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.

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

32 Agency Urban Area Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles 2,747 King County Metro Transit Seattle 2,266 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia 2,227 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 1Vehicles operated during peak period service. N/A = not available. TABLE 2 TRANSIT AGENCY RESPONDENTS OPERATING BUS AND LRT/STREETCAR SERVICE FIGURE 27 Map of transit agencies responding to the survey.

33 21% 46% 67% 25% 52% 25% 52% 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% M ed ia n Tr a n si tw a y (M T) Ex cl u si ve La n e s (E L) Tr a n si t S ig na l Pr io rit y (T SP ) Sp ec ia l T u rn Si gn a ls (S TS ) Qu e u e Ju m p/ By pa ss La n e (Q J/B L) Cu rb Ex te ns io n (C E) Li m ite d St op s (LS ) O th er (O ) Treatment Type Pe rc en t o f A ge nc ie s Agency Urban Area Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) MTA New York City Transit New York City 10,736 Chicago Transit Authority Chicago 2,848 Pace Northeastern Illinois 1,539 Miami–Dade 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 (LYNX) Orlando 462 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 Rochester–Genesee Regional Transit Authority Rochester 229 Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth 214 Golden Gate Transit San Francisco 210 Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) Indianapolis 204 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 County Reno 112 Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA)—Metro Transit Oklahoma City 74 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. TABLE 3 TRANSIT AGENCY RESPONDENTS OPERATING BUS SERVICE FIGURE 28 Agencies implementing transit preferential treatments.

34 specific numerical warrants. Tables 5 and 6 relate to the war- rants for transit preferential treatments provided by survey respondents for bus and LRT/streetcar service, respec- tively. The criteria/warrants are grouped by treatment, using the same abbreviations as those used in Figure 28. Common themes throughout the responses included rider- ship, safety, and delay considerations, as well as reliability and level of service. The popularity of TSP reflects its flexibility owing to the many different types of priority that may be employed. Priority types are typically classified as either active, where the transit vehicle initiates a request for priority, or passive, where the sys- tem is optimized for transit but individual vehicles do not make any requests. Figure 29 identifies the extent of use of different active priority types: unconditional, conditional if vehicle is behind schedule, conditional based on number of on-board pas- sengers, and other conditional strategies. Percentages are based on the number of agencies implementing TSP; for example, more than half of all agencies that have implemented TSP apply unconditional priority at some location in their networks. No agency reported using the number of on-board riders as a met- ric for granting priority, even though ridership was commonly cited as a warrant for implementing TSP. This is perhaps not surprising, as automated person counters are not yet broadly used on transit vehicles. Bus Transit Agency MT EL TSP STS QJ/BL CE LS O Capital Metro Transp. Auth. (Austin) 1 5 1 CDTA (Albany) 1 Central Florida RTA (Orlando) 2 2 1 Central Ohio Transit Authority 1 1 Chattanooga Area RTA 1 6 Chicago Transit Authority 1 5 Community Transit (Everett, WA) 1 5 Connecticut DOT Denver RTD 2 2 Ft. Worth Transportation Authority 1 5 Greater Richmond Transit Company 1 Halifax Reg. Mun.—Metro Transit 13 8 King County Metro (Seattle) 14 7 5 4 6 3 2,3 Lane Transit District (Eugene) 2 1 3 5 1 Los Angeles County MTA 3 5 Metro Transit (Twin Cities) 5 1 1 Maryland Transit Administration Memphis Area Transit Authority Miami–Dade Transit 1 Montgomery County, MD Ride On 1 1 4 MTA New York City Transit 33 New Orleans RTA 1 OC Transpo (Ottawa) 2 11 1 8 Pierce Transit 7 5 1 RTC of Washoe County (Reno) 1 5 1 Sound Transit (Seattle) San Francisco MTA SEPTA (Philadelphia) 2 5 Spokane Transit 1 1 Utah Transit Authority Valley Metro RPTA (Phoenix) 2 5 2 York Region Transit 2 5 2 2 2 Rail Transit Agency MT EL TSP STS QJ/BL CE LS O Denver RTD 2 Los Angeles County MTA 1 1 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. 1Signal preemption, 2through traffic restrictions, 3parking restrictions, 4semi-exclusive lane, 5street or corridor, 6specific intersections. TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS BY TRANSIT AGENCY FROM SURVEY

