Transit Cooperative Research Program International Transit Studies Program, 1996 Missions, Part 2

International Transit Studies Program

Report on 1996 Missions, Part 2

NETHERLANDS

Unique Transit Features

One of the most impressive passenger information systems was found in the Netherlands. The country has completely integrated train, bus, and tram transport systems information on a national level using a technology referred to as "the traveler’s friend" or de reiswizer. The technology is accessible and easy to use.

Riders simply insert a phone card into a machine and choose in which

language they prefer their trip information: Dutch or English. The rider follows a simple set of instructions as they appear on the display (e.g., to enter destination address and arrival time). If the departure point is not from the rider’s current location, he or she can enter a different pick-up point.

Once the information is entered into the computer, the rider will see a display depicting all the details for his or her trip, including the travel mode (train, bus, or tram). The rider can accept or reject the trip option presented. If accepted, the set of instructions appearing on the screen can be printed for the rider to carry. A brochure (in English and Dutch) describing this technology is available at a number of locations throughout the country, including all train stations. A nominal fee is debited from the rider’s phone card each time the trip planner is used.

A rider may also call a nationwide 800 number to obtain trip information from customer service staff who use de reiswizer to provide accurate information to riders who are calling from home and others who do not have direct access to the service.

This type of technology offers incredible convenience to riders. Although cost information was not readily available, any cost-benefit analysis undertaken would need to consider the cost savings in personnel who would normally process automated trip requests and cost savings resulting from the expediency of customer service personnel in handling calls on the nationwide 800 number.

The Netherlands has standardized the national transit fare structure using the Strippenkaarten (see Figure 7). The same ticket can be used anywhere in the country for any given number of zones. Strippenkaart vending machines are located in train stations, bus stations, and shopping districts. To redistribute fare revenue, a national survey is taken periodically to determine the share of revenue a particularly carrier is to receive.

The Netherlands has tied land development into the quality of transit service. In its land use planning processes, the country has codified a clear priority for approving developments with public transit access. The country is divided into three types of zones:

1. Zone Category A: Locations with excellent public transit service
2. Zone Category B: Locations with sufficient public transit services, but that can be reached by automobile
3. Zone Category C: Automobile-oriented locations with virtually no transit

When developers want to build housing or nonresidential projects (i.e., retail, commercial, and industrial), governmental preference in granting approval is given to projects in categories A and B. This is part of the Netherlands national policy on integrating land development with public transportation service and infrastructure development.

Breda

Transit Profile

This border city of 102,000, next to the Belgian frontier, is known as a pleasant residential and light industry area with much cross-border traffic.

The publicly owned BBA is responsible for transit in Breda and regional transit in the province of Brabant, including the midsize city of Den Bosch. The BBA fleet consists of 460 buses; 130 operate in the city, and 330 operate in the region. Daily passenger totals are approximately 160,000.

In addition to fixed-route service, a subsidiary of BBA operates the express "Interliner," a luxurious higher rate regional commuter service, as well as a dial-a-ride service for individuals with disabilities. BBA also works with private taxi firms to provide after-hours door-to-door service.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

In Breda, the BBA bus system is a leader in operating liquified petroleum gas (LPG) buses. LPG is common in Holland. All new BBA buses are LPG powered; by the year 2000, all BBA city buses will burn LPG. Regional buses will still burn diesel fuel. BBA officials report that LPG buses are quieter, cleaner burning, and better smelling and provide improved acceleration. Concern for the environment is part of the BBA mission; however, the LPG focus is also driven by the desire to maintain an edge in the very competitive public transportation business environment in the Netherlands.

Breda transit officials face a dilemma. From an outside perspective, parking prices are high, but still too low relative to transit fares. From a local business perspective, if parking rates are too high, people will do business in towns that compete with Breda.

The transit system runs a "Phone Bus" service, which is operated by taxis under contract with the bus company. The system, which is initiated by riders who call, uses vans to transport riders who do not live on regular bus routes. These vans are less expensive to operate than fixed-route buses in low ridership areas. The system also provides a village bus using volunteer drivers in small villages. This bus is less expensive to operate than the Phone Bus in even lower ridership areas. The village bus does not operate in the same areas as the Phone Bus. The system sells advertising on its buses for revenue, uses propane in some buses, and provides visual and audio stop announcements on the buses.

The transit system has undertaken an aggressive campaign to eliminate graffiti on buses. A specialist was hired to investigate each incident of graffiti. Photographs are taken each time new graffiti is identified. Because vandals repeatedly use most of the graffiti symbols, the specialist can ride the bus and catch the individuals in the act.

Perpetrators are fined and forced to perform community service by cleaning buses. If the individual is a minor, the parents can also be fined. Second offenses are considered criminal in nature. Local lawmakers were very cooperative by passing legislation. Graffiti declined by 60 percent in the first year. This aggressive strategy has also improved the image of the transit system in the community.

Dordrecht

Transit Profile

Situated along the Maas River, Dordrecht has a population of 100,000.

The City Transit Company, which is tied into the regional network, operates a fleet of 45 midsize low-floor buses with a staff of 207. Midsize buses were selected to improve maneuver-ability around the narrow streets of the old town area. Fixed-route services are offered in the urban area, and the city promotes park-and-ride fringe lots outside the historic center to ease traffic congestion. Reduced fares and free transfers among bus lines are offered to drivers who park in the fringe lots.

Dordrecht also operates a complementary commuter and rural district service with low-floor buses that have room for passengers' hand luggage. The bus driver stops in the countryside on demand anywhere along the route, not only at designated stops.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

Although the Netherlands has strong transit laws and policies, many officials agree that the country needs to establish more examples of proactive public transit that is integrated with land use planning and development design. An example of this is a new residential development outside Dordrecht in a semirural area. New bus lanes were built and transit service has been provided into the city since the development opened. The idea was to get new residents into the "transit habit" right awayC before they developed the "automobile habit."

The bicycle and pedestrian culture of the European communities visited was very evident. Biking and walking are major modes of transportation. Some creative solutions in Dordrecht to further reduce private automobile travel include factories that provide bicycles to employees if they live within 3 km of the work site.

Maastricht

Transit Profile

Maastricht, the capital of the Netherlands province of Limburg, has a population of 85,000.

