Diaz. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making

Citation preview

Project No: FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1 Federal Transit Administration

United States Department of Transportation

August 2004

Ch a r a ct e r ist ics of

Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k in g

Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation

NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE August 2004

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED BRT Demonstration Initiative Reference Document

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) Roderick B. Diaz (editor), Mark Chang, Georges Darido, Mark Chang, Eugene Kim, Donald Schneck, Booz Allen Hamilton Matthew Hardy, James Bunch, Mitretek Systems Michael Baltes, Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Lawrence Wnuk, Fred Silver, Weststart - CALSTART Sam Zimmerman, DMJM + Harris 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Available From: National Technical Information Service/NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Phone (703) 605-6000, Fax (703) 605-6900, Email [[email protected]]

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This reference was prepared for the Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The report is intended to support evaluation of bus rapid transit concepts as one of many options during the initial project planning and development. This report presents a comprehensive summary of applications of BRT elements in the United States and in selected sites around the world. Information on the first wave of BRT projects to be implemented in the United States is presented to show the broad range of applications of key elements of BRT – running ways, stations, vehicles, fare collection, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and service and operating plans. This report also presents performance of BRT systems and discusses how combinations of BRT elements contribute to transit system performance, including reducing travel times, improving reliability, providing identity and a quality image, improving safety and security, and increasing capacity. Some important benefits of integrated BRT systems are presented, including transportation system benefits (increasing ridership, and improving capital cost effectiveness and operating efficiency) and community benefits (transit-supportive development and environmental quality). 14. SUBJECT TERMS Bus Rapid Transit, Performance Measurement, Benefits

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 217 (Body of Report) 289 (including appendices) 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18298-102

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

AU T H OR ACK N OWLEDGEM EN T S This information document was developed for the Federal Transit Administration by a consortium of organizations led by Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., including DMJM + Harris; Mitretek Systems; the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), University of South Florida; and Weststart CALSTART. Booz Allen Hamilton was the primary contractor for this report. The work by the other organizations was conducted under separate contracts with the FTA. Roderick Diaz, Booz Allen Hamilton was the principal editor of this document. The other contributing authors of this report include Mark Chang, Georges Darido, Eugene Kim, and Donald Schneck, Booz Allen Hamilton; Matthew Hardy and James Bunch, Mitretek Systems; Michael Baltes and Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute; Lawrence Wnuk and Fred Silver, Weststart - CALSTART; and Sam Zimmerman of DMJM + Harris. Contributions are acknowledged from Alan Danaher, Kittleson and Associates, Inc., and Herbert Levinson. Jully Chung and Michael Quant, Booz Allen Hamilton provided formatting and report layout assistance. The FTA project manager was Bert Arrillaga, Chief of the Service Innovation Division. Mr. Arrillaga led a coordinating team composed of the principal and contributing authors of the document and Department of Transportation staff, including Ronald Fisher, James Ryan, Carlos Garay, Richard Steinmann, Paul Marx, Stewart McKeown, Helen Tann, Charlene Wilder, Karen Facen, FTA; and Yehuda Gross, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Special thanks are due to Barbara Sisson, Associate Administrator for Research Demonstration and Innovation; Leslie Rogers, Regional Administrator, Region IX; and Walter Kulyk, Director, Office of Mobility Innovations who provided broad guidance and leadership and coordinated an industry review panel. The feedback provided by the industry review panel is also gratefully acknowledged: Greg Hull, Anthony Kouneski, Lurae Stuart

American Public Transportation Authority

Ronald Barnes

formerly with Central Ohio Transit Authority

Joyce Olson, Matt Sheldon

Community Transit, Everett, WA

Kim Green

GFI Genfare

Brian McLeod, Joe Policarpio

Gillig Corporation

Joseph Calabrese

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Cheryl Soon

Honolulu Department of Transportation Services

Mark Pangborn, Ken Hamm

Lane Transit District, Eugene, OR

Rex Gephart

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Mona Brown

Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority

James Gaspard, John Reynolds

Neoplan USA Corp.

Rick Brandenburg, Amy Miller, Bill Stanton

New Flyer Industries

Millard Seay

New York City Transit

Cliff Henke, Ron Ingraham, Rich Himes

North American Bus Industries

Conal Deedy

Nova Bus

Diane Hawkins, Michael J. Monteferrante

Optima Bus Corporation

Mark Brager, Sheri Calme , Mel Doherty, Bob Sonia

Orion Bus Industries

David Wohlwill

Port Authority of Allegheny County

Alberto Parjus

Public Transportation Management, Miami, FL

Jacob Snow, June Devoll, Curtis Myles, Sandraneta Smith-Hall

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

Gwen Chisholm-Smith

Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board

SOU RCES OF I N FORM AT I ON This report draws from a variety of sources of information. Reports and research documents are cited in footnotes and in the bibliography (Appendix A). In addition to sources cited, staff members at agencies provided valuable up-to-date system information on experience with elements, performance, and benefits at their respective systems and photographs. Jon Twichell, Jamie Levin

Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District

Amy Malick, Joseph Iacobucci,

Chicago Transit Authority

Martha Butler, Thomas Carmichael, Rex Gephart, David Mieger, Michael Richmai

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

David Carney, Maureen Trainor, Dave Barker

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

David Wohlwill, Richard Feder

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA

Alberto Parjus

Public Transportation Management, Miami, FL

Reed Caldwell

Regional Public Transportation Authority, Phoenix, AZ

June DeVoll, John Fischer, Sandraneta Smith-Hall

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV

Additional Photographs and illustrations contained within the report were provided by a variety of sources including the photograph libraries of all document team members, including Booz Allen Hamilton, DMJM + Harris; Mitretek Systems; the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI) at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), University of South Florida; and Weststart - CALSTART. Additional photographs were provided by North American Bus Industries (Cliff Henke), Neoplan USA, New Flyer Industries, and the ISE Corporation.

Table of Cont ent s

T ABLE OF CON T EN T S EXECUTI VE SUM M ARY ....................................................................................... ES- 1 1 .0

I N TROD UCTI ON : The N e e d for a n d Pu r pose of Cha r a ct e r ist ics of Bu s Ra pid Tr a nsit for D e cision- M a k ing ...................................................................... 1 - 1

1 .1

W ha t is BRT? ......................................................................................... 1 - 1

1 .2

BRT in The Tr a nspor t a t ion Pla nning Pr oce ss ......................................... 1 - 3

1 .3

I nt e nde d Use of The CBRT Re por t ......................................................... 1 - 5

1 .4

St r uct ur e a nd Cont e nt of CBRT .............................................................. 1 - 7

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

T ABLE OF CON T EN T S

2 .0

M AJOR ELEM EN TS OF BRT ......................................................................... 2 - 1

2 .1 2.1.1

Running W a y .......................................................................................... 2 - 3 Descript ion .......................................................................................... 2- 3 Role of t he Running Way in BRT .......................................................... 2- 3 Charact erist ics of Running Way ........................................................... 2- 3

2.1.2

Running Way Opt ions ............................................................................ 2- 4 Running Way Segregat ion .................................................................. 2- 4 Running Way Marking ........................................................................ 2- 6 Guidance ( Lat eral) ............................................................................. 2- 7

2.1.3

Effect s of Running Way Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s .. ...................................................................................................... 2- 8

2.1.4

Planning and I m plem ent at ion I ssues...................................................... 2- 10

2.1.5

Experience wit h BRT Running Ways ....................................................... 2- 10

2 .2 2.2.1

St a t ions ................................................................................................ 2 - 1 3 Descript ion ........................................................................................ 2- 13 Role of St at ions in BRT..................................................................... 2- 13 Charact erist ics of St at ions ................................................................ 2- 13

2.2.2

St at ion Opt ions................................................................................... 2- 15 Basic St at ion Type ........................................................................... 2- 15 Plat form Height ............................................................................... 2- 17 Plat form Layout .............................................................................. 2- 18 Passing Capabilit y ........................................................................... 2- 19 St at ion Access ................................................................................ 2- 20

2.2.3

Effect s of St at ion Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s.... 2- 21

2.2.4

I m plem ent at ion I ssues ........................................................................ 2- 22

2.2.5

Experience wit h BRT St at ions................................................................ 2- 23

2 .3 2.3.1

Ve hicle s ................................................................................................ 2 - 2 6 Descript ion ........................................................................................ 2- 26 Role of Vehicles in BRT..................................................................... 2- 26 Charact erist ics of Vehicles ................................................................ 2- 26

2.3.2

Vehicle Opt ions................................................................................... 2- 27 Vehicle Configurat ion ....................................................................... 2- 27 Aest het ic Enhancem ent .................................................................... 2- 29

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

Passenger Circulat ion Enhancem ent ................................................... 2- 30 Propulsion Syst em ........................................................................... 2- 31 2.3.3

Effect s of Vehicle Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s.... 2- 33

2.3.4

I m plem ent at ion I ssues ........................................................................ 2- 34

2.3.5

Experience wit h BRT Vehicles................................................................ 2- 35

2 .4 2.4.1

Fa r e Colle ct ion ...................................................................................... 2 - 3 8 Descript ion ........................................................................................ 2- 38 Role of Fare Collect ion in BRT............................................................ 2- 38 Charact erist ics of Fare Collect ion ....................................................... 2- 38

2.4.2

Fare Collect ion Opt ions ........................................................................ 2- 39 Fare Collect ion Process..................................................................... 2- 39 Fare Transact ion Media .................................................................... 2- 41 Fare St ruct ure ................................................................................ 2- 44

2.4.3

Effect s of Fare Collect ion Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s .................................................................................................... 2- 45

2.4.4

I m plem ent at ion I ssues ........................................................................ 2- 46

2.4.5

Experience wit h BRT Fare Collect ion ...................................................... 2- 47

2 .5 2.5.1

I n t e llige n t Tr a n spor t a t ion Syst e m s ( I TS) ............................................. 2 - 4 9 Descript ion ........................................................................................ 2- 49 Role of I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s in BRT ................................ 2- 49 Charact erist ics of I TS....................................................................... 2- 49

2.5.2

I TS Opt ions........................................................................................ 2- 49 Vehicle Priorit izat ion ........................................................................ 2- 51 Driver Assist and Aut om at ion Technology ........................................... 2- 53 Operat ions Managem ent Technology .................................................. 2- 55 Passenger I nform at ion ..................................................................... 2- 57 Safet y and Securit y Technology ......................................................... 2- 59 Support Technologies....................................................................... 2- 60

2.5.3

Effect s of I TS Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s......... 2- 61

2.5.4

I m plem ent at ion I ssues ........................................................................ 2- 63 Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em ..................................................... 2- 63 Transit Signal Priorit y....................................................................... 2- 64 Traveler I nform at ion ........................................................................ 2- 64

2.5.5 2 .6 2.6.1

Experience wit h BRT and I TS ................................................................ 2- 65 Se r vice a nd Ope r a t ing Pla ns ................................................................. 2 - 6 8 Descript ion ........................................................................................ 2- 68 Role of t he Service and Operat ing Plan in BRT ..................................... 2- 68

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

Charact erist ics of t he Service and Operat ing Plan ................................. 2- 68 2.6.2

Opt ions in Service and Operat ions Planning ............................................ 2- 70 Rout e Lengt h Opt ions ...................................................................... 2- 70 Rout e St ruct ure Opt ions ................................................................... 2- 70 Span of Service Opt ions ................................................................... 2- 71 Frequency of Service Opt ions ............................................................ 2- 71 St at ion Spacing Opt ions ................................................................... 2- 71 Met hods of Schedule Cont rol ............................................................. 2- 71

2.6.3

Effect s of Service and Operat ions Plan Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s.................................................................................. 2- 72

2.6.4

Experience wit h BRT Service Plans......................................................... 2- 74

2 .7 2.7.1

I n t e gr a t ion of BRT Ele m e nt s I nt o BRT Syst e m s .................................... 2 - 7 7 Branding for BRT ................................................................................ 2- 77 Research ........................................................................................ 2- 78 I dent ificat ion of Point s of Different iat ion for BRT .................................. 2- 78 I m plem ent at ion of t he Brand ............................................................ 2- 78

2.7.2

I nt erface Requirem ent s for BRT Elem ent s ............................................... 2- 79 Running Ways and St at ions .............................................................. 2- 79 Running Ways and Vehicles .............................................................. 2- 79 Running Ways and I TS ..................................................................... 2- 79 St at ions and Vehicles ....................................................................... 2- 79 St at ions and I TS ............................................................................. 2- 80 Vehicles and Fare Collect ion .............................................................. 2- 80 St at ions and Fare Collect ion .............................................................. 2- 80 Fare Collect ion and I TS .................................................................... 2- 80 Vehicles and I TS ............................................................................. 2- 80

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

T ABLE OF CON T EN T S 3 .0

BRT ELEM EN TS AN D SYSTEM PERFORM AN CE ............................................ 3 - 1

3 .1 Tr a ve l Tim e ............................................................................................... 3 - 4 3.1.1 Running Tim e ....................................................................................... 3- 4 Descript ion of Running Tim e ............................................................... 3- 4 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Running Tim e ............................................. 3- 5 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ......................................................... 3- 6 Research Sum m ary ........................................................................ 3- 6 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ........................................................... 3- 8 Met ro Rapid, Los Angeles, CA ...................................................... 3- 8 Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA ......................... 3- 9 Various I TS Applicat ions ( non- BRT Exam ple) .................................. 3- 9 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Travel Tim e ......................................... 3- 9 3.1.2 St at ion Dwell Tim e .............................................................................. 3- 15 Descript ion of St at ion Dwell Tim e ...................................................... 3- 15 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on St at ion Dwell Tim e .................................... 3- 15 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 17 Research Sum m ary ...................................................................... 3- 17 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 19 Ot t awa Transit way, Ot t awa, Ont ario, Canada ............................... 3- 19 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and St at ion Dwell Tim e ............................. 3- 20 3.1.3 Wait Tim e and Transfer Tim e ................................................................ 3- 23 Descript ion of Wait Tim e and Transfer Tim e ........................................ 3- 23 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Wait Tim e and Transfer Tim e ...................... 3- 23 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 24 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 24 Sout h Busway, Miam i, Florida .................................................... 3- 24 Port land, OR ( non- BRT applicat ion) ............................................ 3- 24 London Bus, London, England ( non- BRT applicat ion) ..................... 3- 25 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Wait Tim e and Transfer Tim e ............... 3- 25 3 .2 Re lia bilit y ................................................................................................ 3 - 2 8 3.2.1 Running Tim e Reliabilit y ....................................................................... 3- 28 Descript ion of Running Tim e Reliabilit y ............................................... 3- 28 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Running Tim e Reliabilit y ............................. 3- 28

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 29 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 29 Wilshire Boulevard Dedicat ed Lane Dem onst rat ion Proj ect , Los Angeles, CA ......................................................................................... 3- 29 98 B- Line, Vancouver, Brit ish Colum bia, Canada........................... 3- 30 Various Operat ions Managem ent Applicat ions, ( Non- BRT Applicat ions) . 330 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Running Tim e Reliabilit y ...................... 3- 31 3.2.2 St at ion Dwell Tim e Reliabilit y ................................................................ 3- 36 Descript ion of St at ion Dwell Tim e Reliabilit y ........................................ 3- 36 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on St at ion Dwell Tim e Reliabilit y ...................... 3- 36 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 37 Research Sum m ary ...................................................................... 3- 37 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and St at ion Dwell Tim e Reliabilit y ............... 3- 38 3.2.3 Service Reliabilit y................................................................................ 3- 40 Descript ion of Service Reliabilit y ........................................................ 3- 40 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Service Reliabilit y ...................................... 3- 40 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 41 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 41 O- Bahn Busway, Adelaide, Aust ralia ........................................... 3- 41 Tri- Met Aut om at ed Bus Dispat ching, Port land, Oregon ( non- BRT) ... 3- 42 Regional Transit Dist rict AVL and CAD Syst em , Denver, Colorado ( NonBRT) ...................................................................................... 3- 42 London Transport Count down Syst em , London England ( Non- BRT) .. 3- 43 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Service Reliabilit y ............................... 3- 43 3 .3 I de nt it y a nd I m a ge ................................................................................. 3 - 4 5 3.3.1 Brand I dent it y .................................................................................... 3- 45 Descript ion of Brand I dent it y ............................................................ 3- 45 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Brand I dent it y .......................................... 3- 45 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 47 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 47 San Pablo Rapid, Alam eda and Cont ra Cost a Count ies, CA ............. 3- 47 Silver Line, Bost on, MA ............................................................. 3- 48 Cit yExpress! , Honolulu, HI ......................................................... 3- 48 MAX, Las Vegas, NV ................................................................. 3- 48 Met ro Rapid, Los Angeles, CA .................................................... 3- 49 Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway, Miam i- Dade Count y, Florida................ 3- 49

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

LYMMO, Orlando, Florida ........................................................... 3- 50 16 t h St reet Mall, Denver, CO ( non- BRT applicat ion) ....................... 3- 51 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Brand I dent it y ................................... 3- 52 3.3.2 Cont ext ual Design ............................................................................... 3- 55 Descript ion of Cont ext ual Design ....................................................... 3- 55 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Cont ext ual Design ..................................... 3- 55 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 56 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 56 LYMMO, Orlando, FL ................................................................. 3- 56 Sout h East Busway, Brisbane, Aust ralia....................................... 3- 56 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Cont ext ual Design .............................. 3- 57 3 .4 Sa fe t y a nd Se cur it y ................................................................................. 3 - 6 0 3.4.1 Safet y ............................................................................................... 3- 60 Descript ion of Safet y ....................................................................... 3- 60 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Safet y ..................................................... 3- 60 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 61 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 61 Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway, Miam i- Dade Count y , Florida ............... 3- 61 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Safet y .............................................. 3- 62 3.4.2 Securit y ............................................................................................. 3- 65 Descript ion of Securit y ..................................................................... 3- 65 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Securit y ................................................... 3- 65 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 66 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 66 Sout heast Busway, Brisbane, Aust ralia........................................ 3- 66 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Securit y ............................................ 3- 67 3 .5 Ca pa cit y .................................................................................................. 3 - 6 9 3.5.1 Person Capacit y .................................................................................. 3- 70 Descript ion of Person Capacit y .......................................................... 3- 70 Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Person Capacit y ........................................ 3- 71 Perform ance of Exist ing Syst em s ....................................................... 3- 76 Research Sum m ary ...................................................................... 3- 76 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ......................................................... 3- 76 Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA ....................... 3- 76 RAPI D, Phoenix Public Transit Depart m ent .................................. 3- 77 BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Person Capacit y ................................. 3- 77

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

T ABLE OF CON T EN T S 4 .0

BRT SYSTEM BEN EFI TS .......................................................................... 4 - 1

4 .1

H ighe r Ride r ship .................................................................................... 4 - 3

4.1.1

The Benefit of Ridership ..................................................................... 4- 3

4.1.2

Effect s of BRT Elem ent s on Ridership ................................................... 4- 3

4.1.3

Ot her Fact ors Affect ing Ridership ......................................................... 4- 4

4.1.4

BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Ridership ................................................ 4- 4

4 .2

Ca pit a l Cost Effe ct ive ne ss ................................................................... 4 - 1 0

4.2.1

The Benefit of Capit al Cost Effect iveness............................................. 4- 10

4.2.2

BRT Syst em Design I m pact s on Capit al Cost Effect iveness .................... 4- 10

4.2.3

Ot her Fact ors Affect ing Capit al Cost Effect iveness ................................ 4- 11

4.2.4

Sum m ary of I m pact s on Capit al Cost Effect iveness .............................. 4- 12 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ........................................................ 4- 12 Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway, Miam i, FL; LYMMO, Orlando, FL ........ 4- 12 98- B Line, Vancouver, Brit ish Colum bia, Canada ........................ 4- 12

4 .3

Ope r a t ing Cost EffI cie ncy .................................................................... 4 - 1 3

4.3.1

The Benefit of Operat ing Efficiency..................................................... 4- 13

4.3.2

Sum m ary of I m pact s on Operat ing Efficiency ...................................... 4- 14 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ........................................................ 4- 14 Met ro Rapid Wilshire - Whit t ier, Los Angeles, CA ........................ 4- 14 Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway, Miam i, FL; LYMMO, Orlando, FL ........ 4- 15 West Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA................................................... 4- 15 Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA..................... 4- 15

4 .4

Tr a nsit - Suppor t ive La nd D e ve lopm e nt ................................................ 4 - 1 7

4.4.1

The Benefit of Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent ............................ 4- 17

4.4.2

BRT Syst em Design Effect s on Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent ..... 4- 18

4.4.3

Ot her Fact ors Affect ing Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent ............... 4- 19 Policy and Planning ..................................................................... 4- 19 Econom ic Environm ent ................................................................ 4- 19

4.4.4

Sum m ary of Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent I m pact s .................. 4- 20 Syst em Perform ance Profiles ........................................................ 4- 20 Silver Line, Bost on, MA .......................................................... 4- 20 Nort h Las Vegas MAX, Las Vegas, NV ....................................... 4- 21 Met ro Rapid, Los Angeles, CA .................................................. 4- 21

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

LYMMO, Orlando, CA .............................................................. 4- 22 West Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA................................................... 4- 22 Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway, Pit t sburgh, PA..................... 4- 23 4 .5

En vir on m e n t a l Qu a lit y ......................................................................... 4 - 2 4

4.5.1

Environm ent al I m provem ent and BRT ................................................ 4- 24

4.5.2

BRT Syst em Benefit s t o Environm ent al Qualit y .................................... 4- 24 Environm ent al I m provem ent Mechanism s ...................................... 4- 24 BRT Syst em Design Effect s on Environm ent al Qualit y ...................... 4- 25 Vehicle Technology and Environm ent al Qualit y ............................... 4- 26

4.5.3

Sum m ary of Syst em Design and Environm ent al Qualit y ........................ 4- 29

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Table of Cont ent s

T ABLE OF CON T EN T S 5 .0

CON CLUSI ON S AN D SUM M ARY .................................................................. 5 - 1

5 .1 Sum m a r y of BRT Ex pe r ie nce ..................................................................... 5 - 1 5.1.1 Sum m ary of BRT Elem ent s ..................................................................... 5- 1 Running Ways................................................................................... 5- 1 St at ions ........................................................................................... 5- 2 Vehicles ........................................................................................... 5- 2 Fare Collect ion .................................................................................. 5- 2 I TS ................................................................................................. 5- 3 Service and Operat ing Plans ............................................................... 5- 3 5.1.2 Sum m ary of BRT Perform ance ................................................................ 5- 4 Travel Tim e ...................................................................................... 5- 4 Reliabilit y ......................................................................................... 5- 4 I m age and I dent it y ............................................................................ 5- 4 Safet y and Securit y ........................................................................... 5- 4 Capacit y .......................................................................................... 5- 4 5.1.3 Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Benefit Experience ............................................. 5- 5 Ridership ......................................................................................... 5- 5 Capit al Cost Effect iveness ................................................................... 5- 5 Operat ing Cost Efficiency .................................................................... 5- 5 Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent .................................................. 5- 6 Environm ent al Qualit y ........................................................................ 5- 6 5 .2 Su st a in ing t h e Cha r a ct e r ist ics of Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k ing Re por t .................................................................................................... 5 - 7 5.2.1 Supplem ent al Evaluat ion of Operat ing BRT Proj ect s ................................... 5- 7 5.2.2 Evaluat ion of New BRT Proj ect s ............................................................... 5- 7 5.2.3 Com piling Ongoing I nform at ion on Perform ance and Benefit s ...................... 5- 7 5.2.4 I ncorporat ing General Transit Research .................................................... 5- 8 5 .3 Closing Re m a r k s ....................................................................................... 5 - 9 APPEN D I X A: BI BLI OGRAPH Y............................................................................. A- 1 APPEN D I X B: GLOSSARY OF TERM S RELATED TO BRT ........................................ B- 1 APPEN D I X C: SUM M ARY OF BRT SYSTEM CH ARACTERI STI CS ............................. C- 1 APPEN D I X D : BRT PH OTO GALLERY .................................................................... D - 1 Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

List of Exhibit s

LI ST OF EX H I BI T S Exhibit 1- 1: Transit I nvest m ent Planning and Proj ect Developm ent Process ................... 1- 4 Exhibit 1- 2: Charact erist ics of BRT in Proj ect Planning and Developm ent ....................... 1- 6 Exhibit 1- 3: Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making ( CBRT) Report ....... 1- 7

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

List of Exhibit s

LI ST OF EX H I BI T S Exhibit 2- 1:

Sum m ary of Effect s of Running Way Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s ................................................................................ 2- 9

Exhibit 2- 2:

Experience wit h BRT Running Ways ................................................... 2- 11

Exhibit 2- 3:

Sum m ary of Effect s of St at ion Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s ......................................................................................... 2- 21

Exhibit 2- 4:

Experience wit h BRT St at ions ............................................................ 2- 24

Exhibit 2- 5:

Sum m ary of Effect s of Vehicle Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s ......................................................................................... 2- 33

Exhibit 2- 6:

Experience wit h BRT Vehicles ............................................................ 2- 36

Exhibit 2- 7:

Est im at ed Cost s for Elect ronic Fare Syst em s* ( 2002 US dollars) ............ 2- 43

Exhibit 2- 8:

Sum m ary of Effect s of Fare Collect ion Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s .............................................................................. 2- 45

Exhibit 2- 9:

Experience wit h BRT Fare Collect ion ................................................... 2- 48

Exhibit 2- 10: Sum m ary of Effect s of I TS Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s ......................................................................................... 2- 62 Exhibit 2- 11: BRT Com m unicat ion Schem at ic ......................................................... 2- 63 Exhibit 2- 12: Experience wit h BRT and I TS ............................................................ 2- 66 Exhibit 2- 13: BRT Service Types and Typical Service Spans ..................................... 2- 69 Exhibit 2- 14: Sum m ary of Effect s of Service and Operat ions Plan Elem ent s on Syst em Perform ance and Syst em Benefit s...................................................... 2- 73 Exhibit 2- 15: Experience wit h BRT Service Plans..................................................... 2- 75

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

List of Exhibit s

LI ST OF EX H I BI T S Exhibit 3- 1:

Est im at ed Average Bus Speeds on Busways or Exclusive Freeway HOV Lanes: assum es 50 m ph Top Running Speed of Bus in Lane............................... 3- 7

Exhibit 3- 2:

Est im at ed Average Bus Speeds on Dedicat ed Art erial St reet Bus Lanes, in m iles per hour .................................................................................. 3- 7

Exhibit 3- 3:

Est im at ed Average Bus Speeds in General Purpose Traffic Lanes, in m iles per hour ................................................................................................ 3- 7

Exhibit 3- 4:

Busway and Freeway Bus Lane Speeds as a Funct ion of St at ion Spacing ... 3- 8

Exhibit 3- 5:

BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Travel Tim e .......................................... 3- 11

Exhibit 3- 6:

Passenger Service Tim es by Floor Type .............................................. 3- 18

Exhibit 3- 7:

Mult iple Channel Passenger Service Tim es per Tot al Passenger wit h a High Floor Bus ....................................................................................... 3- 18

Exhibit 3- 8:

Bus Passenger Service Tim es ( Seconds/ Passenger) .............................. 3- 19

Exhibit 3- 9:

BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and St at ion Dwell Tim e ................................. 3- 21

Exhibit 3- 10: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Wait Tim e and Transfer Tim e .................. 3- 26 Exhibit 3- 11: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Running Tim e Reliabilit y ......................... 3- 33 Exhibit 3- 12: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and St at ion Dwell Tim e Reliabilit y .................. 3- 39 Exhibit 3- 13: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Service Reliabilit y .................................. 3- 44 Exhibit 3- 14: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Brand I dent it y ....................................... 3- 53 Exhibit 3- 15: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Cont ext ual Design ................................. 3- 58 Exhibit 3- 16: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Safet y .................................................. 3- 63 Exhibit 3- 17: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Securit y ............................................... 3- 68 Exhibit 3- 18: Different Aspect s of Capacit y ............................................................ 3- 70 Exhibit 3- 19: The Relat ionship bet ween Aspect s of Capacit y ..................................... 3- 73 Exhibit 3- 20: Relat ionship of BRT Elem ent s t o Aspect s of Person Capacit y .................. 3- 73 Exhibit 3- 21: Typical U.S. and Canadian BRT Vehicle Dim ensions and Capacit ies ......... 3- 75 Exhibit 3- 22: Maxim um Observed Peak Hour Bus Flows, Capacit ies, and Passenger Flows at Peak Load Point s on Transit ways ....................................................... 3- 76 Exhibit 3- 23: BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Person Capacit y .................................... 3- 78

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

List of Exhibit s

LI ST OF EX H I BI T S Exhibit 4- 1:

BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and Ridership ................................................ 4- 5

Exhibit 4- 2:

Operat ing Efficiencies in t he Wilshire – Whit t ier Met ro Rapid Corridor ...... 4- 14

Exhibit 4- 3:

Perform ance Measure of Operat ing Cost Efficiency ( Vehicle Miles per Vehicle Hour) ............................................................................................. 4- 15

Exhibit 4- 4:

Perform ance Measure of Operat ing Efficiency ( Vehicle Miles per Vehicle Hour) . ................................................................................................... 4- 16

Exhibit 4- 5:

Operat ing Cost per Service Unit By Type of Rout e ( 1983 Dollars) ........... 4- 16

Exhibit 4- 6:

Environm ent al I m provem ent Mechanism s ............................................ 4- 24

Exhibit 4- 7:

Pot ent ial Environm ent al I m pact of BRT Elem ent s .................................. 4- 26

Exhibit 4- 8:

Cert ified Engine Em issions Perform ance of Diesel, CNG and Hybrid Bus Engines .......................................................................................... 4- 27

Exhibit 4- 9

Propulsion Syst em / Fuel Choices and Em erging Perform ance At t ribut es..... 4- 29

Exhibit 4- 10: Sum m ary of Vehicle Charact erist ics Relevant t o Pollut ant Em issions ........ 4- 30

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Execut ive Sum m ary

EX ECU T I V E SU M M ARY The Ch a r a ct e r ist ics of Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k in g ( CBRT) report was prepared t o provide t ransport at ion planners and decision m akers wit h basic inform at ion and dat a t o support t he developm ent and evaluat ion of bus rapid t ransit concept s as one of m any opt ions during alt ernat ives analyses and subsequent proj ect planning. This report provides inform at ion on BRT syst em s in a single, easy t o use reference t ool for t ransport at ion planners in select ing from t he large array of BRT elem ent s and int egrat ing t hem int o com prehensive syst em s. The CBRT report explores BRT t hrough t hree different perspect ives. First , six m aj or elem ent s of BRT are present ed along wit h t heir respect ive feat ures and at t ribut es. Second, t hese BRT elem ent s are relat ed t o at t ribut es of syst em perform ance. Finally, t he benefit s of BRT syst em s are discussed. This st ruct ure suggest s relat ionship bet ween BRT elem ent s, syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s. The choice of BRT elem ent s det erm ine syst em perform ance. Perform ance charact erist ics, t oget her wit h individual elem ent s, drive how benefit s are generat ed.

M a j or Ele m e n t s of BRT Running Ways Stations Vehicles Fare Collection ITS Operations Service andPlanning Operations Plan

C ha pt er 2

Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Travel Time Savings Reliability Identity and Image Safety & Security Capacity

Syst e m Be n e fit s Ridership Transit -Supportive Land Land Development Development Environmental Quality Cost Effectiveness Capital Cost Effectiveness Operating Efficiency Efficiency

EX PERI EN CE WI T H BRT ELEM EN T S Experience in t he Unit ed St at es suggest s t hat im plem ent at ion of m ore com plex BRT syst em elem ent s is j ust beginning. I m plem ent at ion of running ways, st at ions, and vehicles suggest a wide variet y of applicat ions. Som e of t he m ore quickly im plem ent ed proj ect s dem onst rat ed t he least am ount of invest m ent in BRT syst em elem ent s. BRT Element

Experience in the United States

Running Way Running Way Segregation Running Way Marking Guidance (Lateral)

BRT systems in the United States have incorporated all types of running ways – mixed flow arterial (Los Angeles, Honolulu), mixed flow freeway (Phoenix), dedicated arterial lanes (Boston, Orlando), at-grade transitways (Miami), and fully grade-separated surface transitways (Pittsburgh), and subways (Seattle, Boston late 2004). The only application of running way guidance was the precision docking for Las Vegas MAX with optical guidance. Use of running way markings to differentiate BRT running ways and articulated brand identity was rare.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 1

Execut ive Sum m ary

BRT Element Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Layout Passing Capability Station Access

Experience in the United States The level of station design correlates strongly with the level of running way segregation. Systems with designated lanes on arterials or segregated transitways had stations with higher sophistication and more amenities. Only one system in the United States has level boarding platforms (Las Vegas MAX). Real-time schedule and/or vehicle arrival information and communications infrastructure such as public telephones and emergency telephones are starting to be installed in systems.

Vehicles Vehicle Configuration Aesthetic Enhancement Passenger Circulation Enhancement Propulsion

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Transaction Media Fare Structure

Early BRT systems used standard vehicles that were often identical to the rest of a particular agency’s fleet. Systems, such as Los Angeles Metro Rapid, AC Transit’s Rapid Bus, and Boston’s Silver Line, are phasing in operation of 60-foot articulated buses as demand grows. The use of vehicle configurations or aesthetic enhancements to differentiate BRT is gaining momentum. In addition to differentiated liveries and logos, agencies are procuring Stylized and Specialized BRT vehicles. Las Vegas provides the first use of a Specialized BRT Vehicle. Alternate fare collection processes are rare in the United States, with the only proof-of-payment system associated with the Las Vegas MAX system. Variations on proof-ofpayment such as free downtown zones and pay-on-exit are used in Orlando, Seattle, and Pittsburgh. Electronic fare collection using magnetic-stripe cards or smart cards is slowly being incorporated into BRT systems, but as part of agency-wide implementation rather than BRTspecific implementation. Smart cards are more common.

Intelligent Transportaiton Systems Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Technology Operations Management Technology Passenger Information Safety and Security Technology Support Technologies Service and Operating Plans Route Length Route Structure Service Span Frequency of Service Station Spacing Method of Schedule Control

The most common ITS applications include Transit Signal Priority, Advanced Communication Systems, Automated Scheduling and Dispatch Systems, and Real-Time Traveler Information at Stations and on Vehicles. Installation of Security Systems such as emergency telephones at stations and closed circuit video monitoring is rare, but increasing as newer, more comprehensive systems are implemented.

Implementations of BRT generally followed principles of greater spacing between stations, all-day service spans and frequent service. Systems that use exclusive transitways (Miami-Dade’s atgrade South Busway and Pittsburgh’s grade-separated transitways) are operated with integrated networks of routes that include routes that serve all stops and a variety of feeders and expresses with integrated off-line and line-haul operation.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 2

Execut ive Sum m ary

EX PERI EN CE WI T H BRT SY ST EM PERFORM AN CE Syst em perform ance for BRT syst em s is assessed according t o five key at t ribut es – t ravel t im e, reliabilit y, ident it y and im age, safet y and securit y, and capacit y. Each of t he BRT syst em elem ent s has different effect s on syst em perform ance. A sum m ary of which elem ent s affect s each at t ribut e of syst em perform ance is present ed below.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 3

Execut ive Sum m ary

System Performance Travel Time Savings

Reliability

Identity and Image

Safety and Security

Capacity

h

H

h

h

h

RUNNING WAY Running Way Segregation

h

Running Way Marking h

h

h

Station Type

h

h

h

h

Platform Height

h

H

h

h

h

Platform Layout

h

H

h

Passing Capability

h

H

h

Running Way Guidance STATIONS

Station Access

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

VEHICLES Vehicle Configurations Aesthetic Enhancement Passenger Circulation Enhancement Propulsion Systems

h

h

h

h

H

h

h

h

FARE COLLECTION Fare Collection Process

H

H

H

Fare Transaction Media

H

H

H

Fare Structure

H

H H

H

H

H H

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Technology Operations Management

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

Passenger Information

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H H

Safety and Security technology

H

Support Technologies

SERVICE AND OPERATING PLANS H

Route Length Route Structure

H

H H

Span of Service Frequency of Service

H

H

Station Spacing

H

H

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

H

H

ES- 4

Execut ive Sum m ary

BRT syst em perform ance can be assessed based on t he experience of t en BRT syst em s across t he Unit ed St at es: Silver Line, Bost on, MA Neighborhood Express, Chicago, CA Cit yExpress! , Honolulu, HI , MAX, Las Vegas, NV Met ro Rapid, Los Angeles, CA Sout h Dade Busway, Miam i- Dade, FL Rapid Bus San Pablo Corridor, Oakland, CA LYMMO, Orlando, FL Busways ( West , East and Sout h) , Pit t sburgh, PA Rapid, Phoenix, AZ The experience suggest s t hat t here are concret e im provem ent s t o t ravel t im e, reliabilit y, and capacit y as well as percept ions of im provem ent s in safet y and securit y and im age and ident it y.

Travel Time Wit h respect t o t ot al BRT t ravel t im es, BRT proj ect s wit h m ore exclusive running ways generally experienced t he great est t ravel t im e savings com pared t o t he local bus rout e. Exclusive t ransit way proj ect s operat ed at a t ravel t im e rat e of 2 t o 3.5 m inut es per m ile ( bet ween 17 and 30 m iles per hour) . Art erial BRT proj ect s in m ixed flow t raffic or designat ed lanes operat ed bet ween 3.5 and 5 m inut es per m ile ( bet ween 12 and 17 m iles per hour) . Perform ance in reliabilit y also dem onst rat ed a sim ilar pat t ern.

Reliability As expect ed, syst em s wit h m ore exclusive t ransit ways dem onst rat ed t he m ost reliabilit y and t he least schedule variabilit y and bunching. The abilit y t o t rack reliabilit y changes has been lim it ed by t he fact t hat m ost t ransit agencies do not regularly m easure t his perform ance at t ribut e. Passenger surveys, however, indicat e t hat reliabilit y is im port ant for at t ract ing and ret aining passengers. New aut om at ed vehicle locat ion syst em s, m ay allow for t he obj ect ive and conclusive m easurem ent of reliabilit y.

Image and Identity Perform ance in achieving a dist inct brand ident it y for BRT has been m easured by in- dept h passenger surveys. The m ore successful BRT syst em s have been able t o achieve a dist inct ident it y and posit ion in t he respect ive region’s fam ily of t ransit services. BRT passengers generally had higher cust om er sat isfact ion and rat ed service qualit y higher for BRT syst em s t han for t heir parallel local t ransit services.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 5

Execut ive Sum m ary

Safety and Security Dat a m easuring t he difference in safet y and securit y of BRT syst em s as com pared wit h t he rest of t he respect ive region’s t ransit syst em have not been collect ed. Drawing conclusions about t he efficacy of BRT elem ent s in prom ot ing safet y and securit y is t herefore prem at ure. Dat a from Pit t sburgh suggest t hat BRT operat ions on exclusive t ransit ways have significant ly fewer accident s per unit ( vehicle m ile or vehicle hour) of service t han convent ional local t ransit operat ions in m ixed t raffic. Cust om er percept ions of “ personal safet y” or securit y reveal t hat cust om ers perceive BRT syst em s t o be safer t han t he rest of t he t ransit syst em .

Capacity For virt ually all BRT syst em s im plem ent ed in t he Unit ed St at es, capacit y has not been an issue. To dat e, none of t hem have been operat ed at t heir m axim um capacit y. On all syst em s, t here is significant room t o expand operat ed capacit y by operat ing larger vehicles, higher frequencies, or bot h.

EX PERI EN CE WI T H BRT SY ST EM BEN EFI T S The benefit s of BRT syst em im plem ent at ion are now being felt . While t he m ost t angible benefit is addit ional ridership, cost effect iveness and operat ing efficiencies as well as increases in t ransit - support ive land developm ent and environm ent al qualit y are also closely linked t o t he im plem ent at ion of BRT syst em s.

Ridership There have been significant increases in t ransit ridership in virt ually all corridors where BRT has been im plem ent ed. Though m uch of t he ridership increases have com e from passengers form erly using parallel service in ot her corridors, passenger surveys have revealed t hat m any t rips are new t o t ransit , eit her by individuals who used t o drive or be driven, or individuals who used t o walk, or by individuals who t ake advant age of BRT’s im proved level of service t o m ake t rips t hat were not m ade previously. Aggregat e analyses of ridership survey result s suggest t hat t he ridership increases due t o BRT im plem ent at ion exceed t hose t hat would be expect ed as t he result of sim ple level of service im provem ent s. This im plies t hat t he ident it y and passenger inform at ion advant ages of BRT are at t ract ive t o pot ent ial BRT cust om ers. Ridership gains of bet ween 5 and 25% are com m on. Significant ly great er gains, such as 85% in Bost on’s Silver Line represent t he pot ent ial for BRT.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 6

Execut ive Sum m ary

Capital Cost Effectiveness BRT dem onst rat es relat ively low capit al cost s per m ile of invest m ent . While recent ly im plem ent ed BRT syst em s have focused on less capit al- int ensive invest m ent s, m ore capit al int ensive invest m ent s will begin service in t he next few years. Depending on t he operat ing environm ent , BRT syst em s are able t o achieve service qualit y im provem ent s ( such as t ravel t im e savings of 15 t o 25 percent and increases in reliabilit y) and ridership gains t hat com pare favorably t o t he capit al cost s and t he short am ount of t im e t o im plem ent BRT syst em s. Furt herm ore, BRT syst em s are able t o operat e wit h lower rat ios of vehicles com pared t o t ot al passengers.

Operating Cost Efficiency BRT syst em s are able t o int roduce higher operat ing efficiency and service product ivit y int o for t ransit syst em s t hat incorporat e t hem . Experience shows t hat when BRT is int roduced int o corridors and passengers are allowed t o choose BRT service, corridor perform ance indicat ors ( such as passengers per revenue hour, subsidy per passenger m ile, and subsidy per passenger) im prove. Furt herm ore, t ravel t im e savings and higher reliabilit y enables t ransit agencies t o operat e m ore vehicle m iles of service from each vehicle hour operat ed.

Transit-Supportive Land Development I n places where t here has been significant invest m ent in t ransit infrast ruct ure and relat ed st reet scape im provem ent s ( e.g., Bost on, Pit t sburgh, and Ot t awa and Vancouver in Canada) , t here have been significant posit ive developm ent effect s. I n som e cases, t he developm ent has been adj acent t o t ransit t o t he t ransit facilit y, while in ot her places t he developm ent has been int egrat ed wit h t he t ransit st at ions. Experience is not yet widespread enough t o draw conclusions on t he fact ors t hat would result in even great er developm ent benefit s from BRT invest m ent , alt hough t he general principle t hat good t ransit and t ransit - support ive land uses are m ut ually reinforcing should hold.

Environmental Quality Docum ent at ion of t he environm ent al im pact s of BRT syst em s is rare. Experience does show t hat t here is im provem ent t o environm ent al qualit y due t o a num ber of fact ors. Ridership gains suggest t hat som e form er aut om obile users are using t ransit as a result of BRT im plem ent at ion. Transit agencies are serving passengers wit h fewer hours of operat ion, pot ent ial reducing em issions. Most im port ant ly, t ransit agencies are adopt ing vehicles wit h alt ernat ive fuels, propulsion syst em s, and pollut ant em issions cont rols.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 7

Execut ive Sum m ary

PROGRESS WI T H DOCU M EN T I N G BRT EX PERI EN CE The experience wit h BRT as of 2004 represent s significant progress since t he launch of FTA’s BRT I nit iat ive and individual proj ect init iat ives at t he local level. There has been a long hist ory of individual elem ent s of BRT syst em s. Recent ly, however, BRT syst em s are being int egrat ed m uch m ore com prehensively and in ways t hat are m ore m eaningful and underst andable for passengers and non- passengers alike. These int egrat ed syst em s are being im plem ent ed wit h great er at t ent ion t o a broader array of obj ect ives. I n addit ion t o im proving t ravel t im e and capacit y, ot her obj ect ives such as reliabilit y, safet y and securit y, and ident it y and im age are m ot ivat ing t he int egrat ion of addit ional elem ent s such as advanced vehicles and m ore elaborat e st at ions int o BRT syst em s. Ridership gains of bet ween 5 and 25% are com m on. Furt herm ore, benefit s such as t ransit - support ive developm ent , environm ent al qualit y, capit al cost effect iveness, and operat ing efficiency, are being realized and m easured m ore concret ely. The experience wit h BRT is off t o a posit ive st art wit h exem plary proj ect s serving as m odels for fut ure proj ect s im plem ent ed by peer agencies. This first wave of proj ect s includes m any syst em s operat ing wit h convent ional vehicles m ixed- flow art erial t raffic or exclusive t ransit ways. The years 2005 and 2006 will see m ore int egrat ion of st at ion design, advanced vehicles, fare collect ion, and I TS int o BRT. Addit ional proj ect s t o begin service will include: Orange Line ( Los Angeles) Euclid Corridor ( Cleveland) Phase I BRT Corridor ( Eugene, OR) Hart ford - New Brit ain Busway ( Hart ford, CT) Docum ent ing t hese proj ect s and ext ended experience wit h exist ing proj ect s in fut ure edit ions of Ch a r a ct e r ist ics of Bus Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k in g ( CBRT) will help t o dem onst rat e t he longer- t erm perform ance and benefit s of BRT.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

ES- 8

1. I nt roduct ion

1 .0

What is BRT?

I N T RODU CT I ON : T H E N EED FOR AN D PU RPOSE OF CH ARACT ERI ST I CS OF BU S RAPI D T RAN SI T FOR DECI SI ON -M AK I N G

One of Federal Transit Adm inist rat ion’s ( FTA) obj ect ives is t o provide local and st at e officials wit h t he inform at ion t hey need t o m ake inform ed t ransport at ion invest m ent decisions. Wit h t his obj ect ive in m ind, t he Ch a r a ct e r ist ics of Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k ing ( CBRT) report was prepared. I t provides t ransport at ion planners and decision m akers wit h basic inform at ion and dat a t o support t he developm ent and evaluat ion of bus rapid t ransit concept s as one of m any opt ions during alt ernat ives analyses and subsequent proj ect planning. This report describes t he physical, operat ional, cost , perform ance and pot ent ial benefit s of BRT’s const it uent elem ent s bot h individually and com bined as int egrat ed syst em s. I t s int ended audience includes urban t ransport at ion professionals and officials involved in developing and evaluat ing high perform ance t ransit syst em s of which BRT is one alt ernat ive.

1 .1 WH AT I S BRT ? BRT I m ple m e n t a t ion Gu ide line s, defined BRT as: “ A flexible, high perform ance rapid t ransit m ode t hat com bines a variet y of physical, operat ing and syst em elem ent s int o a perm anent ly int egrat ed syst em wit h a qualit y im age and unique ident it y.” 1 This definit ion highlight s BRT’s flexibilit y and t he fact t hat it encom passes a wide variet y of applicat ions, each one t ailored t o a part icular set of t ravel m arket s and physical environm ent s. BRT’s flexibilit y derives from t he fact t hat BRT vehicles ( e.g., buses, specialized BRT vehicles) can t ravel anywhere t here is pavem ent and t he fact t hat BRT’s basic service unit , a single vehicle, is relat ively sm all com pared t o rail and t rain based rapid t ransit m odes. A given BRT corridor applicat ion m ight encom pass rout e segm ent s where vehicles operat e on bot h m ixed t raffic and where t hey operat e on a dedicat ed, fully gradeseparat ed t ransit way wit h m aj or st at ions. BRT applicat ions can com bine various rout e segm ent s such as t he above t o provide a single- seat , no- t ransfer service t hat m axim izes cust om er convenience. Unlike ot her rapid t ransit m odes where basic rout e alignm ent and st at ion locat ions are const rained by right of way availabilit y, BRT can be t ailored t o t he unique origin and dest inat ion pat t erns of a given

1 Levinson et al., Bus Rapid Transit - Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90-Volume II

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 1

1. I nt roduct ion

What is BRT?

corridor’s t ravel m arket . As t he spat ial nat ure of t ransit dem and changes, BRT syst em s can adapt t o t hese dynam ic condit ions. Many of t he concept s at t he heart of BRT have been in use for decades. Dedicat ed t ransit ways/ busways, lim it ed- st op and express services and exclusive bus lanes have becom e part of t he t ransit planning vocabulary because t hey have enhanced speed and reliabilit y and t hus encouraged t ransit usage; however, t here is uncert aint y am ong elect ed officials and even som e t ransit professionals about what BRT is and how it differs from convent ional bus services and syst em s. This quest ion is difficult t o answer, in part because t he opt ions available for each BRT elem ent are so ext ensive t hat t here are an infinit e variet y of int egrat ed BRT syst em s. BRT’s inherent flexibilit y m eans t hat no t wo BRT syst em s will look exact ly t he sam e wit hin a given region let alone bet ween t wo different m et ropolit an areas. Fort unat ely, t here is an ext ensive body of inform at ion and dat a describing each of BRT’s const it uent elem ent s and a growing body of lit erat ure on t he cum ulat ive im pact s of packaging m ult iple elem ent s int o int egrat ed BRT syst em s. This report com bines bot h t ypes of inform at ion in a single, easy t o use reference t ool for t ransport at ion planners generat ing evaluat ion crit eria for use in select ing from t he large array of BRT elem ent s and int egrat ing t hem int o com prehensive syst em s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 2

1. I nt roduct ion

BRT in t he Transport at ion Planning Process

1 .2 BRT I N T H E T RAN SPORT AT I ON PLAN N I N G PROCESS Underst anding BRT’s capabilit ies is im port ant for assessing it s perform ance and pot ent ial benefit s during an Alt ernat ives Analysis. The Federal Transit Act requires t hat all request s for capit al assist ance for New St art funds be preceded by an alt ernat ives analysis where a full range of feasible, pot ent ially cost - effect ive alt ernat ives for addressing specific t ransport at ion needs are obj ect ively and t ransparent ly evaluat ed. Despit e t he fact t hat BRT is a bona fide rapid t ransit concept , local planning effort s oft en do not have com plet e inform at ion regarding BRT’s: Physical and operat ing charact erist ics ridership at t ract ion capit al, operat ing and m aint enance cost s perform ance in t erm s of speed, reliabilit y and ot her m easures air, noise, and ot her environm ent al im pact s abilit y t o induce sust ainable, t ransit orient ed land uses Unfam iliarit y wit h t hese charact erist ics of BRT affect s t he abilit y of planning t o support com plet ely inform ed decision m aking about invest m ent s. I n addit ion t o t he need for bet t er inform at ion about BRT for use in Alt ernat ives Analyses, t here is also a need for inform at ion on BRT for less com plex, “ first cut ” sket ch planning exercises, where an init ial list of viable, pot ent ially desirable alt ernat ives is developed. Exhibit 1- 1 illust rat es t he relat ionship of t he num ber of alt ernat ives considered during Syst em s / sket ch planning, Alt ernat ives Analysis, Prelim inary Engineering and ot her planning and proj ect developm ent st eps t o t he level of design det ail ut ilized. Early in t he planning process, t here are m any alt ernat ives available t o solve a specific t ransport at ion need. Because of resource const raint s, all alt ernat ives cannot be exhaust ively analyzed in det ail at all planning st ages. Once t he universe of pot ent ially feasible opt ions have been narrowed down t o a sm all num ber t hrough t he sket ch planning process, a m ore det ailed analysis can be undert aken. I nit ially, sket ch planning t echniques are used t o est ablish t he range of alt ernat ives t hat m eet screening crit eria, ruling out t hose alt ernat ives det erm ined t o have “ fat al flaws” or wit h significant ly lower perform ance t han ot hers. I n essence, it set s t he agenda for subsequent and m ore det ailed Alt ernat ives Analyses.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 3

1. I nt roduct ion

BRT in t he Transport at ion Planning Process

Exhibit 1-1: Transit Investment Planning and Project Development Process

Syst e m s/ Sk e t ch Pla nn ing Alt e r na t ive Ana lysis N u m be r of Alt e r na t ive s

Pr e lim ina r y En gin e e r in g

Fin a l D e sign a n d Con st r uct ion

Le ve l of De t a il

Alt hough sket ch planning does not provide t he level of det ail necessary in t he Alt ernat ives Analysis process, it does require planners t o grasp t he universe of pot ent ial alt ernat ives, and have access t o accurat e and balanced inform at ion about t he abilit y of each alt ernat ive t o m eet a broad set of perform ance, operat ional and cost obj ect ives. Aft er a det ailed Alt ernat ives Analysis in support of m aj or invest m ent decision- m aking is perform ed ( e.g., t o support a subsequent FTA New St art s funding applicat ion) , only one recom m ended alt ernat ive defined in t erm s of m ode, syst em s concept and general alignm ent will rem ain. At t his st age, t he proj ect can advance t o prelim inary engineering, which uses m uch m ore det ailed engineering and operat ions analysis, provides a com plet e descript ion of t he given alt ernat ive. Prelim inary engineering is followed by final design and const ruct ion.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 4

1. I nt roduct ion

I nt ended Use of CBRT

1 .3 I N T EN DED U SE OF T H E CBRT REPORT The purpose of t he CBRT report is t o provide a useful reference for t ransit and t ransport at ion planning officials involved in sket ch planning and det ailed Alt ernat ives Analyses. The report provides a det ailed overview of BRT’s six basic elem ent s, and t he cost s and benefit s of com bining t hem in different ways. CBRT provides inform at ion useful t o planners who serve decision- m aking on each elem ent and on how t he elem ent s m ight be packaged int o an int egrat ed syst em t o produce t he m axim um benefit s. The dat a provided in t his report can also be used t o assess t he reasonableness of cost est im at es and ridership forecast s prepared as part of FTA Alt ernat ive Analyses t hrough det ailed engineering st udies, ridership t raffic and cost m odeling. While t he report does not cont ain t he dat a needed t o develop operat ing and m aint enance cost m odels, it does provide inform at ion t hat can be used as a “ baseline” t o assess t he reasonableness of forecast s produced from t hese requirem ent s. I n cases where m ore det ailed alt ernat ives developm ent and analysis is needed before decision m akers can reach closure, t he CBRT report provides pract it ioners wit h benchm ark dat a t o assess t he reasonabilit y and reliabilit y of t he benefit s, cost s and im pact assessm ent result s produced by m ore det ailed analysis t ools such as t ravel forecast ing, m ult i- m odal t raffic sim ulat ion and fully allocat ed or increm ent al operat ing and m aint enance cost m odels. Exhibit 1- 2 below sum m arizes t he pot ent ial applicat ions of t he CBRT report in t he planning and proj ect developm ent process described above. Of t he t hree m aj or st eps described in Exhbit 1- 2 – Syst em s Planning, Alt ernat ives Analysis, and Prelim inary Engineering – t he CBRT is m ost relevant t o t he first t wo, Syst em s Planning and Alt ernat ives Analysis. Not e t hat t he em phasis of t he CBRT report is on front - end t ransit planning and developm ent , where analyt ical det ail is not as crit ical t o decision- m aking as having concept ual m ast ery of viable proj ect alt ernat ives. At t he beginning of t he planning process, t he CBRT report helps senior planners and decision- m akers ident ify t he range of possibilit ies at bot h t he individual elem ent and syst em s level as quickly as possible. I t also provides aggregat e physical, operat ional, cost and perform ance inform at ion useful in reducing t he num ber t o a m ore m anageable sub- set for subsequent analysis or im plem ent at ion, depending on t he sit uat ion. For m ore det ailed im plem ent at ion guidance for lat er and m ore det ailed phases of proj ect design, t ransport at ion planners and BRT syst em designers are encouraged t o use t he relevant indust ry st andards and codes and t he m any im plem ent at ion guidelines t hat have been developed t o support BRT and t he bus indust ry, such as: TCRP Re por t 9 0 : BRT I m ple m e nt a t ion Gu ide lin e s, TRB Tr a n sit Ca pa cit y a n d Qu a lit y of Se r vice M a n ua l, TRB

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 5

1. I nt roduct ion

I nt ended Use of CBRT

H ighw a y Ca pa cit y M a n u a l, TRB St a n da r d Bu s Pr ocu r e m e n t Gu ide lin e s, APTA I TS Enh a nce d Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit . FTA, June 2003 BRT Ve h icle Cha r a ct e r ist ics. FTA, April 2001 I n addit ion, product s of TCRP Proj ect A- 23A, Cost s a n d Effe ct ive ne ss of Se le ct e d Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit Com pon e n t s, which is t o be com plet ed in 2005, is expect ed t o produce research t hat t horoughly explores t he im pact s of specific Bus Rapid Transit com ponent s and t o cat alog cost s and effect iveness of bus rapid t ransit syst em s.

Exhibit 1-2: Characteristics of BRT in Project Planning and Development Pla n n in g/ Pr oj e ct D e ve lopm e n t Ph a se

Bu s Cor r idor I m pr ove m e n t s,

Sm a ll St a r t s, < $ 7 5 M

N e w St a r t s, > $ 7 5 M

Pa ck a ge < $ 2 5 M Screening Of Alt ernat ives / Syst em s Planning / Sket ch Planning

Process Funct ion: I dent ificat ion And Screening Of Broadly Defined Syst em Package Concept s For Refinem ent And Analysis Crit eria: Sket ch Planning Level Of Det ail Cost , Benefit And I m pact Est im at es Product s: Alt ernat ives For Furt her Refinem ent And/ Or Analysis

Alt ernat ives Analysis N/ A

Prelim inary Engineering

Process Funct ions: Less Det ailed Analysis; Fewer “ Just ificat ion” Crit eria Needed; Ot herwise Sam e As For New St art s

Process Funct ions: Definit ion Of Alt ernat ives At Bot h BRT Elem ent And Syst em ’s Package Level; Check Reasonabilit y Of Analysis Result s

Crit eria; Mor e Accurat e Est im at es Of Cost s, Benefit s And I m pact s For Syst em Alt ernat ives

Crit eria: Mor e Accurat e Est im at es Of Cost s, Benefit s And I m pact s For Syst em Alt ernat ives

Out com e: Single Syst em ’s Package To Bring I nt o Proj ect Developm ent / PE

Out com e: Single Syst em ’s Package To Bring I nt o Proj ect Developm ent / PE

Process Funct ions: Det ailed Definit ion Of Each Elem ent I n Select ed Syst em Package; Assessm ent Of Reasonabilit y Of Specificat ions And Cost Est im at es, By Elem ent Crit eria: Det ailed Cost , Perform ance And I m pact Est im at es To Take I nt o Final Design And I m plem ent at ion Out com e: Det ailed Definit ion Of Proj ect To Take I nt o Final Design/ I m plem ent at ion

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 6

1. I nt roduct ion

St ruct ure and Cont ent of CBRT

1 .4 ST RU CT U RE AN D CON T EN T OF CBRT The core of t he CBRT report is organized int o t hree relat ed t opic areas, as illust rat ed by Exhibit 1- 3:

Exhibit 1-3: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (CBRT) Report

BRT Syst em Benefit s ( Chapt er 4) – t his chapt er describes som e of t he m ost im port ant benefit s of int egrat ed BRT syst em s in t erm s of ridership, econom ic developm ent , and environm ent al m it igat ion. The chapt er also includes an assessm ent of t he im pact of BRT syst em im plem ent at ion on t wo im port ant cat egories of t ransit syst em perform ance — capit al cost effect iveness and operat ing efficiency.

Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Travel Time Savings Reliability Identity and Image Safety & Security Capacity

Ch a pt e r 2

Running Ways Stations Vehicles Fare Collection ITS Operations Service andPlanning Operations Plan

Ch a pt e r 3

BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance ( Chapt er 3) – t his chapt er discusses how each BRT elem ent cont ribut es t o t ransit obj ect ives including reducing t ravel t im es, im proving reliabilit y, providing ident it y and a qualit y im age, im proving safet y and securit y, and increasing capacit y.

M a j or Elem e n t s of BRT

Syst Syst e em m Be Be n ne e fit fit s s Ridership Ridership Transit-Supportive Land Development Environmental Quality Capital Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness Operating Efficiency Efficiency

Ch a pt e r 4

Maj or Elem ent s of BRT ( Chapt er 2) – t his chapt er describes six m aj or BRT elem ent s, including det ailed discussion of t he opt ions and associat ed cost s for each— Running Ways, St at ions, Vehicles, Fare Collect ion, I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s, and Service Plans. A discussion on int egrat ing t hese elem ent s and developing a branding schem e around t hem com plet es t he chapt er.

The t hree- part concept ual fram ework describes t he funct ion of each elem ent as a part of an int egrat ed package, and ident ifies t he funct ional int erface bet ween relat ed elem ent s in achieving specific perform ance obj ect ives. For exam ple, t he effect iveness of cert ain elem ent s is eit her m agnified or nullified when im plem ent ed in com binat ion wit h ot her elem ent s. Funct ional int erface issues like t hese will be carefully ident ified in Chapt ers 2 and 3.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 7

1. I nt roduct ion

St ruct ure and Cont ent of CBRT

Accordingly, inform at ion on perform ance m easures and out com es ( e.g., capacit y, operat ing and m aint enance cost s, revenue speeds, ridership) will be included at t he syst em s as well as individual elem ent levels. The rem ainder of t he report synt hesizes t he inform at ion present ed in Chapt ers 2, 3, and 4 and present s findings and conclusions. Chapt er 5 concludes wit h a sum m ary of BRT experience. I t provides a sum m ary of how elem ent s have been im plem ent ed, on what perform ance obj ect ives have been achieved and what benefit s are generat ed. Chapt er 5 also describes how t he CBRT report will be sust ained as a vit al source of inform at ion on BRT. Appendices include a glossary of t erm s relat ed t o BRT, sum m aries of t he BRT proj ect s BRT syst em det ails and specificat ions, and illust rat ions of applicat ions of BRT elem ent s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1- 8

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

2 .0

M AJ OR ELEM EN T S OF BRT

As described in Chapt er 1, Bus Rapid Transit is a flexible, perm anent ly int egrat ed package of rapid t ransit elem ent s wit h a qualit y im age and dist inct ident it y. This chapt er describes t he charact erist ics, range of opt ions, and ( where possible) capit al and operat ing cost s and a variet y of ot her crit ical planning param et ers for t he following six m aj or BRT elem ent s. Ru n n in g W a ys - Running ways drive t ravel speeds, reliabilit y and ident it y. Opt ions range from general t raffic lanes t o fully- grade separat ed BRT t ransit ways. St a t ion s – St at ions, as t he ent ry point t o t he syst em , are t he single m ost im port ant cust om er int erface, affect ing accessibilit y, reliabilit y, com fort , safet y, and securit y, as well as dwell t im es, and syst em im age. BRT st at ion opt ions vary from sim ple st ops wit h basic shelt ers t o com plex int erm odal t erm inals wit h m any am enit ies. Ve h icle s - BRT syst em s can ut ilize a wide range of vehicles, from st andard buses t o specialized vehicles. Opt ions vary in t erm s of size, propulsion syst em , design, int ernal configurat ion, and horizont al/ longit udinal cont rol, all of which im pact syst em perform ance, capacit y and service qualit y. Aest het ics, bot h int ernal and ext ernal are also im port ant for est ablishing and reinforcing t he brand ident it y of t he syst em . Fa r e Colle ct ion – Fare collect ion affect s cust om er convenience and accessibilit y, as well as dwell t im es, service reliabilit y and passenger securit y. Opt ions range from t radit ional pay- on- board m et hods t o pre- paym ent wit h elect ronic fare m edia ( e.g., sm art cards) . I n t e llige n t Tr a n spor t a t ion Syst e m s ( I TS) – A wide variet y of I TS t echnologies can be int egrat ed int o BRT syst em s t o im prove BRT syst em perform ance in t erm s of t ravel t im es, reliabilit y, convenience, operat ional efficiency, safet y and securit y. I TS opt ions include vehicle priorit y, operat ions and m aint enance m anagem ent , operat or com m unicat ions, real- t im e passenger inform at ion, and safet y and securit y syst em s. Se r vice a nd Ope r a t ion s Pla n – Designing a service plan t hat m eet s t he needs of t he populat ion and em ploym ent cent ers in t he area and m at ches t he dem and for service is a key st ep in defining a BRT syst em . How it is designed can im pact syst em capacit y, service reliabilit y, and t ravel t im es, including wait and t ransfer t im es. The aim of t his chapt er is t o describe t he discret e opt ions available for each BRT elem ent . Great er det ail on t he perform ance of t hese elem ent s as part of com prehensive syst em s and in t erm s of how t hey relat e t o specific BRT obj ect ives will be present ed in Chapt er 3. I n t he next six sub- sect ions, Sect ions 2.1 t hrough 2.6, each elem ent will be discussed according t o t he following st ruct ure: Descript ion – A brief descript ion of each elem ent wit h: − Role of t he Elem ent – A descript ion of t he role of each elem ent in BRT syst em s − Elem ent Charact erist ics – A discussion of t he prim ary charact erist ics of each elem ent Opt ions – Various opt ions for each elem ent charact erist ic will be present ed wit h im ages and cost s. I m plem ent at ion I ssues – A set of issues will be present ed for each elem ent Sum m ary of Experience – Real- world inform at ion on im plem ent at ion of t he elem ent in BRT syst em s. Since each of t hese six elem ent s m ust be com bined in an int egrat ed fashion t o m axim ize t he im pact of t he invest m ent , t he last sect ion, Sect ion 2.7, explores how BRT can be int egrat ed int o a package, part icularly wit h respect t o t wo issues: Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 1

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Branding – Elem ent s need t o be com bined t o support t he brand ident it y and t he overall public appeal of BRT services t o pot ent ial riders. I nt erfaces – Part icular elem ent s have design int erfaces wit h ot her elem ent s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 2

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

2 .1 RU N N I N G WAY 2.1.1 Description Role of the Running Way in BRT Just as rail t ransit vehicles t ravel down t racks, bus rapid t ransit vehicles t ravel on guideways or running ways. I n fact , how running ways are incorporat ed int o a BRT syst em is t he m aj or defining fact or of a BRT syst em . Running ways are t he m ost crit ical elem ent in det erm ining t he speed and reliabilit y of BRT services. Running ways are also oft en t he m ost significant cost it em in t he ent ire BRT syst em . Finally, as t he BRT elem ent visible t o t he largest num ber of pot ent ial and exist ing cust om ers, running ways can have a significant im pact on t he im age and ident it y of t he syst em .

Characteristics of Running Way There are t hree prim ary BRT running way charact erist ics: D e gr e e of Se gr e ga t ion – The level of separat ion from ot her t raffic is t he prim ary running way planning param et er. An exist ing m ixed flow lane on an art erial represent s t he m ost basic form of running way. BRT vehicles can operat e wit h no separat ion from ot her vehicle t raffic on virt ually any art erial st reet or highway. I ncreasing levels of segregat ion t hrough exclusive art erial lanes, grade separat ed lanes or exclusive t ransit ways on separat e right s- of- way add increasing levels of t ravel t im e savings and reliabilit y im provem ent for t he operat ion of BRT services. Fully grade- separat ed, segregat ed BRT t ransit ways have t he highest cost and highest level of speed, safet y and reliabilit y of any BRT running way t ype. Ru n n in g W a y M a r k in g – Just as a t rack indicat es where a t rain t ravels for rail t ransit passengers and t he com m unit y, t reat m ent s or m arkings t o different iat e a running way can effect ively convey where a BRT service operat es. Different iat ion in t he appearance of t he running way can be accom m odat ed t hrough a num ber of t echniques including pavem ent m arkings, lane delineat ors, alt ernat e pavem ent t ext ure, alt ernat e pavem ent color, and separat e right s- of- way. Gu ida n ce ( La t e r a l) – BRT running ways can incorporat e a feat ure known as lat eral guidance. This feat ure cont rols t he side- t o- side m ovem ent of vehicles along t he running way sim ilar t o how a t rack defines where a t rain operat es. Like m ost bus operat ions, m any BRT syst em s operat e wit h no lat eral guidance, relying on t he skills of t he vehicle operat or t o st eer t he vehicle. Som e BRT syst em s incorporat e a form of vehicle guidance t o m eet one or m ore of a variet y of obj ect ives, including t o reduce right of way requirem ent s, t o provide a sm oot her ride and t o facilit at e “ precision docking” at st at ions, allowing no- st ep boarding and alight ing. Depending upon t he t ype of t echnology used, t he guidance can be m echanical, elect ro- m agnet ic, or opt ical.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 3

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

2.1.2 Running Way Options Running Way Segregation Wit h lit t le or no invest m ent in running ways, BRT vehicles operat e in m ixed flow lanes in an art erial roadway. I ncreasing invest m ent in separat ing BRT vehicles from general t raffic brings increasing benefit s of speed and reliabilit y. There are four m aj or opt ions for running ways t hat represent increasing levels of segregat ion. Ru n n in g W a y Se gr e ga t ion Type s Mixed Flow Lanes Unimproved Mixed Flow Lanes Mixed flow lanes are the most basic form of BRT running way. In fact, most rubbertired urban transit service operates on mixed flow lanes. BRT vehicles face delays due to conflicts with other vehicles, which also operate within the street.

Los Angeles Metro Rapid

Mixed Flow Lanes with Queue Jumpers Mixed flow lanes can be augmented through the use of queue jumpers. A queue jumper is typically a short section of roadway on an approach to a bottleneck, (e.g., an intersection), designated for exclusive use of a BRT vehicle or for BRT vehicles and turning vehicles only. A queue jumper thus allows BRT vehicles to “jump the queue” or bypass congestion or delays at intersections. In most applications, queue jumper lanes are used in conjunction with signal priority to allow vehicles to enter an intersection with a special signal ahead of other vehicles.

COST ($ Million) 0

15

30

Cost: Use of existing lanes has minimal costs since there are no modifications to be made. $0.1 - $0.29 million per queue jump lane section per intersection (excluding ROW acquisition). Costs can be less if existing roadway space can be rededicated for the purposes of queue jump lanes.

Designated (Reserved) Arterial Lanes In corridors where the alignment of the BRT route follows an existing arterial roadway, designated lanes can provide BRT vehicles with a fast, reliable alternative to mixed flow traffic lanes. With a designated arterial lane, a traffic lane within an arterial roadway is set aside for the operation of BRT vehicles. Other vehicles are restricted from using the lane. This is enforced through a physical barrier or through police enforcement. BRT vehicles thus face minimal congestion delay between intersections. With designated lanes, BRT vehicles are not delayed in the approach to a station by a queue of other vehicles. Designated lanes thus reduce travel times and improve reliability. In some cases, specified classes of vehicles are allowed to share the designated lane such as turning vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles. In these cases, slight performance reductions are experienced as a result of delays caused by the movements of automobiles into and out of the running way. Cost: $2.5 - $2.9 million per lane mile (excluding ROW acquisition)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Boston Silver Line Phase I

COST ($ Million) 0

15

30

2- 4

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Ru n n in g W a y Se gr e ga t ion Type s At-Grade Transitways Standard Lane – Some urban corridors have new or existing rights-of-way available for the construction of infrastructure for exclusive use of transit vehicles. Exclusive facilities offer significant potential for speed, reliability and safety improvements since they physically separate BRT vehicles from the general stream of traffic, eliminating the potential for general traffic to encroach on the BRT lanes. Because other traffic cannot interfere with BRT vehicles, service can be operated safely at much higher speeds between BRT stations. At-grade exclusive lanes do, however, interact with other traffic at cross streets.

East Busway, Pittsburgh

COST ($ Million) Bi-Directional Lane – In certain cases, right-of-way for exclusive lanes may only be wide enough to accommodate one single bi-directional lane. At low frequencies of service, single bi-directional exclusive lanes can provide many of the same benefits as two exclusive lanes. At higher frequencies, sophisticated signal systems and coordinated schedules may be required to ensure safe and unimpeded operation of BRT vehicles.

0

15

30

Cost (not including ROW): $6.5 – 10.2 million per lane mile

Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways The running way type with the greatest level of separation is the grade-separated exclusive transitway. These facilities can either be stand-alone (as in the use of former railroad rights-of-way) or be on a major highway (either running along the side or in the median of a freeway or in a separate elevated or underground viaduct). Grade-separated exclusive transitways allow BRT vehicles to operate unimpeded at maximum safe speeds between BRT stations. Separated from congestion in local streets at intersections and adjacent highways, grade-separated exclusive lanes provide the highest travel time savings, the most reliable travel times and highest degree of safety. For this reason, these types of exclusive lanes typically offer the greatest benefits but at the greatest cost. Where volumes of buses is high and where there is a mix of standard and express services, multiple lanes may be necessary to add capacity and to allow passing. Cost (not including ROW):

East Busway, Pittsburgh

El Monte Busway, Los Angeles

Aerial Transitway – $12-30 million per lane mile Below-grade Transitway -- $60 – 105 million per lane mile Additional Lanes: $2.5 – 3 million per lane mile (within existing roadway profile); $6.5 – 10.12 per additional lane mile East Busway, Pittsburgh

COST ($ Million) 0

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

15

30

2- 5

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Running Way Marking Different iat ion of running ways can be accom plished t hrough a num ber of m eans. The t hree m aj or t echniques are described below. Ru n n in g W a y M a r k in g Signage and Striping Signage is the most basic form of marking a lane as reserved for BRT service. It often includes the use of “diamond” lane symbols to restrict automobile service from the lanes. Where transitways and/or bus lanes are built on arterials, signs are provided in each direction at each intersection

Reversible Lane, Pie IX Rbus, Montreal, Canada

Raised Lane Delineators Delineators such as raised pavement marking such as colored line, raised curbs, bollards, or bumps in pavement can highlight the distinction between general purpose lanes and BRT running way lanes.

Optibus Lanes, Leon de Guanajuato, Mexico

Alternate Pavement Color / Texture Implementing alternate pavement color through colored asphalt or concrete can reinforce the notion that a particular lane is reserved for another use, thereby reducing conflicts with other vehicles.

Key Routes, Nagoya, Japan

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 6

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Guidance (Lateral) There are t hree m aj or t ypes of guidance syst em s – each requiring invest m ent in vehicles and running ways. Guidance syst em s can be im plem ent ed flexibly eit her all t hroughout t he running way or at specified locat ions such as narrow sect ions of right - of- way, t ight curves, or approaching and leaving st at ions. Ru n n in g W a y Gu ida n ce Type s Optical Guidance Optical guidance systems involve special optical sensors on the vehicles that read a marker placed on the pavement to delineate path of the vehicle. In this guidance option, the only running way requirement is to have large double striped lines in the center of the respective lanes. Complex electronic/mechanical systems are required for each vehicle

Rouen, France

Cost: $11,500 – 134,000 per vehicle

Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission is implementing optical guidance for the North Las Vegas Boulevard Corridor at a cost of $95,000 per vehicle.

Electromagnetic Guidance Electromagnetic guidance involves the placement of electric or magnetic markers in the pavement such as an electro-magnetic induction wire or permanent magnets in the pavement. Sensors in the vehicle read these markers to direct the path of the vehicle. This type of guidance requires significant advanced planning in order to embed the markers under the pavement. COST ELEMENT Magnetic Sensors per Mile Hardware and Integration per Vehicle

CAPITAL $20,000 $50,000 - $95,000

Mechanical Guidance Mechanical guidance requires the highest running way investment of all guidance options, but the lowest requirement for complex vehicle systems. Vehicles are guided by a physical connection from the running way to the vehicle steering mechanism, such as a steel wheel on the vehicle following a center rail, a rubber guide wheel following a raised curb, or the normal vehicle front wheels following a specifically profiled gutter next to station platforms.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

O-Bahn, Adelaide Australia

2- 7

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

2.1.3 Effects of Running Way Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 1 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he running way elem ent s t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s ident ified in Chapt er 1. These links are explored furt her in Chapt ers 3 and 4.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 8

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Exhibit 2-1: Summary of Effects of Running Way Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings Running Way Segregation Types Mixed Flow Lanes with Queue Jumpers Designated (Reversed) Arterial Lanes At-Grade Exclusive Lane (Transitway) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lane (Transitway)

Running Way Marking Signage Lane Delineators Alternate Pavement Color/Texture Running Way Guidance Type Optical Guidance Electromagnetic Guidance Mechanical Guidance

Congestion delays decrease with increased running way segregation

Reliability

Identity and Image

Running way segregation reduces the risk of delay due to nonrecurring congestion and accidents

Running way segregation highlights a permanent investment and the special treatment for BRT

Safety and Security Separation of BRT vehicles from other traffic streams reduces hazards

Capacity Multiple lanes increase capacity Segregation reduces congestion delay, increasing throughput

System Benefits Running way segregation highlights a permanent investment that attracts development Speed benefits associated with running way enhance ridership gain, environmental benefit

Markings highlight that BRT running ways are a special reserved treatment Guidance allow operators to operate vehicles safely at maximum speeds

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Guidance provides a smoother ride, enhancing image

Guidance allows for safer operation at higher speeds

2- 9

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

2.1.4 Planning and Implementation Issues Ava ila bilit y of Righ t - of- W a y – The m ost significant issue in planning BRT running ways is t he availabilit y of right - of- way, whet her on an art erial, adj acent t o a highway, or on a separat e right - of- way. Dedicat ing space on exist ing roadways for eit her queue j um pers at congest ed int ersect ions or an ent ire dedicat ed lane m ay require reallocat ion of roadway space from general t ravel lanes or parking. Given t he pot ent ial com m unit y im pact s, changes t o t he roadway st ruct ure needs t o be planned carefully. En for ce m e n t – Managing conflict s wit h ot her t ypes of t raffic is im port ant t o m aint ain t he int egrit y of any BRT running way. Ot her vehicles crossing int o t he pat h of BRT vehicles or creat ing congest ion in BRT lanes can int roduce delays and creat e safet y problem s. Enforcing BRT running ways can be done passively t hrough design ( e.g., by physical barriers) or act ive police enforcem ent . Bot h t ypes of enforcem ent require t he part icipat ion of part ners who im plem ent highway design st andards and police agencies. Enforcem ent st rat egies m ust also accom m odat e t he operat ing of vehicles from ot her t ransit agencies and from em ergency services such as police, am bulance, and fire services. D e pe nda bilit y for Opt im a l Pe r for m a n ce – The physical configurat ion of t he running way syst em and t he m at erials used affect s t he abilit y t o operat e, m aint ain, and repair it . Cert ain running way t reat m ent s ( e.g., opt ical, gut t er profile guidance) m ay present operat ions issues in different operat ing condit ions. For exam ple, running ways m ust accom m odat e snow rem oval in nort hern clim at es. As anot her exam ple, t he durabilit y of opt ical guidance m arkings on t he pavem ent m ay be affect ed by dust and heat .

2.1.5 Experience with BRT Running Ways Most BRT applicat ions in t he Unit ed St at es have ut ilized sim ple running way t reat m ent s – com binat ions of m ixed flow operat ion wit h signal priorit y and dedicat ed art erial lanes. Exhibit 2- 2 present s a sum m ary of BRT running way experience. Use of running way guidance is rare except for a lim it ed applicat ion wit h Las Vegas MAX wit h precision docking ( t hrough opt ical guidance) at st at ions. Use of running way m arkings t o different iat e BRT running ways is alm ost non- exist ent , showing t hat a sensibilit y t o incorporat ing running way design int o branding st rat egies have yet t o develop.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 10

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Exhibit 2-2: Experience with BRT Running Ways

Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Silver Line

Express

City Express

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid

Total System Route Miles

2.4 miles

36.7 miles

56.6 miles

7.6 miles

115.3 miles

System Route Length in Mixed Flow Lanes

0.2 miles

36.7 miles

56.6 miles

2.9 miles

115.3 miles

System Route Miles in Designated (Reserved) Arterial Lanes

2.2 miles

4.7 miles

-

System Route Miles in At-Grade Exclusive Lanes

-

-

System Route Miles in Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes

-

-

Running Way Segregation

Guidance Options (Optical / Mechanical / Electromagnetic / - )

None

None

None

Optical

None

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Running Way Marking

Striping

N/A

Concrete barriers on highway lane

Striping

N/A

Pavement Type (Asphalt / Concrete)

Asphalt

Asphalt

Asphalt

Asphalt

Asphalt with Concrete Pads

Type of Grade Crossing Treatments

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 11

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Running Way

Exhibit 2-2: Experience with BRT Running Ways (Continued)

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

South Dade Busway

Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Lymmo

West Busway

Rapid

8 miles

14 miles

3 miles

18.4 miles

75.3 miles

0.8 mile

31.5 miles

Running Way Segregation Total System Route Miles System Route Length in Mixed Flow Lanes

14 miles

System Route Miles in Designated (Reserved) Arterial Lanes System Route Miles in At-Grade Exclusive Lanes

43.8 miles 8 miles

3 miles

System Route Miles in Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes Guidance Options (Optical / Mechanical / Electromagnetic / - )

17.6 miles None

None

None

None

Type of Grade Crossing Treatments

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Traffic Signals

Signal Priority (magnetic loop sensors)

Running Way Marking

Separate ROW

N/A

Concrete Pavers

Asphalt

Concrete Pavers

Pavement Type (Asphalt / Concrete)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Traffic Signals Signage

Asphalt

Asphalt

2- 12

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

2 .2 ST AT I ON S 2.2.1 Description Role of Stations in BRT St at ions form t he crit ical link bet ween t he BRT syst em , it s cust om ers, and ot her public t ransit services offered in t he region. They also are locat ions where t he brand ident it y t hat dist inguishes t he BRT syst em from ot her public t ransit services, port raying a prem ium - t ype service, while int egrat ing wit h and enhancing t he local environm ent . Because BRT syst em s serve high dem and corridors and have only a lim it ed num ber of st ops, t he num ber of cust om ers using each BRT st at ion will be significant ly higher t han would be t he case for a t ypical local bus line. Accordingly, BRT st at ions are m uch m ore significant t han a sign on a pole as is t ypically t he case for convent ional local t ransit bus services. They range from sim ple st ops wit h well- lit basic shelt ers t o com plex int erm odal t erm inals wit h am enit ies such as real t im e passenger inform at ion, newspaper kiosks, coffee bars, parking, pass/ t icket sales and level boarding.

Characteristics of Stations St at ions have five prim ary charact erist ics: Ba sic St a t ion Type – There are several m aj or BRT st at ion t ypes, in increasing size and com plexit y: sim ple st op, enhanced st op, designat ed st at ion, and int erm odal t ransit cent er. BRT st at ions can be designed t o convey a brand ident it y t hat dist inguishes t he BRT syst em from ot her public t ransit services, port raying a prem ium - t ype service, while int egrat ing wit h t he local environm ent . Pla t for m H e igh t – Plat form height affect s t he abilit y of disabled or m obilit y- im paired passengers t o board t he vehicle. Passengers t radit ionally board vehicles by st epping from a low curb up t o t he first st ep on t he vehicle, t hen clim bing addit ional st eps. Given t he t rend t oward widespread adopt ion of low- floor vehicles, boarding has becom e easier for all passengers. Plat form s at t he sam e height as vehicle floors can enhance cust om er experience and reduce dwell t im es if som e approach t o providing no- gap, no- st ep boarding and alight ing is adopt ed t hrough provision of drop ram ps or precision vehicle docking. Pla t for m La you t – Plat form layout , which describes t he lengt h and ext ent of bert hing assignm ent , also is a m aj or elem ent of st at ion design. I t affect s how m any vehicles can sim ult aneously serve a st at ion and how passengers m ust posit ion t hem selves along a plat form t o board a given service. Pa ssing Ca pa bilit y – When service on a running way is so dense t hat vehicles operat e in quick succession, t he abilit y of vehicles t o pass each ot her can m axim ize speed and reduce delay, especially at st at ions. Passing capabilit y can be accom m odat ed t hrough a num ber of m eans including m ult iple lanes, passing lanes at st at ions or int ersect ions, or abilit y t o use adj acent lanes wit h m ixed flow t raffic.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 13

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

St a t ion Acce ss – St at ion access describes how t he BRT syst em is linked t o surrounding com m unit ies. St at ion access can be ent irely focused on pedest rian access t o adj acent land uses or can em phasize regional access t hrough t he provision of large parking garages and lot s. The t ype of parking facilit y and t he num ber of spaces should be t ied t o t he nat ure of t he m arket t hat t he st at ion serves and t he adj acent physical environm ent . The provision of parking at t he appropriat e BRT st at ions can save overall t ravel t im e for cust om ers arriving by aut om obile from out side t he st at ion area and can expand t he reach of t he syst em .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 14

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

2.2.2 Station Options Basic Station Type There are four basic BRT st at ion t ypes: Ba sic St a t ion Type s Simple Stop This is the simplest form of the four BRT station types listed within this section. It consists of a “basic” transit stop with a simple shelter (often purchased “off the shelf”) to protect waiting passengers from the weather. In general, this type of station has the lowest capital cost and provides the lowest level of passenger amenities. Cost: $15,000 to $20,000 per shelter. (Only includes cost of the shelter, does not include cost of platform or soft-costs)

San Pablo Rapid Bus Shelter

COST 0

5

10

Enhanced Stop Enhanced BRT stations include enhanced shelters, which are often specially designed for BRT to differentiate it from other transit stations and to provide additional features such as more weather protection and lighting. This BRT station type often incorporates additional design treatments such as walls made of glass or other transparent material, high quality material finishes, and passenger amenities such as benches, trash cans, or pay phones. Cost: $25,000 to $35,000 per shelter. (Only includes cost of the shelter, does not include cost of platform or soft-costs)

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Shelter

COST 0

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5

10

2- 15

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Ba sic St a t ion Type s Designated Station The designated BRT station may include level passenger boarding and alighting, a grade separated connection from one platform to another and a full range of passenger amenities including retail service and a complete array of passenger information. Cost: $150,000 to $2.5 million per station (lower cost stations include cost of canopy, platform, station enclosure and pedestrian access; higher cost stations designed for higher ridership and include longer platforms and canopies, larger station structure, passenger amenities and roadway access; parking facility costs are not included nor are soft-costs)

Brisbane South East Busway Station

COST 0

5

10

Intermodal Terminal or Transit Center The intermodal terminal or transit center is the most complex and costly of the BRT stations listed in this section. This type of BRT facility will often have level boarding, provides a host of amenities, and accommodates the transfers from BRT service to local bus, other public transit modes, e.g., rail transit, and even intercity bus and rail. Cost: $5 million to $20 million per facility or higher. (Includes the cost of platforms, canopies, large station structure, passenger amenities, pedestrian access, auto access and transit mode for all transit modes served. Does not include soft-costs).

Ottawa Transitway Intermodal Station

COST 0

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5

10

2- 16

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Platform Height There are t hree basic plat form height opt ions Pla t for m H e igh t s Standard Curb The standard curb causes a vertical gap between the height of the station platform or the curb and the vehicle entry step or floor. This causes customers to step up to enter the BRT vehicle and step down to exit the BRT vehicle. In most instances, this type of platform treatment is used when the station right-of-way cannot be altered.

8”

Cost: No incremental cost for station platform

6” COST L

M

H

Raised Curb A raised curb reduces the vertical gap between the platform and the vehicle floor. The raised curb platform height should be no more than 10 inches above the height of the BRT running way or arterial street on which the BRT system operates. In some cases, the raised curb will more closely match the height of BRT vehicle’s entry step or floor to accommodate “near” level boarding. This treatment is preferred over the standard curb. Cost: No significant incremental cost, requires an additional 3-4 inches of concrete depth

5” 9-10” COST L

M

H

Level Platform To create the safest, easiest, and efficient manner of customer boarding and alighting, platforms level with BRT vehicle floors (approximately 14 inches above the pavement for low floor vehicles) are the preferred station platform treatment. Level station platform boarding and alighting platforms enhances the customers traveling experience by creating a seamless transition between station and vehicle.

14”

Cost: No significant incremental cost, requires an additional 8 inches of concrete depth COST L

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

M

H

2- 17

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Platform Layout Plat form layout s range from single vehicle lengt h wit h a single bert h ( boarding posit ion) , usually from 60 feet where only convent ional 40 foot buses are used, t o as long as 300 or m ore feet where m ult iple art iculat ed buses m ust be accom m odat ed: Pla t for m La you t s Single Vehicle Length Platform This is the shortest platform length necessary for the entry and exit of one BRT vehicle at a time at a station.

Boston Silver Line Phase I

Extended Platform with Un-Assigned Berths Extended platforms usually accommodate no less than two vehicles and allow multiple vehicles to simultaneously to load and unload passengers. Since this platform can accommodate more than one vehicle at a time, overlay services can more easily utilize the BRT stations and running way. Cost: Incremental cost will be a multiple of a single vehicle length platform based on the maximum number of vehicles accommodated

Vancouver 98-B Line Station

COST L

M

H

Extended Platform with Assigned Berths Extended platforms with assigned berths have all of the features of extended platforms but also assign vehicles serving specific routes to specific positions on the platform. This is the longest of the two platform length options. Cost: Incremental cost will be a multiple of a single vehicle length platform based on the maximum number of vehicles accommodated Miami South Busway Dadeland South Station

COST L

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

M

H

2- 18

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Passing Capability The abilit y for BRT vehicles in service t o pass one anot her at st at ions is im port ant in t wo prim ary cases: I n m ixed flow operat ion, where frequency is high and t ravel t im es are highly variable I n cases where m ult iple t ypes of rout es ( local and express) operat e along t he sam e running way and serve uneven levels of dem and I n bot h of t hese cases, BRT vehicles can delay ot her BRT vehicles operat ing on t he sam e running way if t here is no abilit y t o pass one anot her at st at ions. Pa ssing Ca pa bilit y Opt ion s Bus Pull-outs For both arterial BRT operation and exclusive lanes, bus pull-outs at stations allow buses serving a station to pull out of the BRT running way and, thus out of the way of BRT vehicles that need to pass vehicles stopped at the stations. Cost: $0.05 million – 0.06 million per pull-out (per station platform)

Passing Lanes at Stations Passing lanes at stations allow a vehicle in express services to pass through a station at full speed or a vehicle to overtake stopped. Cost: $2.5 - $2.9 million per lane mile (excluding ROW acquisition)

Ottawa Transitway

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 19

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Station Access Transit syst em s require linkages t o adj acent com m unit ies in order t o draw passengers from t heir m arket area – eit her t hrough pedest rian linkages t o adj acent sit es or connect ions t hrough t he roadway net work t o adj acent neighborhoods by aut om obile or non- m ot orized m odes. St a t ion Acce ss Opt ion s Pedestrian Linkages Pedestrian linkages, such as sidewalks, overpasses and pedestrian paths are important to establish physical connections from BRT stations to adjacent sites, buildings, and activity centers. Cost: Typically included in the base cost for Designated Stations and Intermodal Terminas or Transit Centers

Walkway to Station, Port Authority of Allegheny County

COST L

M

H

Park-and-Ride Facility Park-and-ride lots allow stations, especially those without significant development, to attract passengers from a wide area around BRT stations. Because services can be routed off the primary running way, regional park-and-ride facilities can also be located off the running way. This arrangement can link BRT service with existing parking lots, potentially reducing capital investment costs. Cost: $3,500 - $5,000 for a surface space $10,000 to $25,000 per space for structured space

Park-and-Ride Lot, Port Authority of Allegheny County

COST L

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

M

H

2- 20

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

2.2.3 Effects of Station Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 3 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he st at ion elem ent s t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s ident ified in Chapt er 1. These links are explored furt her in Chapt ers 3 and 4.

Exhibit 2-3: Summary of Effects of Station Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings

Reliability

Identity and Image

Safety and Security

Capacity

Station Types Basic Shelter Enhanced Shelter Designated Station Intermodal Transit Center

Integrated stations serving multiple services minimize transfer time penalties

Platform Height • Standard Curb • Raised Curb • Level Platform

Reduced vertical clearance facilitates boarding and reduces dwell time

Reduced vertical clearance facilitates boarding and reduces dwell time variability

Platform Layout Single Vehicle Length Platform Extended Platform with Un-Assigned Berths Extended Platform with Assigned Berths Passing Capability Bus Pull-outs Passing Lanes at Stations

Allowing multiple vehicles to load and unload facilitates lower station clearance time Passing at stations allows for express routes and minimizes delays at stations

Allowing multiple vehicles to load and unload reduces delay

Longer platforms limit queuing delays for vehicles waiting to load

Passing at stations allows for schedule maintenance and recovery

Passing limits queuing delays at stations

Station Access Pedestrian Linkages Park-and-Ride Facility

More distinct station types enhance the brand identity of the system Additional amenities appeal to customers Level platforms present an image of advanced technology, similar to some rail systems

Treatments to highlight station access provide attract riders

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

More defined stations build in design treatments to link to surrounding communities

Larger stations increase loading capacity at stations

Reduced vertical clearance may reduce tripping during boarding and alighting

Reduced dwell times for platform heights increase station throughput

Better pedestrian linkages to communities facilitate integration with communities

System Benefits More defined stations attract potential development

Better access attracts customers

2- 21

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

2.2.4 Implementation Issues The flexible and diverse nat ure of BRT present s unique issues and challenges relat ed t o st at ion im plem ent at ion Ava ila bilit y of Pr ope r t y – Just as t he availabilit y of right - of- way is an issue in t he im plem ent at ion of running ways, t he availabilit y of physical propert y for st at ions is a key fact or in st at ion planning. BRT lines using curb lanes or t hat operat e in m ixed t raffic along art erials t ypically serve st at ions sit ed on exist ing sidewalks. Clearance for pedest rian and wheelchair t raffic m ust be account ed for in t he design of st at ions on public sidewalks. I n som e cases, addit ional st reet right - of- way is required eit her t hrough part ial lane realignm ent or a sidewalk ext ension ( a “ bulb out ” ) . Planners m ust balance t he needs of parking, general t raffic lanes, and BRT st at ions. Finally, in exclusive running way sect ions, addit ional real est at e is required t o build full st at ions. I n som e cases, st at ion plat form s m ust fall on opposit e sides of t he st reet due t o right - of- way const raint s. Pe de st r ia n / Pa t r on Acce ss a nd Sa fe t y – Care m ust be t aken t o m inim ize t he conflict bet ween pedest rians and BRT vehicles in and around st at ions. The need t o develop a st rong linkage for pedest rians and wheelchairs t o adj acent com m unit ies will affect t he sit e layout for BRT st at ions. Because st at ion plat form s t ypically are not significant ly higher t han t he running way t hrough t he st at ion, t here is a risk of pedest rians walking int o t he pat h of an oncom ing BRT vehicle t o cross from one plat form t o anot her. Sim ilar conflict s bet ween pedest rians and BRT vehicles m ay occur at crossings bet ween t he BRT running ways and cross st reet s. Som e BRT designs incorporat e elem ent s t hat m inim ize t his conflict . For exam ple, t he Sout heast Busway in Brisbane, Aust ralia provides overhead walks t o access/ egress st at ions for increased cust om er safet y. The overhead walks were also provided as a result of physical st at ion locat ion space lim it at ions. Se cu r it y – St at ion plans should account for t he possibilit y of crim e or ot her securit y t hreat s. Com m on ways of det erring crim e include a high level of general light ing, surveillance cam eras and equipm ent , em ergency call boxes, closed- circuit t elevision m onit oring, ext ensive spot illum inat ion, and t he use of t ransparent m at erials ( e.g. glass) and be designed in a w ay t hat preserves sight lines. Passive ways of incorporat ing securit y int o t he design focus on openness, high visibilit y and int ense light ing. Unobst ruct ed sight lines enable BRT cust om ers t o view t heir surroundings and be viewed wit hin and out side of t he facilit y. Com m u n it y I n t e gr a t ion – As t he prim ary st art ing point for a t ransit j ourney, st at ions provide t he first im pression of t he t ransit syst em and are t he prim ary link bet ween t he syst em and it s surrounding com m unit y. St at ion design and pedest rian linkages t o t he surrounding com m unit y are crit ical in conveying an ident it y for t he BRT syst em . Two key considerat ions are im port ant t o consider in designing st at ions t o int egrat e wit h t he com m unit y: Landscaping and Public Art – BRT syst em int egrat ion int o an urban set t ing provides an opport unit y t o beaut ify t he areas around running ways and st at ions wit h landscaping and ot her upgraded am enit ies such as light ing, sidewalks, st reet furnit ure, and public art including st at ues and ot her art obj ect s. Planning and Zoning – Planning guidelines and zoning regulat ions define t he int ensit y and charact er of t he exist ing and pot ent ial developm ent around a st at ion. I t is

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 22

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

im port ant , t herefore t o account for planning and zoning in order t o m ake sure t hat t he st at ion design is int egrat ed well wit h current and fut ure developm ent . Adve r t ising – Transit agencies oft en incorporat e advert ising t o earn addit ional revenue. The st at ion design, t herefore, m ay need t o incorporat e provisions for print or elect ronic advert ising t hat balance t he agency’s revenue generat ion goals wit h t he aest het ic requirem ent s of t he BRT syst em and t he surrounding com m unit ies.

2.2.5 Experience with BRT Stations Most BRT applicat ions in t he Unit ed St at es use a com binat ion of sim ple t o enhanced st at ion and st op designs and t reat m ent s. Designat ed st at ions and int erm odal st at ions are used prim arily wit h exclusive t ransit ways. Rout e m aps and schedule inform at ion, seat ing and t rash cont ainers are am ong t he m ost com m on am enit ies incorporat ed at st at ions. BRT syst em s wit h m ore com plex st at ions, such as Pit t sburgh, include m ore am enit ies such as heat ing, public address syst em s, and em ergency t elephones. Pit t sburgh’s Busways and Las Vegas MAX are t he only Unit ed St at es BRT syst em s t hat incorporat e raised curbs or level boarding, respect ively. Most BRT syst em s, wit h t he except ion of Orlando, have som e provision for passing at st at ions, eit her t hrough t he use of adj acent m ixed flow lanes or passing lanes at st at ions. A sum m ary of Unit ed St at es BRT syst em s is present ed in Exhibit 2- 4.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 23

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Exhibit 2-4: Experience with BRT Stations Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Silver Line

Express

City Express

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid

77

135

Station Type Total Number of Stations in System On-Street Shelter (Number of Stations in System) Enhanced Shelter (Number of Stations in System) Designated Station (Number of Stations in System) Intermodal Transit Center (Number of Stations in System) Amenities at Typical Stations Telephone Restroom Vending Seating Trash Container Temperature Control Public Art Public Address Emergency Telephone Security Monitoring (CCTV / Police Presence) Platform Height (Standard Curb / Raised Curb / Level Platform) Maximum Vehicles Accommodated Length Passing Capability (Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane / Bus Pullouts / Passing Lanes / No Passing) Parking Facility Options (Number of Stations with Park-and-Ride Lots)

173 -

-

-

X

20 (10 per direction)

-

-

-

Beverages X X -

X -

X X -

-

X

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Level Platform

Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Bus Pullouts

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

-

0

* Where two platforms serve different directions of travel is counted as one station.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 24

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

St at ions

Exhibit 2-4: Experience with BRT Stations (Continued) Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

South Dade Busway

Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Lymmo

Busways

Rapid

11

25

138 46

Station Type Total Number of Stations in System On-Street Shelter (X/-) (Number of Stations in System) Enhanced Shelter (X/-) (Number of Stations in System) Designated Station (X/-) (Number of Stations in System) Intermodal Transit Center (X/-) (Number of Stations in System) Amenities at Typical Stations Telephone (X/-) Restroom (X/-) Vending (X/-) Seating (X/-) Trash Container (X/-) Temperature Control (X/-) Public Art (X/-) Public Address (X/-) Emergency Telephone (X/-) Security Monitoring (CCTV / Police Presence) Platform Height (Standard Curb / Raised Curb / Level Platform) Maximum Vehicles Accommodated Length Passing Capability (Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane / Bus Pullouts / Passing Lanes / No Passing) Parking Facility Options (Number of Stations with Park-and-Ride Lots)

23

11 23

X

46

-

22

-

3

-

46

X X X X -

X X -

X X X X X

X X X X X -

X -

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Raised Curb

Standard Curb

2 40 to 80 feet

1

2

3

1

Passing Lanes Bus Pullout

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

No Passing

Passing Lanes

Passing Lanes Bus Pullout

1

38

4

4

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 25

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

2 .3 V EH I CLES

2.3.1 Description Role of Vehicles in BRT Vehicles have a direct im pact on speed, capacit y, environm ent al friendliness and com fort . BRT vehicles are also t he elem ent of BRT t hat m ost passengers and non- cust om ers associat e wit h t he BRT syst em ’s ident it y. As t he BRT elem ent in which cust om ers spend t he m ost t im e, passengers derive m uch of t heir im pression of t he BRT syst em from t heir experience wit h vehicles. For non- passengers, vehicles are t he syst em elem ent s t hat are m ost visible.

Characteristics of Vehicles Four prim ary at t ribut es define BRT vehicles: Ve h icle Con figu r a t ion – The basic physical configurat ion of BRT vehicles is a funct ion of t he com binat ion of size, floor height , and body t ype. Transit vehicles in t he Unit ed St at es have t radit ionally been high- floor vehicles wit h st eps. I n response t o t he Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act ( ADA) , low- floor vehicles have becom e t he norm in convent ional t ransit operat ions. Vehicles in U.S. BRT applicat ions range from low- floor t wo- axle 40- or 45- foot unit s t o t hree- axle 60- foot art iculat ed buses. Ae st he t ic En h a n ce m e n t – Aest het ic t reat m ent s, including paint schem es and st yling opt ions affect ing t he appearance and configurat ion of t he vehicle body cont ribut e t o BRT syst em ident it y, posit ioning it as a qualit y opt ion and providing inform at ion t o pot ent ial cust om ers as t o where t o access BRT services. I nt erior am enit ies such as high qualit y int erior m at erials, bet t er light ing and clim at e cont rol also cont ribut e t o t he cust om er percept ion of com fort and service qualit y. Pa sse nge r Cir cu la t ion En ha n ce m e n t – Several enhancem ent s can be added t o vehicles t o facilit at e circulat ion ont o and off t he vehicle and wit hin t he vehicle. These include t he provision of addit ional or wider door channels or t he provision of doors on t he opposit e ( left ) side of t he vehicle. I nt ernal circulat ion enhancem ent s include t he provision of alt ernat ive seat layout s and alt ernat ive wheelchair securem ent posit ions. Pr opu lsion – Propulsion syst em s det erm ine t he accelerat ion, m axim um speed, fuel consum pt ion and em issions charact erist ics of BRT vehicles. They also affect t he noise and sm oot hness of operat ion, service reliabilit y and have a large im pact on over- all BRT syst em operat ing and m aint enance cost s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 26

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

2.3.2 Vehicle Options Vehicle Configuration The vehicle configurat ion is t he prim ary vehicle planning/ design param et er for BRT syst em s. The configurat ion capt ures t he com binat ion of t he lengt h ( capacit y) , body t ype, and floor height of t he vehicle. I n pract ice, BRT syst em s can use a variet y of different vehicle configurat ions on a single running way. Each configurat ion can be t ailored t o a specific service profile and m arket . Because of t he flexibilit y of vehicle im plem ent at ion, som e com m unit ies choose t o launch service wit h 40- t o 45- foot vehicles wit h a plan t o t ransit ion t o 60- foot art iculat ed buses as dem and m at ures. While local t ransit services and m any BRT syst em s use high- floor vehicles, low floor vehicles are slowly becom ing t he predom inant choice am ong t ransit agencies in t he U.S. Ve h icle Con figu r a t ion s Conventional Standard Conventional standard vehicles are 40-45 feet in length and have a conventional (“boxy”) body. The partial low-floor variety (now the norm among urban transit applications) contains internal floors that are significantly lower (14 inches above pavement) than high floor buses. They typically have at least two doors and a rapidly deployable ramp for wheelchair –bound and other mobility-impaired customers. Capacity: A typical 40-foot vehicle has seating for 35-44 patrons expanding to between 50 and 60 seated and standing. A typical 45-foot vehicle can carry 35-52 passengers seated and 60-70, seated and standing, counting stands.

NABI 40 LFW Los Angeles Metro

COST 0

0.8

1.6

Cost: Typical base price range-$300,000 to $350,000

Stylized Standard Stylized Standard vehicles have all of the features of a conventional step low-floor vehicle. The major difference is that they incorporate slight body modifications or additions to make the body appear more modern, aerodynamic and attractive. Capacity: Similar to Conventional Standard vehicles of the same size. Cost: Typical base price range-$300,000 to $370,000

NABI Compobus 45C-LFW (Source: Cliff Henke)

COST 0

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

0.8

1.6

2- 27

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Ve h icle Con figu r a t ion s Conventional Articulated The longer, articulated vehicles have a higher passenger carrying capacity (50% more) than standard vehicles. Typical floors are partial low floors with steps with two or three doors.

New Flyer DE60LF-BRT

Articulated vehicle seating capacity depends heavily on the number and placement of doors ranging from 31 (four wide doors) to 65 (2 doors) and total capacity of 80-90 passengers, including standees. Cost: Typical base price-$500,000 to $645,000

NEOPLAN AN460-LF

COST 0

0.8

1.6

0.8

1.6

Stylized Articulated Stylized articulated vehicles are emerging in the US to respond to BRT communities’ desire for more modern, sleeker and more comfortable vehicles. Step-low floors, at least three doors, with 2 double stream and quick deploy ramps all facilitate boarding and alighting to shorten stop dwell times. Cost: Typical price range - $ 630,000 to $950,000 NABI 60-BRT

COST 0

Specialized BRT Vehicles Specialized vehicles employ a modern, aerodynamic body that has a look similar to that of rail vehicles. They also employ advanced propulsion systems and often come with advanced ITS and guidance systems. Cost: Typical price range - $ 950,000 to $1,600,000.

Ciivis by Irisbus operating in Las Vegas

COST 0

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

0.8

1.6

2- 28

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Aesthetic Enhancement Above and beyond t he basic vehicle t ype, several aest het ic enhancem ent s can be added t o vehicles t o enhance t he at t ract iveness of vehicles t o passengers. Select ion of t hese feat ures can have im port ant im pact on com m unit y and rider accept ance. Ae st he t ic En h a n ce m e n t s Specialized Logos and Livery Specialized logos and vehicle livery are often used to create a specialized identity by establishing a brand and a theme that patrons recognize and associate with the positive attributes for the BRT system. Use of such features to differentiate BRT systems from other services requires a dedicated fleet, which may preclude operations strategies such as interlining and rotating vehicles with local transit service. Cost: No cost increment.

Larger Windows and Enhanced Lighting The incorporation of larger windows (especially on low floor vehicles) and interior light fixtures that allow for abundant, flattering light, day or night to provide an “open feeling” can improve the perception and reality of passenger security. Larger windows for each passenger – to see in and out – is important for perceived patron security. Cost: Normally a part of vehicle base price.

Enhanced Interior Amenity Enhanced interior amenities such as more comfortable seating, higher quality materials and finishes, better lighting, and climate control can improve the perception of cleanliness, quality construction, and safety. Cost: Normally included a part of vehicle base price. The increment above basic interior amenities depends upon the particular vehicle order.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 29

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Passenger Circulation Enhancement Several feat ures govern accessibilit y t o BRT vehicles and circulat ion wit hin vehicles. These feat ures can have im port ant im pact s on dwell t im e, capacit y, passenger com fort , and com m unit y and rider accept ance. Pa sse nge r Cir cu la t ion En ha n ce m e n t s Alternative Seat Layout Alternative seat layout with seating placed against the sides of the vehicle can increase the aisle width within the vehicle increasing the standing capacity of the vehicle as well as providing additional space for passenger circulation. This layout may also provide intangible benefits such as conveying an impression of openness and accessibility. Cost: Normally a part of vehicle base price.

Additional Door Channels Curb side – Additional door channels and wider doors facilitate the boarding process by allowing multiple queues of passengers to enter the BRT vehicle at one time.

Van Hool

Opposite side – Adding doors to the opposite side of the vehicle (the left side in the United States) can allow for access from center platform stations in the median of an arterial. This additional feature improves the flexibility of running ways in which the BRT system can operate and simulates the flexibility of rail systems. Cost: Not significant for original vehicle orders. Opposite side doors may require additional structural modifications to vehicle orders.

Enhanced Wheelchair Securement Conventional wheelchair securement involves the use of tie-downs, wheel locks and belts, involving a process that takes between 60 and 200 seconds including boarding time. Alternative wheelchair securement devices are currently being explored to reduce the amount of time to secure wheelchairs in bus operation. In BRT applications, particularly in Europe, rear facing wheel chair positions and no-gap, no-step boarding and alighting eliminate the requirement for lifts, ramps and wheel chair securement. Other types of alternative restraint systems include a 4-point belt tie-down system (kinedyne) and an automated docking system securing the rear of the wheelchair. Cost: Not yet widely available commercially

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 30

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Propulsion System Spurred on by t he evolut ion of regulat ions support ing clean air, t he num ber of choices in vehicle propulsion syst em s is increasing. Technology is evolving t o provide new propulsion syst em s t hat use cleaner, alt ernat ive fuels and new cont rols on em issions, result ing in reduced pollut ion and lower noise em issions. Because m any new t echnologies are being int roduced and m arket condit ions, such as dem and and cost of product ion, are evolving. Pr opu lsion Syst e m s Internal Combustion Engines The internal combustion engine fueled by ultra low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) or compressed natural gas (CNG) with spark-ignition coupled with an automatic transmission is the most common propulsion system today. Some transit authorities are testing other fuels such as biodiesel, diesel emulsion blends and even LNG but these are a small fraction of transit applications.

COST ($ millions) 0

200

400

The impending EPA requirements on emissions in 2007 and 2010 for NOx and PM will require engines with Exhaust Gas Re-circulation (EGR) plus exhaust aftertreatment technology. Cost: CNG price increment over ULSD is ~$40,000 per vehicle. Infrastructure capital ~ $700,000-$1,000,000

Trolley, Dual Mode and Thermal-Electric Drives Electric trolley bus drives powered by overhead catenary-delivered power are still produced today and are planned in limited quantities for operation in tunnel BRT applications. Dual mode systems with an on-board thermal engine (usually diesel) can provide a capability to operate as a trolley and as an ICE vehicle off the catenary for specialized operations. Also, a thermal-electric drive, which couples an ICE to a generator, is used as a drive system in vehicles such as Civis by Irisbus being deployed in Las Vegas BRT. Cost: Cost increment over diesel ICE is $200,000 to $400,000.

COST ($ millions) 0

200

400

Hybrid-Electric Drives Hybrid-electric drive systems offer improved performance and fuel economy with reduced emissions (e.g., of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM). They differ from dual-mode systems in that they incorporate some type of on-board energy storage device (e.g., batteries or ultra capacitors). Though the thermal or internal combustion engines used for hybrid drives are diesel in most transit applications, in a number of cases (e.g., Denver 16th Street Mall Vehicles) CNG or gasoline fueled engines have been used. Fuel economy gains of up to 60 % are being claimed in urban service. Operational tests show improved range and reliability over ICE buses. Hybrid buses have entered operation in places such as New York and Seattle. Hybrid drive offers numerous operational advantages over conventional diesel buses, such as smoother and quicker acceleration, more efficient braking, improved fuel economy and reduced emissions.

COST ($ millions) 0

200

400

Cost: Price increment over diesel ICE is $100,000 to $250,000.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 31

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Pr opu lsion Syst e m s Fuel Cells A number of operational tests of fuel cell buses are underway this year and next in Europe and the US. Although the price is prohibitive currently, there is great interest in future development to provide zero emissions using domestically produced hydrogen. There are no plans as yet for fuel cell buses in BRT system applications in the United States or Europe. Currently not commercially available.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 32

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

2.3.3 Effects of Vehicle Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 5 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he vehicle policies, pract ices, and t echnologies t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s ident ified in Chapt er 1. These links are explored furt her in Chapt ers 3 and 4.

Exhibit 2-5: Summary of Effects of Vehicle Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings Vehicle Configurations Conventional Standard Stylized Standard Conventional Articulated Stylized Articulated Specialized BRT Vehicles

Low floors reduce dwell time delays

Reliability Low floors reduce variation in dwell time

Aesthetic Enhancement • Specialized Logos and Livery • Larger Windows and Enhanced Security Treatments • Enhanced Interior Amenity Passenger Circulation Enhancement Alternative Seat Layout Additional Door Channels Left Side Doors Enhanced Wheelchair Securement Interior Bicycle Securement

Improved passenger circulation and disabled access reduce dwell time delays

Propulsion Systems Internal combustion Engines Trolley, Dual Mode and thermal-Electric Drives Hybrid-Electric Drives Fuel Cells

Vehicles powered by electricity (trolley, dualmode, and hybridelectric drives) have faster acceleration rates from stops.

Improved passenger circulation and disabled access reduce variation in dwell time

Identity and Image Advanced vehicles highlight the distinctivenes s of BRT and foster linkages to communities Treatments to improve the appearance and styling enhance brand identity

Improved access to mobility impaired groups enhances image of service Left side doors simulate rail systems Low emissions systems enhance the environmental image of BRT

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Safety and Security Low floors diminish tripping hazards

Larger windows with other treatments for greater visibility enhance security Easier disabled securement facilitates safety

Capacity Larger vehicles increase capacity

System Benefits Advanced vehicles attract ridership

Attractive vehicles attract ridership

Improved passenger circulation increases vehicle throughput of BRT facilities

Low emissions systems maximize environmental quality

2- 33

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

2.3.4 Implementation Issues Two m aj or issues need t o be considered when im plem ent ing vehicles for BRT. M a in t e n a nce Re qu ir e m e n t s – Maint enance and st orage facilit ies need t o be m odified or expanded t o accom m odat e BRT vehicles depending on t he scope of BRT im plem ent at ion. The cost im pact can be anywhere bet ween a few m illion t o m odify an exist ing facilit y t o $25 m illion or m ore t o build a new one. Maint enance Training – New vehicles m ay require new m aint enance skills and procedures, especially if t he BRT vehicle fleet is dist inct from ot her vehicles. Facilit ies Modificat ion and Sit e Re- Design – Com m unit ies planning purchase of 60- foot art iculat ed vehicles will need facilit y m odificat ions t o m aint enance buildings and yards if t he propert y is current ly using 40- foot vehicles. Typical m odificat ions include ext ension of inspect ion pit s, inst allat ion of t hree post axle- engaging hoist s, m odificat ion or relocat ion of bus m aint enance equipm ent , conversion t o drive- t hrough m aint enance bays, and reconfigurat ion of parking and circulat ion layout of yards. New Facilit y Locat ion – I f significant num bers of new vehicles are needed, a new facilit y locat ion m ust be ident ified t o accom m odat e t he BRT fleet . Fueling – Fueling facilit ies m ay also need t o be m odified t o accom m odat e new vehicles and possibly longer vehicles. Re gu la t or y Com plia n ce – New vehicle m odels m ust pass a variet y of regulat ions in order t o be approved for operat ion: The federal Bu y Am e r ica provision requires a cert ain percent age of t he vehicle be produced wit hin t he Unit ed St at es. Safet y – Buses m ust sat isfy regulat ions t hat govern safe operat ions of vehicles such as t he FTA Bus Test ing Program and ot her safet y regulat ions from t he Nat ional Highway and Traffic Safet y Adm inist rat ion ( NHTSA) . Som e st at es also place t heir own st andards on vehicle design, including st andards on safet y and design st andards such as m axim um lengt h for passenger vehicles. Som e st at e m ot or vehicle regulat ions rest rict vehicle lengt h t o 60 feet in lengt h and 102 inches in widt h wit h axle loading of 16,000 lb. Pollut ion cont rol – The EPA and local air qualit y m anagem ent dist rict s govern requirem ent s on pollut ant em issions. For exam ple, m any art iculat ed and bi- art iculat ed large vehicles are only produced in diesel or elect ric drive. Som e local air qualit y m anagem ent dist rict s also m andat e em issions t echnologies t hat vehicle m anufact urers current ly do not incorporat e int o t he vehicle m odels t hey produce. Disabled Access – Many aspect s of vehicles – boarding int erface, int erior layout , placem ent of fare syst em s, use of I TS, and wheelchair securem ent – m ust m eet t he requirem ent s of t he Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act ( ADA) .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 34

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

2.3.5 Experience with BRT Vehicles There are at least t hirt y com m unit ies in som e st age of planning one or m ore BRT corridors, plus t he nine BRT service im plem ent at ions t hat are in operat ion now list ed in Exhibit 2- 6. The Exhibit 2- 6 highlight s t he vehicles in use present ly for t hose nine com m unit ies. The vehicle configurat ions range from Convent ional St andard in lengt hs as short as 28’ t o 61’ Specialized BRT art iculat ed vehicles. Six syst em s use a unique logo and livery t o different iat e t he service from local t ransit syst em s and which provides a dist inct ive ident it y t hat surveyed riders have found t o be appealing and useful. Low floor or st ep- low floor vehicles are in service in seven of t he nine im plem ent at ions. A m ix of st andard height and low- floor vehicles are in use in Miam i and Pit t sburgh. Chicago current ly has im plem ent ed t heir service wit h st andard floor buses. The 28’ t o 30’ buses are single door vehicles but t he higher capacit y 40’ t o 60’ vehicles have t wo or t hree doors for use as ent ry and exit channels as shown in t he Exhibit . The Civis, used in Las Vegas has four doors for use. Bot h Las Vegas and Oakland have m ore door channels for a given lengt h of vehicle and less seat ing, facilit at ing fast er loading and unloading of passengers at st at ions. Ot her syst em s use st andard seat ing configurat ions and num ber of door channels. Choices for propulsion syst em s reflect bot h t he t echnology available at t he t im e of vehicle purchase and t ransit propert y policy. The int ernal com bust ion engine powered by ult ra low sulfur diesel or com pressed nat ural gas ( CNG) is t he predom inant choice for reduced em issions. Som e t ransit agencies have sought out and purchased hybrid- elect ric drive t rains for em issions cont rol as well as fuel savings, which has m ot ivat ed t he m ost recent select ion, by Honolulu, of a hybrid power t rain for t heir BRT service vehicles.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 35

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Exhibit 2-6: Experience with BRT Vehicles

Configuration Manufacturer and Model

Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Silver Line

Express

City Express

MAX

Metro Rapid

Stylized Articulated (60')

Conventional Standard (40')

Conventional Articulated (60')

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard (40')

New Flyer DE60LF_BRT

Irisbus Civis

NABI 40LFW

NEOPLAN USA AN 460 LF Silver band similar with T logo, similar to rail vehicle livery

--

Rainbow Wrap matched to Shelters

Blue, white and gold

Red and silver fields on Livery, Red / White Metro Rapid Logo

Step Low Floor

High

Step Low Floor

Full Low Floor

Step Low Floor

Number of Doors for Boarding

1

1

1

4

1

Number of Doors for Alighting

3

2

3

4

2

Bus Capacity (Seated)

57

31

39

Bus Capacity (Seated and Standing) Propulsion System

104 ICE

ICE

Hybrid

120 ICE-Electric

51 ICE

Fuel

CNG

Diesel

ULSD

Diesel

CNG

Alternative seat layout, shape and materials

Luggage Rack over wheel wells

Distinctive Livery

Floor Height

Interior Features

Wheelchair Loading

Wheelchair Securement Type

Front-door Ramp

Lift

Ramp

Level Platforms; Rear door ramp backup

Ramp

Strap

Strap

Strap

Strap

Strap

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 36

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Vehicles

Exhibit 2-6: Experience with BRT Vehicles (Continued)

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

South Dade Busway

Rapid

Lymmo

Busways

Rapid

Configuration

Conventional Standard (40')

Stylized Standard (40.5')

Conventional Standard (35')

Conventional Standard and Articulated

Stylized Standard

Manufacturer and Model

30' Optares/40 NABI 40 LFW

Van Hool A330

New Flyer

--

Red, White and Green Livery

LYMMO Logo

--

Silver Field with Green and Violet RAPID Logo

Step Low Floor

Full Low Floor

Low

High

Step Low Floor

1

1

2

2

3

2

28

28

20

52

77

ICE Diesel

Description of Livery / Image

Floor Height Number of Doors for Boarding Number of Doors for Alighting Bus Capacity (Seated) Bus Capacity (Seated and Standing) Propulsion System Fuel

Wheelchair Securement Type

1 (inbound); 2-3 (outbound) 2-3 (inbound); 1 (outbound)

1 2 41

ICE

36 (53 during special events) ICE

ICE

ICE

ULSD

Diesel

Diesel

LNG

Padded seats, Transit TV

Cushioned Seats

High-back seating, luggage racks, overhead lighting, reclining seats

Interior Features Wheelchair Loading

NABI 40LFW

63

Ramps

Ramp

Ramp

Lift

Ramp

Strap

Rear-Facing Position

Strap

Strap

Strap

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 37

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

2 .4 FARE COLLECT I ON

2.4.1 Description Role of Fare Collection in BRT Fare collect ion syst em s for BRT can be elect ronic, m echanical, or m anual, but t he key BRT planning obj ect ive is t o support efficient , e.g., m ult iple st ream boarding, for what are ext rem ely busy services. Fact ors include fare policies ( e.g., flat fare versus zone or dist ance) , fare collect ion pract ices, and paym ent m edia. Rat her t han exhaust ively reviewing t he large body of lit erat ure on fare collect ion 2 , t his sect ion focuses on t he specific BRT fare collect ion processes, st ruct ures, and t echnologies. I t describes t he various fare collect ion opt ions for BRT syst em s and provides cost est im at es for various elect ronic fare collect ion ( EFC) approaches.

