Click for next page ( 32


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 31
31 CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESPONSES INTRODUCTION cies that were sent the survey, 52 responded; while an addi- tional three agencies indicated that they do not currently have A cornerstone of this synthesis report was a comprehensive sur- any transit preferential treatments. This response level was vey of urban areas in North America. Information was sought achieved following three separate solicitations to respond to on agency perceptions, policies, and characteristics of different the survey. For those 30 systems that operate both bus and light transit preferential treatments that they have applied to their bus rail and/or streetcar systems, 21 responded. For the 50 bus- and light rail/streetcar systems. This has been the first known only agencies surveyed, 31 responded. systematic survey of transit agencies conducted on this topic to date. In addition, a parallel survey was sent to traffic engineer- The 52 responding agencies are indicated on the map shown ing jurisdictions that the transit agencies typically work with to as Figure 27 and in Tables 2 and 3, grouped by transit service plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain transit preferen- type--bus and light rail/streetcar systems versus bus-only tial treatments. The intent was to obtain insights from traffic systems. These tables also show the Vehicles Operated in Max- engineers on their perceptions and policies related to transit imum Service, obtained from the 2007 edition of the National preferential treatment development. Transit Database. Note that Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service were not available for Canadian transit agencies. The mechanism chosen for agency input was a web survey. The survey was initially sent to transit agencies, which then Figure 28 provides information on the types of transit pref- identified one or more appropriate contacts in the traffic engi- erential treatments (bus and LRT/streetcar) that have been neering jurisdiction they deal with, and these individuals implemented by the responding transit agencies. Percent- were sent a separate survey. The traffic engineers were also ages are calculated with respect to the number of responding asked to add data on traffic conditions in the tabular sum- agencies. The most popular treatment is TSP, which has been mary of individual preferential treatment characteristics pro- implemented by two of every three respondents. Limited stops vided by the transit agencies. and queue jump/bypass lanes have also been implemented by A total of 80 urban areas in the United States and Canada more than half of the responding agencies. were included in the transit/traffic survey effort--including Table 4 summarizes the type and number of transit prefer- 50 transit agencies operating just bus and another 30 oper- ential treatments in different urban areas where specific treat- ating bus and streetcar and/or light rail. The transit survey ment information was provided from the survey. It should be responses received (52) were helpful in identifying overall noted that the list is not all inclusive, as some transit agencies trends with respect to transit preferential treatment application. The supplemental survey of traffic engineering jurisdictions did not identify all of their treatments. Also, for TSP, some in these urban areas was conducted to obtain traffic engineers' agencies identified the number of individual intersections with insights on transit preferential treatments. An added 12 juris- priority, whereas others only identified the specific corridors dictions responded to this survey. The total of 64 responses where TSP is applied, without identifying the specific number were received, an 80% response rate. of signals in each corridor with priority. Agencies were then asked to provide information about TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY each transit preferential treatment within their jurisdiction. Information requested included the location and type of This chapter summarizes the responses of the transit agency treatment, ridership and transit vehicle headway, and traffic survey covering transit preferential treatments. The transit/ information such as the average daily traffic and level of ser- traffic survey questionnaires and agency responses are included vice. Details of these individual treatment responses are pro- in Appendix A. Between December 20, 2008, and Febru- vided in Appendix B. A total of 197 individual treatments ary 20, 2009, a total of 80 urban areas in the United States and were recorded. Canada were invited to respond to the survey. This included all 30 urban areas that today have both fixed-route bus and light Transit agencies were asked to provide information on rail and/or streetcar service, and another 50 agencies that pro- any "warrants" applied when considering transit preferential vide only bus service. These were most of the larger urban treatments. Most agencies that responded provided general areas in the United States and Canada. Of those transit agen- criteria or measures applied, but mainly did not identify

OCR for page 31
32 FIGURE 27 Map of transit agencies responding to the survey. TABLE 2 TRANSIT AGENCY RESPONDENTS OPERATING BUS AND LRT/STREETCAR SERVICE Vehicles Operated in Maximum Agency Urban Area Service1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Los Angeles 2,747 Authority King County Metro Transit Seattle 2,266 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Philadelphia 2,227 (SEPTA) Regional Transportation District Denver 1,486 Maryland Transit Administration Baltimore 1,219 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City 1,034 TriMet Portland (Oregon) 881 Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh 874 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) San Francisco 770 Metro Transit Minneapolis/St. Paul 767 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Cleveland 657 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix 545 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento 360 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Tampa 235 Sound Transit Seattle 222 Memphis Area Transit Authority Memphis 194 New Orleans Regional Transit Authority New Orleans 98 Central Arkansas Transit Authority Little Rock 65 Calgary Transit Calgary N/A Toronto Transit Commission Toronto N/A OC Transpo Ottawa N/A 1 Vehicles operated during peak period service. N/A = not available.

