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.

INTRODUCTION This synthesis report offers a review of the application of a number of different transit preferential treatments in mixed traffic. It is highlighted by the presentation of the results of a survey of transit agencies and traffic agencies related to tran- sit preferential treatments on urban streets. The survey results are supplemented by a literature review of 23 documents on the subject; a more in-depth case study evaluation of prefer- ential treatment application in four cities—San Francisco, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Denver; and what are the warrants, costs, and impacts associated with different treat- ments, based on all of the information obtained. This final chapter reviews the decision-making process, which can be applied in deciding which preferential treat- ment might be most applicable in a particular location. Also, the types of items to be addressed in intergovernmental agree- ments and monitoring programs to develop and evaluate such treatments are presented. Finally, areas for future research on the topic are suggested. SURVEY RESPONSES Eighty urban areas in the United States and Canada were con- tacted for the transit/traffic survey (30 with combined bus and light rail and/or street systems, and another 50 with just bus systems); with 52 transit agencies and 12 traffic engineer- ing jurisdictions responding (80% response rate). A total of 197 individual preferential treatments were reported on the survey forms. In addition, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency submitted spreadsheets that identi- fied another 400 treatments in San Francisco alone. The transit agency survey responses revealed the follow- ing insights on transit preferential treatment application: • Transit signal priority (TSP) (67% of respondents), queue jump and bypass lanes and limited stops (each 52%), and exclusive transit lanes (46%) are the most popular treatments that have been applied. Other iden- tified preferential treatments (median transitway, spe- cial signal phasing, curb extensions) each had 25% or less with respect to application. • There are no standard warrants being applied to identify the need for particular treatments. Several different cri- 78 teria have been applied, including ridership, service fre- quency, and transit delay and speed. • A majority of transit agencies (54%) install TSP as an unconditional strategy, although conditional priority is increasing in application. • Improving signal timing and coordination were identi- fied (by almost half of the survey respondents) as the primary passive TSP applied. • Green extension/red truncation is the most popular sig- nal priority. • Most transit agencies (80%) do not have formal com- prehensive transit preferential treatment programs, but instead address transit preferential treatment needs and projects on a case-by-case basis. • A slight majority of the transit agencies (52%) have intergovernmental agreements with the traffic engineer- ing jurisdiction(s) in their service area. • Transit agency involvement in transit preferential treat- ment development focuses on initially identifying and locating treatments (85% of respondents), and design of improvements monitoring their performance upon implementation (each 52%). Only slightly more than half the transit agencies design the improvements, and a lesser percent construct improvements. Twelve traffic engineering jurisdictions responded to the traffic agency survey. Because of the low number of responses it is difficult to identify a composite trend in opinion on the part of traffic engineers on transit preferential treatments. Nonetheless, there were some notable trends in the responses: • All traffic agency respondents indicated that they are involved with operating and maintaining transit prefer- ential treatments, with a majority (58%) also involved in designing improvements and monitoring performance. The traffic agencies were least involved in identifying and locating treatments. • Median transitways and exclusive lanes were perceived to have the greatest impact on general traffic operations, with limited transit stops the least impact. • Early green/red truncation is the traffic signal timing modification strategy used most by traffic agencies. • Most of the traffic agencies use either optical/infrared or inductive loops for transit vehicle detection. • When monitoring TSP events, the traffic agencies indi- cated they identify the number of possible TSP events, the number of actual TSP events, and the duration of TSP events. CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS

• Traffic agencies indicated they were most supportive of TSP, queue jump and bypass lanes, exclusive lanes, and limited stops, and least supportive of median transit- ways, special signal phasing, and curb extensions. WARRANTS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS OF TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS This synthesis report presents documented information on the warrants, costs, and impacts of different transit preferential treatments. Most of this information comes from previous NCHRP and TCRP research efforts, in particular NCHRP Report 155: Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines (2), TCRP Report 26: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials (16), TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit— Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (4), TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (3), and TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guides (5). NCHRP Report 155 identified both general traffic and tran- sit volume thresholds for exclusive lane and signal priority treatments for buses. A similar set of thresholds for light rail transit (LRT) and streetcar operations has not been identified. The transit and traffic agency survey responses from this synthesis identified a set of criteria used to establish the need for certain preferential treatments, but in general spe- cific warrant values were not identified. For the different transit preferential treatments, both capi- tal and operating and maintenance costs have been identified. The synthesis revealed that there can be a significant range in costs based on the technology deployed (related to signal modifications) and the extent of physical roadway improve- ments (mainly in the development of exclusive transit lanes). Documentation of impacts of different transit preferen- tial treatments has focused on the travel time savings and improved on-time performance to transit. The extent of the benefits is associated with the degree of application and the level of congestion associated with general traffic operations on the street. There has been less documentation on the impact to general traffic operations of different treatments, although it has been identified in some studies that TSP can have a negli- gible impact on general traffic operations if applied where traf- fic operations are under capacity. Also, converting a general traffic lane to an exclusive transit lane can cause increased congestion in the remaining general traffic lanes or diversion to parallel streets if the exclusive transit lane and level of tran- sit service cannot sufficiently attract former automobile users to take transit to lower overall traffic volumes. DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK Exclusive Lanes The decision to develop dedicated transit lanes within a street right-of-way, whether in a separate median transitway or in a street travel lane, appears to be driven by answers to the fol- lowing three questions: 1. Is the transit demand high enough to warrant service so frequent that exclusive transit lanes will be well-used and even self-enforcing? 2. Is there adequate roadway right-of-way available to develop a median transitway or added traffic lanes that could be dedicated to transit use? 3. Will the development of exclusive transit lanes still allow adequate local access in a corridor, recognizing that median transitways block mid-block and unsignal- ized intersection left-turn access, and curbside transit lanes have to share the lanes with local driveway move- ments and right turns at intersections? Median transitways on urban streets to date have largely been applied to light rail service. This application is prev- alent, as light rail over an entire corridor has a greater investment than a bus facility and that the maximum travel speed and on-time performance that can be achieved with an exclusive transitway is critical in making LRT a cost- effective investment. On one-way streets, however, LRT has operated curbside, to facilitate pedestrian access to stations. Over the past 20 years, there have been only two appli- cations of a median busway in North America, the original busway on Road No. 3 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the new median busway at the west end of the Euclid Corri- dor in Cleveland. The decision to develop the median facil- ity in Cleveland was driven by the need to preserve on-street parking in Cleveland close into downtown. In evaluating the feasibility of developing dedicated tran- sit lanes in a street right-of-way, the costs and impacts of such treatments must be evaluated. Figure 55 presents a flow chart from TCRP Report 118 that identifies the different fac- tors that have been considered and their relationship. The decision where to locate a bus lane if developed outside of the median, and the hours of operation of the lane for exclusive use by buses, will be dependent on the desired length and limits of the exclusive lane, the impor- tance of keeping on-street parking all day, and the general traffic volume pattern on the street. If on-street parking can be eliminated during peak hours, then locating a bus lane in the parking lane is doable and there are several success- ful applications in North America. Typically, such lanes operate as transit lanes for 2 to 4 h during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak period. Operating a bus lane in the travel lane next to a parking lane, or “offset” lane, is desirable where on-street parking has to be maintained at all times. Contraflow lanes typically are only applied for short lengths, and in downtown areas, and operate all day as exclusive transit facilities. 79

80 Transit Signal Priority TSP priority can be applied as a separate preferential treat- ment or in combination with other treatments, such as exclu- sive lanes and stop consolidation. Several questions must be addressed in deciding if and how TSP is to be implemented in a transit corridor: • Are traffic conditions and transit volumes along a corri- dor currently within or projected to be within the “opera- tionally feasible” range to successfully implement TSP? • Can TSP be implemented without creating unaccept- able congestion on cross streets? • Is it possible to implement an extended TSP treatment along a corridor with a median tramway or exclusive transit lanes and, if so, would it provide added benefit to warrant the added cost? • Can transit stops be located on the far side of an inter- section, or mid-block, so that effective TSP can be provided? • Is the existing traffic signal control system capable of accommodating TSP, or are signal hardware and/or soft- ware modifications needed? • Will automatic vehicle location (AVL) or automatic passenger counter (APC) be integrated with transit vehi- cles, which will dictate whether conditional or uncondi- tional TSP can be applied? Figure 56 presents a flow chart, also presented in TCRP Report 118, that provides a decision framework for identify- ing the warrant and configuration of implementing TSP at an intersection or along a corridor. Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes If TSP is not possible to apply at an intersection given (1) over- all traffic conditions, (2) the absence of an AVL or APC system to allow for conditional priority if that is the only acceptable treatment, and/or (3) the need to have a near-side transit stop, then a queue jump signal or bypass lane into a far-side stop could be an option. To make this decision, the following questions can be asked: • Is there a right-turn lane (or left-turn lane) available to serve as a transit bypass lane? • If not, is there an ability to cost-effectively develop within the street right-of-way a separate auxiliary bypass lane for transit vehicles? • Whether or not a turn lane exists or a new auxiliary lane could be developed, is the lane long enough to allow transit vehicles to bypass the through traffic queue on the intersection most of the time, particularly during peak periods? • Can the bypass lane be developed so that transit vehicles would not conflict with turning traffic? • Can the intersection signal timing be modified to take away a few seconds of green time from the main street through traffic to give to a queue jump signal? • Is there a far-side pullout or zone available to accept transit vehicles going through the intersection using a bypass lane if a far-side stop is desired? Given their potential costs and impacts to general traffic, queue jump signals and bypass lanes can be developed to FIGURE 55 Evaluation process for dedicated transit lanes [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)].