Characteristics of Fare Collection The t hree prim ary design at t ribut es of a BRT fare collect ion syst em are t he fare collect ion process, fare t ransact ion m edia, and fare st ruct ures. Fa r e Colle ct ion Pr oce ss - The fare collect ion process is how t he fare is physically paid, processed, and verified. I t can influence a num ber of syst em charact erist ics including service t im es ( dwell t im e and reliabilit y) , fare evasion and enforcem ent procedures, operat ing cost s ( labor and m aint enance) , and capit al cost s ( equipm ent and m edia opt ions) . Fa r e M e dia - The fare m edia helps t o process t ransact ions associat ed wit h a given fare collect ion process. The choice of fare t ransact ion m edia includes t he inst rum ent s associat ed wit h t he select ed equipm ent , t echnologies, and fare collect ion processes. The choice and design of fare m edia can also influence t he service t im es, auxiliary uses, as well as t he capit al and operat ing cost s of t he fare collect ion syst em . Fa r e St r u ct u r e – BRT fare st ruct ures great ly influence t he choice of fare processes and t echnologies. As not ed, it is influenced by t he exist ing or legacy syst em s of an organizat ion or region. Transit agencies m ay consider a num ber of design fact ors including t heir size, net work, organizat ion, cust om er base, as well as financial, polit ical, and m anagem ent - relat ed variables. The t wo basic t ypes of fare st ruct ures flat fares and different iat ed fares.

2 More information on fare collection systems can be found in the following Transit Cooperative Research Program Publications: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies Update, TCRP Report 94, 2003; ”Developing a Recommended Standard for Automated Fare Collection for Transit”, TCRP Research Results Digest 57, 2003; A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection, TCRP Report 80, 2002; Multipurpose Transit Payment Media, TCRP Report 32, 1998; ”Multipurpose Fare Media: Developments and Issues”, TCRP Research Results Digest 16, 1997; Bus Transit Fare Collection Practices, TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 26, 1997.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 38

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

2.4.2 Fare Collection Options Fare Collection Process The basic fare paym ent syst em s and verificat ion opt ions are list ed below wit h t heir associat ed advant ages or disadvant ages3 : Fa r e Colle ct ion Pr oce sse s Pay on-board system (i.e., inside or upon entering the vehicle) Typically involves a farebox or a processing unit for tickets or cards adjacent to the operator. The considerable advantage of this system is that it does not require significant fare collection infrastructure outside the vehicle. Requiring passengers to board through a single front door and pay the fare as they enter, however, will result in significant dwell times on busy BRT routes, particularly those with heavy passenger turn-over. If fares are paid without driver supervision, there is increased risk of fare evasion. Cost: No incremental cost, assuming this is the current fare collection process. Low to moderate equipment costs. Low to moderate labor costs including, for example, several Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff for maintenance, revenues servicing/collector, security, and clerical/data support.

Conductor-validated system Requires the rider to either pre-pay or buy a ticket on-board from a conductor. However, this system is generally not applicable to BRT systems in the United States because of the high labor costs involved in visually validating all tickets. Cost: There are additional labor costs involved in visual ticket validation in comparison with other pay on-board and pre-payment systems. As an example, one fare inspector (1 FTE) is needed to validate about 3,300 daily passengers.4

Barrier Enforced Fare Payment system (i.e., pay-on-entering and/or exiting a station or loading area) Involves turnstiles, fare gates, and ticket agents or some combination of all three in an enclosed station area or bus platform. It may involve entry control only or entry and exit control (particularly for distance-based fares). Cost: $30,000 to $60,000 per Ticket Vending Machine (TVM); $20,000 to $35,000 per Fare Gate. May include additional station hardware/software costs. Estimated additional labor requirements for a small implementation (i.e., 25 TVMs and associated systems) may involve maintenance personnel (1 FTE), revenues servicing/collector (1 FTE), security staff (1 FTE), data procession/clerical staff (1 FTE), and fare media sales staff (2.5 FTE).5

3 Cost ranges per unit are based on information on the costs of fare collection systems contained in Appendix C of: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies (Update), TCRP Report 94, 2003. The actual cost associated with implementation of an option depends on specific functionalities/specifications, quantity purchased & specific manufacturer. 4A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection, TCRP Report 80, Table 2-6 5 A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection, Table 2-6

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 39

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Fa r e Colle ct ion Pr oce sse s Barrier-Free (self-service) or Proof-of-Payment (POP) system Requires the rider to carry a valid (usually by time and day) ticket or pass when on the vehicle and is subject to random inspection by roving personnel. It typically requires ticket vending and/or validating machines. The advantage of this less restrictive system is that it supports multiple door boarding and thus lower dwell times. The disadvantage is the increased risk of fare evasion. When implementing proof-of-payment, transit agencies should consider how passenger loads, passenger turnover and how interior layout may affect the ability and ease of inspection onboard vehicles. Cost: $30,000 to $60,000 per Ticket Vending Machine (TVM); labor costs for roving personnel. May include validator equipment and/or additional station hardware and software costs. Estimated additional labor requirements for a small implementation (i.e., 150 validators and associated systems) may involve maintenance personnel (1 FTE), revenues servicing/collector (1 FTE), security staff (1 FTE), data procession/clerical staff (1 FTE), and fare media sales staff (2.5 FTE).6 Issue of potential difficulty of inspection on vehicles

6 A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection, Table 2-6

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 40

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Fare Transaction Media Fare collect ion policies and processes influence t he select ion of fare paym ent m edia and equipm ent t echnology. The fare equipm ent m ust be capable of handling t he select ed fare paym ent m edia. Likewise, t he select ed fare paym ent m edia m ay require cert ain equipm ent or t echnology. I n t urn, fare collect ion equipm ent and m edia ut ilized by t ransit agencies depends on t he fare paym ent opt ions given t o passengers. The t hree prim ary fare m edia opt ions include: Fa r e Tr a n sa ct ion M e dia Cash (Coins, Bills, and Tokens) and Paper Media (Tickets, Transfers, and Flash Passes) This is simplest but slowest fare media option because of the necessary transaction time, particularly if exact fare is required. Stored value tickets (the cost of each ride taken being deducted from the stored value) or stored ride tickets (for a single or a given number of rides including booklets with tear-off paper and punch tickets) may require visual verification or manual validation that have an implication on service times depending on the fare collection process.

COST PER VEHICLE ($ thousands) 0

7.5

15

Period passes (for a specific calendar period, such as a calendar month or week, or special event) or rolling period passes (for a specific number of days after first use, such as day or multi-day tourist passes) usually require visual verification but can be processed faster than cash or tickets. Cost: No incremental cost, assuming this is the current fare collection process. $2,000 (low cost mechanical farebox) - $5,000 (complex electronic registering farebox)

Magnetic Stripe Media. These cards are made of heavy paper or plastic and have an imprinted magnetic stripe that stores information about its value or use. This type of fare media requires electronic readers, which determine the fare payment time and have implications for dwell times depending on the fare collection process and machinery. One-Time Cost: $10,000 to $12,000 per validating farebox with magnetic card processing unit ($5,000 to $10,000 more than a standard farebox); $0.01 to $0.30 per magnetic stripe card; $10,000 to $20,000 per garage for hardware/software. May include additional central hardware/software costs.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

COST PER VEHICLE ($ thousands) 0

7.5

15

2- 41

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Fa r e Tr a n sa ct ion M e dia Smart Cards Smart Cards generally support faster and more flexible fare collection systems. Contactless or Proximity Smart Cards permit faster processing times than magnetic stripe cards or contact smart cards. They also facilitate processing of differentiated fare structures such as time-based and distance-based fare structures and fare integration across several modes and operators. A hybrid or "dual-interface" smart card can expand the application of smart cards beyond transit. One-Time Cost: $12,000 to $14,000 per validating farebox with smart card reader ($7,000 to $12,000 more than a standard farebox); $1.50 to $5.00 per smart card; $10,000 to $20,000 per garage for hardware/software. May require expenditure on additional central hardware and software.

COST PER VEHICLE ($ thousands) 0

7.5

15

Addit ional cost s for different elem ent s of elect ronic fare collect ion appear in Exhibit 2- 7.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 42

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Exhibit 2- 6 present s upper and lower est im at es of capit al and operat ing cost s for various elect ronic fare collect ion syst em elem ent s on a per unit basis or as a percent age of capit al equipm ent expendit ures. These ranges are useful for roughly est im at ing t he t ot al cost of a bus EFC syst em . I t is im port ant t o not e t hat act ual cost s will depend heavily on t he specificat ions and funct ionalit y, quant it y of equipm ent purchased, and m anufact urer of t he product . Moreover, in m ost cases t he t ot al cost of an EFC syst em t ends t o add ( rat her t han replace or elim inat e) previous fare collect ion cost s. 7

Exhibit 2-7: Estimated Costs for Electronic Fare Systems* (2002 US dollars)8 Capital Cost Elements (Bus-Related Fixed Costs per Unit)

Low

Mechanical farebox Electronic registering farebox Electronic registering farebox (with smart card reader) Validating farebox (with magnetic card processing unit) Validating farebox (with smart card reader) Validating farebox (with magnetic & smart card reader) Stand-alone smart card processing unit Magnetic farecard processing unit (upgrade) Onboard probe equipment** Garage probe equipment** Application software (smart card units) Garage hardware/software Central hardware/software

$

Operation & Maintenance Cost Elements (Variable Costs)

Low

2,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 12,000 13,000 1,000 4,000 500 2,500 0 10,000 25,000

Spare Parts (% of equipment cost) Support services (% of equip. cost) (e.g. training, documentation, revenue testing, & warranties) Installation (% of equipment cost) Nonrecurring engineering & software costs (% of equip. cost) Contingency (% of equipment/operating cost) Equipment maintenance costs (% of equipment cost) Software licenses/system support (% of systems/software cost) Revenue handling costs (% of annual cash revenue) Clearinghouse*** (% of annual AFC revenue) (e.g., card distribution, revenue allocation)

Fare Media Costs per Unit Magnetic stripe (capacitive) cards Contactless smart cards (plastic) Contactless smart cards (paper)

High 3,000 5,000 8,000 12,000 14,000 17,500 7,000 6,000 1,500 3,500 100,000 20,000 75,000

High 10% 10%

15% 15%

3% 0% 10% 5% 15% 5% 3%

10% 30% 15% 7% 20% 10% 6%

Low $

$

High 0.01 2.00 0.30

$

0.30 5.00 1.00

7 For more information on the costs of fare collection systems, the reader is referred to Appendix C of Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies (Update), TCRP Report 94, 2003. 8 Fare Policies, Structures and Technologies: Update (2003), TCRP Report 94, Appendix C * Actual cost depends on functionality/specifications, quantity purchased & specific manufacturer. ** In an integrated regional system, there is no additional cost for probe equipment. *** This depends on the nature of the regional fare program, if any.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 43

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Fare Structure Transit agencies generally decide on fare collect ion policies and associat ed fare syst em based on a num ber of fact ors including t heir size, net work, organizat ion, cust om er base, as well as financial, polit ical, and m anagem ent - relat ed goals. There are t wo basic t ypes of fare st ruct ures: Fa r e St r u ct u r e s Flat Fares Flat fares impose the same fare regardless of distance or quality of service. This policy simplifies the responsibilities of the bus operators by reducing potential confusion and disputes and thus can speed up boarding.

Differentiated fares Differentiated fares are charged depending on length of trip, time of day, type of customer, speed or quality of service. There are various types of differentiated fare strategies. Distance-based or zonal fare is charged as a direct or indirect function of the distance traveled. Bus operators may collect the fare when passengers board or, more rarely, as they exit the vehicle. Time-based fares are charged depending on the time of day or length of the trip. Service-based fares depend on the type or quality of transit service, which may share stations or infrastructure with other services. Express bus or BRT services may be an example. Generally, this approach is used for multi-modal transit systems and may include transfers. Other differentiated fare structures include market-based or consumer-based fares, discounted fares, and free-fare zones.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 44

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

2.4.3 Effects of Fare Collection Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 8 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he fare collect ion policies, pract ices, and t echnologies t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s previously ident ified in Chapt er 1. These links are explored in Chapt er 3 and 4.

Exhibit 2-8: Summary of Effects of Fare Collection Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings Fare Collection Process Pay On-Board Barrier Proof-ofPayment

Fare Transaction Media Cash & Paper Only Magnetic Stripe Smart Cards

Fare Structure Flat Differentiated

Fare prepayment can reduce vehicle dwelling and improve overall travel time and reliability Contactless smart cards or flash passes can reduce transaction times at stations

Facilitated transfers can reduce overall travel time and maximize convenience

Reliability

Identity and Image

Fare prepayment can improve dwell time reliability and abnormal delays at stations

Convenience of various fare payment options

Contactless smart cards or flash passes can reduce delays due to processing large numbers of passengers at stations

Electronic fare collection enhances convenience, can take advantage of multiple applications / uses, and may propagate image of a premier transit service Differentiated fares may convey image of a higher level of service

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Safety and Security

Electronic fare collection may limit passenger vulnerability during cash transactions

Capacity Travel time savings and reliability of pre-payment of fares improves system throughput Travel time savings and reliability of electronic fare payment improves system throughput

Differentiated fares can encourage offpeak usage

System Benefits

Electronic fare collection can reduce the risk of fare evasion and maximize revenue

Selective discounts to classes of riders or trip types may encourage ridership

2- 45

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

2.4.4 Implementation Issues I n t e gr a t ion w it h Age n cy- w ide Fa r e Policy a nd Te ch n ology – The choice of fare policy and t echnologies m ay depend largely on pre- exist ing policies or legacy syst em s. The design of t he fare collect ion syst em for BRT should consider int egrat ion opport unit ies wit h ot her elem ent s of t he regional t ransit syst em t o m axim ize t he pot ent ial benefit s. These benefit s m ay include any of t he obj ect ives previously m ent ioned, part icularly t he facilit at ion of t ransfers for an enhanced passenger experience. Re ve nu e Pr oce ssin g – Rapidly evolving t echnology has led t o im provem ent s in revenue processing and cont rol, dat a collect ion and st orage, and operat ions m onit oring and planning. Elect ronic Fare Collect ion syst em s, using elect ronic com m unicat ion, dat a processing, and dat a st orage t echniques t o aut om at e fare collect ion processes, are am ong t hese evolving t echnologies. These syst em s benefit bot h t ransit agencies and passengers. For t ransit agencies, EFC syst em s can represent a reduct ion in labor- int ensive cash handling cost s and t he risks of int ernal t heft . EFC syst em s can im prove t he reliabilit y and m aint ainabilit y of fareboxes, and perm it sophist icat ed fare pricing st ruct ures and aut om at ion of financial processes facilit at ing int eract ions wit h m ult iple operat ors. For passengers, EFC syst em s can represent an easier way of t raveling since exact change is not necessary and only one fare inst rum ent is needed t o use t he syst em . I nt egrat ed EFC syst em s can be used t o creat e m ult i- m odal and m ult i- provider t ransport at ion net works t hat are " seam less" t o t he passengers. Som e exam ples of EFC m edia include m agnet ic st ripe cards, cont act sm art cards, and proxim it y sm art cards. D a t a Colle ct ion t o Su ppor t Pla n n in g – The t ype of dat a direct ly or indirect ly ret rieved from fare collect ion syst em s is oft en used t o support planning act ivit ies. Therefore, t he choice and im plem ent at ion of fare syst em opt ions should consider t he ret rieval and m anagem ent of useful dat a. For exam ple, on- board EFC syst em s m ay collect inform at ion on passenger boardings by locat ion or t im e of day. Pa ym e n t Opt ion s a n d N e t w or k - I n addit ion t o t he fare m edia discussed, t here are several opt ions and ot her m eans of purchasing or paying for t ransit rides: Credit cards are ut ilized in Ticket Vending Machines ( TVM) t o purchase fare m edia. They have also been ut ilized on a lim it ed basis for fare paym ent on buses. Debit or ATM cards are com m only used in TVMs t o purchase fare m edia. Transit vouchers t o purchase fare m edia are dist ribut ed as part of “ t ransit check” or ot her em ployer benefit s program s. Aut om at ic loading of fare m edia from pre- est ablished account . Fa r e Enfor ce m e n t – The design aspect s of fare collect ion syst em s can have an im pact on t he pot ent ial fare evasion and t he level of enforcem ent necessary. Som e fare syst em s m ay require random inspect ions or validat ion. This t ype of fare enforcem ent requires an appropriat e level of st affing t o perform inspect ions. This addit ional labor cost m ay great ly increase operat ing cost s. Fare inspect ors m ay, however, also serve t o support t he securit y of t he syst em . M a r k e t in g – Market ing issues include how t he fare m edia are dist ribut ed and advert ised, incent ives t o pre- pay fare m edia, and ot her feat ures of t he fare collect ion syst em . These

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 46

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

ot her feat ures can include " negat ive" balance prot ect ion for t he cust om er, a " lowest fare" guarant ee, and policies on fare discount s. Elect ronic fare collect ion syst em s also facilit at e t he im plem ent at ion of fare prom ot ions. Fa r e M e dia Syn e r gie s – I t is im port ant t o not e t hat m ore t han one t ype of fare m edia m ay be accept ed. Fare m edia m ay also have m ult iple applicat ions for auxiliary or com plem ent ary services such as: Elect ronic t oll collect ion and parking paym ent s Financial services/ e- purse paym ent s Payphones and m obile com m erce Ot her paym ent and loyalt y program s Vending m achines I dent ificat ion purposes for securit y and access int o buildings

2.4.5 Experience with BRT Fare Collection As of 2004, BRT syst em s in t he Unit ed St at es are only beginning t o offer variat ions in fare collect ion as shown in Exhibit 2- 9. Most BRT syst em s use paym ent on- board t he vehicle t o a farebox as t he prim ary m eans t o collect fares. The Nort h Las Vegas MAX has inaugurat ed service wit h proof- of- paym ent syst em . For t he Pit t sburgh busways, passengers on out bound t rips pay on t he out bound port ion of t he t rip in order t o expedit e loading and reduce dwell t im es in downt own Pit t sburgh. Orlando’s Lym m o is offered for free and t herefore has no delays at boarding or alight ing associat ed wit h fare collect ion. I m plem ent at ion of elect ronic fare collect ion is beginning. The MBTA in Bost on has im plem ent ed m agnet ic st rip cards on all buses. AC Transit , t he Chicago Transit Aut horit y, and t he Los Angeles Met ro are in various st ages of im plem ent ing sm art cards for fare collect ion on buses. Only t he Nort h Las Vegas MAX has im plem ent ed t icket vending m achines ( TVMs) for BRT as of 2004. TVMs inst alled can accept cash and m agnet ic st rip t icket s t o print a proof- of- paym ent t icket . These TVMs will event ually be out fit t ed t o accept credit card t ransact ions. Most BRT syst em s also charge flat fares t hat are ident ical t o t hat on t he rest of t he t ransit syst em . Pit t sburgh’s busways are t he only syst em t hat charges different iat ed fares in t he form of dist ance- based express fares.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 47

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Fare Collect ion

Exhibit 2-9: Experience with BRT Fare Collection Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Miami

Oakland

Silver Line Express

City Express

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid

South Dade Busway

Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Lymmo

West Busway

Rapid

Boston

Orlando Pittsburgh Phoenix

Fare Collection Process

Pay OnBoard

Pay OnBoard

Pay OnBoard

Proof-ofPayment

Pay OnBoard

Pay OnBoard

Pay OnBoard

N/A

Pay on Board

Pay on Board

Fare Transaction Media

Cash, paper, Magnetic stripe card

Cash & Paper, Magnetic Stripe

Cash & Paper

Magnetic Stripe

Cash & Paper, Smart Card (future)

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper, Smart Card

N/A

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Free Fares

Distance – based for Express services

Flat

--

--

--

Ticket Vending Machines [TVMs]

--

--

--

N/A

--

--

Electronic Farebox

Electronic Farebox

Electronic Farebox

Hand-Held Validators

Electronic Farebox

Electronic Farebox

Electronic Farebox

N/A

Electronic Farebox

Electronic Farebox

Fare Structure

Equipment at Stations

Equipment for On-Board Validation

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 48

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

2 .5 I N T ELLI GEN T T RAN SPORT AT I ON SY ST EM S (I T S)

2.5.1 Description Role of Intelligent Transportation Systems in BRT I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS) have helped t ransit agencies increase safet y, operat ional efficiency and qualit y of service and m ay have t heir highest and best use in BRT syst em s. I TS includes a variet y of advanced t echnologies t o collect , process and dissem inat e real- t im e dat a from vehicle and roadway sensors. The dat a are t ransm it t ed via a dedicat ed com m unicat ions net work and com put ing int elligence is used t o t ransform t hese dat a int o useful inform at ion for t he operat ing agency, driver and ult im at ely t he cust om er. Different com binat ions of t echnologies com bine t o form different t ypes of I TS syst em s. For exam ple, aut om at ic Vehicle Locat ion ( AVL) in com binat ion wit h Aut om at ed Scheduling and Dispat ch ( ASD) and Transit Signal Priorit y ( TSP) can im prove schedule adherence and hence reliabilit y as well as revenue speed. I TS t echnologies provide m any perform ance im provem ent s and benefit s. The rem ot e m onit oring of t ransit vehicle locat ion and st at us and passenger act ivit y also im proves passenger and facilit y safet y and securit y. I TS also can be used t o assist operat ors in m aint aining vehicle fleet s and alert m echanics t o im pending m echanical problem s as well as rout ine m aint enance needs. I TS applicat ions are fundam ent al t o generat ing m any of BRT’s benefit s. However, int egrat ion of individual I TS applicat ions int o t he overall BRT syst em is essent ial. Com binat ions of I TS applicat ions m ust ult im at ely work t oget her synergist ically t o provide t he high qualit y service which defines BRT.

Characteristics of ITS There are m any t echnologies and operat ional feat ures t hat can be ut ilized for BRT syst em s. Som e have been applied by convent ional bus syst em s. I n t his sect ion, individual I TS t echnologies t hat should be considered for int egrat ion in BRT syst em s are discussed, m any of which have already provided significant benefit s as part of int egrat ed BRT syst em s. The various I TS applicat ions t hat can be int egrat ed int o BRT syst em s are discussed below. They have been cat egorized int o seven groups: Vehicle Priorit izat ion Assist and Aut om at ion Technology Elect ronic Fare Collect ion ( Discussed Sect ion 2.4—Fare Collect ion) Operat ions Managem ent Passenger I nform at ion Safet y & Securit y Support Technologies

2.5.2 ITS Options Each I TS group is discussed in t he following six sect ions. I ncluded in each sect ion is an overview of t he I TS t echnologies which includes a descript ion of how t he t echnologies can

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 49

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

be ut ilized and a definit ion of each t echnology. Unit cost s and act ual cost s dat a from t ransit syst em s in Nort h Am erica are provided.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 50

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Vehicle Prioritization This t echnology group includes m et hods t o provide preference or priorit y t o BRT services. The int ent is not only t o reduce t he overall t raffic signal delays ( t hus great er operat ing speed and short ened t ravel t im e) of in- service t ransit vehicles, but also t o achieve great er schedule/ headway adherence and consist ency ( t hus enhanced reliabilit y and short er wait ing t im es) . Signal Tim ing / Phasing and Signal Priorit y help BRT vehicles m inim ize delay caused by having t o st op for t raffic at int ersect ions. Access Cont rol provides t he BRT vehicles wit h unencum bered ent rance t o and exit from dedicat ed running ways and/ or st at ions. Ve h icle Pr ior it iza t ion Opt ion s Signal Timing / Phasing Optimization of traffic signals along a corridor to make better use of available green time capacity by favoring peak, e.g., BRT flows. Requires simulation modeling and analysis using traffic vehicle and person flow data but does not require additional components for the vehicle or infrastructure. COST ELEMENT Signal Retiming per Intersection

CAPITAL $3,500

Station and Lane Access Control Allow access to dedicated BRT running ways and stations with variable message signs and gate control systems. Requires the installation of barrier control systems that identify a driver and vehicle and/or similar surveillance and monitoring systems. Typically utilizes an electronic transponder (similar to an electronic toll collection system) to allow access while the BRT vehicle is operating at highway speeds.

COST ELEMENT Controller Software for Entire System Gate Hardware per Entrance

CAPITAL

O&M

$25,000 to $50,000

$2,500 to $5,000

$100,000 to $150,000

$2,500 to $4,000

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 51

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Ve h icle Pr ior it iza t ion Opt ion s Transit Signal Priority Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) technologies can be used to extend or advance green times or allow left turn swaps to allow buses that are behind schedule to get back on schedule, improving schedule adherence, reliability, and speed. Requires traffic signal controllers and software and TSP capable equipment on the transit vehicle and at the intersection for identifying the transit vehicle and generating low priority request when appropriate. It is important to note that although priority and preemption are often used synonymously, they are in fact different processes. While they may utilize similar equipment, transit signal priority modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicles, while preemption interrupts the normal process for special events or responding emergency vehicles. Objectives of preemption include reducing response time to emergencies, improving safety and stress levels of emergency vehicle personnel, and reducing accidents involving emergency vehicles at intersections. On the other hand, objectives of transit signal priority include reduced travel time, improved schedule adherence, improved transit efficiency, contribution to enhanced transit information, and increased road network efficiency. COST ELEMENT Signal Priority Software Signal Controller Hardware Vehicle Hardware

Traffic Signage – To Deter Autos, Vancouver

CAPITAL $300 to $600 $4,000 to $10,000 $500 to $2,000

The Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority equipped 27 buses with transit signal priority transmitters, and 10 intersections were equipped with receivers at a total cost of $250,000. The Los Angeles DOT implemented a bus signal priority system used by Metro Rapid Bus that consists of 331 loop detectors, 210 intersections equipped with automatic vehicle identification sensors at the controller cabinet, 150 transponder-equipped buses, and central control system software at a total cost of $10 million. Loop detection technology is used to detect the presence of a bus approaching the intersection. The bus identification is detected by the AVI sensor and sent to the transit management computer located at the LADOT transportation management center. Average cost: $13,500 per signalized intersection. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada installed a fleet management system to improve transportation efficiency and emergency response performance. This fully integrated, real-time information system is designed for use in the entire fleet, including MAX vehicles. The system features mobile communications, GPSbased automatic vehicle location (AVL), computer-aided dispatch (CAD), two-way messaging, automatic passenger counters (APCs) and a surveillance system.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 52

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Driver Assist and Automation Technology This t echnology group includes t echnologies t hat provide aut om at ed cont rols ( lat eral, i.e., st eering and longit udinal, i.e., st art ing, speed cont rol, st opping) for BRT vehicles. Use of t he Collision Warning funct ion assist s a driver t o operat e a BRT vehicle safely. Use of Collision Avoidance, Lane Assist , and Precision Docking funct ions provides for direct cont rol of t he BRT vehicle for collision avoidance, running way guidance, or st at ion docking m aneuvers. All assist and aut om at ion t echnologies help t o reduce frequency and severit y of crashes and collisions and reduced running and st at ion dwell t im es. D r ive r Assist a nd Au t om a t ion Te ch n ology Opt ion s Collision Avoidance Provision to control the BRT vehicle so that it avoids striking obstacles in or along its path. This includes forward, rear or side impacts or integrated 360 degree system. Requires installation of sensors (infrared, video, or other), driver notification devices, and automated controls within the vehicle. These systems are currently in the research stage and are not available for installation on a BRT vehicle. However, it is expected that over the next five years the BRT vehicle will be used as a platform on which to test these technologies.

Collision Sensor

Collision Warning Provision of warning for BRT vehicle driver about the presence of obstacles or the impending impact with the pedestrian or obstacle. This includes forward, rear or side impact collision avoidance or integrated 360 degree system. Requires installation of sensors (infrared, video, or other) and driver notification devices within the vehicle. These systems have some limited commercial availability. COST ELEMENT Sensor Integration per Vehicle

CAPITAL $3,500

The Pittsburgh Port Authority (PAT) and Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute have tested a collision avoidance system on 100 buses to warn bus drivers of obstacles in blind spots. The system consists of 12 ultrasonic sensors mounted on the sides of each bus and an on-board computer. Interior warning lights located near the driver’s mirrors and an audible indicator are activated if the system determines that the driver needs to take action. Cost: $2,600 (approx.) per vehicle.

Precision Docking System that assists BRT vehicle drivers to correctly place a vehicle at a stop or station location both latitude and longitude. There are two primary ITS-based methods to implement Precision Docking: magnetic and optical. This requires the installation of markings on the pavement (paint, magnets), vehicle-based sensors to read the markings, and linkages with the vehicle steering system. The availability of these systems is currently limited to international suppliers as an additional option for new vehicle purchases. Commercial availability from US suppliers as an add-on option is expected in the next 2 to 5 years. COST ELEMENT

CAPITAL

Magnetic Sensors per Station

$4,000

Optical Markings per Station

$4,000

Hardware and Integration per Vehicle

$50,000

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 53

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

D r ive r Assist a nd Au t om a t ion Te ch n ology Opt ion s Vehicle Guidance Guides BRT vehicles on running ways while maintaining speed, using a variety of technologies. These technologies, also known as “lane assist technologies”, allow BRT vehicles to safely operate at higher speeds. There are three primary Vehicle Guidance technologies: magnetic, optical, and GPS-based. They either require the installation of markings on or in the running way pavement (paint, magnets) or development of a GPS-based route map). They also require vehicle-based sensors to read the markings, and linkages with the vehicle steering. The availability of these systems is currently limited. However, commercial deployment is expected within 2 to 5 years. COST ELEMENT

CAPITAL

Magnetic Sensors per Mile

$20,000

Optical per Mile

$20,000

GPS

$125,000

Hardware and Integration per Vehicle

$50,000 - $95,000

The Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission implemented a Precision Docking system utilizing the CIVIS vehicle. The technology was a $95,000 option for each of the 10 vehicles.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 54

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Operations Management Technology This t echnology group includes aut om at ion m et hods t hat enhance m anagem ent of BRT fleet s. Current ly, m any t ransit agencies and BRT sit es are m odifying t heir exist ing com m unicat ion syst em in order t o handle t he m ost basic dat a needs of AVL syst em s and Mobile Dat a Term inals ( MDT) . Use of Aut om at ed Scheduling Dispat ch Syst em and a Vehicle Tracking m et hod assist s BRT m anagem ent t o best ut ilize t he BRT vehicles. Use of Vehicle Mechanical Monit oring and Maint enance assist s in m inim izing downt im e of t he BRT vehicles. All Operat ions Managem ent funct ions im prove operat ing efficiencies, support ing a reliable service and reduced t ravel t im es. Solut ions t hat im prove BRT perform ance are described in t his sect ion. Ope r a t ions M a na ge m e n t Opt ion s Automated Scheduling Dispatch System Utilization of real-time vehicle data (location, schedule adherence, passenger counters) to manage all BRT vehicles in the system and insure proper level of service for passengers. Requires a communication system and vehicle tracking components integrated with an ASDS software package.

COST ELEMENT Hardware and Software Acquisition System Integration

CAPITAL

O&M

$20,000 - $40,000

--

$225k - $500k

--

COST ELEMENT

CAPITAL

Sensors and Fleet Integration

$1,100k - $2,200k

Vehicle Mechanical Monitoring and Maintenance Automatically monitor the condition of transit vehicle engine components via engine sensors and provide warnings of impending (out of tolerance indicators) and actual failures occur. Requires a communication system and on-board mechanical monitoring system that is capable of collecting and transmitting necessary vehicle data. COST ELEMENT Sensors and Fleet Integration

CAPITAL

O&M

$1,100k - $2,200k

$4,000 - $8,000

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 55

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Ope r a t ions M a na ge m e n t Opt ion s Vehicle Tracking Provide transit operations personnel with the current location of BRT vehicles on the network. Transit location information will be used for improved traveler advisory services, schedule adherence and archived to support future planning efforts. Requires a communication system integrated with vehicle tracking components. The most typical installation is based upon the global positioning system (GPS) to identify vehicle location. There are other options which are quickly being replaced. COST ELEMENT Operations Center Hardware Software Integration & Development Vehicle Hardware

CAPITAL

O&M

$15,000 - $30,000

--

$815k - $1,720k

$6,000 to $7,000

$600 - $1,000

--

The Denver Regional Transportation District installed a GPS-based vehicle location system for approximately 1,000 buses. The installation was part of an overall communication system that consisted of Dispatch Center Hardware ($1,250,000); Radio and Data Computer ($435,000); Field Communication Hardware: $1,451,940; and In-vehicle Hardware at $5,000 per bus. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority installed an Advanced Operating System that included vehicle tracking and an advanced communication systems for 75 buses. Capital costs were $2.64 million or approximately $32,500 per bus. O&M cost was estimated at $1.25 million per year (1995 dollars).

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 56

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Passenger Information Passenger I nform at ion t echnologies can im prove passenger sat isfact ion, help t o reduced wait t im es, and t hus increase ridership. Passenger I nform at ion syst em s can also be a source of revenue t hrough t he sale of advert ising t im e and space on inform at ion screens. These services rely on a com m unicat ion syst em t hat is able t o t rack individual vehicles, t ransm it vehicle locat ion dat a t o a cent ral processing cent er and dissem inat ing processed vehicle dat a t o t he t ransit cust om er. For BRT syst em s, inform at ion about t he vehicle schedule can be provided t o t he t ransit cust om er at t he st at ion / st op and / or on t he vehicle. Providing schedule inform at ion t o t ravelers via m obile devices ( e.g., PDA, cell phone) and support ing t rip it inerary planning t ypically require im plem ent at ion across t he ent ire t ransit net work. Not e: There are m any different cost elem ent s associat ed wit h t he inst allat ion and operat ion of passenger inform at ion syst em . For t he m ost recent and accurat e dat a, please visit ht t p: / / www.benefit cost .it s.dot .gov. When possible, appropriat e syst em - level dat a has been provided. Pa sse nge r I n for m a t ion Opt ion s Traveler Information at Stations Provision of information about vehicle schedule, next bus information or delays within the system via dynamic message sign at the station. Requires techniques to predict the vehicle arrival time and the ability to display this information at the station/stop.

COST ELEMENT Transit Information Status Sign

CAPITAL $4,000 - $8,000

The King County Transit Watch system provides transit riders at Bellevue and Northgate Transit Centers in King County, Washington with bus arrival/departure times, bay number, and expected departure times for all bus routes using each of the transfer centers. The Transit Watch system obtained actual departure times from an Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system, and then presented the information on video monitors at each center. The cost of the system was approximately $723,000 and annual O&M was approximately $180,000.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 57

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Pa sse nge r I n for m a t ion Opt ion s Traveler Information on Vehicle Provision of information about next stop, vehicle schedule, transfer/other bus information or delays within the system via dynamic message sign on the vehicle. Requires techniques to predict the vehicle arrival time at the station/stop, receive data on other vehicles along the route and the ability to display this information to transit customers riding on the vehicle.

The Transport of Rockland, in New York, installed equipment on three of its 27 buses to automatically announce “next stop” destinations and display on-board route information to assist travelers. The cost to equip each bus was about $7,000. At each bus stop the system automatically announced, in two languages, the location of the next stop and then displayed route destination information on an electronic message sign (2-inch text) located at the front of each bus. On-board global positional systems (GPS) were used to track the location of each bus.

Traveler Information on Person Provision of information about vehicle schedule, next bus information or delays within the system via PDA, cell phone or similar device used by the traveler. Requires software to provide personal traveler information, and provision of information through the internet or mobile communications (either directly, or through a service provider).

Trip Itinerary Planning Provision for a traveler to request trip information by specifying a trip origin and destination, time and date. Also provision for a traveler to specify their special equipment or handling requirements.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 58

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Safety and Security Technology Use of Silent Alarm s and on- board and in- st at ion Monit oring syst em s can increase t he securit y of t he BRT operat ion. Specific t ypes of t echnologies are: Sa fe t y a n d Se cu r it y Te ch n ologie s Silent Alarms Alarms installed on the BRT vehicle that are activated by the BRT vehicle driver. A message such has “Call 911” can be displayed on the exterior sign board for others to see or messages can be sent back to the operations center to indicate an emergency or problem. COST ELEMENT Security Package (Fleet)

CAPITAL

O&M

$420k - $700k

$21,000 - $26,000

Voice and Video Monitoring Surveillance of the vehicle, by use of microphone or CCTV camera. Data is sent to an operations center to monitor.

COST ELEMENT Security Package (Fleet)

CAPITAL

O&M

$420k - $700k

$21,000 - $26,000

In Clearwater and St. Petersburg, Florida, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) installed in-vehicle surveillance systems to help deter crime and prevent false injury claims on buses. Later, the program was expanded to include 16 buses that serve the general public. Each bus was equipped with five video cameras, a microphone, and an on-board computer at a cost of $9,700.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 59

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Support Technologies This I TS group includes a num ber of support t echnologies t hat are required in order in order for I TS t o work correct ly. Key t o t he support t echnologies is t he Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em which creat es a backbone on which t he rest of t he applicat ions will funct ion. All of t hese t echnologies provide no direct im pact on perform ance but are vit al t o I TS. Each of t hese t echnologies are not unique t o BRT but do support BRT perform ance. Suppor t Te chnologie s Advanced Communication System Utilization of the latest in voice and data communication to allow for the operation of other ITS technologies. An ACS is the foundation for many of the ITS technologies. Specific requirements are discussed in section on Implementation Issues: Advanced Communication System.

The Denver Regional Transportation District overall communication system consisted of Dispatch Center Hardware ($1,250,000); Radio and Data Computer ($435,000); Field Communication Hardware: $1,451,940; and In-vehicle Hardware at $5,000 per bus. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority installed an Advanced Operating System that included an advanced communication systems for 75 buses. Capital costs were $2.64 million or approximately $32,500 per bus. O&M cost was estimated at $1.25 million per year (1995 dollars).

Archived Data Store of data that is collected from vehicle sensors (passenger counters, vehicle maintenance systems, etc.) for future planning purposes or analysis.

Passenger Counter Automatic counting of passengers as they enter and exit the BRT vehicle. Data can be used in real-time for vehicle operations or archived for future planning use. Requires additional sensors for counting passengers either on the vehicle or at the station, and ability to store or transfer the information.

COST ELEMENT Automatic Passenger Counting System

CAPITAL $1,000 - $10,000 per Vehicle

The Evaluation of the Advanced Operating System (AOS) of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority showed that the cost for passenger counting system was approximately $287 per bus, or $21,510 for a 75-vehicle fleet. This represented 0.80% of the total project costs.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 60

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

2.5.3 Effects of ITS Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 10 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s. These links are explored furt her in Chapt ers 3 and 4.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 61

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Fare Collect ion

Exhibit 2-10: Summary of Effects of ITS Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings Vehicle Prioritization Signal Timing/Phasing Station and Lane Access Control Transit Signal Priority Driver Assist and Automation Technology Collision Avoidance Collision Warning Precision Docking Vehicle Guidance Operations Management Automated Scheduling Dispatch System Vehicle Mechanical Monitoring and Maintenance Vehicle Tracking Passenger Information At Station On Person On Vehicle Trip Itinerary Planning

Reliability

Identity and Image

Vehicle prioritization minimizes congestion delays

Transit signal priority facilitates schedule recovery

Faster speeds enabled by signal priority enhance image

Precision docking allows for faster approaches to stations and reduced dwell times

Precision docking facilitates boarding and reduces dwell time variability

Precision docking and guidance enhance the image of BRT as advanced

Active operations management maintains schedules, minimizing wait time

Active operations management focuses on maintaining reliability

Passenger information systems minimize wait time perceptions

Passenger information allows for notices of service interruption, increasing service reliability

Safety and Security technology Silent Alarms Voice and Video Monitoring Support Technologies Advanced Communication System Archived Data Passenger Counter

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Passenger information systems enhance brand identity and provide a channel to communicate with customers

Safety and Security

Capacity

System Benefits

Vehicle prioritization increases speed and throughput of running ways

Faster speeds attract ridership

Collision warning and avoidance systems enhance safety Precision docking

Precision docking limits delays at stations, increasing throughput

Vehicle tracking systems enable monitoring of vehicles Vehicle health monitoring alerts operators and central control of vehicle malfunction Passenger information systems allow for communication of security threats

Operations management ensures that capacity matches demand

Advanced features that enhance BRT system image may attract ridership Enabling better management of finite resources increases operating efficiencies

Safety and security systems facilitate active management of the BRT system, deterring crime and enabling responses to incidents Support technologies enable operated capacity to be planned to meet demand when needed

Support technologies provide valuable planning information for BRT services

2- 62

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

2.5.4 Implementation Issues While individual I TS t echnologies provide t he basic feat ures key t o m any of BRT’s benefit s, t he int egrat ion of I TS t echnologies wit h one anot her ensure t hat syst em s work opt im ally t o m axim ize t he benefit t o BRT. The following sect ions discuss in m ore det ail t he im plem ent at ion issues associat ed wit h t hree of t he m ore im port ant I TS.

Advanced Communication System I TS t echnologies require t he ut ilizat ion of a robust com m unicat ion syst em , eit her via wireline or wireless, t o t ransm it bot h voice and dat a and creat e an int egrat ed syst em . Therefore, it is im perat ive t hat BRT sit es have an Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em ( ACS) designed t o m eet t he needs of t he I TS t echnologies t hey plan t o deploy and any fut ure t echnology ut ilizat ion t o have an int egrat ed BRT syst em s. BRT operat ions wit h signal priorit y, operat or lane assist , reduced headways bet ween vehicles, and real t im e inform at ion m ay need bot h m ore frequent updat es and m ore t ypes of dat a t han norm al operat ions. Wit h t he ext ensive dat a needs of an I TS- enhanced BRT syst em , t he exist ing com m unicat ions syst em s m ay very well fall short of providing t he necessary bandwidt h and speed required for t he I TS t echnologies. An ACS is not focused purely upon t he com m unicat ions bet ween t he BRT vehicle and t he t ransport at ion m anagem ent cent er ( TMC) . While t his is a vit al dat a link, it is j ust one of t he m any com m unicat ion links required for BRT syst em int egrat ion. Exhibit 2- 11 provides a schem at ic of a t ypical com m unicat ion syst em and t he int eract ions bet ween t he various elem ent s of BRT syst em .

Exhibit 2-11: BRT Communication Schematic

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 63

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

An ACS is t he foundat ion of a successfully deployed I TS- enhanced BRT syst em . All I TS t echnologies require som e form of com m unicat ion am ong t he BRT vehicle, roadside infrast ruct ure and t ransit m anagem ent cent er. Therefore, in order t o have a successfully deployed BRT syst em , a BRT syst em m ust have an ACS t hat allows for t he int egrat ion of t he various I TS t echnologies. The ACS essent ially provides t he m eans for t he synergies of t he I TS t echnologies and BRT concept t o com e t oget her. I n som e inst ances, a new BRT syst em will becom e t he im pet us for inst alling a new com m unicat ion syst em . For exam ple, t he Met ro Rapid syst em in Los Angeles needed som e m eans t o t ransm it dat a bet ween t he BRT vehicle, t raffic signal and t ransit m anagem ent cent er in order t o im plem ent t he TSP syst em . Because of Met ro Rapid, fiber opt ic cables were inst alled linking t he t raffic signals and t he TMC. BRT sit es will need t o analyze com m unicat ion needs of t he planned I TS t echnologies and com pare t hem t o current com m unicat ion capabilit ies.

Transit Signal Priority There are several possible t ypes of t raffic signal priorit y t reat m ent s applicable t o t ransit , ranging from t he sim plest passive priorit y t o t he m ost sophist icat ed adapt ive/ real- t im e cont rol. These TSP st rat egies vary widely in t heir benefit s and cost s, applicabilit y as well as lim it at ions9 . According t o Advanced Public Transport at ion Syst em s Deploym ent in t he Unit ed St at es Year 2000 Updat e, t here is an 87% increase in t he num bers of t ransit agencies wit h operat ional TSP syst em s from year 1998 ( 16 agencies) t o year 2000 ( 30 agencies) . New and rapid advances in t raffic/ bus det ect ion and com m unicat ion t echnologies, and well- defined priorit y algorit hm s have m ade TSP m ore appealing or accept able t o m ore road users of all m odes. I n fact , TSP appears t o be one of t he m ost popular I TS t echnologies deployed in t he BRT environm ent . Sevent een of t went y- one ( 81% ) BRT sit es report edly are im plem ent ing or planning TSP in t heir BRT syst em s. The im plem ent at ion of TSP cannot be accom plished wit hout full cooperat ion and coordinat ion from t raffic m anagem ent aut horit ies and all agencies or individuals who will be affect ed by t he proj ect . Most t ransit agencies have neit her j urisdict ion nor adequat e field operat ion knowledge over t raffic cont rol devices, including signals and signs and pavem ent m arkings. TSP also result s in im pact s on ot her road users as well as t raffic syst em operat ions as a whole, such as possible increase in non- t ransit vehicle delays. All st akeholders need t o be involved t hroughout t he proj ect t o assure t hat t he syst em perform ance out com es are consist ent wit h proj ect goals and obj ect ives.

Traveler Information Em pirical evidence has dem onst rat ed posit ive associat ions bet ween t ransit ridership and t raveler access t o t ransit inform at ion. I n ot her words, t he m ore inform at ion provided t o t he

9 An Overview of Transit Signal Priority, a recent document published by ITS America, jointly sponsored by the ITS America ATMS and ITS America/APTA APTS committee, provides an introductory overview of TSP related issues.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 64

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

t raveling public regarding rout e schedules and arrival inform at ion, t he great er t he accept ance of t ransit as a viable t ransport at ion opt ion 10 11 . Tradit ionally t ransit agencies provide t raveler inform at ion t hrough print ed hard copy m at erials ( e.g., riders’ guide wit h rout e m ap, fare, and bus schedule) and cust om er service t elephone lines. Recent advances in I TS t echnologies relat ed t o com m unicat ion and vehicle t racking have afforded t ransit operat ors t o deliver advanced t raveler inform at ion t o t heir ( pot ent ial) cust om ers in a m ore efficient and effect ive m anner. When im plem ent ing advanced t raveler inform at ion for BRT, several condit ions should be considered. Advanced t ransit t raveler inform at ion is delivered t o cust om ers t hrough a variet y of channels, including, but not lim it ed t o: I nt ernet , elect ronic kiosks, dynam ic m essage signs, video m onit ors, in- vehicle annunciat ors, int eract ive voice response t elephone syst em s, personal digit al assist ant s, and fax. Also, t hese inform at ion channels are m aking t he t ype of inform at ion increasingly dynam ic, such as real- t im e bus arrival/ depart ure st at us, and incident report ing. I n recent years, subst ant ial at t ent ion has also been direct ed t o t he developm ent of int erm odal it inerary/ t rip planning inform at ion syst em s t hat are capable of providing seam less, door- t o- door t rip it inerary planning support t o t ravelers in real t im e on a request - by- request basis.

2.5.5 Experience with BRT and ITS Overall, I TS t echnologies have t he pot ent ial t o im prove BRT syst em perform ance by leveraging invest m ent in physical infrast rucut re. Am ong t he t en BRT syst em s present ed in Exhibit 2- 12, all are eit her current ly using or are planning t o use I TS t echnologies. I m plem ent at ion of real- t im e t ravel inform at ion appears t o be t he m ost widespread applicat ion of I TS. Only five syst em s have indicat ed t heir use of an Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em . I m plem ent at ion of Operat ions Managem ent t echnologies such as Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em s, is oft en t ied t o syst em wide applicat ions. The im plem ent at ion of Vehicle Priorit izat ion is m ixed for t he rem aining syst em s is m ixed. The MAX in Las Vegas, Met ro Rapid in Los Angeles, and t he Rapid Bus in Oakland ( AC Transit ) have all im plem ent ed t raffic signal priorit y. I m plem ent at ion of t ransit signal priorit y is in progress for t he Silver Line in Bost on for a 2005 syst em launch. The im plem ent at ion of Assist and Aut om at ion t echnologies is rare am ong current BRT syst em s. Only t he Las Vegas MAX syst em incorporat es one of t hese t echnologies – precision docking. There is a significant am ount of research and developm ent of Assist and Aut om at ion t echnologies for t ransit vehicles. BRT vehicles m ay provide an ideal plat form on which t o deploy t hese t echnologies once t hey have been proven and are m ore easily available.

10 Abdel-Aty, M. A., “Using Ordered Probit modeling to Study the Effect of ATIS on Transit Ridership”, Pergamon Transportation Research Part C, 2001, available www.elsevier.com/locate/trc. 11 Syed, S. J. and Khan, A. M., “Factor Analysis for the Study of Determinants of Public Transit Ridership”, Journal of Public Transportation, 2000

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 65

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Exhibit 2-12: Experience with BRT and ITS Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Silver Line

Neighborhood Express

City Express

MAX

Metro Rapid

-

-

-

-

-

in late 2004

-

-

12 / 20

676 / 875

-

-

-

X Optical

-

GPS

GPS

X GPS

X GPS

X Loop Detectors

Passenger Information Traveler Information at Station/Stop Traveler Information on Transit Vehicle Traveler Information on/for Person Trip Itinerary Planning

X X X

X

X X

X (Phase 2) X X

X X X

Safety and Security Technology Silent Alarms Voice and Video Monitoring

-

-

-

X X

X

X

X X X

X

Transit Vehicle Prioritization Signal Timing/Phasing Station and Lane access Control Transit Signal Priority (Number of Intersections Applied / Total Number of Intersections) Driver Assist and Automation Technology Collision Avoidance Collision Warning Precision Docking Technology Vehicle Guidance Operations Management Automated Scheduling Dispatch System Transit Vehicle Mechanical Monitoring & Maint. Automatic Vehicle Tracking

Support Technologies Advanced Communication System Archived Data Passenger Counter

X -

X

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

X

X

2- 66

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt elligent Transport at ion Syst em s ( I TS)

Exhibit 2-12: Implementation of ITS in BRT Systems (Continued)

Transit Vehicle Prioritization Signal Timing/Phasing Station and Lane access Control Transit Signal Priority (Number of Intersections Applied / Total Number of Intersections) Driver Assist and Automation Technology Collision Avoidance Collision Warning Precision Docking Technology Vehicle Guidance Operations Management Automated Scheduling Dispatch System Transit Vehicle Mechanical Monitoring & Maint. Automatic Vehicle Tracking

Miami South Dade Busway

Oakland Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

Lymmo

Busways

Rapid

-

-

-

-

-

-

1/1

1/1

X -

X -

-

-

-

-

X X

GPS

GPS

X X

Passenger Information Traveler Information at Station/Stop Traveler Information on Transit Vehicle Traveler Information on/for Person Trip Itinerary Planning

X X X -

X X

X X X -

X X

X X X X

Safety and Security Technology Silent Alarms Voice and Video Monitoring

-

-

X X

-

X X

Support Technologies Advanced Communication System Archived Data Passenger Counter

-

X

X X X

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

X X

2- 67

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

2 .6 SERV I CE AN D OPERAT I N G PLAN S

2.6.1 Description Role of the Service and Operating Plan in BRT The design of t he service and operat ions plan for BRT service affect s how a passenger finds value in and perceives t he service. BRT service needs t o be frequent , direct , easy- t ounderst and, com fort able, reliable, operat ionally efficient , and above all, rapid. The flexibilit y of BRT elem ent s and syst em s leads t o significant flexibilit y in designing a service plan t o respond t o t he cust om er base it will serve and t he physical and environm ent al surroundings in which it will operat e. This sect ion det ails som e of t he basic service and operat ional planning issues ( cert ainly not all) relat ed t o t he provision of BRT service. I t should be not ed t hat each of t he operat ional it em s discussed vary when applied in different corridors, different cit ies, and different regions depending on a host of fact ors such as available capit al and operat ing budget , cust om er dem and, available right s- of- way, pot ent ial rout e configurat ion, and polit ical environm ent .

Characteristics of the Service and Operating Plan Rout e Le ngt h - The rout e lengt h affect s what locat ions a cust om er can direct ly reach wit hout t ransferring as well as det erm ining t he resources required for serving t he rout e. Longer rout es, while m inim izing t he need for t ransfers, require m ore capit al and labor resources and encount er m uch m ore variabilit y in operat ions. Short rout es m ay require passengers t o t ransfer t o reach locat ions not served by t he rout e but can generally provide higher t ravel t im e reliabilit y. BRT service need not operat e on dedicat ed facilit ies for 100% of t heir lengt h. Rout e St r u ct u r e - An im port ant advant age of BRT running ways and st at ions is t hat t hey can accom m odat e different vehicles serving different rout es. This flexibilit y allows for t he incorporat ion of different t ypes of rout es and rout e st ruct ures wit h t he sam e physical invest m ent . Managers of BRT syst em s are t hus able t o provide point - t o- point service or “ one- seat rides” t o cust om ers t hereby reducing overall t ravel t im e by lim it ing t he num ber of t ransfers. Offering point - t o- point service wit h lim it ed t ransferring will assist wit h at t ract ing choice riders t o t he BRT syst em . There is a t rade- off t o consider when considering different rout e st ruct ures. Sim ple rout e st ruct ures wit h j ust one or t wo rout e pat t erns are easy for new passengers t o underst and and, t herefore, st raight forward t o navigat e. I n order t o at t ract cust om ers, t hey m ust be able t o easily underst and t he service being offered. Service direct ness and linearit y in rout ing are keys t o providing cust om ers wit h a clear underst anding of t he BRT service. On t he ot her hand, providing addit ional opt ions, such as t hrough a com prehensive rout e net work wit h branching rout es, gives passengers m ore choices, especially t hose passengers who m ight ot herwise t ransfer. Clarit y and choice are t wo principles t hat need t o be balanced when det erm ining t he rout e st ruct ure. Different rout e st ruct ures also pose different opport unit ies for rest ruct uring ot her t ransit services. Sim ple rout e st ruct ures m ay allow for connect ing t ransit services t o be

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 68

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

focused on a few st at ions. Developm ent of branching net works m ay allow for exist ing services t o be rest ruct ured and resources t o be reallocat ed from rout es now served by BRT services t o ot her rout es. Se r vice Spa n – The service span represent s t he period of t im e t hat a service is available for use. Generally, rapid t ransit service is provided all day wit h high frequencies t hrough t he peak hours t hat allow passengers t o arrive random ly wit hout significant wait s. Service frequencies are reduced in off- peak hours such as t he m id- day and evening. Service spans affect t he segm ent of t he m arket t hat a t ransit service can at t ract . Long service spans allow pat rons wit h varied schedules and m any different t ypes of t ravel pat t erns t o rely on a part icular service. Short service spans lim it t he m arket of pot ent ial passengers. For exam ple, peak only service spans lim it t he pot ent ial passengers served t o com m ut ers wit h dayt im e work schedules. Where local and BRT services serve t he sam e corridor, t he service span of bot h local and BRT service m ay be considered t oget her since passengers m ay have an opt ion bet ween t he t wo services. Exhibit 2- 13 describes different BRT service t ypes and t ypical spans by running way t ype.

