National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments

« Previous: Chapter Five - Case Studies
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit Preferential Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 77

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.

This chapter presents information on the warrants, costs, and impacts of different transit preferential treatments, where information is available on these subjects. The information is derived from a review of information in the documents eval- uated in the literature review for this report, and insights from the transit and traffic agency web surveys and case studies con- ducted. Primary documents with useful information include TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition (3), Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (19), TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide (5), TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (4), and NCHRP Report 155— Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines (2). This chapter also reviews the applicability of different ana- lytical tools to assess the impacts of different transit preferen- tial treatments on transit and traffic operations. WARRANTS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION Median Transitways Exclusive median facilities or transit malls are typically applied for LRT operations on urban streets owing to the length of the trains (and hence potential substantial impact to local access if operated curbside) and the need to preserve some operating speed advantages for such a mode. For streetcars and buses, impetus for operation in a median transitway is a greater number of vehicles (thus to reduce conflicts with general traffic) and again a desire for higher operating speeds. Wider arterial streets are needed to implement median transitways. Sufficient ROWs must exist to provide for adequate transit station platforms (whether near side or far side) and the provision for near-side left-turn lanes at sig- nalized intersections. If a median busway is used by more than one route, then building in passing lanes may be desir- able in station areas. In NCHRP Report 155 (2), warrants for “median bus lanes” were defined as ranging from 60 to 90 one-way buses per peak hour, with a minimum daily bus volume of 600. The bus volumes were correlated to a one-way bus passenger vol- ume of 2,400 to 3,600 per peak hour. Exclusive Transit Lanes Exclusive transit lanes outside of median facilities within the street ROW require (1) a sufficient frequency of transit service, (2) traffic congestion along the roadway, (3) suitable street geometry, and (4) community willingness to enforce the regulations. From a premium transit perspective, transit lanes are useful in establishing a clear identity for such ser- vice within the street ROW. Guidelines for the operation of exclusive transit lanes on urban streets include the following, separated by bus versus LRT/streetcar operations (5). Bus 1. Concurrent-flow lanes may operate along the outside curb, in the lane adjacent to a parking lane (interior lane) or in a paved median area (without a dedicated median transitway). 2. Concurrent-flow lanes can operate at all times, for extended hours (e.g., from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), or just dur- ing peak hours. 3. Contraflow lanes should operate at all times. 4. Under conditions of heavy bus volumes, dual con- current-flow or contraflow lanes may be desirable. 5. Where the bus lanes operate at all times, special col- ored pavement may be desirable to improve the iden- tity of the BRT operations. 6. Bus lanes should be at least 11 ft wide to accommodate an 8.5-ft bus width. 7. The bus lanes should carry as many people as in the adjacent general traffic lane. Generally, at least 25 buses should use the lanes during the peak hour. (Ideally, there should be at least one bus per signal cycle to give buses a steady presence in the bus lane.) There should be at least two lanes available for general traffic in the same direction, wherever possible. 8. Parking should be prohibited where bus lanes are along the curb, but it may remain where interior bus lanes are provided. (Interior bus lanes are located in the lanes adjacent to the curb lanes.) 9. There should be suitable provisions for goods delivery and service vehicle access, either during off-hours or off-street. In NCHRP Report 155 (2), volume warrants for both concur- rent-flow and contraflow curb bus lanes were identified. Table 17 identifies the peak hour and daily bus volumes and CHAPTER SIX WARRANTS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS OF TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS 60

61 assumed bus passengers associated with different treatments in downtown areas versus outside of downtown areas. LRT/Streetcar 1. It is important that LRT/streetcar lanes operate in the same direction as parallel general traffic (contraflow lanes are discouraged); 2. That any dedicated LRT/streetcar lanes operate at all times; 3. That LRT/streetcar lanes have a more substantial ele- ment to separate operations from general traffic, such as low-profile pavement bars, rumble strips, contrasting pavement texture, or mountable curbs, than just paint or striping; and 4. Separate LRT signals clearly distinguishable from traf- fic signals in design and placement be provided. The primary basis for determining whether lane dedication is applicable typically involves a comparison of costs and ben- efits. In this case, the mixed-traffic operating scenario would be compared with a dedicated running way scenario. Effec- tiveness can then be analyzed in terms of changes in total person travel time for all travelers in the given corridor irre- spective of mode. The analysis can take into account potential shifts by motorists to parallel arterials if capacity is taken away from general traffic on the arterial in question. The most critical parameters affecting the results of any evaluation of dedicated bus lanes are the number of buses in the peak hour and peak direction and the number of people on the buses. Travel time savings for current transit users and the potential attraction of new riders, along with potential operat- ing and maintenance cost savings, is traded off against changes in travel times for current general traffic, access, and parking impacts at adjacent land uses. Transit Signal Priority TSP is typically applied when there is significant traffic con- gestion and, hence, transit delays along a roadway. Estimated bus travel time and delay can be identified through field sur- veys of existing conditions or through simulation modeling of future conditions. Studies have found that TSP is most effec- tive at signalized intersections operating within LOS “D” and “E” conditions with a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) between 0.80 and 1.00. There is limited benefit in implementing prior- ity under LOS “A” through “C” conditions as the roadway is relatively uncongested and neither major bus travel time or reliability improvements can be achieved. Under oversatu- rated traffic conditions (v/c greater than 1.00), long vehicle queues prevent transit vehicles from getting to the intersection soon enough to take advantage of TSP without disrupting gen- eral traffic operations. A basic guideline is to apply TSP when there is an esti- mated reduction in transit vehicle delay with negligible change in general traffic delay. Given this condition, the net total per- son delay (on both buses or trains and general traffic) should decrease with application of TSP at a particular intersection or along an extended corridor. Given the frequency of transit service in a given corridor, TSP may only be given to certain transit vehicles such that the disruption to general traffic operations is minimized. Condi- tional priority is most commonly accepted as an initial TSP application for bus operations in a corridor, assuming that buses would be issued priority only if they are behind sched- ule or have a certain number of persons on board the bus. Los Angeles Metro Rapid, for example, limits TSP to every other signal cycle. TSP has been found to be most effective with transit stops located on the far side of signalized intersections so that a bus, streetcar, or train activates the priority call and travels through the intersection and then makes a stop. Past studies and actual applications have shown that greater reduction in transit travel time and variability in travel times can be achieved with a far- side versus near-side stop configuration. Curb Extensions Curb extensions are typically warranted when there are dif- ficulties for buses trying to reenter the traffic stream, usually Range in One-Way Peak-Hour Volume Curb Bus Lane Minimum Daily Bus Volume Bus Passengers Concurrent flow In CBD 200 20–30 800–1,200 Outside CBD 300 30–40 1,200–1,600 Contraflow Short segment 200 20–30 800–1,200 Extended segment 400 40–60 1,600–2,400 Source: NCHRP Report 155, Table 43 (2). CBD = central business district. TABLE 17 VOLUME WARRANTS FOR CURB BUS LANES

