and the policy response to this higher travel demand is greater investment in transportation infrastructure in the higher income communities. Meanwhile, residents of the low-income community expend their entire daily travel time budget on fewer trips by necessity because inferior means of travel and fewer nearby destination options are available to them, and their lower trip generation rate leads to less travel demand and therefore less investment in their transportation infrastructure. Tools are needed that would assist transportation policy makers and funders address these issues and assess the state of mobility and accessibility in the communities and neighborhoods within their region. This would help decision-makers determine where investments are needed to address significant mobility and accessibility deficits and how their investment decisions would improve the state of mobility in their own region. Specifically, what is needed is a readily understandable indicator that will help decision-makers ascertain and easily grasp the state of mobility and accessibility for communities within their region. This index would operate much like economic index indicators that help decision-makers understand the state of economy and financial conditions within their regions.

2

III. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to assess our current approach to measuring the transportation

capabilities of a community and to develop an mobility/accessibility index indicator tool to measure and compare the state of a communities transportation mobility and accessibility to jobs and essential goods and services of communities. This research would give us a clearer picture of where the current state of transportation research lies with assessing community mobility and accessibility. Similar research in other fields like housing might provide a foundation upon which to build a more comprehensive community mobility/accessibility index. Based upon this analysis, the research would move to build a transportation index to measure mobility/accessibility within communities and neighborhood areas.

IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED 1. Assess the state of research for measuring mobility and accessibility in communities.

2. Assess research in other fields like housing and economics that may provide a foundation upon which to build such an index.

3. Prepare a plan to build a mobility/ accessibly index to measure the state of transportation in

communities and neighborhood areas. The index should be simple to understand, though its underlying basis may be computationally complex.

4. Develop the index.

5. Test and evaluate the effectiveness of the index.

6. Form an advisory panel to assist and guide this research.

V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $500,000 Research Period: Research period - 3 years VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL This research will provide tools to assist transportation decision-makers to equitably make

investments to address imbalances in transportation services that may exist in many communities. This research would provide a means to address social and transportation equity issues.

VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA STRATEGIC GOALS and POLICY INITIATIVES and TCRP

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FTA- Goal 2.3 Transit Ridership --Identify solutions to provide public transportation for target

populations; Increase Transit Ridership TCRP Strategic Priorities

TCRP-1 The importance of the transit rider as well as the community at large as the customer was a principal outcome of the TCRP Future Search. The American consumer society is demanding; no industry can prosper that does not place the customer first.

3

VIII. RELATED RESEARCH Not available. A literature search is recommended as Task 1 of the research. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Doug Birnie, United We Ride, 202-366-1666; David Schneider, Program Manager JARC, New

Freedom, Elderly and Disabilities Capital Programs, 202-493-0175; Joe Ossi, Office of Planning and Environment 202-366-1613.

X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT The statement was developed in consultation with the APTA committee on environmental justice. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY

May 30, 2008

09-H-20

OUTLINE FOR TCRP PROBLEM STATEMENTS

I. PROBLEM TITLE Methodology for Comparing the Environmental Benefits of Transit Projects II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT Federal transit law provides that FTA may financially assist a proposed New Starts project only if it is justified based on a comprehensive review of its environmental benefits (among other criteria). To implement this requirement, the transit community needs a methodology that can be uses to assess the environmental benefits of a transit project in a way that facilitates its comparison to other transit projects in other metropolitan areas. While much thought has been given to comparing the environmental benefits of a transit project to the alternative highway project in the same corridor, an approach to comparing the environmental benefits of transit projects in different cities and of different modes, lengths, and costs is not readily available. III. OBJECTIVE Develop a methodology for assessing and comparing the environmental benefits of transit fixed guideway projects that can be applied by project sponsors and FTA. IV. RESEARCH PROPOSED FTA has considered using the forecasted air pollutant emission reductions of the transit project as a measure of environmental benefits, but this approach fails to consider the vastly different health benefits of identical emissions reductions in a populous, highly air-polluted metropolitan area compared to a much less populous area that is in attainment of all EPA air quality standards. Furthermore, Federal transit law envisions a broader definition of the human environment than simply the air we breathe. It states that, in reviewing a project's environmental benefits and the other statutory criteria, FTA must evaluate and consider, among other things: the direct and indirect costs of relevant alternatives; factors such as- (i) congestion relief; (ii) air pollution; (iii) noise pollution; (iv) energy consumption; and (v) all associated ancillary and mitigation costs necessary to carry out each alternative analyzed; reductions in local infrastructure costs and other benefits achieved through compact land use development; and the cost of suburban sprawl. Thus, the methodology developed should take into account a broad range of environmental benefits and disbenefits of a transit project, in addition to air quality, including especially the other resources protected in Federal law, such as parklands, historic sites, wetlands and waters of the United States, endangered species, etc. An approach modeled on FTA's approach to cost-effectiveness would be to develop a highway-only environmental baseline alternative and to compare the relative environmental impacts and benefits of the highway baseline and proposed transit alternatives for each project.

