National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bus Use of Shoulders (2006)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Case Studies

« Previous: Chapter Two - Overview of Findings
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Bus Use of Shoulders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13950.
×
Page 39

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 six case studies: Minneapolis–St. Paul; Falls Church, Virginia; Miami, Florida; San Diego, California; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Dublin, Ireland. CASE STUDY 1—MINNEAPOLIS–ST. PAUL TWIN CITIES The Minneapolis–St. Paul Twin Cities area first established BBS operations in 1991 on a six-lane arterial highway (Highway 252). In rapid response to a 1992 flood closure of some major highways, the BBS operations were expanded to the freeway system as well as to several other key high- ways. The BBS network has continually expanded and to- day consists of 230 mi of shoulders for authorized bus use. Figure 14 summarizes the comprehensiveness of the current BBS network. Figures 15 and 16 present the annual miles of bus shoulder use facilities added to the network annually since 1992 and the cumulative total network miles of bus shoulder use facilities. History The use of shoulder lanes for transit in the Twin Cities area evolved out of an emergency situation, when a 1992 Mother’s Day flood closed one of the major bridges that crossed I-35 westbound. This bridge was one of the major ac- cess points into and out of the city. The governor formed a team of Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) and Minnesota Transit officials to brainstorm on how to get more access on parallel bridges. The use of shoulder lanes by transit vehicles emerged as an idea worth implementing. The concept was approved late one week and by early the following week the shoulder lanes were restriped and limited signage was in place for transit to begin operations. This first test of buses in the shoulder lanes went so smoothly that they began testing operations on other con- gested freeway segments. Team Transit was then formed as a permanent group, consisting of Metro Transit and suburban bus operators, MnDOT, Minnesota State Patrol, and the Metro Council of Governments. The Deputy Commissioner of MnDOT helped overcome potential problems with lower level staff bureaucracy by establishing a key contact person at MnDOT, who serves as an advocate for the shoulder lane policy within the agency. To this day, the Team Transit group 20 has continued to periodically review existing operations and plan additional shoulder lane projects. The result is that cur- rently there are 14 routes and 400 buses that use the freeway shoulder lanes on a daily basis. Four of the major Interstates are equipped with more than 200 mi of freeway shoulders used as transit routes. For the first 5 years of the program, MnDOT and Metro Transit split the costs of shoulder lane projects; Metro Tran- sit found that if they brought funding to the table, MnDOT was more receptive to constructing a project. After the shoul- der lanes became “just another part of the highway system,” MnDOT established an annual budget of $2 million for the program, which adds approximately 20 mi to the system annually. It is part of the overall annual budget and MnDOT works with Metro Transit to prioritize the funds. A construc- tion figure of $100,000 per mile was quoted as the good over- all cost to use for upgrading shoulder lanes, including the rebuilding of drainage grates and paving at a 3- to 5-in. asphalt depth. As the transit use of shoulder lanes became a permanent feature of the freeway system, much of the day-to-day efforts evolved into discussions of planning and implementation of new shoulder lanes for transit. Rather than being stand-alone improvements, the shoulder lane projects (whether it be widening, reconstruction, or restriping) are completed as part of a larger highway improvement and maintenance project along that same freeway segment. Interestingly, the Min- nesota State Patrol has not been actively involved in recent years owing to safe operating experience (they do have the ability to report or cite transit vehicles that violate the shoul- der lane policy). Maintenance of the shoulder lanes is handled by MnDOT, which has a $1 million line item in its budget specifically for shoulder lane maintenance. Metro Transit benefits through federal 5307 capital guideway maintenance funding based on a payment of $30,000 per shoulder lane mile (as shown in Section 15 reporting), which results in approxi- mately $6 million annually that they reserve to supplement their operations. There are little to no public relations efforts related to the shoulder lane program—officials believe that it has not been necessary. CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDIES

21 FIGURE 14 BBS network—Twin Cities area. FIGURE 15 Bus shoulder miles built or rebuilt annually.

Operations Below are some highlights of transit operations of freeway shoulder lanes: • Bus drivers use the shoulders only when general pur- pose lane (GPL) travel speeds drop below 35 mph. Buses travel only 15 mph faster than mainline traffic, up to a maximum of 35 mph. If traffic is moving 35 mph or faster, buses must operate in the regular traffic lanes. Transit drivers are not required to use shoulders, but in- stead use their professional discretion on roadway con- ditions and personal comfort levels. • If a disabled vehicle blocks the shoulder lane, or the highway patrol has pulled a vehicle over in the shoul- der lane, the transit vehicle merges into the GPLs to bypass the obstruction. Because the speeds are low for automobiles in the GPLs and the bus in the shoulder lane, the merge is a relatively easy maneuver for the transit vehicle. • Metro Transit occasionally does field checks to mon- itor whether drivers are exceeding the speed limit or operating in areas not a part of the shoulder lane sys- tem. Violations of the operating procedures are rare. The Minnesota Highway Patrol is now able to stop and ticket a bus operator; however, this has not yet happened. • Initially, there were some copycat drivers who followed the buses into the shoulder lanes; however, this has not been a problem for some time. • The freeway signage is minimal. There are signs on freeway on-ramps to alert drivers to watch for buses on the shoulders and the occasional sign between inter- changes that designate the shoulders for use by buses. • Signage also designates the beginning and end points of bus shoulder lane operations. • Among the 200 mi of shoulder lanes, several occur on arterial highways. At signalized intersections, a “pork- chop” raised curb section allows cars a free right turn with sufficient length along the raised curb to serve as a bus queue jump to the front of the signal and as the lo- cation for a bus stop. • On bridges, the 10-ft shoulder width is acceptable if the bridge length is relatively short (e.g., an overpass). For 22 longer bridges, Metro Transit requires an 11.5-ft shoul- der width given the difficulty of driving adjacent to the bridge railing. In these cases, MnDOT has been agree- able to taking 6 in. from the adjacent travel lanes to cre- ate the extra space in the shoulder. • Bus drivers were initially uncertain about operating in the shoulder lanes and would generally operate at slow speeds. However, speeds increased with experience. • There are gaps in the shoulder lane sections at loca- tions where bridge abutments are directly adjacent to the shoulder lanes, narrowing the shoulder to less than 10 ft. The sections are noted on the listing of shoulder lane sections given to bus drivers. A small sign is also located before the narrowed section to alert the driver, who simply merges into the main travel lanes to avoid the narrow section, and then merges back into the shoulder lane on the other side. Gaps also occur in areas where Metro Transit believes that there are too many weaves (e.g., a complex free- way interchange) that could create safety hazards if the shoulders were used. • In freeway segments with auxiliary lanes, buses will tend to stay in the auxiliary lane rather than the shoul- der lane because the auxiliary lane usually is free flow or has only minor congestion. • In addition to all public transit operators, charter buses are now allowed to use the shoulders based on a recent change in state law. There was also an attempt to allow vanpools to use the shoulders, but this proposed law did not pass. • Deadheading buses are allowed to use the shoulder lanes. • Present experience is about 20 annual accidents with buses on the shoulders (mainly sideswipes and dam- aged mirrors). • The priorities for implementing improvements to the shoulder lanes needed for transit operations are based on number of buses, frequency of congestion, ease and cost of implementation, and the ability to tie the im- provements in with another freeway improvement job to minimize costs. • There is a general sense that the use of shoulder lanes has had a positive impact on ridership. At the same time it is hard to measure the effect, because new service and park-and-ride lots have been implemented over the same period. • Metro Transit has not evaluated the impact that the use of shoulder lanes has had on operating costs; however, it would like to do so in the future. The key benefit cited is trip reliability; a benefit to both the customer and the operator (in terms of ease of sched- ule development). • According to Metro Transit, passenger reaction has been very positive, with 95% of riders surveyed indi- cating they believed they were saving time (generally higher than actual), and 65% reporting that they had recommended the service to others. FIGURE 16 Total bus shoulder miles in Twin Cities metro area.