OCR for page 31
33 TABLE 3 TRANSIT AGENCY RESPONDENTS OPERATING BUS SERVICE Vehicles Operated in Maximum Agency Urban Area Service (VOMS) MTA New York City Transit New York City 10,736 Chicago Transit Authority Chicago 2,848 Pace Northeastern Illinois 1,539 MiamiDade Transit Miami 1,258 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Austin 697 Alameda Contra Costa (AC) Transit Oakland 651 Community Transit Snohomish County, WA 582 Pierce Transit Tacoma 549 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority Orlando 462 (LYNX) Montgomery County (MD) Transit (Ride On) Montgomery County, MD 389 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Pinellas County, FL 340 Spokane Transit Spokane 285 Transit Authority of River City Louisville 279 Capital District Transportation Authority Albany 259 Greater Richmond Transit Company Richmond 250 Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) Columbus 241 RochesterGenesee Regional Transit Authority Rochester 229 Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth 214 Golden Gate Transit San Francisco 210 Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation Indianapolis 204 (IndyGo) Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority Des Moines 193 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Phoenix 175 Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority Nashville 170 Fresno Area Express Fresno 127 Lane Transit District Eugene 124 Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe Reno 112 County Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Oklahoma City 74 Authority (COTPA)--Metro Transit Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Chattanooga 70 Connecticut Department of Transportation Connecticut 45 Halifax Regional Municipality--Metro Transit Halifax N/A York Region Transit York Region, Canada N/A N/A = not available. 80% 67% 70% Percent of Agencies 60% 52% 52% 50% 46% 40% 30% 25% 25% 25% 21% 20% 10% 0% Transitway Other (O) Limited Stops Transit Signal Lanes (EL) Signals (STS) Jump/Bypass Extension Priority (TSP) Lane (QJ/BL) Special Turn Exclusive Median Curb (CE) (MT) Queue (LS) Treatment Type FIGURE 28 Agencies implementing transit preferential treatments.

OCR for page 31
34 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS BY TRANSIT AGENCY FROM SURVEY Bus Transit Agency MT EL TSP STS QJ/BL CE LS O Capital Metro Transp. Auth. (Austin) 15 1 CDTA (Albany) 1 Central Florida RTA (Orlando) 2 21 Central Ohio Transit Authority 1 1 Chattanooga Area RTA 16 Chicago Transit Authority 15 Community Transit (Everett, WA) 15 Connecticut DOT Denver RTD 2 2 Ft. Worth Transportation Authority 15 Greater Richmond Transit Company 1 Halifax Reg. Mun.--Metro Transit 13 8 King County Metro (Seattle) 14 75 4 6 32,3 Lane Transit District (Eugene) 2 1 35 1 Los Angeles County MTA 35 Metro Transit (Twin Cities) 5 1 1 Maryland Transit Administration Memphis Area Transit Authority MiamiDade Transit 1 Montgomery County, MD Ride On 1 14 MTA New York City Transit 33 New Orleans RTA 1 OC Transpo (Ottawa) 2 11 1 8 Pierce Transit 75 1 RTC of Washoe County (Reno) 15 1 Sound Transit (Seattle) San Francisco MTA SEPTA (Philadelphia) 25 Spokane Transit 1 1 Utah Transit Authority Valley Metro RPTA (Phoenix) 25 2 York Region Transit 25 2 2 2 Rail Transit Agency MT EL TSP STS QJ/BL CE LS O Denver RTD 2 Los Angeles County MTA 11 Maryland Transit Administration 1 Memphis Area Transit Authority 3 Metro Transit (Twin Cities) 1 1 1 New Orleans RTA 2 1 1 SEPTA (Philadelphia) 6 Sound Transit (Seattle) 1 Utah Transit Authority 1 MT = median transitway, EL = exclusive lane, TSP = transit signal priority, STS = special transit signal, QJ/BL = queue jump/bypass lane, CE = curb extension, LS = limited stops, O = other. 1 Signal preemption, 2through traffic restrictions, 3parking restrictions, 4semi-exclusive lane, 5street or corridor, 6 specific intersections. specific numerical warrants. Tables 5 and 6 relate to the war- tem is optimized for transit but individual vehicles do not make rants for transit preferential treatments provided by survey any requests. Figure 29 identifies the extent of use of different respondents for bus and LRT/streetcar service, respec- active priority types: unconditional, conditional if vehicle is tively. The criteria/warrants are grouped by treatment, behind schedule, conditional based on number of on-board pas- using the same abbreviations as those used in Figure 28. sengers, and other conditional strategies. Percentages are based Common themes throughout the responses included rider- on the number