2

However, this approach would be difficult to manage and monitor and prohibitively expensive to implement. The project should develop a methodology for assessing environmental benefits that comports with the following attributes as much as possible: 1. As far as possible, the measures or indicators of environmental benefits should be based on existing data readily available to metropolitan planning organizations, State departments of transportation, transit agencies, and State or regional air quality and environmental agencies. 2. Scaling of the environmental indicators may be necessary to account for the size of the project or investment. A $300-million project can hardly be expected to have the same environmental benefit as a $5-billion project. 3. Simple is better from several perspectives. Public and political understanding and acceptance of the environmental benefits of a project will be greater if the outcome is intuitively correct and somewhat transparent. The environmental benefits of a proposed project may be computed many times during project development as the project changes and gels and information is firmed up as the project advances. Computing a highly complex measure of environmental benefits would become very expensive. 4. Disbenefits may encompass externalities or social costs to the environment not typically included in transit project evaluation. A 40-mile commuter rail project that requires numerous, large park-and-ride lots for access by private automobile may or may not be beneficial to the environment. 5. Short term disbenefits of a project (e.g., the carcinogenic diesel emissions from unregulated construction equipment operating in a dense urban setting) may override the long term benefits (e.g. reduced emissions from autos whose former drivers switch to transit). This TCRP project would: 1) Review previous research on the environmental benefits of transit projects and how such benefits are measured or assessed. 2) Develop a method to evaluate the various environmental benefits and disbenefits of a transit project and to roll up the resulting measures, indicators, or ratings into a single measure, indicator, or rating for comparison to other projects. 3) Develop procedures and technical tools required to implement this methodology for projects across the country. V. ESTIMATE OF THE PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD Recommended Funding: $400,000

3

VI. URGENCY AND PAYOFF POTENTIAL There is a great deal of interest in the transit community and in Congress in crediting transit projects with their environmental benefits within FTA's project evaluations. Having the capability to reliably assess the environmental benefits of transit projects would improve FTA's evaluation and rating process and help decision-makers direct FTA's approximately $1.5 billion annual New Starts funding to the most deserving projects. VII. RELATIONSHIP TO FTA VISION STRATEGIES and TCRP STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This research supports FTA's Strategic Research Goal of protecting the environment and promoting energy independence by helping to direct New Starts funding resources to projects that are have the greatest environmental and energy-savings benefits. This research supports DOT's Strategic Goal of "Environmental Stewardship" by promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the natural and built environment. This research supports TCRP Strategic Priority IV by assisting the transit industry in assessing the impacts of its policy choices, by assisting the transit-planning community with new guidance for assessing the characteristics of complex transit investments, and by providing research findings that inform decision makers. VIII. RELATED RESEARCH TCRP Report 74: "The Costs of Sprawl - 2000" and TCRP Report 20: "Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits" provide relevant background information on this issue. IX. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM Joseph Ossi, Environmental Protection Specialist, TPE-30, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 4th Floor - East Building, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1613. X. PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP PROBLEM STATEMENT This problem statement was developed individually at the request of the FTA Administrator's Office. XI. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY Submitted by Joseph Ossi, Environmental Protection Specialist, TPE-30, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 4th Floor - East Building, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1613.