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

36 Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant MTA New York City Transit TSP Delay, traffic volumes New Orleans Regional Transit Authority TSP Delay, LOS, need to maintain on-time performance OC Transpo TSP Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volumes Pace TSP Delay due to red signal, number of times bus stops due to red light. Travel time saving potential, 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 District TSP One intersection San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency TSP Signal delay, ridership SEPTA TSP Reduced headway times Toronto Transit Commission TSP Benefit to transit on busy routes was sufficient to remove a vehicle and still provide same number of 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 Transportation Authority STS City of Austin (regular requests)—Left-turn protection signalizations Golden Gate Transit STS Need for bus-only left turn signal to allow buses toturn where traffic is prohibited King County Metro Transit STS Delay study, cityís left-turn signalization warrant, LOS analysis OC Transpo STS Ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volume Port Authority of Allegheny County STS Need to move buses through heavily congested areas Sacramento Regional Transit District STS One intersection San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency STS Accommodate special transit movement 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 Authority QJ/BL Bus volume Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority QJ/BL City of Austin (1st case)—North Lamar/Airport Blvd (Crestview Station) Golden Gate Transit QJ/BL Congested mixed-flow operations with undesirable 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 Pace QJ/BL Queue length, cycle failures to buses, delay due to red signal, number of times bus stops due to red 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 District QJ/BL One intersection San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency QJ/BL Change from exclusive to mix flow, accommodate 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 TABLE 5 (continued) (continued on next page)

37 Agency Treatment Criteria/Warrant Utah Transit Authority QJ/BL Safety and efficiency for bus operations York Region Transit QJ/BL Key locations on the BRT, which experienced major vehicle queuing and where there was sufficient road allowance to accommodate a queue jump lane Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority CE City of Austin (specific cases) at key stops— 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 OC Transpo CE Convenience for transit customers, delays, reliability, traffic volumes San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency CE Before-and-after loading delay, access to bus stop TriMet CE Bus volumes; stop activity—ons/offs York Region Transit CE Locations on the BRT route where provision of the curb extension would improve service reliability and minimize delays AC Transit LS Significantly improve bus speed Calgary Transit LS Limited stop routes are provided on an as-required basis in response to demand Capital District Transportation Authority LS Ridership, reliability Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority LS City of Austin (working on Rapid Bus Program) and coordination of bus stops Central Arkansas Transit Authority LS Travel time Central Okla. Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA)— Metro Transit LS Metro Transit has some routes on which we operate heritage trolleybuses and these are “limited stop”: we have no quantitative warrant associated with these. Chicago Transit Authority LS Ridership, length of route, average bus speed, 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 Pace LS Ons and offs, dwell time, bus travel time, density and walk time Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority LS Express bus services Port Authority of Allegheny County LS A handful of routes offer limited stop service Rochester–Genesee Regional Transit Authority LS Ridership San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency LS Closely located stops Spokane Transit LS Potential for competitive travel time and increased ridership Toronto Transit Commission LS Just a transit agency decision given that a parallel local service also provided TriMet LS Type of service Valley Metro RPTA LS Delay York Region Transit LS Development of a service design standard that includes minimum 750-m spacing and minimum of 300 boardings per weekday Calgary Transit O Bus only crossings—physical barriers or gates that allow bus passage between communities is established at the community road network planning stage King County Metro Transit O Delay study, parking utilization study Miami–Dade Transit O Travel delay caused by heavy traffic conditions on 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. TABLE 5 (continued)

