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.

47 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the results of a more detailed review of certain urban areas that have implemented transit preferential treatment programs on urban streets. These areas have used a variety of different treatments and they have established partnerships between the transit agencies and traffic engi- neering jurisdictions to implement the treatments. The urban areas reviewed are San Francisco, Seattle, Port- land (Oregon), and Denver. Information and data on the transit preferential treatment programs in these cities were obtained by a review of documentation developed for these programs, as well as phone interviews. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA The city/county of San Francisco has perhaps the most exten- sive transit priority system in the United States related to its surface light rail, streetcar, cable car, and bus operations. The development and operation of transit service in San Fran- cisco are the responsibility of the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). History The MUNI Transit Preferential Streets Program was estab- lished in 1973. The purpose of the program is to expedite transit services, expressed in a Board of Supervisors reso- lution as “increased speed and regular frequency of transit service serves to encourage greater use of public transit, which in turn reduces traffic congestion and air pollution and may well increase farebox revenues.” The initial pro- gram through the 1980s focused on improvements in ten corridors—Sutter and Post Streets, Geary and O’Farrell Streets, Mission Street, Stockton Street, Polk Street, 3rd and 4th Streets, and Fillmore Street. Priority treatments included exclusive transit lanes and bus bulbs, and numer- ous administrative and enforcement actions such as traffic signal timing improvements, tow-away lane extensions, relocation of mailbox and newspaper rack obstructions and discouragement of auto-oriented land uses on transit streets. These improvements were subsequently expanded to other corridors in the city. In the late 1990s, TSP was initiated in two major bus corridors—Mission Street and Potrero Street. Transit Preferential Streets Committee Because transit preferential projects often cut across the juris- diction of several city departments in San Francisco, a Tran- sit Preferential Streets Committee was formed in 1973 to coordinate efforts between the staffs of different city depart- ments. Initially, the TPS committee included representatives of MUNI (then responsible only for transit operations), the Department of Public Works (then responsible for traffic engineering operations), the Police Department (responsible for traffic and parking enforcement), and the Department of City Planning, which was responsible for the city’s Master Plan and Preferential Streets Program. In recent years, a new SFMTA was created that merged MUNI and a revised Depart- ment of Parking and Traffic into a single agency. With this merger a multi-faceted committee review structure has been put in place related to transit preferential treatments. Current Treatments Today, MUNI has more than 460 different transit priority treatments on its street system. This includes 246 intersec- tions with signal priority, 132 boarding islands along its light rail lines (53% with low-level platforms and shelters), 52 bus bulbs, and 32 sections of exclusive transit lanes totaling 17.1 miles. Figures 37 and 38 show the locations of these various treatments. MUNI’s TSP system includes use of the V-tag detection system for light rail and streetcar priority through certain sig- nalized intersections, and optical infrared detection for bus signal priority where applied. MUNI has plans to upgrade the signal controllers in the city to 2070 models, and install the D4 software that has the capability of instituting enhanced TSP for both rail and bus operations. Most of MUNI’s light rail system operates at-grade, on median-running transit lanes, with most median mileage shared with bus and general traffic. Dedicated median transitways for LRT are in place for the T line in the 3rd Street corridor, along the south end of the M line in the 19th Avenue corri- dor, and on a short section of the N line in the Judah Street corridor. The T line was completed in 2003 as a completely dedi- cated median transit facility, with new 2070 signal con- trollers and priority through every signalized intersection CHAPTER FIVE CASE STUDIES

FIGURE 37 TSP treatments on San Francisco street system (Source: SFMTA).

FIGURE 38 Exclusive lanes/boarding islands/bus bulb treatments on San Francisco street system (Source: SFMATA).