The Maastricht City Bus service, which was privatized in January 1994, is unique in that it offers transborder service between Maastricht in the Netherlands and Hasselt in Belgium. The fleet comprises 63 buses; staff members total 225.

City Bus offers a variety of services, including paratransit and dial-a-ride vans, which used to be offered only to persons with disabilities, but recently have been made available to all residents willing to pay a premium fare for door-to-door service.

The goal of the City Bus system is to fully integrate bus and collective taxi services, which are operated by the same private company. Company officials state that since privatization, cost savings of more than 40 percent have been attained.

Among the Stadtbus marketing initiatives partly responsible for improving financial performance are (1) the weekend "2-for-1" pass, (2) a promotion offered in conjunction with local department stores, (3) job tickets marketed to employers, (4) a tie-in with the cultural center to offer combined tickets and bus passes for each performance, and (5) night taxis for carnival revelers.

City Bus also operates a luxury, high-speed, limited-stop express service for commuters. Because the express bus benefits from intersection priority, the bus gets commuters to their destinations more quickly than a private car does.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

In 1994, Stadtbus Maastricht, a public operator for 75 years, was established as a public corporation, with 100 percent of its shares held by the city of Maastricht. Some had anticipated that Stadtbus Maastricht and the regional operator, also a public corporation whose shares are held by the region, would be the only participants in the demonstration projectC the competitive offering of the regional bus service. However, a new firm, Vancom Netherlands, was awarded the contract for service. Vancom began providing service in June 1995 as a joint venture with Stadtbus Maastricht.

Characteristics of the private-sector contractors include the following:

• Lower labor costs and greater flexibility in labor practices (i.e., mechanics who drive during peak-hour runs and bus operators who get only one relief period in a full shift); and
• Generation of necessary capital and streamlined purchasing procedures.

European Union directives will open competition among providers Europe-wide. Municipal and regional govern-ments are becoming more the procurers of services and less the providers of services.

In Maastricht many routes converge on a segment of the main street between the rail station and downtown. Schedules are coordinated so that frequencies along the "main axis" are comparable to subwaysC every 2 to 3 min.

LESSONS LEARNED

To decrease automobile conges-tion, American cities and transit systems can consider the following actions.

Automobile Restriction

• Use pedestrian zones or automobile-restricted areas in congested areas.
• Enact more stringent local and regional policies that restrict automobile use and increase public transit services, which would make a bus trip more competitive regionwide.
• Establish automobile-free or automobile-limited zones, particularly in local areas with very poor air quality, in conjunction with high-frequency transit service to and from park-and-ride lots.

Integrated Pricing

• Increase parking rates incre-mentally in the short term, but work toward "market-rate" levels in the long term.
• Improve transit service levels in conjunction with raising parking rates, initiating some cross-subsidy funding.
• Establish a system in which the city’s "customers" or "clients" pay reduced short-term parking rates and people who work in the city and others who park for significant lengths of time pay full market rates.

Marketing and Customer Information

• Use automated transit pass dispensers and chip, prepaid, and zone cards to simplify the purchase of monthly transit passes.
• Market transit passes to local universities as part of general student fees. In return, the university can advertise on the fare cards.
• Direct customer service repre-sentatives at transit systems to provide the schedules and telephone numbers of other transportation modes (e.g., Greyhound and other intercity bus lines, Amtrak, airport limousines, and taxis).
• Communicate with representatives from other modes to identify schedule and route adjustments that would enhance service to mutual customers.
• Mail transit schedules to all residents on a frequent basis.
• Communicate on an ongoing basis with representatives from all modes to optimize system integration; identify structural changes in routes and schedules that will improve customer convenience and make a complete trip more competitive with automobile travel.

Planning

• Establish close working relation-ships among public transit providers; city, county, and regional planning departments; and local developers and architects. This will facilitate oppor-tunities to learn about land use planning and development design attributes that complement and support public transit and other critical services. Collectively identify potential changes in laws and ordinances that would help public transportation meet broader urban and regional objectives.
• Routinely review plans and designs for new residential, retail, and commercial developments. Provide comments regarding the project’s compatibility with the delivery of public transportation services. Transit providers can get involved in compre-hensive land use and transportation planning on the city, county, and regional levels and provide input as early (and often) in the process as possible.
• Build a long-term constituency (based on the initial efforts described previously) to engage planning departments, developers, and architects in integrating the vital links among public transportation service delivery, land use planning, and development design. This will go a long way toward achieving the larger community goals of economic vitality, quality of life, and long-term sustainability. Engage and involve elected officials and planning commissioners in this long-term
• process, working toward changes in attitudes, laws, and practices.
• Consider inclusion of bus and HOV lanes and bicycle paths in all new roadway and roadway expansion projects.
• Develop a constituency for automobile-free zones that are for transit and pedestrian use only. Educate citizens and the business community on the benefits of these zones to the community and commerce.
• Link complementary modes when siting and designing new or expanded transportation facilities.
• Route Design and Operations
• For small transit systems, draw from the central terminal concept where all trips originate and end.
• Establish signal preemption systems, providing intersection priority to buses at critical bottlenecks. Start small and build on successes, expanding the system in the long term to include more intersections and integration with transit-only HOV lanes.
• Where rights-of-way exist, establish bicycle lanes on major arterials, providing bicycle-friendly amenities such as racks, lockers, and showers in close proximity to major destinations.
• Develop high-frequency transit corridors, linked with a system of peripheral park-and-ride lots serving areas of high congestion; coordinate pricing with "market" pricing of public parking; and expand cross-subsidy between parking revenues and transit service costs.
• Shut down bus engines for layovers longer than 5 min.
• Technology
• Purchase products and vehicles that feature European-style technology and vehicle design. Pertinent European styles include perfected low-floor buses, convenient vehicle-door locations, automatic passenger counting systems, improved bus operator driving areas
• with computerized digital panels and moveable steering columns, and overnight battery-operated heating systems.
• Use signal preemption technology for bus priority.

 

Canadian Urban And Regional Transit Innovations: Mission 5, OCTOBER 14–27, 1996

INTRODUCTION

Canadian transit historically has had a well-deserved reputation for efficiency and effectiveness. Some transit factors are unique to Canadian society and governance, but many ideas can be used in the United States. Many lessons learned from the Canadian transit system experience appear to be useful for enhancing the quality of the U.S. environment and U.S. transit services. Canadian agencies are pro-active to development, view develop-ment associated with transit invest-ments in the long term, and have kept their transit systems simple.