62 because of high traffic volumes. Conditions that support the construction of curb extensions related to bus operations include: • Street traffic speeds are relatively low. • General traffic volumes are relatively low (fewer than 400 to 500 vehicles per hour). • Right turns are relatively low (particularly for larger vehicles such as trucks). • Bus stop patronage and overall pedestrian volumes are substantial. • On-street parking is available. • Two travel lanes are available in the particular direction (to allow passing of stopped buses). • There is interest on the part of local business/property owners for such treatments. Curb extensions can only be applied where it is possible to widen the sidewalk either at an intersection or mid-block. For use as bus stops, curb extensions are typically associated with near-side bus stops. If far-side stops are developed as curb extensions, blockage to general traffic caused by the bus stop- ping should not result in unacceptable queuing and potential traffic conflicts at the intersection. Thus, with far-side curb extensions, two travel lanes are desirable. Other conditions that may limit the use of curb extensions include two-lane streets, complex drainage patterns, and high bicycle traffic on the street. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Median Transitways and Bus Lanes The cost of implementing dedicated bus lanes depends on the existing roadway configuration and the extent of the planned changes to accommodate dedicated lanes. Unit costs for both initial construction and subsequent lane operation and mainte- nance can be obtained from local government and state DOTs in the respective community. Capital costs are affected by ROW needs and costs, the design details of the existing street (e.g., Are utilities to be moved? Is a median to be cleared and paved? Will sidewalks be rebuilt?), and the design details of the new lanes them- selves. If existing lanes are used with no new construction, the initial capital costs will primarily be limited to modest re-striping and signage costs. According to TCRP Report 90, published in 2007, the range of costs for adding new bus lanes is as identified in Table 18 (4). Where existing lanes are converted to bus lanes, capital costs may range from $50,000 to $100,000 per mile for re-striping and signing. Where street reconstruction is required to provide new bus lanes, as noted in Table 15, the costs are substantially higher. In Boston, the reconstruction of 2.2 miles of Washington Street for the Silver Line Phase 1 cost $10.5 million per mile, of which about 20% was for brick-paved sidewalks and crosswalks, architectural street lighting, and landscaping. The O&M cost for dedicated bus lanes includes the costs for street lighting and routine maintenance (e.g., pothole filling and resurfacing, cleaning, and snow plowing). The incremen- tal O&M costs for a dedicated bus lane depend on the nature of the situation before and after the dedication. If the dedicated bus lanes were formerly devoted to either parking or general traffic, there would be no incremental operating and mainte- nance costs other than those associated with more frequent maintenance given the greater wear and tear associated with bus operation. The O&M costs of the new dedicated bus lanes themselves are not the only O&M cost impact. If a bus lane saves enough time such that a decrease in the number of buses necessary to provide a given level of service is possible, there will be a decrease in transit operating and maintenance costs as well. If the proposed dedicated lanes result from a widening, the incremental O&M costs would be modest; certainly under $10,000 per lane-mile per year (based on national average O&M costs for arterial streets). Most transit agencies have fully allocated or marginal O&M cost models that have vehicle hours and peak vehicle requirements as primary input. Analysis of revenue service travel speeds and times is necessary to determine the degree to which both of these would be decreased as the result of the dedicated bus lanes. Transit Signal Priority Costs for implementing TSP along a transit corridor will depend on the configuration of the existing signal control system, with higher costs associated with signal upgrades, equipment/software for the intersection, vehicles, or the central traffic control and transit management systems. Costs specifically associated with TSP are highly dependent on whether the TSP system will be localized to a corridor or TABLE 18 RANGE OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ADDING NEW TRANSIT LANES ON URBAN STREETS Type of New Arterial Transit Lanes Cost Range (exclusive of right-of- way and with uncolored pavement) Curb or off-set lanes (bus) $2 to $3 million per lane-mile Median transitway (bus) $5 to $10 million per lane-mile Median transitway (LRT) $20 to $30 million per track-mile Source: TCRP Report 90 (4).

