Better On-Street Bus Stops (2015)

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.

84 APPENDIX C Summary of Survey Results Better On-Street Bus Stops RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1. Date 2. Contact information Name of respondent: _______________________________ Agency name: ____________________________________ Title of respondent: ________________________________ Agency address: __________________________________ Agency size (note: this was entered after survey responses were received, based on FY 2012 NTD data): ___________ Respondent e-mail address: _________________________ Respondent telephone number: _______________________ 3. System size Small (<250 peak buses) 41.7% 20 Medium (250–999 peak buses) 41.7% 20 Large (1,000+ peak buses) 16.7% 8 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR BUS STOPS 4. Does your agency have standards or guidelines for bus stop design? Yes, we have developed standards or guidelines 77.1% 37 No, but we refer to standards developed by others 14.6% 7 No, we do not typically use published standards/guidelines 8.3% 4 5. Are the design standards available on your agency’s website? Yes 37.8% 14 No 62.2% 23 6. What is the best way to obtain the stop design standards? Typically invited to request via email or phone 7. Who developed these other standards/guidelines? AC Transit Orange County Transportation Authority The Federal Transit Administration—TCRP Report 19——Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops.

85 Our transit agency only has a formal spacing standard and amenity placement policy. We primarily refer to TCRP Report 19 and the Easter Seals Project Action Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety. We are in the process of developing our own standards. In the meantime we rely on TCRP and information developed by other agencies. TCRP We follow ADA guidelines and standards. We also adhere to local and municipal guidelines when feasible. TCRP Report 19, AASHTO Draft Transit Facility Design Guide, COTA Bus Stop Design Guide, OCTA Bus Stop Design Guide, SEPTA Bus Stop Design Guide BARRIERS, OBSTACLES, AND CHALLENGES 8. Please characterize the following elements as major challenges, minor challenges, or not an issue in provision of bus stops. Major challenge Minor challenge Not a challenge Right-of-way availability 27% 69% 4% Sight distance 8% 83% 8% Roadway grades 13% 73% 15% Conflicting curbside uses (e.g., street furniture or landscaping) 47% 51% 2% Absence of sidewalks 69% 29% 2% Width of sidewalks 35% 65% 0% Absence of crosswalks 38% 56% 6% Coordination with city/county/state 40% 52% 8% Lack of emphasis within transit agency 8% 33% 58% Ability to select shelter sites 17% 56% 27% Traffic engineering concerns 21% 79% 0% Conflicts with bicycles (bike lanes/stations) 4% 71% 25% Funding 33% 54% 13% Balancing customer and operational perspectives 21% 73% 6% Restrictions on stop locations on state highways 25% 38% 38% ADA issues 52% 48% 0% Developer concerns 25% 71% 4% Property owners’ concerns 60% 34% 6% Driveway issues 29% 63% 8% Storm water management 4% 54% 42% Stop maintenance 21% 63% 17% Other 59% 24% 18% Other includes: (1) Political involvement precluding certain projects from being developed or coming to fruition. (2) Establishing partnerships with property owners and planners is necessary for transit agencies to overcome the above obstacles. Teaching transit awareness to non-transit professionals is part of the role that I play at the transit agency. Public transit agencies rarely have the resources to act alone, so we establish partnerships mainly through our Adopt-A-Stop program. Meeting with planners at other municipalities regularly, to include public transit accessibility in the planning stages. Public transit needs to be considered in the pedestrian side when talking with planners and engineers. Too often bus stops are put in a separate category than pedestrians. Public transit riders are pedestrians twice during their journey, planners need to know this. Well-designed complete streets are good for everyone, including public transit passengers. (3) Continuous right turn lanes on state highway system and, primarily, extensive right turn lanes on all roadways, state highway, arterial and collector, and local roadways. (4) Utilities. (5) Weather is a major issue as we get more snow than any other metropolitan area in the nation. Snow affects bus stop & shelter placement, maintenance costs, ADA paratransit costs due to conditional eligibility & a host of other elements. (6) Stop requirements vary by local jurisdictions. (7) Roadside