50 along the route. Along the other light rail and streetcar lines, only the E streetcar line has any continuous signal priority; other lines have just a few intersections with signal priority. For the sections of the light rail and streetcar system oper- ating in shared lanes there are several locations where board- ing islands have been developed in the street to board and deboard passengers. Most of these islands are located near side, ranging in length from 40 to 140 ft. Many of the islands are not long enough to allow one or more doors of a second car on a train to align with the island, thus requiring passen- gers to board and alight from the street. Several islands also have a restricted width (4 to 6 ft) owing to the restricted street cross sections. Bus bulbs are provided at scattered locations throughout the city. Most bulbs have been developed at near-side stops, and some have enhanced passenger amenities included. Seventeen of the 32 sections of exclusive lanes are desig- nated for all day use by buses, another four for use between 7 a.m. and 6 or 7 p.m., and the rest only during peak periods (typically 7 to 9 a.m. in the morning and 3 or 4 p.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. in the afternoon). All of these lanes are marked by side of street and overhead signage, with no use of overhead lane use control signals. Transit Priority Organization The current Transit Preferential Streets Program at SFMTA is housed under the Street Management Section within the MTA Planning Division. This program is responsible for identifying new and improved preferential treatments on the city street system, through field review and added studies, and develop- ing an updated capital improvement program to advance TPS application. Within the Department of Parking and Traffic there is a separate “SFgo” section that provides assistance with scoping and implementing TSP treatments, whereas the Spe- cial Projects/Street Use section is involved in special events and associated special priority treatments. Three committees provide input on the planning, design, and implementation of transit preferential treatments within SFMTA. First, there are bi-weekly staff meetings between the Traffic Engineering and MTA Operations groups to re- view short-term issues and needs with respect to improving rail and bus operations on the city street system. Every month, there is a broader MTA Street Management Committee meeting that includes the Traffic Engineering, Transit Oper- ations, Service Planning, Transportation Planning, Police, and Parking Enforcement Groups to review street operations, transit preferential treatment needs, and implementation issues. Every two weeks there is also a meeting between MTA Planning and Traffic Engineering and the City Planning, Public Works, Police, and Fire Departments. These groups, in addition to the San Francisco County Transportation Agency, also meet on an annual basis to develop updated 5-Year Capital Improvement Plans, including transit prefer- ential treatment improvements. In 2007, SFMTA initiated a Transit Effectiveness Program (TEP) to identify improvements in the management and operation of MUNI services and facilities to improve travel time, reliability, and overall service accessibility. The program includes the designation of a rapid route system that includes all rail lines plus the development of new limited stop and BRT service in certain bus corridors (see Figure 39). A cornerstone of the program is the development of further transit priority improvements on the surface rail and bus system. A part of this program will include a major expansion of TSP, including the replacement of the current optical infrared bus detection sys- tem with a GPS or another more advanced system. The pro- gram also includes the development of added boarding islands on the surface rail system and bus bulbs, and potentially relo- cating certain existing boarding islands to be more compatible with added signal priority for surface rail operations. The TEP is incorporating a thorough review and modifi- cation of bus and rail stop locations to facilitate transit oper- ations in the city. This includes stop consolidation on new limited stop routes, and moving certain stops to provide bet- ter overall stop spacing and to provide added opportunities to apply TSP. The TEP has its own division within the Depart- ment of Parking and Traffic at SFMTA. Staff interacts with the other divisions in scoping transit priority treatments asso- ciated with its program. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON History In 1993, King County Metro established its Transit Speed and Reliability Program. Now in its 16th year, it has been responsi- ble for scoping and coordinating the development of more than 200 transit priority treatments on the street system within King County, including TSP (using radio frequency tag/wayside reader technology), special signal phasing, queue jump/bus bypass lanes, curb extensions, and stop consolidation and relo- cation. The program’s most recent budget for FY 2009 was $25.5 million. There have been several studies over the past ten years con- ducted by or for Metro to identify the effectiveness of TSP implementation in the Rainier Avenue South, Aurora Avenue North, and First Avenue South corridors, and to identify poten- tial bus priority strategies in other corridors. Current Focus Today the Speed and Reliability Program is comprised of ten staff in its technical work group: four Traffic Engi- neers, two Senior Project Managers, two Information System

FIGURE 39 SFMTA TEP recommended network (Source: SFMTA).