63 centralized and integrated into a transit or regional traffic management center. To implement a conditional priority system, the central signal system may be integrated into the transit management center. A key assessment in determining cost is whether or not existing traffic control software and controllers are compatible with TSP. Estimates for traffic signal controller replacement range between $3,500 and $5,000, depending on the vendor and the functionality pre- scribed for TSP. Costs for communication links needed to integrate these traffic signals into the existing signal system and costs for future signal system upgrades would be extra and would vary depending on the specific signal system con- figuration and extent of TSP application. In general, if exist- ing software and controller equipment can be used, costs can be under $5,000 per intersection; however, costs can increase to $20,000 to $30,000 per intersection if equipment needs to be replaced. Costs for transit detection vary significantly based on the ultimate technology chosen. Table 19 provides ranges and typical capital and operating costs for different TSP detection systems. Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes The cost of a queue jump or bypass lane will vary widely based on whether or not there is an existing right-turn lane or shoul- der present to develop a transit queue bypass. If existing road- way lanes or shoulders are available to develop an adequate queue jump or bypass lane treatment, then the costs of the installation will focus on roadway signing and striping modi- fications and the provision of a separate signal for the queue jump treatment. For applications in the United States, the sign- ing and striping costs have ranged from $500 to $2,000. The cost of a bus queue jump signal is estimated to range from $5,000 to $15,000, based on the type of detection deployed. A queue jump signal with loop detection typically has a lower cost than with video detection. The development of a new separate lane for buses for a bypass or the development of a new or lengthened right- or left-turn lane will be dependent on the availability of ROW, existing utilities present, and other roadside features. Costs for new lane construction will vary widely based on the extent of roadway reconstruction, utility modification, and ROW TABLE 19 COSTS OF DIFFERENT TSP DETECTION SYSTEMS System Technology Equipment Cost/ Intersection Equipment Cost/Bus Operating and Maintenance Costs Jurisdictions Using This Detection Optical Optical emitters Moderate ($8,000– $10,000) Moderate ($1,000) Emitter replacement ($1,000) Portland; San Francisco; Tacoma; Kennewick, WA; Houston; Sacramento; ,and others Wayside Reader Radio frequency technology. Uses vehicle-mounted tags and wayside antenna, which must be located within 35 ft of transit vehicle. Radio transmits and decoder reads rebound message. High ($20,000– $40,000) Low ($50) Tag replacement ($50) King County, WA ìSmart ” Loops Loop amplifier detects transmitter powered by vehicle’s electrical system. Low ($2,500 per amplifier; use existing loop detector) Low ($200) Same as loop detector Los Angeles; Chicago; Pittsburgh; San Mateo County, CA GPS GPS receivers mounted on transit vehicle. Line of sight not required for detection. Moderate ($6,000– $10,000) High ($2,500) N/A Broward County, FL; San Jose Wireless Applies unused bandwidth. Use of mesh networking. Moderate (Under $10,000)— Dependent on number of access points Moderate (under $1,000) High if Cellular Digital Packet Data system, low if LAN Los Angeles County N/A = not available; LAN = local area network. Source: TCRP Report 118 (2007) (5) and JTA ITS Signal Priority Program Study Final Report (2008) (31).

64 acquisition required. If a far-side bus pullout is provided, added costs would be incurred. Curb Extensions The cost of a curb extension varies based on the length and width of the treatment, site constraints, and the specific design of the curb extension. In San Francisco, costs of existing curb extensions have ranged from $40,000 to $80,000 each. Much of the cost is derived from the need to provide adequate drainage, which often requires re-grading the street and side- walk and moving drains, manholes, street lights, signal poles, street furniture, fire hydrants, and other features. IMPACTS ON TRANSIT OPERATIONS Transit preferential treatments will have an impact on three major components of transit operations: (1) travel time, and (2) reliability, which will then have an impact on (3) capital and operating cost savings. The impact on transit operations of the different types of transit preferential treatments are described as follows. Median Transitways and Exclusive Lanes The primary reason to add dedicated transit lanes to an at-grade premium transit service is to improve travel times and relia- bility over mixed-traffic operations. The benefits of reduced travel times for transit users and improvements in reliability are traded off against increased travel times for other roadway sys- tem users and the potential diversion to other roadway corridors (with associated impacts) if the new dedicated arterial transit lanes are developed by removing general traffic lanes. Reliability is as important to transit users and service providers as travel time savings. Improved travel time consis- tency means that regular transit users enjoy the ability to begin their trips at the same time every day, and transit operators can reduce the amount of recovery time built into their schedules, which can save O&M costs. The likely benefits of median transitway and exclusive transit lane operation depend on the length of the lane and the amount of time saved. Observations included the following: • A small amount of time savings primarily results in passenger benefits. • As the travel time savings increases, it may reduce fleet requirements and operating costs. • A time savings of more than 5 min (on a typical trip) can affect mode choice, further increase ridership, and possibly encourage land development. Figure 45 illustrates these relationships for exclusive bus lanes. Examples of travel time savings observed with certain arterial street bus lane treatments are shown in Table 20. Examples of improvements in bus lane reliability are shown in Table 21. The improved reliability is measured by the per- cent change in the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean). Transit Signal Priority Tables 22 and 23 present the measured/estimated impacts of bus TSP in selected cities in North America on travel time, reliability (schedule adherence), and operating costs, as well FIGURE 45 Degree of bus lane impacts [Source: TCRP Report 26 (16)].