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

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

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

41 the experience of transit riders. A list of the methods employed by agencies to garner public input is provided in Table 7. The most common forms of public input are meetings/open houses and mailings. TRAFFIC AGENCY SURVEY Transit agencies were asked to provide contact information for traffic agencies with which they work, so that the agen- cies could verify information for the individual transit pref- erential treatments, as well as respond to a separate traffic agency survey. The following sections summarize the results of the traffic agency survey. The traffic agency survey ques- tionnaire is in Appendix B, with detailed responses for each agency also provided in Appendix B. A total of 12 agencies responded to the traffic agency survey: • Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) • City of Tacoma Public Works, Washington • City of Eugene, Oregon • City of Bellevue, Washington • Los Angeles DOT, California • Utah DOT • City of Everett, Washington Agency Public Input Method Capital District Transportation Authority Open houses, meetings, mail outs, e-blast newsletters Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority They will be part of the upcoming process (Rapid Bus—2011) Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Public meetings Connecticut Department of Transportation Meetings, mailings Fresno Area Express Meeting, mail out Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Numerous public meetings and outreach Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Meeting King County Metro Transit Community meetings, direct contacts to affected individuals/businesses Lane Transit District Workshops, charrettes, and meetings Maryland Transit Administration Meetings Metro Transit Public meetings Miami–Dade Transit Meetings, public announcements Montgomery County (MD) Transit—Ride On Generally meetings, mail outs, newsletters are proposed MTA New York City Transit Hearings, meetings Nashville MTA N/A—We don’t currently have any transit preferential treatments OC Transpo In some cases we obtain public input/approval through public meetings; however, in many cases we do not obtain public approval before transit preferential treatments are implemented. PACE Meetings and handouts Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County Public meeting for the BRT study on Virginia Street Regional Transportation District Meeting Sacramento Regional Transit District Mail outs and meetings San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Depending on treatment we may have community meeting and public hearing SEPTA City and/or township approval Sound Transit Meeting and mail out as well as website information Toronto Transit Commission Depends on the treatment—in some cases such as signal priority, no public input obtained; with any construction-related improvements such as median transit ways, extensive public process Transit Authority of River City Not applicable Utah Transit Authority Public input is considered during the public meeting process for any project. There is also consideration given to ongoing public comments provided to UTA and the various transportation departments. Valley Metro RPTA Meetings York Region Transit Public meetings, mail out TABLE 7 METHODS OF PUBLIC INPUT

42 33% 58% 42% 100% 58% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Pe rc en t o f A ge nc ie s Identifying and locating treatments Designing treatments Constructing treatments Operating and maintaining treatments Monitoring performance of treatments No role Role FIGURE 33 Traffic agency roles. Major Mild Negligible 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% M ed ia n Tr a n si tw a y (M T) Ex cl u si ve La n e s (E L) Tr a n si t S ig na l Pr io rit y (T SP ) Sp ec ia l T u rn Si gn a ls (S TS ) Qu e u e Ju m p/ By pa ss La n e (Q J/B L) Cu rb Ex te ns io n (C E) Li m ite d St op s (LS ) O th er (O ) Treatment Type Pe rc en t o f A ge nc ie s FIGURE 34 Traffic agency perception of transit preferential treatments. • Minnesota DOT (Mn/DOT) • Sacramento County DOT, California • City of Lynnwood, Washington • Philadelphia Streets Department, Pennsylvania • City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Similar to the transit agencies, traffic agencies were asked to indicate what roles they played in the process of develop- ing the transit preferential treatments identified in Figure 33. Generally, the traffic agencies verified the transit agency responses in indicating they have been more involved in the latter phases of implementation, in particular operations and maintenance. Again, the traffic agencies rely on the transit agencies primarily for identifying and locating preferential treatments. In their responses to monitoring the performance of treatments, the traffic agencies indicated a higher response owing to their focus on monitoring impacts on general traffic conditions of preferential treatments. Design and construction again appear to be shared functions. None of the responding agencies indicated they have no role whatsoever in transit pref- erential treatment development and monitoring. Traffic agencies were asked about their perceptions of the impacts of various transit preferential treatments on general traffic operations. These perceptions were qualified as major, mild, or negligible, as identified in Figure 34. Not surpris- ingly, the two treatments considered by many to have a major impact were median transitways and exclusive lanes. These two treatments take the most ROWs and have the greatest impact on available general traffic capacity. Most remaining treatments were considered to have minor impacts. This is consistent with the relatively slight timing modifications asso- ciated with TSP (and its typical application at intersections operating under capacity), and the limited impact on through traffic with queue jump/bypass lanes. Limited stops had a nearly equal perception of minor and negligible impacts,