23 Other interesting facts about Metro Transit’s operations follow: • Although most freeway on-ramps are metered, the meters were removed from the HOV/bus bypass lanes. • There have been no safety issues between buses/car- pools and solo drivers. • There are concerns about buses not having sufficient acceleration distance from a metered stop to merge safely on to the freeway. Field Observations The simplicity of the Twin Cities BBS operation is noteworthy. The signage is minimal and limited to “Shoulder—Authorized Buses Only.” These signs were placed approximately one- quarter to one-half mile apart along the freeway shoulders. Where there is a merge with an on- or off-ramp, an additional sign was added to caution the automobile drivers that buses were operating on the shoulder. Bus drivers are trained to yield to automobiles. This was evident at interchanges when auto- mobiles have to merge through the shoulder to access the gen- eral traffic lanes. To better understand the BBS operations, a ride along Route 180 to the Mall of America, an express route oper- ating solely to connect downtown with the Mall and that operates using an articulated bus on the freeway shoulder, is advantageous. The bus traveled during rush hour and the freeway congestion was heavy. Although the actual speed was only 5 to 15 mph faster than the adjacent automobile traffic depending on the traffic conditions at a particular location on the route, the impression passengers get is of a much faster speed because they see themselves passing so many cars. Ridership on Route 180 was substantial, even on the return trip after 8:00 p.m. (more than 30 passengers boarded at the mall). There was an in-line bus station located just off the side of I-35 at a major arterial crossover. Built in the 1960s, the design lacks customer amenities. Nevertheless, it works and many passengers exit or enter at this station, transfer- ring from other routes along the arterial. There are plans to build a median busway, and the station will be relocated to the median. It was possible to view the freeway shoulder operation from overpasses at various points along the freeway. One can see how bus drivers reacted to freeway obstructions (there was some construction work underway in the shoul- der lane, compelling bus drivers to merge into the mixed- flow lanes) and motorists who were inadvertently blocking the shoulder lane. The team also observed how bus driv- ers merged with traffic at freeway on- and off-ramps. What was most striking was just how smoothly every- thing went. Their success appeared to boil down to three key factors: 1. Buses only operate in the shoulders when traffic speeds are low, because the ability to react to chang- ing conditions is much easier at low speeds. 2. Bus drivers are given the discretion of how they re- spond to various traffic conditions. Rather than over- regulating shoulder lane operations, Metro Transit relies on the professional judgment of its bus drivers. 3. Bus drivers yield to the automobile driver in all cases, thereby minimizing potential conflicts (most notably at on- and off-ramps). Meetings with Minnesota Transit Team A one-day meeting of the Minnesota Transit Team was held. This team consists of representatives from MnDOT, Min- nesota Transit Agency, private bus operators, Minnesota State Patrol, and representatives of the Regional Transporta- tion Management Center (RTMC). Presentations were pro- vided by each member of the team. State Highway Patrol The State Patrol has had very few problems with the bus op- erations. Last year, operating guidelines for freeway shoul- der lane use were added to state law. Therefore, the State Patrol is now able to write speeding tickets to bus drivers that exceed 35 mph while operating in the shoulder. Before being added to state law, the State Patrol had an operating agree- ment with the Minnesota Transit Agency and MnDOT that outlined the various rules for bus operation. The State Patrol works very closely with the RTMC and has a zero tolerance towing rule for anything that is in the shoulder while the buses are operating. They have contracted with a towing agency and generally have a vehicle blocking the shoulder towed within 30 min of its first report. MnDOT pays for this service. As part of the RTMC, it has a Highway Helper program that includes Freeway Instant Response, which operates 7 days per week. The State Patrol also noted that buses have encountered no problems with stalled vehicles and highway patrol cars. Transit Operators Metro Transit indicated that driver training primarily takes the form of classroom training on the state law, operating rules, and how to respond to issues. The drivers are not given any extensive in-bus training on driving on the shoulders. However, drivers are given annual safety updates and brief- ings on shoulder lane use. Metro Transit’s operating rules for BBS use are provided in Appendix C.