Exhibit 2-13: BRT Service Types and Typical Service Spans12 Principal Running Way Arterial Streets Mixed Traffic Bus Lanes Median Busways (No Passing) Freeways

Service Pattern

Weekdays

Service Saturday

Sunday

All Stop

All Day

All Day

All Day

Connecting Bus Routes

All Day

All Day

All Day

Mixed Traffic

Non Stop with Local Distributor

All Day

All Day

----

Bus/HOV Lanes

Commuter Express

Rush Hours

----

----

All Stop

All Day

All Day

All Day

Express

Day Time or Rush Hours

----

----

Day Time All Day or Non-Rush Hours

Day Time or All Day

Day Time

All Day

All Day

All Day

Busways

Feeder Service

Connecting Bus Routes

12 Notes: All Day - typically 18 to 24 hours Daytime - typically 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Rush Hours - typically from 6:30 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. 1 Feeder Bus Service in Off Peak and Express Service in Peak Bus Rapid Transit - Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90-Volume II, 2003.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 69

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

Se r vice Fr e qu e n cy - The service frequency direct ly det erm ines how long passengers m ust wait for BRT service. Tailoring service frequency t o t he m arket served is one of t he m ost im port ant elem ent s in planning and operat ing a BRT syst em . St a t ion Spa cin g - BRT syst em operat ing speeds are great ly influenced by a num ber of operat ional planning issues including t he dist ance or spacing bet ween st ops. The spacing of st ops has a m easurable im pact on t he BRT syst em ’s operat ing speed and cust om er t ot al t ravel t im e. Long st at ion spacing increases operat ing speeds.

2.6.2 Options in Service and Operations Planning Route Length Options Rout e lengt hs vary according t o t he specific service requirem ent s and developm ent charact erist ics of a corridor. Rout e lengt hs of less t han 2 hours of t ot al round t rip t ravel t im e t end t o im prove schedule adherence and overall syst em reliabilit y. This generally t ranslat es int o rout e lengt hs a m axim um of 20 m iles. Keeping t ot al round t rip t ravel t im e t o a m inim um is desirable t o avoid passengers relying on a print ed schedule t o use BRT services.

Route Structure Options There are t hree t ypes of BRT rout e st ruct ure opt ions for considerat ion. Wit h each t ype, higher levels of overlap wit h t he exist ing t ransit net work m ay bring increasing opport unit y t o reallocat e service and achieve resource savings. Rou t e St r uct u r e Opt ion s Single Route This is the simplest BRT service pattern and offers the advantage of being easiest to understand since only one type of service is available at any given BRT station. This route structure works best in corridors with many activity centers that would attract and generate passengers at stations all along the route.

Overlapping Route with Skip Stop or Express Variations The overlapping route with skip stop or express variations provides various transit services including the base BRT service. This type of routing offers the advantage of offering express or skip stop service to passengers traveling between particular origin-destination pairs. This route structure works best with passing lanes at stations. Including a high number of routes may cause confusion on platforms for infrequent riders and may cause congestion at stations.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 70

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

Rou t e St r uct u r e Opt ion s Integrated or Network System (with Locals, Expresses, and Combined Line-Haul / Feeders)

Queen St

145 / 119 25s / 30s (35)

CITY

Cultural Centre

Riverside

111 120 130 135 140 150 160 170 180

114 119 121 129 131 134 136 141 151 155 156 161 171 173 176 178 179 181 189 201 208

Mater Hill

99 / 57 36s/1m

The network system route structure provides the most comprehensive array of transit services in addition to the base all-stops, local BRT service. This type of route structure provides the most options to passengers for a one-seat ride but can result in passenger confusion and vehicle congestion pulling into and out of stations.

(57)

South Bank

99 / 57 36s/ 1m

114 119 121

64 / 16 1m / 4m

Buranda173 179 181 189 201 208 Juliette/Cornwall Sts

180 120

Greenslopes

12 / 8 5m / 8m

171 176 178 Birdwood Rd

Brisbane: SE Busway All day, all stops (Blue Line), Peak expresses (Other Lines) Lines)

NOTES: Brisbane Transport stopping buses only

170 Holland Park West

12 / 8 5m / 8m

112 177 Griffith University

129 131 134 141 151 155

34 / 15 2m / 4m

Upper Mt Gravatt (Garden City) 161

160 130 135 140

21 / 10 3m / 6m

150 136 156

111

6/4 10m

/ 15m

Eight Mile Plains

Span of Service Options There are t wo service span opt ions for BRT service: Spa n of Se r vice Opt ion s All Day All day BRT service is usually provided from the start of service in the morning to the end of service later in the evening. This type of service usually maintains consistent headways throughout the entire span of service, even in the off peak periods. Expanding service to weekend periods can reinforce the idea that BRT service is an integral part of the transit network.

Peak Hour Only This type of BRT span of service option provides only peak hour service. Peak hour only service offers high quality and high capacity BRT service only when it is needed during the peak hours. At other times, the base level of service may be provided by local bus routes.

Frequency of Service Options The frequency affect s t he service regularit y and t he abilit y of passengers t o rely upon t he BRT service. High frequencies ( e.g., headways of 10 m inut es or less) creat e t he im pression of dependable service wit h m inim al wait s, encouraging passengers t o arrive random ly wit hout having t o refer t o a schedule.

Station Spacing Options BRT st at ions are t ypically spaced fart her apart t han st ops for local service. Spacing st at ions fart her apart concent rat es passengers at st at ions, allowing vehicles t o st op and encount er delays at fewer locat ions along a rout e. Longer st ret ch bet ween st at ions allow s vehicles t o sust ain higher speeds bet ween st at ions. These fact ors lead t o overall higher t ravel speeds. These higher speeds help t o com pensat e for t he increased am ount of t im e required t o walk, t ake t ransit , or drive t o st at ions.

Methods of Schedule Control On- t im e perform ance is eit her m onit ored t o m eet specified schedules or t o regulat e headways. The t wo m et hods are described below.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 71

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

M e t h ods of Sche du le Con t r ol Schedule-based Control Schedule-based control regulates the operation of vehicles to meet specified schedules. Operating policies dictate that operators must arrive within a certain scheduled time at specific locations along the route. Dispatchers monitor vehicle locations for schedule adherence. Schedule-based control facilitates connections with other services when schedules are coordinated to match. Schedule-based control is also used to communicate to passengers that schedules fall at certain regular intervals.

Headway-based Control Often used on very high frequency systems, headway-based control focuses on maintaining headways, rather than meeting specific schedules. Operators may be encouraged to travel routes with maximum speed and may have no specified time of arrival at the end of the route. Dispatchers monitor vehicle locations and issue directions to speed up or slow down in order to regulate headways and capacity, minimizing wait times and vehicle bunching.

2.6.3 Effects of Service and Operations Plan Elements on System Performance and System Benefits Exhibit 2- 14 sum m arizes t he links bet ween t he Service and Operat ions Plans, policies, pract ices, and t echnologies t o t he BRT syst em perform ance and syst em benefit s previously ident ified. These links are explored in Chapt er 3 and 4.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 72

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ing Plans

Exhibit 2-14: Summary of Effects of Service and Operations Plan Elements on System Performance and System Benefits System Performance Travel Time Savings Route Length

Route Structure Single Route Overlapping Route with Skip Stop or Express Variations Integrated or Network System

Reliability

Identity and Image

Safety and Security

Capacity

Service plans that are customer responsive attract ridership and maximize system benefits

Shorter route lengths may promote greater control of reliability Integrated route structures reduce the need for transfers

Span of Service Peak Hour Only All Day Frequency of Service

More frequent services reduce waiting time

Station Spacing Narrow Station Spacing Wide Station Spacing Method of Schedule Control Schedulebased Control Headwaybased Control

Less frequent station spacing reduces travel time Headwaybased control for high frequency operations maximize speeds

Distinctions between BRT and other service may better define brand identity. Integrated routes structures may widen exposure to the brand. Wide spans of service suggest the service is dependable High frequencies limit the impact of service interruptions

System Benefits

High frequencies increase potential conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians High frequencies reduce security vulnerability at stations

Operated capacity increases with frequency

Less frequent station spacing limit variation in dwell time

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 73

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ions Plans

2.6.4 Experience with BRT Service Plans I n general, t he st ruct ure of t he rout es correlat ed wit h t he level of invest m ent in t he running way infrast ruct ure. Proj ect s im plem ent ed in at - grade art erial lanes, eit her in m ixed flow or designat ed lanes were im plem ent ed eit her as a single BRT rout e replacing an exist ing local rout e or as a single BRT rout e following t he sam e rout e as a local rout e. Bost on’s Silver Line proj ect was t he only proj ect where a BRT service t ot ally replaced a local rout e. The st at ion spacing rem ained relat ively low at one st at ion spaced every 0.22 direct ional rout e m ile. Most ot her art erial BRT syst em s ( AC Transit ’s Rapid Bus, Las Vegas RTC’s MAX, Los Angeles Met ro’s Met ro Rapid) involved an overlay of t he BRT rout e over t he local rout e. St at ion spacing for t he BRT rout e was highest at generally bet ween 0.5 and 1.0 m iles. Proj ect s involving exclusive lanes ( Miam i- Dade’s at - grade Sout h Busway and Pit t sburgh’s grade- separat ed t ransit ways) operat ed wit h int egrat ed net works of rout es. I n t hese cases, one rout e funct ioned as t he base service while ot her rout es com bined local feeder operat ion off t he t ransit way and express operat ion on t he exclusive t ransit ways. Frequencies also correlat ed wit h t he running way invest m ent s. BRT syst em s on art erials operat ed wit h headways bet ween 9 and 15, wit h Bost on and Los Angeles operat ing short er headways in som e corridors. Pit t sburgh’s exclusive running ways dem onst rat ed a com bined headway of approxim at ely 1 m inut e along t he t runk t ransit way. Except for Phoenix, where t he Rapid service operat es as a peak- hour only com m ut e service, all BRT syst em s operat ed during t he sam e service span and all days of t he week as t he rest of each t ransit syst em .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 74

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ions Plans

Exhibit 2-15: Experience with BRT Service Plans

Route Structure (Single BRT Route / Overlapping BRT Routes / Network of BRT Routes)

Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Silver Line

Neighborhood Express

City Express!

MAX

Metro Rapid

BRT Route replaced Local Route

BRT Route Overlay onto BRT Route Overlay onto BRT Route Overlay onto BRT Route Overlay onto Local Route Local Route Local Route Local Route

Number of Routes Operating in Network

1

3

3

1

9

Number of All-stop Routes

1

3

3

1

9

Number of Express Routes

-

-

-

-

-

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

4

9 to 12

11

12

2 to 30

0.22

0.47 to 0.56

0.2

0.84

0.67 to 1.17

Span of Service (Peak Hour Only / All Day) Frequency of Service (Headway during Peak Hour in Minutes) Station Spacing (Average Station Spacing in Miles)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 75

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

Service and Operat ions Plans

Exhibit 2-15: Experience with BRT Service Plans (Continued)

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

South Dade Busway

Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Lymmo

Busways

Rapid

Integrated Network of Routes

BRT Route Overlay onto Local Route

BRT Route replaced Local Downtown Circulator

Integrated Network of Routes

Express Routes

Number of Routes Operating in Network

6

1

1

3

4

Number of All-stop Routes

2

1

1

3

-

Number of Express Routes

4

-

-

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

Weekday Peak Hour only

10

12

5

1

10

0.57

0.56

About 900 feet

0.57 to 1.14

0.25

Route Structure (Single BRT Route / Overlapping BRT Routes / Network of BRT Routes)

Span of Service (Peak Hour Only / All Day) Frequency of Service (Headway during Peak Hour in Minutes) Station Spacing (Average Station Spacing in Miles)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4

2- 76

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt egrat ion of Elem ent s int o BRT Syst em s

2 .7 I N T EGRAT I ON OF BRT ELEM EN T S I N T O BRT SY ST EM S BRT m ay provide significant benefit s as disparat e elem ent s int o a package t hat benefit s of t he individual part s. These opt im ally serves t he part icular m arket corridor.

a result of it s flexibilit y and t he int egrat ion of it s will yield m ore t ot al benefit s t han t he sum of t he elem ent s m ust be int egrat ed int o a syst em t hat wit hin t he specific physical const raint s of each

There are several prim ary advant ages of BRT’s flexibilit y: BRT e le m e n t s ca n be pa ck a ge d t o su it a lm ost a ny physica l a nd m a r k e t e n vir onm e n t . I t is possible t o im plem ent j ust t he elem ent s and t he corresponding opt ions t hat m ake m ost sense in a part icular com m unit y or corridor. This can result in bet t er, m ore individualized solut ions. For inst ance, invest m ent s in I TS t raffic signal priorit y for BRT vehicles m ay be deem ed m uch m ore cost efficient t han const ruct ing or designat ing exclusive bus lanes in congest ed urban areas. BRT syst e m s ca n be de ve lope d in cr e m e n t a lly. Being t hat each elem ent of BRT can be independent ly developed, it is also possible t o m ake increm ent al invest m ent s t o upgrade t he syst em as ridership grows, public support st rengt hens, and m ore resources becom e available. Addit ional elem ent s ( e.g., off- board fare collect ion or I TS) could be added or exist ing syst em elem ent s could be upgraded t o m ore advanced t echnologies ( e.g., specialized BRT vehicles replacing regular fleet buses) . Som e e le m e n t s m a y be sha r e d w it h ot h e r m ode s. BRT can be considered an int erm ediat e m ode in t he sense t hat som e opt ions m ay be com pat ible or even borrowed from ot her m odes. This allows for significant opport unit ies for j oint developm ent and reduced procurem ent cost s wit h rail and bus proj ect s. This sect ion explores t wo prim ary considerat ions in int egrat ing BRT elem ent s – developing brand ident it y for BRT and developing t he int erface am ong elem ent s.

2.7.1 Branding for BRT There is significant flexibilit y in t he way t hat t ransit elem ent s can be packaged for a part icular BRT syst em . Each elem ent could be im plem ent ed independent ly, based on what m akes t he m ost sense for a part icular corridor or what financial resources are current ly available. Alt ernat ively, m ult iple elem ent s can be im plem ent ed in an int egrat ed fashion t o provide an increased level of qualit y for t he BRT service relat ive t o convent ional bus services. Regardless on what elem ent s are included, it is im port ant t o develop a st rat egy t o fost er a brand for BRT. This sect ion present s a brief int roduct ion t o appropriat e st rat egies in developing a unique ident it y for BRT applicat ions. When planning for BRT, it is im port ant t o not e t hat t ransit agencies and t he services t hey current ly operat e, all have a brand ident it y, whet her consciously developed or not . The brand ident it y is based upon exist ing charact erist ics of t he syst em , exist ing t ransit services, and exist ing business processes at t he t ransit agency. The brand ident it y is not m erely visual but relat es t o t he product in relat ion t o t he needs and desires of t he consum er. Brand ident it y is com m unicat ed visually t hrough nam es, logos, color schem es, graphics, t he

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 77

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt egrat ion of Elem ent s int o BRT Syst em s

design of physical elem ent s, and m arket ing m at erials. I t is also com m unicat ed in all int eract ions wit h passengers, pot ent ial cust om ers, and ot hers wit hin t he BRT m arket area. Developing a BRT syst em provides an opport unit y t o art iculat e a brand for a unique and dist inct syst em . Because m arket s are part icular t o specific regions and evolve over t im e, t he approach t o BRT m ust be t ailored t o each specific sit uat ion. Since choices involved in branding are part icular t o a given m arket for t ransit service, it is inappropriat e t o prescribe specific branding st rat egies. This sect ion describes a t ypical process t o develop a branding st rat egy. The approach t o building a brand for BRT involves t hree dist inct st eps.

Research During t he research phase, t he im plem ent ing agency undert akes act ivit ies t o underst and t he t arget audience. This usually involves t he research act ivit ies such as surveys, focus groups, and int erview s wit h bot h users and non- users of t ransit service. Consum er research reveals dem ographic inform at ion of t he m arket area and what pot ent ial consum ers perceive about exist ing t ransit service and what t hey would value in a new t ransit service. Research can also involve an explorat ion int ernal t o t he im plem ent ing agency t o gauge int ernal at t it udes about provision of service and how business processes affect t he end product .

Identification of Points of Differentiation for BRT The second st ep in developing t he brand involves ident ifying what t he point of different iat ion is for BRT. This st ep involves an explorat ion of what feat ures are relevant t o t he t arget audience. These feat ures can be bot h relat ed t o what t he product does ( it s perform ance – t ravel t im e savings, reliabilit y, safet y, securit y, and effect ive design) and t he im pression it conveys. These point s of different iat ion will help in t he planning for t he syst em and select ion of elem ent s and ult im at ely wit h t he m arket ing of t he service.

Implementation of the Brand I m plem ent at ion of t he brand for BRT can involve at least t hree act ivit ies: I m plem ent at ion of t he BRT Syst em Elem ent s – The elem ent s t hat m ost support t he brand are key t o present ing an at t ract ive product t hat pot ent ial cust om ers respond t o. Changing I nt ernal Business Processes – Crit ical t o a successful product is an organizat ion t hat believes in t he product it is present ing t o t he cust om er and delivers t he product efficient ly and effect ively. This oft en involves reorganizat ion of int ernal business st ruct ures, processes, relat ionships and delivery approaches. Market ing – A good product wit h a good delivery m echanism is reinforced by an effect ive m arket ing cam paign. This involves brand ident ifiers such as dist inct ive product nam es, logos, t aglines, slogans, color schem es, and livery designs as well as advert ising t hrough visual and ot her m edia.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 78

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt egrat ion of Elem ent s int o BRT Syst em s

2.7.2 Interface Requirements for BRT Elements Successful im plem ent at ion of BRT elem ent s requires t hat elem ent s funct ion seam lessly wit h ot her elem ent s. This sect ion present s various com binat ions of elem ent s and t he planning and design issues associat ed wit h successful int egrat ion of each pair of elem ent s t o support BRT syst em perform ance and m axim ize BRT benefit s.

Running Ways and Stations The running way design t hrough a st at ion has part icular im pact s on t he perform ance and t he operat ion of BRT service. St at ions m ay pose a bot t leneck in t he syst em since t hey are t he prim ary locat ion where vehicles are st opped and encount er delays. The lengt h of t he st at ion plat form and t he widt h of t he running way are t he prim ary fact ors affect ing t he ext ent of delay.

Running Ways and Vehicles The design of t he running ways m ust accom m odat e t he vehicles t hat are envisioned t o t raverse it . Key design int erfaces wit h t he vehicles include: Clearance for t he Vehicle Pat h – I n order t o be funct ional, running ways need t o be designed t o accom m odat e t he pat h of t he vehicles ( oft en called t he “ dynam ic envelope” of t he vehicle) t hat will operat e on it in a safe and efficient m anner. The level of guidance can affect t he widt h of t he required vehicle pat h and t he right - of- way required. Pavem ent design – BRT vehicles oft en include feat ures t hat increase t heir size and weight . The design of running way pavem ent det erm ines t heir abilit y t o accom m odat e t he loads of t he BRT vehicles envisioned t o operat e wit h t he service. Guidance – Guidance requires vehicle st eering m echanism s t o be int egrat ed wit h m arkings or infrast ruct ure on t he running way

Running Ways and ITS Traffic signal syst em s are an int egral part of running ways t hat operat e in a st reet environm ent . These syst em s cont rol t he flow of all vehicles, including vehicles in BRT service, vehicles in parallel flow, and vehicles crossing t he running way. As such, t hey cont rol how oft en and at what locat ions BRT vehicles m ay conflict wit h ot her vehicle t raffic and t hus t he t ravel t im e and t he need t o consider safet y of BRT vehicles. Supplem ent ing t raffic signal syst em s wit h t raffic signal priorit y syst em s is also an effect ive way t o reduce t he pot ent ial for running way delays.

Stations and Vehicles The int erface bet ween vehicles and st at ion plat form has a st rong influence on cust om er experience and boarding and alight ing speed. Prim ary considerat ion regarding vehicle and st at ion int erface is t he height of t he BRT vehicle floor and t he height and lengt h of t he st at ion plat form .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 79

2. Maj or Elem ent s of BRT

I nt egrat ion of Elem ent s int o BRT Syst em s

Stations and ITS The provision of I TS elem ent s at BRT st at ions has a st rong posit ive influence on overall cust om er experience. The I TS elem ent s com m only em ployed at BRT st at ions include realt im e variable m essage signs and advanced elect ronic off- board fare collect ion m et hods and t o a lesser ext ent som e t ype of precision docking t echnology.

Vehicles and Fare Collection Vehicle- based fare collect ion involves t he inst allat ion of fare collect ion equipm ent on t he vehicle. Equipm ent m ust be inst alled t o ensure ease of use and safet y. Equipm ent for fare verificat ion m ust be posit ioned so t hat BRT vehicle operat ors can quickly and easily m onit or fare t ransact ions. The fare equipm ent m ust also be placed t o m inim ize t he flow of passengers on and off t he vehicle. Also, off- board fare collect ion is closely relat ed t o t he num ber of door and door st ream s and t heir dist ribut ion along t he lengt h of t he vehicle. Wit hout off- board fare collect ion, m ult iple st ream doors will have a less posit ive im pact on passenger service and dwell t im es.

Stations and Fare Collection I f fare paym ent does not t ake place on- board t he vehicle, fare collect ion considerat ions including pre- paym ent equipm ent and ot her fare services m ay be im port ant in t he design of st at ion areas. The locat ion of t hese facilit ies should be a considerat ion in bot h st at ion and fare syst em design. The am enit ies provided at a st at ion m ay also be int egrat ed t o t he fare syst em by ut ilizing t he sam e fare m edia and paym ent net work. The design of t he plat form s m ay also affect t he possibilit y of m ult i- door boarding associat ed wit h pre- paym ent opt ions. Last ly, passenger securit y m ay also be a point of int egrat ion for fare collect ion and st at ion design.

Fare Collection and ITS I TS t echnologies m ay be int egrat ed wit h fare syst em s in t he collect ion and m anagem ent of dat a. For inst ance, an EFC syst em m ay be linked t o an aut om at ed vehicle locat ion/ GPS syst em t o provide dat a on t he boarding profile along a BRT rout e. This inform at ion would support operat ions and planning. There m ay also be opport unit ies for int egrat ing surveillance t echnologies for securit y and enforcem ent purposes. I nclude brief discussion on int egrat ion wit h ot her elem ent s

Vehicles and ITS I ncreasingly, m any elem ent s of I TS are being incorporat ed int o vehicle designs. These include t raffic signal priorit y t ransponders, collision warning devices and ot her assist and aut om at ion ( int elligent vehicle) t echnologies, advanced com m unicat ion syst em s, aut om at ic vehicle locat ion, on- vehicle variable m essage signs for real- t im e service inform at ion, and passenger count ers. All of t hese elem ent s m ust be m ount ed on t he vehicles and m ust wit hst and t he physical dem ands of being placed on t he vehicles including vibrat ion and exposure t o elem ent s. Since m any of t hese elem ent s m ust also com m unicat e wit h each ot her for full funct ionalit y, t he inst allat ion m ust account for physical ( wire) com m unicat ions links bet ween t hem .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2- 80

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

3 .0

I nt roduct ion

BRT ELEM EN T S AN D SY ST EM PERFORM AN CE

This chapt er ident ifies five key BRT syst em perform ance at t ribut es, including: ( 1) Travel Tim e, ( 2) Reliabilit y, ( 3) I m age and I dent it y, ( 4) Passenger Safet y and Securit y, and ( 5) Syst em Capacit y. Accom panying each indicat or is a descript ion of t he perform ance at t ribut e and a short discussion of t he perform ance of exist ing syst em s. This discussion includes a Research Sum m ary ( in cases where applicable applicat ions in t ransit dem onst rat e effect s on perform ance) , Syst em Perform ance Profiles ( short case st udies of BRT and non- BRT applicat ions) and a sum m ary of BRT Elem ent s by Syst em and t he specific perform ance at t ribut e. Tr a ve l Tim e s: The im pact of BRT syst em s on t ravel t im e saving is dependent on how each BRT elem ent is im plem ent ed in t he specific applicat ion and how t hey relat e t o each ot her and t he rest of t he BRT syst em . There are several different t ravel t im e com ponent s t hat BRT syst em s im pact , including: Ru n n in g Tim e - The t im e BRT vehicles and passengers act ually spend m oving. Running t im es are dependent on t raffic congest ion, delays at int ersect ions, and t he need t o decelerat e int o and accelerat e from st at ions. St a t ion D w e ll Tim e – This m easures t he t im e vehicles and passengers spend at st at ions while t he vehicle is st opped t o board and alight passengers. Typical influences on dwell t im es include plat form size and layout , vehicle charact erist ics ( e.g., floor height , num ber of doors and t heir widt h) , fare collect ion processes and m edia, and \ t he use of t echnologies t o expedit e t he boarding process for disabled cust om ers and ot her m obilit y- im paired group ( e.g., precision docking or facilit at ed wheelchair securem ent ) . W a it ing a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e s - These are highly dependent on service frequency and rout e st ruct ure and t he design of st at ions at t ransit t erm inals. Re lia bilit y, is defined as t he variabilit y of t ravel t im es, and is affect ed by m any BRT feat ures. The t hree m ain aspect s of reliabilit y include: Ru n n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y - The abilit y t o m aint ain consist ent t ravel t im es St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y – The abilit y for pat rons t o board and alight wit hin a set t im efram e. ( Elem ent s t hat cont ribut e t o St at ion Dwell t im e include: st at ion plat form height , vehicle t ypes, fare collect ion process and fare m edia t ype) Se r vice Re lia bilit y – The availabilit y of consist ent service ( availabilit y of service t o pat rons, t he abilit y t o recover from disrupt ions, availabilit y of resources t o consist ent ly provide t he scheduled level of service) . I de nt it y a nd I m a ge reflect s t he effect iveness of a BRT syst em ’s design in posit ioning it in t he t ransport at ion m arket place and in fit t ing wit hin t he cont ext of t he urban environm ent . I t is im port ant bot h as a prom ot ional and m arket ing t ool for t ransit pat rons and for providing inform at ion t o non- frequent users as t o t he locat ion of BRT syst em access point s ( i.e., st ops and st at ions) and rout ing. Two m aj or elem ent s of BRT syst em I m age and I dent it y capt ure it s ident it y as a product and as an elem ent of t he urban form : Br a nd I de n t it y – A BRT syst em brand ident it y reflect s how it is posit ioned relat ive t o t he rest of t he t ransit syst em and ot her t ravel opt ions. Effect ive design and int egrat ion

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 1

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I nt roduct ion

of BRT elem ent s reinforce a posit ive and at t ract ive brand ident it y t hat m ot ivat es pot ent ial cust om ers and m akes it easier for t hem t o use t he syst em . Con t e x t u a l D e sign - This m easures how effect ively t he design of t he BRT syst em is int egrat ed wit h t he surrounding urban environm ent .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 2

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I nt roduct ion

Sa fe t y a nd Se cu r it y for t ransit cust om ers and t he general public can be im proved wit h t he im plem ent at ion of BRT syst em s, where safet y and securit y are defined as: Sa fe t y – Freedom from hazards as dem onst rat ed by reduced accident rat es, inj uries, and im proved public percept ion of safet y. Se cu r it y – Act ual and perceived freedom from crim inal act ivit ies and pot ent ial t hreat s against cust om ers and propert y. Ca pa cit y is defined as t he m axim um num ber of passengers t hat can be carried past a point in a given direct ion, during a given period along t he crit ical sect ion of a given BRT under specific operat ing condit ions. Virt ually all BRT elem ent s affect capacit y. Also accom panying t he discussion of each perform ance elem ent is a sum m ary of BRT elem ent s and perform ance st at ist ics by syst em . This sum m ary allows for a com parison of different approaches undert aken by t ransit agencies t o achieve perform ance and of different perform ance result s across syst em s. 13

13 Sources of data on system performance included data requests from transit agencies including the Chicago Transit Authority, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston, MA; Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, PA, the Regional Public Transportation Authority in Phoenix, AZ; the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas, NV. In addition, the following summary and evaluation reports provided data: Baltes, Michael, and Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Lynx LYMMO Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation, Federal Transit Administration and Florida Department of Transportation, Tampa, FL, July 2003 Baltes, M., V. Perk, J. Perone, and C. Thole, South Miami-Dade Busway System Summary, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, May 2003 Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, J. Gast, S. Rutherford, and E. Bruhn, Bus Rapid Transit Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90-Volume II,Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003 Milligan & Company, Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation of Port Authority of Allegheny County’s West Busway Bus Rapid Transit Project, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, April 2003 Pultz, S. and D. Koffman, Crain & Associates, The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987 Transportation Management & Design, Inc., Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA March 2002

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 3

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

3 .1 T RAV EL T I M E Travel t im e m ay be t he single at t ribut e of a t ransit syst em t hat cust om ers care t he m ost about , part icularly for non- discret ionary, recurring t rips such as t hose m ade for work purposes. Relat ively high BRT running speeds and reduced st at ion dwell t im es m ake BRT services m ore at t ract ive for all t ypes of cust om ers, especially riders wit h ot her t ransport at ion choices. Wait ing and t ransferring t im es have a part icularly im port ant effect , and BRT service plans generally feat ure frequent , all–day, direct service t o m inim ize t hem . The Operat ional Analysis of Bus Lanes on Art erials14 indicat es t hat for suburban bus operat ions, t he m aj orit y of overall bus t ravel t im e ( about 70 percent ) t akes place while t he bus is in m ot ion. For cit y bus operat ions, part icularly wit hin Cent ral Business Dist rict s ( CBDs) , a lower percent age of overall bus t ravel t im e ( about 40 t o 60 percent ) t akes place while t he bus is in m ot ion. This is due t o heavier passenger boarding and alight ing volum es per st op, higher st op densit y, m ore frequent signalized int ersect ions, m ore pedest rian int erference and worse t raffic condit ions. For t he purposes of t his report , we consider four t ravel t im e com ponent s: Ru n n in g Tim e – t im e spent in t he vehicle t raveling from st at ion t o st at ion D w e ll Tim e – t im e spent in t he vehicle st opped at a st at ion W a it t im e – t im e spent by passengers init ially wait ing t o board a t ransit service Tr a n sfe r t im e – t im e spent by passengers t ransferring bet ween BRT service and ot her t ypes of t ransit service Each of t hese four t ypes of t ravel t im e is described in furt her det ail wit h a discussion of how BRT elem ent s cont ribut e t o reduct ions in t ravel t im e. ( One aspect of t ravel t im e oft en m ent ioned in t ransport at ion planning is called access t im e – t he t im e spent by passengers walking or t aking anot her non- t ransit m ode t o reach a part icular t ransit service. I t is not discussed here since it is affect ed by t he int ensit y and dist ribut ion of land uses.)

3.1.1 Running Time Description of Running Time Running t im e is t he elem ent of t ravel t im e t hat represent s t he t im e spent by BRT passengers and vehicles act ually m oving from st at ion t o st at ion. I n m ost cases, t he m axim um speed of t he vehicle it self is not usually a det erm ining fact or for running t ravel t im es. Vehicles in service in such dense corridors rarely accelerat e t o t he m axim um speed of t he vehicle before t hey m ust decelerat e t o serve t he next st at ion. The m aj or det erm ining fact ors are t he delays t hat t he vehicle encount ers along t he way including congest ion due t o

14 Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials, TCRP Report 26, 1997; Appendix A, p. 58

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 4

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

ot her vehicle t raffic, delays at int ersect ions for t urns, t raffic signals and pedest rians, t he num ber of st at ions a vehicle is required t o serve, and t he design of t he BRT rout e st ruct ure.

Effects of BRT Elements on Running Time The prim ary BRT elem ent s t hat im prove t ravel t im es relat ive t o convent ional bus service are described below. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Run n in g Tim e Running Way – Running Way Segregation

Running Way Segregation is one of the key BRT elements that affect travel times. Mixed Flow Lanes with Queue Jumpers – Queue Jumpers allow vehicles to bypass traffic queues (i.e., traffic backups) at signalized locations or bottlenecks. Dedicated (Reserved) Arterial Lanes reduce delays associated with congestion in city streets. Dedicated lanes are often used in conjunction with Traffic Signal Priority to minimize unpredictable delays at intersections. At-Grade Exclusive Transitways eliminate the hazards due to merging or turning traffic or pedestrians and bicyclists crossing into the middle of the running way, allowing BRT vehicles to travel safely at higher speeds. Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways eliminates all potential delay, including delays at intersections. BRT vehicles are free to travel safely at relatively high speeds from station to station.

Stations – Passing Capability

Stations that allow for passing minimize delays at stations, especially if the service plan includes high frequency operation or multiple routes. Passing capability also allows for the service plan to incorporate route options such as skip-stop or express routes, which offer even lower travel times than routes that serve all stations.

ITS – Transit Vehicle Prioritization

Transit Vehicle Prioritization, specifically TSP will enable the BRT vehicle to travel faster along the roadway through increased green time. TSP is especially useful if implemented at key intersections that cause the highest delay. To a lesser extent Signal Timing/Phasing could provide similar benefits. Retiming or coordinating signals along a corridor is generally directed at improving all traffic flow, not just transit. Station and Lane Access Control can reduce the amount of time a BRT vehicle sits in a queue waiting to enter a dedicated BRT or HOV lane or station.

ITS—Driver Assist and Automation

For those BRT systems operating on narrow roadway ROW (e.g. shoulders), Lane Assist can allow the BRT vehicle operator to travel at higher speeds than otherwise would be possible due to the physical constraints of the ROW. Precision Docking will enable a BRT vehicle to quickly dock at a BRT station and reduce both Running Travel Time and the Station Dwell Time. Docking technology removes the burden on the BRT vehicle operator of steering the vehicle to within a certain lateral distance from the station platform, allowing for faster approaches to stations.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 5

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Run n in g Tim e Service and Operations Plan – Station Spacing

Reducing the number of stations reduces delay associated with decelerating into and accelerating out of the station and with loading at the station. Cumulatively, the travel time savings associated with widening the station spacing can be significant. BRT systems in North America vary considerably with respect to stop spacing, ranging from about 1,200 feet for the planned system in Cleveland’s core to about 7,000 feet for the Transitway system in Ottawa, which has significant coverage in suburban areas.

Service and Operations Plan – Schedule Control Method

When frequencies are high enough, encouraging vehicle operators to travel the route as fast as they can and managing on-time performance through Headway-Based Schedule Control can encourage vehicles to travel at the maximum speeds that are possible between stations.

Performance of Existing Systems Transit agencies have significant experience in achieving t ravel t im e savings and increasing t he speed of service. This sect ion charact erizes t his experience in t hree sect ions – a sum m ary of relevant research, profiles of not ewort hy experience ( bot h BRT and non- BRT) , and a sum m ary of charact erist ics t hat affect dwell t im e by BRT syst em . Re se a r ch Sum m a r y Research in t ransit operat ions suggest s how running t im es can be reduced t hrough m any elem ent s t hat are incorporat ed int o BRT. The Transit Capacit y and Qualit y of Service Manual – 2 nd Edit ion 15 provides est im at ed average speeds of buses, as a funct ion of t hree variables: Type of Running Way ( e.g., Busway or Freeway HOV Lane, Art erial St reet Bus Lane, or Mixed Traffic) Average St op Spacing Average Dwell Tim e per st op Exhibit 3- 1 m akes clear t hat t he use of exclusive right - of- way ( i.e., no t raffic signals) is t he m ost effect ive way t o increase bus t ravel speeds. All t hings ( e.g., st at ion spacing, fare collect ion approach, et c.) being equal, BRT revenue speeds on exclusive running ways will com pare favorably wit h m ost heavy rail and exclusive right - of- way light rail syst em s.

15 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Part 4

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 6

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 : Est im a t e d Ave r a ge Bu s Spe e ds on Bu sw a ys or Ex clu sive Fr e e w a y H OV La n e s: a ssu m e s 5 0 m ph Top Ru n n in g Spe e d of Bu s in La n e 1 6 Average Stop Spacing, in miles

0

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

36 mph 42 mph 44 mph 46 mph 46 mph

Average Dwell Time per stop, in seconds 15 30 45 26 mph 34 mph 38 mph 41 mph 42 mph

21 mph 30 mph 35 mph 37 mph 39 mph

18 mph 27 mph 32 mph 35 mph 37 mph

60 16 mph 24 mph 29 mph 32 mph 35 mph

As shown in Exhibit 3- 2, having dedicat ed bus lanes on art erial st reet s provides for speeds t hat are sim ilar t o t hat of st reet - running light rail syst em s.

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 : Est im a t e d Ave r a ge Bu s Spe e ds on D e dica t e d Ar t e r ia l St r e e t Bu s La n e s, in m ile s pe r h ou r 17 Average Stop Spacing, in miles

10

0.10 0.20 0.25 0.50

9 mph 16 mph 18 mph 25 mph

Average Dwell Time per stop, in seconds 20 30 40 50 7 mph 13 mph 15 mph 22 mph

6 mph 11 mph 13 mph 20 mph

5 mph 10 mph 11 mph 18 mph

4 mph 9 mph 10 mph 16 mph

60 4 mph 8 mph 9 mph 15 mph

Exhibit 3- 3 indicat es t hat in t ypical m ixed t raffic condit ions, bus speeds are significant ly lower t han t hose for BRT, light and heavy rail syst em s operat ing on exclusive running ways. This is due t o t he t raffic it self, as well as t he t im e required for t he bus t o exit / re- ent er t he t raffic st ream at each st op.

Ex h ibit 3 - 3 : Est im a t e d Ave r a ge Bu s Spe e ds in Ge n e r a l Pur pose Tr a ffic La n e s, in m ile s pe r h ou r 1 8 Average Stop Spacing, in miles

10

0.10 0.20 0.25 0.50

6 mph 9 mph 10 mph 11 mph

Average Dwell Time per stop, in seconds 20 30 40 50 5 mph 8 mph 9 mph 10 mph

5 mph 7 mph 8 mph 10 mph

4 mph 6 mph 7 mph 9 mph

4 mph 6 mph 7 mph 9 mph

60 3 mph 5 mph 6 mph 8 mph

Exhibit s 3- 1 t o 3- 3 also indicat e t hat st op spacing is t he next m ost significant variable in influencing average bus t ravel speeds, followed by average dwell t im e per st op.

16 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., p. 4-46 17 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, p. 4-53 18 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition; p. 4-53

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 7

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT syst em s im prove t ravel t im es over convent ional bus services t hrough a com binat ion of dedicat ed running ways, longer st at ion spacing, reduced dwell t im es at st ops ( e.g., due t o m ult iple door boarding) and/ or I TS applicat ions ( e.g., t raffic signal priorit y) . Experience in Bus Rapid Transit in t he Unit ed St at es suggest s t hat t ravel t im e savings is on t he order of 25 t o 50 percent for recent ly im plem ent ed BRT syst em s. 19 Findings from eleven int ernat ional syst em s in Canada, Brazil, Ecuador, England, and Japan found t hat speed im provem ent s associat ed wit h BRT im plem ent at ion ranged from 22 percent t o 120 percent 20 . Exhibit 3- 4 shows BRT speeds relat ed t o t he spacing of st at ions.

Ex h ibit 3 - 4 : Bu sw a y a n d Fr e e w a y Bus La n e Spe e ds a s a Fu n ct ion of St a t ion Spa cin g 2 1 Station Spacing (miles)

Stops Per Mile

0.25 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

4.0 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.5

Speeds (MPH) 20-Second 30-Second Dwell Dwell 18 25 34 42 44

16 22 31 38 40

When det erm ining st at ion spacing, t here is a t radeoff bet ween pat ron accessibilit y and service speed. Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Several syst em s illust rat e t he pot ent ial of developing com binat ions of BRT elem ent s t o achieve t ravel t im e savings. M e t r o Ra pid, Los An ge le s, CA A com binat ion of increased st at ion spacing and t raffic signal priorit y can clearly im pact t ravel t im e savings. For t he Wilshire/ Whit t ier Boulevards BRT line, overall average t ravel t im e savings due t o t he BRT service during peak periods was 28% com pared t he previous bus service. The TSP syst em cont ribut ed t o 27% of t he overall t ravel t im e savings. The rem aining 73% were due t o t he BRT elem ent s such as st at ion spacing and locat ion. The Vent ura Boulevard BRT line saw sim ilar result s

19 Bus Rapid Transit: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, TCRP Report 90 - Volume I, Appendix A, 2003, p. 51 20 Bus Rapid Transit – An Overview, presentation by Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Washington, DC, 2000 21 Bus Rapid Transit - Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90 – Volume II, 2003

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 8

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

wit h a 23% overall t ravel t im e reduct ion and TSP cont ribut ing t o 33% of t he t ravel t im e savings. M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA The Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway provides a fully grade- separat ed t ransit way for vehicles t raveling bet ween downt own Pit t sburgh and east ern suburbs. Wit h t he int roduct ion of t he busway, several rout es which had served t he corridor w ere divert ed t o t he busway t o t ake advant age of t he fast er speeds and reliabilit y afforded by t he busway. Along wit h t he diversion of t hese rout es t o t he busway, t he downt own circulat ion segm ent s of t he rout es were also re- aligned. The t im e required for walk access t o service, downt own circulat ion, and line- haul t ravel were calculat ed for six key downt own dest inat ions for bot h t he AM Peak and t he PM Peak. I n all cases in t he AM Peak, t he line- haul t ravel t im e decreased by an average of 5 or 6 m inut es, while downt own circulat ion t im e decreased for four out of six locat ions. Overall, t ot al t ravel t im e decreased by an average of 8 m inut es out of t ot al t ravel t im es of 31 t o 34 m inut es. Travel t im e savings for t rips during t he AM Peak were bet ween 13 and 42% . PM Peak t ravel t im e savings were not as not able, about 3.5 m inut es on average. 22 Va r ious I TS Applica t ion s ( n on - BRT Ex a m ple ) There are ot her exam ples of TSP im pact ing t ravel t im e out side of t he BRT environm ent . I n At lant a, GA, MARTA buses yielded a 33% reduct ion in t ravel t im e from 42 t o 28 m inut es. Phoenix, AZ, saw a 16% reduct ion in t ravel t im e. Finally, aft er inst alling a TSP syst em along t he Tualat in Valley Highway in Port land, OR, average bus t ravel t im es were reduced 6.4% or 31 seconds per int ersect ion. BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Tr a ve l Tim e Exhibit 3- 5 sum m arizes running t ravel t im e savings perform ance benefit s associat ed wit h t he int roduct ion of new of Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) syst em s. Several perform ance indicat ors were developed t o m easure t ravel t im e perform ance: Peak Hour End- t o- End Travel Tim e – t his m easure is t he average weekday t ravel t im e required t o com plet e a one- way t rip from t he beginning t o t he end of t he line during peak hours. Unconst rained End- t o- End Travel Tim e – t his m easure is t he average weekday t ravel t im e required t o com plet e a one- way t rip from t he beginning t o t he end of t he line during non- peak hours of service.

22 Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr, East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA,U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration, 1987.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 9

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Minut es per m ile – t his m easure, which is calculat ed by dividing t he average end- t o- end t im e ( in m inut es) by t he end- t o- end rout e dist ance, reveals t he am ount of t im e it t akes t he vehicle t o go one m ile. Maxim um Tim e on Local Line ( peak hour) – t his m easures t he end- t o- end t ravel t im e on t he local line running along t he sam e alignm ent as t he BRT line. Travel Tim e Reduct ion – t his m easure is derived by calculat ing t he percent age difference in t ravel t im e ( peak hour) bet ween a BRT line and a local line t hat operat e along t he sam e alignm ent and have t he sam e end point s ( for BRT lines t hat have no local alt ernat ive, t he t ravel t im e is com pared t o t he syst em wide average) . The dat a shown in Exhibit 3- 5 provides som e em pirical cont ext for assessing t he im pact of BRT elem ent s on t ransit perform ance, and in part icular, running t im es. The t able consist s of 26 BRT syst em s t hat encom pass a broad cross- sect ion of t reat m ent s. Most of t he syst em s described in t he t able operat e in a m ixed flow environm ent , wit h several syst em s including elem ent s t hat such as queue j um ping and Traffic Signal Priorit y ( TSP) . Syst em s t hat allow BRT vehicles t o operat e along a segregat ed running way t ypically offer great er t ravel t im e savings t han syst em s t hat operat e in a m ixed t raffic environm ent , part icularly during peak hours of t he day. Anot her im port ant fact or im pact ing running way t im es is st at ion spacing. I n addit ion t o prevailing t raffic condit ions, m axim um speeds are also lim it ed by t he dist ance bet ween st at ions. This underst anding is part of t he rat ionale behind lim it ed or ‘skip st op’ service, which designat es fewer st ops along a given dist ance t han t radit ional local service. Alt hough BRT syst em s t ypically have t o share lane space wit h local buses on m ixed flow lanes, designing a lim it ed st op or ‘skip’ st op service can reduce end- t o- end t ravel t im e, especially when com plem ent ed wit h TSP capabilit ies. Perhaps t he best exam ple of t his is t he Met roRapid service in Los Angeles, CA. There are current ly nine Met ro Rapid lines in operat ion, and t hese lines provide bet ween a 17% t o 29% t ravel t im e advant age over local lines operat ing on t he sam e alignm ent . There are several BRT syst em s t hat operat e on at - grade exclusive and reserved bus lanes in Exhibit 3- 5: Nort h Las Vegas MAX, Miam i ( Local Busway and MAX) and t he East Busway, Sout h Busway and West Busway in Pit t sburgh. Com pared t o t he syst em s t hat operat e on m ixed lanes, t hese syst em s dem onst rat e higher levels of operat ing perform ance, and, as a result , provide great er levels of t ravel t im e savings. One way t o m easure perform ance is t o calculat e t he am ount of t im e it t akes t o t ravel a fixed dist ance, or, m inut es per m ile. The East and Sout h Busway, for exam ple, average 1.98 and 2.09 m inut es per m ile, respect ively – which is am ong t he lowest in t he st udy group. This is significant ly lower t han t hat of BRT syst em s t hat operat e wit hin a m ixed flow t raffic environm ent . Not surprisingly, t hese syst em s offer t he great est t im e savings benefit s as well. The Sout h Busway, for exam ple, provides a 55% t ravel t im e savings im provem ent over t he average syst em wide m inut es per m ile for all Port Aut horit y fixed rout e service.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 10

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Tr a ve l Tim e Boston

Chicago Western Avenue Express (X49)

Chicago Irving Park Express (X80)

Chicago Garfield Express (X55)

Honolulu City Express A

Honolulu City Express B

0.2 2.2

18.3

9.0

9.4

19.6

7.0

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

0.22 Schedule

0.47 Schedule

0.50 Schedule

0.56 Schedule

0.54 Schedule

0.20 Schedule

9.6

78

44

44

84

44

9.3

60

31

37

67

42

4.05

4.26

4.90

4.66

4.29

6.29

3.92

3.28

3.45

3.92

3.42

6.00

26%

15%

25%

20%

Silver Line Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability ITS Vehicle Prioritization

Transit Signal Priority (in 2004)

Driver Assist and Automation Service Plan Average Station Spacing (mi.) Method of Schedule Control Performance Maximum (Peak Hour) Endto-End Travel Time (Min.) Uncongested End-to-End Travel Time (Min.) Minutes per Mile (Peak Hour) Minutes per Mile (Uncongested) Travel Time Reduction (By Comparison of BRT Schedule to Local) Travel Time Reduction (Compared to Systemwide Travel Times) Travel Time Reduction (As Measured by Agency) Customer Perception of Travel Time

20%

1% 29% 73.2% of passengers rate Travel Time / Directness as Above Average or Excellent

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 11

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Tr a ve l Tim e ( Con t in u e d) Honolulu City Express C

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

30.0

2.9 4.7

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Wilshire

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Ventura

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Vermont

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Crenshaw

16.7

11.9 -

18.8

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

25.7

-

Precision Docking at Stations Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

-

-

-

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

-

Transit Signal Priority(7) Precision Docking

Transit Signal Priority -

Transit Signal Priority -

0.73 Schedule

0.84 Headway

0.78 Headway

1.17 Headway

0.67 Headway

0.83 Headway

93

32

86

57

56

76

83

28

67

37

48

55

3.10

4.21

3.82

3.41

4.41

4.18

2.77

3.68

2.98

2.22

3.78

3.02

7%

35%

23%

25%

18%

29%

27%

23%

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

-

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Service Plan Average Station Spacing (mi.) Method of Schedule Control Performance Maximum (Peak Hour) Endto-End Travel Time (Min.) Uncongested End-to-End Travel Time (Min.) Minutes per Mile (Peak Hour) Minutes per Mile (Uncongested) Travel Time Reduction (By Comparison of BRT Schedule to Local) Travel Time Reduction (Compared to Systemwide Travel Times) Travel Time Reduction (As Measured by Agency) Customer Perception of Travel Time

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Passengers rate Metro Rapid travel time 3.82 out of 5, compared to 3.42 for the former Limited Bus

3- 12

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Tr a ve l Tim e ( Con t in u e d) Los Angeles Metro Rapid Van Nuys

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Broadway

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Florence

Orlando

Miami

Miami

LYMMO

Busway Local

Busway MAX

21.4 -

10.5 -

10.3 -

-

-

-

-

3.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.05 Headway

0.69 Headway

98

37

Oakland Rapid San Pablo Corridor

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

14.0 8

8

-

Bus Pullouts

Bus Pullouts

-

0.88 Headway

About 900 feet Headway

0.54 Schedule

1.14 Schedule

0.56 Schedule

53

20

27

25

63

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Service Plan Average Station Spacing (mi.) Method of Schedule Control Performance Maximum (Peak Hour) Endto-End Travel Time (Min.) Uncongested End-to-End Travel Time (Min.) Minutes per Mile (Peak Hour) Minutes per Mile (Uncongested) Travel Time Reduction (By Comparison of BRT Schedule to Local) Travel Time Reduction (Compared to Systemwide Travel Times) Travel Time Reduction (As Measured by Agency)

76

32

38

20

27

25

52

4.45

3.36

4.31

6.67

3.38

3.13

4.49

3.45

2.91

3.09

6.67

3.38

3.13

3.70

17%

29%

20%

0%

21% (17% reduction from limited route according to Agency measurements) 29%

24%

35%

23%

Customer Perception of Travel Time

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

59% of passengers rate travel time on the Busway as Good or Very Good (average rating of 3.63 out of 5)

3- 13

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Tr a ve l Tim e ( Con t in u e d)

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

Phoenix RAPID I-10 West

Phoenix RAPID SR-51

Phoenix RAPID I-17

East Busway

South Busway

West Busway

Rapid I-10 East

0.4 -

-

0.4 -

6.5 14.0

4.8 8.0

12.3 10.3

8.0 11.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8.7 8.7 Passing Lanes at Stations

4.3

4.6

-

-

-

-

Passing Lanes at Stations

Passing Lanes at Stations

bus pullouts

bus pullouts

bus pullouts

bus pullouts

ITS Traffic Signal Priority Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) (1 Signal) Driver Assist and Automation Collision Warning Collision Warning Service Plan Average Station Spacing (mi.) 1.14 0.54 Method of Schedule Control Schedule Schedule Performance Maximum (Peak Hour) End20 9 to-End Travel Time (Min.) Uncongested End-to-End 18 9 Travel Time (Min.) Minutes per Mile (Peak Hour) 2.20 2.09 Minutes per Mile 1.98 2.09 (Uncongested) Travel Time Reduction (By Comparison of BRT Schedule to Local) Travel Time Reduction (Compared to Systemwide 52% 55% Travel Times) Travel Time Reduction (As Measured by Agency) Vehicle Prioritization

Customer Perception of Travel Time

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) Collision Warning

Traffic Signal Priority Traffic Signal Priority Traffic Signal Priority Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) (1 Signal) (1 Signal) (1 Signal) Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning

0.83 Schedule -

1.86 Schedule

1.59 Schedule

2.05 Schedule

1.63 Schedule

17

37

34

48

52

3.40

1.80

2.62

2.49

2.67

2.80

-

-

-

-

26%

-

-

-

-

14

85% of passengers report shorter travel times with an average reduction of 14 minutes

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 14

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

3.1.2 Station Dwell Time Description of Station Dwell Time St at ion dwell t im e is t he am ount of t im e spent by passengers while a vehicle is st opped at a st at ion. The dwell t im e represent s t he t im e required for t he vehicle t o load and unload passengers at t he t ransit st at ion. The report on Operat ional Analysis of Bus Lanes on Art erials st at es t hat st at ion dwell t im e can com prise as m uch as 30% ( a significant share) of t ot al t ravel t im es for t ransit . I t also st at es t hat dwell t im e can also m ake up t o as m uch as 40% of t ot al delay t im e depending on t he level of congest ion. Dwell t im e depends on: t he num ber of passengers boarding or alight ing per door channel – m ult i- door boarding disperses passengers t he fare collect ion syst em – pre- processing fares and/ or reducing t ransact ion t im es on vehicles can reduce loading t im es vehicle occupancy – congest ion inside t he vehicle requires ext ra t im e t o load and unload passengers. The dwell t im e at a part icular st op can be est im at ed by m ult iplying t he num ber of people boarding and/ or alight ing t hrough t he highest volum e door by t he average service t im e per passenger. Typical dwell t im es for st andard local bus operat ions are: About 60 seconds at a downt own st op, t ransit cent er, m aj or t ransfer point , or m aj or park- and- ride st op About 30 seconds at a m aj or out lying st op About 15 seconds at a t ypical out lying st op Several bus rapid t ransit elem ent s can reduce st at ion dwell t im es significant ly.

Effects of BRT Elements on Station Dwell Time The BRT elem ent s t hat im pact st at ion dwell t im e m ost st rongly are discussed below. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Stations – Platform Height

Level Platforms minimize the “gap” between the BRT vehicle floor and station platform edge, greatly speeding the boarding and alighting process. For example, the MAX system in Las Vegas and the TEOR system in Rouen, France utilize an optical guidance precision docking system. This system and vehicle floor-height station platforms provide level, no-gap boarding and alighting, thus greatly reducing station dwell times. No-gap, level vehicle floor -to-platform boarding and alighting has the added benefit of permitting wheelchair users to board and alight BRT vehicles without a lift, ramp, or assistance from a vehicle operator. Raised Curbs achieve some of the benefits of level platforms without the need for precision docking but require extra time for ramp deployment for the mobility impaired.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 15

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Stations – Platform Layout

Platform layouts that do not constrain the number of vehicles that can load and unload passengers decrease the amount of time vehicles spend at stations waiting in vehicle queues.

Vehicles – Vehicle Configuration

Vehicle configurations with low floors facilitate boarding and alighting, especially of mobility impaired groups – the disabled, elderly, children, and persons with packages. For low floor vehicles passenger service times could be reduced 20% for boarding times, 15% for front alighting times and 15% for rear alighting times. Specialized BRT Vehicles with one hundred percent low floor vehicles have the great advantage of shorter boarding and alighting times and the ability to place an additional door behind the rear axle.

Vehicles – Passenger Circulation Enhancement

All types of passenger circulation facilitate lower dwell times. Additional Door Channels (with wider and more numerous doors) can dramatically reduce the time for passengers to board and alight. BRT systems that incorporate some form of secure, non-driver involved fare collection can take advantage of multiple-door boarding. 23 Vehicles that include Alternative Seat Layout with wider aisles in the interior also promote reduced dwell times, especially when there are significant standing loads. Although a small percentage of passengers board in wheelchairs, the dwell times for these customers can be significant. The typical wheelchair lift cycle-times range from 60 to 200 seconds per boarding for high floor buses (including time to secure the wheelchair). With a low floor bus the typical wheelchair ramp cycle time ranges from 30 to 60 seconds per boarding which includes time to secure the wheelchair. Enhanced Wheelchair Securement devices are being developed and can reduce dwell times further. The extent of the impact is still being measured.

Fare Collection – Fare Collection Process

Fare Collection Processes that allow multiple door boarding – Proof-of-Payment and Barrier-Enforced Pre-Payment – can provide significant reductions in boarding nd times. According to the Transit Quality of Service Manual (2 Edition), proof-ofpayment systems can provide up to a 38% reduction in boarding times, and therefore commensurate reductions in dwell times as well. Multiple door channels for boarding and alighting can reduce passenger service times even further, to a fraction of other fare collection approaches. For example, two, three, four, and six door channels can reduce the 2.5 seconds per total passenger required to board under complete prepaid fare system to 1.5, 1.1, 0.9, and 0.6 seconds per total passenger boarding at a particular stop, respectively.24

23 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 24 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Exhibit 4-2.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 16

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Fare Collection – Fare Transaction Media

For options where fare transactions take place on the vehicle, the fare transaction media has additional impacts on station dwell time. Compared to fare collection by a driver using exact change, flash pass systems or electronic systems using tickets or passes can reduce passenger boarding time by 13% from an average of 3.5 to 4 seconds per passenger.25 Smart Card technologies are most effective in this respect; Magnetic Stripe Card technologies are less effective. In addition, electronic systems can offer a great amount of valuable passenger level data for better scheduling and planning. This can further reduce passenger travel times.

ITS—Driver Assist and Automation

Precision Docking has the potential to reduce station dwell times for two reasons. First, it allows all passengers, especially the mobility impaired, to board and alight without climbing up and/or down stairs. Second, some BRT systems (e.g., Bogotá Transmilenio) use systems that ensure that vehicles stop in the same location, thus insuring orderly queuing for boarding.

Service and Operations Plan – Service Frequency

Increasing service frequency reduces the number of passengers that can accumulate at the station, reducing the time associated with loading them.

Service and Operations Plan – Method of Schedule Control

Headway-based schedule control makes headways more regular, ensuring even loads and loading times.

Performance of Existing Systems BRT elem ent s have achieved reduct ions in dwell t im e from convent ional t ransit . This sect ion charact erizes t his experience in t hree sect ions – a sum m ary of relevant research, profiles of not ewort hy experience, and a sum m ary of charact erist ics t hat affect dwell t im e by BRT syst em . Re se a r ch Sum m a r y Several st udies perform ed for convent ional t ransit service suggest how im plem ent at ion of cert ain BRT elem ent s can achieve dwell t im e savings. Exhibit 3- 6 highlight s t ypical passenger services t im es for a st andard floor bus. Exhibit 3- 7 shows loading t im es as a funct ion of available door channels. I ncreasing t he num ber of door channels available for loading does reduce loading t im e. This is crit ical where t he num ber of passengers at st at ions is high.

