A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies (2016)

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.

10 As stated in the introduction, improving bus speed and reliability is of interest to transit agen- cies, roadway agencies, planning agencies, and the community as a whole. This chapter discusses why transit-supportive roadway strategies that improve bus speed and reliability are so vital, introduces and defines the range of strategies presented in the guidebook, and presents four examples of successful strategy implementations. 2.1 Challenges Faced by Transit Agencies Transit agencies face a number of challenges to providing attractive, reliable, and cost-effective service. Three key challenges are discussed in the following subsections; additional details are provided in Appendix B. Minimizing Operating Costs As with any other kind of public agency, transit agencies are constantly challenged to do more with limited resources. In 2012, operating costs accounted for about 81% of a typical bus operator’s total expenses. (Capital expenses such as buses, facilities, and transit infrastructure formed the remainder.) Vehicle operations and maintenance accounted for about 71% of the operating budget (APTA 2014). Consequently, anything that can be done to lower operating costs or to offset increases in other aspects of operating costs will have a direct impact on a transit agency’s bottom line. Two of the important factors that influence bus operating costs are: • Headways. The more frequent the service on a route, the higher the operating cost for the route since, all else being equal, more buses and drivers are needed to provide more frequency. • Route cycle time. The longer the cycle time (the time required for a bus to make a round trip on a route, including the driver break or layover between trips), the more buses that are required to serve the route at a given headway. Cycle time is affected both by how fast buses can travel the route and by the variability of travel times from one trip to the next since the schedule needs to provide schedule recovery time to allow late-arriving buses to begin their next trip on time. Actions that improve bus speeds or reduce travel time variability allow a route’s cycle time to be reduced and thereby offer the potential to affect the route’s operating costs. Depending on the magnitude of the cycle time reduction, one of the following can occur: • Ideally, the cycle time is reduced sufficiently that a bus can be saved on the route (i.e., the same headway can be offered with one fewer bus). Because the required cycle time reduction will often be slightly less than the headway for an efficiently scheduled route, this result is more likely to occur when headways are short. The savings can be used for higher-frequency service on the route (i.e., shorter headways using the same number of buses), a longer span of service, service improvements elsewhere in the system, or to help offset increased costs in other areas. C H A P T E R 2 The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 11 • More typically, the cycle time is reduced somewhat, but not enough to save a bus. This can still be a valuable outcome since it means that a buffer of time has been provided that postpones the need for adding a bus to the route (e.g., in response to slower travel times due to increased traffic congestion or increased passenger demand). Therefore, it delays a major increase in the route’s operating costs—potentially many years into the future (Koonce et al. 2006). Alter- natively, the route can be extended to serve a greater area within the same amount of time. Attracting Ridership Building transit ridership is important to many transit stakeholders. From the transit agency’s perspective, increases in ridership are an indicator of agency success in fulfilling its mission to provide transportation options to the public. New ridership also brings in new fare revenue, and ridership is a component of some formulas used to allocate grant funding to transit agencies, both of which allow transit agencies to provide a better quality of service, which in turn attracts even more passengers. From a roadway agency’s perspective, shifting trips from the automobile mode to the transit mode makes the roadway system operate better for all road users and postpones the need for costly road expansion, assuming expansion is even possible. From the community’s perspective, allowing transit to operate as efficiently as possible on the roadway system preserves and enhances the community’s investment in transit service, allowing funds to be spent on service quality improvements rather than on adding buses to maintain headways when buses are faced with increased traffic congestion. Ridership tends to improve by 0.3% to 0.5% for every 1% reduction in travel time (Kittelson & Associates et al. 2007). Travel time variability improvements discussed in the literature have had little or no documented impact on ridership, although some positive impact might be expected, and passengers have been shown to perceive unexpected waiting time as being 2 to 5 times more onerous than in-vehicle travel time (Kittelson & Associates et al. 2013). Increased Roadway Congestion Increased roadway congestion is a challenge to transit service in several ways. Traffic congestion slows travel times and creates travel times that are more variable. Slower travel times, in turn, require transit agencies to use more buses to maintain headways, which increases operating and maintenance costs. Transit-supportive roadway strategies can help postpone the need to add buses to a route to maintain headways, which can result in substantial avoided costs. For example, the TriMet (Portland, Oregon) Streamlining program postponed the need to add buses to 12 routes by approximately 8 years, avoiding approximately $13.4 million in operating costs over that time and also postponing the need for capital expenditures for new buses for those routes (Koonce et al. 2006). 2.2 Types of Strategies This section introduces and defines the transit-supportive roadway strategies described in the guidebook. The strategies are divided into four categories that describe the general way the strategy acts to improve bus speeds and reliability. The order of the categories also generally reflects an increasing need for a transit agency to coordinate with different organizational ele- ments within a roadway agency. The four categories of strategies are: 1. Bus operations. These are strategies that a transit agency can implement on its own with mini- mal roadway agency involvement beyond that normally required when moving or installing bus stops.