All operators are allowed discretion in how they operate on the shoulders. If they are not comfortable operating in the shoulders they do not have to. Many of the newer operators are tentative on the shoulders and often will operate at lower speeds or more often in segments where the shoulders are wider. The operators indicated that there is tremendous cus- tomer pressure to operate on the shoulders and that passen- gers will often voice displeasure to drivers that choose not to. The operator is also responsible for gauging the speed of the vehicles in the lane adjacent to the shoulder. The operating rules note that a bus can only travel 15 mph above the speed of the traffic in adjacent lanes. The bus also can never travel faster than 35 mph. If the speed of the vehicles in the adja- cent lanes is greater than 35 mph, the bus must merge into the main traffic lanes and not operate on the shoulder. The operating speed was defined by the transit operators through a survey of their level of comfort operating at various speeds on the shoulder. Most of the operators in that survey indicated that they did not feel comfortable operating above 35 mph at any time in the shoulders. Because of the cold snowy weather in Minnesota, operators are given discretion whether or not to operate in the shoulders when visibility is low, with many choosing not to during heavy snowfall. Drivers are able to use the shoulder at any time during the day when congestion exists. They are also able to use shoulders for deadheading, which is a major benefit for the operator. All of the express buses operating in the corridor use the freeway shoul- der. Suburban operators and private operators are also allowed to access the shoulders. School buses do not have this privilege. Minnesota DOT MnDOT is extremely proactive on transit use of shoulders and allocates money toward the ongoing maintenance and expansion of the freeway shoulder lane program. The opera- tion of buses on the shoulder had been incorporated into most of the freeway programs—for example, freeway shoulders are snowplowed before arterials and capital programs pro- vide for gutter replacements and asphalt enhancements. MnDOT has an overall program that annually reviews where freeway shoulder lanes for transit can be added and where en- hancements can be made. The agency was initially concerned about the ability of storm drains on shoulders to withstand the constant travel of buses over them. Given budgetary constraints, MnDOT did not initially concern itself with shoulder lane drainage structures. Over the years however MnDOT imple- mented a program of reconstructing the drains. Drainage struc- ture improvements include enhancing the concrete structure on the head-end and far-end of the drain structure and raising the structure to surface level when necessary. The drainage struc- ture improvement program is ongoing, with the remaining struc- tures to be improved as funds become available. Also, MnDOT ensures that new shoulders are constructed 12 ft wide, with a 7 in. base, rather than the former specification of a 2 in. base. 24 MnDOT oversees the signage program for this transit op- eration. In addition, the agency has been proactive in other avenues that support freeway shoulder lane use. Many of the interchanges include bypass lanes for the buses to access the freeway and it pays for and maintains stations that abut the freeway. Also, MnDOT funds the acquisition of property and the capital cost to build major park-and-ride lots that sup- port the transit operation. One such lot had 1,800 spaces in a four-story structure. The lot was accessible from both sides of the freeway by means of by-pass lanes. MnDOT indicated that one of the reasons that the proj- ect is so successful is the ability to tie shoulder projects to other freeway projects. Because of the extreme winter weather in Minnesota, the maintenance budget for the free- way is substantial. Customer Perception Time savings with the freeway shoulder lane use are report- edly in the range of 5 to 15 min for the average trip depend- ing on the level of congestion. An average of 7 min is saved on most trips during peak travel periods. However, the customer perception of the time savings is much higher. Cus- tomers view the use of the shoulders not only as time savings, but also as a way to minimize their stress resulting from sitting in traffic congestion. Also, the customer’s perception of schedule adherence and trip reliability is much higher given the use of the freeway shoulders. Next Generation of Shoulder Lanes MnDOT is currently working on developing a set of guide- lines that would outline when shoulder lanes are warranted. Items that could be included in these guidelines are: • Required metered ramps for shoulder lane use, • A certain level of congestion during peaks (this is being refined), • All new freeways to include 12-ft shoulders for transit use (planned or future), • Catch basins built to support transit use, • Pavement depth of 7 in. or more to support transit use, • Number of buses that would use the shoulders, • Length of delay (related to congestion), and • Ease of implementation. Lessons Learned Lessons learned from this experience indicates that there is potential for the Minneapolis freeway shoulder lane concept to work in other areas for the following reasons: • Use of the shoulder lanes is limited to transit vehicles driven by professional operators.

25 • Use of the shoulder lanes is at the transit operator’s dis- cretion; there is no requirement that the operator must use the shoulders if it is believed that conditions are un- safe (e.g., inclement weather). • Use of the shoulder lanes is limited to times when the general lanes are congested; the low speeds in the gen- eral traffic lanes, coupled with speed limitations on tran- sit vehicles, allows transit vehicles to adequately respond to potential transit vehicle and automobile conflicts. • Positive responses from both transit passengers (in terms of time savings and trip reliability) and auto- mobile drivers (in terms of accepting buses in the shoul- der lanes). • Most of the express buses operate on 10-min headways. Because some freeway segments have five or more bus routes in operation, there could be four to five buses op- erating in caravan fashion along the freeway. • Cooperation between the transit agency and the DOT was very important. They work to support one another with the overall goal of making the project work. The Team Transit group appeared to work very well to- gether and provided a “can do” attitude about making the system work. • From the standpoint of traffic safety, benefits to transit operations, and public relations, the use of freeway shoulder lanes has been a success. Bus Driver Survey Bus drivers on routes using I-35W and TH-5 were surveyed to determine their reaction and the degree to which they use the bus-only shoulders. • Most of the drivers used the bus-only shoulders at rush hour during congested situations, although even in good weather most drivers still reported using the bus-only shoulders on a regular basis during the evening peak traffic period. • A majority of the drivers perceived significant travel time savings when using the bus-only shoulders. On a typical day, they perceived a 5 to 20 min time savings. On a day when traffic is at its worst, they perceived a 10 to 60 min time savings when using the bus-only shoulder lanes. • Most drivers reported that the bus-only lanes were not wide enough. Most of these drivers were using I-35W, which initially only had a 9.5-ft-wide shoulder. • A majority of the bus drivers have experienced conflicts with automobile drivers (driving on the edge of shoul- der to prevent buses from passing). Bus Passenger Survey • Passengers provided the following estimates of travel time savings on atypical days—1 to 3 min (11%), 4 to 6 min (22%), 7 to 9 min (12%), 10 to 30 min (13%), and no answer (42%). Travel time benefits were greater on bad weather days. • Of those passengers responding, 38% mentioned greater adherence to schedules. BBS Signage Signage is very simple as shown in Figures 17–20. Miscellaneous • Charter buses are allowed to use the BBS lanes if au- thorized (permit), although use of the BBS facilities is not encouraged owing to enforcement issues. • Paratransit vehicles are allowed to use the BBS lanes. • The biggest benefits of BBS are achieved when the weather is bad and traffic is very congested. • Passengers often ask the bus drivers to use the BBS lanes, which is an indication of how much they value the travel time advantage. Shoulder Reconstruction and Construction Costs When a highway shoulder is being considered for bus-only shoulder use, existing shoulder conditions need to be evalu- ated to determine what work is required to accommodate the additional dynamic load caused by the buses. The cost of the required improvements depends on specific conditions. Costs also vary depending on whether the shoulder conver- sion for bus use is an independent project or is included as part of a larger construction project. A 1998 study for MnDOT identified five general conditions when determining whether to upgrade. • Condition one—Shoulder width and bituminous depth are adequate. Catch basins do not need adjustment. Only signing and striping improvements are required. The average cost for a freeway section is $1,500 per mile. The average cost for an expressway section is $2,500 per mile in 1998 dollars. • Condition two—Shoulder width and bituminous depth are adequate; however, minor shoulder repairs and catch basin adjustments are needed, and signing and striping improvements are also required. The estimated cost for this work is $5,000 per mile, plus signing and striping costs (1998 dollars). • Condition three—Shoulder width is adequate, but bitu- minous depth is insufficient. Shoulder and roadway can be overlaid at the same time. Signing and striping im- provements are also required. The estimated cost for this work is $12,000 per mile, assuming a 2 in. bitumi- nous overlay, plus signing and striping costs. • Condition four—Shoulder width is adequate, but bitu- minous depth is insufficient. Roadway is not being overlaid; therefore, the bituminous shoulder must be