65 as the impacts of TSP on general traffic. Expected benefits of TSP vary depending on the application and the extent to which the signal system in a particular area already has optimized progression before TSP application. A summary of these impacts follows. Travel time savings associated with TSP in North America and Europe have ranged from 2% to 18%, depending on the length of corridor, particular traffic conditions, bus opera- tions, and the TSP strategy deployed. A reduction of 8% to 12% has been typical. The reduction in bus delay at signals has ranged from 15% to 80%. In Los Angeles, in the initial Wilshire–Whittier and Ven- tura BRT corridors, average running time along both corridors associated with TSP decreased by 7.5%. This corresponds to an average decrease of 0.5 min per mile on Wilshire–Whittier Boulevard and a decrease of 0.3 min per mile on Ventura Boulevard. The reduction in bus signal delay at intersections with TSP was 33% to 36%. In Chicago, buses have achieved an average 15% reduction in running time along Cermak Road, with the reductions varying from 7% to 20% depending on the time of day. Along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, each bus has saved an average of 5 s per intersection with TSP. BRT vehicles along Vancouver’s 98-B line have saved up to 1.5 min per trip (5). Schedule adherence as measured by variability in bus travel times and arrival times at stops improves significantly with TSP application. In Seattle, along the Rainier Avenue corridor, bus travel time variability has been reduced by 35%. In Port- land, TriMet was able to eliminate one bus assignment to one of its corridors by using TSP and has experienced up to a 19% reduction in travel time variability in certain corridors. In Van- couver, the travel time variability along its BRT routes has decreased approximately 40%. By reducing bus travel time and delay and the variability in travel time and delay, transit agencies have realized both capital cost savings (by saving one or more buses during the length of the day to provide service on a route) and operat- ing cost savings (owing to more efficient bus operation). In Los Angeles, the MTA indicated that before the Wilshire– Whittier and Ventura BRT implementation, the average cost of operating a bus was $98 per hour. A traffic signal delay reduction of 4.5 min per hour translates into a cost savings of approximately $7.35 per hour per bus for the initial two BRT corridors. For a bus operating along these corridors for 15 hours a day, the cost savings would be approximately $110.25 per day. Assuming 100 buses per day for an average of 300 days per calendar year in the two corridors, this translates into an approximately $3.3 million annual operating cost savings for the MTA. This savings does not include the added benefit TABLE 20 OBSERVED TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS WITH ARTERIAL BUS LANES TABLE 21 OBSERVED RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS WITH ARTERIAL BUS LANES TABLE 22 REPORTED INITIAL ESTIMATES OF BENEFITS TO BUSES FROM TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY City Street Savings (minutes per mile) Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd. 0.1 to 0.2 (a.m.) 0.5 to 0.8 (p.m.) Dallas Harry Hines Blvd. 1 Dallas Ft. Worth Blvd. 1.5 New York City Madison Ave. (dual bus lanes) 43%* express bus 34%* local bus San Francisco 1st Street 39%* local bus *Percent reduction in travel time. Source: TCRP Reports 26, 90, and 118 (16,4,5). City Street Percent Improvement* Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd. 12 to 27 New York City Madison Ave. 57 *Coefficient of variation multiplied by 100. Source: TCRP Reports 26 and 90 (16,4). Location % Running Time Saved % Increase in Speeds % Reduced Intersection Delay Anne Arundel County, MD 13–18 — — Bremerton, WA 10 — — Chicago, IL—Cermak Road 15–18 — — Hamburg, Germany — 25–40 — Los Angeles—Wilshire/Whittier Metro Rapid 8–10 — — Pierce County, WA 6 — — Portland, OR 5–12 — — Seattle, WA—Rainier Avenue 8 — 13 Toronto, ON 2–4 — — Source: TCRP Reports 90 and 100 (4,3), FTA CBRT Document (32).

66 TABLE 23 ITS AMERICA’S SUMMARY OF TSP BENEFITS AND IMPACTS—BUS AND RAIL Location Transit Type No. of Inter- sections TSP Strategy Benefit/Impact Portland, OR—Tualatin Valley Hwy. Bus 10 Early green, green extension Bus travel time savings = 1.4%–6.4%. Average bus signal delay reduction = 20%. Portland, OR—Powell Blvd. Bus 4 Early green, green extension, queue jump 5%–8% bus travel time reduction. Bus person delay generally decreased. Inconclusive impacts of TSP on traffic. Seattle, WA—Rainier Ave. at Genesee Bus 1 Early green, green extension For prioritized buses: • 50% reduction of signal-related stops • 57% reduction in average signal delay 13.5% decrease in intersection average person delay. Average intersection delay did not change for traffic. 35% reduction in bus travel time variability. Side-street effects insignificant. Seattle, WA—Rainier Ave. (mid- day) Bus 3 Early green, green extension For TSP-eligible buses: • 24% average reduction in stops for eligible buses • 34% reduction in average intersection delay 8% reduction in travel times. Side-street drivers do not miss green signal when TSP is granted to bus. Toronto, ON Street- car 36 Early green, green extension 15%–49% reduction in transit signal delay. One streetcar removed from service. Chicago, IL—Cermak Rd. Bus 15 Early green, green extension 7%–20% reduction in transit travel time. Transit schedule reliability improved. Reduced number of buses needed to operate the service. Passenger satisfaction level increased. 1.5 s/vehicle average decrease in vehicle delay. 8.2 s/vehicle average increase in cross-street delay. San Francisco, CA LRT and Trolley 16 Early green, green extension 6%–25% reduction in transit signal delay. Minneapolis, MN— Louisiana Ave. Bus 3 Early green, green extension, actuated transit phase 0%–38% reduction in bus travel times depending on TSP strategy. 23% (4.4 s/vehicle) increase in traffic delay. Skipping signal phases caused some driver frustration. Los Angeles, CA— Wilshire and Ventura Blvds. Bus 211 Early green, green extension, actuated transit phase 8% reduction in average running time. 35% decrease in bus delay at signalized intersections. Source: An Overview of Transit Signal Priority, ITS America (21). of travel time savings for the Rapid Bus passengers. With an anticipated project life cycle of 10 years, the relative benefit–cost ratio for TSP associated with the Wilshire– Whittier and Ventura BRT corridors was estimated to be greater than 11:1 (5) Several studies of the streetcar system in Toronto (24) found TSP to be beneficial, with reductions identified in streetcar travel times and improvements in on-time perfor- mance. The streetcar as a whole has experienced reductions in travel times of between 6% and 10%. This is based on a sys- tem with only 77% of signals operating TSP. The Dundas streetcar line, which travels through 31 signalized intersec- tions, including 27 with TSP operation, has seen a significant reduction of almost 50% in signal delays during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods, and a slightly lower delay reduc- tion during the off-peak period. Similarly, the Carlton street- car has experienced a major reduction in intersection delay with TSP ranging from 21% to 28%. The variability in TSP travel time savings across routes results from the variation on the percent of intersections with near-side stops, service fre- quency, degree of separation from traffic, length of route, and ridership increase following TSP implementation. The ser- vice reliability improvements associated with TSP on the streetcar system have included a reduction in vehicle bunch- ing and headway variability.