While many transit strategies were familiar, it was the commitment to make strategies work, the pursuit of several strategies concurrently, and the overall community desire to meet the area's transportation needs principally through transit that seem to make Canadian transit efforts very effective.

The fifth study mission under the ITSP focused on model Canadian metropolitan and commuter rail, urban bus, infrastructure, and transit/land use developments. The team visited major operations, production, and mainte-nance facilities throughout Canada and brought back service improvement and productivity ideas relevant to U.S. public transit.

Transit systems in Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and Victoria and two production facilities were visited during this 2-week, coast-to-coast study.

QUEBEC

Transit Profile

Quebec, the capital of the Canadian province of Quebec, has a population of 168,000; the metro-politan area has 646,000 residents.

Transit service in the city and most of its surrounding region is provided by the Societe de transport de la communaute urbaine de Quebec (STCUQ), which serves a population of 448,000 in a service area of 478 sq km. In 1994, 322 million passengers were carried by STCUQ's fleet of 488 buses.

The system features two Metrobus routes, which provide frequent and rapid service along two major corridors through the city. Metrobus routes are on regular streets, often in reserved, segregated bus lanes, and Metrobuses make only limited stops.

STCUQ features the largest single transit depot of its kind in North America. The depot includes bus storage and maintenance facilities for the entire fleet as well as administration and management offices. Quebec City has many transit priority measures in place, including reserved lanes and intersection signal priority for STCUQ buses.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

The structure of STCUQ is similar to that of many regional transit authorities in the United States. The various municipalities within the service area are represented, and a portion of property tax revenues are dedicated to transit.

Although provincial policy decisions have an important bearing on local transit service, STCUQ staff indicate that the province has little influence on projects and does not attach requirements to funding. But the fact that funding is discretionary rather than formula based indicates that STCUQ has a significant influence on

project selection and design. The substantial capital support for the reserved bus lanes and bus procurement debt service signifies a provincial interest in the accomplishment of certain local and regional objectives.

In addition to funding reserved bus lanes, granting approval to establish and promote these lanes is an important step taken by the province. Removing existing lanes from general use for restricted HOV or bus use is extremely difficult in the United States; this is sometimes difficult even when new traffic lanes are being constructed. The STCUQ concept behind the successful campaign to reserve these lanes was that one-third of the traffic was being moved by buses; therefore, one-third of road capacity should be dedicated to buses.

Keys to the success of the Quebec system appear to be the ancillary mechanisms established to enhance transit services. In the case of reserved traffic lanes, the implementation of transit priority signalization provides a clear and distinct advantage for transit over general traffic. Further, the province requires that general traffic yield to buses exiting pull-out bays. Many U.S. transit systems are hesitant to build or use pull-out bays because of the difficulty operators can have in reentering the traffic flow.

The STCUQ vision of its core purpose is evident in how it deals with financial cuts. Services that retain the highest priority for funding are those that focus on high ridership, a high revenue-cost ratio, and peak-hour work-trip services, thus resulting in higher levels of financial efficiency for the system.

The restructuring of service in Quebec reflects selective applications of priority corridor treatments and bus priority technology to build high-frequency transit routes, resembling those on a light rail line. Transit priority (diamond lanes) were implemented primarily through taking an existing traffic lane. To minimize

dissension, the lanes were created during a holiday period so that traffic would not be severely affected immediately.

Quebec implemented limited use of transit signal preemption. Preemption is provided only at a few strategic intersections where buses must move from a curb lane to a left-turn lane; a separate signal phase is provided for the bus to permit the turn. At transit centers, entrances are gated. The entrances open after buses are detected through a height-reading detector near the gate.

Although all systems visited in Canada offer extensive conventional fixed-route bus services, a number of them provide innovative transit services that address the needs of the lower density markets in their service areas. STCUQ operates a Taxibus operation along several routes on the periphery of its service area. This service is operated under contract by private operators, which run reservation-based fixed routes with taxicabs. These routes extend further into low-density areas and feed to the terminus stops of the regularly scheduled conventional fixed-route bus operations.

STCUQ is working with small stores, shopping centers, and churches to establish small park-and-ride lots throughout its service area. The agency enters into a cooperative agreement with property owners to allow parking for transit users at no cost to the transit agency. About 45 park-and-ride lots have been established. In general, the cooperating business owners and churches see the benefit of bringing potential customers and churchgoers, respectively, to their parking lots. The transit agency benefits by providing a means for potential riders to access the transit system. This is particularly important in some of the outlying areas where local circulator routes have been eliminated in favor of more frequent express buses on major corridors using reserved bus lanes (the Metrobus system).

MONTREAL

Transit Profile

Sometimes called the "Paris of the New World," Montreal is a cosmopolitan city with just over 1 million inhabitants in the city proper and 3 million in the region. It is the second largest metropolitan area in Canada, one of the world's largest inland seaports, a leading financial and manufacturing center, and one of Canada's oldest cities.

The Montreal metropolitan region is served by three independent carriers coordinated by a new regional agency, the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT). The Societe de transport de la communaute urbaine de Montreal (STCUM) is the largest of the three carriers. The two others are the Societe de transport de la Rive-sud de Montreal (STRSM), serving the South Shore, and the Societe de transport de la Ville de Laval (STL), which serves the city of Laval, just north of Montreal.

STCUM operates 1,626 buses and 759 Metrorail (subway) cars, serving a population of 1.8 million. In 1994, the system carried almost 340 million passengers. Features include the Metrorail, patterned after the Metro in Paris, and a number of priority measures for buses, including the "R Bus" routes that use either reserved or counterflow (or contraflow) lanes (see Figure 8). STCUM is the first Canadian operator whose fleet consists entirely of low-floor buses.

STRSM operates 335 buses along the urbanized South Shore of the St. Lawrence River. The service area includes 346,500 people. In 1995, the system carried more than 26 million passengers. Highlights include a major downtown Montreal commuter terminal and the use of European articulated buses.

STL operates 220 buses in an area centered around the city of Laval. The system serves about 330,000 people and carried 16.3 million passengers in 1994.

Its major transfer terminal is located at the Henri Bourassa Metro station on the extreme north of Montreal.