43 Agency Controller Software WSDOT Traconex TMP 390 J8 City of Tacoma Public Works LMD9200 City of Eugene, OR 170 McCain City of Bellevue, WA Econolite ASC/2 35906v1.04 Los Angeles DOT 2070 Los Angeles TPS Module software Utah DOT Econolite ASC/3 ASC/3 City of Everett, WA Currently Multisonic; will be upgraded this year to a new controller and central system Opticom ID tag will be used for bus priority Sacramento County DOT 3M pre-emption with ACTRA signal system City of Lynnwood, WA Naztec 2070 Apogee Philadelphia Streets Dept. 170 Bitrans City of Ottawa, ON Multilek DirX TABLE 9 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY EQUIPMENT—BUS which is not surprising given that this treatment has the least impact on general traffic operations. Traffic agencies were asked to provide geometric informa- tion concerning the minimum width of median transitway lanes and the minimum length of queue jump/bypass lane lengths. These data are presented in Table 8. One-way median transit- way minimum widths are for the most part between 10 and 12 ft, whereas for two-way transitways the range is generally greater by a factor of 2 or more. Minimum queue jump/bypass lane lengths varied greatly, but centered mostly around 100 ft. Traffic agencies were asked to provide details concerning their TSP operations. Tables 9 and 10 present the controller hardware and TSP software used, if identified, for bus and LRT/streetcar applications, respectively. Generally, cities that have both bus and LRT/streetcars employ the same controllers for both. It is clear that there are a variety of hardware and soft- ware providers to choose from. Tables 11 and 12 indicate the types of TSP applied for both bus and LRT/streetcar, respectively. All responding agencies with TSP use early green and green extension to provide pri- ority. Few agencies implement the other approaches, which may tend to be more disruptive, especially when considering coordinated signal systems. It is also interesting to note that the Utah DOT applies activated transit phases and phase rota- tion and insertion for LRT/streetcars, but not for buses. Tables 13 and 14 identify the detection methods used for TSP calls for buses and LRT/streetcars, respectively. The most common method is optical/infrared, followed by induc- tive loop sensors. No agency reported using GPS despite its increasing affordability; however, there are GPS applications in certain cities that did not respond to the survey. Continuing with TSP data collection, traffic agencies were asked whether they monitor and record TSP events or not. Only one-third of the agencies collect such information. When asked further about which events are monitored, all agencies that monitor events collect data concerning proper vehicle detection and equipment function, as displayed in Figure 35. Only one of the four agencies monitoring data indicated that they monitor use of queue jump/bypass lanes. However, this could in part be the result of other agencies not having any queue jump/bypass lanes to monitor. Furthermore, of the agencies that record data, all record the number of possible and actual TSP events, as well as their duration. This is promising as it demonstrates a contin- ued desire to maintain and improve TSP by these agencies. Traffic agency respondents were also asked about special actions taken for any of the transit preferential treatments, such Minimum Median Transitway Width (ft) Agency One-Way Two-Way Minimum Queue Jump/Bypass Lane Length (ft) City of Eugene, OR 120 City of Everett, WA 11 22 100 City of Lynnwood, WA 9 20 80 City of Ottawa, ON 14 32 70 Los Angeles DOT 10 14 Mn/DOT 10 300 Philadelphia Streets Department 12 24 Utah DOT 30 TABLE 8 LANE WIDTH AND LENGTH TREATMENT

44 Agency Controller Software City of Ottawa, ON Multilek City of Philadelphia Streets Department 170 Bitrans Los Angeles DOT 2070 Minnesota DOT Don’t know Don’t know Utah DOT Eagle M50 family Siemens NextPhase TABLE 10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY EQUIPMENT—LRT/STREETCAR Agency Early Green Green Extension Activated Transit Phases Phase Insertion Phase Rotation City of Bellevue, WA x x City of Eugene, OR x x City of Everett, WA x x City of Lynnwood, WA x x City of Ottawa, ON x x x x x City of Philadelphia Streets Department x x City of Tacoma, WA Public Works x x Los Angeles DOT x x x Sacramento County DOT x x Utah DOT x x TABLE 11 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TIMING MODIFICATIONS—BUS Agency Early Green Green Extension Activated Transit Phases Phase Insertion Phase Rotation City of Philadelphia Streets Department x x Utah DOT x x x x x TABLE 12 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TIMING MODIFICATIONS—LRT/STREETCAR Agency Optical/ Infrared GPS Inductive Loop Wi-Fi Wayside Reader Other City of Philadelphia Streets Department x Utah DOT x x TABLE 14 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY DETECTION TYPE—LRT/STREETCAR Agency Optical/ Infrared GPS Inductive Loop Wi-Fi Wayside Reader Other City of Bellevue, WA x City of Eugene, OR x City of Everett, WA x City of Lynnwood, OR x City of Ottawa, ON x x City of Philadelphia Streets Department x City of Tacoma, WA Public Works x Los Angeles DOT x x Sacramento County DOT x Utah DOT x WSDOT x TABLE 13 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY DETECTION—BUS