52 professionals, one Project Assistant, and one Supervisor. There are five areas where this staff provides services: 1. Partnerships on corridor-level improvement projects led by others, where county participation is identified through interagency agreements. 2. Traffic operations analysis/technical support to King County Metro’s Transit (Operating) Division. 3. Speed and reliability project initiatives, including scop- ing both spot improvements and corridor-level solu- tions. Spot improvements that are completed in the pre- vious six months are highlighted in a bi-annual report. 4. Regional TSP development, testing, and acceptance of new signal priority installations, operations and main- tenance agreements with local jurisdictions, and re- engineering of the transit priority request technology. 5. Special ITS assignments, which have included manag- ing a real-time bus information demonstration and the design of a real-time bus monitoring system for the Seat- tle CBD, providing technical support for a new on-bus ITS system, providing support to King County Roads for the selection and installation of their central traffic con- trol system, and participation in national Transit Com- munication Informational Protocol and National Trans- portation Information Communication Information Protocol Standards committees for TSP. King County Metro has entered into several intergovern- mental agreements in recent years related to transit preferen- tial treatment implementation on the roadway system in the county. Appendix C includes the blanket agreement covering overall King County and city of Seattle participation in this program. Also included in Appendix C is a sample agreement between King County and a smaller city, the city of Shoreline, related to the design, construction, operations, and mainte- nance of transit preferential treatments in the Aurora Avenue Corridor. The Shoreline agreement includes an interesting payback provision that requires the city to reimburse a pro- rated portion of the initial $1 million contribution by Metro to the project if the city were at any time over the next 15 years to cease the restricted use of the bus lanes planned for the project. Speed and Reliability Service Partnerships King County Metro has adopted a 10-year transit service improvement plan, called Transit Now that has as its corner- stone the development of new BRT service in five corridors, as well as extensive service improvements on its local and express bus system. A key strategy in this implementation effort is enti- tled Speed and Reliability Partnerships. These arrangements between King County and any of the 20 cities within the county contain eligible core service connections in Metro’s system, including Rapid Ride corridors. The cities agree to complete changes to traffic operations and facilities within five years that will improve bus travel time by at least 10% on these routes. In exchange, Metro commits to adding 5,000 transit service hours per year for each core route along the improved corridor(s) that achieves the travel time savings. Metro reserves the added ser- vice hours at the time of the agreement, and the service is added after the traffic improvements are complete. Metro also will help cities identify the types of improvements that are likely to achieve sufficient travel time savings and the traffic field data collection or operations models that will be used to measure the savings. Most of the 20 cities within King County share core ser- vice connections with one or more jurisdictions, and the 10% transit speed improvement must be measured along the entire corridor. Thus, cities considering speed and reliability part- nerships have been encouraged to include other cities in their agreement with Metro. The speed improvement must be in both directions along a route, for 12 core hours of weekday operation: three hours in both the a.m. and p.m. peak, and six hours between these peaks. Metro’s primary evaluation tool to assess transit speed improvements is the traffic operations software known as Synchro. When cities submit their proposals for evaluation, they must supply models for the applicable weekday a.m. and p.m. peak and off-peak conditions for the applicable street segments. These models must be based on traffic counts obtained within the past three years and signal timing plans that have been optimized within the past three years. Using current data, Metro staff then supplies transit travel times and transit travel time variability along the length of each route being evaluated by time of day and direction of travel, which will serve as the baseline for computing the 10% travel time savings. Metro will proceed and run the Synchro model, with- out and with the identified travel time improvements, and evaluate the results. A checklist has been developed by Metro for use by cities in reviewing the applicability of their proposal(s) (see Figure 40). A sample Speed and Reliability Partnership Agreement is found in Appendix C. Effectiveness of Transit Signal Priority System and Planned Enhancements The evaluation studies conducted for the Rainier Avenue South, Aurora Avenue North, and First Avenue South corri- dors revealed a peak-hour bus travel time savings ranging from 5.5% to 8%, with bus delay decreases ranging from 23% to 34%. Average person delay during peak hours decreased from 2% to 13%. In the Aurora Avenue North corridor, bus travel time variability was reduced by 39% to 50%. Based on field observations and simulation modeling, TSP as imple- mented had minimal impacts on queue lengths on side streets and left-turn lanes on the major street.

53 checklist_speed_reliability.doc FIGURE 40 King County Metro Speed and Reliability Partnership Criteria (Source: King County Metro).

54 The King County Metro Transit Speed and Reliability Program has developed a Transit Signal Priority Interactive Model to be used in estimating the impact on transit oper- ations of implementation of TSP at an intersection. The model can identify the vehicle and passenger travel time savings per trip and for the entire analysis period for particular signal con- troller settings to institute transit priority. Figure 41 presents an example worksheet developed for the Fremont Avenue/ 39th Street intersection associated with an evaluation of bus priority treatments along Route 5 in north Seattle. With the implementation of the Rapid Ride program, Metro is reassessing its TSP strategy and looking at new technology and operating options that would give buses a greater degree of priority at signalized intersections. This includes assess- ment of both a “conservative” and an “advanced” approach. FIGURE 41 King County Metro TSP Interactive Model—Example spreadsheet [Source: Route 5 Evaluation Final Report, DKS Associates (30)].