removed, granular base adjusted, and increased bitumi- nous depth replaced. Signing and striping improve- ments are also required. The estimated cost for this work is between $32,500 and $41,500, plus signing and striping costs. • Condition five—Shoulder width is inadequate; widen- ing and depth replacement are required. Signing and striping improvements are also required. The estimated cost for this work is between $42,000 and $66,000 per mile, plus signing and striping costs. CASE STUDY 2—FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA The emergency shoulder was widened along a 1.3-mi por- tion of eastbound VA-267 (known as the Dulles Connector along this stretch), between the Magarity Road overpass (just downstream of the Route 123 eastbound on-ramp) and the off-ramp to the West Falls Church Metrorail station. 26 Figure 21 shows the regional context for the BBS and Figure 22 depicts how the BBS feeds the West Falls Church Metrorail Station. Transit buses (not other buses or vans) can use the emergency shoulder only when necessary to bypass mainline congestion Monday through Friday between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. (originally from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., but extended after an initial test period proved operations were running well and there was a definite advantage to extending). Because the speed limit on the shoulder is 25 mph, bus drivers have no incentive to using the shoulder unless mainline speeds drop below that level. The main rea- son for the queues along the eastbound Dulles Connector during the BBS hours is the difficulty motorists have merg- ing onto congested eastbound I-66. The project was designed in coordination with the Vir- ginia State Police (VSP) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority [MWAA, which owns the right-of-way; Virginia DOT (VDOT) operates the facility under agreement EN D SH O U LD ER SH O U LD ER A U TH O RIZED BU SES O N LYWATCH FOR BUSES ON SHOULDER B EG INEN D SH O U LD ER SH O U LD ER SH O U LD ER B EG IN A U TH O RIZED BU SES O N LY YIELD TO BUSES ON SHOULDER (1) SH O U LD ER A U TH O RIZED BU SES O N LY 200 FT (3) (2) A U TH O RI ZE D B U SE S O N LY A U TH O RI ZE D B U SE S O N LY A U TH O RI ZE D B U SE S O N LY (3) Install as needed to warn bus drivers where shoulder is less than 10 ft. NOTES: (1) Required only at signalized intersections where right turn on red is permitted. (2) Install near midpoint when zone exceeds 3 mi and continues at approximately 1.5 mi spacing. W A TC H FO R BU SE S O N SH O U LD ER (2) FIGURE 17 Typical shoulder signage for bus use.

27 with MWAA]. VDOT obtained approval from FHWA be- cause design exceptions were necessary for the narrow inside shoulder above a bridge. Narrowing the inside shoulder was considered preferable to narrowing mainline lanes. VSP stressed the need to keep the shoulder looking like an emer- gency shoulder; therefore, a double solid white line was used to separate the mainline traffic lanes from the BBS shoulder (the initial pavement markings using dashed lines at the be- ginning and end of the segment were corrected, because they seemed to “invite” unfamiliar commuters to use the shoul- der). VSP keeps copies of the executed letters of under- standing from the “authorized” transit users so that they can refer to them if necessary for enforcement. An additional sign is located toward the end of the shoul- der that advises bus drivers to yield to off-ramp traffic. Virginia also operates a general traffic shoulder lane proj- ect on I-66 near the Dulles Access Road BBS project. Time- restricted use of this general traffic lane is defined more boldly than the signage used for the BBS facilities. During the shoulder’s initial trial period and before ex- tending the shoulder hours of operation from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. to 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., Fairfax County (whose buses are the main beneficiaries of the shoulder) conducted, a study to deter- mine number, classification, and speed of vehicles using the shoulder. Some corrective enforcement measures were needed (a few passenger cars were using the shoulder and a few buses were traveling at more than 25 mph). The follow- FIGURE 18 BBS signage: Shoulder—Authorized Buses Only. FIGURE 19 BBS signage: Watch for Buses on Shoulder. FIGURE 20 BBS signage: Yield to Buses on Shoulder.