25 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Exhibit 4-2.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 17

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 6 : Pa sse n ge r Se r vice Tim e s by Floor Type 2 6

Transit Agency Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Revenue: Cash No Cash Shuttle: No Fare Victoria Regional Transit system Vancouver Regional Transit System St. Albert Transit Single Boarding Two Boarding Senior Boarding Kitchner Transit

Boarding Times (Seconds)

Alighting Times (Seconds)

Low-Floor

High-Floor

Low-Floor

High-Floor

3.09 1.92 1.91 3.02

3.57 2.76 2.26 3.78

Not Applicable

3.78

1.32 2.17 Not Reported 1.87 2.13 Not Applicable

2.55 2.67 Not Reported 3.61 1.84 2.62 1.43

3.61 6.15 3.88 2.23

4.27 7.27 6.10 2.42

Not Reported

Not Reported

1.16

1.49

Sources: References 1, 13 and 26

Ex h ibit 3 - 7 : M u lt iple Ch a n n e l Pa sse n ge r Se r vice Tim e s pe r Tot a l Pa sse n ge r w it h a H igh Floor Bu s 2 7 ( se con ds/ pa sse n ge r ) Available Door Channels

Boarding

Front Alighting

Rear Alighting

1 2 3 4 6

2.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.6

3.3 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.7

2.1 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5

The Transit Capacit y and Qualit y of Service Manual – 2 nd Edit ion est im at es t he average boarding t im es per passenger for a convent ional single- door boarding bus fare collect ion syst em where t he operat or( s) enforces fare paym ent . These are shown in Exhibit 3- 8:

26 Bus Rapid Transit: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, TCRP Report 90, Chapter 6 27 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 18

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 8 : Bu s Pa sse n ge r Se r vice Tim e s ( Se con ds/ Pa sse n ge r ) 2 8 Fare Payment Method

Observed Range

Default (Single-Door Boarding)

BOARDING Pre-payment (e.g., passes, no fare, free transfer and pay on exit) Smart card Single ticket or token Exact change Swipe or dip card

2.25–2.75

2.5

3.0–3.7 3.4–3.6 3.6–4.3 4.2

3.5 3.5 4.0 4.2

ALIGHTING Rear door 1.4–2.7 2.1 Front door 2.6–3.7 3.3 Notes: * Add 0.5 seconds to boarding times if standees are present on the bus. **Subtract 0.5 seconds/passenger from boarding times and 1.0 seconds/passenger from front-door alighting times on low-floor buses.

Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Ot t a w a Tr a n sit w a y, Ot t a w a , On t a r io, Ca n a da The Ont ario Phase I I I Dem onst rat ion Proj ect , conduct ed from April 1982 t o March 1984, involved replacing st andard 40- foot buses wit h 60- foot art iculat ed buses on one OC Transpo rout e in Ot t awa- Carlet on and t he int roduct ion of a proof- of- paym ent ( POP) fare collect ion schem e. Under t his proof- of- paym ent fare collect ion schem e, passengers wit h valid passes or t ransfers ( about 68 percent of riders on t he rout e) could board at any of t he t hree doors of t he art iculat ed bus. Prior t o POP im plem ent at ion, t he bus operat or enforced fare paym ent on t his rout e and all passenger boardings t ook place only at t he front door. Due t o t he increased capacit y of t he art iculat ed buses, OC Transpo was able t o subst it ut e t wo art iculat ed buses for t hree st andard buses on t he rout e – wit h benefit s realized from fewer driver hours and reduced operat ing cost s. The dem onst rat ion proj ect also showed t hat POP im plem ent at ion yielded bet t er perform ance, t hrough im provem ent s in schedule adherence and on- t im e perform ance. Average dwell t im es for t he art iculat ed buses were reduced by an est im at ed 13- 21 percent , based on dwell t im e survey dat a. Average bus running t im es were reduced by about 2 percent . There was no evidence t hat POP im plem ent at ion increased t he fare evasion rat e.

28 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, p. 4-5; BRT Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90-Volume II, Table 8-7

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 19

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Exhibit 3- 9 present s a sum m ary of BRT syst em charact erist ics t hat affect st at ion dwell t im e. A focus on reducing dwell t im es is not yet st andard am ong BRT syst em s. Many BRT syst em s, especially t hose t hat operat e on art erial st reet s load and unload passengers in t he sam e fashion as convent ional bus service, yielding m inim al dwell t im e reduct ions. BRT syst em s in operat ed by AC Transit , t he Chicago Transit Aut horit y, Honolulu’s TheBus and t he Los Angeles Met ro will incorporat e sm art cards as part of syst em wide im plem ent at ions. Variat ions in t he fare paym ent process yield dwell t im e reduct ions. Orlando’s Lym m o operat es wit h no fares and t herefore allows passengers t o ent er and exit t hrough all doors. Pit t sburgh’s busways follow a policy of collect ing fares on t rips away from downt own at t he dest inat ion st at ion. Passengers t hus board t hrough all doors in downt own, speeding up t he service as it t ravels t hrough downt own. The MAX syst em in Las Vegas is t he only operable syst em in t he Unit ed St at es t hat uses pre- paym ent of fares, m ult iple- door boarding, and level plat form s as part of a com prehensive design t o reduce dwell t im es.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 20

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 9 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Boston Silver Line

Chicago Neighborhood Express

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

CityExpress!

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid

Stations Platform Height Platform Layout (No. of Vehicles Accommodated)

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Level Platform

Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard (40')

Conventional Articulated (60')

Conventional Articulated (60')

Conventional Standard (40')

Vehicles Vehicle Configuration Passenger Circulation Enhancements

Alternative Layout

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

Cash & Paper

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe

Pay On-Board

Proof-of-Payment

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Magnetic Stripe

Cash & Paper

Transit Signal Priority (7)

Transit Signal Priority

Precision Docking

-

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Service and Operations Plan Service Frequency (Peak) Method of Schedule Control

Transit Signal Priority (in 2004)

4

9 to 12

11

12

2 to 30

Schedule

Schedule

Schedule

Headway

Headway

Performance Average Dwell Time Maximum Dwell Time

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

15 to 20 seconds

3- 21

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 9 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d St a t ion D w e ll Tim e ( Con t in u e d) Orlando LYMMO

Miami Busway

Oakland Rapid Bus

Phoenix Rapid

Pittsburgh Busways

Platform Height Platform Layout (No. of Vehicles Accommodated) Vehicles

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

2

3

1

1

2-3

Vehicle Configuration

Standard (Mini)

Conventional Standard (Mini and 40’) and Articulated

Stylized Standard

Specialized Standard

Conventional Standard & Articulated

N/A (Free Fares) N/A

Pay On-Board Cash, paper swipe card

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper

Pay On-Board Cash, Magnetic Stripe

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Collision Warning

Collision Warning

Stations

Passenger Circulation Enhancements Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Service and Operations Plan Service Frequency (Peak) Method of Schedule Control Performance Average Dwell Time Maximum Dwell Time

Transit Signal Priority

10

12

5

10

1

Headway

Schedule

Headway

Schedule

Schedule

45 to 60 sec

35-36 s at inner stations; 47-60 s at outer stations of East Busway

120 sec

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 22

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

3.1.3 Wait Time and Transfer Time Description of Wait Time and Transfer Time The w a it t im e is t he am ount of t im e passenger spends at a st at ion before boarding a part icular t ransit service. Because passengers perceive wait t im e as m ore of a burden t han t im e spent in a m oving vehicle ( as m uch as t hree t im es a burden) , reducing wait t im e is an im port ant aspect of designing a BRT service. BRT syst em s are oft en planned such t hat t he base, all st ops service is frequent enough during peak periods t hat cust om ers wit hout a schedule can arrive random ly and st ill experience brief wait s. Tr a n sfe r t im e s represent t he am ount of t im e passengers spend t ransferring from one BRT service t o anot her or t o ot her t ransit services ( e.g., local bus rout es and rail) . Reducing t he t im e required t o t ravel wit hin t he st at ion from one vehicle t o t he next and t he t im e spent wait ing for t he second service reduce t his elem ent of Travel Tim e.

Effects of BRT Elements on Wait Time and Transfer Time Service frequency and reliabilit y are t he prim ary det erm inant s of wait t im e, alt hough ot her elem ent s, such as I TS ( passenger inform at ion syst em s) , affect t he percept ion of wait t im e. I n addit ion t o t hose fact ors t hat affect wait t im e, st at ion physical design and t ransit rout e net work design are t he prim ary fact ors affect ing t ransfer t im e in BRT. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd W a it Tim e a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e Stations – Station Type

The design of interchange stations can facilitate lower transfer times, walking distances, and fewer level changes.

ITS—Operations Management

An Automated Scheduling and Dispatch System along with Transit Vehicle Tracking insures even headways (for lower wait times) and connection protection for those passengers transferring among systems or vehicles. Transit Vehicle Tracking also enables the passenger information to be collected and disseminated.

ITS—Passenger Information

Real-time passenger information systems do not directly impact wait time. By providing current information on the status of the approaching vehicles, real-time passenger information systems do allow passengers to change their wait time expectations, reducing the burden that passengers associate with waiting. Trip Itinerary Planning and Traveler Information on Person (through PDAs or mobile phones) give passengers advance information on closest stations, next vehicle arrival, and required transfers. Traveler Information on Vehicles and Traveler Information at Stations can inform passengers on next vehicle arrival and can direct passengers to the correct location for transfers (berth or platform position.)

Service and Operations Plan – Service Frequency

Service Frequency is the key determinant of Wait Time and Transfer Time. Since standard size vehicles can be used in BRT systems, they can often sustain high frequencies.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 23

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd W a it Tim e a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e Service and Operations Plan – Route Structure

BRT route structures that incorporate multiple route types that converge onto a common trunk can increase the number and types of services available to transit passengers at high volume stations. Multiple routes traveling the same corridor increase the frequency along the corridor and reduce the amount of time waiting for BRT service. BRT route networks can also be constructed to eliminate transfer time altogether. Routes can combine local feeder and BRT trunk service, eliminating the need to disembark at the station and transfer for passengers who access the transit network at locations away from the primary BRT route.

Service and Operations Plan – Method of Schedule Control

For high frequency services, Headway-based scheduling can regulate headways and reduce spikes in waiting time due to vehicle bunching.

Performance of Existing Systems Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Several syst em s suggest how BRT elem ent s can reduce wait t im es and t ransfer t im es. Sout h Bu sw a y, M ia m i, Flor ida The exist ing 8.5- m ile port ion of t he Busway is a t wo- lane, at - grade, bus- only roadway const ruct ed in a form er rail right - of- way adj acent t o US 1. Six bus rout es operat e on all or part of t he Busway including express buses on t he exclusive lanes m oving passengers t o and from t he Dadeland Sout h I nt erm odal Met rorail St at ion in j ust about 25 m inut es. Since all six rout e converge ont o t he sam e busway t runk, t hey provide a com bined frequency during t he peak hour of vehicles per hour, m aking wait t im e insignificant . The Dadeland Sout h I nt erm odal Met rorail St at ion offers a seam less connect ion bet ween rail and busway passengers. The Met rorail has an enclosed fare area. Passengers m ust exit t he Met rorail fare area, however, t o access t he Busway bays for boarding and alight ing. Por t la n d, OR ( n on - BRT a pplica t ion ) Two t echnologies im pact ing wait t im e include vehicle locat ion and t raveler inform at ion, Measuring t he im pact of t hese t echnologies Wait Tim e can be difficult t o collect and m easure. One com prehensive evaluat ion of t he Tri- Met vehicle locat ion syst em in Port land, OR, produced an est im at ed annual syst em - wide savings in wait t im e of $1.6 m illion. This was based upon eight rout es, an average wage of $14.10 per hour and 62.2 m illion annual weekday boardings. This syst em did not include

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 24

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

t raveler inform at ion on t he vehicle or at t he st op and was a result of bet t er m onit oring of vehicle locat ion. Lon don Bus, Lon don , En gla n d ( non - BRT a pplica t ion) I n London, England, an evaluat ion of t he London Transport Count down Syst em ( a real- t im e bus arrival inform at ion syst em ) revealed t hat 83% of t hose surveyed believed t hat t im e passed m ore quickly by having t he real- t im e inform at ion syst em at t he st op. Also, 65% of t hose surveyed felt t hey wait ed a short er t im e wit h t he average perceived wait t im e dropping from 12 m inut es t o 8.5 m inut es, a 28% reduct ion. BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd W a it Tim e a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e Exhibit 3- 10 present s t hose charact erist ics of BRT syst em s t hat affect t he t im e associat ed wit h wait ing for t ransit service and t ransferring bet ween services. As expect ed, syst em s where t he frequency was im proved and spacing bet ween vehicles was regulat ed yielded posit ive passenger rat ings of wait t im e. I nt egrat ed net works such as Pit t sburgh’s Busways result ed in reduced wait t im e along t runk segm ent s and reduced t im e associat ed wit h t ransferring. Many passengers do not have t o t ransfer at all while passengers who do st ill t ransfer report im provem ent s in t he ease of t ransferring.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 25

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 0 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d W a it Tim e a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e Boston Silver Line

Chicago Neighborhood Express

Honolulu CityExpress!

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

Los Angeles Metro Rapid

Stations Station Type

Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter

ITS Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information

Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL

AVL

Station, Telephone

Station

Station, Telephone, Internet

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Precision Docking

-

Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Single Route Overlay onto Local Network

Single Route Overlay onto Local Network

Service Plan Single Route Overlay onto Local Network

Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Hour Headway) Method of Schedule Control Performance

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

4 min.

9 to 12 min.

11 min.

12 min.

2 to 30 min.

Schedule

Schedule

Schedule

Headway

Headway

Measured Impacts 60.2% of surveyed passengers rated Customer Perception Frequency of of Wait Time and Service Above Transfer Time Average or Excellent

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Passengers rate Metro Rapid Frequency Buses 3.76 out of 5, compared to 3.15 for the former Limited Bus

3- 26

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Travel Tim e

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 0 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d W a it Tim e a n d Tr a n sfe r Tim e ( Cont inue d) Miami Busway

Oakland Rapid Bus

Orlando LYMMO

Phoenix Rapid

Pittsburgh Busway

Stations Station Type

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter

ITS Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information

Designated Station

Collision Warning Collision Warning Auto Dispatch, Vehicle Monitoring, AVL

Automated Dispatch, AVL, Vehicle Monitoring

Station, Person, Vehicle

Station, Itinerary

AVL

Automated Dispatch, AVL

AVL

Station, Vehicle, Station, Vehicle, PDA PDA, Internet

Service Plan Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Hour Headway) Method of Schedule Control

Express Single Route Weekday Peak Hour Only

Integrated Network

All Day

All Day

All Day

10 min.

12 min.

5 min.

10 min.

1 min.

Schedule

Headway

Headway

Schedule

Schedule

All Day

Pe r for m a n ce

Measured Impacts

Customer Perception of Wait Time and Transfer Time

44% of passengers on Busway routes do not require a transfer to complete the busway trip

44% of passengers rate the frequency of service as good or very good (average rating = 3.25 out of 5)

Oakland, CA

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

78% of passengers perceived reduced wait time; 52% of passengers reported that transferring had gotten easier due to high frequency of EBA route

3- 27

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

3 .2

Reliabilit y

RELI ABI LI T Y

Passengers are at t ract ed t o t rips wit h short t ravel t im es, but t hey are m ore likely t o cont inue using t he service if it is som et hing t hey can depend upon. Syst em s t hat do not provide a consist ent level of service will have difficult y ret aining pot ent ial passengers who have ot her t ransport at ion choices. Travel t im e reliabilit y is affect ed by a num ber of sources of uncert aint y, including t raffic condit ions, vehicle breakdowns due t o unforeseen m echanical or non- m echanical problem s, rout e lengt h, recovery t im es built int o t he rout e schedules, num ber of st ops, evenness of passenger dem and, and t he unpredict able use of wheelchair lift s/ ram ps. Som e of t hese fact ors are not wit hin t he direct cont rol of t he t ransit operat or. Nevert heless, t here are m any feat ures of BRT t hat im prove reliabilit y. I n t his discussion, we focus on t hree m ain aspect s of reliabilit y – running t im e reliabilit y, st at ion dwell t im e reliabilit y, and service reliabilit y. The first t wo relat e t o a syst em ’s abilit y t o m eet a schedule or a specified t ravel t im e consist ent ly, while service reliabilit y capt ures t he charact erist ics of t he syst em t hat cont ribut e t o passengers percept ion of service availabilit y and dependabilit y.

3.2.1 Running Time Reliability Description of Running Time Reliability Running t im e reliabilit y relat es t he abilit y of a BRT service’s abilit y t o m aint ain a consist ent ly high speed in order t o provide cust om ers wit h consist ent t ravel t im es. Maint aining running t im e reliabilit y is im port ant since it reinforces t he idea t hat a passenger can depend upon a BRT syst em consist ent ly.

Effects of BRT Elements on Running Time Reliability All of t he running way charact erist ics t hat cont ribut e t o reduct ions in running way t ravel t im e can also im prove reliabilit y. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Run n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y Running Way – Running Way Segregation

Running way segregation reduces the number of unpredictable delays at intersections and along the running way reduce the variability of the trip times. Reliability is greatest for fully grade-separated exclusive running ways since complete segregation effectively eliminates conditions that cause delay (traffic congestion, exposure to accidents).

Stations – Passing Capability

Designing stations so vehicles can pass other vehicles at stations allows vehicles that have already completed loading at the station or that serve routes that bypass the station to continue on their journeys and maintain their schedule without delay.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 28

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Run n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y ITS –Vehicle Prioritization

Transit Signal Priority systems allow a BRT vehicle to maintain its schedule by giving those BRT vehicles that are behind schedule extra green time. Signal Timing / Phasing can give more overall green time to BRT vehicles operating at peak times in the peak direction. Station and Lane Access Control reduces the number illegal vehicles operating on the facility by restricting access to facilities and stations to authorized BRT vehicles

ITS—Driver Assist and Automation

Collision Warning, Lane Assist and Precision Docking, give the BRT vehicle operator added insurance to operate at consistent speeds regardless of traffic condition thereby insuring overall system reliability by maintaining a schedule.

ITS—Operations Management

Vehicle Tracking, Scheduling and Dispatch, and Mechanical Monitoring and Maintenance enable a central dispatcher to know exactly what is happening to address the situation as needed. And if there were an incident, such as a mechanical failure, accident or congestion, these systems allow a central dispatcher to address problems quickly and efficiently in order to insure the reliability of the system.

Service and Operations Plan – Station Spacing

Spacing stations further apart improves reliability for the same reasons that it improves running travel time:

Service and Operations Plan – Route Length

• Significant distances between stations allow vehicles to travel at a predictable, high speed for longer periods of time • Serving fewer stations concentrates demand at each station, reducing the opportunities for variation due to starting and stopping and loading and unloading. Running time reliability is more possible with shorter route lengths, especially for BRT systems that have minimal running way segregation.

Performance of Existing Systems The experience wit h syst em s t hat explicit ly are m eant t o im prove reliabilit y is lim it ed. Tradit ionally, t ransit planners have focused on ot her m easures of perform ance. I ncreasingly, researchers are now focusing on reliabilit y as a significant fact or in at t ract ing cust om ers. This sect ion present s profiles of syst em s t hat are good illust rat ions of achieving reliabilit y and a sum m ary of BRT elem ent s t hat affect reliabilit y by syst em . Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Applicat ions of BRT elem ent s and dem onst rat ed perform ance provide good exam ples t o planning for reliabilit y. W ilsh ir e Bou le va r d D e dica t e d La n e D e m on st r a t ion Pr oj e ct , Los Ange le s, CA The Wilshire Boulevard Dedicat ed Lane Dem onst rat ion Proj ect involved t he im plem ent at ion in Spring 2004 of peak- period ( weekdays from 7: 00 am t o 9: 00 am

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 29

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

and 4: 00 pm t o 7: 00 pm ) curb bus- only lanes in each direct ion of t raffic on a 0.9 m ile sect ion of Wilshire Boulevard bet ween Federal and Cent inela Avenues in West Los Angeles. Prior t o bus lane im plem ent at ion, curbside parking was allowed and Los Angeles Met ro buses operat ed in m ixed- flow t raffic during t he peak periods. Four days of on- board survey dat a ( t wo days before proj ect im plem ent at ion; t wo days aft er im plem ent at ion) and t wo m ont hs of loop det ect or dat a ( one m ont h before; one m ont h aft er) were analyzed t o assess t he dem onst rat ion proj ect ’s im pact on bus running t im es in t he segm ent . Running t im es were reduced during each hour of t he peak period in bot h direct ions of t raffic, by an average of about 7 percent . Running t im e reliabilit y ( i.e., t he range bet ween t he 5 t h and 95 t h percent iles of t ravel t im e observat ions) also im proved in nearly all t im es of t he day, by an average of about 17 percent . 9 8 B- Line , Va n couve r , Br it ish Colum bia , Ca na da The 98 B- Line is one of t hree BRT lines t hat operat e on art erial st reet s in Vancouver, Brit ish Colum bia, Canada. The t hree lines t oget her service over 49,000 riders a day. Each rout e is provided wit h frequent service, lim it ed st op operat ion, and dedicat ed low- floor art iculat ed buses. Opened in August 2001, t he 98 B- Line also feat ures dist inct high qualit y shelt ers and st ops, t ransit priorit y m easures ( m edian busway, AVL/ CAD, and t ransit signal priorit y) and real- t im e next bus arrival inform at ion at each st op. The 98 B- Line im proved reliabilit y for t ransit cust om ers while creat ing virt ually no im pedim ent t o ot her t ravel m odes in or across t he corridor. Alt hough t here was lim it ed change in t he act ual t ravel t im es com paring condit ions before BRT im plem ent at ion and aft er B- Line im plem ent at ion, t ravel t im e variabilit y decreased by 40 t o 50% in all periods of t he day and in bot h direct ions of t ravel. I n addit ion, even t hough a direct aut om obile t rip ret ains short er t ravel t im es in t he corridor ( 28.9 m inut es for aut om obile v. 42.1 m inut es for t ransit ) , t he t ransit t rip is m ore reliable t han t he aut om obile. For exam ple, t he st andard deviat ion of t he aut om obile t rip is 5.3 m inut es while t he st andard deviat ion for t he t ransit t rip is 2.8 m inut es in t he AM Peak in t he Nort hbound direct ion. 29 Va r ious Ope r a t ion s M a na ge m e n t Applica t ion s, ( N on- BRT Applica t ion s) Two t echnologies t hat have t he largest im pact on syst em reliabilit y include vehicle locat ion syst em and t ransit signal priorit y. A vehicle locat ion syst em can reduce bus bunching, im prove bus spacing and im prove schedule adherence result ing in increased syst em reliabilit y. I n Port land, OR, bus spacing im proved 36% aft er Tri29 “98 B-Line Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation Study”, IBI and Translink, September 29, 2003, p. 34.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 30

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Met ut ilized vehicle locat ion dat a t o adj ust headway and run t im es. Also, on- t im e perform ance im proved from 70% t o 83% for one rout e once vehicle locat ion dat a was available. Balt im ore, MD dem onst rat ed a 23% increase in on- t im e perform ance of t hose buses equipped wit h vehicle locat ion t echnology. And, in Kansas Cit y, MO, on- t im e perform ance im proved from 80% t o 90% wit h a 21% reduct ion in lat e buses and a 12% reduct ion in early buses aft er im plem ent ing a vehicle locat ion syst em Just as t ransit signal priorit y reduces overall t ravel t im e, TSP can also im prove syst em reliabilit y by reducing vehicle delay and st ops. I n Phoenix, AZ, TSP reduced red light delay by 16% . However, overall t rip t im es were not reduced since buses dragged in order t o m aint ain operat ing schedules. This is a case where policy decisions im pact t he effect iveness of a t echnology and m ust be t aken int o account in t he operat ion of a BRT syst em . An evaluat ion of t he Toront o TSP syst em dem onst rat ed a 32% t o 50% reduct ion in signal delay for various bus rout es. BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Ru n n ing Tim e Re lia bilit y Exhibit 3- 11 provides a sum m ary of running t im e reliabilit y perform ance of 26 recent ly deployed BRT syst em s. The perform ance indicat ors developed t o m easure running t im e reliabilit y include: Maxim um End- t o- End Travel Tim e – t his m easure is t he average weekday t ravel t im e required t o com plet e a one- way t rip from t he beginning t o t he end of t he line during peak hours. Unconst rained End- t o- End Travel Tim e – t his m easure is t he average weekday t ravel t im e required t o com plet e a one- way t rip from t he beginning t o t he end of t he line during non- peak hours of service. Rat io of Unconst rained t o Maxim um Travel Tim e – t his m easures t he t ravel t im e different ial bet ween peak and non- peak t ravel t im es. The higher t he rat io, t he great er t he im pact of peak hour t raffic condit ions on end- t o- end t ravel t im es, especially for syst em s t hat operat e in m ixed t raffic corridors. Running t im e reliabilit y describes t he abilit y of a BRT syst em t o m aint ain a consist ent ly high speed in order t o provide cust om ers wit h consist ent t ravel t im es. The syst em charact erist ics t hat im pact running way t ravel t im e such as running way segregat ion, I TS and st at ion spacing also affect running t im e reliabilit y. Exhibit 3- 11 sum m arizes running t im e reliabilit y perform ance for t he 26 new BRT syst em s in t he st udy group. The key perform ance indicat or in t his t able is “ Rat io of Maxim um Tim e t o Unconst rained Tim e.” Typically, t his rat io is lower for BRT syst em s t hat operat e along dedicat ed or exclusive lanes t han t hose syst em s t hat operat e wit hin a m ixed flow environm ent . Exhibit 3- 11 shows t hat segregat ing BRT service from m ixed flow t raffic – which is subj ect t o det eriorat ing levels- of- service ( LOS) during peak hours – allows t he

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 31

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

service t o sust ain a higher and m ore consist ent level of perform ance over t he ent ire service span. Of t he 7 syst em s t hat operat e on dedicat ed or exclusive lanes, t his rat io ranges bet ween a high of 1.26 ( Nort h Las Vegas MAX) t o a low of 1.00 ( LYMMO, Miam i Local, Miam i Busway MAX and t he Sout h Busway in Pit t sburgh) . Syst em s wit h a rat io of 1.00 indicat e t hat t ravel t im es are not im pact ed by prevailing t raffic condit ions, and can m aint ain high and consist ent level of perform ance t hroughout t he service day. For syst em s t hat operat e along m ixed flow lanes, t his rat io was t ypically higher, part icularly in regions suffering from heavy local t raffic condit ions. Los Angeles’ Met ro Rapid syst em , for exam ple, have a range bet ween 1.17 for t he Met ro Rapid Verm ont line t o 1.54 for t he Met ro Rapid Vent ura line. Met ro Rapid service is equipped wit h TSP, which can part ially offset som e of t he t ravel t im e variabilit y associat ed wit h operat ing service on highly congest ed m aj or art erial roads. The syst em s wit h t he t hree highest rat ios are t he Met ro Rapid Vent ura ( 1.54) , t he I rving Park Express in Chicago, I L ( 1.42) and t he West ern Avenue Express in Chicago, I L ( 1.30) . All t hree are syst em s t hat operat e on m aj or art erial roads subj ect t o recurring peak hour t raffic congest ion.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 32

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ru n n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y Boston Silver Line

Chicago Chicago Chicago Western Irving Park Garfield Avenue Express (X80) Express (X55) Express (X49)

Honolulu

Honolulu

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

City Express A

City Express B

City Express C

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid Wilshire

19.6

7.0

30.0

2.9

25.7

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.)

0.2

Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) ITS

2.2

Vehicle Prioritization

18.3

9.0

9.4

4.7

Transit Signal Priority (7) Precision Docking

Transit Signal Priority (2004)

Driver Assist and Automation

Transit Signal Priority Advanced Communication , AVL

Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Route Length

2.37

18.3

8.98

9.44

19.6

7.0

30.0

7.6

25.7

Average Station Spacing (mi.)

0.22

0.47

0.50

0.56

0.54

0.20

0.73

0.84

0.78

1.03

1.30

1.42

1.19

1.25

1.05

1.12

1.14

1.28

Performance Ratio of Maximum to Minimum Running Time Travel Time Reliability (Coefficient of Variation) Customer Perception of Reliability

65% of surveyed passengers rated Reliability Above Average or Excellent

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 33

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ru n n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y ( Con t in u e d) Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles

Orlando

Metro Rapid Ventura

Metro Rapid Vermont

Metro Rapid Crenshaw

Metro Rapid Van Nuys

Metro Rapid Broadway

Metro Rapid Florence

LYMMO

Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.)

16.7

11.9

18.8

21.4

10.5

10.3

Designated Lanes (mi.)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Miami

Miami

Busway Local Busway MAX

Running Way

At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) ITS

-

8.0

8.0

-

-

-

AVL/Wi-Fi

X

X

Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Advanced Advanced Loop Detectors Advanced Advanced Advanced Communication Communication Communication Communication Communication / Infrared , AVL , AVL , AVL , AVL , AVL Sensors

Service Plan

-

Route Length

16.7

11.9

18.8

21.4

10.5

10.3

3

8

8

Average Station Spacing (mi.)

1.17

0.67

0.83

1.05

0.69

0.88

About 900 feet

0.54

1.14

1.54

1.17

1.38

1.29

1.16

1.39

1.00

1.00

1.00

Performance Ratio of Maximum to Minimum Running Time Travel Time Reliability (Coefficient of Variation) Customer Perception of Reliability

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

92% of passengers rate reliability and on-time performance Excellent or Good, compared to 62% for all Lynx service

3- 34

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ru n n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y ( Con t in u e d) Oakland Rapid San Pablo Corridor Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.)

14.0

Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation

Pittsburgh East Busway

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

South Busway West Busway Rapid I-10 East

Phoenix RAPID I-10 West

Phoenix RAPID SR-51

Phoenix RAPID I-17

0.4

-

0.4

6.5

4.8

12.3

8.0

-

-

-

14.0

8.0

10.3

11.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8.7

4.3

4.6

-

-

-

-

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Communication, Communication, Communication, Communication, Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital

Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Route Length

14.0

9.1

4.3

5

20.5

13

19.25

19.5

Average Station Spacing (mi.)

0.56

1.14

0.54

0.83

1.86

1.59

2.05

1.63

1.21

1.11

1.00

1.21

90%

100%

100%

100%

Performance Ratio of Maximum to Minimum Running Time Travel Time Reliability (Coefficient of Variation)

Reduced coeff. of variation of travel time from 18.8% to 10.2%

Customer Perception of Reliability

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

68% of passengers perceive that the West Busway has improved schedule adherence

3- 35

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

3.2.2 Station Dwell Time Reliability Description of Station Dwell Time Reliability St at ion dwell t im e reliabilit y represent s t he abilit y for BRT vehicles t o consist ent ly load passengers wit hin a cert ain dwell t im e and t o m inim ize t he am ount of t im e spent at t he st at ion. Passenger loads can vary significant ly t hroughout t he day, and even wit hin each peak period. I ncorporat ing BRT elem ent s t o accom m odat e t his significant variat ion wit hout im pact ing t ravel t im es can im prove reliabilit y. This is especially im port ant , since BRT syst em s serve corridors and locat ions wit h high t ransit dem and. Lengt hy dwell t im es can affect t he overall percept ion of reliabilit y beyond t he act ual t im e spent 30 .

Effects of BRT Elements on Station Dwell Time Reliability Each of t he BRT elem ent opt ions t hat help m ake st at ion dwell t im es m ore reliable is described below. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y Stations – Platform Height

Level Platforms or Raised Curbs facilitate consistent station dwell times by reducing the need to step up to the vehicle.

Stations – Platform Layout

Extended Platforms allow for more than one vehicle to board at one time and reduce the amount of time that vehicles must wait in queues to load passengers.

Vehicles – Vehicle Configuration

To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a majority of vehicles being produced in the United States have low floors at the doors to facilitate boarding and alighting. Low floor vehicles not only speed boarding for general (ambulatory) passengers, they contribute to the reliability of station dwell times when integrated well with station or stop design.

Vehicles – Passenger Circulation Enhancement

In the same way that passenger circulation enhancements reduce dwell time, they also reduce dwell time variability and enhance reliability. The most dramatic of the passenger circulation enhancements that promote reliability is Enhanced Wheelchair Securement.

Fare Collection – Fare Collection Process

Barrier-Enforced Pre-Payment systems or Proof-of-Payment Systems eliminate the need to pay or show passes as one boards the vehicle, allowing for multiple door boarding and reducing the variability in the time it take customers to either produce the required money or the required pass.

Fare Collection – Fare Transaction Media

Electronic fare collection systems and pre-paid instruments can make dwell times more reliable primarily by reducing the need for boarding passengers to search for exact change and by reducing transaction times.

30 The Role of Transit Amenities and Vehicle Characteristics in Building Transit Ridership, TCRP Report 46, Amenities in Transit, p. 27

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 36

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y ITS—Driver Assist and Automation

Precision Docking systems enable a BRT vehicle operator to precisely place the BRT vehicle a certain distance from the station platform to eliminate the need for wheelchair ramps.

ITS—Operations Management

Transit Vehicle Tracking enables a central dispatcher to know exactly where a BRT vehicle is and address problems that may arise while the BRT vehicle is at a station.

Service and Operations Plan – Service Frequency

Increasing service frequency reduces the number of passengers that can accumulate at the station, reducing the time associated with loading them.

Service and Operations Plan – Method of Schedule Control

Headway-based schedule control makes headways more regular, ensuring even loads and loading times.

Performance of Existing Systems Re se a r ch Sum m a r y A st udy of boarding t im es for am bulat ory passengers report ed t he t im es t o be fast er wit h low- floor buses, from 0.2 t o 0.7 of a second. The average boarding t im e of wheelchair passengers was fast er wit h t he ram p t han wit h a lift , 27.4 seconds versus 46.4 seconds. While t hese short er boarding/ alight ing t im es had not result ed in increases in schedule speed at any of t he t ransit agencies int er viewed, som e felt t hat t he fast er ram p operat ions m ade it easier t o m aint ain schedule ( dwell t im e reliabilit y) , part icularly when m ult iple, unpredict able wheelchair boardings occurred during a run. 31 Typical wheelchair lift cycle t im es including t he t im e required t o secure t he wheelchair inside t he vehicle are 60 t o 200 seconds, while t he ram ps used in low- floor buses reduce t he cycle t im es t o 30 t o 60 seconds. 32 Research shows t hat an em erging applicat ion t o reduce st at ion dwell t im es is t he use of rear- facing posit ions for wheelchair securem ent on t ransit buses. Securem ent of wheelchairs on t ransit buses can t ake m ore t han 3 m inut es using convent ional securem ent devices and wit h t he assist ance of an operat or. 33 Rear- facing posit ion for wheelchairs is being

31 King, R., New Designs and Operating Experiences with Low-Floor Buses, TCRP Report 41, Columbus, Ohio, 1998, Executive Summary 32 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., p. 4-3 33 Hardin, J. and Foreman C., Synthesis of Securement Device Options and Strategies, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 2002.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 37

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

incorporat ed int o vehicles at various t ransit agencies in Europe and Canada, and at AC Transit in California. Som et im es, t hey are used in com binat ion wit h m ore convent ional forward- facing posit ions. A survey of six t ransit agencies in Canada suggest s t hat dwell t im es can be less t han 1 m inut e in cases of wheelchair loading wit h t he use of rear- facing posit ions for wheelchairs. 34 BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y Exhibit 3- 12 present s a sum m ary of BRT elem ent s t hat support dwell t im e reliabilit y by syst em . Aside from vehicle configurat ions wit h low floor height s, im plem ent at ion of elem ent s t o im prove st at ion dwell t im e reliabilit y is rare. Low floors are incorporat ed int o a m aj orit y of vehicle configurat ions. Only t wo syst em s deviat e from t he use of st andard curbs. The Sout h Busway in Miam i- Dade Count y uses raised curbs while t he Nort h Las Vegas MAX uses level plat form s. Use of m ult iple door boarding is st ill rare and only evident in t he Orlando Lym m o ( wit h free fares) and t he Nort h Las Vegas MAX ( wit h barrier- free proof- of- paym ent fare validat ion) .

34 Rutenbert, U., and Hemily, B., Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses, TCRP Synthesis 50, A Synthesis of Transit Practice, Transportation Research Board, 2003.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 38

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 2 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d St a t ion D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y Los Angeles

Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

Silver Line

Neighborhood Express

City Express!

North Las Metro Rapid Vegas MAX

Busway

Rapid Bus

LYMMO

Busways

Rapid

Platform Height

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Level Platform

Standard Curb

Raised Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Platform Length (No. of Vehicles)

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

2-3

1

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Passing Lanes at Stations

Passing Lanes at Stations

Bus Pull-Outs

Stations

Passing Capability Vehicles Vehicle Type

Conventional Stylized Conventional Conventional Conventional Stylized Specialized Conventional Conventional Standard Articulated Articulated Standard with standard (35’) Standard & BRT Vehicle (40') with Low Standard (40') (60’) with Low Standard (40') (60') with Low Low Floor with Low Floor Articulated with Low Floor Floor Floor Floor

Passenger Circulation Amenities

Stylized Standard

Full Low Floor

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media

Pay On-Board Pay On-Board Pay On-Board Cash, paper Cash & Paper, Cash & Paper swipe card Magnetic Stripe

Proof-ofPayment Cash, Magnetic Stripe

Pay OnBoard

Pay On-Board Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper Cash & Paper Cash & Paper

N/A (Free Fares) N/A

Pay On-Board Pay On-Board Cash & Paper

Cash, Magnetic Stripe

Collision Warning

Collision Warning

AVL

Automated Dispatch, AVL

ITS Driver Assist and Automation

Operations Mgmt.

Advanced Comm., Automated Dispatch, AVL

AVL

AVL

Precision Docking Advanced Comm., Automated Dispatch, AVL

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Advanced Comm., Automated Dispatch, AVL

Automated Dispatch, AVL, Vehicle Monitoring

AVL

3- 39

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

3.2.3 Service Reliability Description of Service Reliability Service reliabilit y is a qualit at ive charact erist ic relat ed t o t he abilit y of a t ransit operat ion t o provide service consist ent wit h it s plans and policies and t he expect at ions of it s cust om ers. Three aspect s of a t ransit operat ion t hat prom ot e service reliabilit y: Availabilit y of service opt ions– Service can be so dense and frequent t hat a m issed or delayed t rip result s in lit t le degradat ion of service. Passengers have m ult iple choices t hat allow t hem t o respond t o unpredict abilit y of t heir own schedules and behavior ( e.g., t he need t o work lat e or go hom e during t he m iddle of t he day) . Abilit y t o recover from service disrupt ions – unpredict able delays and disrupt ions

St rat egies t o quickly

respond

to

Availabilit y of “ cont ingency” resources – Having sufficient “ back- up” perm it s operat or t o m eet it s service plan in t he face of all t he uncert aint ies t hat could affect it , e.g., driver illness, t raffic, and ot her unforeseen event s.

Effects of BRT Elements on Service Reliability The charact erist ics of m any BRT elem ent s affect service reliabilit y are discussed below. BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Se r vice Re lia bilit y Stations – Passing Capability

Stations with passing lanes, either through Bus Pullouts or Passing Lanes at Stations, minimize the risk that delays or incidents affecting one BRT vehicle will result in delays to other vehicles along the line. Disabled vehicles can pull over to the side of the running way or a portion of the station platform, while other vehicles are able to pass and still meet their service.

Stations – Platform Layout

Extended Platforms allow for flexibility of operations in case any vehicle breaks down or experiences excessively long delays while loading at stations, provided that the running way through the station allows vehicles to pass.

ITS – Vehicle Prioritization Systems

Vehicle prioritization systems can help facilitate bringing a vehicle back to its scheduled position after a brief interruption or delay to service.

ITS – Operations Management

Operations Management Systems allow system managers to quickly address any incidents that may arise and disseminates that information to riders.

ITS – Passenger Information Systems

While passenger information systems do not enable greater service reliability, they allow for transit agencies and operations managers to communicate to passengers waiting for and currently using the service of any service changes or disruptions, thereby reducing the impacts of disruptions.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 40

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Se r vice Re lia bilit y Service and Operations Plan – Service Frequency

High frequencies BRT systems (less than 5 minutes) can give passengers an impression that the service is available at any station without delay, even when headways and schedule adherence vary, as long as inordinate bunching (irregular spacing between vehicles) is avoided.

Service and Operations Plan – Service Span

Service that extends to the off-peak periods (mid-day, evening, and late night) and on weekends provides potential users with expanded options for making round trips. Expanded service spans make BRT systems dependable.

I n addit ion t o t hese BRT elem ent s, an agency can im prove service reliabilit y t hrough program s and business processes, such as: Enhanced m aint enance program s for vehicles and ot her elem ent s Fleet m anagem ent t o m aint ain higher spare rat ios

Performance of Existing Systems Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s O- Ba hn Busw a y, Ade la ide , Au st r a lia The O- Bahn Busway in Adelaide, Aust ralia is a 12 km guided busway syst em t o t he nort heast ern suburbs ( opened in 1986) t hat uses a m echanical t rack guidance syst em developed in Germ any. Buses are st eered aut om at ically using horizont al guide wheels, which engage raised concret e edges on t he t rack. Vehicles t ravel at speeds of up t o 100 km / hour serving t hree st at ions in t he alignm ent . Travel t im es have reduced t he t ravel t im e along t he corridor from 40 m inut es t o 25 m inut es. Several aspect s of t he syst em support m axim um service reliabilit y. The st at ions are designed such t hat t he vehicles pull off t he guided t rack and serve st at ions t hat can accom m odat e m ore t han one vehicle. Vehicles are, t herefore, never st at ionary on t he t rack. This configurat ion ensures t hat t he 18 bus rout es t hat serve t he rout e can operat e wit hout int erference due t o delays on each individual rout e. During t he peak hour, an average headway of less t han 1 m inut e is m aint ained ( 67 vehicles per hour) . Braking abilit y on rubber- t ired vehicles also allows safe operat ing dist ances of as lit t le as 20 seconds bet ween vehicles along t he guided t rack. 35 On rare cases of vehicle breakdowns on t he guideway, vehicle operat ors inform t he Traffic Cont rol Cent re and alert oncom ing vehicles wit h a hazard light . A special m aint enance and recovery vehicle, equipped wit h guide- wheels and able t o t ravel in bot h direct ions is used t o recover st randed vehicles and t o m aint ain t he t rack. While t he guideway

35 “Guiding Transport into the Future”, Adelaide’s O-Bahn Busway, Passenger Transport Board, December 8, 1999

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 41

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

sect ion is blocked, vehicles are divert ed from t he blocked sect ion along parallel art erial st reet s t o t he next st at ion, m inim izing delays. Tr i- M e t Aut om a t e d Bu s D ispa t ch in g, Por t la n d, Or e gon ( n on - BRT) Port land’s Tri- Met is a pioneer in t he developm ent , im plem ent at ion, and deploym ent of Transit I TS syst em s. I t s Bus Dispat ch Syst em ( BDS) began im plem ent at ion in 1997 and becam e fully operat ional in 1998. The m ain feat ures of t he BDS include: GPS based Aut om at ic Vehicle Locat ion; voice and dat a com m unicat ions; an on- board com put er and m obile dat a t erm inal; Aut om at ic Passenger Count ers ( part ial) and a Com put er Aided Dispat ch operat ions cont rol cent er. Aft er im plem ent at ion of t he BDS t here was not iceable im provem ent in bot h on- t im e perform ance and inst ances of severe bus- bunching. Overall, on- t im e perform ance increased from 61.4 t o 67.2% of all t rips. A 9.4% gain. The great est im provem ent occurred in t he AM peak period wit h a 129% gain. There was also a not iceable reduct ion in headway variat ion and bus bunching. Bus bunching, which is represent ed by headways below 70% of t heir scheduled values, declined by 15% . For PM Peak out - bound t rips, where any irregularit ies in service are exasperat ed by t he high rat e of passenger arrivals causing boarding backups and delays, ext rem e inst ances of bus bunching ( headway rat ios < 10% of scheduled values) declined by 37% ( St rat hm an, Jam es, et .al., Aut om at ed Bus Dispat ching, Operat ions Cont rol and Service Reliabilit y: The I nit ial Tri- Met Experience, Paper present ed at t he Year 2000 TRB Annual Conference, Washingt on DC, January 2000) . Re giona l Tr a n sit D ist r ict AVL a nd CAD Syst e m , D e nve r , Color a do ( N on - BRT) The Denver Colorado Regional Transit Dist rict ( RTD) was one of t he first syst em s in t he nat ion t o inst all a GPS- based Aut om at ic Vehicle Locat ion ( AVL) and Com put er Aided Dispat ch ( CAD) syst em t hroughout it s operat ions. The RTD t ransit syst em covers 2,400 square m iles and consist s of about 1,335 vehicles. These include 936 buses in fixed rout e service, 27 16 t h St reet Mall buses, 175 parat ransit , 17 light rail vehicles and 180 supervisor and m aint enance vehicles. I n 1993, t he RTD began inst allat ion of an AVL syst em across it s fleet developed by West inghouse Wireless Solut ions. Since t he AVL syst em was im plem ent ed t he t ransit syst em has provided t he cust om ers wit h higher qualit y of service ( m ost not iceable aft er final syst em accept ance) . As report ed in t he US DOT evaluat ion, “ RTD decreased t he num ber of vehicles t hat arrived at st ops early by 125 bet ween 1992 and 1997. The num ber of vehicles t hat arrived at st ops lat e decreased by 21% . These im provem ent s are t o a syst em t hat was already perform ing well, and out st anding considering t he im pact

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 42

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

t hat inclem ent weat her can have on on- t im e perform ance during wint er.” From 1992 t o 1997, cust om er com plaint s per 100,000 boardings decreased by 26% due in large part t o t he im proved schedule adherence. 36

Lon don Tr a n spor t Cou n t dow n Syst e m , Lon don Engla n d ( N on - BRT) London was one of t he first cit ies in t he world t o deploy a next bus arrival syst em at bus st ops. The syst em called Count down was pilot ed in 1992 on Rout e 18 of t he London syst em and proved highly popular wit h passengers. Deploym ent cont inued by st ages. As of March 2002, 1473 Count down signs had been inst alled and were operat ional. The inst allat ion of 2,400 signs was expect ed by March 2003, and 4,000 signs by 2005. The 4,000 signs will cover 25% of all st ops and will benefit 60% of all passenger j ourneys. 37 While t he Count down syst em does not direct ly affect service reliabilit y it had a not iceable im pact on passenger’s percept ions. I t was found t hat 64% of t hose surveyed regarding t he syst em believed service reliabilit y had im proved aft er Count down was im plem ent ed.

BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Se r vice Re lia bilit y Since t he frequency of incident s and t he responses t o t hem are seldom recorded and not available in an easily com parable form at , it is difficult t o present a consist ent m easure t o com pare service reliabilit y across syst em s. For t his reason, t his sect ion charact erizes perform ance sim ply by list ing t he BRT elem ent s t hat have an effect on service reliabilit y. Exhibit 3- 13 present s t hose BRT elem ent s by syst em s t hat are m ost relevant t o assessing t he service reliabilit y of each syst em .

36 Weatherford, M., Castle Rock Consultants, Assessment of the Denver Regional Transportation District’s Automatic Vehicle Location System, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, August 2000 37 Schweiger, Carol, Real Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, TCRP Synthesis 48, 2003

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 43

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Reliabilit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 3 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Se r vice Re lia bilit y Boston

Chicago Neighborhood Silver Line Express Stations Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Passing Capability

1

Honolulu City Express!

Las Vegas Los Angeles North Las Metro Rapid Vegas MAX

1

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

1

Adjacent Mixed Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane Flow Lane

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Busway

Rapid Bus

LYMMO

Rapid

Busways

1

3

1

2

1

2-3

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Passing Lanes at Stations

Bus Pull-Outs

Passing Lanes at Stations

ITS

Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information

Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL

AVL

Station, Telephone

Station

Station, Telephone, Internet

11 / 30

12/30

Advanced Automated AVL Automated Auto Dispatch, CommunicaDispatch, AVL, Dispatch, AVL Vehicle tion, Auto Vehicle Monitoring, Dispatch, Monitoring AVL AVL Station, Station, Station, Station, Station, Telephone, PDA, Internet Vehicle, PDA Vehicle, PDA, Internet Vehicle Internet

AVL

Service Plan Service Frequency (Peak / Off-Peak)

4

9/12

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2-30 / 30

10 / 20

12

5/15

10 / -

12/18

3- 44

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

3 .3 I DEN T I T Y AN D I M AGE An im port ant obj ect ive for BRT is t o est ablish an im age and ident it y separat e from local bus operat ions, t o m axim ize t he pot ent ial for at t ract ing addit ional riders who m ight not be able t o or want t o use t he current syst em . I dent it y here refers t o “ branding” and im age relat es t o t he st yle, aest het ics and com pat ibilit y of BRT’s physical elem ent s. The t hree m ost visible BRT elem ent s are t he vehicles, st at ions, and running ways. A dist inct BRT color schem e ( livery) and logo used wit h unique, m odern vehicles are growing m ore com m on in BRT syst em s. Most BRT syst em s also have st at ions wit h highly visible, dist inct design cues t o different iat e t he BRT rout es t hat serve t hem from regular local bus st ops. Som e com bine archit ect ure and design wit h high visibilit y t o bot h “ advert ise” t he syst em and indicat e where t o gain access t o t he BRT syst em .

3.3.1 Brand Identity Description of Brand Identity Brand ident it y represent s how BRT syst em is viewed am ong t he set of ot her t ransit and t ransport at ion opt ions available. A BRT syst em m ay have a separat e, brand ident it y from ot her part s of t he t ransit syst em ( e.g., local bus net work) t o m axim ize it s pot ent ial t o at t ract new riders. An ident it y separat e from ot her t ransit services can be a successful st rat egy because of m arket different iat ion as a prem ium service, and t hus increased appeal t o choice riders. I n effect , BRT can est ablish it self as a new and dist inct t ransit m ode and enhance it s com pet it iveness in a part icular t ravel m arket wit h highly visible, unique design feat ures. BRT brand ident it y is st rengt hened when t he design of all BRT elem ent s reinforce t he core m arket ing m essage direct ed at passengers.

Effects of BRT Elements on Brand Identity BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Br a n d I de n t it y Running Ways – Running Way Segregation

Just as the physical rail tracks on a rail transit line reinforce to passengers the idea that high quality rail transit service is present, running ways that have distinct identities also reinforce the idea that high quality BRT service is present. This reinforces the identity of the BRT system. The ability to impart and reinforce this system identity increases with increasing segregation.

Running Way – Differentiation

Similar to running way segregation, Running Way Markings can also supplement brand identity. Examples of differentiation techniques include pavement marking (e.g., frequent “bus only” markings on the pavement) and signs, particularly active signage (e.g., “BRT-Only”) and paving running ways a unique color (e.g., maroon in Europe, Green in New Zealand, Yellow in Nagoya, Japan and Sao Paulo, Brazil). Running Way Markings “advertise” the BRT system by providing it with a distinct image and make enforcement easier when there isn’t an impenetrable barrier separating the BRT-only running ways from general traffic.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 45

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Br a n d I de n t it y Stations – Station Type

Perhaps no better opportunity exists to create a unique identity and theme throughout a BRT system than with station design that integrates into the local or corridor the BRT system serves. The unique identity of BRT stations creates a systemwide unified theme that is easily recognizable to customers and emphasizes BRT’s unique attributes of speed and reliability. This can be accomplished with distinct architectural design that differentiates the BRT other “local” bus services. Use of Enhanced Stops, larger Designated Stations, and Intermodal Terminals can enhance the identity of BRT systems. Their presence advertises the presence of BRT service to potential passengers as well as providing a safe, secure, attractive and comfortable location for waiting for BRT service.

Vehicles – Vehicle Configuration

Vehicle Configurations that provide enhanced body designs – Stylized Standard and Articulated vehicles and Specialized BRT Vehicles support positive impressions of BRT systems that incorporate them. A survey of twenty-two communities planning BRT projects revealed that the high-capacity articulated vehicles were often characterized in appearance as “sleek, modern, futuristic, raillike, speedy and new.” Research shows that the "image of bus service can be significantly enhanced if the vehicles are “modern and clean." This shows that aesthetics and proper maintenance do affect passengers' perception38. Worldwide, the interest in modern looking, specialized BRT vehicles has led to development of several models including Irisbus’ Civis in France, the Bombardier “GLT” in Belgium and France and the Berkhoff-Jonkhere Phileas in the Netherlands. Manufacturers in North America are also developing new models that incorporate aesthetics in their design.

Vehicles – Aesthetic Enhancements

Use of Larger Windows can reinforce brand messages of being “open” and “safe”. Low-floor buses, with their high ceilings, generally have larger windows. The large windows and high ceilings provide the customer with a feeling of spaciousness, which contributes to the comfort of passengers.

Vehicles – Propulsion

Propulsion systems and fuels have clear positive effects on community integration as well as image and branding of the service. Concern for air pollution and community health effects of conventional diesel buses are important as is their noise.

Fare Collection – Fare Collection Process

Fare pre-payment allows BRT to resemble rail systems. Complete pre-payment either through Barrier-Enforced Proof-of-Payment or Barrier-Free Proof-ofPayment allows for the optimization of bus operations, thus, improving the system’s image and brand identity. Fare inspectors associated with Barrier Free Proof-ofPayment Systems also provide another customer service interface. Because inspectors represent the system, there is an important balance between enforcement vigilance and an understanding customer service approach.

Fare Collection – Fare Transaction Media

Alternative fare media associate BRT systems with high technology and userfriendliness. Smart Cards – Smart cards provide quick transactions enhance the image of BRT service as a high technology and high efficiency system. Although involving significant investments, they provide tangible benefits including the possibility of

38 The Role of Transit Amenities and Vehicle Characteristics in Building Transit Ridership, TCRP Report 46, Amenities in Transit, p. 13

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 46

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Br a n d I de n t it y auxiliary services and uses (e.g. vending machines, parking, tolls, etc.) and in creating seamless regional transit services with an integrated fare collection. Magnetic-Stripe Cards – Magnetic strip cards have many of the same benefits as smart cards although with slightly longer transactions.

ITS –Vehicle Priority, Driver Assist and Automation, Passenger Information

Including ITS elements can reinforce the association that passengers have of the particular technology with the BRT brand. Transit Signal Priority can be marketed as just one improvement that distinguishes a BRT service from regular bus service. Precision Docking is another example where the transit agency can brand the BRT service as having the ability to precisely stop at the same location each and every time. Real-Time Traveler Information options suggest that the system is technologically advanced enough to provide useful and timely information to customers.

Performance of Existing Systems Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s The following descript ions of branding approaches t o BRT proj ect s suggest t he range of possibilit ies when com posing a brand and assem bling BRT elem ent s t o fulfill t hat brand ident it y. Sa n Pa blo Ra pid, Ala m e da a nd Con t r a Cost a Cou n t ie s, CA The branding of t he San Pablo Rapid feat ures special designs for t he vehicles and st at ions. The sleek st at e- of- t he art 100 percent low- floor Van Hool vehicles dedicat ed t o t he San Pablo Rapid feat ures t he eye- cat ching red and whit e “ Rapid” logo and graphics prom inent ly on all sides of t he vehicle. San Pablo Rapid st at ions also prom inent ly feat ure t he dist inct ive “ Rapid” logo and graphics.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 47

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

Silve r Lin e , Bost on , M A The Silver Line bus service is branded as a new line of t he MBTA’s rapid t ransit syst em . The ot her color- coded lines on t he syst em are heavy rail and light rail. The Silver Line is t he first MBTA bus line t hat has been branded as rapid t ransit . As such, it is included in t he rapid t ransit and rout e schedule of rapid t ransit lines. Like t he rapid t ransit lines, but unlike all ot her MBTA bus lines, t he Silver Line has nam ed st ops and st rip m aps at st ops and on board vehicles. Also unlike m ost bus rout es, a subway pass is valid on t he Silver Line and a free t ransfer t o ot her rapid t ransit lines is available for t hose paying cash. The silver color is used on t he vehicles ( which have a special Silver Line livery) , st at ions, signs, logo, and m arket ing m at erials. Cit yEx pr e ss!, H onolu lu , H I Oahu Transit Service’s Cit yExpress! is used as a brand t o ident ify a service t ype, not a specific rout e. There are current ly t wo rout es, A and B, t hat use t he Cit yExpress! Brand t hat operat e as a lim it edst op, frequent urban syst em . A t hird rout e, Rout e C, uses t he parallel Count ryExpress! Brand, and operat es on a highway as a com m ut er syst em . The brand is ident ified wit h a logo t hat is placed on buses ot herwise using st andard livery. ( Som e service is provided using 40 ft . buses, and som e using 60 ft . art iculat ed buses.) The logo is also used on signs at all st ops served by t his service class.

M AX, La s Ve ga s, N V Due t o t he Las Vegas com m unit y’s appreciat ion for advanced t echnology and innovat ive solut ions, planners at t he Regional Transport at ion Com m ission ( RTC) of Sout hern Nevada developed a branding specificat ion t hat highlight ed all aspect s of an alt ernat ive t ransit experience. The MAX syst em com bined a sleek, st at e- of- t he art vehicle, uniquely designed passenger st at ions, and an exclusive m arket ing cam paign, t o int roduce t he service and educat e cit izens and visit ors alike regarding Bus Rapid Transit in t he Las Vegas m et ropolit an area. The MAX vehicle feat ures a st riking, high- gloss blue, whit e, and gold ext erior t hat prom inent ly displays t he MAX Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 48

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

logo. To furt her brand t he MAX syst em , t he sam e prom inent color schem e and logo are int egrat ed int o t he ident ificat ion of t he st at ions, t he signage, t he t icket vending m achines ( TVM) , and t he overall paint schem e of t he facilit ies. The m arket ing cam paign em ployed free ( Try MAX on Us) passes, MAX prom ot ional labels on giveaway bot t led wat er, and colorful inform at ion packet s. Addit ionally, out reach event s were held t hroughout t he com m unit y t o t each riders how t o use t he TVMs.

M e t r o Ra pid, Los An ge le s, CA I n Los Angeles, t he int roduct ion of a unique branding specificat ion for Met ro Rapid service has been crit ical in get t ing t he riding public t o associat e Met ro Rapid wit h high frequency, lim it ed st op service. I n t he case of Met ro Rapid, t he success of t he program was very m uch predicat ed on Met ro’s service form ula, which operat es 4- 5 m inut e peak hour headways on it s Wilshire and Vent ura lines. The riding public im m ediat ely associat ed Met ro Rapid’s dist inct red buses and dist inct st at ions wit h high- frequency headway- based service, and t his branding st rat egy eased t he challenge of expanding t he m arket niche for high- frequency regional express service. Event ually t he success of t his branding approach prom pt ed t he Los Angeles Count y Met ropolit an Transport at ion Aut horit y t o change how it branded it s local service, im it at ing a sim ilar design schem e for vehicles, but using a different dist inct color t o suggest t iers of service. Sout h M ia m i- D a de Bu sw a y, M ia m i- D a de Coun t y, Flor ida The Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway is Miam i- Dade Transit 's st at e- of- t he- art bus rapid t ransit syst em . The branding of t he syst em is cent ered around t he design of t he syst em ’s 8.2 m ile exclusive running way, which ext ends from t he sout hern t erm inus of t he rail syst em , Dadeland Sout h St at ion. The physical presence of t he busway, enables t he riding public im m ediat ely ident ified t he exclusive Busway as fast er way t o t ravel using Miam i- Dade Transit . Thirt y uniquely designed and paint ed st at ions are placed along t he busway. Ext ensive landscaping along t he guideway bet ween t he st at ions, com plem ent s t he beaut y of neighboring com m unit ies and adds t o t he syst em ’s ident it y. Bot h full- size buses and m inibuses operat e on t he Busway and in Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 49

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

adj acent neighborhoods, ent ering t he exclusive lanes at m aj or int ersect ions. While t his fleet is not designat ed in any special way ( e.g., t hrough a different livery or logo) , t he Busway Local and Busway MAX services, which operat e exclusively on t he busway, are operat ed wit h a designat ed fleet of 30- foot buses.

