Transit Coordination in the U.S.: A Survey of Current Practice

Contemporary living often requires transit riders to travel long distances across multiple transit systems. In order to facilitate their seamless travel, the comprehensive planning and operation of transit services within a region is essential. This coordination entails the organization of a cohesive network of transit routes, frequencies, timetables, fares and ticketing, based on a common set of planning, capital investment, and marketing principles. While the important role of coordination is well recognized by both academics and practitioners, the existing literature provides little information on how U.S. transit agencies address this subject. Accordingly, an online nationwide survey of transit agencies is administered to examine the current level and nature of transit service coordination in the U.S. The survey data analysis exhibit different levels of coordination for: (1) fare policy and media, (2) service scheduling, (3) information dissemination, (4) facility/vehicle coordination, and (5) joint agreements between agencies. Collectively, comprehensive coordination between agencies appears to be lacking in many regions, and the level of transit coordination is greater where more agencies operate. In an examination of survey respondents’ comments, we found several hurdles and challenges for implementing transit service coordination, including funding to support such efforts and political commitment from individual local agencies. We argue that for widespread transit coordination to be achieved, it is essential that regional transportation plans propose policies and financial support for ongoing coordination, seeking to incorporate or balance the needs and desires of all parties – including passengers, operators, communities, and society at large.

[1]  J. Pucher,et al.  Verkehrsverbund: the success of regional public transport in Germany, Austria and Switzerland , 1995 .

[2]  Judson J Lawrie,et al.  From Rural Single-County to Multicounty Regional Transit Systems: Benefits of Consolidation , 2003 .

[3]  E. Gilder,et al.  The Authors , 1977 .

[4]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Transport: An Economics and Management Perspective , 2001 .

[5]  Rabi G. Mishalani,et al.  Passenger Wait Time Perceptions at Bus Stops: Empirical Results and Impact on Evaluating Real - Time Bus Arrival Information , 2006 .

[6]  Michael D Meyer,et al.  Collaboration: The Key to Success in Transportation , 2005 .

[7]  James E. Moore,et al.  Integrated Smart-Card Fare System: Results from Field Operational Test , 2000 .

[8]  C. Rivasplata,et al.  Metropolitan Transportation Planning in the 1990s: Comparisons and Contrasts in New Zealand, Chile and California , 2001 .

[9]  C. Rivasplata,et al.  Examination of regional transit service under contracting: A case study in the Greater New Orleans region , 2011 .

[10]  Hiroyuki Iseki,et al.  Are Smart Cards the Smart Way to Go? , 2007 .

[11]  M. Wardman A REVIEW OF BRITISH EVIDENCE ON TIME AND SERVICE QUALITY VALUATIONS , 2001 .

[12]  Peter White,et al.  Public Transport: Its Planning, Management and Operation , 1995 .

[13]  Brian D. Taylor,et al.  Smart Cards, Slow Deployment: Findings from Interviews with U.S. Transit Agencies , 2008 .

[14]  Chris Nash INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT: AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT , 1988 .

[15]  G Stokes,et al.  THE ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE IN IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSPORT , 1994 .

[16]  Karl Kottenhoff,et al.  Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport: effects on customers , 2007 .

[17]  E Henry THE METRO PUT TO THE TEST IN LATIN AMERICA . RAIL MASS SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, LONDON, OCTOBER 9-10, 1989 , 1990 .