45 as special signing, striping, or design. Table 15 provides a list of these special treatments by agency. Interesting treatments include rail-type signals being used in a block operation for the Eugene BRT and painting of exclu- sive bus lanes in Ottawa. Traffic agencies were asked whether there is an inter- governmental agreement with the transit agency concerning transit preferential treatments and, if so, whether there are any enhancements that would be desirable. Four agencies indicated there was no agreement: • WSDOT • Los Angeles DOT • City of Everett, Washington • Sacramento County DOT, California Clarification of, or the desired enhancements to, existing transit preferential treatment intergovernmental agreements for the remaining eight agencies are provided in Table 16. Finally, traffic agencies were asked to indicate their level of support for each of the transit preferential treat- ment types. The results are provided in Figure 36. In gen- eral, most types enjoy major support. Similar to the level of impact, median transitways and exclusive lanes have lower levels of major support than the other types. It is interesting to note that both curb extensions and special turn signals have higher levels of “no support” than exclu- sive lanes, even though exclusive lanes generally have greater impacts and cost more. Both TSP and limited stops did not receive a single vote of “no support” from the respondents, indicating a high level of acceptance of these approaches. Agency Treatment City of Bellevue A signal priority loop is marked as “Bus Detector” with a blue light to let operator know the bus has been detected. City of Eugene Queue jumps have separate signal heads and lanes. Exclusive bus lanes are signed appropriately. Rail type signals are used in block protected bi-directional exclusive lanes. City of Lynnwood Signs indicate: Right Lane Must Turn Right Except for Bus City of Ottawa Bus signal signing, experiment with painting lanes red Los Angeles DOT Signing and striping modifications to accommodate for far-side bus stops Minnesota DOT Signs for the bus shoulders and for HOV bypasses. Special diamond striping and overhead changeable message signs for the HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes Philadelphia Streets Department Only where there is a separate marked area in the center of Girard Avenue for the Route 15. Utah DOT At all sites where left turns are allowed from a parallel movement across LRT tracks there are blank-out warning signs that are lit with an image of a train when a train is approaching the intersection. Additionally, at sites where one of two dual left-turn lanes is shared with the LRT trackway, there are blank-out signs warning motorists to stay off the track when a train is approaching from the rear. The signs are not lit if vehicles are already in the lane. TABLE 15 SPECIAL SIGNING/STRIPING/DESIGN TREATMENTS 100% 100% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Proper detection of transit vehicles Equipment functioning properly Use of queue jump/bypass lanes Event Pe rc en t o f A ge nc ie s M on ito rin g Ev en ts FIGURE 35 Traffic agencies monitoring events.

46 Agency Intergovernmental Agreement Enhancements City of Bellevue Each agreement is more project-specific, and longer ranging and lacking consistency. They appear to be highly variable depending on capital funding available and project manager. City of Eugene The agreement is informal and based on mutual benefit. City of Lynnwood The only comment is that the city has not had any discussions to determine agency-wide desires. There is some desire to add training for central software operation to include analysis and reporting. City of Ottawa Define the number of buses required for treatment levels. City of Tacoma Public Works Not sure Minnesota DOT (Mn/DOT) The real answer is “no,” not a written agreement. However, there is an interagency working group called Team Transit that develops ideas and is chaired by Mn/DOT. The working group has developed nearly 300 miles of bus shoulders and many other transit advantages and appears to work well. There is a written policy to provide transit advantages applied to freeways and expressways as appropriate (also in statute). Philadelphia Streets Department For each project there is an agreement. These three were pilots. Utah DOT The agreement at present is informal but is undergoing review with the transit agency and other traffic agencies. It will then be formalized. One enhancement desired by all the participating agencies (traffic and transit) is that no more sites will be constructed with shared trackway/left-turn lanes, because they have been problematic. TABLE 16 TRANSIT AGENCY AGREEMENT ENHANCEMENTS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Treatment Type Major Support Mild Support No Support M ed ia n Tr a n si tw a y (M T) Ex cl u si ve La n e s (E L) Tr a n si t S ig na l Pr io rit y (T SP ) Sp ec ia l T u rn Si gn a ls (S TS ) Qu e u e Ju m p/ By pa ss La n e (Q J/B L) Cu rb Ex te ns io n (C E) Li m ite d St op s (LS ) O th er (O ) Pe rc en t o f A ge nc ie s FIGURE 36 Traffic agency support for transit preferential treatments.