ing checklist was developed to facilitate enforcement, which appears to have paid off. There have been no further reports of unauthorized vehicles using the shoulder or buses going faster than 25 mph. CHECKLIST PROVISIONS FOR USE OF WIDENED EMERGENCY SHOULDER EASTBOUND DULLES AIRPORT CONNECTOR ROAD – Who can use widened shoulder: Buses going to the West Falls Church Metro Station. – Location: Widened shoulder along eastbound Dulles Airport Con- nector Road, from east of the Magarity Road overpass to the ramp leading to the West Falls Church Metro Station (a distance of ap- proximately 1.3 miles). – Days, Times, Conditions: Monday through Friday, during the hours posted on the signs installed along the shoulder,* only when mainline speeds are less than 25 miles per hour. (* Note: As of 10/25/01 posted hours of operation are 4–8 p.m.) – Speed Limit on the shoulder is 25 miles per hour. – Primary Use of Shoulder is for disabled, emergency, and police vehicles. Periodic use of shoulder by buses to bypass congestion is secondary to its primary use. – Safety First. Buses must have their headlights turned on when us- ing the shoulder. Bus drivers must use extra care and keep a sharp lookout for disabled or stopped vehicles on the shoulder, and for situations which may require vehicles responding to an emergency to use the shoulder. Dispatchers will inform bus drivers whenever the dispatchers are notified of such a situation. If the shoulder is occupied by a stopped vehicle, bus drivers shall not use the shoul- der west (upstream) of stopped vehicle. – Shoulder Conditions. Buses may not use the shoulder when snow accumulation has narrowed its available width. Feedback has been positive; “riders are thrilled at bus schedule reliability.” CASE STUDY 3—MIAMI, FLORIDA The Miami–Dade MPO is developing BBS projects for sev- eral major corridors. This BBS planning involved the Florida DOT, Miami–Dade Expressway Authority, Miami–Dade Transit, and the Turnpike Authority. The recommended BBS projects include: • SR-821/SR-836 Corridor • I-75/SR-826 Corridor • SR-826 Corridor • I-95 Corridor • SR-874 Corridor. SR-821/SR-836 Corridor SR-821 is a portion of the Florida Turnpike, and the BBS seg- ment in southwest Miami is sometimes referred to as the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike. SR-836 is commonly called the Dolphin Expressway. The SR-821/SR- 836 BBS project is an 18-mi-long facility with more than a dozen interchanges (with an average of 1.4 mi between inter- changes). The BBS project would extend from SW 88th Street (near Bird Road) on the Florida Turnpike to SR-836 28 and eastward to I-95. This corridor was determined to be the most promising BBS project. Buses operating on this corridor would need to be fitted with transponders to use the express “sun pass” toll lanes. The BBS lanes would be continuous over the length of the corridor in both directions of travel. Initial implementation is anticipated for May or June 2006. I-75/SR-826 Corridor This BBS project would run between NW 186th Street (Miami Gardens Drive) and the Miramar Parkway. The distance is ap- proximately 15 mi and the segment has about 10 interchanges (with an average distance between interchanges of 1.5 mi). BBS shoulders would operate in both directions of travel when speeds drop to 35 mph or less. BBS would be easy to imple- ment in this corridor because shoulders are suitably designed. BBS signage would be the primary improvement required. SR-826 Corridor The SR-826 (Palmetto Expressway) BBS would extend from SR-94 (Kendall Drive) to NW 67th Street (near I-75), a dis- tance of 16 mi. The Palmetto Expressway BBS segment has about 15 interchanges, which translates to an average of 1.1 mi between interchanges. BBS shoulders would be provided for both directions of travel. I-95 Corridor A BBS project between I-195 and I-395 is proposed to fill a gap in the regional transit priority network. The distance of this BBS segment would be approximately 1.6 mi. Shoulders would be provided for authorized buses in both directions of travel. SR-874 Corridor The BBS project would extend from SR-990 (Killian Parkway) on SR-874 (Don Shula Expressway) to US-1 South Dixie Highway on SR-878 (Snapper Creek Expressway). The SR-874 BBS distance would be approximately 2.6 mi. The MPO completed a planning study for these BBS proj- ects in August 2005. The planning study addressed adequacy of the shoulders, level of emergency vehicle response service using the shoulders, and transit services. Key features of the plan are: • Shoulder features—Minimum 10 ft wide, and 12 ft wide where truck volumes exceed 250 vehicles per hour. Cross slopes of 2% to 6%. Color or texture of pavement to distinguish between traffic lanes. • Usage rules—When speeds drop below 35 mph. Only authorized buses would be permitted and signage would be similar to that used in Minneapolis. This would include the on-ramp warning signs; “Watch for Buses on Shoulder.”

29 CASE STUDY 4—SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Background A key element of SANDAG’s Transit First strategy is the use of transit priority measures along freeways and arterials to bypass congested areas. These measures are expected to in- crease transit speeds and improve schedule reliability. The SANDAG BBS demonstration project will evaluate the feasibility of converting freeway shoulder lanes on SR-52 (between Kearny Villa Road and I-805) and I-805 (between SR-52 and Nobel Drive) to transit-only lanes that would be used by existing express Route 960. This project includes a formal agreement between SANDAG and Cal- trans to allow for the implementation of a 1-year pilot proj- ect. This agreement describes the key elements and strategy for the planning, design, and implementation of this project. After gaining approvals from key agencies the demonstration project opened in December 2005. Figure 23 shows the BBS segments that were implemented. Use of the BBS lanes is restricted to authorized buses only (“Transit Lane Authorized Buses Only” signs are posted). No special pavement markings are used to define the BBS. Buses are only permitted to use the BBS lanes when speeds on the general traffic lanes drop to 30 mph or less. When using the shoulders, buses are only allowed to travel at 10 mph faster than traffic in the general traffic lanes. Interstate Freeway FIGURE 21 Virginia Freeway 267 eastbound BBS.

Project Purpose The purpose of the BBS pilot project is to demonstrate the operational feasibility of buses using freeway shoulders as transit lanes. The project will: • Address the requirements of existing Caltrans policy on shoulder use. • Address the requirements of Street and Highway Code Section 149 regarding Preferential Lanes. • Develop interagency agreements regarding liability, maintenance, and enforcement. • Ensure coordination with FHWA on the I-805 segment. • Develop performance measures and monitoring param- eters for the project. • Prepare a final report for approval to implement the project. The following benefits are anticipated: • Implement Transit First Vision. • Demonstrate the usefulness of freeway shoulders as transit lanes during periods of heavy congestion for transit operations. • Measure bus passenger, bus driver, and automobile driver perceptions. 30 • Determine the impacts to travel time reliability. • Monitor the operating benefits and safety of the con- version of the shoulder lanes to transit lanes. • Assess the applicability of converting freeway shoul- ders to transit lanes on other freeways sections. Project Description The project involves a 1-year pilot implementation of the transit shoulder lanes to evaluate operational and safety im- plications. The results will be used to assess the potential of expanding the use of transit shoulder lanes in other freeway corridors. The preparation of the proposed project required that SANDAG assemble a multidisciplinary team from SANDAG, Caltrans, CHP, and transit operator (Metropolitan Transit Sys- tem), to study and implement the project. Figure 24 illustrates the program’s partnership signage. Performance Measures SANDAG and Caltrans prepared a monitoring plan to as- sess the expected versus actual effects of the proposed transit lane. Initially, the transit lane alternative will be evaluated and Metrorail Station Bus Access Bus Bypass Shoulder West Falls Church Metrorail Station FIGURE 22 West Falls Church Metro Station BBS terminals.