of agencies implementing TSP; for example, ship, safety, and delay considerations, as well as reliability more than half of all agencies that have implemented TSP apply and level of service. unconditional priority at some location in their networks. No agency reported using the number of on-board riders as a met- The popularity of TSP reflects its flexibility owing to the ric for granting priority, even though ridership was commonly many different types of priority that may be employed. Priority cited as a warrant for implementing TSP. This is perhaps not types are typically classified as either active, where the transit surprising, as automated person counters are not yet broadly vehicle initiates a request for priority, or passive, where the sys- used on transit vehicles.

OCR for page 31
35 TABLE 5 IDENTIFIED CRITERIA/WARRANTS FOR TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS--BUS Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant Congested mixed-flow operations with undesirable Golden Gate Transit MT delay that effects on-time performance Regional Transportation District MT Reliability, ridership, time savings San Francisco Municipal MT Transit ridership, street width, traffic volume Transportation Agency Pro-transit policy, assisted by the fact that transit Toronto Transit Commission MT lanes carry as many people as a full auto lane Some short bus lanes have been constructed on a Calgary Transit EL case-by-case basis. City of Austin (future study)--Downtown (Lavaca Capital Metropolitan EL and Guadalupe corridors); Texas DOT (future Transportation Authority study)--Exclusive Bus Travel on Shoulder Program Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority EL Traffic LOS, individual passenger trips (LYNX) Chicago Transit Authority EL LOS, delay, CBD priority COTA EL High Street downtown Congested mixed-flow operations with undesirable Golden Gate Transit EL delay that effects on-time performance Greater Richmond Transit EL Traffic volumes, safety Company Benefit/cost analysis, LOS study, transit headways King County Metro Transit EL 10 buses/h or greater Travel delay caused by heavy traffic conditions on MiamiDade Transit EL roadway MTA New York City Transit EL Ridership, reliability, traffic volumes New Orleans Regional Transit EL Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance Authority OC Transpo EL Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volumes Port Authority of Allegheny EL Reliability and traffic volumes County Regional Transportation District EL Reliability, ridership, time savings RochesterGenesee Regional EL Headways, LOS Transit Authority San Francisco Municipal EL Transit ridership, street width, traffic volume Transportation Agency Pro-transit policy, assisted by the fact that transit Toronto Transit Commission EL lanes carry as many people as a full auto lane TriMet EL Bus volumes, loads, location of supporting bus stops Currently under construction...Warranted by faster Utah Transit Authority EL trip times and higher ridership through congested corridor AC Transit TSP Significantly improved bus speed No warrants required--TSP is implemented on Calgary Transit TSP longer high-volume bus routes Capital District Transportation TSP Ridership, reliability, headway Authority Capital Metropolitan City of Austin (future project--2011)--Rapid Bus TSP Transportation Authority Program (Lamar and South Congress) Chattanooga Area Regional TSP Traffic volumes and route ridership Transportation Authority Chicago Transit Authority TSP Only test project planned Community Transit TSP Transit delay and reliability Des Moines Area Regional TSP Ridership Transit Authority Fort Worth Transportation No specific warrants, first project applied to busiest TSP Authority corridor Congested mixed-flow operations with undesirable Golden Gate Transit TSP delay that effects on-time performance Benefit/cost analysis, delay study, LOS analysis King County Metro Transit TSP (LOS B-E) (continued on next page)

OCR for page 31