12 A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 2. Traffic control. Strategies that affect signal timing, phasing, and indications; change existing traffic regulations or laws to prioritize bus movements; and enforce traffic regulations. 3. Infrastructure. Physical improvements to the roadway, other than bus lanes, designed to directly improve bus speed or reliability or that support other strategies for doing so. 4. Bus lanes. Travel lanes dedicated exclusively or primarily for bus use. Figure 1 shows the 34 transit-supportive strategies presented in this guidebook. They are organized by category and in order of increasing complexity to implement in terms of required infrastructure, planning, analysis, and stakeholder involvement. Table 1 through Table 4 define and illustrate the strategies included in each of these categories. The toolbox chapters of the guidebook, Chapters 5 through 8, provide detailed descriptions of each strategy; the tables provide the section number within these chapters where a given strategy is covered. 2.3 Success Stories This section provides four examples of different approaches to implementing transit-supportive roadway strategies that resulted in successful outcomes, either in the United States or internation- ally. Additional U.S. and Canadian case study examples are provided in Chapter 3, and more details are provided in Appendix B of the TCRP Project A-39 final report (available as TCRP Web-Only Document 66). King County, Washington King County Metro operates a form of BRT branded as RapidRide. At the time of the interview with King Country Metro, the service provided frequent trips throughout the day on four lines, with two additional lines planned for service in 2014. RapidRide service was launched in 2010, Stop relocaon Stop consolidaon Route design Fare payment changes Vehicle changes Bus movement exempons Turn restricons Yield to bus Adjust signal ming Phase reservice Traffic signal shadowing Transit signal priority Transit signal faces Bus-only signal phase Queue jumps Pre- signals Traffic signal for buses Traffic control enforcement Speed hump modificaons Bus stop lengthening Bus shoulder use Red-colored pavement Curb extensions Boarding islands Bus-only links Curbside bus lanes Shared bus- bike lanes Interior bus lanes Bus shoulder use Leƒ-side bus lanes Queue bypasses Median bus lanes Reversible bus lanes BUS OPERATIONS STRATEGIES TRAFFIC CONTROL STRATEGIES INFRA- STUCTURE STRATEGIES BUS LANE STRATEGIES INCREASING COMPLEXITY TO IMPLEMENT IN CR EA SI N G RO AD W AY A G EN CY C O O RD IN AT IO N Contraflow bus lanes Figure 1. Transit-supportive roadway strategies categorized. (continued on p. 17)

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 13 Strategy (Secon) Descripon Illustraon Stop relocaon (5.1) An exisng bus stop is moved from its current locaon at an intersecon (e.g., near side) to a different locaon (e.g., far side). Stop consolidaon (5.2) Bus stop spacing is opmized—typically by increasing the bus stop spacing—so that buses make fewer stops along the route, while minimally affecng the area served by transit. Route design (5.3) A route’s alignment is adjusted to provide a faster, more direct trip from origin to desnaon for the majority of passengers. Fare payment changes (5.4) Changes are made in how or where bus fares are paid (or both), with the intent of reducing the me required to pay fares. Some types of fare payment changes are implemented in conjuncon with all- door boarding, which further speeds up the boarding process. Vehicle or equipment changes (5.5) The type of bus used on a route, or the equipment used on a bus, is changed to allow passengers to board and alight faster, to provide improved interior circulaon, to improve vehicle performance, to allow more-direct roungs, or a combinaon of these. Table 1. Bus operations strategies in Chapter 5. Strategy (Secon) Descripon Illustraon Movement restricon exempon (6.1) Buses are allowed to make movements (e.g., le turn, right turn, proceed straight ahead) that are prohibited to other vehicles. …EXCEPT BUS… Turn restricons (6.2) One or more exisng general traffic turning movements at an intersecon are prohibited. Yield to bus (6.3) Motorists are required by law, or are encouraged through bus-mounted signs, to let buses back into traffic when they are signaling to exit a bus stop. Table 2. Traffic control strategies in Chapter 6. (continued on next page)