31 compared with the existing condition for the following perfor- mance measures: • Transit travel time reliability; • Automobile driver, transit driver, and transit passenger perceptions; • Traffic and transit vehicle operations; and • Safety. Once the initial evaluation is complete, SANDAG and Caltrans will prepare a Monitoring Plan that will lay out roles, responsibilities, data needs, and measurement methods for ongoing project monitoring and reevaluation. The plan will be framed around the four major issues noted previously and designed to answer the basic questions noted in the “Project Purpose” described earlier. Although transit vehicles have been using freeway shoulder lanes safely and successfully in Minnesota for 12 years, there is no analogous California experience. There has been agreement for some time now between Caltrans District 11 and SANDAG staffs on the potential benefits of freeway shoulder lane use to existing freeway express transit and future Bus Rapid Transit services. Currently, however, the California Streets and High- ways Code prohibits use of shoulder lanes as travel lanes. Allowing even a limited number of transit vehicles in the shoul- ders during the peak period is apparently not allowed either. To address these restrictions, a demonstration project was devel- oped in which the shoulder lanes are converted to transit-only lanes. Pull-out areas outside of the transit-only lanes were cre- ated for enforcement activities and disabled vehicles. The California State Streets and Highways Code allows for creation of transit-only lanes provided engineering studies are conducted on the effect of such lanes on safety, conges- tion, and highway capacity. The pilot project site is the State Route 52/Interstate 805 (SR-52/I-805) Corridor between Kearny Mesa and University City. These freeway segments represent prime candidates for the demonstration project ow- ing to the presence of several positive characteristics, includ- ing sufficient existing shoulder width, no existing or planned construction activities, and heavy peak-period congestion lev- els. Route 960 operates along the demonstration corridor with about five morning and six evening roundtrips. FIGURE 23 SR-52/I-805 proposed transit lane demonstration segments. FIGURE 24 SANDAG program’s partnership signage.

The intent of the freeway transit lane demonstration project is to gain local operational experience with the conversion of the existing shoulder lanes to transit lanes during the peak periods. In turn, this operational experience would help define the physical elements required to successfully operate freeway transit-only lanes in other freeway corridors where existing express services and future BRT services will operate. The demonstration project will address five key objectives: • Safety—Is there any change in accident rates with buses using the transit-only lanes, and do CHP officers and Caltrans maintenance crews experience safety- related problems? • Bus Travel Time and Reliability—Do buses experience a measurable and repeatable travel time savings and enhanced trip reliability (on-time performance)? • Bus and Automobile Driver and Bus Passenger Percep- tion—Do bus drivers feel safe using the transit-only lanes and are automobile drivers comfortable with buses merging in and out of the transit-only lanes; also, do transit riders perceive improved travel time and trip re- liability and do they feel safe with the bus operating in the transit-only lane? • Maintenance—Is there any reduction in freeway levels of service from the transit-only lanes, and is there an in- creased level of maintenance required? • What kinds of physical improvements to shoulder lanes would be required if this concept were to be imple- mented permanently? The year-long demonstration period will test how the transit lanes operate. A monitoring program will assess the expected versus actual effects of the transit-only lane. A fi- nal report following the demonstration period will be used to determine whether to make the freeway transit lane perma- nent and if and how the concept could be applied to other freeway corridors. Assuming the design studies judge the demonstration feasible, the physical improvements neces- sary would be implemented and operation of the demonstra- tion could begin within 12 to 15 months. CASE STUDY 5—TORONTO, ONTARIO The Central Region of the Ministry of Transportation (the “Ministry” or MTO) initiated and evaluated the use of the right shoulder of Highway 403 between Erin Mills Parkway and Mavis Road by authorized transit operators. Designated shoulders for use as a BBS appear similar to and still operate like any other freeway shoulder; however, authorized transit operators are permitted to use the shoulder in designated ar- eas to bypass congestion. Criteria for Eligibility Operating protocols that were adopted for implementation of the BBS in the fall of 2003 are reported in this case study. 32 The use of the BBS is limited to those bus operators who are authorized by the MTO. Currently, only GO Transit and Mississauga Transit (each referred to herein as a “Bus Operator”) are authorized to use the BBS on Highway 403. Additional bus operators may be permitted in the future. As additional bus operators are authorized to use the designated shoulders, the Ministry will notify local Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) detachments and the transit operators that are already authorized to use the BBS. Each Bus Operator must ensure that all bus drivers who will use the BBS have received a copy of the Operating Protocol, have been provided with training concerning the use of the BBS, and have agreed to the conditions of operating a bus in the BBS as outlined in this Protocol in the following bulleted list. GO Transit provides the required training services to all Bus Operators using the BBS on a cost-recovery basis. The Bus Operators are responsible for monitoring the operations of their drivers and vehicles to ensure compliance to the protocol. • Bus operators must provide regular, scheduled service available to the public. • Only 40- to 60-ft buses and articulated transit buses will be permitted to use the BBS. • Buses must have radio or telephone contact with the Bus Operator’s central dispatcher to report blocked shoulders or other emergency situations involving the shoulder. • Bus Operators using the BBS must have a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration certificate, and must have a Carrier Safety Rating of either excellent or sat- isfactory. The Ministry’s Central Region designated contact must be provided with proof of this rate. • Bus Operator’s supervisory and driver staff must complete Manager and Driver Training as provided by GO Transit before commencing operations. The BBS Training Pre- sentation for bus drivers is described in Appendix C. The curriculum includes: – Purpose of BBS; – Review of BBS layout, signs, and markings; – Operating speed restrictions; – Safe merging; – BBS access and egress; and – Emergency procedures. After completion of training, each supervisor and bus driver must sign an acknowledgment form indicating that they have been trained and will abide by the rules of this Operating Protocol. The Bus Operator must retain a copy of each signed form for the MTO’s review. Before commencing operations, the Bus Operator must sign the BBS Operating Protocol. Each signatory must have the authority to bind his or her corporation. Buses using the BBS must have radio or telephone contact with their central dispatcher to report blocked shoulders or other emergency situations. Any information reported to their central dispatcher must be passed along by the dispatcher to