86 drainage ditches; lack of shoulders and curbs; lack of ADA accessible landing pads. (8) Our transit agency does not have the legal authority to set up bus stops; this is a local responsibility under state law. (9) Covered most issues. (10) a. Political concerns—related to developer and property owners’ concerns above, sometimes a small issue will carry a lot of political weight and complicate our efforts to treat each situation fairly—political pressures on management and Board members (who are appointed by local elected officials). We have also had instances where different municipalities want different treatment of their stops (like a desire to put all stops in turn lanes within their boundaries, or to simply have no stops at all). b. Coordination within transit agency—when bus stop management functions are not centralized in a consolidate group, it can result in coordination challenges within the transit agency as components of the bus stop management system are scattered to different departments with different managers and processes. c. Lack of formal transit agency policies/ guidelines for stop placement/design—the lack of formal transit agency guidelines can make it challenging to ensure consistent treatment of our stops and resolution of issues when they arise (referencing TCRP Report 19; Easter Seals tends not to carry as much weight as it might if it were an transit agency-approved document). (11) We have dedicated funding and a dedicated staff (directly employed and under contract to construct). We also have working relationships with local authorities. We are working towards 100% ADA improvements on all existing bus stops. We have a timeline and support (from all levels). We face these issues and have the ability to often work through these items. Nothing is impossible, but often we do have to take several items into consideration to get the best project completed. (12) Community buy-in and process to make changes happen. (13) Snow removal! (14) Some of the items I checked as “Minor” could be “Major,” depending upon which of the 34 cities we are referring to and vice-versa. (15) Snow removal on public right of way; public safety concerns around some bus stops. (16) Conflicts with land uses such as supermarkets, gas stations, etc. Another big concern is bucking / rutting / sliding of blacktop at bus stops creating a very rough roadway. (17) Lighting, wayfinding (for freeway bus stops), sharing stops w/ other transit operators (e.g., school buses or private buses). 9. Please describe the nature of the one major challenge. Responses summarized in Table 49, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Adding bus stops to areas with no pedestrian access to businesses or sidewalks. Stops along roadways administered by the state. The state DOR requires any major or minor modification to a bus stop along a state highway to have extensive construction performed to bring it to their standard. Example: Rural or Urban stops that are in need of benches or shelters cannot be performed unless project includes roadway static pad to be part of the project. This adds thousands of dollars to a project that otherwise would enhance customer usability and improve stops to updated ADA requirements. Lack of sidewalks, what we refer to as a rural bus stop. The challenge here is that transit stops need to tie into a sidewalk network. These stops are the biggest challenge because we’re not dealing with just the bus stop anymore. Today we need to focus on accessibility to and from the stop. As intersections are improved or roadways widened, right turn lanes are added to improve vehicular LOS. Bus stops then need to be relocated away from the intersections, passengers must walk further, and in some cases, other conflicts such as drive entrances, stormwater, or adjacent land uses make locating and improving a bus stop location challenging. The nature of one major challenge is the overall lack of local governments including the function of public transportation in their planning efforts. The allowance of on-street parking at bus stops, landscaping requirements that create barriers between the curb and sidewalk, and the lack of a complete sidewalk network are all evidences of a planning process that is void of any other perspective than driving to your destination. I was trying to build a ramp from a bus stop at street grade up to a shopping center parking lot about 4 feet higher, which required excavation. The survey company missed a buried telephone cable that was barely six inches under the ground. I had to have my engineer re-design the entire site to work around the buried cable. Seems like everywhere I try to pour concrete, there’s some sort of buried utility, whether phone, cable TV or conduit for the traffic signals. If it’s not buried, it’s a telephone pole or fire hydrant. Being able to determine the best location for a particular stop with numerous considerations (challenges) facing the project, such as accessibility concerns, customer demand/needs, property owner preferences, road conditions at best option site etc... We have a lot of sight constraints in the placement of bus shelters but the biggest is acquiring right of way to build ADA- compliant bus shelters. Many of our bus stops are just a pole in the ground or a street light pole with a sign on it; we are not as concerned about right of way with the placement of these. Many parts of town have no sidewalks, or only have sidewalks that are less than 5’ wide. The City will not condemn any portion of private property in order to build bus shelter locations; it is politically non-tenable to do that here.