36 TABLE 5 (continued) Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant MTA New York City Transit TSP Delay, traffic volumes New Orleans Regional Transit TSP Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance Authority OC Transpo TSP Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volumes Delay due to red signal, number of times bus stops due to red light. Travel time saving potential, Pace TSP including frequency of bus as major factor, schedule adherence, and bus occupancy Pierce Transit TSP Transit signal delay greater than 10 s Regional Transportation District TSP Reliability, ridership, time savings Sacramento Regional Transit TSP One intersection District San Francisco Municipal TSP Signal delay, ridership Transportation Agency SEPTA TSP Reduced headway times Benefit to transit on busy routes was sufficient to remove a vehicle and still provide same number of Toronto Transit Commission TSP vehicle passes per hour, justifying the cost was the initial justification--later it was simply seen as a proper pro-transit tool TriMet TSP Bus volumes, delay factors Utah Transit Authority TSP Safer operation and faster trip times Valley Metro RPTA TSP Delay York Region Transit TSP All traffic signals in York Region on BRT routes Calgary Transit STS No warrants required--case-by-case application Capital Metropolitan City of Austin (regular requests)--Left-turn STS Transportation Authority protection signalizations Need for bus-only left turn signal to allow buses to Golden Gate Transit STS turn where traffic is prohibited Delay study, citys left-t urn signalization warrant, King County Metro Transit STS LOS analysis OC Transpo STS Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volume Port Authority of Allegheny Need to move buses through heavily congested STS County areas Sacramento Regional Transit STS One intersection District San Francisco Municipal STS Accommodate special transit movement Transportation Agency Toronto Transit Commission STS A good pro-transit tool AC Transit QJ/BL Bypass congestion delay Calgary Transit QJ/BL No warrants required--case-by-case application Capital District Transportation QJ/BL Bus volume Authority Capital Metropolitan City of Austin (1st case)--North Lamar/Airport QJ/BL Transportation Authority Blvd (Crestview Station) Congested mixed-flow operations with undesirable Golden Gate Transit QJ/BL delay that effects on-time performance King County Metro Transit QJ/BL Delay study, benefit/cost analysis, LOS analysis MTA New York City Transit QJ/BL Delays, reliability OC Transpo QJ/BL Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volume Queue length, cycle failures to buses, delay due to red signal, number of times bus stops due to red Pace QJ/BL light. Travel time saving potential including frequency of bus as major factor, schedule adherence and bus occupancy Regional Transportation District QJ/BL Reliability, ridership, time savings Sacramento Regional Transit QJ/BL One intersection District San Francisco Municipal Change from exclusive to mix flow, accommodate QJ/BL Transportation Agency special transit movement Toronto Transit Commission QJ/BL Justified on case-by-case basis TriMet QJ/BL Bus volumes, loads, location of supporting bus stops (continued on next page)

OCR for page 31
37 TABLE 5 (continued) Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant Utah Transit Authority QJ/BL Safety and efficiency for bus operations Key locations on the BRT, which experienced major York Region Transit QJ/BL vehicle queuing and where there was sufficient road allowance to accommodate a queue jump lane Capital Metropolitan City of Austin (specific cases) at key stops-- CE Transportation Authority typically curb insets Golden Gate Transit CE Needed for establishing accessible ADA bus stops King County Metro Transit CE Delay study, pilot project with before/after study Convenience for transit customers, delays, OC Transpo CE reliability, traffic volumes San Francisco Municipal CE Before-and-after loading delay, access to bus stop Transportation Agency TriMet CE Bus volumes; stop activity--ons/offs Locations on the BRT route where provision of the York Region Transit CE curb extension would improve service reliability and minimize delays AC Transit LS Significantly improve bus speed Limited stop routes are provided on an as-required Calgary Transit LS basis in response to demand Capital District Transportation LS Ridership, reliability Authority Capital Metropolitan City of Austin (working on Rapid Bus Program) and LS Transportation Authority coordination of bus stops Central Arkansas Transit LS Travel time Authority Metro Transit has some routes on which we operate Central Okla. Transportation and heritage trolleybuses and these are "limited stop": Parking Authority (COTPA)-- LS we have no quantitative warrant associated with Metro Transit these. Ridership, length of route, average bus speed, Chicago Transit Authority LS arterial street type Golden Gate Transit LS Low ridership density corridors MTA New York City Transit LS Headways, ridership OC Transpo LS Ridership, delay, reliability Ons and offs, dwell