LYM M O, Or la ndo, Flor ida The LYMMO is a rapid t ransit syst em t hat operat es on a cont inuous loop t hrough Downt own Orlando using gray running way pavers t o denot e t o vehicular t raffic t hat t he lanes are only for LYMMO vehicles. The LYMMO uses sm aller low- floor vehicles wit h colorful public- art ext eriors t o enhance t he cust om er’s experience and t o give t he syst em a unique ident it y. The LYMMO has 11 enhanced st at ions and 8 st ops on t he cont inuous. The st at ions feat ure shelt ers t hat are unique t o t he LYMMO syst em . I n addit ion t o t hese branded aspect s, t he LYMMO also has a unique logo t hat is placed on vehicles, st at ions, and st ops. The fact t hat t he LYMMO is free t o ride and it s unique branding have been im port ant t o it s success as a high- frequency, fast , reliable, and prem ium t ransit service.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 50

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

1 6 t h St r e e t M a ll, D e nve r , CO ( non - BRT a pplica t ion) The 16t h St reet Mall is a 16- block long pedest rian and t ransit way m all t hat serves as t he ret ail core of Downt own Denver. Many feat ures of t he 16t h St reet Mall Transit way Denver cont ribut e t o a cohesive ident it y and im age. The 80- foot - wide m all uses unique paving, light ing, and plant ing t o art iculat e t hree zones of act ivit y and give t he service it s ident it y. The first is a 22- foot - wide cent ral prom enade wit h m at ure t rees t hat shade wit hout blocking visibilit y or access t o shopping. This pedest rian spine is flanked by 10- foot - wide bus pat hs m ade of t he pavers ( slight ly depressed for safet y) and expanded 19- foot sidewalks. Granit e pavers of charcoal gray, light gray and Colorado red art iculat e t he zones in a rat t lesnake- like pat t ern t hat , pronounced at cent er, becom es less busy at t he edges so as not t o det ract from building colorat ion or window displays. Specially designed lant erns light t he m all for dusk, night , and aft er- hours securit y, while a wide range of new st reet furnit ure fost ers a sense of coherence.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 51

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Br a nd I de n t it y Exhibit 3- 14 present s a sum m ary of BRT elem ent s by syst em for t hose elem ent s t hat support a different iat ed brand ident it y. The m ost com m on t echnique t o art iculat e a separat e brand ident it y is t hrough t he use of a different look for vehicles. Seven of t en syst em s em ploy a dist inct livery for bus rapid t ransit services. Transit signal priorit y t o im prove speeds and t he use of real- t im e passenger inform at ion at st at ions are t wo com m on t echniques t o im part an im pression of high t echnology for bus rapid t ransit syst em s. Only t wo syst em s, Las Vegas MAX and Orlando’s Lym m o use alt ernat ive fare collect ion processes and boarding procedures. Bot h use m ult iple door boarding ( Las Vegas t hrough t he use of proof- of- paym ent fare collect ion) t o sim ulat e rail syst em s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 52

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 4 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Br a n d I de nt it y Boston Silver Line Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Differentiation

0.2 miles 2.2 miles

Chicago Neighborhood Express

Honolulu City Express!

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

Los Angeles

36.7 miles

56.6 miles

2.9 miles 4.7 miles

115.3 miles -

-

-

-

Precision Docking at Stations

-

Concrete barriers on highway lane

Striping

N/A

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Striping

N/A

Metro Rapid

Stations Station Type Station Access

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Stylized Articulated

Conventional Standard

Conventional Standard

Aesthetic Enhancement

Specialized Livery

Same as other Bus Services

Specialized Livery

Propulsion System

ICE - CNG

Diesel ICE

ICE – ULSD

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

Cash & Paper

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper, Magnetic Strip

Specialized BRT Vehicle Specialized Livery, Large Windows, Internal Bicycle Racks

Conventional Standard

Diesel Electric

ICE – CNG

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Pay On-Board Proof-of-Payment Pay On-Board Cash, Cash & Paper Cash & Paper Magnetic Stripe

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Passenger Information

Transit Signal Priority (2004)

-

-

-

-

-

Station, Telephone

Station

Station, Telephone, Internet

Transit Signal Priority Precision Docking Station, Telephone, Internet

Transit Signal Priority Station, Telephone, Internet

Performance Customer Perceptions of Attractiveness General Customer Satisfaction

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 53

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 4 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Br a n d I de nt it y ( Con t in u e d) Miami Busway Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

Oakland Rapid Bus

Orlando LYMMO

Phoenix Rapid

Pittsburgh Busways

14

-

6.5 14

0.4 -

8 miles

3 miles

8.7 -

-

-

Separate ROW

N/A

Concrete Pavers

Station Type

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Station Access

2 P&R Lots

Pedestrian Focus

Enhanced Shelter Pedestrian Focus, 1 P&R Lot

Conventional Standard and Articulated

Stylized Standard

Differentiation Stations

-

-

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

1 P&R Lot

18 P&R Lots

Specialized Standard

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Styling Amenities Propulsion System Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media

ICE – Diesel Pay On-Board Cash & Paper, Magnetic Stripe

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery; HighBack Seating

Standard Artic

ICE – ULSD

ICE

ICE – LNG

ICE – Diesel

Pay On-Board N/A (Free Fares) Pay On-Board Cash, Magnetic Cash & Paper N/A Stripe

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper

ITS Vehicle Prioritization

-

Transit Signal Priority

-

-

Driver Assist and Automation

-

-

-

Collision Warning

Station, PDA, Vehicle

Station, Internet

Passenger Information Performance Customer Perceptions of Attractiveness

General Customer Satisfaction

Station, Vehicle, Station, Vehicle, PDA PDA, Internet

65%

Internet

93%

83% of riders rate Rapid Bus Mean Average as Good or satisfaction: 4.41 Satisfaction with Excellent out of 5.0; 52.5% Busway is 3.75 compared to of passengers out of 5 72% who rated have improved compared to the system their opinions of 3.61 for all MDT similarly in a public transit services survey 2 years prior

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Transit Signal Priority (1 Signal) Collision Warning

91% of passengers surveyed indicated the West Busway was Very Important or Fairly Important in their decision to start using the bus

3- 54

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

3.3.2 Contextual Design Description of Contextual Design I n addit ion t o helping est ablish a unique, posit ive ident it y, BRT syst em s should dem onst rat e a prem ium , “ qualit y” design and be int egrat ed wit h t he surrounding urban com m unit ies. BRT physical elem ent s not only serve t ransit cust om ers but can serve as focal point s for t he com m unit ies around t hem . Syst em s where design elem ent s are consist ent and harm onize wit h t heir cont ext provide int angible benefit s t o com m unit ies beyond t he t ransport at ion benefit s alone. Case st udies docum ent ing int egral and cont ext ual design approaches are present ed in TCRP Report 22, " The Role of Transit in Creat ing Livable Met ropolit an Com m unit ies." There are det ailed num erous case st udies where t ransit st at ions wit h significant levels of am enit ies, irrespect ive of m ode, have had a st rong posit ive im pact on surrounding neighborhoods and ent ire downt owns and ot her urban com m unit ies. They also provide ways for local com m unit ies t o t ake ownership of t ransit service and facilit ies39 . I n places including Bost on, Houst on, Seat t le, Miam i and Pit t sburgh, BRT and ot her qualit y bus facilit ies have dem onst rat ed t heir abilit y t o generat e posit ive developm ent and redevelopm ent out com es when ot her fact ors ( e.g., developm ent m arket , support ive local land use policies) are present . One m aj or aspect of com m unit y int egrat ion is t he abilit y of all users t o access t he facilit y, especially t hose wit h disabilit ies. Com pliance wit h t he requirem ent s of t he Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act ( ADA) includes adequat e circulat ion space wit hin a bus shelt er; bus st ops t hat are connect ed t o st reet s and sidewalks by an accessible pat h ( which m eans t hat sidewalks need t o be provided) ; and, readable signage, including bus rout e and schedule inform at ion.

Effects of BRT Elements on Contextual Design BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Con t e x t u a l D e sign Running Way – Running Way Segregation

Designated running ways that are attractively designed can convey a sense of quality and permanence that potentially attracts developers and residents who desire high quality transit service. Running ways also affect the physical environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Segregation options that shield potential effects of noise and vibration can harmonize best with sensitive land uses.

39 The Role of Transit Amenities and Vehicle Characteristics in Building Transit Ridership, TCRP Report 46, Amenities in Transit, p. 26

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 55

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Con t e x t u a l D e sign Station – Basic Station Type

The level of attention devoted to design and architecture of BRT stations and the degree to which stations integrate with surrounding communities impacts how potential customers will perceive the BRT system and thus will have a direct impact on BRT system ridership as well as the indirect one through development changes.

Vehicle – Aesthetic Enhancement

Vehicle styling can have significant impact on the ability of the BRT system’s design to fit within the context of communities. Styling that emphasizes various features such as large vehicles to simulate rail (Honolulu), sleek lines and attractive interiors (Las Vegas) and colors to suggest a high-technology theme (Boston Silver Line) can enhance the ability for BRT systems to integrate with their communities. In Boston, the combined effect has been dramatic on development in the area for both business and residential, approaching $500M to date.

Performance of Existing Systems The nat ure of t he design m akes it inappropriat e t o develop a quant it at ive m easure t o sum m arize t he relat ive effect iveness or success of BRT invest m ent s in achieving cont ext ual design. This sect ion present s syst em profiles of successful designs as well as a sum m ary of syst em charact erist ics t hat have an effect on cont ext ual design. Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Syst em profiles are useful t o illust rat e good exam ples of at t ract ive syst em s and successful int egrat ion of BRT syst em s wit h t heir surrounding com m unit ies. LYM M O, Or la ndo, FL I n Orlando, t he LYMMO syst em provides superior service on a downt own circulat or rout e. LYMMO uses a variet y of BRT elem ent s – dedicat ed lanes wit h specialized paving, advanced com put er m onit oring syst em s, real- t im e bus inform at ion at st at ions, specially designed st at ion shelt ers, and vehicles t hat are decorat ed in t hem es relevant t o Orlando’s t ourism indust ry. Design of t he st at ions and running way were developed in conj unct ion wit h t he st reet scape for downt own Orlando providing an int egrat ed look t o t he syst em . This com binat ion of elem ent s have highlight ed t he service and have result ed in significant ridership gains by est ablishing a high- qualit y, free bus service in t he downt own area. Lym m o was developed as a dist inct brand wit h it s own logo and vehicles. Free fares are also part of it s appeal t o t he riders. Aft er a year in operat ion, ridership had doubled t o 91,000 in 1998. Sout h Ea st Bu sw a y, Br isba n e , Au st r a lia The Sout h East Busway in Brisbane, Aust ralia represent s an achievem ent in syst em design. The design of t he syst em , especially, at st at ions, em phasizes t ransparency and openness t hrough t he use of generic design using clear glass and sim ple linear

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 56

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

st eel form s. This generic canopy and st at ion archit ect ure t hem e is carried int o all st at ions. The openness and t ransparency of t he design assures visibilit y, t hereby reinforcing im pressions of public safet y. While t he basic st at ion form is repeat ed at all st at ions, t he configurat ion of st at ion archit ect ure is t ailored t o specific sit e cont ext s. For exam ple, t he design and landscaping of Griffit h Universit y St at ion includes plant ings from t he nearby Toohey Forest . The landscaping at Buranda Busway St at ion feat ures palm t rees and ot her subt ropical plant s nat ive t o t he province. The consist ency of st at ion design enables first t im e users and t he public t o gain fam iliarit y wit h t he st at ions. The sim plicit y of st at ion design facilit at es t he m ovem ent of passengers and vehicles t hrough t he syst em . The design has won m ult iple accolades including a nom inat ion for t he Aust ralian Engineering Excellence Awards 2001 and an Award of Com m endat ion in t he 2001 I llum inat ing Engineering Societ y St at e Light ing Awards.

BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Con t e x t ua l D e sign Exhibit 3- 15 present s a sum m ary of BRT elem ent s by syst em for t hose elem ent s t hat support cont ext ual design. The use of enhanced shelt ers or designat ed st at ions is t he m ost com m on m eans t o art iculat e a unified design in BRT syst em s. Oft en t hese designs are art iculat ed t o a great er degree wit h m ore exclusive running way facilit ies as t hey are wit h Pit t sburgh’s busways and Las Vegas MAX. The Met ro Rapid in Los Angeles, has art iculat ed a dist inct design st at em ent wit h it s specially designed shelt ers and st reet furnit ure.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 57

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Con t e x t u a l D e sign Boston Silver Line Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Differentiation

0.2 miles 2.2 miles

Chicago Neighborhood Express

Honolulu City Express!

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

Los Angeles

36.7 miles

56.6 miles

2.9 miles 4.7 miles

115.3 miles -

-

-

-

Precision Docking at Stations

-

-

Metro Rapid

Striping

N/A

Concrete barriers on highway lane

Striping

N/A

Enhanced Shelter

Basic Stop

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Stations Station Type Station Access

Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus Pedestrian Focus

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Stylized Articulated

Conventional Standard

Conventional Standard

Styling Amenities

Specialized Livery

Same as other Bus Services

Specialized Livery

Diesel ICE

ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

Propulsion System

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Specialized BRT Vehicle Specialized Livery, Large Windows, Internal Bicycle Racks

Conventional Standard

Hybrid

ICE – CNG

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

3- 58

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

I dent it y and I m age

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 5 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Con t e x t u a l D e sign ( Con t in ue d) Miami Busway Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

Oakland Rapid Bus

Orlando LYMMO

Phoenix Rapid

Pittsburgh Busways

14

-

6.5 14

0.4 -

8 miles

3 miles

8.7

-

-

-

Separate ROW

N/A

Concrete Pavers

N/A

Station Type

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

Station Access

2 P&R Lots

Pedestrian Focus

Enhanced Shelter Pedestrian Focus, 1 P&R Lot

1 P&R Lot

18 P&R Lots

Conventional Standard and Articulated

Stylized Standard

Specialized Standard

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Differentiation Stations

-

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Styling Amenities Propulsion System

ICE – Diesel

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery; HighBack Seating

Standard Artic

ICE – Diesel

ICE

ICE – LNG

ICE – Diesel

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 59

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

3 .4 SAFET Y AN D SECU RI T Y Safet y and securit y are t wo m aj or at t ribut es of t ransit syst em s. Safet y is defined as t he level of freedom from hazards experienced by passengers and em ployees of t he t ransit syst em . Securit y is defined as t he freedom from crim inal or int ent ional danger experienced by passengers and em ployees. BRT syst em s, when properly planned, im plem ent ed, and operat ed can: Reduce accident rat es I m prove public percept ion of safet y and securit y leading t o increased ridership I m prove risk m anagem ent leading t o reduced insurance claim s, legal fees and invest igat ions Reduce m aint enance cost s associat ed wit h dam age and vandalism The provision of a safe and secure environm ent for BRT cust om ers is essent ial since m any BRT st at ions and st ops are likely t o be unat t ended and open during ext ended hours of operat ion. For t he purposes of t his report , safet y and securit y are discussed separat ely.

3.4.1 Safety Description of Safety Safet y is defined as t he level of freedom from danger experienced by passengers and em ployees of t he t ransit syst em . I n general, t wo perform ance m easures m ake up how well safet y is m anaged by a t ransit agency: Accident rat es Public percept ion of safet y Passenger safet y can be m easured in t erm s of act ual safet y accident rat es per unit hour or m ile of operat ion. These rat es can be est ablished in t erm s of prevent able and nonprevent able accident s. The public percept ion of safet y is oft en m easured using passenger surveys or inform at ion gat hered from cust om er feedback.

Effects of BRT Elements on Safety BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Sa fe t y Running Way – Running Way Segregation

Running way options that involve the segregation of BRT vehicles from other traffic and from pedestrians increase the level of safety and decrease the probability and severity of collisions by BRT vehicles.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 60

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Sa fe t y Running Way – Guidance

Guidance technologies incorporated into the running way/vehicle interface allow vehicles to follow a specified path along the running way and in approaches to stations thereby avoiding collisions while maintaining close tolerances.

Stations – Platform Height

Raised Curbs or Level Platforms reduce the possibility of tripping and facilitating wheelchair and disabled person access.

Vehicles – Vehicle Configuration

The use of vehicle configurations with partial or complete low floors may potentially reduce tripping hazards for boarding BRT vehicles. Studies performed so far, however, cannot yet point to statistically valid comparison of passenger safety for low-floor buses versus high-floor buses. In implementing low floor buses, hand holds may be necessary between the entrance and the first row of seats since, in many cases, the wheel well takes up the space immediately beyond the entrance40.

ITS -- Driver Assist and Automation Technology

Lane Assist and Precision Docking, contribute to the safety of a BRT system through smoother operation as it is operating at high speeds, in mixed traffic or entering/exit the traffic flow.

Performance of Existing Systems Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Syst em profiles are useful t o illust rat e good exam ples of approaches t o syst em safet y in planning for BRT syst em s. Sout h M ia m i- D a de Bu sw a y, M ia m i- D a de Coun t y , Flor ida The design of t raffic cont rol is an im port ant det erm inant of syst em safet y for BRT syst em s. The design of t raffic cont rol at crossings is an im port ant det erm inant of syst em safet y for BRT syst em s. Since opening in February 1997, m any serious collisions bet ween BRT vehicles, m ot orist s, and pedest rians have occurred at int ersect ions along t he 8.5- m ile Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway. The frequency and seriousness of crashes at Busway int ersect ions bet ween Busway vehicles and vehicular t raffic has height ened at t ent ion t o Busway safet y, part icularly at a few int ersect ions. Miam i- Dade Transit ( MDT) and Miam i- Dade Count y have inst alled ext ensive signage and signalizat ion t o det er such crossings. MDT has also revised operat ing procedures, requiring t hat Busway vehicles proceed very slowly t hrough Busway int ersect ions t o m inim ize t he risk of collision. MDT has also pursued changes t o t he Manual of Uniform Traffic Cont rol Devices ( MUTCD) t o incorporat e warrant s t hat accom m odat e t he inst allat ion of railroad st yle crossing gat es at int ersect ions of BRT running ways and art erial st reet s. 40 King, R., New Designs and Operating Experiences with Low-Floor Buses, TCRP Report 41, Columbus, Ohio, 1998.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 61

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Sa fe t y Exhibit 3- 16 present s t hose elem ent s t hat are m ost relevant t o passenger and syst em safet y by BRT syst em . The use of exclusive lanes in Pit t sburgh has reduced t he accident rat es com pared t o operat ion in m ixed flow t raffic. Docum ent at ion of t he im pact of low floor vehicles and passenger inj uries is not det ailed enough t o suggest any st at ist ically significant relat ionship or cont ribut ions t o reduct ions in t ripping.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 62

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 6 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Sa fe t y Boston Silver Line Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Differentiation

0.2 miles 2.2 miles

Chicago Neighborhood Express

Honolulu City Express!

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

Los Angeles

36.7 miles

56.6 miles

2.9 miles 4.7 miles

115.3 miles -

-

-

-

Precision Docking at Stations

-

Concrete barriers on highway lane

Striping

N/A

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Striping

N/A

Metro Rapid

Stations Station Type Platform Height

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced ShelterEnhanced Shelter

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Level Platform

Standard Curb

Stylized Articulated

Conventional Standard

Conventional Standard

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard

Vehicles Vehicle Type Performance Measured Effects on Safety

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 63

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 6 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Sa fe t y ( Con t in u e d) Miami Busway Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.)

Stations

Separate ROW

Station Type

Vehicle Type

Phoenix Rapid

Pittsburgh Busway

14

-

6.5 14

0.4 -

3 miles

8.7

-

Vehicles

Orlando LYMMO

8 miles

Guidance

Platform Height

Oakland Rapid Bus

Designated Station Raised Curb Conventional Standard and Articulated

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Raised Curb

Stylized Standard

Conventional Standard

Specialized Standard

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Performance Measured Effects on Safety

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Bus service in East Corridor experienced a 30% reduction in all accidents but a 6% increase in passenger accidents after implementation of the East Busway

3- 64

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

3.4.2 Security Description of Security The obj ect ive of passenger securit y is t o m inim ize bot h t he frequency and severit y of crim inal act ivit ies on im pact ing BRT syst em s. Reducing pot ent ial or perceived t hreat s t o passengers im proves t he im age of BRT syst em s. Securit y perform ance m easures are generally m easured in t erm s of crim e rat es experienced on t he t ransit syst em per unit of out put ( service hours or service m iles) . These st at ist ics can t hen be com pared t o crim e rat es experienced in t he syst em ’s surrounding areas or in t he rest of t he t ransit syst em . These obj ect ives of providing a secure syst em should be applied at all point s where passengers com e int o cont act wit h t he BRT syst em s, and specifically in st at ions and vehicles. Fare collect ion syst em s and I TS t echnologies can also be cent ral t o achieving passenger securit y.

Effects of BRT Elements on Security BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Se cu r it y Stations – Station Design

Since passengers can potentially spend time at stations in an exposed environment, designing stations to minimize exposure to crime or security threats is important. Such considerations include the provision of clear or transparent materials to preserve sightlines through the facility, incorporation of security monitoring or emergency telephones, and barriers or fare-enforcement areas to deter non-patrons from entering the station area.

Vehicles – Aesthetic Enhancement

Aesthetic Enhancements that support a secure environment emphasize visibility, brightness, transparency, and openness. Some vehicle characteristics that support these principles include Larger Windows and Enhanced Lighting, to promote sight lines through the vehicle. Large windows in the front and rear of the vehicle ensure there are no dim zones within the vehicle.41

Fare Collection – Fare Collection Process

Proof-of-Payment –The same equipment, personnel, and procedures that are applied to collecting and enforcing fares may also be use to ensure passenger security on a system. Monitoring and surveillance measures could be applied to achieve both fare enforcement and security objectives. The presence of fare inspectors can both transmit a message of order and security and ensure a source of trained staff to assist customers in cases of emergency. Barrier-enforced Fare Payment – Barrier-enforced fare payment may discourage criminals from entering the system and targeting passengers with cash, provide a more secure or controlled environment for waiting passengers.

41 Lusk, A., Bus and Bus Stop Designs Related to Perceptions of Crime, FTA MI-26-7004-2001.1, Executive Summary and p. 90-95

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 65

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Se cu r it y Fare Collection – Fare Media

Pre-paid instruments and passes per se may not enhance passenger security, but may be easier to control if lost or stolen and may discourage crime on the system because of the reduced number of transactions using cash. Fare media options such as contactless smart cards that allow for stored value and that do not require passengers to reveal the instrument while paying the fare may also enhance security.

ITS – Operations Management, Safety and Security Technologies

BRT security can be addressed with Operations Management technology such as Automated Scheduling and Dispatch and Vehicle Tracking. In addition, Silent Alarms and Voice and Video Monitoring are important to the security of the BRT vehicle and passengers. When criminal activity does occur, an integrated system that includes a silent alarm, video cameras and vehicle tracking can alert dispatchers instantaneously to the status of the BRT vehicle, where it is located, and what is occurring on the BRT vehicle.

Performance of Existing Systems The level of securit y is difficult t o quant ify and m easure since t he m ot ivat ion for prom ot ing securit y is t o prevent event s and incident s from happening. Nevert heless, experience wit h incorporat ing securit y in BRT syst em planning suggest possible m odels for planning for securit y. Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Sout h e a st Bu sw a y, Br isba n e , Au st r a lia The Sout h East Busway is a t wo- way running way bet ween t he Brisbane CBD and Eight Mile Plains. Service cont inues t hrough t he Pacific Mot orway t o service Underwood and Springwood on t he Gold Coast . I t consist s of elevat ed roadways and underground t unnels. The Sout h East Busway not only delivers fast and reliable bus services, it also provides a safer public t ransport experience. A st at e of t he art Busway Operat ions Cent re ( BOC) at Woolloongabba plays a vit al role in t he m anagem ent of t he Busway. Am ong ot her dut ies, st aff at t he BOC m onit or securit y at st at ions and det ect illegal use of t he Busway by unaut horized vehicles. The ent ire 16.5km Busway rout e is covered by 140 securit y cam eras and pat rolled 24 hours a day by Busway Safet y Officers ( BSO) . All plat form s are equipped wit h em ergency t elephones which link direct ly t o t he BOC. Real- t im e next bus inform at ion is also provided at st at ions t o im prove t rip planning by passengers. The st at ions use t oughened glass screens t o provide open and highly t ransparent spaces. St at ions are well lit using high lux whit e light ing t o im prove visibilit y and st at ion securit y. Pedest rian under/ overpasses m ake it safer t o cross bet ween Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 66

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

plat form s. Caut ionary t act ile paving is used t hroughout st at ion ent ry plazas and plat form s t o assist t he sight im paired. All st at ions are clearly signed, wit h ent ry plazas out lining safet y t ips and condit ions of ent ry. While t here is high frequency in bus services, com pared t o t he adj oining Sout h East Freeway, t here is relat ively low volum e of vehicles on t he Busway. I n fact , only buses and em ergency vehicles are perm it t ed t o use t he Busway. This lower volum e m akes for safer Busway operat ions. Buses t ravel at 80 km / hour on t he Busway and 50 km / hr t hrough Busway St at ions ( if t hey aren't st opping) , m aking for a safer and m ore com fort able ride for passengers. BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Se cu r it y BRT elem ent s t hat affect t he securit y of each BRT syst em are present ed in Exhibit 3- 17. The Pit t sburgh busways feat ure enhanced light ing at st at ions t o im prove securit y at night . Only t wo syst em s have som e form of voice and video m onit oring t o enhance securit y. Bost on’s Silver Line st at ions incorporat e Em ergency Telephones for com m unicat ion wit h police.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 67

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Passenger Safet y and Securit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 7 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Se cu r it y Boston

Chicago Neighborhood Silver Line Express

Honolulu City Express!

Las Vegas Los Angeles North Las Metro Rapid Vegas MAX

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Busway

Rapid Bus

LYMMO

Rapid

Busways

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station with Enhanced Lighting

Large Windows

Large Windows

Stations Station Type

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Large Windows

Large Windows

Vehicles Styling Amenities Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Fare Media

Proof-ofPayment Cash, Magnetic Stripe

Pay OnPay On-Board Pay On-Board Board Cash & Paper Cash & Paper, Cash & Paper Magnetic Stripe

N/A (Free Fares) N/A

Pay On-Board Pay On-Board Cash, Magnetic Stripe

Cash & Paper

ITS Security Monitoring

Emergency Telephones

Voice and Video Monitoring

Performance Measured Performance Indicators of Security Customer Perceptions of Security 55.6% of Passengers rated Personal safety Above Average or Excellent

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Voice and Video Monitoring

67.5% of Passengers passengers rate Metro rate safety Rapid riding vehicles Personal as Good or Safety on Very Good; Buses 3.88 59.5% of out of 5, passengers compared to rate safety at 3.40 for the Busway former stations as Limited Bus Good or Very Good

3- 68

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

3 .5 CAPACI T Y Capacit y refers t o t he m axim um num ber of people or t ransit vehicles t hat can be m oved past a point by a BRT line or syst em . I n pract ice, t here are few corridors out side t he Nat ion’s largest m et ropolit an areas where capacit y is an issue. As t he passenger dem and for a part icular BRT line begins t o m eet or exceed capacit y at it s crit ical point , it is likely t o im pact t he qualit y of service: reliabilit y t ends t o suffer, t ransit speeds decrease, and passenger loads increase 42 . Therefore, ensuring adequat e capacit y for BRT syst em s is im port ant . There are t hree key issues for BRT syst em capacit y assessm ent : BRT syst e m ca pa cit y is lim it e d by t he cr it ica l lin k or low e st ca pa cit y e le m e nt ( e .g. t h e bot t le n e ck ) w it h in t h e BRT syst e m —There are t hree key elem ent s t hat det erm ine BRT syst em capacit y: 1) BRT Vehicle ( Passenger) Capacit y; 2) BRT St at ion ( Vehicle and Passenger) Capacit y, and 3) BRT Running Way ( vehicle) Capacit y Whichever of t hese is t he m ost const raining on t hroughput will be t he cont rolling fact or for t he ent ire BRT corridor. Th e r e is a diffe r e n ce be t w e e n ca pa cit y of a BRT syst e m a n d t he de m a n d pla ce d u pon a BRT syst e m —Capacit y is a m easure of t he est im at ed m axim um num ber of passengers t hat could be served by a part icular BRT line. Dem and is t he act ual num ber of passengers ut ilizing t he line. The volum e ( dem and) t o capacit y rat io is a st andard m easure t o det erm ine capacit y ut ilizat ion. Ca pa cit y is a fu n ct ion of t h e de sir e d Le ve l of Se r vice ( LOS) of a BRT syst e m a n d vice ve r sa — LOS param et ers effect ing capacit y include: 1) Availabilit y of service ( m easured as frequency, span and coverage) and 2) Level of com fort ( e.g., m easured as st andee densit y) 3) Travel Tim e 4) Reliabilit y. The TCRP Transit Capacit y and Qualit y of Service Manual m easures t ransit syst em capacit y in person t erm s, t he m easure adopt ed in t his report . I t is defined as: “ The m axim um num ber of passengers t hat can be carried along t he crit ical sect ion of t he BRT rout e during a given period of t im e, under specified operat ing condit ions, wit hout unreasonable delay, hazard, or rest rict ion and wit h reasonable cert aint y.” I n present ing capacit ies of various BRT syst em s, person capacit y will be expressed in t erm s of t he t heoret ical m axim um num ber of passengers t hat can be carried past t he m axim um load point along a BRT rout e per hour. I t is im port ant t o not e t hat t he act ual capacit y m ay act ually be less t han t he m axim um person capacit y due t o t he fact t hat BRT syst em s oft en operat e at frequencies lower t han t he t heoret ical m axim um capacit y. The rem ainder of t his sect ion:

42 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System, TCRP Report 88

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 69

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Provides a det ailed account of how BRT syst em capacit y is calculat ed. ( Much of t he inform at ion has been dist illed from t he Transit Capacit y and Qualit y of Service Manual— 2 nd Edit ion.) Sum m arizes how each BRT elem ent affect s BRT syst em capacit y Provides exam ples of t he capacit y of exist ing BRT syst em s

3.5.1 Person Capacity Description of Person Capacity For BRT syst em s, t he m ost appropriat e m easure of capacit y is a concept called Person Capacit y. Person Capacit y is defined as: The m axim um num ber of passengers t hat can be carried along t he crit ical sect ion of t he BRT rout e during a given period of t im e, under specified operat ing condit ions, wit hout unreasonable delay, hazard, or rest rict ion and wit h reasonable cert aint y. 43 When discussing capacit y, t here are t wo key point s t o em phasize: Ca pa cit y ha s m u lt iple dim e nsion s accom m odat e or how m uch capacit y m axim um capacit y or t o each ot her. m axim um capacit y, design capacit y, explained in Exhibit 3- 18.

– How m uch capacit y a syst em is designed t o is operat ed are not necessarily equal t o t he Three dim ensions are useful t o consider – t he and operat ed capacit y. The differences are

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 8 : D iffe r e n t Aspe ct s of Ca pa cit y Dimension of Capacity

Definition

Determined by

Maximum Capacity

The unconstrained theoretical maximum capacity as determined by the physical characteristics of the system

Vehicle Size (Maxium) BRT Facility

Design Capacity

Maximum capacity scaled down due to standards and policies (constraints) related to passenger comfort, safety, and manageability.

Operating Policies

Operated Capacity

The capacity based on the vehicle size and frequency actually operated. The operated capacity is usually less than the maximum capacity since the operation is scaled to actual demand.

Service Plan (Frequency) Vehicle Size (Actual; size may be smaller than the system can handle)

D e m a n d is diffe r e nt fr om ca pa cit y. Capacit y is a m easure of t he est im at ed m axim um num ber of passengers t hat could be served in a part icular BRT syst em . Dem and is t he act ual num ber of passengers at t ract ed t o use a BRT syst em . Cert ain am enit ies relat ed t o t he accessibilit y of t he syst em , such as proxim it y t o high densit y developm ent , presence of pedest rian links t o st at ions, bicycle racks, and aut om obile 43 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 70

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

parking availabilit y m ay drive t he dem and for t he BRT syst em , but do not define it s capacit y.

Effects of BRT Elements on Person Capacity Different BRT elem ent s det erm ine t he t hree different aspect s of capacit y described above. M a x im um Pe r son Ca pa cit y Three prim ary fact ors det erm ine t he m axim um person capacit y – Passenger Capacit y of BRT Vehicles ( how m any passengers a vehicle can carry) , t he Vehicle Capacit y of BRT Facilit ies, and Passenger Dem and Charact erist ics. The influence of each fact or on t he overall syst em person capacit y is explained in m ore det ail below. The Pa sse n ge r Ca pa cit y of BRT Ve h icle s denot es t he m axim um num ber of seat ed and st anding passengers t hat a vehicle can safely and com fort ably accom m odat e. Ot her vehicle charact erist ics such as overall lengt h and t he num ber and widt h of doors also influence dwell t im es and t he BRT facilit y capacit y. The Ve h icle Ca pa cit y of BRT Fa cilit ie s defines t he num ber of vehicles per hour t hat can use a specific BRT facilit y. This is largely driven by charact erist ics and result ant capacit ies of t he BRT syst em running ways and st at ions. For bot h running ways and st at ions, capacit y is enhanced by st rat egies and design elem ent s t hat bot h increase t he size of t he syst em ( e.g., m ult iple running way lanes, larger st at ions) and reduce delays and im prove t he service rat e of t he syst em ( e.g., t raffic priorit izat ion syst em s, access cont rol, st rat egies t o reduce dwell t im e) . Unlike ot her perform ance at t ribut es, where t he perform ance is det erm ined by t he sum of individual elem ent s, capacit y is det erm ined by t he m ost const rained elem ent . While individual elem ent s of a BRT syst em ( vehicles, st at ion loading areas, ent rances t o vehicles, running way lanes) have individual capacit ies, t he BRT syst em capacit y is det erm ined by t he bot t lenecks in t he syst em , or by t he com ponent s t hat have t he lowest person capacit y. For exam ple, t here m ay be plent y of capacit y on t he running way, but if BRT vehicles back up because prior vehicles are st ill loading or unloading at t he st at ion, t he BRT Vehicle Loading Area Capacit y defines t he m axim um num ber of persons t hat t he syst em can carry. Pa sse nge r D e m a n d Ch a r a ct e r ist ics affect capacit y by defining where t he m axim um load point s ( pot ent ial bot t lenecks) in t he syst em are and by affect ing loading/ unloading t im es. Key passenger dem and charact erist ics include: Dist ribut ion of Passengers Over Tim e – The m ore even t he dist ribut ion of passengers, t he higher t he syst em capacit y.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 71

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Passenger Trip Lengt h – Long t rip lengt hs decrease t he num ber of passenger t rips t hat can be accom m odat ed wit h a given schedule. Dist ribut ion of Boarding Passengers Am ong St at ions – High concent rat ions of passengers at st at ions drive t he m axim um dwell t im e which reduces t he num ber of vehicles a syst em can carry. D e sign Ca pa cit y Operat ors oft en define loading and service frequency st andards for various t ypes of service and/ or vehicles t hat are below t he t heoret ical m axim um . Exam ples of such st andards relat e t o: Com for t ( loading st andards, st andee policies) – Som e prem ium park and ride or express service m ay have a policy set loading st andard of no st andees. Sa fe t y ( m inim um spacing, lim it s on overt aking, speed lim it s) – The frequency of service m ay be set at one vehicle every 5 or 10 m inut es, even t hough t he facilit y can accom m odat e m uch m ore frequent service based upon safe sight and st opping dist ances, and ot her t raffic engineering concerns. M a na ge a bilit y ( m inim um headway, schedule recovery policies) – Operat or policies m ay indicat e st able headways can be m aint ained wit h a specific m inim um headway or wit h provision for longer recovery t im e in t he schedule When t hese policy const raint s are fact ored in, a lower “ design” person capacit y for t he syst em result s. Ope r a t e d Ca pa cit y The ult im at e det erm inant of act ual capacit y is t he frequency of service and t he size of t he act ual vehicles operat ed. Because passenger dem and oft en does not reach t he m axim um capacit y of t he syst em , BRT syst em s operat e at m uch lower frequency or wit h sm aller vehicles t han t he syst em can accom m odat e. As dem and grows, frequency and vehicle size can be increased t o m eet dem and and t ake advant age of any unused capacit y. An illust rat ion of how t hese various concept s of capacit y relat e t o one anot her is present ed in Exhibit 3- 19.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 72

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 1 9 : Th e Re la t ion ship be t w e e n Aspe ct s of Ca pa cit y

MAXIMUM CAPACITY

Person Capacity (Passengers/Hour)

DESIGN CAPACITY

OPERATED CAPACITY

DEMAND

Early Morning

AM Peak

Midday

PM Peak

Night

24-hour Service Profile

The cont ribut ion of each BRT elem ent t o each aspect of capacit y is sum m arized in Exhibit 320 and discussed in t he rem ainder of t his sect ion.

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 0 : Re la t ion sh ip of BRT Ele m e n t s t o Aspe ct s of Pe r son Ca pa cit y Maximum Capacity Capacity Factor

Elements Affecting How Many Vehicles the Operated Capacity – BRT System Can Process Elements Affecting How Elements Affecting What Many Passengers Can Affect the Size of Affect How Quickly Capacity is Actually Be Carried in a Vehicle Vehicles That Can Be Vehicles Pass Operated Accommodated Through the System

BRT Element Running Ways Stations Vehicles Fare Collection ITS Service and Operations Plan

4 4 4

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4 4 4

4

4 4 4

3- 73

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Pe r son Ca pa cit y Running Ways – Running Way Segregation

Increasing the level segregation of the running way through use of Designated Lanes, At-Grade Exclusive Lanes, and Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes reduces the number of non BRT vehicles that can use the facility and also the conflicts with parallel and crossing traffic. This increases the number and frequency of transit vehicles that each lane can accommodate. In many cases, BRT systems combine multiple types of running ways. In these cases, the running way capacity is limited by the running way section that can accommodate the lowest volume of vehicles. Effectively, the person capacity of a running way is limited by its least exclusive section.

Stations – Station Type

Factors that can influence this service time of a station (time between when a BRT vehicle enters and exits the station) include: Adequate capacity for bus bays/berths/loading areas Real-time passenger information to reduce passenger/operator interaction time (ITS) Off-board fare collection Station capacity and layout/design to allow multi-door boarding

Stations – Platform Height

Raised Curbs and Level Platforms increase capacity by facilitating the boarding and alighting process for all passengers, and are especially beneficial to the elderly, youth, and disabled passengers.

Stations – Platform Layout

Extended Platforms accommodate more vehicles, thereby increasing the number of passengers that can load simultaneously

Stations – Passing Capability

Stations with extra-wide running way to allow for vehicles to pass stopped, delayed, or disabled vehicles can eliminate bottlenecks in the BRT system.

Vehicles – Vehicle Configuration

Longer buses, such as Articulated Vehicles, have higher person capacity by as much as 50% over 40 foot buses through a combination of seated and standing passengers. The doors, floors and capacity of typical length buses are illustrated in Exhibit 3-21.

ITS – Vehicle Prioritization

Vehicle prioritization technologies – including Signal Timing/Phasing, Transit Signal Priority, Station and Lane Access Control – reduce conflicts with other traffic and potential delays to BRT vehicles along the running way and at station entrances and exits.

ITS – Driver Assist and Automation

Driver Assist and Automation strategies increase the potential frequency of transit service and reduce the overall time per stop. Collision Avoidance and Lane Assist allows vehicles to safely operate closer together and also allows BRT vehicles to reenter the flow of traffic more quickly and safely. Precision Docking will allow a BRT vehicle to precisely and consistently stop in the same location each time, speeding up the approach and departure of a vehicle from a station and reducing overall dwell time since passengers will know exactly where to line up to board.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 74

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Pe r son Ca pa cit y ITS – Operations Management Systems

Automated Scheduling and Dispatch Systems allowing a higher frequency of BRT vehicles and facilitate response to incidents that create bottlenecks. Vehicle Tracking reduces the failure rate of BRT vehicles arriving at the BRT Station.

Service and Operations Plan – Service Frequency

Service frequency is one of the key determinants of operated capacity. Increasing frequency provides more passenger spaces in the same amount of time. Note, however, that it does not change the maximum passenger capacity of the system.

Service and Operations Plan – Operating Procedures

Other elements of Service and Operations Plans can affect the way that capacity is deployed to match passenger demand. Some elements that affect capacity are: Mandated minimum and maximum operating speeds – e.g., slowing at intersections on busways, station approach speeds Policies on standees Yield to buses when leaving stations Policies related to loading disabled passengers and bicycles Enforcement of policies prohibiting non-BRT vehicles from the running way

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 1 : Typica l U.S. a n d Ca n a dia n BRT Ve h icle D im e n sion s a n d Ca pa cit ie s Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

# Door Channels

# Seats, including seats in wheel chair tie-down areas)

Maximum Capacity* (seated plus standing)

40 (12.2 m)

96-102 (2.45-2.6m)

2-5

35-44

50-60

45 (13.8 m)

96-102 (2.45-2.6m)

2-5

35-52

60-70

60 (18 m)

98-102 (2.5-2.6m)

4-7

31-65

80-90

80 (24 m)

98-102 (2.5-2.6m)

7-9

40-70

110-130

Capacit y includes seat ed riders plus st andees com put ed at a densit y of 3 persons per square m et er.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 75

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Performance of Existing Systems Re se a r ch Sum m a r y The capacit y of BRT running ways on art erials can vary great ly based on t he design and operat ion of running ways. A survey of running ways present ed in Exhibit 3- 22 of t ransit ways around t he world shows t hat t he frequency of vehicles can reach 200 t o 300 vehicles per hour. 44 This dem onst rat es t hat capacit ies for BRT syst em s can reach levels beyond t he capacit y needs of m ost developed urban corridors.

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 2 : M a x im u m Obse r ve d Pe a k H ou r Bu s Flow s, Ca pa cit ie s, a n d Pa sse n ge r Flow s a t Pe a k Loa d Poin t s on Tr a n sit w a ys4 5

Type of Running Way Designated Lane Designated Lanes with Feeders Designated Lanes with Bus Ordering (Travelling in Clusters) Designated Lanes with Overlapping Routes, Passing at Stations and Express Routes

Measured Peak Hour Vehicle Flows (Vehicles / Hour)

Measured Peak Hour Passenger Flow (Passengers / Hour)

Estimated Practical Capacity (Passengers / Hour)

91 - 197

7,300 – 19,500

5,800 – 18,100

Curitiba, Brazil

94

9,900

13,900 – 24,100

Porto Alegre (2 separate facilities)

260 - 304

17,500 – 18,300

8,200-14,700

Belo Horizonte Sao Paolo

216 - 221

15,800-20,300

14,900 – 27,900

Cities Applied Ankara Istanbul Abidjan

Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s

M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA Planners at t he Port Aut horit y est im at e t hat t he Mart in Lut her King Jr. East Busway can accom m odat e one vehicle every 24 seconds or a t ot al of 150 vehicles per hour. 46 Assum ing t he m axim um sized vehicle t hat can be accom m odat ed, an

44 Gardner, G., Cornwell, P., and Cracknell, J., The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Research Report 329, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1991 45 Gardner, G., Cornwell, P., and Cracknell, J., The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities 46 Baker, M., Jr. Inc., Capacity Analysis and Peak Hour Loading for PATWAYS, Rochester, PA, 1968 as cited in Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 76

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

art iculat ed vehicle wit h 63 places47 , t he m axim um person capacit y of t he facilit y is 9,450 passengers per hour.

RAPI D , Ph oe n ix Public Tr a n sit D e pa r t m e n t The experience of t he Phoenix RAPI D syst em dem onst rat es how t he operat ed frequency det erm ines t he Operat ed Capacit y of a BRT syst em . When t he RAPI D syst em first began operat ion, it operat ed a lim it ed num ber of t rips orient ed t oward t he com m ut e m arket . Furt herm ore, t he Phoenix Public Transit Depart m ent ut ilized buses specially built for t he com m ut er- t ype service it was operat ing t hat indicat ed passengers would have a com fort able high- back, reclining seat . Hence, t he Phoenix Public Transit Depart m ent , t hrough it s policy of lim it ing st andees, reduced t he overall capacit y of each bus t o a dict at ed Design Capacit y. As t he RAPI D service cont inued and ext ernal event s im pact ed pot ent ial riders ( e.g., rising gas prices, pollut ion, and urban congest ions) dem and began t o exceed t he pre- det erm ined Operat ed Capacit y which left m any riders as st andees for num erous t rips during t he peak periods. While t he RAPI D syst em could have cont inued operat ing wit h st andees, t he com fort of t he passengers ( e.g. seat availabilit y) was a crit ical elem ent in t he design of t he syst em . Four addit ional t rips were added during t he peak periods in order t o add seat availabilit y, t hus increasing Operat ed Capacit y of t he syst em . BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a nd Pe r son Ca pa cit y Exhibit 3- 23 present s a sum m ary of charact erist ics of BRT elem ent s t hat affect capacit y and result ant capacit ies by syst em for several BRT syst em s. I n m ost cases, current BRT syst em s in revenue operat ion ( t hose shown in Exhibit 3- 23) are not operat ing at or near t heir design or m axim um capacit y. Even for t hose syst em s which operat e an int egrat ed net work, Miam i and t he West and Sout h Busways in Pit t sburgh, t he com bined headways are nowhere near t he capacit y of t he running way. Only t he East Busway host s frequencies ( at 104 vehicles during t he peak hour) t hat com e close t o t he m axim um capacit y of t he facilit y. Therefore, t he const raint on capacit y is t he frequency of vehicles act ually operat ed, not t he facilit y or infrast ruct ure. No syst em has yet reached t he m axim um vehicle capacit y of it s running way.

47 Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 77

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 3 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Pe r son Ca pa cit y Boston

Chicago Western Avenue Express (X49)

Chicago Irving Park Express (X80)

Chicago Garfield Express (X55)

Honolulu City Express A

Honolulu City Express B

0.2 2.2

18.3

9.0

9.4

19.6

7.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

1

Conventional Articulated (60')

Conventional Articulated (60')

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Adv. Comm., AVL

Adv. Comm., AVL

Silver Line Running Ways Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Passing Capability

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard Conventional Standard Conventional Standard (40') (40') (40')

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process ITS Vehicle Prioritization Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes) Performance Operated Maximum Vehicles Per Peak Hour (BRT Vehicles) Operated Vehicles Per Peak Hour (Non-BRT Vehicles)

Pay On-Board

Pay On Board

Pay On Board

Pay On Board

Transit Signal Priority Adv. Comm., AVL 4

9

12

11

11

30

15

6.5

5

5.5

5.5

2

-

5.5

7

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 78

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 3 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Pe r son Ca pa cit y ( Con t in ue d)

Running Ways Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles)

Honolulu City Express C

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

30.0

2.9 4.7

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Wilshire 25.7

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Ventura

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Vermont

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Crenshaw

16.7

11.9 -

18.8

-

Precision Docking at Stations

-

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Designated Station Level Platform

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

Standard

Standard

Standard

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Advanced Communication, AVL

Advanced Communication, AVL

Loop Detectors / Infrared Sensors

4

13

1

Passing Capability

1

1

1

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Vehicles Vehicle Type Fare Collection Fare Collection Process ITS Vehicle Prioritization Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes) Performance Operated Maximum Vehicles Per Peak Hour (BRT Vehicles) Operated Vehicles Per Peak Hour (Non-BRT Vehicles)

Conventional Articulated Conventional Standard Specialized BRT Vehicle (60') (40') Pay On-Board

Proof-of-Payment

Pay On-Board

Transit Signal Priority

Transit Signal Priority

Adv. Comm., AVL

Adv. Comm., AVL

Adv. Comm., AVL

30

17

9

2

4

7

15

17

4.5

2

3-9

6.5

7

4

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 79

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 3 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Pe r son Ca pa cit y ( Con t in ue d) Los Angeles Metro Rapid Van Nuys

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Broadway

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Florence

Orlando

Miami

Miami

Oakland

LYMMO

Busway Local

Busway MAX

Rapid

21.4 -

10.5 -

10.3 -

3.0

15

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

14.0

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles)

Enhanced Shelter Designated Station Designated Station Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb Raised Curb Raised Curb Standard Curb 2

Passing Capability

3

3

Passing Lanes at Stations

Bus Pullouts

1

Vehicles Vehicle Type

Standard

Standard

Standard

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Stylized Standard

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

N/A (Free Fares)

Pay on Board

Pay on Board

Pay On-Board

Advanced Communication, AVL

Advanced Communication, AVL

Advanced Communication, AVL

AVL/Wi-Fi

X

X

15

30

11

5

10

10

12

4

2

5.5

8

4.5

12

5

5.5

9.5

4

-

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process ITS Vehicle Prioritization Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes) Performance Maximum Critical Link Capacity Operated Maximum Vehicles Per Peak Hour (BRT Vehicles) Operated Vehicles Per Peak Hour (Non-BRT Vehicles)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

2

3- 80

3. BRT Elem ent s and Syst em Perform ance

Syst em Capacit y

Ex h ibit 3 - 2 3 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Pe r son Ca pa cit y ( Con t in ue d) Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

Phoenix RAPID I-10 West

Phoenix RAPID SR-51

Phoenix RAPID I-17

East Busway

South Busway

West Busway

Rapid I-10 East

0.4 -

-

0.4 -

6.5 14

4.8 8.0 -

12.3 10.3 -

8.0 11.5 -

8.7

4.3

4.6

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

8.7

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Passing Capability

Designated Station Standard Curb

Designated Station Designated Station Standard Curb Standard Curb

2-3

2-3

2-3

1

1

1

1

Passing Lanes at Stations

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane

Bus Pull-Outs

Bus Pull-Outs

Bus Pull-Outs

Bus Pull-Outs

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Specialized Standard

Specialized

Specialized

Specialized

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal)

AVL

AVL

AVL

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) Automated Dispatch, AVL

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) Automated Dispatch, AVL

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) Automated Dispatch, AVL

Traffic Signal Priority (1 Signal) Automated Dispatch, AVL

12 (base service)

10

10

10

10

45

6

6

6

6

-

-

-

-

-

Vehicles Vehicle Type Fare Collection Fare Collection Process ITS Vehicle Prioritization Operations Mgmt. Service Plan Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

12 (base service); < 1 minute (all 12 (base service) services during peak)

Performance Maximum Critical Link Capacity Operated Maximum Vehicles Per Peak Hour (BRT Vehicles) Operated Vehicles Per Peak Hour (Non-BRT Vehicles)

104 -

-

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

3- 81

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

4 .0

I nt roduct ion

BRT SY ST EM BEN EFI T S

The previous chapt er relat ed BRT syst em elem ent s t o various aspect s of t ransit syst em perform ance. This chapt er elaborat es on five key benefit s of im plem ent ing BRT. These benefit s include t hree syst em benefit s, and t wo com m unit y benefit s: Syst e m Be n e fit s H ighe r Ride r sh ip – The prim ary m ission of t ransit service is t o provide a useful service t o passengers. The num ber of passengers is t he surest indicat or t hat a service is at t ract ive and appropriat ely designed. Cost Effe ct ive ne ss is t he effect iveness of a given proj ect in achieving st at ed goals and obj ect ives per unit invest m ent Ope r a t ing Efficie n cy suggest s how well BRT syst em deploym ent of resources in serving t ransit passengers.

elem ent s

support

effect ive

Com m u n it y Be ne fit s Tr a n sit - Suppor t ive La n d D e ve lopm e n t — Transit - orient ed developm ent prom ot es livabilit y and accessibilit y of com m unit ies, and t he increases value of propert ies and com m unit ies surrounding t ransit invest m ent s. En vir onm e n t a l Qua lit y is an indicat or of regional qualit y of life, support ing t he healt h and well- being of t he public and t he at t ract iveness and sust ainabilit y of t he urban and nat ural environm ent . The discussion for each benefit includes four m aj or subsect ions: a descript ion of t he benefit and how it is generat ed, an explorat ion on how BRT syst em elem ent s and perform ance charact erist ics support t he benefit , a discussion of ot her fact ors t hat affect t he benefit , and a sum m ary of experience in dem onst rat ing t he benefit for im plem ent ed BRT syst em s. Ot h e r Be ne fit s Like all successful t ransit m odes, bus rapid t ransit m ay also result in ot her syst em benefit s. These benefit s can include: I ncreased Revenue – Abilit y t o generat e revenue from new riders, new ways of collect ing fares, or new auxiliary revenue sources ( e.g., advert ising opport unit ies on passenger inform at ion) .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 1

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

I nt roduct ion

Reduced Congest ion – The abilit y t o at t ract riders from t he aut om obile can help reduce or lim it t he growt h in congest ion. Econom ic product ivit y – I m provem ent s t o BRT syst em design can save t im e for exist ing BRT passengers, im prove m obilit y for new BRT passengers, and reduce congest ion on t he road net work, saving t im e for aut om obile users and freight carriers. Qualit y of Life – Providing m obilit y alt ernat ives and im proving t ransit - support ive developm ent can im prove t he qualit y of life of a region. Transit also support s com m unit y preservat ion. I m proved Econom ic Opport unit ies – Providing addit ional m obilit y choices can enhance t he pool of em ploym ent opport unit ies a regional populat ion can pursue and reduce cost s associat ed wit h m ore expensive m odes. Ret ail est ablishm ent s and ot her businesses benefit from increased sales and labor force availabilit y. Job Creat ion – Transit invest m ent has direct posit ive im pact s on em ploym ent for t he const ruct ion, planning, and design of t he facilit ies. These t ypes of benefit s, however, are not explored furt her in t his chapt er since m any of t hese benefit s are universal t o all successful t ransit and t ransport at ion syst em s, t he im pact s are very specific t o t he cont ext of individual t ransit invest m ent s, t he im pact s are difficult t o separat e from ot her fact ors and difficult t o m easure using sim ple syst em st at ist ics.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 2

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

4 .1 H I GH ER RI DERSH I P 4.1.1 The Benefit of Ridership At t ract ing higher ridership is one of t he m ain goals of any rapid t ransit invest m ent . The abilit y t o at t ract ridership reaffirm s t he at t ract iveness of t he t ransit service and confers m any benefit s t o a region, including reduced congest ion, increased accessibilit y, and reduced pollut ion. When considering im pact s on ridership, it is im port ant t o not e t hat BRT syst em s at t ract t hree t ypes of t rips: Exist ing t ransit t rips t hat divert ed t o t he new BRT syst em from ot her syst em s/ services Tot ally new or “ induced” t rips t hat were not m ade before by t ransit or any ot her m ode Trips t hat were previously m ade by anot her, non- t ransit m ode ( drive alone, carpool, walk or bicycle) now opt for BRT service. BRT syst em s have been successful in at t ract ing all t ypes of t rips, including exist ing t ransit users and people t hat previously did not use t ransit at all.

4.1.2 Effects of BRT Elements on Ridership The abilit y of BRT service t o at t ract higher ridership depends on how m uch of a com parat ive advant age BRT provides over ot her t ransit alt ernat ives wit h respect t o t he key service at t ribut es explored in Chapt er 3. The im pact s are discussed below. BRT Pe r for m a nce a n d Ride r ship Travel Time Savings

Improvement in travel time (through speed improvement, delay reduction, and increases in service frequency) is the most important determinant of attracting riders to transit. To the extent that BRT reduces travel time along an existing travel corridor, net ridership may increase as a result of three effects. Improved in-vehicle travel time will attract riders who opt for BRT instead of another mode of transportation (drive, bicycle or walk). Riders of other existing transit services may be attracted to the BRT service. Improved travel time may also induce some new passengers to take a trip.

Reliability

Service reliability impacts the incurrence of unanticipated wait time or delays in travel time. Recent experience suggests that ridership response to BRT improvements is higher than would normally be expected due to travel time savings alone. Reliability may play as significant a role in attracting riders as travel time savings. Statistics on the impact of reliability on ridership are scarce due to measurement difficulties, although more data collected through the new generation of operations management tools may help to quantify the magnitude of this effect.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 3

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

BRT Pe r for m a nce a n d Ride r ship Identity and Image

To the extent that the unique attributes of BRT services can be packaged in a welldesigned image and identity, BRT deployment can be perceived as an enhanced transit service that caters to a niche travel market. Differentiating BRT service from other transit service is also critical to providing information as to where to access transit (e.g., stations and stops) and routing.

Safety and Security

For specific groups of potential transit riders, these safety and security considerations can override travel time savings as a factor in making the decision to take transit. BRT systems that can assure its passengers of an experience free of hazards, crimes, and security threats make passengers feel less vulnerable and more confident in choosing to start and continue using transit.

4.1.3 Other Factors Affecting Ridership Aside from t hese BRT syst em at t ribut es t hat affect ridership: Populat ion Size and Charact erist ics – Transit syst em s t hat serve a broader service area and higher densit ies of passengers m ore prone t o ride t ransit ( e.g., households wit hout aut om obiles, children, low- incom e groups) At t ract iveness of Ot her Modes – When ot her m odes of t ravel are inexpensive or convenient ( e.g., parking is relat ive easy and inexpensive, high- speed highways are available) , t ransit m ay not provide as m uch of an advant age. Linkages t o ot her m odes – The abilit y t o link wit h ot her m odes of t ransport at ion ( e.g., com m ut er rail, int er- cit y rail, or pedest rian and bicycle m odes) m ay increase t he at t ract iveness of t ransit .