Transit signal faces (6.8) Special traffic signal faces (displays) used for controlling bus, streetcar, or light rail operaons. Bus-only signal phase (6.9) A traffic signal phase included in the traffic signal cycle to serve bus movements that cannot be served, or are not desired to be served, concurrently with other traffic. Queue jumps (6.10) Buses (or in some applicaons, buses and right- turning vehicles) are provided an opportunity to move ahead of queued through-vehicles at a signalized intersecon and, in many cases, to proceed into the intersecon in advance of the through traffic. Pre-signals (6.11) A traffic signal for one direcon of a street, coordinated with a traffic signal at a downstream intersecon, that is used to control the mes when parcular vehicles may approach the intersecon. Traffic signal installed specifically for buses (6.12) An intersecon that is signalized primarily to serve bus movements rather than general traffic. Traffic control enforcement (6.13) Automated or manual techniques to enforce traffic laws essenal for the successful operaon of transit-supporve roadway strategies. Passive traffic signal ming adjustments (6.4) Exisng signal ming plans are opmized to reduce delay for traffic in general on the intersecon approaches used by buses, or for buses specifically. Since the signal ming is followed whether or not a bus is present, the adjustments are considered to be passive. Phase reservice (6.5) A traffic signal phase is served twice during a traffic signal cycle—for example, a leŽ-turn phase that is served both at the start and the end of the green phase for through traffic. Traffic signal shadowing (6.6) A bus wishing to turn leŽ at an unsignalized intersecon triggers a call for a leŽ-turn phase at a nearby downstream intersecon, thereby creang a gap in traffic that the bus can use to turn leŽ. Transit signal priority (6.7) Traffic signal ming is altered in response to a request from a bus, so that the bus experiences no or reduced delay passing through the intersecon. BUS Strategy (Secon) Descripon Illustraon Table 2. (Continued).

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 15 BU S BU S ONLY BUS Strategy (Secon) Descripon Illustraon Speed hump modificaons (7.1) Speed bumps and humps along bus routes are replaced with bus-friendlier versions. Bus stop lengthening (7.2) A bus stop’s length is increased to allow it to serve more (or longer) buses simultaneously. Bus shoulder use (7.3) Buses are allowed to use roadway shoulders during peak periods. Red-colored pavement (7.4) All, or selected segments, of a bus lane are indicated with red-colored pavement as a supplement to the normal bus lane signing and striping. Curb extensions (7.5) Curb extensions (bus bulbs, bus nubs) extend the curb and sidewalk out to the edge of the parking lane. Boarding islands (7.6) Bus stops on raised concrete islands within the roadway. Bus-only links (7.7) Bus-only links (bus gates, bus-only crossings, bus sluices) are short secons of roadway connecng public streets that can only be used by transit vehicles and other authorized vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles). Table 3. Infrastructure strategies in Chapter 7.

Strategy (Secon) Descripon Illustraon Bus lane, generally (8.1) A roadway lane dedicated exclusively or primarily for the use of buses. Curbside bus lane (8.2) A bus lane located in the rightmost lane of the roadway, adjacent to the right curb. Shared bus and bicycle lane (8.3) A curbside lane shared part- or full- me by buses and bicycles; other users may also be allowed into the lane at specific  mes or loca ons. Interior (offset) bus lane (8.4) A bus lane in the interior of the roadway, typically located to the le… of the curb (parking) lane but can also be another non-curb lane. Le…-side bus lane (8.5) A bus lane on the le… side of the roadway, adjacent to the le… curb or parking lane on one-way streets, or adjacent to the median on two-way streets. Queue bypass (8.6) A rela vely short bus lane that allows buses to move to the front of the line at a bo‹leneck, where they then merge into the adjacent general traffic lane. Median bus lanes (8.7) Lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses, located in the middle of a roadway and o…en separated from other traffic by curbs or landscaped islands. Contraflow bus lane (8.8) A bus lane provided in the opposite direc on of normal traffic flow on a one-way or divided street. Reversible bus lane (8.9) A single bus lane that serves buses opera ng in both direc ons. Table 4. Bus lane strategies in Chapter 8.

