Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3BACKGROUND Transit preferential treatments are not new, having been around for about 70 years for buses and longer for on-street rail systems. However, in recent years there has been increasing interest in the development of preferential treatments where bus or rail vehicles operate in a mixed-traffic environment, in particular on arterial streets in urban and suburban areas. Most bus routes, outside of exclusive busway applications, operate on streets in the general traffic flow alongside general traffic. Streetcar lines and many light rail systems also operate on streets with general traffic. The inherent congestion on many streets, particularly during peak periods, often results in sub- stantial delays to transit operation that increase travel time and degrade on-time performance. In certain situations this can lead to the requirement for added transit vehicles (and thus added capital and operating cost) to provide the same service frequency. The implementation of new bus rapid transit (BRT) systems has renewed interest in preferential treatments, critical to keep- ing the “rapid” in such services. Transit preferential (or priority) treatments range from exclusive transitways and transit lanes applied along certain roadway segments to spot improvements typically applied at intersections, such as transit signal priority (TSP), queue jump signals, bus bypass lanes, and curb extensions (also known as bulbouts). SCOPE Objective Although there have been several research projects and project studies in certain urban areas that have addressed transit prefer- ential treatments in mixed-traffic environments, including war- rants for their application and costs and impacts of different treatments, most notably NCHRP Reports 143 and 155 (1,2) from the 1970s, there has not been a recent document that focuses just on this subject. The TCRP J-7/SA-22 project was intended to provide such a document. The initial problem state- ment for this project was developed by the TRB Committee on Transit Capacity and Quality of Service, which recognized the importance that transit preferential treatments could provide with respect to increasing capacity and improving quality of service for transit operations in mixed-traffic environments. Methodology This report focused on three components: 1. A review of past literature that addressed transit pref- erential treatments, both in terms of their features and application warrants, but also their impact on both tran- sit and general traffic operations in different cities across North America. 2. A representative survey of transit agencies that operate streetcar/light rail and/or bus service on city streets, and a parallel survey of traffic engineering jurisdictions that work with transit agencies to implement transit prefer- ential treatments. 3. A review of specific cities where more extensive, orga- nized transit preferential programs have been developed, and specific information about how these came about and the successful partnerships involved. The literature review (a total of 23 documents were reviewed) was intended to obtain added documentation of transit preferential treatments beyond the three current sources, where some organized presentation of overall pre- ferential treatments has existed in recent years: TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (3), TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementa- tion Guidelines (4), and TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (5). Through the transit agency survey conducted, added documentation of transit preferential treat- ment programs and assessments were obtained. The transit agency survey was designed to obtain insights on the types of preferential treatments that were implemented in their service areas, under what conditions, and what the impacts were on transit operations. Also of interest were the partner- ships in place with the traffic engineering jurisdictions in their area to plan, design, implement, operate, and maintain treat- ments. The following information was sought: • Type and location of different treatments; • Characteristics of transit service using preferential treatments—peak versus off-peak transit volumes and operating periods of treatments; • Characteristics of streets where treatments are located— traffic volumes and level of service; • Costs of different treatments—capital and operations and maintenance (O&M); CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

• Funding sources of different treatments; • Design and operational criteria for different treatments; • Impacts of different treatments on transit operations— travel time savings, improved service reliability, reduc- tion in number of operating vehicles—specific perfor- mance measures applied; • Factors that led to the decision to apply certain prefer- ential treatments; and • Agreements in place with local traffic agencies related to preferential treatment application. The intent was to have the survey completed by the transit agency staff responsible for the development and monitoring of transit preferential treatments within the agency. The tran- sit agencies surveyed were asked for copies of reports docu- menting their preferential treatment programs and the costs and impacts of different treatments. The traffic agency survey provided an opportunity to ask questions of traffic engineers on their perceptions on the applicability and success of transit preferential treatments on the street system under their jurisdiction. This survey was structured to obtain some added data related to the impact of transit preferential treatments; particularly those related to O&M costs and general traffic impacts, and to assess overall traffic agency acceptance of such treatments. The survey was intended to be comprehensive—a total of 80 urban areas in the United States and Canada were targeted—including 50 transit agencies operating just bus and another 30 operating bus and streetcar and/or light rail. The transit survey responses received (a total of 52) were helpful in identifying overall trends with respect to transit preferential treatment application. As part of the survey, a 4 supplemental survey of traffic engineering jurisdictions in these urban areas was conducted to obtain traffic engineers’ insights on transit preferential treatments. An added 12 juris- dictions responded to this survey. A total of 64 responses were received, an 80% response rate. In addition, to probe further into the issues, opportunities, and constraints associated with the development of transit preferential treatments, selected urban areas known to have established transit preferential treatment programs were fur- ther studied. In these cases, the transit agency already had an established working relationship with the traffic engineering jurisdiction, and the level and type of partnering between the two agencies could be probed in more detail. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into six remaining chapters: • Chapter two—Types of Transit Preferential Treatments • Chapter three—Literature Review • Chapter four—Survey Responses • Chapter five—Case Studies • Chapter six—Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments • Chapter seven—Conclusions. Three appendices are also provided: Appendix A presents the transit agency survey questionnaire and responses, Appen- dix B presents the traffic agency survey questionnaire and responses, and Appendix C includes sample intergovernmental agreements that agencies have developed to implement transit preferential treatments.