67 Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes By allowing a transit vehicle to bypass general traffic queuing at a signalized intersection, transit travel time is reduced with improved service reliability. The extent of transit travel time savings will depend on the extent of general traffic queuing at a signalized intersection, the extent to which a bypass treat- ment can be developed to bypass the general traffic queue, and the magnitude of right-turn traffic if the queue bypass uses such a lane (and also whether or not free right turns are allowed from the right-turn lane). With either a queue jump or bypass lane some increase in delay to right-turn traffic could occur if a separate lane for buses is not provided. Transit travel time savings are reduced if the right-turn lane traffic volume is heavy and there is limited opportunity for free right turns or right turns on red. Application of bus queue jumps has been shown to produce 5% to 15% reductions in travel time for buses through inter- sections. Service reliability is improved because of reduced bus delay at signals. Reported travel time savings associated with queue jumps and/or bypass lanes are as follows (5): • 7- to 10-s bus intersection delay savings on Lincoln Street at 13th Avenue in Denver. • 27 s reduction in bus travel time along the NE 45th Street route in Seattle during the weekday a.m. peak period. • 12 s reduction in bus travel time along the NE 45th Street route in Seattle during the weekday p.m. peak period in Seattle. • 6 s reduction in bus travel time along the NE 45th Street route in Seattle across an entire day. By reducing bus travel time, some operating cost savings can be achieved with queue jumps and/or bypass lanes if implemented in a systematic manner, particularly if the cumulative effect were the elimination of a bus to meet the service need. Curb Extensions By allowing a bus to stop in the general traffic lane and not have to pull over to a curb at a bus stop, travel time is reduced by eliminating “clearance time.” This is the time a bus waits to find an acceptable gap in the traffic stream so that the bus can pull back into the general traffic lane. The clearance time depends on the adjacent lane traffic volume and bus operator experience, and various studies have shown that clearance times can range from 9 to 20 s. Table 24 identifies clearance times associated with differ- ent adjacent-lane mixed-traffic volumes under particular bus operating conditions, based on research conducted in develop- ing TCRP Report 100 (3). A volume range of 0 to 1,000 vehi- cles per lane per hour typically results in an average bus clear- ance time of 0 to 15 s. By eliminating clearance time through curb extension application, the variability of dwell time at stops along an arterial corridor can be improved and, thus, bus service reliability also can be improved. At the same time, pro- vision of a near-side curb extension precludes the ability to provide a dedicated right-turn lane at an intersection. By reducing bus travel time, some operating cost savings can be achieved with curb extensions if implemented in a sys- tematic manner. An extensive evaluation of the impact of curb extensions on transit operations was conducted in 1999 as part of a proj- ect along Mission Street in San Francisco to convert bus bays to bus bulbs. As part of the TCRP A-10A project on Evalua- tion of Bus Bulbs (8), a before-and-after study was under- taken at the bus stop locations along Mission Street. The study revealed about a 7% increase in bus operating speeds along the corridor. The study also assessed the change in pedestrian flow rates next to one of the bus stops with the added pedestrian area associated with the provision of a bus bulb versus the orig- inal sidewalk with a bus bay. The study revealed an average 11% improvement in pedestrian flow rate (ped/min/ft) during the peak 15-min periods evaluated. The TCRP A-10A study also conducted a simulation analy- sis in a corridor in San Francisco to evaluate the impact of bus bulbs on transit and general traffic operations. The simulation runs included both far-side and near-side bus stops, and bus bays and bus bulbs. For near-side stops, it was determined that the bus bulb design is beneficial over the bus bay design with respect to average traffic speeds at lower volumes (below 1,000 vehicles/h), regardless of the bus dwell time. For far-side stops, it was determined that there was no practical difference in average traffic speeds. Stop Consolidation Research was undertaken as part of TriMet’s bus stop con- solidation program to try to quantify the travel time savings associated with implementation of stop consolidation in a TABLE 24 AVERAGE BUS CLEARANCE TIME (Random Vehicle Arrivals) Adjacent-Lane Mixed- Traffic Volume (vehicles/hour) Average Re-Entry Delay (seconds) 100 1 200 2 300 3 400 4 500 5 600 6 700 8 800 10 900 12 1,000 15 Source: TCRP Report 100 (3). Computed using Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (19) unsignalized intersection methodology (minor street right turn at a bus stop) assuming a critical gap of 7 s and random vehicle arrivals. Delay based on 12 buses stopping per hour.