Commuter rail links in the region are coordinated by ATM and operated by CN Rail and CP Rail on a contractual basis. The Deux-Montagnes electric service, which operates from the Central Station, has been fully rebuilt and equipped with new Bombardier rolling stock.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

STCUM operates a full array of bus services throughout its service area and Metrorail service in the more densely developed areas. The two principal suburban transit operators, STRSM and STL, maintain extensive suburban bus systems. These operators coordinate their activities with STCUM by operating major commuter transfer terminals in Montreal.

STCUM's focus is on retaining existing ridership levels. With limited revenue, little population growth, and increasing suburban sprawl, the agency is using innovation, service efficiencies, and customer service to maintain its levels of service and ridership. Surveys conducted by the agency indicate that there is 12 percent loss of existing riders and a corresponding 12 percent gain of new riders each year.

In Montreal, transit is of great value to the public. STCUM is very aware of the public's perception and as a whole is moving forward. They especially took great care of their subway cars and stations. Montreal exhibits a true passion for customer service. It has changed from a project-oriented to a customer-oriented agency. One creative approach to getting close to the customer is an automated survey of people who have called STCUM for information. STCUM receives 700 to 880 inquiries daily.

STCUM further focuses on customers by making listening a high priority management skill. Listening to customer complaints and ensuring appropriate staff response has been emphasized through creation of an internal committee that reviews all complaints and responses.

One service that could have great application in U.S. suburban transit systems is Montreal's Between Two Stops Program. After 9:00 p.m., passengers concerned about safety can request to be let off anywhere along the regular route instead of at designated stops only.

Another element of this customer service orientation is the new money-back guarantee policy proposed for implementation in the fall of 1997. The policy states, "We will be on time, guaranteed. If we are late, you don't pay." Other examples of innovations and efficiencies include the designation of exclusive bus lanes, which results in a quality service advantage as well as operational cost savings. STCUM recently renegotiated labor contracts, resulting in no salary increases for 2 years. It appears that both management and labor recognize the gravity of the current funding situation.

STCUM has been most aggressive in the area of public-private partnerships to raise revenue. STCUM is trying to significantly expand the portion of its budget generated by rental income and advertising. Besides the usual bus wraps, bus and train advertising panels, and subway station advertisements, STCUM has used hub cap ads, bus handstraps shaped like soft drink bottles, and even wrapped subway trains. Two ad campaigns using entire trains have been created to date, each generating more than $1.5 million per year for the transit agency.

STCUM is exploring the feasibility of commercializing entire subway stations. Transit officials have been meeting with representatives of the top 25 companies in Montreal to determine the level of interest in the concept. Subway train wraps are considered a communication device that signals the coming of the station commercialization program. The concept would be to turn an entire station over to a company, which could then paint the entire station in its company colors and logo, add stores, demonstrate new products, and distribute information. A demographic profile of the users of each subway station has been developed for this program. With 65 stations and more than 700,000 daily subway riders, STCUM has received substantial interest in this program and hopes to find a commercial partner for each of its stations, the largest of which serve more than 1 million users each month.

OTTAWA

Transit Profile

Ottawa, Canada’s capital, ranks fourth among the metropolitan areas in the country with a population of more than 900,000. The city itself has about 340,000 inhabitants.

There are two major transit systems in the national capital region. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, operating as OC Transpo, is the larger of the two, with 820 buses serving a population of 626,000. OC Transpo is the public transit operating arm of the regional municipality responsible for planning and operating transit services throughout the region.

The second system is the Societe de transport de l'Outaouais (STO), which serves the Quebec portion of the region. STO operates 186 buses, serving seven municipalities and 228,500 people. Its commuter lines reach downtown Ottawa.

The OC Transpo fleet moves more passengers to their destinations than any other comparable system in North America. In 1994, ridership totaled 73.4 million. The system is best known for its exclusive and extensive Transitway (or Busway)C a network of bus-only arterials that provide frequent and rapid service. During peak hours, 200 buses carry 10,000 passengers along the Transitway in each direction (see Figure 9). This is a considerably larger number of commuters than the number who use the Queensway, the region's major freeway, to get to their destinations. OC Transpo's concern for the environment has been demon-strated by green-space improvements along all sections of the Transitway. An extensive tree and shrub planting program is underway. Previous eyesores, such as abandoned railway lines and trash dumps, have been transformed into linear parks.

Transecure, an innovative neighborhood watch program on wheels operated by OC Transpo drivers, summons emergency help for people in trouble or calls the police when suspicious or illegal activities are observed along their routes. Launched in 1989, Transecure is successful in assisting people in obvious distress, summoning medical help, stopping burglars in the act, and allowing people to use buses as shelters and safe havens until help arrives on the scene. Drivers are instructed to allow passengers to alight between regular stops after 9:00 p.m. if this brings them closer to their destinations and they feel nervous about their safety.

With its 148 articulated buses, OC Transpo has become Canada's largest user of articulated buses. OC Transpo also operates a number of community-oriented bus routes in the city's urban neighborhoods. The farebox coverage of the system was 58 percent in 1994 and the total number of full-time personnel was 2,143, all but 159 of whom were drivers and mechanics.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

The growth and development of Ottawa demonstrate a strong commitment by the community to quality-of-life issues. Examples include protecting the expansive green way, preserving historic structures, and operating an annual municipal program to maintain the Rideau River as the world's longest skating rink.

Another example of this commitment is the official "transit-first" policy regarding Ottawa's transportation planning. Many resources available for transportation purposes are invested in public transportation, even though highway congestion does not appear to be a significant issue. Even during peak hours in downtown areas of Ottawa, long traffic delays are rare.

By observing Ottawa, U.S. cities can learn that there are several common fallacies in the transportation industry. One is that a large population, incredibly high densities, and a transit-captive workforce are needed to generate significant transit usage. The population of the Ottawa metropolitan area is only 900,000, and the downtown workforce numbers 280,000. Approximately 88,000 of these workers are employed by the federal government; these workers are normally associated with white-collar, "choice" ridership. Parking downtown is $7 per day, and traffic congestion is not severe. Yet the system carries 74 million passengers yearly. Another fallacy is that severe congestion and heavy fare subsidies are needed to influence modal choice. The one-way fare on OC Transpo is $1.85 ($2.90 for express service), with monthly passes costing $72.50 (including express service); therefore, clearly there are no huge fare subsidies.