33 the respective emergency service (e.g., police, fire, or ambu- lance) and to MTO COMPASS Operations, Downsview. Operating Partners The Operating Partners to this Operating Protocol are the MTO, Mississauga Transit, GO Transit, and the Ontario Provincial Police. Design The Highway 403 BBS extends on the right shoulder be- tween Erin Mills Parkway and Mavis Road, in both direc- tions (Figure 25). A bus pass-through connection is provided at the Erin Mills Parkway northbound to the Highway 403 eastbound ramp. The BBS is 3.75 m (12.3 ft) wide, with rum- ble strips dividing the shoulder from the GPLs. Signing and Pavement Markings The BBS is clearly marked with signs approximately every 200 to 300 m along its entire length to inform motorists that the right shoulder has been designated for use by au- thorized bus operators (see Figure 26). The solid white edge line between the GPLs and the shoulder is 20 cm wide rather than the normal 10 cm wide. Bus drivers must exercise their best judgment in consid- ering the safety of other motorists, as well as that of the bus passengers. Bus drivers will only use the BBS when traffic in the GPL is moving at speeds less than or equal to 60 km/h (35 mph). While using the BBS, bus speed shall not exceed 60 km/h. When the general purpose traffic on Highway 403 is in a stop-and-go mode, buses are to travel no more than 20 km/h faster than the general purpose flow of traffic. Bus drivers must adhere to these speed limits; failure to do so can result in the Ministry canceling the Operating Proto- col for Bus Operators with repeat violations. Collisions In the event of a collision in or adjacent to the BBS, the Bus Operator’s Central Dispatch must notify the appropriate emergency service either by calling 911 or the OPP. The Bus Operator’s Central Dispatch must then contact MTO COM- PASS Operations, Downsview, as soon as possible. Obstruction of the Bus Bypass Shoulder During winter months the BBS may be temporarily blocked by snow. Bus drivers are responsible for exercising their best judgment in determining if they can safely use the BBS un- der these conditions. If the shoulder is obstructed in any way; for example, by a collision, vehicle breakdown, or debris, the bus driver must reenter the GPL to avoid the obstruction. Buses must yield to other vehicles when reentering the GPL. FIGURE 25 BBS on Highway 403. Square One Centre View Dr. Rathburn Rd. CVH EMTC Highway 403 Eglinton Ave. Eastgate Pkwy. Ca wt hr a R d. H ur on ta rio S t. M av is R d. Cr ed it Ri ve r Er in M ills P kw y. W in st on C hu rc hi ll Bl vd .

Bus drivers are to notify their central dispatch of an ob- struction on the shoulder and central dispatch will in turn no- tify all buses that are using the BBS of the obstruction, plus inform MTO COMPASS Operations. The BBS is not to be used until the obstruction is removed from the shoulder. If necessary, buses in the BBS should safely exit the shoulder to allow emergency vehicles to pass. If the shoulder is not blocked by the emergency, use of the BBS can resume once the emergency vehicle has passed. On occasion, the MTO or OPP may elect to use the BBS to detour general purpose traffic because of maintenance, construction, or collisions. Except for emergency situations, the MTO will provide the Bus Operators with as much notice as possible and at least 24 h notice. Times of Use and Hours of Operation The BBS is to be used for congestion bypass purposes only. Typically, the BBS will be used on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the eastbound direction and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the westbound direction. The BBS is generally not to be used on weekends unless an incident or event has resulted in the GPL operating at a speed less than 60 km/h. 34 The BBS may also be used for the duration of any prolonged congestion event outside of peak period hours, provided the speed of the general traffic is 60 km/h or less. Enforcement The police provided a higher level of enforcement services during the initial weeks of the BBS operation to ensure its safe and effective operation. The police provided a minimum of six peak hour enforcement periods per week for the first 2 weeks of the initial opening of the BBS, and a minimum of eight peak hour enforcement periods for the next 4 weeks of operation. Following the initial 6 weeks of higher enforcement lev- els, enforcement was reduced and provided when necessary and resources are available. MTO provides enforcement sites within the facility. Facility Maintenance The MTO is attempting to provide the same level of mainte- nance for the BBS as provided for the GPL on Highway 403 through this area. However, owing to the nature of the shoul- der configuration, it is not always possible to fully clear the shoulder as quickly as the GPL. On these occasions, bus oper- ators must use the GPL until the shoulders are fully cleared. The design of the enforcement sites makes removal of snow difficult. For this reason, winter maintenance of the en- forcement sites is not feasible. Access and Egress to the Bus Bypass Shoulder General As mentioned previously, buses only use the BBS when traf- fic in the GPLs is moving at speeds equal to or less than 60 km/h. When using the BBS, buses shall not exceed 60 km/h. When the GPL traffic on Highway 403 is in a stop-and-go mode, buses are to travel no more than 20 km/h faster than the GPL flow of traffic. Once a bus has entered the BBS it shall not reenter the GPL if the operating speed of that lane improves, but should continue to the end of the BBS to minimize potential con- flicts with GPL traffic. Eastbound When the operating speed of Highway 403 is less than or equal to 60 km/h before the ramp exit at Erin Mills Park- way, buses should exit at the Parkway and enter the BBS from the dedicated bus ramp connection at the Parkway in- terchange. When exiting eastbound Highway 403 at Erin Mills Parkway, buses must access the dedicated bus ramp connection from the center lane of the ramp. FIGURE 26 Signage marking along the Highway 403 BBS

35 When Highway 403 traffic is operating at speeds of greater than 60 km/h at Erin Mills Parkway, but the operat- ing speeds decrease beyond the Parkway interchange, buses are permitted to enter the BBS at any location beyond the end of the speed change lane taper for the on-ramp from north- bound Erin Mills Parkway. As stated previously, once in the BBS, buses are to remain there until they either exit at Mavis Road or merge with the GPL traffic at the end of the BBS. When the BBS is in use, buses that are southbound on Erin Mills Parkway will access the dedicated bus ramp con- nection from the southbound bus-only left-turn lane. The southbound approach has a traffic signal that will give left- turning buses added priority (Figure 27). Buses that are not exiting Highway 403 at the Mavis Road interchange will merge safely with GPL traffic before the FIGURE 27 Bus movements: Erin Mills Parkway southbound to 403 BBS eastbound. Buses southbound on Erin Mills Parkway will access the dedicated bus ramp connection from the southbound bus-only left-turn lane. The large solid arrow on the diagram illustrates this movement.