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 17 using high-capacity, low-emission hybrid buses and distinctive branding to distinguish its service. Buses are scheduled by headway, rather than according to a fixed timetable, and provide 10-min headways during the morning and evening peak and 15-min service during off-peak periods. The RapidRide program was developed by King County Metro after several years of reviewing and studying BRT services around the country and world. Managers traveled to different transit forums and agencies to assess how different groups were implementing BRT and considered how a similar service could be applied within King County. Metro spent several years developing a transit package, which included funding avenues, branding the service, selecting BRT elements, and identifying potential bus lines. RapidRide was one of the main features of the transit package. The transit improvements are primarily funded through a 0.1% sales tax increase approved by King County voters in 2006 as part of the Transit Now initiative to expand transit service. Project partnerships included the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Tukwila, Burien, SeaTac, Des Moines, Kent, Federal Way, Renton, and Shoreline. All partners were involved in discussions on conceptual-level improvements and route alignment. These partners, along with the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT), share fiber-optic lines along RapidRide corridors. A set of speed and reliability partnerships were developed for the RapidRide project. The partnerships were contractual, formal interagency agreements that detailed certain infrastructure improvements that a city would provide in exchange for increased transit service operating hours. In the beginning, King County Metro worked to develop the initial agreements and negotiated the details of the partnerships with partner agencies. At times, the agreements were subsequently amended based on community feedback and technical feasibility issues. Infrastructure operations and maintenance details also had to be negotiated. Metro worked with local agencies to assess what they could implement, given right-of-way (ROW) and other factors. Through the Speed and Reliability Partnership program, local agen- cies also proactively looked at what they could do to improve transit. This coordination helped Metro and partnership agencies streamline the process to develop transit packages with the best ideas possible. As more transit corridors have been identified and developed, Metro has tried to develop standard practices for RapidRide corridors. King County Metro held a wide variety of meetings with stakeholders throughout the stages of each of the corridor projects. The meetings were identified and held on a case-by-case basis, with some corridor projects having only a few meetings, and the higher-profile projects requiring additional meetings. In the beginning, agency partners had concerns about BRT’s impacts on general traffic and pedestrian operations. The King County Metro staff members heading up the speed and reli- ability projects were all traffic engineers, so they had a good understanding of traffic operations and terminology. Some agencies had difficulty understanding the operational impact of transit signal priority (TSP). In particular, thinking about the bus route as a whole was a new concept for city staff. They needed help to realize that if, for example, reliability improvements were made along one portion of a route, then riders boarding further along the route would benefit. In addition, there would be potential reduced operating costs due to less recovery time needed. Significant progress was made with the City of Seattle when one of the operations engineers took the initiative to try out the full transit priority operation (with phase skipping) for a week at a moderately congested intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This test allowed city staff to become comfortable with the TSP operation, observe impacts to pedestrians, and recognize that the overall trade-offs to the vehicular and pedestrian operations were acceptable. As a result, this engineer became a champion for the concept. Finding a champion at other agencies (continued from p. 12)