Another frequently cited impediment to transit usage is the need for trip chaining. Trips are rarely exclusively to work and back home. More often, they involve trips to shops and other services. The Transitway addresses these trip-chaining require-ments in several ways. First, stations along the facility are well integrated with existing and new development, including several major shopping centers. Second, frequencies are such that passengers can get off the bus at a station and then catch another bus without incurring substantial delay. Approximately 70 percent of passengers on the system use monthly passes, allowing them to get off and on the system without having to pay additional fares.

Finally, many in the United States believe that choice riders will choose rail but will avoid buses at all cost. OC Transpo demonstrates that it is not necessarily the technology that attracts riders, it is whether the system works for the customer. People will use the system if it is convenient, affordable, and makes more sense than driving.

There is a strong regional focus in Ottawa. When the regional muni-cipality was created, functions common to all member municipalities were transferred from local to regional control. These functions include plan-ning, debt financing, sewage treatment, traffic control, public transportation, and social services. This consolidation provides greater coordination of public services. Another factor that aids Ottawa in its regional approach is that the transit commission is elected from the regional council, not directly from the municipalities.

The Communibus program is example of partnership at the community level. In response to funding reductions, OC Transpo evaluated routes in its service area and identified several poor-performing routes for elimination to help balance the budget. For some routes, the Communibus program provided an opportunity for a community to save its route. "Use it or lose it" type notices were placed in local newspapers to notify the community that the route was in jeopardy. A time limit was given for the route to be brought up to acceptable performance standards. In several instances, the community organized support though coordinated efforts of local merchants, service organizations, and community leaders, which boosted ridership.

OC Transpo’s regional focus also is evident in its Transecure program, which has a number of community-oriented features. Employees serve this community watch program on wheels by using two-way radios in vehicles to summon help and to provide infor-mation on emergencies and other incidents. As mentioned previously, the program offers transit vehicles as a safe haven for people in distress. Similar to the Between Two Stops Program in Montreal, the Transecure Night Stop service allows passengers traveling after 9:00 p.m. to be let off at a location closer to their destination instead of at a regular stop.

TORONTO

Transit Profile

Toronto, the capital of the province of Ontario, is the most populated metropolitan area in Canada, with a population of 1 million.

The ridership of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), which is operated by the metropolitan government, is second only to New York City in North America. This results in part from the residential density of the city proper, which is nearly 20,000 persons per square mile. Highways and commuter trains and buses augment the transit system. Although Toronto's streets are congested with traffic, the city has resisted building major expressways.

More than a dozen transit systems serve the Greater Toronto Area. The largest of these is operated by TTC, which provides service in the Toronto metropolitan area (about 400 sq mi), serving 2.3 million people. The system operates 1,539 buses (including 90 artics), 295 light rail vehicles, and 622 subway cars. In 1994, the system, known for its high degree of integration between rapid transit and surface routes, carried more than 388 million riders. Much urban development has taken place around many of the subway stations.

The Scarborough suburban rail line, also operated by TTC, uses linear induction technology (the same that is used by the SkyTrain in Vancouver). TTC is building a new surface light rail line, which is partially in operation along the waterfront.

The other major regional transportation provider, Government of Ontario Transit (GO Transit) is operated by an agency of the provincial government. GO Transit serves an area of 3,000 sq mi and sets the current North American standard for commuter rail with its fleet of 331 bilevel passenger cars and 49 locomotives. The system runs 139 trains and provides 1,000 bus trips daily, carrying 120,000 passengers on an average weekday (see Figure 10). The bus component includes 184 buses on suburban feeder routes, transporting 29,000 passengers daily. In 1994, GO Transit's ridership totaled 34.5 million.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

Toronto is a textbook example of coordinating land use policies with transit system development. At the regional level, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) has provided a long-range plan for greater Toronto, with a strong emphasis on integrating transit and land use. The plan focused on developing compact corridors along Toronto's subway system, with high-density office, commercial, and residential development directed around subway stations. As growth continued, development was channeled into corridors extending along streets perpendicular to the subway lines and served by surface streetcar lines or high-level bus services.

In addition to the compact corridor development strategy, two other land use planning approaches have been successfully used in Toronto. One is the development of urban centers, a concept also being implemented in Vancouver and Calgary. This approach is designed to promote better balance between the location of employment and residential areas and to encourage reverse commuting by focusing new development into "mini-downtown" or "satellite downtown" areas to balance peak demands on the transit and road systems.

The other approach is the development of the underground Path system. During the past 25 years, a network of 21 km (nearly 13 mi) of tunnels and bridges has been developed to connect downtown subway stations to adjacent shopping centers and office buildings. The concept, which was incorporated into the area's land use plans in the late 1960s, has been incrementally developed primarily though private-sector initiatives.

GO Transit is a significant mover of people. Canadian officials have invested substantial financial resources in the country’s commuter rail. They have also opted not to build freeways where commuter rail lines operate. This fact is probably the single most important lesson learned. Transit authorities in Canada have a real voice in what is built in their jurisdictions. Metropolitan planning decisions to implement commuter rail have saved the cost of building more than five freeway facilities.

GO Transit is not considered as commuter rail but as transportation for commuters. Service delivery affords other opportunities for creativity. For instance, during periods of light demand, GO Transit stops train service but operates buses along its commuter rail alignment. This brings costs in line with ridership without eliminating service. In addition, local buses which pulse at the GO Transit commuter rail station, operate flexible routes rather than fixed routes. In the evening, when demand lessens, the service area in Oakville (a suburb of Toronto with a commuter rail stop) is divided into four quadrants, with one bus operating within each quadrant. Still later in the evening, Oakville bus service quadrants are consolidated into two zones. This reduces the total expense of operation, while providing customers total area coverage that is more like a door-to-door cab service.

The TTC provides a designated waiting area on all subway platforms to ensure customer safety and security. These areas have brighter lights, an intercom, a closed-circuit television camera, and a public telephone.

CALGARY

Transit Profile

Calgary, with a population of 738,000, is the largest city in the province of Alberta. Transit is provided by a city-run system whose ridership in 1994 was 52.6 million. Calgary Transit operates 550 vehicles, 51 of which are articulated and 85 of which are light rail.