68 corridor (33). Route 4–Fessenden/104–Division, which pro- vides radial service interlined through downtown Portland, was the subject of the analysis. Both control and “with treat- ment” segments were evaluated, each comprising a length of two miles. The “with treatment” segment had a net reduction of four inbound and six outbound stops, whereas the 104/Division route had a net reduction of five inbound and seven outbound stops. The net reduction in stops resulted in an increase in aver- age spacing of 6% for inbound and 8% for outbound stops. A 5.7% reduction in bus running time attributable to stop consolidation was identified. In the late 1980s, MUNI in San Francisco undertook a sys- tematic evaluation of the impact of bus stop reduction and relo- cation in seven bus corridors: Haight Street, Union Street, Van Ness Avenue, Polk Street, Mission Street, Sacramento Street, and Columbus Avenue. Table 25 shows the results of this pro- gram. Bus stops were reduced from 2.5 to 5.9 stops per mile, with average bus speeds increasing from 4.4% to 14.6% (32). TCRP Reports 26, 90, and 118 (16,4,5) all addressed the impact of stop spacing on arterial bus travel time. Table 26 relates the average arterial bus travel time rate (minutes per mile) to the number of bus stops and the average dwell per stop. Using such a table, with knowledge of how dwell time might change with a stop consolidation strategy, the travel time savings associated with stop consolidation along a bus route can be estimated. ANALYSIS METHODS There are various methodologies for assessing the impacts of different transit preferential treatments on both transit opera- tions (change in delay, operating speed, on-time performance) TABLE 25 BEFORE AND AFTER RESULTS OF SFMTA BUS STOP REDUCTION IN SEVEN CORRIDORS TABLE 26 BASE ARTERIAL BUS TRAVEL TIMES WITH DIFFERENT STOP SPACING AND DWELL TIMES Before After Change Street Stops per Mile Avg. Bus Speed Stops per Mile Avg. Bus Speed Stops per Mile Avg. Bus Speed Haight 10.7 8.2 mph 7.1 9.4 mph −3.6 +14.6% Union 11.0 9.1 mph 7.1 10.0 mph −3.9 +9.9% Van Ness 10.6 6.2 mph 8.2 6.5 mph −2.4 +4.8% Polk (NB) 12.0 9.1 mph 7.8 9.5 mph −4.2 +4.4% Mission (NB) 10.4 6.1 mph 5.2 6.8 mph −5.2 +11.5% Sacramento/ Columbus (NB) 13.2 5.4 mph 7.3 5.8 mph −5.9 +7.4% Source: SFMTA Transit Preferential Streets Program—1985–1988 Final Report (34). NB = Northbound. Source: TCRP Reports, 26, 90, and 118 (16,4,5). Stop Made Per Mile Average Dwell Time Per Stop (sec) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 2.40 3.27 3.77 4.3 4.88 5.53 6.23 7.00 8.75 2.73 3.93 4.60 5.3 6.04 6.87 7.73 8.67 10.75 3.07 4.60 5.43 6.3 7.20 6.20 9.21 10.33 12.75 3.40 5.27 6.26 7.3 8.35 9.53 10.71 12.00 14.75 3.74 5.92 7.08 8.3 9.52 10.88 12.21 13.67 16.75 4.07 6.58 7.90 9.3 10.67 12.21 13.70 15.33 18.75 10 20 30 40 50 60

69 and general traffic operations. This section describes the use of field surveys, application of refined data and guidance from different documents, and micro-simulation to identify these impacts. Which analysis method to apply will usually be dic- tated by the desired information and complexity of the eval- uation, as well as funds available. In certain cases, basic ana- lytical models with typical values for certain cases may be adequate (particularly for earlier planning-level evaluations), where simulation modeling would be more appropriate when the effects of a system of treatments are desired to be evalu- ated, and where different scenarios (such as alternate signal timing settings for TSP) need to be evaluated. Exclusive Transit Lanes Analysis of the travel time implications of new dedicated tran- sit lanes can address all persons traveling in the respective cor- ridor, including auto drivers and passengers, not just existing and future transit passengers. Historic information on changes in transit travel times from implementation of bus lanes can be obtained from a variety of sources, including the FTA document Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making (32) and TCRP Report 90 (4). Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (19) can be used to cal- culate the impact of removing a general traffic lane from an arterial and dedicating it to the exclusive use of transit. When an analysis of the effect of removing a lane from general traf- fic use is done, any route diversion for existing highway users must be accounted for. For example, if the corridor is part of a continuous grid of major arterials, some general traffic may divert to parallel streets after a lane is removed. The likely changes in travel times resulting from installing a bus lane can be estimated in three basic ways: 1. Analogy (an estimate based on a synthesis and analy- sis of actual operating experience; see subsequent discussion), 2. Application of the Highway Capacity Manual Signal- ized Intersection Delay Analysis, and 3. Computer simulation. Estimated travel time rate reductions based on analogy (analysis/synthesis of experience) are shown in Table 27. These values can provide an initial order of magnitude estimate of time savings. More refined estimates of travel time savings and speed increases can be obtained from the values shown in Table 28 and Figures 46 and 47, as developed through the TCRP A-23A research. The top half of Table 28 shows the estimated speed changes resulting from installing a curb bus lane for various initial speeds. Figure 46 graphs the speed before and after bus lane installation. Given the initial bus speed, the chart may be used to estimate the benefits of a curb bus lane. The gain in speed ranges from 1.5 mph for speeds lower than 6 mph to 2 mph for greater speeds. The bottom half of Table 28 and Figure 47 show the time savings in minutes per mile resulting from installing a bus lane. The percent of time saved declines from approximately one-third at the lowest speeds to about 20% at speeds that are typical for an arterial bus (or BRT route). The actual time saved depends on the length of the bus lane. For example, based on Figure 47, a bus traveling at about 5 mph (12 min per mile) before bus lane installation may expect a savings of about three minutes per mile after bus lane installation. If the bus lane is 5 miles long, the total savings would be 15 s. TABLE 27 ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME RATE REDUCTION WITH ARTERIAL BUS LANES—ANALOGY TABLE 28 ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME RATE REDUCTION WITH ARTERIAL BUS LANES—FOR SPECIFIC CASES BASED ON ANALOGY Location Minutes per Mile Reduction Highly Congested CBD 3 to 5 Typical CBD 1 to 2 Typical Arterial 0.5 to 1 Source: TCRP Report 118 (5). CBD = central business district. Item Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Initial Speed (mph) 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Speed with Curb Bus Lane (mph) 4.4 5.7 8.0 10.2 12.2 mph Gain 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 % Gain 47.0 42.0 33.3 27.5 22.0 Initial Minutes/Mile 20 15 10 7.5 6.0 Minutes/Mile with Bus Lane 13.5 10.5 7.5 5.9 4.0 Minutes/Mile Gain 6.5 4.5 2.5 1.6 1.1 % Gain 32.5 30.0 25.0 21.3 18.3 Source: TCRP Report 90 (4).