time, bus travel time, density Pace LS and walk time Pinellas Suncoast Transit LS Express bus services Authority Port Authority of Allegheny LS A handful of routes offer limited stop service County RochesterGenesee Regional LS Ridership Transit Authority San Francisco Municipal LS Closely located stops Transportation Agency Potential for competitive travel time and increased Spokane Transit LS ridership Just a transit agency decision given that a parallel Toronto Transit Commission LS local service also provided TriMet LS Type of service Valley Metro RPTA LS Delay Development of a service design standard that York Region Transit LS includes minimum 750-m spacing and minimum of 300 boardings per weekday Bus only crossings--physical barriers or gates that allow bus passage between communities is Calgary Transit O established at the community road network planning stage King County Metro Transit O Delay study, parking utilization study Travel delay caused by heavy traffic conditions on MiamiDade Transit O roadway QJ/BL = queue jump/bypass lane, CE = curb extension, MT = median transitway, EL = exclusive lane, LOS = level of service, CBD = central business district, TSP = transit signal priority, STS = special transit signal, CE = curb extension, LS = limited stops, O = other, ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act.

OCR for page 31
38 TABLE 6 IDENTIFIED CRITERIA/WARRANTS FOR TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS-- LRT/STREETCAR Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant LRT operates within a protected, exclusive right-of- Calgary Transit MT way, except in the downtown (see exclusive lanes below) New Orleans Regional Transit MT Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance Authority San Francisco Municipal MT Transit ridership, street width, traffic volume Transportation Agency Justification primarily the need to separate transit operations from effects of traffic delays; assisted by Toronto Transit Commission MT the fact that transit lanes carry as many people as a full auto lane 7th Ave. S is a transit mall with access restricted to Calgary Transit EL LRT, buses, and emergency vehicles Central Arkansas Transit EL To line up track with bridge ramp Authority New Orleans Regional Transit EL Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance Authority San Francisco Municipal EL Transit ridership, street width, traffic volume Transportation Agency Project justification through ridership. Most of Utah Transit Authority EL street running portion of system is EL--Safety and efficiency LRT has preemption over traffic signals outside of Calgary Transit TSP the downtown core Central Arkansas Transit TSP Safety Authority Los Angeles County Passenger volumes, distance of street run section, Metropolitan Transportation TSP speed, traffic interface Authority Memphis Area Transit Authority TSP Improved transit vehicle headway and safety New Orleans Regional Transit TSP Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance Authority Regional Transportation District TSP Reliability, ridership, time savings Sacramento Regional Transit TSP In downtown there is TSP District San Francisco Municipal TSP Signal delay, ridership Transportation Agency SEPTA TSP Reduced headway times Benefit to transit on busy routes was sufficient to remove a vehicle and still provide same number of Toronto Transit Commission TSP vehicle passes per hour; justifying the cost was the initial justification--later it was simply seen as a proper pro-transit tool Utah Transit Authority TSP Safer operation, faster trip times, consistent trip times Central Arkansas Transit STS Safety Authority Sacramento Regional Transit STS STS at some downtown intersections District San Francisco Municipal STS Accommodate special transit movement Transportation Agency Toronto Transit Commission STS A good pro-transit tool San Francisco Municipal Change from exclusive to mix flow, accommodate QJ/BL Transportation Agency special transit movement Utah Transit Authority QJ/BL Safety Central Arkansas Transit CE Boarding locations Authority San Francisco Municipal CE Before and after loading delay, access to bus stop Transportation Agency San Francisco Municipal LS Closely located stops Transportation Agency Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority O Safe operation of LRT MT = median transitway, EL = exclusive lane, TSP = transit signal priority, STS = special transit signal, LOS = level of service, QJ/BL = queue jump/bypass lane, CE = curb extension, LS = limited stops, O = other.