The system is known for its "C Train" light rail service, which operates on two lines and serves the central, northwestern, northeastern, and southern parts of the city. The C Train operates on transit-only streets in the central city and on reserved rights-of-way outside the core area. Altogether there are five light rail transit (LRT) lines in the city, with a total length of 18.2 mi and which are boarded on a weekday average (1995) by 112,700 passengers. More than 90 of the system's buses are of low-floor design. By percentage, this represents one of the largest fleets of low-floor buses in the country. Employees total 1,585, 113 of whom are employed in management and administration. Farebox coverage in 1994 was 51 percent.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

Using Calgary as an example, newly developing urban areas, similar to those in the Sunbelt and western United States, can grow in a manner that is conducive to high levels of transit use and service. Investment in the transportation infrastructure in Calgary is the result of a great deal of public outreach and involvement, and the investment decisions reflect community priorities. Both highway and transit systems are planned to complement each other, where appropriate, and to satisfy existing or planned growth as dictated by the adopted land use plans.

Transit accommodation exists in the form of an extensive network of facilities: a light rail line, extensive park-and-ride lot system, major high-frequency transit corridors, bus-only lanes, major cross-town high-frequency bus routes, and express service to employment areas.

Services are provided where they are most in demand. Transit is viewed not as a social service, but as an integral component of the transportation system. Many U.S. cities in high-growth areas might find Calgary's model relevant to examine.

Calgary provides the most impressive examples of progressive urban policy development. It has created a new government corporation that is responsible for administering a broad range of public services, including water, sewer, transit, and planning. With declining resources for roads and other public services, there is a greater focus on moving people and goods in a coordinated manner. To ensure that the corporation makes good investments, an annual census is taken, and every 3 to 5 years, a comprehensive origin/destination study is completed. Information from the census and the study helps the planning staff make proper projections, thereby aiding in the final decisions affecting delivery of public services.

Calgary's "Go" plan is an impressive example of a partnership between citizens, staff, and elected officials. The plan grew out of the concerns expressed by citizens in 1991 about what Calgary would look like as a result of its growth. These concerns prompted the city council to reconsider its existing transportation plan. The issues of community and environ-mental quality, along with mobility and costs, guided the overall approach in designing the new transportation plan. These four concerns surfaced as a result of significant discussion and broad-based public input. The vision of how Calgary will look in 30 years achieved wide acceptance as citizens became more involved and informed. The Calgary planning model is an excellent example of creating public ownership in the process, vision, and outcome.

Financial restrictions led to the development of business-based planning approaches for introducing and assessing bus routes. Both Ottawa and Calgary make service decisions based on the potential ridership benefits per unit of service cost. This clearly reflects an underlying value: Serve more people for less money.

Calgary also responded with a unique approach to funding paratransit door-to-door service, which is more expensive per passenger trip than fixed-route transit. Calgary obtains private donations for the purchase of the paratransit fleet. Individual vehicles are marked to honor people who make donations. One staff position is dedicated to obtaining private funding, which in turn frees up more dollars for service delivery.

Calgary has also developed a partnership with local providers of school bus service. Calgary Transit schedules school bus service and provides field supervision. The school system continues to purchase, operate, and maintain vehicles, but has been able to eliminate supervisory staff. The public benefits through this arrange-ment, which eliminates duplicated functions between two publicly financed institutions.

VANCOUVER

Transit Profile

Located just north of the U.S.-Canada border, Vancouver is the industrial, commercial, and financial center of British Columbia. Greater Vancouver is Canada's third largest metropolitan area, after Toronto and Montreal. Vancouver is 140 mi north of Seattle, Washington. Extending over an area of 44 sq mi, metropolitan Vancouver, with more than 1.6 million people, contains almost half of British Columbia's population; the city proper has a little over 470,000 inhabitants.

The city is characterized by a strong downtown, surrounded by high-density neighborhoods, which encour-age walking and high transit usage. Although suburban areas have a lower density, many regional subcenters have begun to develop as a result of regional planning and rapid transit investment. The city itself remains one of the few in North America without a freeway.

Vancouver is one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in North America, with a net annual population gain of more than 40,000.

BC Transit is a Crown (public) corporation of the province of British Columbia. Its 17-member board of directors, appointed by the responsible minister, is made up of elected and appointed officials from the commun-ities served by the system. The board is responsible for transit policy making and coordination, including the plan-ning and funding of transit systems in the province. All transit assets, includ-ing fleet, facilities, and guideways, are owned by the corporation.

The chair of BC Transit is appointed by the provincial cabinet. The day-to-day business of the corporation is conducted by a president and chief executive officer, assisted by six corporate support units: finance, technical services, corporate services, security, human resources, and strategic planning. Customer services are delivered through four business units: Vancouver Bus, BC Rapid Transit Company (BCRT), West Coast Express (WCE), and Victoria/Municipal Systems (VMS).

Transit oversight services in British Columbia are provided in partnership with local governments and regional transit commissions. In the Vancouver region, a commission represents the 17 municipalities, the electoral districts, and three villages constituting the Vancouver Regional Transit System (VRTS). Commission members are the local mayors, city councilors, and electoral district representatives, some of whom also sit on the board of directors. Representation is geographically based, with one commissioner representing a specific group of municipalities.

Under the province's BC Transit Act, regional transit commissions are responsible for the following:

• Determining routes, service levels, and performance standards;
• Reviewing and recommending annual operating and capital budgets to the BC Transit board; and
• Raising the local share of the transit deficit through local taxation.

VRTS serves a population of 1.7 million with an integrated network of services including diesel, CNG and electric trolley buses, passenger ferries (SeaBus), automated light rail transit (SkyTrain), and commuter rail (West Coast Express) (see Figure 11). Covering an area of 1,125 sq mi, VRTS represents the largest urban transit service area in Canada. With more than 115 million revenue passengers per year (215 million unlinked trips), VRTS ranks third in overall ridership, after Toronto and Montreal. Although a downturn was experienced during the recession in the mid-1980s, system growth has been very strong during the past 5 years. Since 1987, transit service has expanded by 37 percent, ridership by 28 percent, and the fleet by 74 percent.

The main components of the system are urban buses and trolley buses, SeaBus, SkyTrain, and the West Coast Express.