55 The conservative approach involves modifications to the exist- ing priority system such as increasing the frequency of prior- ity calls, allowing any bus to obtain priority regardless of the number of passengers on board or its on-time performance, and longer green extension/red truncation green phase alloca- tions to bus operations. The advanced approach would take the necessary steps to ensure that a bus clears an intersection without stopping, similar to the full priority operation used for light rail. From a technology perspective, Metro is proceeding with an on-board systems integration project that will include wire- less communications to the TSP equipment in the signal equip- ment, as opposed to the original radio frequency tag/wayside reader technology. This system has been estimated to save 70% of the cost of installing TSP per intersection. Using this new system, TSP is scheduled to be installed at 120 intersections in the five Rapid Ride corridors. PORTLAND, OREGON TriMet, the public transit agency in the Portland, Oregon, area, includes bus, light rail, and streetcar operations. It has been implementing transit priority treatments on the street system in its region since the late 1970s, primarily in the city of Portland. History Transit priority treatments in Portland started with the 5th and 6th Avenue bus malls in 1976. These streets were primarily used by local and express buses, with general traffic sharing the street, in certain blocks in their own lanes (primarily for hotel and parking garage access). This was followed by the implementation of median bus lanes on Barbur Boulevard south of downtown Portland in 1978 (these lanes were discon- tinued in 1984 owing to some intersection crash experience). In 1985, Portland’s first light rail line opened between down- town and Gresham, with the line downtown operating in on- street dedicated lanes next to general traffic (on Morrison and Yamhill Streets), and a median transitway configuration along East Burnside Street east of I-205. In 1992, TriMet received a grant from the FTA to develop on-street priority and stop improvements and initiated a Transit Streets Program in the city of Portland. This program was ori- ented to bus stop improvements (new or improved passenger waiting areas, curb ramps, shelter pads), but did include some intersection priority treatments such as bus bypass lanes, stop relocation, and special signal phasing. In 1994, TriMet ventured into bus signal priority develop- ment. It started with a test of two alternate bus detection tech- nologies on Powell Boulevard (LoopComm—an inductive loop/transponder system and TOTE—a radio frequency tag/ wayside reader system). This was followed by a test of the Optical Infrared bus detection technology on Multnomah Boulevard in 1995. After further testing of the Optical Infrared technology in a suburban area west of Portland—on Tualatin Valley Highway, TriMet was ready to proceed with a wider scale application of this technology. At the same time, the city of Portland was interested in applying the Optical Infrared technology for emergency vehicle preemption on a portion of its signal system, and hence TriMet and the city cooperated on submitting a grant appli- cation for $4.5 million to obtain Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to develop a combined transit priority/emergency vehicle preemption system in the city. This was known as the “Streamline” program. The intended goal of the program for TriMet was to recoup its investment through running time saved by “streamlining”—in other words, if four or five buses could be saved during peak period operation, the bus operating cost savings would offset the investment in tran- sit preferential treatments paid for through TriMet’s contribu- tions to the program. To date, signal priority has been installed at 275 intersections using the Opticom Infrared technology. Since the opening of the first LRT line in 1986, two addi- tional lines have been developed with extensive street- running operation: (1) the Westside line (opened in 1998), which operates on-street using Morrison/Yamhill Streets, 18th Avenue, and SW Jefferson Street on the west side of downtown, and along Washington Street through central Hillsboro (now connected with the Eastside line to form the Blue Line), and (2) the Yellow Line (opened in 2004), which operates much of its route along North Interstate Avenue in a median transitway through north Portland. In 2001, the Portland Streetcar line opened, operating along 10th and 11th Avenues though downtown Portland and along Lovejoy and Northrup Streets in northwest Portland— sharing the right through lane on these streets with general traffic. In September 2009, the original bus malls along 5th and 6th Avenues were reopened to include LRT vehicles and general traffic along their entire length, along with bus traffic. Impacts of the Streamline Program The Streamline program was applied to 12 of the more heav- ily used routes in TriMet’s bus system. In an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program, four specific measures were identified through “before” and “after” assessments of each route: ridership changes, additional fare revenue, on-time performance, and roundtrip time savings. The following is a summary of streamlining impacts that have been identified to date, from a 2007 report: 1. The time savings resulting from streamlining has not allowed any permanent reduction in the number of peak buses on a route—therefore, no short-term operations savings. 2. The 12 streamlined routes, on average, operate a round trip 0.8 s faster than during the weekday a.m. peak period in 2000. In comparison, seven non-streamlined routes in