81 supplement and not replace TSP along a corridor, to reflect unique conditions at particular intersections. Curb Extensions TCRP A-10A developed a detailed set of questions that might be reviewed in making the decision to install a curb extension at an intersection or a number of these treatments on an urban street (see Table 32). The basic conditions for the application of a curb extension are: (1) a near-side transit stop is preferable, (2) at least two traffic lanes are available if the curb extension is to be far side (to allow general traffic to get around a stopped transit vehicle and not block the preced- ing intersection, and (3) there are very high passenger vol- umes at a stop where the added passenger waiting area asso- ciated with a curb extension is critical. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Based on the transit and traffic agency responses to the sur- veys conducted in this synthesis, a slight majority of those respondents indicated that they have formal intergovern- mental agreements in place related to the implementation, operations and maintenance, and monitoring of performance of transit preferential treatments. Most of these agreements relate to TSP. This is an area where more emphasis might be given in the future, with intergovernmental agreement(s) integrated into formal comprehensive transit preferential treatment programs. Such agreements could clearly identify transit versus traffic agency responsibility with respect to the following: • Design and construction/installation of facilities and equipment; • Operations monitoring of equipment (mainly related to TSP—setting/adjustment to signal timing plans); • Maintenance of facilities and equipment (TSP, signage, street cleaning/snow plowing, etc.); • Replacement of equipment, including technology up- grades (TSP); • Monitoring of impact on transit operations (use of AVL/ APC equipment and/or field surveys); • Monitoring of impact on traffic operations (system detection, field surveys); and • Coordination meetings to review project implementation/ operations/monitoring issues and strategize on future improvements Examples of intergovernmental agreements executed between the transit and traffic agencies in King County and Snohomish County, Washington are presented in Appen- dix C. King County’s sample Speed and Reliability Partner- ship agreement that relates the provision of added transit service in a corridor to local agency provision of transit pref- erential treatments is a novel concept that could have appli- cability to transit agencies across the United States. FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDS This synthesis includes a literature review of several past research studies related to transit preferential treatments, and incorporates the results of a comprehensive survey of transit and traffic agencies. Based on a review of this material, the following added research needs are suggested. Analysis tools: - Field survey - Analytical modeling - Simulation Identify intersections where TSP would be operationally feasible. Compare TSP to other potential preferential treatments at intersections or along the corridor Identify the extent of TSP application Identify the type of TSP—conditional or unconditional. Identify distributed vs. centralized TSP system Identify specific signal system improvements Evaluate the impact of TSP Is an AVL system available? Identify the bus detection system. FIGURE 56 TSP decision framework [Source: TCRP Report 118 (5)].

82 TABLE 32 QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN DECIDING ON INSTALLATION OF CURB EXTENSIONS (continued on next page)

83 Warrants for Transit Preferential Treatment Application The transit agencies responding to the survey associated with this synthesis identified “warrants” for different transit pref- erential treatments, primarily in terms of evaluation criteria or performance measures—and not specifically numerical warrants. NCHRP Report 155 presented some numerical warrants for different treatments; however, this report is more than 30 years old and an updated assessment of war- rants would be a worthy research topic. Benefits of Multiple Transit Preferential Treatment Applications There appears to be little guidance on identifying the incre- mental benefits of packaging multiple transit preferential treatments in a corridor, such as the impact of adding TSP to the provision of exclusive bus lanes or limited stop applica- tion with TSP. Conducting some research on this topic could give agencies more information on the application of the most cost-effective strategy for transit preferential treatments along a corridor. This could include the tradeoffs of using simulation versus analytical modeling in conducting such assessments. Limited Stop/Stop Consolidation Impacts Little documentation was found related to guidelines for con- solidating transit stops in a corridor to facilitate transit oper- ations and identifying the specific impact on transit travel time savings and on-time performance. A further survey of transit agencies to probe their policies related to stop consol- idation for different transit services would be desirable, as well as selection of a couple of corridors to conduct a “before” and “after” evaluation of stop consolidation application. Source: TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (8). TABLE 32 (continued)

84 Tradeoffs on Intersection-Based Transit Preferential Treatments There appears to be little guidance on when to apply different intersection transit preferential treatments, in particular when TSP might be provided versus a queue jump lane and signal, or curb extensions. This study might involve the use of a sim- ulation model to estimate the impacts on bus delay and general traffic operations for these different transit preferential treat- ments under different traffic and transit volume conditions. Intergovernmental Relationships in Transit Preferential Treatment Development Survey results indicated that most transit and traffic agencies do not have formal transit preferential treatment programs, with many not having formal intergovernmental agreements with respect to planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance, and performance monitoring of treatments. Added study would be helpful to identify the process of establishing transit preferential treatment needs on a corri- dor and regional scale, and identifying alternate implemen- tation strategies, including potential funding sources. This could include an assessment of the costs and impacts of alternate governmental relationships, and the development of one or more sample agreements, similar to the Speed and Reliability Partnership agreement developed by King County Metro.