Urban Buses and Trolley Buses

The fleet consists of 675 diesel and 25 CNG buses, plus 244 electric trolley buses, for a total of 944 vehicles. Buses come in a variety of sizes. All bus services in the metropolitan region are operated by BC Transit, except for in West Vancouver, where the municipal authorities run bus services under contract to BC Transit. Wheelchair lifts and low floors are used throughout.

SeaBus

This service consists of two double-ended catamaran ferries with a capacity of 400 passengers each. Opened in 1977, SeaBus travels 1.75 nautical miles across Burrard Inlet between downtown Vancouver and Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver. The Burrard Beaver and the Burrard Otter depart every 15 min and carry about 11,000 passengers daily. SeaBus is operated by Vancouver Bus.

SkyTrain

A completely automated, driver-less system, SkyTrain connects downtown Vancouver with suburban New Westminster and Surrey, serving 20 stations along its 28-km (17.4-mi) route (see Figure 12). Opened 10 years ago, SkyTrain uses state-of-the-art linear induction and moving block technology. Most of the route is elevated, but in downtown Vancouver, the line operates underground. Office and commercial developments built within walking distance of SkyTrain stations are currently valued at more than C $5 billion (approximately $3.8 billion). The line now carries approximately 115,000 passengers each workday, and passenger totals have more than doubled since the line first opened. SkyTrain is operated by BCRT, the wholly owned BC Transit subsidiary.

West Coast Express

A new 40-mi commuter line connecting some of the eastern suburbs with downtown Vancouver, West Coast Express (WCE) commenced service in November 1995 and operates bilevel cars similar to those used by GO Transit in Toronto (see Figure 13). The service also features "cappuccino cars" for its commuter clientele. Currently it consists of five trains westbound in the morning and five eastbound during evening rush hours. The WCE fleet consists of 5 locomotives and 28 bilevel cars; ridership is increasing and now stands at 5,500 per day.

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

Though geographically separated by the Strait of Georgia, both the cities of Vancouver and Victoria provide transit services through BC Transit.

BC Transit operates a full array of transit services throughout its service area, including conventional fixed-route bus, trolley bus on heavier fixed routes, the SkyTrain system, the unique SeaBus, and the WCE commuter rail service. BC Transit is planning to expand its family of services in the lower density and suburban sections of its service area. Minibus-based operation of regional center circulators, community-oriented feeder services, and suburban demand-responsive basic mobility services as well as shared-ride taxi services are actively being devised.

A key to Vancouver’s success in planning for and implementing its extensive network of transit facilities and services is its general policy of constrained roadway building. No new expressways or freeways are being built; in fact, none exist in the metropolitan area. There is emphasis on the use of public transportation as the means to serve intraurban mobility needs and to accomplish land use and city-shaping objectives. The funding of transit projects, therefore, is not seen as a diversion from traditional highway funding sources, but simply the result of a conscious decision on the part of the community to address mobility needs.

Following are some outstanding features of transit service in Vancouver:

• Coordination among various transit modes, which is evident through nearly seamless transfer connections;
• Strong linkage between land use planning and development; and
• SkyTrain, which is viewed as a tool to shape urban growth.

VICTORIA

Transit Profile

One of the oldest communities in the province of British Columbia and the provincial capital, Victoria has a population of 72,000 and a metro-politan area population estimated at 317,000.

Victoria/Municipal Systems (VMS), an integral component of BC Transit, currently operates a fleet of 190 buses in Victoria and carries 17 million passengers annually. The paratransit system has 31 vehicles that carry 190,000 passengers annually. Accessible conventional transit service was introduced 5 years ago using low-floor buses that offer easier boarding for all passengers and full accessibility for people in wheelchairs. The system provides attractive levels of service on major corridors, focusing on down-town. In the important commuter market, the percentage of transit to downtown approaches 15 percent of all travel on a 24-hr basis. A recent survey revealed that more than 60 percent of the region's residents boarded a transit bus in the past year.

By concentrating recent expansion in the peak hours, the transit system is developing a strong regional commuter focus, with 15-min frequencies during peak hours from the outer reaches of the transit service area about 20 mi from the central business district to downtown. Total operating revenue covers roughly 50 percent of the total direct operating expense; municipal and provincial subsidies cover the balance. During the past decade, Victoria's transit system has consistently maintained one of the lowest accident rates in North America, for which it has received numerous awards. VMS has a total workforce of 480 employees, 67 of whom are employed in management and administration.

On-Street Management System

A notable, recent VMS innovation has been its on-street management system, which eliminates central control and combines new radio and computer technology with a simplified organizational structure. The system enhances service reliability, improves safety, and decreases costs. Direct radio links with police, fire, and ambulance services also provide spin-off benefits to the community.

Victoria's on-street management program allows the transit service to be managed from the road supervisor's vans, eliminating the need for central control and saving C $328,000 ($252,000).

What Could Be Applicable to the United States?

Like many of the other cities studied, Victoria's transit system is characterized by a strong customer focus. Its marketing focus has been on specific age groups, where the network's increase in ridership has been.

Strong concern for the environment is evidenced by the Victoria region's Task Group on Atmospheric Change, which encour-ages increased public transit, and the provincial Greenhouse Gas Action Plan, which recommends reducing vehicle trips through mass transit, carpooling, and other measures.

Victoria's Busline project is a prototype, computerized telephone information system. The system provides customers with the following information: (1) bus departure times and when the next bus will arrive; (2) instructions on how to get the bus; (3) general transit information; and (4) connections to other modes. Before this project, about 29 operator hours were available to answer 770 calls for information per day, with 36 percent of the callers experiencing busy signals and 18 percent put on hold. The project increased calls to 940 and improved service, without adding additional operators. The project cost $590,860, and projected savings over 10 years is estimated at $1.5 million, for a net value of $447,000.

Transit service is an important component of the public service in Victoria, and the Victoria Regional Transit System has obtained a strong commitment to public transit with high levels of service and use. The successful image of a high-quality, safe and dependable service played an important role for entry into several partnerships. Partnerships have been established with 45 municipalities to improve the traffic flow.

The university has raised tuition cost to help subsidize the student bus pass program. This program benefits the community because it reduces heavy automobile traffic.

LESSONS LEARNED

Several conclusions can be drawn from the transit experiences in Canadian cities in terms of applying successful transit service techniques to U.S. cities. But first, a caution is necessary. In almost every case examined in this study, transit has been a major component of the transportation system for a long time.