18 A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies was more challenging. With the smaller cities, a key element to the success of the project was loaning them spare TSP hardware that they could experiment with in their signal shops. Additional challenges included right-of-way conflicts between the transit speed and reliability improvements, the Seattle Bike Master Plan, and Seattle Freight Master Plan. In some cases, there were incompatible plans proposed for the RapidRide corridors in these other master plans, which generated additional hurdles and negotiations during design phases. Spokane, Washington The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) worked with stakeholders, including internal staff from multiple departments, several local jurisdictions, and the general public, on a bus stop consoli- dation project. The stakeholders started their involvement in the project at varying places in the project’s development. The STA Planning Department was involved during the initial phase of the project. The STA Service Improvement Committee was shown initial drafts of the project and assisted in refining the project scope. The STA Facilities and Grounds Department was involved after the draft plan was developed; since the department was responsible for removing bus stop signs, it provided input on the project scope. Fixed-route bus operators were involved during the draft phase, when they were provided information and maps for review and comment. The general public was involved during the draft phase, when information was provided via web reports, online surveys, and signs posted at bus stops that were planned to be closed. Local jurisdictions became involved during the final draft phase, when they were provided information on locations and timelines for removals. Various levels of meetings were held during the project for information dissemination and project planning. The Planning Department held meetings to discuss the project and gather input. The Service Improvement Committee held regular biweekly meetings during project development, and bus stop consolidation projects were added to the agenda for these meetings regularly during the initial planning phase of the project as well as later when discussion items war- ranted it. The Facilities and Grounds Department met to discuss the scope and estimated schedule and to provide input on what its staff could accomplish for physical removal of bus stop signs. Fixed-route operators were provided with draft location maps for review and comment. STA staff were available to meet with operators to discuss the project and address concerns. No public meet- ings were held. One internal hurdle to overcome was that a small minority of the fixed-route operators felt the stop consolidation project was detrimental to the public. However, after the first phase of the project was completed, the fixed-route operators began to see that removing stops did in fact improve bus speed and reliability, which was a real breakthrough moment. The lesson learned by STA was that it is important that internal agency groups understand the project and the need for it. They may not agree with the project concept, but if they are armed with the correct information, the public receives a consistent message from all departments. This is especially true for the bus operators since they are the face of the agency and often the first point of contact for a customer with a question. Ottawa, Canada OC Transpo, a department of the City of Ottawa, provides transportation service throughout the Ontario portion of the National Capital Region. In the past, this region consisted of local municipalities and a regional government, but it has since been consolidated into a single entity, the City of Ottawa. Major highways in the region are owned by the Ontario Ministry of Trans- portation, while the National Capital Commission owns some scenic parkways that are part of

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 19 longer-distance bus routes. Within the city governmental structure, OC Transpo interacts with two offices within public works (traffic operations, and traffic safety and signs), as well as with the pedestrian and bicycle office within the planning department. Ottawa is known for its off-street, grade-separated Transitway; however, many other types of transit-supportive roadway strategies are applied throughout the region. For example, Route 95 operates in curbside bus lanes in the suburbs, in mixed traffic along one of the region’s parkways, in bus lanes downtown, on the freeway shoulder east of downtown, and in mixed traffic at the eastern end of the route. Queue jumps and TSP are applied as spot treatments throughout the city, and three TSP corridors have also been developed. The city’s transportation plan identifies transit priority corridors, and many strategy implementations focus on these corridors. At the same time, OC Transpo uses input from bus drivers and others to identify locations that could benefit from projects and take advantage of road construction projects (e.g., water or sewer projects) to install transit-preferential projects or remove unwanted bus pullouts. At the time of the interview with OC Transpo, TSP had been implemented at approximately 50 locations citywide and used bus-mounted transponders that were detected by in-pavement traffic signal detector loops. TSP is primarily provided as a green extension (i.e., keeping the traffic signal green longer than normal to allow a bus to pass through the intersection without delay) due to technological limitations of the city’s signal controllers. In addition, because the system had difficulty distinguishing buses from other vehicles, the city was in the process of investigating alternative detection systems. Other types of transit-preferential strategies that have been used in Ottawa are: • Phase reservice. When two to three cars or a bus occupy a left-turn lane, the left turn may be served twice within the same signal cycle, both as a leading left turn and as a lagging left turn (i.e., both at the start and toward the end of when the intersection approach is served). This treatment was already used for non-transit applications (clearing queues of cars), so no special negotiating was needed with the city transportation department to use it, subject to the normal checks that there was sufficient capacity available to accommodate the extra left-turn interval. Staff have not observed any driver expectancy issues with the use of this treatment. It is only used during the morning peak period (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.). • Passive signal timing treatments. OC Transpo staff evaluate intersection operations to identify whether shorter signal cycles or more green time for bus movements can be accommodated. In downtown, where 180 buses per hour operate in bus lanes on one-way streets, traffic signals are timed to allow buses to progress rather than automobile traffic. • Movement prohibition exemptions. OC Transpo has installed bus-only left-turn lanes at key intersections where there is insufficient capacity to serve automobile left turns. At an inter- section where right turns would be blocked by pedestrians, right turns are prohibited, but a bus route that turns right is allowed to make the turn. At a T-intersection with a two-lane approach (left-turn lane and right-turn lane), buses are allowed to make a left turn from the right-turn lane as a form of a queue bypass. A “Bus Excepted” tab on the lane-usage sign is used to indicate the allowed use. • Bus-only links. Bus-only streets are used to link some neighborhoods that have limited street connectivity to allow bus routes to penetrate neighborhoods rather than go around them. These links are controlled only by signs, but OC Transpo believes that the violation rate is low. OC Transpo’s signal priority unit conducts any necessary data collection, analysis, report- ing, and implementation associated with transit-supportive strategies. Public works staff have responsibility for reviewing and approving OC Transpo’s requests and for making any necessary changes within the signal controller, but the staff have worked with each other for many years and are familiar with each other’s capabilities. Both transportation and OC Transpo staff have