FIGURE 47 Travel time savings with curb bus lane [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Minutes per Mile M in ut es pe r M ile w ith C ur b Bu s La ne without Bus Lane with Bus Lane Transit Signal Priority Field surveys and both analytical and simulation modeling can be used to estimate the reduction in bus delay and, hence, reductions in overall travel time associated with the applica- tion of TSP. A description of the potential application of sur- veys and simulation follows. Field Surveys The most accurate yet perhaps most time-consuming and expensive means to identify the impact of TSP is to conduct a “before” and “after” evaluation of changes in transit travel time and schedule adherence through field data collection. An on-board transit travel time and delay survey is the most appro- priate tool to be applied. Measuring changes in general traffic delay associated with TSP is much more cumbersome because extensive staff is required to manually record vehicle delays in the field, videotape general traffic conditions, and then deci- pher changes in delay through video observations. Analytical Model As mentioned previously, TSP advances or extends the green time whenever a transit vehicle arrives within the designated windows at the beginning or end of the cycle. This has the 70 FIGURE 46 Impact of curb bus lanes on bus speed [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Initial Bus Speed (MPH) B us Sp ee d on B us La ne (M PH ) Initial Bus Speed with Bus Lane

71 FIGURE 48 Signalized intersection delay (60-second cycle and 50% effective green) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. FIGURE 49 Signalized intersection delay (60-second cycle and range of effective green) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. effect of reducing the red time that transit vehicles incur. Delays to transit vehicles with and without TSP can be approx- imated by using delay curves for signalized intersections that relate intersection approach green time available (g/C) to the v/c ratio of the approach. Such signalized intersection delay curves are presented in Figures 48 through Figure 51 for dif- ferent signal cycle lengths. Therefore, assuming 10% of the cycle time for a TSP window, the delay savings for any given v/c for the particular intersection approach can be estimated by comparing the delays for the initial g/C value with those for an appropriate curve with a higher value (e.g., comparing the curves in Figures 48 through 51). Figure 52 gives an example of how priority for transit can reduce delay. A 90 s cycle with a g/C of 0.4 is assumed as a base with a v/c ratio of 0.8. The base delay is 33 s. An increase in g/C to 50% would result from TSP. The longer green period would result in a 26 s delay, which is a savings of 7 s or 21%

FIGURE 51 Signalized intersection delay (120-second cycle and range of effective green) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. 72 FIGURE 50 Signalized intersection delay (90-second cycle and range of effective green) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)].

73 FIGURE 52 Effect of TSP on signalized intersection delay (90-second cycle) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. per signalized intersection. This savings compares with an average of 5 to 6 s saved per bus found along Wilshire– Whittier and Ventura Boulevards in Los Angeles and along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland. Simulation Modeling Another method to identify TSP impacts is to develop a simu- lation model of before and after conditions at an intersection or along a corridor and measure the change in bus travel time and delay and general traffic delay. The model is normally cali- brated to field conditions through some level of field data col- lection of bus travel times and bus and general traffic delays. Given the time to develop a simulation model plus added field data collection for calibration, this analysis approach tends to be more expensive. However, simulation modeling does allow for the testing of the impact of different traffic volume, con- troller setting, and degree of lateness conditions in the most economical manner in evaluating the sensitivity and overall impact of TSP on intersection and corridor operations. Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes The reduction in bus delay and, hence, travel time associated with the provision of queue jumps or bypass lanes can be estimated by using procedures in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (19). Intersection approach delay for general traffic can be identified for a condition where buses would be in the general traffic stream with no queue bypass treatment being provided. The delay to buses with the queue bypass treatment can then be estimated in the separate lane where buses would operate, accounting for any delays associated with turning traf- fic. With a queue jump signal, some increased general traf- fic delay would occur as a result of the reduction of green time typically from the parallel through traffic phase to create a sep- arate bus signal phase. Figure 53 presents a graph that identifies the travel time sav- ings associated with a queue jump treatment assuming (1) the queue bypass lane is long enough to function effectively and (2) an advance green of about 10% of the cycle length is pro- vided. The example assumes an initial g/C (effective green time per cycle) of 50% and v/c of 0.8. After the bypass is installed, the g/C is assumed as 0.6 and the v/c at 0.2. In this example, a bus travel time savings of 17 s would result. Com- parative benefits for other values of g/C and v/c can be obtained either by interpolation or by application of the delay equations. Simulation modeling can also be applied to identify impacts to both bus travel time and general traffic delay associated with queue jump or bypass lane application. As with TSP, before and after conditions can be modeled using existing field data. Curb Extensions The travel time savings associated with individual curb exten- sion treatments can be estimated through the transit vehicle clearance time savings identified from the analytical model reflective of the values in Table 24. As for other transit pref- erential treatments, simulation modeling can also be applied when it is desired to assess the impacts of a series of curb extensions on overall general traffic travel time in a corridor.