4.1.4 BRT Elements by System and Ridership Ridership increases as shown in Exhibit 4- 1 have been m ixed. Som e corridors have experienced significant ridership increases, Bost on’s Silver Line at 85% , and t he Met ro Rapid Wilshire Corridor ( 42% ) and Vent ura Corridor ( 27% ) in Los Angeles. Much of t hese increases, cannot be explained by t ravel t im e savings alone. Riders appear t o be at t ract ed t o a num ber of fact ors including reliabilit y, and an art iculat ed brand ident it y. Furt herm ore, passenger surveys are revealing t hat BRT syst em s are im proving t he im age t hat choice riders have of t ransit . Passengers who form erly used m ore at t ract ive m odes, aut om obile t ravel and rapid t ransit , were at t ract ed t o BRT. BRT syst em qualit ies also t ended t o im prove t he im pression t hat choice riders have of t he t ransit syst em , at t ract ing t hem t o ride m ore t ransit .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 4

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ride r sh ip Boston Silver Line Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type Styling Amenities

0.2 2.2

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Min.) Performance Ridership Existing Routes (Before) Existing Routes (After) New (Additional BRT) Routes Total Ridership After BRT Implementation Change in Ridership in the Corridor

9.0

9.4

19.6

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard (40') Same as other Bus Services

Conventional Standard (40') Same as other Bus Services

Conventional Standard (40') Same as other Bus Services

Conventional Articulated (60')

Diesel ICE

Diesel ICE

Diesel ICE

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On-Board

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

AVL

AVL

AVL

AVL

Station, Telephone

Station

Station

Station

Station, Telephone, Internet

2.37 All-Stop All Day

18.3 All-Stop All Day

8.98 All-Stop All Day

9.44 All-Stop All Day

19.6 All-Stop All Day

4

9

12

11

11

14,105

20,310 8,518

12,253 (2002) 12,065 (2004) 1,122 (2004)

12,728 (2002) 12,836 (2004) 1,728 (2004)

14,105

28,828

13,187

14,564 (2004)

9% (by 2004)

14% (by 2004)

Specialized Livery

Cash & Paper

Passenger Information

18.3

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Fare Media

Operations Mgmt.

Honolulu City Express A

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Pay On-Board

Driver Assist and Automation

Chicago Garfield Express (X55)

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Vehicle Prioritization

Chicago Irving Park Express (X80)

Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane

Propulsion System

Fare Structure ITS

Chicago Western Avenue Express (X49)

Flat Transit Signal Priority (in 2004) Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL

7,627

85%

Specialized Livery ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

Cash & Paper Flat

25.1% of Silver Line Riders used other modes before (2.5% Attractiveness to Ridership with Drive Alone, 15.1% Access to Other Modes Walk, 7.2% Not Making Trip, 1.0% Other Modes)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 5

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ride r sh ip ( Con t in u e d)

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

Honolulu City Express B

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

7.0

2.9 4.7

Los Angeles

Los Angeles

Los Angeles

Metro Rapid Wilshire Metro Rapid Ventura Metro Rapid Vermont

25.7

16.7

11.9 -

Precision Docking at Stations Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane Lane Lane Lane

-

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type

Styling Amenities

Propulsion System

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Conventional Articulated (60')

Specialized BRT Vehicle Specialized Livery, Large Windows, Internal Bicycle Racks

Conventional Standard (40')

Standard

Standard

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Diesel Electric Hybrid

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

Proof-of-Payment Cash, Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Flat

Specialized Livery ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

Cash & Paper

Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Min.) Performance Ridership Existing Routes (Before) Existing Routes (After) New (Additional BRT) Routes Total Ridership After BRT Implementation Change in Ridership in the Corridor Attractiveness to Ridership with Access to Other Modes

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Pedestrian Focus

Pay On-Board

Driver Assist and Automation

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

Fare Media

Vehicle Prioritization

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Pedestrian Focus

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Fare Structure ITS

Designated Station Level Platform

Flat

Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority (67/67) (7) (127 / 216) (88/88) Precision Docking Advanced Advanced Advanced Communication, Auto Advanced Communication, Communication, AVL Communication, AVL Dispatch, AVL AVL Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, Internet Internet Internet Internet Internet -

7.0 All-Stop All Day

7.6 Single Route All Day

25.7 All-Stop All Day

30

12

2

11,000

63,500 50,000 40,300 90,300 (2002) 93,094 (2004) 42% (by 2002) 47% (by 2004)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

16.7 All-Stop All Day

11.9 All-Stop All Day 4

13,500 8,100 9,000 17,100 (2002) 19,632 (2004) 27% (by 2002) 45% (by 2004)

55,300

57,560 (2004) 4%

4- 6

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ride r sh ip ( Con t in u e d) Los Angeles Metro Rapid Broadway

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Van Nuys

Los Angeles

10.5 -

21.4 -

10.3 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

2

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Standard

Standard

Standard

Standard

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Specialized Livery, Large Windows ICE – CNG

Specialized Livery, Large Windows ICE – CNG

Specialized Livery, Large Windows ICE – CNG

Specialized Livery, Large Windows ICE – CNG

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

N/A (Free Fares) N/A Free

Transit Signal Priority (75/76)

Transit Signal Priority (100/100)

Transit Signal Priority (21/60)

Transit Signal Priority (98/112)

-

Metro Rapid Florence

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Crenshaw

Orlando LYMMO

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

18.8 3.0 -

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type Styling Amenities Propulsion System

Specialized Livery

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media Fare Structure ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information

-

-

-

-

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Loop Detectors / Infrared Sensors Station, Telephone, Internet

10.5 All-Stop All Day

21.4 All-Stop All Day

10.3 All-Stop All Day

18.8 All-Stop All Day

3 All-Stop All Day

30

15

11

13

5

25,900

18,800

21,700

20,600

1,750 --

AVL/Wi-Fi Station, Internet

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak / Off-Peak) Performance Ridership Existing Routes (Before) Existing Routes (After) New (Additional BRT) Routes Total Ridership After BRT Implementation Change in Ridership in the Corridor Attractiveness to Ridership with Access to Other Modes

5,000 27,762

19,192

25,439

21,265

5,000

7%

2%

17%

3%

186%

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

1,750

4- 7

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ride r sh ip ( Con t in u e d) Miami

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

Busway MAX

San Pablo Rapid Bus

East Busway

South Busway

8

14.0 -

10.5 -

10.3 -

-

-

-

Bus Pullouts

-

-

-

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

3

1

1

1

2 P&R Lots

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Stylized Standard (40.5')

Standard

Standard

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type

Red, White and Green Livery

Styling Amenities Propulsion System

Specialized Livery, Large Specialized Livery, Large Windows Windows

ICE – Diesel

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

Pay on Board Cash, paper swipe card Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper, Smart Cards Flat

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media Fare Structure ITS Vehicle Prioritization

Transit Signal Priority

Driver Assist and Automation

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, PDA, Vehicle

Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information

Transit Signal Priority (1 Transit Signal Priority (1 intersection) intersection) Collision Warning Collision Warning Advanced Communication, Advanced Communication, Advanced Auto Dispatch, AVL AVL Communication, AVL Station, Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, PDA, Internet Internet Vehicle Transit Signal Priority

Service Plan Route Length 8 Route Structure All-Stop, Limited, Express Service Span All Day Service Frequency (Peak / Off10 Peak)

14.0 All-Stop All Day

10.5 All-Stop All Day

10.3 All-Stop All Day

12

30

11

30,000

13,000

Performance Ridership Existing Routes (Before) Existing Routes (After) New (Additional BRT) Routes Total Ridership After BRT Implementation Change in Ridership in the Corridor

Attractiveness to Ridership with Access to Other Modes

12,886 --

7,916 (2004)

9,395 (2003)

5,899 (2004)

9,395

13,815 7%

11% of new riders previously 45% of Rapid passengers used an automobile, 7% of did not use the bus prior to new riders on existing routes diverted to the busway Rapid Bus (19% drove by previously used a car, as car, 13% took Bay Area compared to 1% of new Rapid Transit(BART)) riders systemwide

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 8

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Higher Ridership

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 : BRT Ele m e n t s by Syst e m a n d Ride r sh ip ( Con t in u e d) Pittsburgh

Phoenix

West Busway

Rapid I-10 East

Phoenix RAPID I-10 West

Phoenix RAPID SR-51

Phoenix RAPID I-17

6.5

4.8

12.3

8.0

-

14.0

8.0

10.3

11.5

3.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

-

-

-

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

2

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Vehicle Type

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Specialized

Specialized

Specialized

Specialized

Styling Amenities

Specialized Livery

Composite and styling

Composite and styling

Composite and styling

Composite and styling

Diesel

LNG

LNG

LNG

LNG

Passing Capability Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles

Propulsion System Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

N/A (Free Fares)

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

N/A

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Fare Structure

Free

Diff

Diff

Diff

Diff

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

-

Collision Warning Advanced Communication, AVL/Orbital Station, Internet Vehicle, PDA

Collision Warning Advanced Communication, AVL/Orbital Station, Internet Vehicle, PDA

Collision Warning Advanced Communication, AVL/Orbital Station, Internet Vehicle, PDA

Collision Warning Advanced Communication, AVL/Orbital Station, Internet Vehicle, PDA

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information

AVL/Wi-Fi Station, Internet

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure

3 All-Stop

Service Span

All Day

Service Frequency (Peak / OffPeak)

5

20.5 13 19.25 19.5 Express Express Express Express Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Only Only Only Only 10

10

10

10

607 (2004)

435 (2004)

533 (2004)

797 (2004)

Performance Ridership Existing Routes (Before) Existing Routes (After) New (Additional BRT) Routes Total Ridership After BRT Implementation Change in Ridership in the Corridor Attractiveness to Ridership with Access to Other Modes

3,700 3,300 (2003) 5,400 (2003) 8,700 (2003) 135% (by 2003) 34% of surveyed passengers used an automobile before using Busway services

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 9

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

4 .2 CAPI T AL COST EFFECT I V EN ESS 4.2.1 The Benefit of Capital Cost Effectiveness The prim ary advant age of BRT t echnology is t hat it can be adapt ed t o a m ult it ude of operat ing environm ent s, wit h sufficient scalabilit y t o deliver increased carrying capacit y t o m eet fut ure ridership growt h. The challenge in designing a new BRT syst em is t o select a m ix of elem ent s whose associat ed capit al cost s can be reasonably j ust ified according t o expect ed service out put levels and ridership. Oft en, t he param et ers of t he BRT syst em are defined by physical const raint s. For exam ple, t he absence of available right - of- way m ay preclude t he feasibilit y of exclusive BRT running ways and designat ed st at ions. Likewise, t he presence of an underut ilized t ransport at ion asset m ay inspire t he ident ificat ion of BRT as a cost effect ive t ransport at ion solut ion. The point is, capit al cost s of new BRT syst em s are im pact ed not j ust by t he choice of operat ional and design elem ent s, but also by t he physical environm ent wit hin which BRT is int egrat ed. BRT capit al cost can t herefore vary great ly, depending on t he m ix of operat ional and cust om er int erface elem ent s t hat are chosen for a given BRT deploym ent . Chapt er 2 provided a general descript ion of t he range of capit al cost s associat ed wit h each of t he m aj or BRT elem ent s, and t he opt ions wit hin each elem ent . While inform at ion on specific elem ent s like t he capit al cost per BRT st at ion is useful, it does not , by it self, yield enough inform at ion from a planning perspect ive t o guide t he det erm inat ion of specific BRT elem ent s, such as t he level of st at ion t reat m ent s. To provide som e useful planning guidance, t he im pact s of BRT syst em elem ent s m ust be considered t oget her and capit al cost s m ust be expressed in t erm s of syst em perform ance. Cost effect iveness can be defined as t he cost per unit of service out put . Evaluat ion of t he capit al cost effect iveness of BRT proj ect s can be perform ed wit h respect t o: service out put s – vehicle service m iles ( VSM) and vehicle service hours ( VSH) perform ance im provem ent s – t ravel t im e savings, reliabilit y im provem ent s, safet y and securit y im provem ent s user benefit s – passenger t rips, cum ulat ive t ravel t im e saved, passenger m iles facilit y size – m iles of invest m ent , vehicle fleet size

4.2.2 BRT System Design Impacts on Capital Cost Effectiveness The basic elem ent s of BRT are discussed in Chapt er 2. Wit hin each elem ent , t reat m ent alt ernat ives and t heir associat ed capit al cost s and associat ed perform ance vary great ly. The decision t o im plem ent a part icular BRT elem ent rest s on an analysis of t he cost s and perform ance benefit s of each elem ent when applied in a specific corridor cont ext . St andards of service such as wait t im e, t ravel t im e, reliabilit y oft en drive t he decision t o

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 10

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

pursue im plem ent at ion of BRT elem ent s. Considerat ions relat ed t o individual BRT elem ent s are present ed. Running ways – The driving capit al cost of running ways is relat ed t o t he level of separat ion from ot her t raffic allowed. The least cost ly running way opt ion is t he m ixed flow lane wit h t he possible addit ion of queue j um pers. This solut ion does not involve any ROW acquisit ion or significant road const ruct ion and pavem ent re- st riping. Wit h increasing segregat ion, cost s, requirem ent s for cooperat ion wit h ot her st akeholders, and environm ent al m it igat ion effort s increase. The designat ed art erial lane, which requires im proved signage, pavem ent re- st riping and inst allat ion of physical barriers, cost s bet ween $2.5 and $2.9 m illion per m ile ( excluding ROW acquisit ion) . The m ost expensive running way opt ions are exclusive lanes, which can be eit her at - grade or grade- separat ed. While t hese opt ions offer significant pot ent ial for speed and reliabilit y, t hey cost bet ween t hree t o t went y t im es m ore t han designat ed art erial lanes. St at ions – The cost is largely driven by t he size of t he st at ion, which in t urn is driven by t he num ber and frequency of rout es serving t he st at ion. St at ions have m any com m unit y benefit s t hat hard t o quant ify, yet im port ant t o consider during any cost / benefit analysis. Vehicles – Cost increases wit h t he com plexit y of t he vehicle configurat ion, t he addit ion of enhancem ent s, and t he sophist icat ion of t he propulsion syst em . Specialized BRT vehicles cost t he m ost . Their cost requires significant ridership increases, t ravel t im e benefit s, and ot her syst em benefit s t o achieve capit al cost effect iveness. Fare Collect ion Syst em – Since fare collect ion syst em s for BRT are st rongly int egrat ed wit h t he business processes and revenue collect ion needs of ent ire t ransit agencies, fare collect ion syst em cost effect iveness assessm ent s oft en consider syst em wide needs and benefit s. I TS – The role of I TS is oft en t o facilit at e and im prove t he m anagem ent and perform ance of ot her elem ent s and syst em s. Their perform ance, t herefore, is linked t o how well t hese t echnologies im prove perform ance in conj unct ion wit h ot her elem ent s such as running ways and vehicles. Like fare collect ion syst em s, I TS oft en requires syst em wide applicat ion t o be j ust ified. Syst em wide benefit s of applicat ion are relevant for analyses of capit al cost effect iveness.

4.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Capital Cost Effectiveness Several ext ernal fact ors affect capit al cost effect ivensss: Labor and Mat erials Cost s – The st rengt h of t he local econom y will det erm ine t he relat ive cost of labor and m at erials and will creat e regional differences in t he cost s t o develop BRT syst em s. Real Est at e Cost s – Because running ways and st at ions com prise som e of t he larger expenses in developing BRT, t hey play a large role in t he abilit y t o develop cost -

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 11

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

effect ive BRT solut ions. Regions where right - of- way and propert y are very expensive will dem onst rat e higher cost syst em s. Perform ance of t he Transport at ion Syst em – The perform ance of t he exist ing t ransport at ion syst em drives how m uch a benefit a new BRT syst em invest m ent can bring. I nt roducing a superior BRT syst em int o a environm ent wit h a highly congest ed t ransport at ion syst em or a low- speed, unreliable t ransit syst em can reap significant benefit s t o j ust ify an invest m ent .

4.2.4 Summary of Impacts on Capital Cost Effectiveness Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Several cases dem onst rat e t he det erm inant s of capit al cost effect iveness. Sout h M ia m i- D a de Bu sw a y, M ia m i, FL; LYM M O, Or la n do, FL BRT capit al cost s vary considerably, depending on t he t ype of syst em ult im at ely designed and built . Cost s of BRT proj ect s can include t he cost of t he running way, st at ions/ st ops, I TS com ponent s such as signal priorit y and real- t im e inform at ion syst em s, and vehicles, if addit ional or special buses are needed for t he BRT syst em . The t ot al capit al cost for t he LYMMO BRT in Orlando, Florida was $21 m illion, or $7 m illion per rout e m ile. The LYMMO BRT operat es on dedicat ed running way for t he ent ire lengt h of it s 3.0 m ile rout e. The t ot al capit al cost for Phase I of t he Sout h Miam i- Dade Busway was 42.9 m illion wit h $17 m illion going t o t he purchase of dedicat ed right - of- way t o build t he act ual busway on which buses t ravel separat e from vehicular t raffic. This com es out t o about $5.0 m illion per m ile in capit al cost s t o build Phase I of t he proj ect . 9 8 - B Line , Va n couve r , Br it ish Colum bia , Ca na da The reduced t ravel t im es and t he im proved reliabilit y of t he 98- B Line BRT syst em in Vancouver have enabled a 20 percent reduct ion of t he vehicle fleet for an equivalent t ransit dem and, or approxim at ely 5 vehicles. The vehicle capit al cost saving from reduced layover t im e associat ed wit h AVL and t ransit signal priorit y ( TSP) syst em s is est im at ed t o result in savings of one addit ional vehicle. Translink ( t he t ransit operat or) calculat es t hat significant savings will accrue due t o fewer vehicles, fewer vehicle hours, and higher t ransit revenue. Using cost s ( vehicles, st at ions, infrast ruct ure, land, AVL/ TSP, m aint enance facilit y, soft cost s, and operat ing cost s) and benefit s ( operat ing savings, increased revenues, t ravel t im e savings) calculat ed in Canadian dollars, local planners est im at e t he benefit / cost rat io at 1.3. 45

45 “98 B-Line Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation Study”, IBI and Translink, September 29, 2003

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 12

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

4 .3 OPERAT I N G COST EFFI CI EN CY 4.3.1 The Benefit of Operating Efficiency Operat ing efficiency can be defined as t he abilit y t o produce a unit of service out put from a unit of input . The operat ing efficiency of a BRT syst em is influenced by t he int erplay of several crit ical fact ors: t he packaging of BRT elem ent s, t he design and im plem ent at ion of service and operat ing plans, and t he size of t he BRT m arket . As m ent ioned previously, one of t he dist inguishing at t ribut es of BRT is it s adapt abilit y int o an exist ing t ransit net work, and t he abilit y t o achieve high levels of operat ional efficiency at relat ively low capit al cost s. Planning and designing a BRT syst em requires careful considerat ion of t he t rade- off bet ween capit al cost s and operat ing efficiency, which is not a sim ple t ask. The purpose of t his sect ion is t o ident ify t he im pact of BRT syst em design elem ent s on operat ing efficiency. To do t his, it is useful t o define how operat ing efficiency is m easured and t o define key perform ance indicat ors t hat can be used t o m onit or operat ing efficiency and product ivit y. I n t ransit , t here are several dim ensions t hat – t aken t oget her – provide a well- rounded and balanced perspect ive of syst em perform ance. Operat ing cost efficiency is generally defined as t he operat ing cost per unit of service out put . Anot her im port ant perform ance indicat or is service product ivit y, which m easures how m uch service is consum ed ( passengers or passenger m iles) per unit of service out put . Measures of operat ing efficiency and product ivit y applied t o BRT are com m on t o t he t ransit indust ry, t o enable a com parison bet ween BRT and ot her local fixed rout e service, and am ong BRT syst em s nat ionally. Exam ples of perform ance indicat ors used as part of an ongoing perform ance m easurem ent syst em include: Subsidy per passenger m ile Subsidy per passenger Operat ing cost per passenger Operat ing cost per vehicle service m ile ( VSM) Operat ing cost per vehicle service hour ( VSH) Passengers per VSH Passengers per VSM VSH per Full- Tim e Equivalent Em ployee ( FTE) Operat ing efficiency can also be m easured in t erm s of dim ensions of service qualit y. For exam ple, BRT syst em s t hat operat e on exclusive running ways and have st at ions wit h level plat form boarding realize operat ing efficiencies t hat cannot be achieved by BRT syst em s t hat operat e along m ixed flow lanes wit h uneven plat form boarding. I n t he lat t er BRT deploym ent scenario, running t im es are less reliable, st at ion dwell t im es t end t o be longer and end- t o- end t ravel t im es t end t o be longer. To com pensat e for high variat ion in syst em perform ance, t he BRT operat ing and service plan m ay involve increased service frequency Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 13

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

levels – especially in t he AM and PM peaks – specifically t o m it igat e schedule adherence problem s. I n t his case, operat ing inefficiencies result in service input requirem ent s t hat are higher t han would ot herwise be needed. Sect ion 4.5.2 present s a sum m ary of perform ance in operat ing efficiency for BRT syst em s in t he Unit ed St at es.

4.3.2 Summary of Impacts on Operating Efficiency Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Several cases dem onst rat e t he det erm inant s of operat ing efficiency. M e t r o Ra pid W ilsh ir e - W h it t ie r , Los Ange le s, CA The Met ro Rapid Wilshire – Whit t ier line in Los Angeles, CA operat es in t he highest densit y t ransit corridor in t he region. Before t he im plem ent at ion of Met ro Rapid, a com binat ion of 7 local and lim it ed service lines operat ed in t he corridor ( five in t he Wilshire Boulevard corridor and 2 in t he Whit t ier Boulevard corridor) . I n t erm s of service effect iveness and efficiency variables, Met ro Rapid im proved t he perform ance of t ransit service in t he corridor, as shown in Exhibit 4- 2.

Ex h ibit 4 - 2 : Ope r a t in g Efficie n cie s in t h e W ilsh ir e – W h it t ie r M e t r o Ra pid Cor r idor Passengers per Revenue Hour

Route 18 / 318* 20 / 21 / 22 / 320* / 322* Metro Rapid 720 Combined

Subsidy Per Passenger Mile

Subsidy Per Passenger

Before Metro Rapid

After Metro Rapid

Before Metro Rapid

After Metro Rapid

Before Metro Rapid

After Metro Rapid

62 43

63 61 57.2 59.7

$0.17 $0.21

$0.18 $0.15 $0.14 $0.15

$0.51 $1.08

$0.46 $0.58 $0.82 $0.65

51

$0.20

$0.79

* Cancelled after implementation of Metro Rapid Met ro Rapid’s im plem ent at ion increased t he service product ivit y from 51 passengers per vehicle revenue hour t o 59.7 passengers per vehicle revenue hour. I t also reduced corridor subsidies relat ed t o bot h passenger m iles and t ot al passengers. Not e t hat operat ing efficiencies for t he Met ro Rapid service in bot h passengers per revenue hour and subsidy per passenger are higher t han for t he local lines. The

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 14

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

benefit of Met ro Rapid is t hat it im proved perform ance m easures for t he corridor t ransit service as a whole. 46 Sout h M ia m i- D a de Bu sw a y, M ia m i, FL; LYM M O, Or la n do, FL Operat ing cost s for BRT syst em s included such cost s as driver's salaries, fuel, vehicle m aint enance, and m aint enance of physical facilit ies such as st at ions and running ways. I n Miam i, Met ro- Dade Transit ( MDT) uses sm aller 30- foot buses on t he Busway t o keep operat ing cost s t o a m inim um . The use of t he sm aller m ini- buses has great ly reduced t he operat ing cost per revenue hour of busway operat ion. The annual operat ing cost for t he LYMMO in Downt own Orlando is approxim at ely $1 m illion. W e st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA The West Busway in Pit t sburgh dem onst rat ed t he following perform ance m easures for operat ing cost efficiency and cost effect iveness as illust rat ed in Exhibit 4- 3 and Exhibit 4- 4: 47

Ex h ibit 4 - 3 : Pe r for m a n ce M e a su r e of Ope r a t in g Cost Efficie n cy ( Ve h icle M ile s pe r Ve h icle H ou r ) Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile

$6.40

Vehicle Revenue Hour

$81.90

Passenger Mile

$0.65

Unlinked Passenger Trip

$2.73

M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA The speed of t he East Busway allows m ore vehicle m iles of service t o be operat ed wit h t he sam e num ber of vehicle hours, which drive m aj or operat ing cost s such as labor cost s.

46 Transportation Management & Design, Inc., Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA, March 2002 47 Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation of Port Authority of Allegheny County’s West Busway Bus Rapid Transit Project, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, April 2003

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 15

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Operat ing Cost Efficiency

Ex h ibit 4 - 4 : Pe r for m a n ce M e a su r e of Ope r a t in g Efficie n cy ( Ve h icle M ile s pe r Ve h icle H ou r ) Route Type

Vehicle Miles per Vehicle Hour

New routes

15.8

Routes diverted to East Busway

19.6

Other Routes in System

11.5

The com parison of vehicle m iles per vehicle hour shows t hat rout es on t he Busway are able t o generat e bet ween 37 and 70 percent m ore vehicle m iles each vehicle hour. 48 An analysis perform ed by Port Aut horit y Transit ( now Aut horit y of Allegheny Count y) assigned operat ing cost s t o t ransit t rips calculat ed operat ing cost param et ers for different t ypes of rout es.

East from Port and

Ex h ibit 4 - 5 : Ope r a t in g Cost pe r Se r vice Un it By Type of Rou t e ( 1983 Dollars) New Routes

Diverted Routes

All Other Routes in System

Per Passenger Trip

$0.76

$1.95

$1.27

Per Peak Passenger Trip

$1.32

$3.19

$3.09

Performance Measure

Ridership

Cost Effectiveness

Cost Efficiency

Per Passenger Mile

$0.15

$0.37

$0.24

Per Peak Passenger Mile

$0.27

$0.60

$0.58

Per Seat Mile

$0.06

$0.06

$0.07

Per Peak Seat Mile

$0.12

$0.09

$0.16

Per Vehicle Mile

$3.61

$2.58

$3.26

The analysis shows t hat new rout es and divert ed rout es on t he busway operat e wit h higher operat ing efficiencies wit h respect t o capacit y operat ed ( seat m ile and peak seat m ile) . Divert ed rout es have lower operat ing cost s per vehicle m ile t han ot her non- busway rout es. ( The higher cost of operat ing vehicle m iles for new rout es can be at t ribut ed t o t he fact t hat t hose rout es are operat ed wit h art iculat ed vehicles) . Furt herm ore, new rout es have higher cost effect iveness, wit h lower cost s per unit of service consum ed across t he board, especially since dem and is close t o t he operat ed capacit y. Divert ed rout es dem onst rat e lower cost effect iveness since t hey t end t o generat e dem and furt her below capacit y t han ot her rout es. 49

48 Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987 49 Barton-Aschman, “Methodology Used in the Fare Structure Study,” PAT Technical Memorandum, March 1982, as cited in Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 16

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

4 .4

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

T RAN SI T -SU PPORT I V E LAN D DEV ELOPM EN T

4.4.1 The Benefit of Transit-Supportive Land Development Like ot her form s of high- capacit y, high- qualit y t ransit , BRT has a pot ent ial t o prom ot e t ransit - support ive land developm ent – prom ot ing great er accessibilit y and em ploym ent and econom ic opport unit ies by concent rat ing developm ent , increasing in propert y values, and creat ing m ore livable places. BRT corridors serve bot h exist ing land use and have t he abilit y t o creat e new land form s along t he t ransit syst em . I nvest m ent in public t ransit facilit ies such as st at ions or ot her t ransit infrast ruct ure can creat e a net econom ic regional im pact as well as a direct net im pact for t ransit syst em cust om ers by allowing increased access t o j obs and ot her services as well as im proved m obilit y. Support ed by a st eady st ream of pedest rians and t ransit cust om ers, a m ix of em ploym ent , ret ail and leisure act ivit ies are developing around BRT st at ions. I n m any BRT syst em s, t ransit - orient ed developm ent is being used as a t ool t o encourage business growt h, t o revit alize aging downt owns and declining urban neighborhoods, and t o enhance t ax revenues for local j urisdict ions. I t is im port ant t o not e t hat t he econom ic benefit s of t ransit - support ive land developm ent generally can be classified int o t hree cat egories50 : Generat ive im pact s - produce net econom ic growt h and benefit s in a region such as t ravel t im e savings, increased em ploym ent and incom e, im proved environm ent al qualit y, and increased j ob accessibilit y. This is t he only t ype of im pact t hat result s in a net econom ic gain t o societ y at large. Redist ribut ive im pact s - account for locat ional shift s in econom ic act ivit y wit hin a region such t hat land developm ent , em ploym ent , and, t herefore, incom e occur at t ransit st at ions along a rout e, rat her t han being dispersed t hroughout a region. Transfer im pact s - involve t he conveyance or t ransfer of m oneys from one ent it y t o anot her such as t he em ploym ent st im ulat ed by t he const ruct ion and operat ion of a t ransit syst em financed t hrough public funds, j oint developm ent incom e, and propert y t ax incom e from developm ent redist ribut ed t o a t ransit corridor t hrough st at ion developm ent . For exam ple, an analysis of developm ent around BRT st at ions in Ot t awa, Canada ( t he Transit way syst em ) found new developm ent having an aggregat e value of over $675 m illion ( US$) had been const ruct ed in t he first 15 years aft er t he t ransit way syst em was const ruct ed. A sim ilar st udy by t he MBTA indicat es $700 m illion in new developm ent and const ruct ion around Silver Line BRT st at ions t o dat e. I n addit ion, a report indicat es t hat resident ial propert ies wit hin walking dist ance of st at ions on Brisbane’s SE Busway in 50 Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners, TCRP Report 35

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 17

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

Aust ralia have increased in value 20 percent fast er t han propert ies in t he sam e corridor t hat are not in walking dist ance. Bet ween 1983 when it opened and 1995, t here was over $300m wort h of const ruct ion adj acent t o st at ions on t he Mart in Lut her King or East Busway in Pit t sburgh, despit e only m odest econom ic gains elsewhere in t he Pit t sburgh Region.

4.4.2 BRT System Design Effects on Transit-Supportive Land Development Specific design elem ent s of a BRT syst em , part icularly t hose t hat involve physical infrast ruct ure invest m ent each have posit ive affect s on land use and developm ent . BRT Ele m e n t s a nd Tr a n sit - Suppor t ive La nd D e ve lopm e n t Running Way

Research shows that the effect of investments in running ways is three-fold. They improve the convenience of accessing other parts of a region from station locations. Increased accessibility increases the likelihood that property can be developed or redeveloped to a more valuable and more intense use. Physical running way investments signal to developers that a local government is willing to invest in a significant transit investment and suggest a permanence that attracts private investment in development.

Stations

Station design has the greatest impact on the economic vitality of an area. A new BRT station provides opportunity to enhance travel and create a livable community at the same time. Station designs that effectively link transit service to the adjacent land uses maximize the development potential. It is important to note that the inclusion of routes in BRT systems that combine feeder service and line-haul (trunk) service reduces the need for large parking lots and parking structures, thereby freeing land at the most accessible locations for development.

Vehicles

Vehicles can reinforce attractiveness (and, indirectly, the development potential) of BRT-adjacent properties to the extent that they: Demonstrate attractive aesthetic design and support brand identity of the BRT system Suggest permanence or a willingness on the part of the public sector to invest in the community Reduce negative environmental impacts such as pollutant emissions and noise. Experience in Boston and Las Vegas suggests that developers do respond to services that incorporate vehicles that are attractive and that limit air pollutant and noise emissions. Successful developments in Pittsburgh and Ottawa, Canada, where more conventionally designed vehicles are deployed suggests that development can still occur with all vehicle types as long as service improvements highlight the attractiveness of station locations.

Service and Operations Plan

The flexible nature and high frequencies of BRT service plans allows it to expand or contract with changes in land use quickly and easily.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 18

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

4.4.3 Other Factors Affecting Transit-Supportive Land Development Policy and Planning I n m ost cases, t ransit agencies in t he Unit ed St at es do not have direct aut horit y t o plan or direct t he developm ent pat t erns of areas around st at ions of it s syst em . Land developm ent policy and planning inst rum ent s, such as plans and zoning codes, det erm ine several charact erist ics t hat affect developm ent : Land use int ensit y Mix and variet y of uses Guidelines for sit e planning, archit ect ure, pat hways, and open spaces t hat affect t he pedest rian- orient ed nat ure of an area Parking Requirem ent s Transit agencies oft en support st andards t hat increase t he t ransit m arket base – densit y bonuses, prom ot ion of land use m ixing, rem oval or relaxat ion of densit y caps, rem oval of height lim it s, reduct ion of parking rat ios.

Economic Environment Transport at ion is a necessary condit ion for developm ent but does not drive developm ent . The rat e of regional developm ent is defined by t he st rengt h of t he local econom y. In addit ion t o BRT syst em charact erist ics and local planning and zoning, t he local econom y drives how m uch developm ent can occur. While t he local econom y is largely out of t he cont rol of t ransit agencies, agencies som et im es play a role in direct ly support ing developm ent proj ect s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 19

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

4.4.4 Summary of Transit-Supportive Land Development Impacts Syst e m Pe r for m a n ce Pr ofile s Several proj ect s illust rat e t he synergy bet ween BRT syst em s and t ransit - support ive developm ent . Silve r Lin e , Bost on , M A Phase I of t he Silver Line was developed along t he Washingt on St reet corridor, which em anat es t o t he sout hwest from downt own Bost on. The Washingt on St reet corridor is hist orically a st rong corridor for developm ent owing t o it s hist ory as t he prim ary link bet ween downt own Bost on and t owns t o t he sout h and west . An elevat ed heavy rail line which ran down t he cent er of Washingt on St reet was relocat ed in t he 1987, t o new t rack and st at ions along t he Sout hwest Corridor from Forest Hills t o downt own Bost on. This FTA- funded proj ect arose from t he Bost on Transport at ion Planning Review of 1972, which called for t he planned int erst at e highway along t he Sout hwest Corridor t o be cancelled, and t o use t he already cleared right - of- way for t ransit and parks inst ead. Rem oving bot h elevat ed highways and elevat ed rail in urban areas was seen as a desirable im provem ent . I n t he Dudley t o Downt own corridor, t he Orange Line st at ions were relocat ed approxim at ely five blocks nort hwest of Washingt on St reet . Rem oving t he elevat ed, repaving t he roadway, and im proving t he st reet scape were seen as key elem ent s t o t he revit alizat ion of Washingt on St reet , which has been severely depressed t hroughout t he 1970s and 1980s and had seen derelict , abandoned, and dem olished st ruct ures. Throughout t he planning and const ruct ion of t he Silver Line Phase I proj ect , developm ent has accelerat ed along t he corridor, result ing in at least $93 m illion in new developm ent . Proj ect s includes a m ix of ret ail, housing, and inst it ut ional uses, including police st at ions and m edical facilit ies. Most proj ect s include ret ail on t he ground level. Phase I I of t he Silver Line ( also known as t he Sout h Bost on Piers Transit way) consist s of an underground bus t unnel ( planned t o open lat e 2004) beginning at Sout h St at ion, which is also served by t he Red Line subway, com m ut er rail, Am t rak, and int er- cit y buses. This facilit y was conceived as a way t o enable t he expansion of downt own Bost on t o t he east t o form er indust rial land along t he Sout h Bost on Piers. More t han $500 m illion has been invest ed in real est at e in t his area, and m ore developm ent is expect ed. Larger proj ect s include t he Joseph L. Moakley Federal Court house and t he 980,000 square- foot Bost on Convent ion and Exhibit ion Cent er. Ot her built and planned proj ect s include office buildings, hot els, ret ail, and condom inium s.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 20

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

The experience of t he Silver Line in Bost on shows t hat bot h art erial- based BRT syst em s and grade- separat ed t ransit ways can at t ract developm ent .

Laconia Lofts

South End Community Health Center

Area D-4 Police Station

Joseph Moakley Courthouse (Silver Line Phase II)

N or t h La s Ve ga s M AX, La s Ve ga s, N V The Nort h Las Vegas Boulevard corridor is a low densit y corridor ext ending from downt own Las Vegas t o t he nort h. The syst em was j ust inaugurat ed in t he sum m er of 2004. While general developm ent pat t erns have st ill not yet t ransform ed due t o t he brief period of operat ion, one casino has already invest ed in pedest rian facilit ies and an addit ional st at ion t o at t ract passengers from t he syst em . M e t r o Ra pid, Los An ge le s, CA Art erial corridors wit hin t he Cit y of Los Angeles have t radit ionally defined where prom inent developm ent occurs. The Met ro Rapid program is designed t o bring a higher level of service t o high t ransit ridership corridors. I n m any cases, Met ro

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 21

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

Rapid, t herefore, reinforces t he accessibilit y and at t ract iveness of t hese corridors as sit es for t ransit - support ive developm ent . One of t he first corridors on which Met ro Rapid was im plem ent ed was t he Wilshire Boulevard corridor. This corridor is t he m ost densely developed com m ercial corridor wit h t he largest concent rat ion of m aj or act ivit y cent ers and dest inat ions in Sout hern California. From downt own Los Angeles t o Sant a Monica, Wilshire Boulevard host s a m ix of high- rise ( 20 or m ore st ories) , m id- rise ( 8- 10 st ories) , and low- rise ( 2- 5 st ories) office and ret ail buildings. Significant at t ract ions include a com plex of m useum s anchored by t he Los Angeles Count y Museum of Art , downt own Beverly Hills w it h it s offices and t ourist - orient ed ret ail, and West wood Village, a concent rat ion of ret ail and offices adj acent t o t he Universit y of California at Los Angeles. Since t he corridor parallels one port ion of t he Met ro Red Line heavy rail subway, t he corridor also includes significant new j oint developm ent proj ect s set t o include high densit y housing and schools around at least t hree different st at ions ( Wilshire / West ern, Wilshire / Verm ont , and MacArt hur Park) . LYM M O, Or la ndo, CA The LYMMO in Orlando, Florida has playing a vit al role in t he econom ic developm ent of Downt own Orlando. Num erous com m ercial and resident ial developm ent s have been built since t he inaugurat ion of t he LYMMO BRT service. By providing a high qualit y, frequent , and reliable t ransport at ion choice for downt own em ployees, visit ors and resident s t he LYMMO has increased accessibilit y t o public t ransit and spurred developm ent along it s rout e. The Cit y of Orlando m akes use of t he LYMMO as a t ool t o prom ot e developm ent . As a result of t his st rat egy, t here are five new office buildings in Downt own Orlando wit h about one m illion square feet per building. I n addit ion, six new apart m ent com m unit ies have recent ly been developed in downt own Orlando. W e st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA The Port Aut horit y of Allegheny Count y is advert ising for j oint developm ent opport unit ies seeking developers int erest ed in using agency- owned land t o provide developm ent plans com pat ible wit h adj oining park- and- ride lot s. Despit e t he difficult developm ent condit ions ( narrow railroad corridor wit h lim it ed com m ercial act ivit y) , som e developm ent is being generat ed. The Borough of Carnegie has recent ly const ruct ed a m unicipal building adj acent t o a 215 space park- and- ride lot at t he t erm inus of t he West Busway. This developm ent includes ret ail services such as a dry cleaner and a shoe st ore. The Port Aut horit y is also solicit ing developm ent at

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 22

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Transit - Support ive Land Developm ent

t he West Busway’s Carnegie Borough Park- and- Ride and a park- and- ride lot in Moon Township near Pit t sburgh I nt ernat ional Airport . The Moon Township Developm ent is not able since it is dem onst rat es how t he flexibilit y of BRT enables t he benefit s of t ransit t o be t ransferred t o locat ions not direct ly adj acent t o t he m aj or t ransport at ion facilit y. 51 M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y, Pit t sbu r gh , PA From it s incept ion, t he East Busway was envisioned by st at e and local officials t o st im ulat e developm ent t hrough t he east ern Pit t sburgh suburbs. Early effort s included prom ot ion of developm ent and designat ion of “ Ent erprise Developm ent Areas” in t he m unicipalit ies of East Libert y and Wilkinsburg. 52 54 New Developm ent s wit hin 1500 ft of st at ions. Since t he com m encem ent of service t he East Busway has generat ed $302 m illion in land developm ent benefit s, $225 m illion due t o new const ruct ion. Eight y percent of t his new corridor developm ent is clust ered at st at ion areas.

Negley (Shadyside)

East Liberty (Shadyside)

51 Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation of Port Authority of Allegheny County’s West Busway Bus Rapid Transit Project, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, April 2003 52 Pultz, S. and Koffman, D., The Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway in Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1987

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 23

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

4 .5 EN V I RON M EN T AL QU ALI T Y 4.5.1 Environmental Improvement and BRT When discussing t ransport at ion syst em s, t he prim ary way t o im prove t he environm ent is t hrough reduct ion of vehicular em issions t o im prove air qualit y, even t hough t here are also negat ive im pact s in t he form of noise and wat er pollut ion. There are t wo broad cat egories of em issions according t o t he scope of im pact — local or crit eria pollut ant s and global pollut ant s. Local or crit eria pollut ant s include nit rogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon m onoxide, volat ile organic com pounds, lead, and part iculat e m at t er of various sizes; and global pollut ant s include carbon dioxide and ot her green house gases. This sect ion focuses m ost ly on t he reduct ion of em issions of local air pollut ant s from BRT invest m ent s since it usually has t he m ost direct im pact on urban environm ent s. Nonet heless, BRT can also have sim ilar posit ive im pact s on ot her form s of pollut ion, overall livabilit y, and ot her environm ent al obj ect ives.

4.5.2 BRT System Benefits to Environmental Quality Environmental Improvement Mechanisms Public t ransport at ion im proves environm ent al qualit y by reducing pollut ion caused by t he t ransport at ion syst em t hrough t hree dist inct , yet cum ulat ive, m echanism s, which are present ed in Exhibit 4- 6:

Ex h ibit 4 - 6 : En vir on m e nt a l I m pr ove m e n t M e ch a n ism s Pollution Reduction Mechanism Technology Effect

Sources of Pollution Reduced BRT vehicle emissions

Objective

Reduce direct BRT vehicle pollution by using: Larger (and fewer) Vehicles Propulsion systems, fuels, and pollution control systems with less emissions

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

Significance of Impact

Moderate and Immediate

4- 24

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Pollution Reduction Mechanism

Sources of Pollution Reduced

Environm ent al Qualit y

Objective

Significance of Impact

Ridership Effect

Emissions from trips using automobiles rather than transit

Attract riders to BRT through improved performance: Travel Time Savings Reliability Brand Identity Safety and Security

High – On a passenger-mile basis, public transportation produces approximately 90% less volatile organic compounds, 95% less carbon monoxide, and nearly 50% less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide than identical trips using private automobiles. 53

System Effect

Vehicle emissions from congestion

Direct – Reduce conflicts between BRT vehicles and other traffic to reduce emissions from all vehicles Indirect – Attract riders to BRT to reduce overall system congestion

Moderate – Models have estimated the reduction of overall regional vehicular emissions from reducing both transit emissions and vehicle emissions through reduced congestion to be on the order of several percent.54 For the transit component of this reduction, segregated running ways for BRT in London have been shown to decrease bus emissions by as much as 60% through more efficient speeds and fewer stops.55

BRT System Design Effects on Environmental Quality I n Exhibit 4- 7, each BRT design variable is classified according t o which m echanism of pollut ion reduct ion it affect s.

53 Shapiro, Hassett and Arnold, Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation, APTA report, 2002 54 Darido, G., Managing Conflicts Between the Environment and Mobility: The Case of Road-Based Transportation and Air Quality in Mexico City, MIT, 200 55 Bayliss, D., Background Report for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport-OECD Joint Ministerial Session on Transport and the Environment, Paris, 1989

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 25

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

Ex h ibit 4 - 7 : Pot e n t ia l En vir on m e n t a l I m pa ct of BRT Ele m e n t s BRT Element Design Variables Running Ways Stations

Vehicles

Fare Collection

ITS

Service and Operations Plan

Technology Effect

X X X X

Running Way Segregation Running Way Marking Guidance All Vehicle Configuration Aesthetic Enhancements Passenger Circulation Enhancement Propulsion System

Ridership Effect

System Effect X

X X X X

All Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information Security Monitoring Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency Station Spacing

X X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X

Vehicle Technology and Environmental Quality Vehicles provide t he m ost direct im pact on environm ent al qualit y. The charact erist ics and im pact s on environm ent al qualit y are discussed in t his sect ion.

specific

Alt ernat ive vehicle propulsion syst em s and alt ernat ive fuels, as part of a BRT syst em , have clear benefit s for t he environm ent due t o lower pollut ant em issions or higher energy efficiency. Many t ransit agencies consider alt ernat ive propulsion syst em s and fuels due t o regulat ions and t o support environm ent al conservat ion goals. I n considering t he im pact t hat vehicle t echnologies have on air qualit y, it is im port ant t o not e t hat t he opt ions in vehicle propulsion syst em , fuel, and em issions cont rol syst em s are changing rapidly. Even em issions sum m aries prepared in t he year 2000 are relat ively obsolet e. The st at e of t he vehicle m anufact uring indust ry, however, is changing as a result of st rict er environm ent al regulat ions. The focus of vehicle em ission cont rol t oday is on part iculat e m at t er ( PM) and oxides of nit rogen ( NOx) in engine exhaust . The EPA heavy- dut y engine regulat ions in 2007 and 2010 are forcing 80- 90% reduct ion in PM and NOx em issions for bus engines. Adequat e and cont inual m aint enance of t he propulsion syst em is also im port ant t o respond t o t he regulat ed det eriorat ion fact ors for em ission cont rols t hroughout

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 26

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

t he life of t he vehicle. As shown in t he Exhibit , in 2007, t he cert ificat ion requirem ent s are 0.01 and 0.02 gram s per brake- horsepower- hr for PM and NOx, respect ively. Vehicle engine suppliers are in a dram at ic st at e of t ransit ion as also shown in t he Exhibit 48 which plot s cert ified PM and NOx em issions of heavy dut y engines. The im plicat ions are t hat pre- 2003 engines and current engines have dram at ically different em issions perform ance and t hat t he requirem ent s on bot h ULSD and CNG engines will be t he sam e in t he fut ure for t hese t wo crit eria.

Ex h ibit 4 - 8 : Ce r t ifie d En gin e Em issions Pe r for m a n ce of D ie se l, CN G a n d H ybr id Bu s En gin e s

CNG 2004 CNG 2004 Diesel Data Diesel Data Gasoline Hybrid Gasoline Hybrid

Source: List s from EPA/ OTAQ and CARB websit es of 2003 and 2004 cert ified engines, cert ificat es and em issions. Diesel engines fueled by ult ra low sulfur diesel ( ULSD) and exhaust aft er- t reat m ent are now achieving PM levels once achieved only by alt ernat ive fuel com pressed nat ural gas ( CNG) powered buses. Engine cont rols are being developed t o achieve t he NOx reduct ion current ly by bot h ULSD and CNG engines. I n California in 2004, as shown in t he Exhibit 4- 8, one gasoline fueled hybrid- elect ric bus drive t rain has been cert ified. An int erim cert ificat ion procedure for hybrid elect ric buses is available in California.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 27

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

Diesel hybrid- elect ric power t rains have already shown perform ance com parable t o current CNG powered buses wit h accelerat ion and noise im provem ent s as well. As of 2004, t he relat ive level of em issions reduct ion is not as m uch a det erm ining fact or in propulsion syst em choice as it has hist orically been. While t he em issions cont rol t echnology is in rapid change, t here are even m ore issues relat ing t o fuel and em issions. Those issues, list ed in Exhibit 4- 7, m ay well drive propulsion t echnology. Exhibit 4- 9 provides a qualit at ive assessm ent of current propulsion syst em s and fuel relat ive t o present perform ance. A plus ( + ) represent s a fuel/ engine com binat ion advant age over t he ot her alt ernat ives while a negat ive sign ( - ) represent s a slight disadvant age for t hat propulsion syst em . I n addit ion t o t he current ly regulat ed pollut ant s, int erest in ot her aspect s of vehicle propulsion syst em perform ance is growing. These include: Fuel econom y – t o prom ot e operat ing efficiencies and energy securit y Noise – Sound at t enuat ion m et hods for Hybrids and convent ional I CEs are being developed Unregulat ed Air Toxics – using t he best available aft ert reat m ent , nat ural gas has a slight edge over ULSD wit h bot h I CE and Hybrid syst em s Ult ra- fine Part iculat e Mat er ( PM 2.5) – A nat ionwide m onit oring program t o assess ult rafine part icles at 2.5 m icrons is now part of air qualit y planning requirem ent s. These fine part icles are form ed by fuel com bust ion, including by buses, and also in t he at m osphere when gases such as sulfur dioxide, nit rogen oxides, and volat ile organic com pounds ( all of which are also product s of fuel com bust ion) are t ransform ed in t he air by chem ical react ions. Fine part icles are of concern because t hey are risk t o bot h hum an healt h and t he environm ent . Greenhouse Gases

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 28

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

Ex h ibit 4 - 9 Pr opu lsion Syst e m / Fu e l Ch oice s a n d Em e r gin g Pe r for m a n ce At t r ibu t e s Fuel and Propulsion System Performance Measure

ULSD ICE Engine

CNG ICE Engine

Fuel Economy

+

Energy Security Audible Noise

Diesel Hybrid Electric

Gasoline Hybrid Electric

++

+

++

+

+

+

+

+

Ultra Fine PM 2.5

+

+

Greenhouse Gases

+

Unregulated Air Toxics

-

+

+

+ + Significant advant age over exist ing t echnology + Slight advant age over exist ing t echnology - Slight disadvant age com pared t o exist ing t echnology

4.5.3 Summary of System Design and Environmental Quality Experience in Unit ed St at es BRT syst em s shows t hat t he t ransit indust ry is beginning t o incorporat e alt ernat ive propulsion syst em s and fuels t o reduce pollut ant em issions. Exhibit 4- 10 shows t hat nat ural gas ( eit her in com pressed or liquid form ) are used in Bost on, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Three syst em s are using ult ra- low sulfur diesel ( Chicago, Honolulu, and Orlando) . Las Vegas MAX vehicles use a hybrid diesel elect ric vehicles.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 29

4. BRT Syst em Benefit s

Environm ent al Qualit y

Ex h ibit 4 - 1 0 : Su m m a r y of Ve h icle Ch a r a ct e r ist ics Re le va n t t o Pollu t a n t Em ission s Boston

Chicago

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Miami

Oakland

Orlando

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Silver Line

Neighborhood Express

City Express!

North Las Vegas MAX

Metro Rapid

Busway

Rapid Bus

LYMMO

Rapid

Busway

Vehicle Configuration

Stylized Articulated

Conventional Standard

Conventional Standard

Specialized BRT Vehicle

Conventional Standard

Conventional Standard and Articulated

Stylized Standard

Standard

Specialized Standard

Conventional Standard & Articulated

Propulsion System

ICE - CNG

Diesel Electric

ICE – CNG

ICE – Diesel

ICE – Diesel

ICE – ULSD

ICE – LNG

ICE – Diesel

Vehicles

ICE ICE Ultra-Low Sulfur Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Diesel

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

4- 30

5. Conclusions

5 .0

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

CON CLU SI ON S AN D SU M M ARY

The preceding chapt ers of t he Charact erist ics of BRT ( CBRT) report encapsulat e t he experience wit h BRT along t hree dim ensions. Chapt er 2 present ed a sum m ary of t he prim ary physical, operat ional and cost charact erist ics of BRT, organized by t he six m aj or elem ent s of BRT – Running Ways, St at ions, Vehicles, Fare Collect ion, I TS, and t he Service and Operat ions Plan. Chapt er 3 highlight ed t he at t ribut es of perform ance affect ed by t he BRT syst em elem ent s – Travel Tim e, Reliabilit y, I m age and I dent it y, Passenger Safet y and Securit y, and Syst em Capacit y. Chapt er 4 discussed t he m aj or benefit s t hat BRT syst em s effect . Each of t hese chapt ers included illust rat ions of specific BRT experience and sum m aries of BRT syst em s in t he Unit ed St at es and around t he world. This present at ion of t he BRT experience along t hree dim ensions is int ended t o allow t he reader of CBRT t o glean insight s about BRT from any perspect ive. This chapt er perform s t wo m aj or funct ions. First , it provides an overview of BRT experience as present ed in t he core of t he CBRT report . Second, it describes t he role of CBRT as a living and dynam ic docum ent , int ended t o reflect t he evolving knowledge base relat ed t o BRT.

5 .1 SU M M ARY OF BRT EX PERI EN CE 5.1.1 Summary of BRT Elements Experience in t he Unit ed St at es suggest s t hat im plem ent at ion of m ore com plex BRT syst em elem ent s is j ust beginning. I m plem ent at ion of running ways, st at ions, and vehicles suggest a wide variet y of applicat ions. Som e of t he m ore quickly im plem ent ed proj ect s dem onst rat ed t he least am ount of invest m ent in BRT syst em elem ent s.

Running Ways BRT syst em s in t he Unit ed St at es have incorporat ed all t ypes of running ways – m ixed flow art erial operat ion ( Los Angeles, Honolulu) , m ixed flow freeway operat ion ( Phoenix) , dedicat ed art erial lanes ( Bost on, Orlando) , at - grade t ransit ways ( Miam i) , and fully gradeseparat ed surface t ransit ways ( Pit t sburgh) , and subways ( Seat t le, Bost on in lat e 2004) . The only applicat ion in t he Unit ed St at es of running way guidance occurred in Las Vegas wit h opt ical guidance used t o provide precision docking at st at ions. The use of unique running way m arkings t o different iat e BRT running ways was rare, wit h t he use of signing and st riping t he m ost com m on form . This suggest s t hat art iculat ion of brand ident it y t o running ways is st ill not yet widespread.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 1

5. Conclusions

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

Stations There has been a broad range of sophist icat ion and design at t ent ion in BRT st at ions. Alm ost universally, BRT st at ion designs are significant ly different t han t hose of st andard local bus st ops, while t he level of invest m ent in t he st at ions has generally been relat ed t o t he level of invest m ent in running way infrast ruct ure. Exclusive t ransit ways are m ost oft en paired wit h t he m ost ext ensive and elaborat e st at ion infrast ruct ure. Most syst em s incorporat ed st at ions designed t o allow passing of vehicles at st at ions t hrough t he use of eit her adj acent m ixed flow lanes or passing lanes. Only one syst em in t he Unit ed St at es has plat form s high enough t o allow level boarding ( Nort h Las Vegas MAX) . The m ix of st at ion am enit ies varied across syst em s. The m ost com m on st at ion am enit ies were seat ing and t rash recept acles. Many syst em s ( e.g., Los Angeles Met ro Rapid, Bost on’s Silver Line, Las Vegas MAX, and AC Transit ’s Rapid Bus Syst em ) have real- t im e schedule and/ or vehicle arrival inform at ion. Com m unicat ions infrast ruct ure such as public t elephones and em ergency t elephones are st art ing t o be inst alled in syst em s. Most syst em s have int erm odal t ransfer facilit ies where t here are specially designed int erfaces wit h ot her bus services and rapid rail syst em s ( e.g., Los Angeles, Miam i) . St at ions including park and ride facilit ies are generally part of syst em s wit h exclusive t ransit ways ( e.g., Miam i- Dade Sout h Busway, Pit t sburgh Busways) .

Vehicles Early BRT syst em s used st andard vehicles t hat were oft en ident ical t o t he rest of a part icular agency’s fleet . A m ix of st andard and art iculat ed vehicles reflect s t he different levels of dem and and capacit y requirem ent s across BRT syst em s. Three syst em s, Los Angeles Met ro Rapid, AC Transit ’s Rapid Bus, and Bost on’s Silver Line, began operat ion wit h st andard size 40- foot buses wit h and are phasing in 60- foot art iculat ed buses as dem and grows. The use of vehicle configurat ions or aest het ic enhancem ent s t o different iat e BRT is gaining m om ent um . Som e agencies have recent ly added different iat ed liveries, logos, and color t o t hese vehicles as a way t o different iat e BRT service from ot her service. As agencies becom e m ore conscious of t he visual im pact of vehicles, t hey are slowly incorporat ing St ylized versions of t heir Convent ional St andard and Art iculat ed vehicles. The only case of t he use of a Specialized BRT Vehicle is in Las Vegas.

Fare Collection Use of alt ernat e fare collect ion processes has been rare in t he Unit ed St at es. The only im plem ent at ion of anyt hing ot her t han a Pay On- Board process is t he proof- of- paym ent syst em associat ed wit h t he Las Vegas MAX syst em . Anecdot al observat ions suggest t hat Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 2

5. Conclusions

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

t he dwell t im es at high dem and st at ions of som e BRT syst em s has increased significant ly as dem and for BRT syst em s has grown. Over- all running t im es and reliabilit y, t herefore, have been negat ively affect ed. This indicat es an opport unit y t o int roduce fare collect ion processes t hat allow for m ult iple- door boarding. Elect ronic fare collect ion using m agnet ic- st ripe cards or sm art cards is slowly being incorporat ed int o BRT syst em s, but im plem ent at ion is largely driven by agency- wide im plem ent at ion rat her t han BRT- specific im plem ent at ion. Sm art cards are gaining wider applicat ion t han m agnet ic- st ripe cards am ong BRT syst em s.

ITS The m ost com m on I TS applicat ions include Transit Signal Priorit y, Advanced Com m unicat ion Syst em s, Aut om at ed Scheduling and Dispat ch Syst em s, and Real- Tim e Traveler I nform at ion at St at ions and on Vehicles. I nst allat ion of Securit y Syst em s such as em ergency t elephones at st at ions and closed circuit video m onit oring is rare, but increasing as newer, m ore com prehensive syst em s are im plem ent ed.

Service and Operating Plans I n general, t he st ruct ure of t he rout es correlat ed wit h t he degree of running way exclusivit y. The service plan for syst em s using at - grade art erial lanes, eit her in m ixed flow or designat ed lanes generally incorporat ed a single BRT rout e replacing an exist ing local rout e or a single BRT rout e following t he sam e rout e as a local rout e, which has it s frequency reduced. For exam ple, AC Transit ’s Rapid Bus, Las Vegas RTC’s MAX, Los Angeles Met ro’s Met ro Rapid have a single BRT rout e overlaid on a local rout e. St at ion spacing, generally bet ween 0.5 and 1.0 m iles for t he BRT rout e, was higher t han t hat of t he local rout e. Service plans for syst em s t hat use exclusive t ransit ways ( Miam i- Dade’s at - grade Sout h Busway and Pit t sburgh’s grade- separat ed t ransit ways) are operat ed wit h int egrat ed net works of rout es t hat include rout es t hat serve all st ops and a variet y of feeders and expresses wit h int egrat ed off- line and line- haul operat ion. Service frequencies correlat ed wit h dem and in t he respect ive corridors. I ndividual BRT syst em s on art erials operat ed wit h headways bet ween 5 and 15, wit h Bost on and Los Angeles operat ing short er com bined headways in som e corridors. Services operat ing on Pit t sburgh’s exclusive running ways have t he lowest com bined headways observed in t he Unit ed St at es for BRT, approxim at ely 1 m inut e along t he t runk t ransit way at t he m axim um load point .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 3

5. Conclusions

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

5.1.2 Summary of BRT Performance Travel Time Wit h respect t o t ot al BRT t ravel t im es, BRT proj ect s wit h m ore exclusive running ways generally experienced t he great est t ravel t im e savings com pared t o t he local bus rout e. Exclusive t ransit way proj ect s operat ed at a t ravel t im e rat e of 2 t o 3.5 m inut es per m ile ( bet ween 17 and 30 m iles per hour) . Art erial BRT proj ect s in m ixed flow t raffic or designat ed lanes operat ed bet ween 3.5 and 5 m inut es per m ile ( bet ween 12 and 17 m iles per hour) . Perform ance in reliabilit y also dem onst rat ed a sim ilar pat t ern.