20 A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies access to signal controller cabinets; with the transportation staff working with the signal controller and OC Transpo working with the TSP equipment. Consultants are typically used for projects with a geometric design element. Malmö, Sweden Malmö, with a population of just over 300,000, is Sweden’s third-largest city. The opening of the Öresund bridge–tunnel between Copenhagen and Malmö in 2000 created new public transport opportunities and a substantially increased commuter market from Sweden to Denmark. As of 2010, nonmotorized mode share in Malmö was approximately 57%. Public transport’s mode share was 14%, a substantial increase from 8% in 2001, although most new transit trips appear to have switched from the walking mode (European Platform on Mobility Management 2013). In 2003, Malmö initiated a program to improve cooperation with Skånetrafiken, the transit service provider (local bus, regional bus, commuter rail, and paratransit) for southern Sweden, with the goal of improving public transport service and usage. The impetus for this cooperation was the City Tunnel project (2005–2010), which created a direct rail connection between Malmö central station and the Öresund bridge with two new stations—one in an established urban district just south of the city center and another in a greenfield site close to the bridge. A major focus was restructuring the surface public transport lines to work with the new line and to serve the new stations. Agency partnerships were established at the political (i.e., city council/governing board), staff (i.e., agency leadership and planning and operations staff), and private-sector (e.g., contracted bus operator) levels. Working groups were formed in the following areas, with staff representatives provided as needed from the appropriate departments and organizations: • Service quality, managing quality issues related to vehicles and drivers as well as safety and security issues; • Operations and maintenance, addressing maintenance of streets and bus stops, snow removal, and construction-related route diversions and stop closures, among other issues; • Information and marketing, addressing joint agency needs, particularly in the area of mobility management; and • Traffic and infrastructure planning, looking at longer-term needs, such as long-term road or land use construction projects, permanent route and stop changes, and large-scale system expansion projects. There is also a policy group that coordinates activities among the working groups and higher levels, a steering committee consisting of managers from Malmö’s streets and planning departments and various departments within Skånetrafiken, and a presidium group with representatives of the agencies’ governing bodies, the regional transport committee, and a technical committee. One area of ongoing cooperation at the time of the Malmö interview was the Malmö Express BRT line. The line, which opened in June 2014, is operated with bi-articulated, 78-ft buses equipped with doors on both sides and is intended as a transitional service to provide more capacity and better service quality on Malmö’s busiest bus route until a tram line along the same alignment is constructed around the end of the decade. At that time, the high-capacity buses will be moved to another line identified for future tram conversion. The line operates at 5-min peak headways along a 5½-mile route. The existing TSP system along the route has been upgraded. The alignment already had more than 2 directional miles of right-side bus lanes, and an additional 4 directional miles of median bus lanes were added in anticipation of the future tram line, with stations in the center of the street in those sections. Malmö provides TSP at most signalized intersections throughout the city. The bus lane network consists of fairly short segments scattered around the city, and taxis are often allowed

The Need for Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies 21 to use the bus lanes. Many bus lane sections have been installed as a means of complying with European Union air-quality requirements; if the nitrogen oxide levels from motor vehicles sitting in queues at intersections are too high, creating a bus lane is one means to address the problem. Other bus lanes have been installed as queue bypasses at congested intersections— one such lane on the main arterial approach to the city center from the northeast saves 3 to 4 min of delay per bus during the morning peak. Bus lanes are generally installed by taking a traffic lane, but city policy is to prioritize non-automobile modes; in many cases, the capacity is not needed between intersections. On occasion, short-term (15-min) parking is allowed in selected bus lane sections during off-peak periods when adjacent property access needs are important. Malmö has installed bus-friendly speed tables along transit corridors where general traffic speeds require calming; the design quickly elevates the roadway on the entry side similar to a speed table, but gently lowers the roadway back to grade on the departure side.