OCR for page 31
39 Percent of Agencies Implementing TSP 60% 54% 50% 40% 29% 30% 26% 20% 10% 0% 0% Unconditional Conditional - Vehicle Conditional - Vehicle Conditional - Other behind schedule with certain on-board volume Priority Type FIGURE 29 Active TSP types (bus and LRT/streetcar). Figure 30 provides similar data for passive TSP treatments. for their systems, only one agency noted that it uses a distrib- Nearly half of all respondents implementing TSP indicated uted approach to grant priority requests. that they employ signal coordination to provide priority to transit vehicles. Some of the "other" passive treatments appear Transit agencies were asked to indicate what roles they to be related to signal timing as well. played in the process of developing transit preferential treat- ments. This information is presented in Figure 32. From the Traffic agencies were also asked about control of priority figure, one notices that transit agencies tend to be more for both bus and LRT/streetcar implementations, which is illus- involved in the early phases of implementation in identifying trated in Figure 31. For the purposes of this survey, centralized and locating treatments and become less involved in the later control was considered to mean that priority decisions are made stages, with the exception of monitoring performance. This is at some centralized system control center, whereas distributed expected because local traffic engineering jurisdictions have was considered to imply that decisions are made locally at the control over the signal and roadway system and thus are typi- cabinet controller where the request was received. Of those cally more involved in construction and operations and main- agencies responding to the survey, responses were split almost tenance of treatments. The increase in transit agency involve- equally between centralized and distributed methods of con- ment in monitoring performance is not surprising because trol for bus transit, with one agency reporting that they do not transit agencies tend to have the most to gain from this activ- implement TSP. For LRT/streetcar systems, although four ity and there are now tools such as AVL and APC to collect responding agencies appear to implement some sort of TSP data on transit operations. 50% 46% Percent of Agencies Implementing TSP 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 14% 15% 10% 5% 0% Signal Coordination Other Priority Type FIGURE 30 Passive TSP types (bus and LRT/streetcar).

OCR for page 31
40 Traffic Agency Control of Priority 7 6 6 5 Number of Agencies 5 4 Bus LRT 3 2 1 1 0 0 Centralized Distributed Event FIGURE 31 Traffic agency control of priority. The survey asked a question on whether or not transit cooperation between transit and traffic agencies for mutual agencies have a comprehensive transit preferential treatment benefit. Again, larger agencies are more likely to have a program in place to guide the development and implemen- comprehensive program, although some smaller agencies tation of transit preferential treatments. The vast majority did as well. (almost 80%) indicated that they do not have such a program, and that transit preferential treatments when developed occur Sample construction and operations and maintenance agree- on a case-by-case basis. Those that do have a program in ments related to TSP implementation were received from place tend to be larger agencies such as the Metropolitan King County Metro in Seattle; Community Transit in Transportation Authority in New York City, King County Snohomish County, Washington; and TriMet in Portland, Metro in Seattle, and the Municipal Transportation Agency Oregon. These agreements are included in Appendix C. (MUNI) in San Francisco. Similar to the previous question, more than half of all agen- Transit agencies were also asked if they have any agree- cies (56%) reported undertaking some sort of public input ments with a traffic agency. A majority of agencies (56%) process before or during the implementation of a treatment. have such an agreement, although several agencies indicated This result also is encouraging, because although transit that the agreements are somewhat informal in nature. This preferential treatments may not be as visible to the public as result is encouraging because it demonstrates a high-level of new routes or transit vehicles, they do nevertheless improve 90% 85% 80% 70% Percent of Agencies 60% 52% 52% 50% 38% 40% 33% 30% 20% 12% 10% 0% Identifying and Designing Constructing Operating and Monitoring No role locating treatments treatments maintaining performance treatments treatments of treatments Role FIGURE 32 Transit agency roles.