74 demand, transit service characteristics, traffic flow character- istics, and elements of geometric feasibility (e.g., roadway cross section). The evaluation process as defined would identify bus preferential treatments based on the following steps: 1. For each location (i.e., corridor segment, intersec- tion, or bus stop), evaluate the factors described in Figure 54. 2. If all of the thresholds are met for a potential improve- ment at a given location, assign the weights for that potential improvement to the corridor for four differ- ent factors—increasing ridership, increasing travel speed (or decreasing delay), increasing passenger com- fort, and increasing service reliability). 3. Sum the weights for each location in the corridor for use in corridor prioritization. The weights identified were based on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means that it would have no positive impact and 10 means it would have a significant positive impact. To properly compare corridors given that each corridor HART had evaluated has a different length, number of bus stops, and number of intersections, total scores (i.e., tallied weights) for the bus preferential treatment improvement cat- egory were normalized (divided by the number of signalized intersections in a corridor) so that a consistent unit compari- son among corridors could be made. Table 29 identifies the FIGURE 53 Effect of queue bypass with advanced green on signalized intersection delay (90-second cycle) [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)]. Stop Consolidation The travel time savings associated with different bus stop spacing along an urban street can be estimated for planning applications using Table 26. Simulation modeling can also be applied if desired. Cumulative Impact Assessment In addition to analyzing the impact of individual transit pref- erential treatments, many times there is a need to compare and prioritize different preferential treatments within a corri- dor or at an intersection. One potential analysis methodology involves scoring and weighing different preferential treat- ments for potential application. Such a methodology was developed for a study for HART in Tampa to identify transit improvements in certain corridors. The evaluation framework that was developed is a planning- level tool that is intended to both prioritize corridors and iden- tify specific “hot spots” where there is a compelling need for a particular type of transit improvement. Three categories of improvements, service improvements, bus preferential treat- ments, and facility improvements, were considered. Figure 54 presents the bus preferential treatment worksheet that lists potential bus preferential improvements that can be applied to a corridor, bus stop, or intersection. This worksheet was devel- oped to help determine if a certain location meets the identified thresholds to warrant the improvement or improvements. The framework’s factors reflect existing and potential passenger

75 FIGURE 54 Scoring/weighing system for bus preferential treatments—HART study [Source: “Transit Corridor Evaluation and Prioritization Framework,” 2006 TRB Annual Meeting (14)].

TABLE 30 EXAMPLE OF SCORING EVALUATION OF TRANSIT PRIORITY TREATMENTS—ROUTE 5 CORRIDOR IN SEATTLE Source: King County Route 5 Corridor Evaluation Report, DKS Associates (30). Location Cost Transit Delay Savings GP Delay Savings Parking Impacts Implemen- tation Times Fremont Ave N & N 39th St TSP 2 5 4 3 5 Phinney Ave N & N 46th St Option 1 TSP 3 5 4 3 5 Option 2 Parking Restriction 5 5 4 1 5 Phinney Ave N & N 50th St TSP 3 5 3 3 5 Phinney Ave N & N 60th St TSP 3 3 2 3 5 Phinney Ave N & N 65th St Option 1 TSP 3 4 2 3 5 Option 2 Queue Jump 4 5 2 2 4 Greenwood Ave N & N 80th St TSP 2 5 5 3 5 Greenwood Ave N & N 85th St Option 1 TSP 1. Over $100,000 2. $50,000-$100,000 3. $25,000-$49,999 4. $10,000-$24,999 5. Minimal Cost (Less than $10,000) Worse Cost 1. Over 10 seconds per bus trip degradation 2. 1 to 10 seconds per bus trip degradation 3. No measurable change in delay time 4. 1 to 10 seconds per bus trip improvement 5. Over 10 seconds per bus trip improvement Transit Delay Savings 1. Over 5 seconds per vehicle degradation 2. 1 to 5 seconds per vehicle degradation 3. No measurable change in delay time 4. 1 to 5 seconds per vehicle trip improvement 5. Over 5 seconds per vehicle trip improvement General Purpose Traffic Delay Savings 1. Greater than 50% utilization of removed parking 2. Up to 50% utilization of removed parking 3. No change 4. Up to 50% utilization of added parking 5. Greater than 50% utilization of added parking Parking Impacts 1. Greater than 24 months to implement 2. 19 to 24 months to implement 3. 13 to 18 months to implement 4. 7 to 12 months to implement 5. 0 to 6 months to implement Implementation Time Evaluation Criteria Definitions Better 3 5 1 3 5 Option 2 Parking Restriction 5 5 4 5 Greenwood Ave N & N 87th St TSP 2 3 2 3 5 Greenwood Ave N & N 105th St TSP 3 5 1 3 5 Westminster Way N & Dayton Ave N TSP 3 5 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 5 76 Raw Scores Normalized Scores Corridor Direction 1 Direction 2 Total No. of Signals* Score Florida Ave. 555 547 1,102 27.5 40.1 Nebraska Ave. 760 751 1,511 39 38.7 Colum bus Dr. 706 720 1,426 38.5 37.0 M.L. King, Jr. Blvd. 462 535 997 34 29.3 Hillsborough Ave. 741 775 1,516 39.5 38.4 *This is the average of both directions. Directions may not be symmetric. Source: “Transit Corridor Evaluation and Prioritization Framework,” 2005 TRB Annual Meeting (14). TABLE 29 SCORING OF BUS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS BY HART CORRIDOR AND NUMBER OF WARRANTED IMPROVEMENTS

77 TABLE 31 APPLICABILITY OF DIFFERENT ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS Preferential Treatment Field Survey Analytical Model Simulation 1 Data Requirements Median Transitway/Exclusive Lanes Transit and general traffic volumes, transit travel speed Transit Signal Priority Transit and general traffic volumes, transit delay, signal timing Queue Jumps/Bypass Lanes volumes, transit delay, traffic queues, signal timing Curb Extensions volumes, right turn volume, clearance time estimate Stop Consolidation X X X Transit travel speed X X X X Transit and general traffic X X X X Transit and general traffic 1 Could include application of regional model to assess traffic diversion impacts to other roadways. final corridor scores and the number of different bus prefer- ential treatments warranted in each corridor evaluated. Another procedure to identify the cumulative effects of corridor transit priority treatments on arterials has been applied in Seattle, involving rankings on a 1 through 5 scale based on multiple criteria, as shown in Table 30 (30). In this case, measures include cost, transit delay savings, general traffic impact, parking impact, and the time to implement the transit priority treatment. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ANALYSIS METHODS Table 31 presents a summary of the applicability of different analysis methods and data requirements associated with differ- ent transit preferential treatments.

Next: Chapter Seven - Conclusions »
Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 83: Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic explores the application of different transit preferential treatments in mixed traffic. The report also examines the decision-making process that may be applied in deciding which preferential treatment might be the most applicable in a particular location.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!