start of the speed change lane taper for the Mavis Road exit. Those buses that continue in the BBS adjacent to the ramp will continue on the shoulder and enter the right-turn lane with the ramp traffic when it is safe to do so. Westbound Buses entering Highway 403 by means of Mavis Road north- bound to the Highway 403 westbound ramp will merge with the GPL and enter the BBS beyond the end of the speed change taper of the Highway 403 on-ramp from Mavis Road southbound when it is safe to do so. At no time will a bus en- ter the southbound Mavis Road to Highway 403 on-ramp speed change lane to access the BBS. Buses already traveling on Highway 403 before Mavis Road must enter the BBS beyond the end of the Mavis Road southbound on-ramp speed change lane taper when it is safe to do so. Buses that are not exiting Highway 403 at the Erin Mills Parkway interchange will merge safely with the GPL traffic before the start of the off-ramp speed change lane taper. Those buses that continue in the BBS adjacent to the ramp will merge with the ramp traffic when it is safe to do so. Those buses that continue in the BBS adjacent to the ramp will continue on the shoulder and enter the right-turn lane with the ramp traffic when it is safe to do so. Reporting and Liaison In addition to contacting the appropriate emergency services at the time of a collision, the Bus Operators must report to MTO the details of any collisions involving their vehicles using the BBS immediately after their occurrence. Details will include: date, time, location, traffic conditions, weather and pavement conditions, vehicles involved, sequence of events, damages and injuries, possibility of charges, and rec- ommended measures to avoid recurrence. The report is to be e-mailed or faxed to the designated MTO contact. Forecast of Use On a bi-annual basis (September 1 and April 1) each Bus Op- erator must provide to MTO an estimate of bus routing, schedule, and bus volumes for the upcoming 6-month period. This will include an estimate of total trips, on a peak period and on a per day basis, that will use each direction of the BBS. This information is to be sent to the designated MTO contact. The Ministry will then provide written approval. Each Bus Operator can add bus services to the BBS up to 25% over the submitted estimate before having to obtain fur- ther written approval from the MTO. The Ministry deter- mines if additional buses or changes to the operating times will be permitted beyond this agreed estimate. Bi-Annual Meetings The Operating Partners meet on at least a bi-annual basis to re- view BBS operations and agree on changes and improvements. Evaluation of Bus Bypass Shoulder Use The Ministry monitors the operation of the BBS and assesses the impacts of the BBS on the GPL. The Ministry reports to the Bus Operators and the police any observed problems or violations of this Operating Protocol, including excessive speed on the BBS or unsafe merging activity. The Ministry notifies the Bus Operator when a problem has been observed and can issue a warning that the Ministry may cancel this Operating Protocol if further violations are observed. Media Releases All Operating Partners should make every effort to share, in confidence, any media releases pertaining to the BBS with all Operating Partners, at least 24 h in advance of its release. Termination of Operations With the exception of an emergency, any of the Operating Partners may terminate their participation in their BBS operation with 30 days notice, in writing, to the designated contacts of the other Operating Partners. The MTO reserves the right to terminate or suspend operations, with minimal or no notice if, in the opinion of the Ministry’s Regional Director, there are significant traffic safety or operational concerns. Liability The Ministry is not liable for any consequences that may re- sult from termination of the operation of the BBS. By using the shoulders and agreeing to the Operating Protocol, the Bus Operators acknowledge and accept the more limited operat- ing conditions of the BBS compared with the highway GPL. CASE STUDY 6—DUBLIN, IRELAND BBS operations in Dublin began in 1998. The operations amount to 50 to 70 mi, most of which are classified as urban approach roads with at-grade intersections rather than freeway facilities. Hours of operation vary, with some shoulders open 24 h and others open from: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., 12:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., or 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. 36

37 Some BBS segments operate Monday through Saturday and some are 7-day-a-week operations. Buses and taxis are permitted to use the shoulder lanes (termed “hard shoulders” in Ireland). Public transit headways range from 1 to 15 min during the peak commute hours. Buses are allowed to oper- ate up to the posted speed limits while using the shoulders (this varies from 31 to 63 mph). Figure 28 shows the BBS signage standards that are em- ployed in Ireland. Signage costs tend to be minimal (less than 5% of BBS cost). A 10-in.-wide continuous solid white line is used to distinguish the BBS shoulder from general traffic lanes. BBS shoulders are constructed to the full pavement strength of general traffic lanes and are at least 10 ft wide. Northern Ireland monitors the use of two BBS facilities with cameras and manages traffic with rotating prism signs along the corridor. If a bus breaks down on the shoulder, the camera monitor will change signs to advise other buses of the blockage. One of the BBS camera applications has been in operation for several years and “has been very successful at getting buses past congestion and has not contributed to any accidents.” According to the Dublin Transportation Office the BBS operation “has allowed significant benefits to public and private bus transport on approaches and within urban areas. As congestion creeps further from the city into the outer traffic arteries the requirement to implement additional and/or extensions of the bus priority lanes is becoming more important.” Figure 29 reports travel time savings af- forded by BBS and bus priority treatments for major travel corridors. Figure 30 shows the number of buses and bus passengers for key corridors. FIGURE 28 BBS signage standards as used in Ireland. FIGURE 29 Travel time savings by BBS for major travel corridors in Dublin, Ireland.

FIGURE 30 Number of buses and passengers for key travel corridors in Dublin, Ireland.

39 Special Road Traffic Legislation (Road Traffic Act) was re- quired to implement the BBS operations. Special enforcement efforts were made during the early years of operation; how- ever, motorist abuse has declined to a very low level. Some ex- cessive speeding by bus drivers has occurred. Bus drivers are given special training on the use of shoulder lanes. Roundtable planning efforts involving the police, design office, bus operator, and the Dublin Transportation Office were instrumental in implementing the BBS operations. A special design office was established to roll out the bus net- work, including the hard shoulders projects.

Next: Chapter Four - Conclusions and Further Research »
Bus Use of Shoulders Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders explores transit agencies' experiences with policies and regulations that permit buses to use shoulders on arterial roads or freeways to bypass congestion either as interim or long-term treatments. The report examines the issue from the transit and highway perspectives.

  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!