For example, the tremendous ridership levels in Ottawa are not the result of implementing the innovative Transitway. These levels existed before the Transitway was developed. The Transitway made transit service more efficient and effective, but was not necessary to induce people to choose transit. Similarly, high transit ridership in the larger cities of Montreal and Toronto is a continuation of long-established patterns. Transit can be extremely successful and relevant. But in the United States, it is likely that potential customers will first have to be convinced to leave their cars at home.

What makes transit in Canada such an important and relied on component of city infrastructure? Unlike the United States, why is "transit first" common policy in Canadian metropolitan areas? Rather than dismantle existing transit systems in the early part of this century, Canadian cities chose to invest and develop them. At the same time, U.S. cities were heavily investing in highway development.

As a result, existing transit systems in the United States deteriorated because of lack of adequate public fund-ing, while Canadian transit continued to grow and play a major role in urban development and sustainability. The view that the public will continue to rely on public transportation in Canadian cities continues to affect land use planning and long-term develop-ment of metropolitan areas. As a result, transit is servicing existing develop-ments, and new developments are plan-ned to support existing transit facilities.

Some might conclude that transit is popular in Canada simply because it is part of the culture and Canadians are used to using it. But what makes transit effective, as demonstrated in every site visited during this mission study, is transit's competitiveness with other modes of travel in terms of time. In every city, most peak-hour trips to the downtown area are faster and less expensive than comparable trips by automobile. Extremely high service frequencies during peak hours, combined with exclusive transit facilities in each city, make transit more appealing. Whether these exclusive facilities are light rail, dedicated transit lanes on existing highways, or exclusive transit ways, each operates independent of the flow of traffic.

Operating transit services is tricky, with many impediments to success. Although there are definite differences in society, form of governance, provision of public services, labor relations, and com-munity outlook between Canada and the United States, a number of lessons learned from this review of Canadian transit experience appear to be relevant for possible U.S. application.

• Being proactive rather than reactive is important to transit development.
• It is important to understand the cyclical nature of the transit business and to view transit investments and the development that will follow in the long term.
• Numerous markets require customized and innovative, not necessarily large-scale, services.
• Passengers are customers, and customers need a range of services and well-presented information to ensure that they remain consumers.
• Transit systems should be kept simple.
• Transit operators have to go beyond their usual role of operating buses and trains efficiently and must become involved in infrastructure activities to ensure that the operating environment is transit-friendly.

APPENDIX A

Mission Participants And Their Titles And Affiliations At The Time Of The Mission

Mission 4—May 9–26, 1996: Urban and Regional Bus Operations in Smaller

European Cities (Zurich, Schaffhausen, and Frauenfeld, Switzerland;

Dornbirn, Austria; Lindau, Radolfzell, Ravensburg,Detmold, Lemgo,

Bad Salzuflen, and Muenster, Germany; Antwerp, Liege, and Brugge,

Belgium; Breda, Dordrecht, Maastricht, and Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Participants

Mr. Dick Ruddell (Team Leader) General Manager Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Toledo, OH Mr. Roosevelt Bradley Assistant Director for Bus Operations and Maintenance Metro-Dade Transit Agency Miami, FL Ms. Rosie Broadus Director of Transportation Baldwin Rural Area Transportation System Robertsdale, AL Mr. Roger K. Chapin Executive Director Foothill Transit West Covina, CA Mr. Van J. Chesnut Executive Director Advance Transit, Inc. Wilder, VT Ms. Sarah deDoes Chief Executive Officer Metro Portland, ME Mr. Paul A. Hamilton Transportation Manager Shoshone and Arapahoe Nations Transportation Authority Ethete, WY Ms. Gayle P. Holliday Deputy General Manager Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Kansas City, MO   Mr. John A. Kern Transit Manager Capital Transit City and Borough of Juneau Juneau, AK Mr. Ryan J. Larsen Transit Service Manager Madison Metro Transit System Madison, WI Mr. Martin C. Minkoff General Manager Whatcom Transportation Authority Bellingham, WA Ms. Mary Jo Morandini Assistant Executive Director Beaver County Transit Authority Rochester, PA Mr. Mark Pritchard General Manager Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority Tulsa, OK Dr. Jack M. Reilly Director of Planning and Development Capital District Transportation Authority Albany, NY Ms. Tracy Dunleavy (Project Manager) Programs Director Eno Transportation Foundation Lansdowne, VA Coordinator Dr. George G. Wynne Director, International Center Academy for State & Local Government Washington, DC

 

Mission 5—October 14–27, 1996: Canadian Urban and Regional

Transit Innovations (Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary,

Vancouver, and Victoria)

Participants

Mr. Bob Lingwood (Team Leader) General Manager, Victoria and the Municipal Systems BC Transit Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Mr. Jeffrey C. Arndt Assistant General Manager, Transit Operations Metropolitan Transit Authority Houston, TX Mr. John W. Clauson Service Development Director Kitsap Transit Bremerton, WA Mr. Edward R. Coven Manager, Transit Office Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee, FL Mr. Roger Henze Transportation Planner Cobb County Department of Transportation Marietta, GA Ms. Nancy Hsu Assistant General Manager for Rail Services Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Washington, DC Mr. Robert Kniefel Public Transportation Director Municipality of Anchorage Public Transportation Department Anchorage, AK Mr. Joseph Kott Transportation Planning Manager Greater Portland Council of Governments Portland, ME Ms. Minietta E. Nelson Director of Operations Gary Public Transportation Corp. Gary, IN Mr. Charles Lee Pettus, Sr. President and Business Agent Amalgamated Transit Union Baltimore, MD

Mr. John Quinn System Planner II Dallas Area Regional Transit Dallas, TX Mr. Craig H. Scott Manager of Transportation Finance San Diego Association of Governments San Diego, CA Mr. James H. Slakey Director, Public Transportation and Rail Division Washington State Department of Transportation Olympia, WA Mr. Jeffery D. Webster General Manager Fresno County Rural Transit Agency Fresno, CA Mr. Hannie L. Woodson, Jr. General Superintendent Metro-Dade Transit Miami, FL Project Manager Ms. Tracy Dunleavy Programs Director Eno Transportation Foundation Lansdowne, VA

 APPENDIX B

European Hosts Perspectives of "What They Do Best"