87 Lack of sidewalks in much of our service area limits what we can do as far as providing for safety regarding access to our stops, as well as the obvious ADA issues pertaining to accessibility and wheelchair access. Sidewalk and intersection limitations The single greatest challenge here is snow. We do not have the resources to keep our 130 bus shelters clear of snow, let alone the 5,000 bus stops. The best we can do is try to keep shelters in the CBD clear of snow. There’s a complexity to enhancing stops that is multi-layered. First, we rely on grant funding for stop improvements (no $, no project). Second, we have to identify a minimum number of stop locations (typically 20+), otherwise we can’t get interest from engineers or contractors to bid on the work. And third, even though we initially identify a preliminary list of stops, locating a stop on private property can be a hurdle and knock a stop location off the list. Stop maintenance/cleaning and trash collection. The District has multiple MOU’s with jurisdictions for bus stop cleaning that are all over 10 years old. The MOU’s have not been updated with current stop list, and our staff has not been performing quality-control checks on these stops. Trash collection is a major issue at stops both with and without trash cans. Many cities do not want to pay for trash collection at these locations, even though it is their ROW. One major challenge that we face with bus stop requests is the lack of sidewalks or ADA compliance. Currently, the transit agency’s Office of Service Development does not have direct funding for installation of new sidewalk or ADA improvements. All of our stops need local government approval and state approval if they are on a state highway. Our main local north– south corridor is a major arterial street that is also a state highway. There are 20 cities in our county and we also run service in cities outside our county. Each city has a different process to establish new bus stops. Some involve approval by the City Council; some are at a staff level. Some of the cities charge an encroachment fee for each stop. Some require surveys of property owners while others don’t. Internally we also have up to six departments responsible for bus stops depending on the task. PLUS the most significant challenge associated with stops in our County is property-owner resistance to bus stops and terminal locations. Some residents are very vocal and view buses as a detriment to their property values and/or a hazard for children, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Strong resident opposition to a stop can derail service planning efforts and force staff to scramble to look for alternative options as many jurisdictions will not approve a stopover community opposition. Something that has recently occurred: we have restructured a route to take over a branch. When we extended the route, it operated on 6 blocks that required bus stops; however the locations are not ADA accessible. There is no sidewalk or curb, some have loose asphalt on the side of the road. Current ADA restrictions prevent adding a bus stop that is non-ADA accessible. As a strong “home rule” state, the transit agency does not have the legal authority to establish bus stops. That legal responsibility rests with local municipalities. On County roads, County formal concurrence is also required. On State highways, each stop proposal requires a detailed, on-site review by state DOT staff before ultimate approval can be granted. Parking is a major challenge. Parking is at a premium in the city, and bus stops, loading, ADA access are all desired at intersections. Lack of investment in bus stop accessibility and amenities by local government agencies Obtaining sufficient ROW to keep the shelter a safe distance from the adjacent roadway and maintain PROWAG access clearance on sidewalk. Rural Areas—limited sidewalk, curb cuts. The state has a new “complete streets” law, which our DOT has interpreted to mean that whenever we apply for a simple permit to pour a concrete pad for a bus stop shelter, we (the transit agency) are responsible for improving all aspects of the intersection that impact pedestrians--installing push-button ‘walk’ signals, painting crosswalks, etc. We have a lot, but are picking coordination with city/county/state, as a number of the others we selected as major challenges result from coordination issues. Institutionally, we have seen a lot of turnover and change within both our transit agency and the local governments. As a result, we don’t currently have a lot of long-term relationships with staff—there isn’t necessarily a “go-to” person at each city/county/etc., and they don’t necessarily know that we have staff dedicated to bus stop issues. Related, there aren’t set policies with each city that dictate or recommend how coordination should be carried out, so there aren’t institutional measures to make sure that we are all keeping in touch and working together. When staff changes, often any informal measures that had been taking place fall apart. These issues manifest when it comes to issues that the transit agency doesn’t control—notably sidewalks, crosswalks, ADA issues where we don’t own the property or site, conflicting curbside uses, bike facilities, etc. We have had a number of pedestrian improvement