56 the city of Portland were identified as having a round-trip travel time 1.3 s slower than in 2000, and four suburban routes were shown to operate 2.3 s slower than in 2000. 3. The running time savings that have been achieved through streamlining have delayed adding buses to streamlined routes by an estimated eight years. An annual $140,000 operating cost per saved bus, multi- plied by 12 routes over eight years, results in $13.4 mil- lion in long-term savings. The value of delaying the purchase of 12 additional buses for eight years is an added capital cost savings. 4. The combination of focusing service increases on fre- quent service routes, accompanied by streamlining and marketing efforts, has resulted in 12,000 more week- day bus boardings than would have occurred if service change resources were spread systemwide. These added passengers result in added fare box revenue of approx- imately $1.7 million annually. Figure 42 shows TriMet’s current bus signal priority sys- tem as it is relates to its four proposed BRT routes and the rest of the transit system. DENVER, COLORADO The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver has been involved in transit priority development on its urban streets since the early 1980s. Four substantial transit service and facility improvements were implemented in the 1981–1984 time frame: • 16th Street Transit Mall • Skip-stop operation on 15th and 17th Streets • Broadway/Lincoln bus lanes • Limited Stop Service on East Colfax Avenue. Each of these projects has had a significant impact on pro- viding travel time improvements to and through the down- town Denver area. A further description of each project, how it developed, and its current impact are described here. 16th Street Mall The 16th Street mall was a project completed in 1982 that provided new low-floor, electric bus service connecting two new transit centers at the east and west ends of downtown; at Blake Street and the Civic Center. The transit mall was developed as a complete rebuild of 16th Street, with granite pavers and expanded sidewalks. The mall was developed with no lanes for general traffic, with emergency vehicles allowed to use the transit lanes when needed. A key element of the 16th Street shuttle operation is a TSP system that enables shuttle buses to navigate the length of the mall with a highly reliable signal progression system. The city/county of Denver traffic engineering staff, in con- junction with RTD staff, developed a “single alternate pro- gression” system based on a 75-s downtown traffic signal cycle length. It provides a green signal at each intersection along the mall after a shuttle bus has traversed a block, made a near-side stop to board and deboard passengers, and is ready FIGURE 42 TriMet TSP locations (Source: TriMet).

57 FIGURE 43 Overhead signal and signage—Broadway Bus Lane—Denver (Source: Denver Regional Transportation District). to proceed to the next bus stop. Vehicle bus dwell times are highly consistent, between 12 and 15 s for normal board- ing conditions. Any bus bunching resulting from wheelchair boardings or other anomalies is handled by variation in recov- ery time at one of the transit centers at the end of the mall. Another priority measure is the starting signal used at each transit center. The signal aspects display both the num- ber of traffic signal cycles since the last shuttle departure (multiples of 75 s) and a diagonal bar “proceed with caution” aspect that assures the bus operator they will have a green signal indication at the next intersection. 15th/17th Street Skip-Stop Operation Associated with the development of the 16th Street Mall, the bus lanes on these two one-way streets were replaced with an “XYZ skip-stop pattern” in 1981. The stop pattern involves three groups of buses stopping every third block, with three buses per stop. There is one stop common to all buses. The spe- cific stop pattern for 17th Street was previously shown in chap- ter two. A total of 15 bus routes use this stop pattern on both 15th and 17th Streets. The basic bus operation is as follows: 1. Buses leaving stop pick up the green traffic signal pro- gression band. 2. Next passenger stop is made during the red signal phase. Buses load and unload passengers, then proceed on next green wave. The three-block travel, and the increase in general traffic speed (by an average of 12.5 mph), are major factors in improved travel times. Also, with the spreading of stops, side- walk crowding at bus stops decreased 40% to 50%. The more organized bus operation also resulted in a 25% to 40% increase in the speed of general traffic on 15th and 17th Streets. Broadway/Lincoln Bus Lanes Bus lanes on Broadway and Lincoln Streets, a major north– south one-way pair between I-25 and downtown Denver, were initiated in 1976. The bus lanes, each 4 miles in length, were found to provide an average travel time savings of 5 min per bus during the peak period (0.8 min per mile). The bus lanes operate as exclusive transit lanes from 6 to 10 a.m. in the morning and from 3 to 7 p.m. in the afternoon on weekdays. The initial passive bus lane signs were replaced by current bus lane signs with flashing yellow lights marking the times when the bus lanes are in operation, thus better alerting adja- cent general motorists (see Figure 43). There is a single bus queue jump traffic signal on northbound Lincoln at 13th Avenue to facilitate left turns by all buses at Colfax Avenue into the Civic Center station. East Colfax Avenue Limited Stop Service In 1985, the RTD implemented one of the first BRT-type services in the United States, along East Colfax Avenue between Fitzsimmons Medical Center and downtown Den- ver. This service focused on the introduction of limited-stop bus service in the corridor, with enhanced bus stops at certain locations including greater shelter and other passenger ameni- ties. At the time of this service implementation, TSP strategies were still not fully developed, and hence the RTD undertook extensive bus travel time and delay studies to determine where stops might be consolidated and moved to reduce bus travel time in the corridor. Existing Light Rail Lines The Denver RTD to date has implemented three light rail lines: (1) the Southwest Line from downtown to Mineral Avenue, (2) the Southeast Line from downtown to the Den- ver Tech Center, and (3) the Central Line to Union Station. The Southwest and Southeast lines operate at-grade on Stout and California Avenues in downtown in contraflow opera- tion on the right side of each street either next to the curb or parking lane (see Figure 6). Current FasTracks and FastConnects Programs Since 2000, the RTD has embarked on a program, called Fas- Tracks, to develop more than 150 miles of new rapid transit corridors in the Denver region, including BRT operating on- street in certain corridors. Associated with FasTracks is a pro- gram called FastConnects, which addresses strategies to facil- itate passenger transfers between major routes (see Figure 44). These programs have as their core a program of transit prior- ity treatments. Transit priority strategy investments are being identified based on cost-effectiveness—specifically relat- ing ridership to capital and operating costs. The investment