Reliability As expect ed, syst em s wit h m ore exclusive t ransit ways dem onst rat ed t he m ost reliabilit y and t he least schedule variabilit y and bunching. The abilit y t o t rack reliabilit y changes has been lim it ed by t he fact t hat m ost t ransit agencies do not regularly m easure t his perform ance at t ribut e. Passenger surveys, however, indicat e t hat reliabilit y is im port ant for at t ract ing and ret aining passengers. New aut om at ed vehicle locat ion syst em s, m ay allow for t he obj ect ive and conclusive m easurem ent of reliabilit y.

Image and Identity Perform ance in achieving a dist inct brand ident it y for BRT has been m easured by in- dept h passenger surveys. The m ore successful BRT syst em s have been able t o achieve a dist inct ident it y and posit ion in t he respect ive region’s fam ily of t ransit services. BRT passengers generally had higher cust om er sat isfact ion and rat ed service qualit y higher for BRT syst em s t han for t heir parallel local t ransit services.

Safety and Security Dat a m easuring t he difference in safet y and securit y of BRT syst em s as com pared wit h t he rest of t he respect ive region’s t ransit syst em have not been collect ed. Drawing conclusions about t he efficacy of BRT elem ent s in prom ot ing safet y and securit y is t herefore prem at ure. Dat a from Pit t sburgh suggest t hat BRT operat ions on exclusive t ransit ways have significant ly fewer accident s per unit ( vehicle m ile or vehicle hour) of service t han convent ional local t ransit operat ions in m ixed t raffic. Cust om er percept ions of “ personal safet y” or securit y reveal t hat cust om ers perceive BRT syst em s t o be safer t han t he rest of t he t ransit syst em .

Capacity For virt ually all BRT syst em s im plem ent ed in t he Unit ed St at es, capacit y has not been an issue. To dat e, none of t hem have been operat ed at t heir m axim um capacit y. On all

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 4

5. Conclusions

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

syst em s, t here is significant room t o expand operat ed capacit y by operat ing larger vehicles, higher frequencies, or bot h.

5.1.3 Summary of BRT System Benefit Experience Ridership There have been significant increases in t ransit ridership in virt ually all corridors where BRT has been im plem ent ed. Though m uch of t he ridership increases have com e from passengers form erly using parallel service in ot her corridors, passenger surveys have revealed t hat m uch of t he increased num ber of t rips have been m ade by individuals t hat used t o drive or be driven, passengers t hat use t o m ake t he sam e t rip by walking ( e.g., t he Bost on’s Silver Line Phase I ) and by passengers t aking advant age of BRT’s im proved level of service t o m ake t rips t hat were not m ade by any m ode previously. I ncreases in BRT ridership have com e from bot h individuals t hat used t o use t ransit and t ot ally new t ransit users t hat have access t o aut om obiles. Aggregat e analyses of ridership survey result s suggest t wo conclusions: The ridership im pact of BRT im plem ent at ion has been com parable t o t hat experienced wit h LRT invest m ent of sim ilar scope and com plexit y The ridership increases due t o BRT im plem ent at ion exceed t hose t hat would be expect ed as t he result of sim ple level of service im provem ent s. The im plicat ion here is t hat t he ident it y and passenger inform at ion advant ages of BRT are seen posit ively by pot ent ial BRT cust om ers when t hey m ake t heir t ravel decisions.

Capital Cost Effectiveness BRT dem onst rat es relat ively low capit al cost s per m ile of invest m ent . I t is wort h not ing, however, t hat recent ly im plem ent ed BRT syst em s have focused on less capit al- int ensive invest m ent s. More capit al int ensive invest m ent s will begin service in t he next few years. Depending on t he operat ing environm ent , BRT syst em s are able t o achieve service qualit y im provem ent s ( such as t ravel t im e savings of 15 t o 25 percent and increases in reliabilit y) and ridership gains t hat com pare favorably t o t he capit al cost s and t he short am ount of t im e t o im plem ent BRT syst em s. Furt herm ore, BRT syst em s are able t o operat e wit h lower rat ios of vehicles com pared t o t ot al passengers.

Operating Cost Efficiency BRT syst em s are able t o int roduce higher operat ing efficiency and service product ivit y int o for t ransit syst em s t hat incorporat e t hem . Experience shows t hat when BRT is int roduced

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 5

5. Conclusions

Sum m ary of BRT Experience

int o corridors and passengers are allowed t o choose BRT service, corridor perform ance indicat ors ( such as passengers per revenue hour, subsidy per passenger m ile, and subsidy per passenger) im prove. Furt herm ore, t ravel t im e savings and higher reliabilit y enables t ransit agencies t o operat e m ore vehicle m iles of service from each vehicle hour operat ed.

Transit-Supportive Land Development I n places where t here has been significant invest m ent in t ransit infrast ruct ure and relat ed st reet scape im provem ent s ( e.g., Bost on, Pit t sburgh, Ot t awa, Vancouver) , t here have been significant posit ive developm ent effect s. I n som e cases, t he developm ent has been adj acent t o t ransit t o t he t ransit facilit y, while in ot her places t he developm ent has been int egrat ed wit h t he t ransit st at ions. Experience is not yet widespread enough t o draw conclusions on t he fact ors t hat would result in even great er developm ent benefit s from BRT invest m ent , alt hough t he research on linking t ransit and land developm ent , in general, can provide a useful foundat ion of knowledge.

Environmental Quality Docum ent at ion of t he environm ent al im pact s of BRT syst em s is rare. Experience does show t hat t here is im provem ent t o environm ent al qualit y due t o a num ber of fact ors. Ridership gains suggest t hat som e form er aut om obile users are using t ransit as a result of BRT im plem ent at ion. Transit agencies are serving passengers wit h fewer hours of operat ion, pot ent ial reducing em issions. Most im port ant ly, t ransit agencies are adopt ing vehicles wit h alt ernat ive fuels, propulsion syst em s, and pollut ant em issions cont rols. Progress in reducing em issions of part iculat e m at t er and oxides of nit rogen is on pace t o m eet st andards im posed by t he Unit ed St at es Environm ent al Prot ect ion Agency.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 6

5. Conclusions

5 .2

Sust aining t he Charact erist ics of BRT

SU ST AI N I N G T H E CH ARACT ERI ST I CS OF BU S RAPI D T RAN SI T FOR DECI SI ON -M AK I N G REPORT

The Cha r a ct e r ist ics of Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit for D e cision - M a k ing report present s a useful com pendium of inform at ion for support ing BRT planning, design and operat ions. This edit ion of CBRT present s a single snapshot of t he collect ive experience of BRT, which, in t he Unit ed St at es, is j ust beginning. I n order t o sust ain t he ut ilit y of CBRT as a key BRT inform at ion source, CBRT m ust incorporat e inform at ion from fut ure BRT applicat ions and several different research and developm ent act ivit ies.

5.2.1 Supplemental Evaluation of Operating BRT Projects The CBRT builds upon a t radit ion of research on t he im plem ent at ion of BRT elem ent s and BRT proj ect s. FTA has com plet ed evaluat ion effort s for BRT proj ect s in Pit t sburgh ( Mart in Lut her King Jr. Busway and West Busway) , Miam i, and Orlando. I t has also init iat ed evaluat ion of BRT proj ect s in Bost on, Oakland, and Las Vegas. I n addit ion, proj ect im plem ent at ion agencies have com plet ed t heir own individual evaluat ion effort s. Fut ure edit ions for CBRT can incorporat e inform at ion from supplem ent al evaluat ions of operat ional syst em s. Oft en, original evaluat ions did not address specific issues or did not m easure a specific aspect of BRT. Following up an evaluat ion t o explore a new t opic ( e.g., safet y and securit y) or t o updat e previous m easurem ent s ( e.g., using new m easurem ent t ools t o charact erize reliabilit y) can provide a m ore com plet e pict ure of select BRT syst em s.

5.2.2 Evaluation of New BRT Projects BRT proj ect s current ly in developm ent can provide addit ional sources of inform at ion. least four addit ional BRT proj ect s will begin operat ion in 2005 and 2006. These include:

At

Orange Line ( Los Angeles) Euclid Corridor ( Cleveland) Phase I BRT Corridor ( Eugene, OR) Hart ford - New Brit ain Busway ( Hart ford, CT) These proj ect s represent useful cases dem onst rat ing dedicat ed art erial lanes and exclusive t ransit ways. Est ablishing baseline condit ions is crit ical for m axim izing t he usefulness of an evaluat ion.

5.2.3 Compiling Ongoing Information on Performance and Benefits I n order t o draw m ore definit ive conclusions about t he im plem ent at ion of BRT, it is oft en im port ant t o have a large set of dat a on several syst em s over a period of several years. Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 7

5. Conclusions

Sust aining t he Charact erist ics of BRT

While ot her m odes benefit from m echanism s for collect ing and report ing dat a such as t he Nat ional Transit Dat abase ( NTD) , a com m on plat form or m et hodology for collect ing and report ing BRT syst em dat a has yet t o be developed. The CBRT represent s an at t em pt t o report on BRT experience ( m aj or proj ect elem ent s, perform ance, and benefit s) in a single unified form at . Fut ure updat es can benefit from a single prot ocol for collect ing dat a on BRT. This prot ocol would em phasize t wo key qualit ies: Consist ency – dat a collect ed consist ent ly wit h com m on definit ions and com m on unit s of m easurem ent allow for effect ive com parison across proj ect s Regularit y – dat a collect ed at regular int ervals allows for a charact erizat ion of how BRT syst em s and t heir perform ance evolve over t im e Sim plicit y – collect ing dat a regularly requires t hat t he m et hods t o collect it be sim ple and easy t o underst and

5.2.4 Incorporating General Transit Research This report has drawn heavily upon general research and synt heses of experience in t ransit , including several docum ent s produced by indust ry groups such as t he Am erican Public Transport at ion Associat ion ( APTA) and program s such as t he Transit Cooperat ive Research Program ( TCRP) . The work being conduct ed under t he auspices of TCRP Proj ect A- 23A will advance research on BRT even furt her. This openness t o knowledge from t he broader t ransit com m unit y acknowledges t he not ion t hat BRT syst em s include elem ent s t hat are not exclusive t o BRT. The developm ent of BRT syst em s involves conscious int egrat ion of several t ransit elem ent s t hat can be im plem ent ed independent ly. Because t he experience in t hese elem ent s is broad, t he body of research from which CBRT draws should be j ust as broad. The CBRT can t hus serve as a focal point for t his dialogue bet ween t he t ransit research com m unit y and BRT syst em planners.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 8

5. Conclusions

Closing Rem arks

5 .3 CLOSI N G REM ARK S This edit ion of t he CBRT represent s a snapshot of BRT experience as of t he sum m er of 2004. I t cont ains a wealt h of dat a and inform at ion, but t here is m uch about BRT t hat can be explored furt her. This is why t he CBRT is int ended t o be a dynam ic docum ent , one t hat evolves along wit h t he experience of t he t ransit com m unit y wit h BRT. As t he num ber and sophist icat ion of BRT applicat ions increases, CBRT will reflect t his experience in fut ure edit ions. Dat a on syst em experience in fut ure edit ions will allow for t he analyses t o be m ore robust and for lessons learned t o be m ore definit ive. The FTA encourages t he use of CBRT as a key t ool t o dissem inat e inform at ion on t he evolut ion of BRT t o t he t ransit com m unit y.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

5- 9

Appendix A. Bibliography

BI BLI OGRAPH Y Abdel- At y, M. A., “ Using Ordered Probit Modeling t o St udy t he Effect of ATI S on Transit Ridership” , Pe r ga m on Tr a nspor t a t ion Re se a r ch Pa r t C, 2001 Baker, M., Jr. I nc., Ca pa cit y Ana lysis a n d Pe a k H ou r Loa ding for PATW AYS, Rochest er, PA, 1968 as cit ed in Pult z, S. and Koffm an, D., Th e M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g, Jr . Ea st Busw a y in Pit t sbu r gh , PA, U.S. Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Washingt on, DC, 1987 Balt es, Michael, and Dennis Hinebaugh, Nat ional Bus Rapid Transit I nst it ut e, Lynx LYM M O Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit Eva lua t ion, Federal Transit Adm inist rat ion and Florida Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Tam pa, FL, July 2003. Balt es, Michael, Vict oria Perk, Jennifer Perone, Cheryl Thole, Sou t h M ia m i- D a de Bu sw a y Syst e m Sum m a r y, Nat ional Bus Rapid Transit I nst it ut e, May 2003. Bart on- Aschm an, “ Met hodology Used in t he Fare St ruct ure St udy,” PAT Te ch n ica l M e m or a n du m , March 1982, as cit ed in Pult z, S. and Koffm an, D., Th e M a r t in Lu t h e r Kin g, Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y in Pit t sbu r gh , PA, U.S. Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Washingt on, DC, 1987 Bayliss, David, Ba ck gr ou n d Re por t for t h e Eu r ope a n Con fe r e n ce of M in ist e r s of Tr a n spor t - OECD Joint M in ist e r ia l Se ssion on Tr a n spor t a n d t he En vir onm e n t , Paris, 1989 Cam bridge Syst em at ics, I nc. in associat ion wit h Robert Cervero and David Aschauer, Econ om ic I m pa ct Ana lysis of Tr a n sit I n ve st m e n t s: Gu ide book for Pr a ct it ion e r s, TCRP Re por t 3 5 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC Chang, Jam es ( edit or) , Ronald Baker, John Collura, Jam es Dale, Larry Head, Brendon Hem ily, Miom ir I vanovic, Jam es Jarzab, Dave McCorm ick, Jon Obenberger, Loyd Sm it h, and Gloria St oppenhagen, An Ove r vie w of Tr a n sit Signa l Pr ior it y, I nt elligent Transport at ion Societ y of Am erica, Washingt on DC, July 2002 Darido, Georges, M a n a gin g Con flict s Be t w e e n t h e En vir on m e nt a n d M obilit y: The Ca se of Roa d- Ba se d Tr a n spor t a t ion a n d Air Qua lit y in M e x ico Cit y, MI T, 2000 Diaz, Roderick and Donald Schneck, Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit – An Ove r vie w , present at ion by Booz Allen Ham ilt on I nc. Washingt on, DC Fleishm an, Daniel, Carol Schweiger, David Lot t , and George Pierlot t , M u lt ipu r pose Tr a n sit Pa ym e n t M e dia , TCRP Re por t 3 2 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 1998 Gardner, G., Cornwell, P., and Cracknell, J., Th e Pe r for m a n ce of Busw a y Tr a nsit in D e ve loping Cit ie s, Tr a n spor t a nd Roa d Re se a r ch La bor a t or y Re se a r ch Re por t 3 2 9 , Depart m ent of Transport , Crowt horne, Berkshire, Unit ed Kingdom , 1991

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

A- 1

Appendix A. Bibliography

Hardin, J. and Forem an C., “ Synt hesis of Securem ent Devise Opt ions and St rat egies” , Ce n t e r for Ur ba n Tr a n spor t a t ion Re se a r ch, Universit y of Sout h Florida, Tam pa, FL, 2002. Hum phrey, Thom as, Se le ct e d Re su lt s of Silve r Lin e Su r ve y, m em orandum t o Massachuset t s Bay Transport at ion Aut horit y, Cent ral Transport at ion Planning St aff, Bost on, MA, Decem ber 2003. Jacques, Kevin St . and Herbert S. Levinson, Ope r a t iona l Ana lysis of Bu s La ne s on Ar t e r ia ls, TCRP Re por t 2 6 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 1997 King, R., N e w D e sign s a nd Ope r a t ing Ex pe r ie nce s w it h Low - Floor Bu se s, TCRP Re por t 4 1 , Colum bus, Ohio, 1998, Execut ive Sum m ary Kit t elson & Associat es, I nc. assist ed by KFH Group, I nc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, I nc., and Dr. Kat herine Hunt er- Zaworski, Tr a n sit Ca pa cit y a n d Qua lit y of Se r vice M a n u a l, 2 n d Edit ion , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC Kit t elson & Associat es, I nc. in associat ion wit h Texas Transport at ion I nst it ut e and Transport Consult ing Lim it ed, Tr a n sit Ca pa cit y a n d Qu a lit y of Se r vice M a nu a l, 1 st Edit ion , TCRP Re por t 1 0 0 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC Levinson, Herbert , “ Bus Rapid Transit on Cit y St reet s, How Does I t Work,” prepared for Second Urban St reet Sym posium , Anaheim , CA, July 2003 Levinson, Herbert , Sam uel Zim m erm an, Jennifer Clinger, Scot t Rut herford, Rodney L. Sm it h, John Cracknell and Richard Soberm an, Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit : Ca se St udie s in Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit , TCRP Re por t 9 0 - Volum e I , 2003 Levinson, Herbert , Sam uel Zim m erm an, Jennifer Clinger, Jam es Gast , Scot t Rut herford, and Eric Bruhn, Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit - I m ple m e n t a t ion Gu ide lin e s, TCRP Re por t 9 0 Volu m e I I , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 2003 Lobron, Richard, “ Developing a Recom m ended St andard for Aut om at ed Fare Collect ion for Transit ” , TCRP Re se a r ch Re su lt s D ige st 5 7 , 2003 Lusk, Anne, Bu s a n d Bu s St op D e sign s Re la t e d t o Pe r ce pt ions of Cr im e, FTA MI - 267004- 2001.1 McNally, R.A., Hom ayoun Vahidi, Susan Spencer, and Keenan Kit asaka, 9 8 B- Line Bus Ra pid Tr a nsit Eva lua t ion St udy, I BI and Translink, Sept em ber 29, 2003. Milligan & Com pany, Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit Eva lu a t ion of Por t Au t h or it y of Alle gh e n y Cou n t y’s W e st Bu sw a y Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit Pr oj e ct , U.S. Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Washingt on, DC, April 2003 Mult isyst em s I nc. in collaborat ion wit h Dove Associat es I nc. and Mundle & Associat es, I nc., “ Mult ipurpose Fare Media - Developm ent s and I ssues” , TCRP Re se a r ch Re su lt s D ige st 1 6 , 1997

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

A- 2

Appendix A. Bibliography

Mult isyst em s, I nc. in associat ion wit h Mundle & Associat es, I nc. and Parsons Transport at ion Group, A Toolk it for Se lf- Se r vice , Ba r r ie r - Fr e e Fa r e Colle ct ion , TCRP Re por t 8 0 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 2002 Mult isyst em s, I nc. in associat ion wit h Mundle & Associat es, I nc. and Sim on & Sim on Research and Associat es, I nc., Fa r e Policie s, St r u ct u r e s, a n d Te ch n ologie s Upda t e , TCRP Re por t 9 4 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 2003 Proj ect for Public Spaces, I nc. wit h Mult isyst em s, I nc., Th e Role of Tr a n sit Am e n it ie s a n d Ve h icle Cha r a ct e r ist ics in Bu ilding Tr a n sit Ride r sh ip: Am e n it ie s in Tr a n sit H a ndbook a n d Th e Tr a n sit D e sign Ga m e w or k book , TCRP Re por t 4 6 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC Pult z, Susan and David Koffm an, Th e M a r t in Lu t h e r King, Jr . Ea st Bu sw a y in Pit t sbu r gh, PA, U.S. Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Washingt on, DC, 1987 Rut enberg, Uwe and Brendon Hem ily, Use of Re a r - Fa cing Posit ion for Com m on W h e e lcha ir s on Tr a nsit Bu sin e ss, TCRP Syn t h e sis 5 0 , A Syn t he sis of Tr a nsit Pr a ct ice , Transport at ion Research Board, 2003 Ryus, Paul, Marlene Connor, Sam Corbet t , Alan Rodenst ein, Laurie Wargelin, Luis Ferreira, Yuko Nakanishi, and Kelly Blum e, A Gu ide book for D e ve lopin g a Tr a n sit Pe r for m a nce - M e a su r e m e n t Syst e m , TCRP Re por t 8 8 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC,2003 Schweiger, Carol, Re a l Tim e Bu s Ar r iva l I n for m a t ion Syst e m s, TCRP Syn t he sis 4 8 , 2003 Shapiro, Hasset t and Arnold, Con se r vin g En e r gy a nd Pr e se r ving t h e En vir onm e n t : Th e Role of Public Tr a n spor t a t ion, APTA report , 2002 St ern, Richard, Bu s Tr a n sit Fa r e Colle ct ion Pr a ct ice s, TCRP Syn t h e sis of Tr a n sit Pr a ct ice 2 6 , Transport at ion Research Board, Washingt on, DC, 1997 Syed, S. J. and Khan, A. M., “ Fact or Analysis for t he St udy of Det erm inant s of Public Transit Ridership”, Jou r na l of Pu blic Tr a n spor t a t ion , 2000 Transport at ion Managem ent & Design, I nc., Fin a l Re por t , Los An ge le s M e t r o Ra pid D e m on st r a t ion Pr ogr a m , Los Angeles Count y Met ropolit an Transport at ion Aut horit y and Los Angeles Depart m ent of Transport at ion, Los Angeles, CA March 2002. Weat herford, M., Cast le Rock Consult ant s, Asse ssm e n t of t h e D e nve r Re giona l Tr a n spor t a t ion D ist r ict ’s Au t om a t ic Ve h icle Loca t ion Syst e m , Volpe Nat ional Transport at ion Syst em s Cent er, Cam bridge, MA, August 2000 Wilson, Tom , Ade la ide ’s O- Ba hn Bu sw a y, Gu idin g Tr a n spor t int o t h e Fut u r e , Passenger Transport Board, Decem ber 8, 1999

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

A- 3

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

GLOSSARY OF T ERM S RELAT ED T O BRT TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Aligh t in g

When a passenger exit s a vehicle.

Ar t icu la t e d Bu s

A bus com posed of t wo vehicle sect ions connect ed by an art iculat ed j oint . An art iculat ed bus has a higher passenger capacit y t han a st andard bus.

Au t om a t e d Pa sse nge r Coun t e r ( APC)

Technology t hat count s passengers aut om at ically when t hey board and alight vehicles. APC t echnologies include t readle m at s ( regist ers passengers when t hey st ep on a m at ) and infrared beam s ( regist ers passengers when t hey pass t hrough t he beam ) . APC is used t o reduce t he cost s of dat a collect ion and t o im prove dat a accuracy.

Au t om a t e d Ve h icle Loca t ion ( AVL)

Technology used t o m onit or bus locat ions on t he st reet net work in real- t im e. AVL is used t o im prove bus dispat ch and operat ion, and allow for quicker response t im e t o service disrupt ions and em ergencies.

Ba r r ie r Enfor ce d Fa r e Pa ym e nt Syst e m

A fare collect ion syst em ( process) where passengers pay fares in order t o pass t hrough t urnst iles or gat es prior t o boarding t he vehicle. This is done t o reduce vehicle dwell t im es.

Ba r r ie r - Fr e e Pr oofof- Pa ym e nt ( POP) Syst e m

A fare collect ion syst em ( process) where passengers purchase fare m edia before boarding t he vehicle, and are required t o carry proof of valid fare paym ent while on- board t he vehicle. Roving vehicle inspect ors verify t hat passengers have paid t heir fare. This is done t o reduce vehicle dwell t im es.

Boa r din g

When a passenger ent ers a vehicle.

Br a n din g

The use of st rat egies t o different iat e a part icular product from ot her product s, in order t o st rengt hen it s ident it y. I n t he cont ext of BRT syst em s, branding oft en involves t he int roduct ion of elem ent s t o im prove perform ance and different iat e BRT syst em s such as t he use of vehicles wit h a different appearance from st andard bus services, dist inct st at ion archit ect ure and t he use of dist inct visual m arkers such as color schem es and logos.

Br a nd I de n t it y

Represent s how a part icular product is viewed am ong t he set of ot her product opt ions available. I n t he cont ext of BRT syst em s, brand ident it y is necessary so t hat passengers dist inguish BRT services from ot her t ransit services.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 1

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Bu s Bu lb

Where a sect ion of sidewalk ext ends from t he curb of a parking lane t o t he edge of an int ersect ion or off- set t hrough lane. This creat es addit ional space for passenger am enit ies at st at ions, reduces st reet crossing dist ances for pedest rians, and elim inat es lat eral m ovem ent s of buses t o ent er and leave st at ions. However, t his m ay also produce t raffic queues behind st opped buses.

Bu s Ra pid Tr a n sit ( BRT)

A flexible, rubber- t ired form of rapid t ransit t hat com bines st at ions, vehicles, running way, and I TS elem ent s int o an int egrat ed syst em wit h a st rong ident it y. BRT applicat ions are designed t o be appropriat e t o t he m arket t hey serve and t heir physical surroundings. BRT can be im plem ent ed in a variet y of environm ent s, ranging from right s of way t ot ally dedicat ed t o t ransit ( surface, elevat ed, or underground) t o m ixed t raffic right s of way on st reet s and highways.

Bu s St r e e t

St reet t hat is dedicat ed t o bus use only.

Ca pa cit y

The m axim um num ber of passengers t hat could be served by a BRT syst em .

Ca pa cit y, Pe r son

The m axim um num ber of passengers t hat can be carried along t he crit ical sect ion of t he BRT rout e during a given period of t im e, under specified operat ing condit ions, wit hout unreasonable delay, hazard, or rest rict ion and wit h reasonable cert aint y.

Ca pa cit y, of Fa cilit ie s

The num ber of vehicles per period of t im e t hat use a specific facilit y ( i.e., running way or st at ion) .

Ca pa cit y, of Ve hicle

The m axim um num ber of seat ed and st anding passengers t hat a vehicle can safely and com fort ably accom m odat e. This is det erm ined by t he vehicle configurat ion.

Con t e x t u a l D e sign

How well a BRT syst em dem onst rat es a prem ium , qualit y design and is int egrat ed wit h t he surrounding com m unit ies.

Dem and

The act ual num ber of passengers at t ract ed t o use a BRT syst em .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 2

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

D e signa t e d La ne

A lane reserved for t he exclusive use of BRT or t ransit vehicles. Dedicat ed lanes can be locat ed in different posit ions relat ive t o t he art erial st reet and are classified accordingly: Concurrent Flow Curb – Next t o t he curb, used by buses t o t ravel in t he sam e direct ion as t he adj acent lane. Concurrent Flow I nt erior – Bet ween curb parking and t he adj acent t ravel lane, used by t ransit vehicles t o t ravel in t he sam e direct ion as t he adj acent t ravel lane. This is done in sit uat ions where curb parking is t o be ret ained. Cont raflow Curb – Locat ed next t o t he curb, used by t ransit vehicles t o t ravel in t he opposit e direct ion of t he norm al t raffic flow. Could be used on one- way st reet s, or for a single block on t wo- way st reet s t o enable buses t o reverse direct ion. Median – Wit hin t he cent er of a t wo- way st reet .

D ua l- M ode Pr opu lsion

A propulsion syst em s t hat offers t he capabilit y t o operat e wit h t wo different m odes, usually as a t herm al ( int ernal com bust ion) engine and in elect ric ( e.g., t rolley) m ode

D w e ll Tim e

The t im e associat ed wit h a vehicle being st opped at a curb or st at ion for t he boarding and alight ing of passengers. BRT syst em s oft en int end t o reduce dwell t im es t o t he ext ent possible, t hrough such st rat egies as plat form height , plat form layout , vehicle configurat ion, passenger circulat ion enhancem ent s, and t he fare collect ion process.

D w e ll Tim e Re lia bilit y

Abilit y t o m aint ain consist ent dwell t im es at st at ions. BRT syst em s oft en int end t o im prove dwell t im e reliabilit ies t o t he ext ent possible, t hrough such st rat egies as plat form height , plat form layout , vehicle configurat ion, passenger circulat ion enhancem ent s, and t he fare collect ion process.

D r ive r Assist a nd Au t om a t ion Te ch nology

Form of t echnology t hat provides aut om at ed cont rols for BRT vehicles. Exam ples include collision warning, precision docking, and vehicle guidance syst em s.

Fa r e St r u ct u r e

Est ablishes t he ways t hat fares are assessed and paid. The t wo basic t ypes of fare st ruct ures are flat fares ( sam e fare regardless of dist ance or qualit y of service) and different iat ed fares ( fare depends on lengt h of t rip, t im e of day, and/ or t ype of service) .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 3

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Fa r e Tr a n sa ct ion M e dia

Type of m edia used for fare paym ent . Exam ples include cash ( coins and bills) , t okens, paper m edia ( t icket s, t ransfers, flash passes) , m agnet ic st ripe m edia, and sm art cards. Elect ronic fare t ransact ion m edia ( i.e., m agnet ic st ripe m edia or sm art cards) can reduce dwell t im es and fare collect ion cost s, increase cust om er convenience, and im prove dat a collect ion.

Globa l Posit ion ing Syst e m ( GPS)

The use of sat ellit es and t ransponders t o locat e obj ect s on t he eart h’s surface. GPS is a widely used t echnology for AVL syst em s.

H igh Occupa n cy Ve h icle ( H OV) La ne

A st reet or highway lane designat ed for use by vehicles wit h m ore t han one passenger only, including buses. HOV lanes are oft en used on freeways.

H ybr id- Ele ct r ic D r ive

A propulsion syst em using bot h an int ernal com bust ion engine and elect ric drives t hat incorporat es an on- board energy st orage device.

I n t e llige n t Tr a n spor t a t ion Syst e m s ( I TS)

Advanced t ransport at ion t echnologies t hat are usually applied t o im prove t ransport at ion syst em capacit y or t o provide t ravelers wit h im proved t ravel inform at ion. Exam ples of I TS applicat ions wit h relevance t o BRT syst em s include vehicle priorit izat ion, driver assist and aut om at ion t echnology, operat ions m anagem ent t echnology, passenger inform at ion, safet y and securit y t echnology, and support t echnologies.

I nternal Com bust ion En gin e ( Th e r m a l En gine )

An engine t hat operat es by burning it s fuel inside t he engine. Com bust ion engines use t he pressure creat ed by t he expansion of t he gases t o provide energy for t he vehicle. I CEs t ypically use fuels such as diesel or nat ural gas ( in eit her com pressed gas or liquefied form ) .

Le ve l Boa r ding

An int erface bet ween st at ion plat form and vehicle t hat m inim izes t he horizont al and vert ical gap bet ween t he plat form edge and t he vehicle door area, which speeds up passenger boarding/ alight ing t im es and does not require t he use of wheelchair lift s or ram ps. Level boarding is oft en done t hrough t he use of st at ion plat form s and low- floor vehicles.

Low - Floor Ve h icle

A vehicle designed wit h a lower floor ( approxim at ely 14 inches from pavem ent ) , wit hout st airs or a wheelchair lift . Use of low floor vehicles could be done in com binat ion wit h st at ion plat form s t o enable level boarding, or could be done st and- alone such t hat passengers are required t o t ake one st ep up or use a wheelchair ram p t o board t he vehicle.

M u lt iple - D oor Boa r din g

Passengers are allowed t o board t he vehicle at m ore t han one door, which speeds up boarding t im es. This t ypically requires off- board fare collect ion.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 4

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Ope r a t ions M a n a ge m e n t Te ch nology

Aut om at ion m et hods t hat enhance t he m anagem ent of BRT fleet s t o im prove operat ing efficiencies, support service reliabilit y, and/ or reduce t ravel t im es. Exam ples include aut om at ed scheduling dispat ch, vehicle m echanical m onit oring and m aint enance, and vehicle t racking syst em s.

Pa ssing Ca pa bilit y

The abilit y for vehicles in service t o pass one anot her. Bus pullout s and passing lanes at st at ions are t wo prim ary w ays t o enhance passing capabilit y for a BRT syst em .

Pa sse nge r Cir cu la t ion En h a n ce m e n t

Feat ures t hat govern passenger accessibilit y t o vehicles and circulat ion wit hin vehicles. Exam ples include alt ernat ive seat layout s, addit ional door channels, and enhanced wheelchair securem ent s.

Pa sse nge r I n for m a t ion Syst e m

Technologies t hat provide inform at ion t o t ravelers t o im prove cust om er sat isfact ion. The m ost com m on applicat ion relevant t o BRT syst em s is t he real- t im e provision of inform at ion pert aining t o schedules, wait t im es, and delays t o passengers at st at ions or on- board vehicles using variable m essage signs and an aut om at ed vehicle locat ion t echnology.

Pa y On- Boa r d Syst e m

A fare collect ion syst em ( process) Passengers pay fares onboard t he vehicle at t he farebox, or display valid fare m edia t o t he bus operat or.

Pla t for m

A st at ion area used for passenger boarding and alight ing. A side plat form is adj acent t o t he curb or a running way. A cent er plat form is locat ed bet ween t he vehicle running way and t he cent er of t he running way, or m edian; t his is less com m on because it requires non- st andard vehicle door locat ions.

Pla t for m H e igh t

Height of t he plat form relat ive t o t he running way. The t hree basic opt ions for plat form height are t he st andard curb, t he raised curb, and t he level plat form .

Pla t for m La yout

Design of t he plat form wit h respect t o vehicle accom m odat ion. The t hree basic opt ions for plat form layout are t he single vehicle lengt h plat form , t he ext ended ( i.e., m ult iple vehicle) plat form wit h un- assigned bert hs, and t he ext ended plat form wit h assigned bert hs.

Pr e cision D ock in g Syst e m

A guidance syst em used t o accurat ely st eer vehicles int o alignm ent wit h st at ion plat form s or curbs. These m ay be m agnet ic or opt ical- based, and require t he inst allat ion of m arkings on t he pavem ent ( paint or m agnet s) , vehicle- based sensors t o read t he m arkings, and linkages wit h t he vehicle st eering syst em .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 5

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Pr opu lsion Syst e m , Ve h icle Pr opu lsion Syst e m

The m eans of delivering power t o enable vehicle m ovem ent . The m ost com m on propulsion syst em s for BRT vehicles include int ernal com bust ion engines fueled by diesel or com pressed nat ural gas, elect ric drives powered by t he use of an overhead cat enary, and hybrid- elect ric drives wit h an on- board energy st orage device. The choice of propulsion syst em affect s vehicle capit al cost s, vehicle operat ing and m aint enance cost s, vehicle perform ance, ride qualit y, and environm ent al im pact s.

Qu e ue Jum pe r

A designat ed lane segm ent or t raffic signal t reat m ent at signalized locat ions or ot her locat ions where t raffic backs up. Transit vehicles use t his lane segm ent t o bypass t raffic queues ( i.e., t raffic backups) . A queue j um per m ay or m ay not be shared wit h t urning t raffic.

Rout e Le ngt h

The lengt h of t he rout e affect s what locat ions t he rout e serves and t he resources required t o operat e t hat rout e.

Rout e St r uct u r e

How st at ions and running ways are used t o accom m odat e different vehicles t hat could pot ent ially be serving different rout es.

Ru n n in g Tim e

Tim e t hat vehicles spend m oving from st at ion t o st at ion along t he running way. BRT syst em s are designed t o reduce running t im es t o t he ext ent possible, t hrough such st rat egies as running way segregat ion, passing capabilit y, st at ion spacing, I TS, and schedule cont rol.

Ru n n in g Tim e Re lia bilit y

Abilit y t o m aint ain consist ent running t im es along a rout e. BRT syst em s are designed t o im prove running t im e reliabilit ies t o t he ext ent possible, t hrough such st rat egies as running way segregat ion, passing capabilit y, st at ion spacing, I TS, and schedule cont rol.

Ru n n in g W a y

The space wit hin which t he vehicle operat es. For BRT syst em s, t he running way could be a fully grade- separat ed exclusive t ransit way, an at - grade t ransit way, a designat ed art erial lane, or a m ixed flow lane. BRT vehicles need not operat e in a single t ype of running way for t he ent ire rout e lengt h.

Ru n n in g W a y M a r k in g

The visible different iat ion of t he running ways used by BRT vehicles from ot her running ways. Signage and st riping, raised lane delineat ors, and alt ernat e pavem ent color/ t ext ure represent t hree m aj or t echniques.

Ru n n in g W a y Se gr e ga t ion

Level of segregat ion, or separat ion, of BRT vehicles from general t raffic. A fully grade- separat ed exclusive t ransit way for BRT vehicles represent s t he highest level of segregat ion, followed by an at - grade t ransit way ( second highest ) ; a designat ed art erial lane ( t hird highest ) ; and a m ixed flow lane ( lowest ) .

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 6

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Sa fe t y a n d Se cu r it y Te ch nology

Syst em s t hat enhance t he safet y and securit y of t ransit operat ions. Exam ples include silent alarm s on t he vehicle t hat can be act ivat ed by t he driver, and voice and/ or video surveillance m onit oring syst em s in st at ions or on- board vehicles.

Sch e du le Con t r ol

How vehicle on- t im e perform ance is m onit ored, eit her t o m eet specified schedules or t o regulat e headways. Headway- based cont rol is m ore com m on for very high frequency rout es.

Se r vice Fr e qu e n cy

The int erval of t im e bet ween in- service vehicles on a part icular rout e. Det erm ines how long passengers m ust wait at st at ions, and t he num ber of vehicles required t o serve a part icular rout e. Service frequencies for BRT syst em s are t ypically high relat ive t o st andard bus services.

Se r vice Re lia bilit y

Qualit at ive charact erist ics relat ed t o t he abilit y of a t ransit operat ion t o provide service t hat is consist ent wit h it s plans and policies and t he expect at ions of it s cust om ers.

Se r vice Spa n

The period of t im e t hat a service is available t o passengers. Exam ples include all day service and peak hour only service.

Signa l Tim ing/ Pha sing

I nvolves changes t o t he norm al t raffic signal phasing and sequencing cycles in order t o provide a clear pat h for oncom ing buses.

St a t ion

Locat ion where passengers board and alight t he vehicle. The BRT st at ions can range from sim ple st ops or enhanced st ops t o , designat ed st at ion and t he int erm odal t erm inal or t ransit cent er. A st at ion oft en has m ore passenger am enit ies t han a st op ( i.e., benches, shelt ers, landscaping, t raveler inform at ion) .

St a t ion Acce ss

Means of linking st at ions wit h adj acent com m unit ies in order t o draw passengers from t heir m arket area. Exam ples include pedest rian linkages ( i.e., sidewalks, overpasses, pedest rian pat hs) and park- and- ride facilit ies.

St a t ion a nd La ne Acce ss Con t r ol

Allows vehicle access t o dedicat ed BRT running ways and st at ions wit h variable m essage signs and/ or gat e cont rol syst em s.

St a t ion Spa cin g

The spacing bet ween st at ions im pact s passenger t ravel t im es and t he num ber of locat ions served along t he rout e. St at ion spacings for BRT syst em s are t ypically fart her apart relat ive t o st andard bus services.

Su ppor t Te ch nologie s

Technologies used t o support I TS applicat ions. Exam ples include advanced com m unicat ion syst em s, archived dat a, and aut om at ed passenger count ers.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 7

Appendix B. Glossary of Term s Relat ed t o BRT

TERM

D EFI N I TI ON

Tick e t Ve ndin g M a ch in e ( TVM )

A fixed m achine t hat accept s a com binat ion of cash, st oredvalue m edia, and credit cards t o dispense valid t icket s and ot her fare m edia

Tr a n sfe r Tim e

The t im e associat ed wit h a passenger wait ing t o t ransfer bet ween part icular t ransit vehicles. The net work design det erm ines where passengers need t o m ake t ransfers. Service frequency and reliabilit y are t he prim ary det erm inant s of t ransfer t im e.

Tr a n sit Sign a l Pr ior it y

Adj ust m ent s in signal t im ing t o m inim ize delays t o buses. Passive priorit y t echniques involve changes t o exist ing signal operat ions. Act ive priorit y t echniques involve adj ust m ent s of signal t im ing aft er a bus is det ect ed ( i.e., changing a red light t o a green light or ext ending t he green t im e) .

Tr a nsit w a y / Bu sw a y

Traffic lane dedicat ed t o exclusive use of t ransit vehicles t hat is physically separat ed from ot her t raffic lanes. May or m ay not be grade separat ed.

Va lida t or

A device t hat reads a fare inst rum ent ( fare t ransact ion m edium ) t o verify if a fare paid is valid for t he t rip being t aken by t he passenger

Va r ia ble M e ssa ge Sign ( VM S)

A sign t hat provides flashing m essages t o it s readers. The m essage post ed on t he sign is variable and can be changed in real- t im e.

Ve h icle Configu r a t ion

The com binat ion of lengt h ( st andard, art iculat ed, or specialized) , body t ype ( convent ional, st ylized, or specialized) , and floor height ( st andard or low- floor) of t he vehicle. I n pract ice, BRT syst em s can use any com binat ion of different vehicle configurat ions on a single running way.

Ve h icle Guida n ce Syst e m

A guidance syst em used t o st eer vehicles on running ways while m aint aining speed. These m ay be m agnet ic, opt ical, or GPSbased, and require t he inst allat ion of m arkings on t he pavem ent ( paint or m agnet s) , vehicle- based sensors t o read t he m arkings, and linkages wit h t he vehicle st eering syst em . Guidance can be lat eral ( side- t o- side t o keep buses wit hin a specified right - ofway) or longit udinal ( t o m inim ize t he following dist ance bet ween vehicles) .

Ve h icle Pr ior it iza t ion

Met hods t o provide t ravel preference or priorit y t o BRT services. Exam ples include signal t im ing/ phasing, st at ion and lane access cont rol, and t ransit signal priorit y.

W a it Tim e

The t im e associat ed wit h a passenger wait ing at a st at ion before boarding a part icular t ransit service. Service frequency and reliabilit y are t he prim ary det erm inant s of wait t im e.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

B- 8

Appendix C. Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

SU M M ARY OF BRT SY ST EM CH ARACT ERI ST I CS Boston Silver Line

Chicago Western Avenue Express (X49)

Chicago Irving Park Express (X80)

Chicago Garfield Express (X55)

Honolulu City Express A

18.3

9.0

9.4

19.6

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

0.2 2.2

Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type Aesthetic Enhancements Passenger Circulation Enhancements

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Specialized BRT Vehicle Specialized Livery Additional Door Channels

Conventional Standard (40')

Conventional Standard (40')

Conventional Standard (40')

Conventional Articulated (60') Specialized Livery

Diesel ICE

Diesel ICE

Diesel ICE

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On Board Cash & Paper; Magnetic Stripe Flat

Advanced Communication, Auto Dispatch, AVL

AVL

AVL

AVL

Station, Telephone

Station

Station

Station

Station, Telephone, Internet

2.37 All-Stop Replacement of Local All Day

18.3

8.98

9.44

19.6

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

4

9

12

11

11

Propulsion System

ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

Cash & Paper

Fare Structure ITS Vehicle Prioritization

Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Transit Signal Priority (in 2004)

Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

C- 1

Appendix C. Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

Honolulu City Express B

Honolulu City Express C

Las Vegas North Las Vegas MAX

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Wilshire

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Ventura

7.0

30.0

2.9 4.7

25.7

16.7

Precision Docking at Stations Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Adjacent Mixed Flow Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane -

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type Aesthetic Enhancements

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

1

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Conventional Articulated (60')

Conventional Articulated (60')

Specialized BRT Vehicle Specialized Livery, Large Windows, Alternate Seat Layout, Internal Bicycle Racks

Conventional Standard (40') Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Diesel Electric Hybrid

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

Proof-of-Payment Cash, Magnetic Stripe Flat

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

ICE – Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

Fare Collection Process

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Passenger Circulation Enhancements Propulsion System

Designated Station Level Platform

Standard

Fare Collection

Fare Structure ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority Precision Docking Loop Detectors Advanced Advanced Communication, Auto Advanced Communication, Communication, AVL Dispatch, AVL AVL Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, Internet Internet Internet Internet Internet 7.0 All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

30.0 All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

7.6 All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

25.7 All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

30

30

12

9

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

16.7 All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

C- 2

Appendix C. Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Vermont

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Crenshaw

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Van Nuys

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Broadway

Los Angeles Metro Rapid Florence

11.9 -

18.8

21.4 -

10.5 -

10.3 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

-

-

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Enhanced Shelter Standard Curb

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access

1

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

ICE – CNG

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper Flat

Loop Detectors

Loop Detectors

Loop Detectors

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Loop Detectors / Infrared Sensors Station, Telephone, Internet

Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Vehicles Vehicle Type Aesthetic Enhancements Passenger Circulation Enhancements Propulsion System Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media Fare Structure ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information

Loop Detectors / Infrared Sensors Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Loop Detectors Advanced Communication, AVL Station, Telephone, Internet

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span

Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

11.9

18.8

21.4

10.5

10.3

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All-Stop Overlay onto Local

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

All Day

4

13

15

30

11

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

C- 3

Appendix C. Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

Orlando

Miami

Oakland

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

LYMMO

Busway MAX

Rapid

East Busway

South Busway

8

14.0 -

10.5 -

10.3 -

-

-

-

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance Passing Capability

3.0 -

-

Bus Pullouts

-

-

-

Enhanced Shelter

Designated Station

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

2

3

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

2 P&R Lots

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Standard, Articulated, Minis

-

Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles Vehicle Type Aesthetic Enhancements

Passenger Circulation Enhancements Propulsion System

Specialized Livery

Alternate Seat Layout ICE - Diesel

ICE – Diesel

N/A (Free Fares)

Pay on Board Cash, paper swipe card Flat

Stylized Standard Standard (40.5') Specialized Red, Specialized Livery, White and Green Large Windows Livery Additional Door Channels; Enhanced Wheelchair Securement ICE – CNG ICE – CNG

Standard Specialized Livery, Large Windows

ICE – CNG

Fare Collection Fare Collection Process Fare Media

N/A

Fare Structure

Free

Pay On-Board Cash & Paper, Smart Cards Flat

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Cash & Paper

Cash & Paper

Flat

Flat

Loop Detectors / Infrared Sensors

Loop Detectors

ITS Vehicle Prioritization

Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority

Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt.

Passenger Information

X AVL/Wi-Fi

X

Station, Internet

Station, PDA, Vehicle

Advanced Advanced Advanced Communication, Communication, AVL Communication, AVL Auto Dispatch, AVL Station, Station, Telephone, Station, Telephone, PDA, Internet Internet Vehicle

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

3

8

14.0

All-Stop Replacement of Local

All-Stop, Limited, Express

All-Stop Overlay onto Local All Day

10.5 All-Stop Parallel to Local, Express All Day

10.3 All-Stop Parallel to Local, Express All Day

All Day

All Day

5

10

12

30

11

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

C- 4

Appendix C. Sum m ary of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

Pittsburgh

Phoenix

West Busway

Rapid I-10 East

Phoenix RAPID I-10 West

Phoenix RAPID SR-51

Phoenix RAPID I-17

6.5

4.8

12.3

8.0

-

14.0

8.0

10.3

11.5

3.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes (mi.) Designated Lanes (mi.) At-Grade Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes (mi.) Guidance

-

-

-

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Bus pullouts

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Enhanced Shelter

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

Standard Curb

2

1

1

1

1

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Pedestrian Focus

Vehicle Type

Standard, Articulated, Minis

Stylized Standard

Stylized Standard

Stylized Standard

Stylized Standard

Aesthetic Enhancements

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Specialized Livery

Diesel

LNG

LNG

LNG

LNG

Passing Capability Stations Station Type Platform Height Platform Length (No. of Vehicles) Station Access Vehicles

Passenger Circulation Enhancements Propulsion System Fare Collection Fare Collection Process

N/A (Free Fares)

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Pay On-Board

Fare Media

N/A

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Cash, Mag

Fare Structure

Free

Diff

Diff

Diff

Diff

ITS Vehicle Prioritization Driver Assist and Automation Operations Mgmt. Passenger Information

AVL/Wi-Fi Station, Internet

Transit Signal Transit Signal Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority Priority at 1 Priority at 1 at 1 intersection at 1 intersection intersection intersection Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Collision Warning Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Communication, Communication, Communication, Communication, AVL/Orbital AVL/Orbital AVL/Orbital AVL/Orbital Station, Internet Station, Internet Station, Internet Station, Internet Vehicle, PDA Vehicle, PDA Vehicle, PDA Vehicle, PDA

Service Plan Route Length Route Structure Service Span Service Frequency (Peak Headway in Minutes)

3 All-Stop Parallel to Local, Express All Day 5

20.5

13

19.25

19.5

Express

Express

Express

Express

Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Weekday Peak Hour Only Only Only Only 10

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

10

10

10

C- 5

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

BRT PH OT O GALLERY The im ages in t his gallery of phot ographs present exam ples of applicat ions of BRT elem ent s t hroughout t he Unit ed St at es and around t he world. D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Mixed flow Lane operation Metro Rapid Los Angeles

Running Way – Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways East Busway Pittsburgh

Running Way – Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways El Monte Busway, Los Angeles

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 1

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways East Busway, Pittsburgh

Running Way Passing Capability Options, Passing Lanes at Stations Ottawa, Canada

Running Way – AtGrade Transitways Pittsburgh

Running Way – Bus Lanes

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 2

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Running Way Marking Coimbra blue line on cobblestone street to indicate path of transit line

Running Way – Differentiated Pavement, LYMMO, Orlando, FL

Running Way – Running Way marking – Alternative Pavement and Pavement Markings LYMMO, Orlando, FL

Running Way – Raised Running Way Delineators

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 3

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running WayRunning Way Marking Colored Pavement for Bus Lane, Wellington, New Zealand

Running Way – Running Way Marking – Alternate Pavement Color Nagoya, Japan

Running Way – Running Way Marking – Raised Lane Delineators, Guanajuato, Mexico

Running Way – Traffic Signage for Contraflow Lanes Montreal, Canada

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 4

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Traffic Signage – Orlando, FL

Running Way – Traffic Signage – Deter Autos, LYMMO, Orlando, FL

Running Way – Traffic Signage to Deter Autos, South Busway Miami-Dade, FL

Running Way – Traffic Signage to Deter Autos, South Busway, Miami-Dade, FL

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 5

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Traffic Signage to Deter Autos, Vancouver, Canada

Running Way – Traffic Signage, Silver Line, Boston, MA

Running Way – Traffic Signals, Miami-Dade, FL

Running Way and ITS – Traffic Signage and Transit Signal Priority signal Orlando, FL

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 6

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way and Stations – Rouen, France

Running Way and Stations, and Vehicle – Civis Vehicle docking at station in Rouen, France

Running Way – Guidance Optical Guidance Markers in Rouen France

Running Way – Guidance Optical Guidance Markers in Rouen France, View through Windshield of a Vehicle following a car

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 7

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way – Guidance View through Windshield following Optical Guidance Markers

Running Way – Guidance Vehicle following Optical Guidance Markers on a test track in Las Vegas

Running Way – Guidance Electromagnetic Guidance

Running Way – Guidance Mechanical Guidance

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 8

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Running Way and Vehicle – Silver Line, Boston, MA

Running Way, Station, and Vehicle – LYMMO, Orlando, FL

Station – Architecture of station at South East Busway in Brisbane, Australia

Station – Designated MAX Station, Las Vegas, NV

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 9

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Designated MAX station Las Vegas, NV

Station – Designated MAX station Las Vegas, NV

Station – Designated MAX Station Las Vegas, NV

Station – Designated MAX station with Ticket Vending Machine and Beverage Vending Las Vegas, NV

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 10

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Enhanced and modular station architecture Los Angeles Metro Rapid

Station – Enhanced and modular station architecture of Los Angeles Metro Rapid

Station – Intermodal station at Dadeland South station for transfers from the South Busway to Metrorail in MiamiDade, Florida

Station – Intermodal Terminal or Transit Center Ottawa Busway Intermodal Station

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 11

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Level Boarding Interface at station, Leeds, England

Station – LYMMO, Orlando, FL

Station – Off-theshelf station shelter in Oakland, CA

Station – Platform Layouts - Extended Platform with UnAssigned Berths Vancouver 98-B Line Station

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 12

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Standard curbs as station platform

Station – Raised Curb to facilitate passenger loading

Station – Seating

Station – Shelter at Rapid Bus Station, Oakland, CA

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 13

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Signage, MAX station, Las Vegas, NV

Station – South Busway station Miami-Dade, FL

Station – South Busway station Miami-Dade, FL

Station – Station for San Pablo Rapid Bus AC Transit

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 14

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station – Station Shelter along Washington Street, Silver Line Phase I, Boston, MA

Station – Unified design for shelter and passenger information AC Transit

Station – Designated Station Vancouver 98-B

Station Access – Park-and-Ride Facility Park-and-Ride Lot, Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 15

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Station Access – Pedestrian Linkages Walkway to Station Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County

Station Vehicle – Vehicle at Busway Station Miami-Dade, FL

Stations and Vehicles – A Low Floor Vehicle meeting the Level Boarding Platform for Prcision Docking

Vehicle Configurations – Articulated vehicle (Van Hool)

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 16

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Configurations – Civis Vehicle, Las Vegas, NV

Vehicle Configurations – Conventional Articulated New Flyer DE60LFBRT

Vehicle Configurations – Conventional Articulated NEOPLAN AN460-LF

Vehicle Configurations – Conventional Standard NABI 40 LFW Los Angeles Metro

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 17

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Configurations Invero

Vehicle Configurations SIlver Line Articulated CNG vehicle, Boston, MA

Vehicle Configurations Specialized BRT Vehicles Civis Vehicle, Las Vegas, NV

Vehicle Configurations – Stylized Articulated NABI 60 foot BRT CNG Rendering 3 door

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 18

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Configurations – Stylized Standard NABI Compobus 45C-LFW

Vehicle Configurations VanHool

Vehicle – Closeup of vehicle following Optical Guidance Markers on a test track in Las Vegas

Vehicle – Brand Identity Honolulu, HI

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 19

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle – Propulsion Systems MBTA Pilot DualMode Articulated (Neoplan)

Vehicle – Route Information on the Headsign and the Optical Guidance Scanner on the top of the vehicle

Vehicle – Advertising Paint Scheme on rear of vehicle, Vancouver, Canada

Vehicle – Automatic Vehicle Location Transponders

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 20

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle – Civis by Irisbus operating in Las Vegas

Vehicle - Coimbra open door on square

Vehicle – Driver Interfaces for Optical Guidance

Vehicle – Livery (Paint Scheme), LYMMO, Orlando

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 21

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle – Livery (Paint Scheme), Vancouver, Canada

Vehicle – New Flyer Hybrid Bus in Honolulu, HI

Vehicle – Passenger Circulation, Alternative Seat Layout

Vehicle – Rapid Bus Vehicle Oakland, CA

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 22

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle – Trolley Bus Articulated

Vehicle – Wide doors on local circulator shuttle Coimbra, Portugal

Vehicle – Wide doors that open parallel to the vehicle body

Vehicle Asthetic Enhancements – Larger Windows and Enhanced Lighting

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 23

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Asthetic Enhancements – Larger Windows and Enhanced Lighting

Vehicle Asthetic Enhancements – Specialized Logos and Livery

Vehicle Passenger Circulation Additional Door Channels Van Hool

Vehicle Passenger Circulation Enhanced Wheelchair Securement

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 24

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Propulsion Systems – MBTA Electric Trolley Bus (Neoplan)

Vehicle Propulsion Systems – Fuel Cells

Vehicle Propulsion Systems – HybridElectric Drives

Vehicle Propulsion Systems – HybridElectric Drives

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 25

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicle Propulsion Systems – Trolley, Dual Mode and Thermal-Electric Drives

Vehicles – Emission Control Diesel (Neoplan) Boston, MA MBTA

Vehicles – MiamiDade Transit vehicle livery (paint scheme)

Vehicles – Propulsion Electric Trolley Bus (Neoplan) Boston, MA MBTA

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 26

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Vehicles – Propulsion Systems MBTA Pilot DualMode Articulated (Neoplan)

Fare Collection – Barrier Enforced Fare Payment system

Fare Collection – Barrier-Free (selfservice) or Proof-ofPayment (POP) system

Fare Collection – Barrier-Free (selfservice) or Proof-ofPayment (POP) system MAX station, Las Vegas, NV

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 27

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Fare Collection – Barrier-Free (selfservice) or Proof-ofPayment (POP) system MAX station, Las Vegas, NV

Fare Collection – Barrier-Free (selfservice) or Proof-ofPayment (POP) system MAX station, Las Vegas, NV

Fare Collection – Hand-held Validator for Fare Inspection

Fare Collection – Magnetic Stripe Media.

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 28

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Fare Collection – OnBoard Fare Collection in Conventional Bus in Curitiba, Brazil

Fare Collection – OnBoard Fare Inspector

Fare Collection – Pay on-board system

Fare Collection – Smart Card

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 29

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Fare Collection – Smart Card and onboard fare validator

Fare Collection – Smart Card on a ticket vending machine (TVM) target

Fare Collection – Smart Card on a validator

Fare Collection – Smart Card on an onboard validator

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 30

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Fare Collection – Ticket Vending Machine as applied on a light rail system

Fare Collection – Ticket Vending Machines and Passenger Information

ITS – Embedded Loops in Roadbed for Vehicle Tracking

ITS – Embedded Loops in Roadbed for Vehicle Tracking

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 31

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Operations Control Center for South East Busway in Brisbane, Australia

ITS – Operations Maintenance, Vehicle Mechanical Monitoring and Maintenance

ITS – Precision Docking

ITS – Real-Time Passenger Information

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 32

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Real-time Passenger Information at Metro Rapid stations in Los Angeles

ITS – Real-Time Passenger Information at Stations

ITS – Real-Time Passenger Information at Stations

ITS – Safety and Security, Emergency Telephone for Connection to Control Center

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 33

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Safety and Security, Silent Alarms

ITS – Safety and Security, Surveillance Camera for Security Monitoring, South East Busway, Brisbane Australia

ITS – Sensor for Collision Warning

ITS – Sensor for Collision Warning

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 34

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Support Technologies, Advanced Communication System

ITS – Support Technologies, Passenger Counter

ITS – Vehicle Operations Control Center Monitor for Vehicle Tracking from Transponder Readings

ITS – Vehicle Prioritization, Station and Lane Access Control

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 35

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Vehicle Prioritization, Transit Signal Priority

ITS – Vehicle Tracking for AVL

ITS – Vehicle Tracking with Closed Circuit Television cameras

ITS – Vehicle Transponder for Vehicle Tracking, Metro Rapid in Los Angeles

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 36

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS – Web-Based Passenger Information for Trip Planning

ITS – Web-based Passenger Information Interface

ITS –Passenger Information on Person (for Mobile Devices)

ITS –Passenger Information on the Vehicle

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 37

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

ITS –Passenger Information on the Vehicle

ITS –Passenger Information, Traveler Information at Stations

Passenger Information sign for a multiple route network

Passenger Information sign for a multiple route network

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 38

Appendix D. Phot o Gallery of BRT Syst em Charact erist ics

D e scr ipt ion

Phot ogr a ph

Passenger Information sign in Vehicle

Transit-Supportive Development – Pittsburgh, PA

Charact erist ics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making

D- 39