58 FIGURE 44 Denver RTD FastConnects system (Source: Denver Regional Transportation District).

59 strategy that has been developed focuses on the following activities: 1. Measuring and comparing average bus versus gen- eral traffic performance for selected links in different corridors. 2. Identifying potential locations to implement travel time improvement measures. 3. Identifying facilities, priorities, or other measures that may improve bus travel time, by how much and the extent of riders affected. 4. Developing specifications for the identified improve- ments to estimate annualized capital and operating costs and savings. 5. Selecting projects for implementation based on fund- ing and other relevant system-wide considerations. Measures of effectiveness that are being used in different corridor evaluations include: • Effects on Transit: vehicle travel time, vehicle on-time performance; and • Effects on Traffic: vehicle-hours of delay, person-hours of delay, vehicle travel time, vehicle travel speed, travel time variability, and level of service. Coordination among different affected organizations in implementing transit priority treatments is being addressed through a work group of the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). In addition, ad hoc work groups have been estab- lished specific to certain projects. Denver Regional Transit Signal Priority Project Since 1989, the DRCOG has been working with the Colorado DOT and local governments to coordinate and improve tim- ing of the traffic signals on major streets in the region. In 2005, DRCOG and RTD entered into an agreement to conduct a Transit Signal Priority Study Project. The scope of the project included goals and objectives setting, system inventory and evaluation, technology review, technology strategy selection, and implementation sites selection and functional design. As part of the study, five corridors were chosen as test bed TSP corridors and simulated and analyzed under both exist- ing traffic conditions and a “with TSP” scenario to determine the effect that the addition of TSP would have on both buses and general traffic. Findings were summarized in four cate- gories: (1) TSP Corridor Findings, (2) TSP Intersection Find- ings, (3) TSP Transit Route Findings, and (4) Corridor-Specific Findings. Key general findings were as follows: • Larger TSP benefits to transit vehicles can be achieved on corridors with regularly spaced signalized intersec- tions that have good progression or the potential for good progression. • TSP is best applied to a long series of signalized inter- sections along a single travel corridor. • TSP study intersections with major street crossings and heavy side-street vehicle demand are more negatively affected with TSP calls. • Intersections near or at capacity are more negatively affected by TSP than other intersections. • Transit routes with less frequent stops and travel along one street corridor realize more travel time benefits with TSP. • Near-side bus stops limit the distance between the TSP check-in detector and the intersection from the recom- mended 500 ft, reducing the effectiveness of TSP. Based on the results of the simulation results and discus- sions of the findings with DRCOG, RTD, the city/county of Denver, and the city of Boulder, specific recommendations to institute TSP were made for the South Broadway, Colfax Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Lincoln Street corridors in Denver, and the HOP corridor in Boulder.