88 projects that have added landscaping and furniture zones to the curbside environment, eliminating usability for our buses’ ADA ramps—we’ve actually lost ADA compliance at a number of previously compliant stops. We also had a similar issue with our city’s first protected cycle track, which eliminated access completely to several bus stops. Difficult to get municipalities to post regulatory signage. Also, reluctance of officials to remove parking meters to create sufficient space for stops. As I stated, we have dedicated funding and a dedicated staff (directly employed and under contract to construct). We also have working relationships with local authorities. We are working toward 100% ADA improvements on all existing bus stops. We have a timeline and support (from all levels). We face these issues and have the ability to often work through these items. Nothing is impossible, but often we do have to take several items into consideration to get the best project completed. On few occasions, we encounter a need to place a shelter where right-of-way is not adequate for the installation. This issue does not occur frequently but it can be significant when it occurs. Adjacent and nearby property owners and tenants strongly object to bus stops. We field daily complaints and requests to remove or relocate stops to mitigate impacts. Bus stop complaints include passengers waiting for long periods of time, large numbers of riders blocking the sidewalk and waiting on adjacent private property, riders smoking while waiting, homeless issues, trash, loss of parking, perceived security threats, etc. Our ability to regularly clean and patrol nearly 5,000 stops is limited. Cycling infrastructure does not always consider the nature of bus operation. Some cycling paths are designed without taking into account the high amounts of buses and the amount of users using the bus stops. Also, this can lead to strong opposition from the union. Available right of way is a major challenge in our service area. In many cases right of way is at the back of the sidewalk, which can hinder our ability to place ADA-compliant bus pads, shelters and other improvements. Where there is public right of way it is often taken by parking, signage, fire hydrants and other curbside items. There are really two major challenges. Right of way availability is a constant issue. In order to install the level of amenities we would like and ADA pads, we need to have it or we are at the mercy of property owners. This makes pushing a uniform plan forward difficult. The 2nd issue is stop maintenance. There are multiple parties involved; it is often unclear who has the ultimate responsibility to maintain the stop. Trying to remove parking from in front of bus stops is a major challenge as parking is seen as a needed amenity to some as compared to providing safe and accessible transit. In our city, the removal of parking is done before a Traffic and Parking board, which is made up of citizens. Getting all to understand the importance of having safe and accessible transit is a challenge and may go against the political will of the board and community. 1) ADA compliance is the biggest area where we are deficient from our standards. In the metropolitan area, there are many jurisdictions and right-of-way owners, all with different contexts and their own standards on bus stops/sidewalks. It has not been a priority to improve stops to ADA compliance regionally except when streets are undergoing major capital improvements, and more than half of our region’s 19,000 bus stops remain inaccessible. 2) In many locations where the ROW behind the curb is constrained, additional passenger waiting room and room for shelters (and other operational advantages due to faster boarding and deboarding) can be provided by provision of a curb bulb-out. However, ROW owners and traffic engineers have been reluctant to allow these installations despite the fact that they do not occupy a travel lane. Sufficient public right of way is occasionally an issue in siting facilities, where insufficient space might not be available to accommodate all desired passenger amenities within the public right of way. Funding provided by the municipalities to improve them. Snow removal is a chronic issue with the bus stops and shelters. We got a lot of snow, so snow removal is a big issue. The snow plows throw additional snow directly in front of most bus stops and shelters. Most bus stops are within the ROW of municipalities and there is little effort to remove the snow at bus stops. The transit agency has limited resources for snow removal. If a shelter is installed within a private location we do have the property owner sign a license agreement stating that they are responsible for snow removal, but more often than not they do not take care of the snow removal, leaving it for the transit agency to take care of. Most of our service area is suburban in nature, and buses on the streets, bus stops with accompanying street furniture, and pedestrians standing/sitting around bus stop locations is difficult for non-riders to understand. They would prefer those items to be elsewhere.

89 One major challenge is the ability to provide passenger amenities, such as passenger shelters and ADA landing pads, at locations where ADA accessibility and compliance would be difficult to achieve. Many locations throughout our service area lack sidewalks completely or have existing sidewalks that are not ADA compliant. This generally means that we are hesitant to “build” any infrastructure at these bus stop locations in order to avoid installing something that is not ADA compliant, thus opening ourselves up to the possibility of lawsuits. The transit agency funds and maintains almost all of its passenger shelters and amenities, and thus performing a lot of sidewalk and curb work in order to make a completely accessible and ADA-compliant bus stop area is often a financial burden. Bus shelters in the City are provided through a contract with an advertising firm, which also maintains the shelters. Shelter installations require the provision of electrical power and reinforced concrete sidewalks. The ability to relocate shelters is constrained by funding to provide the infrastructure needed for the shelters. ADA concerns, and general access, are major concerns. Many of our streets where buses run do not have sidewalks, or have other issues that impede accessibility. We do not own or maintain bus stops. The numerous towns in which we operate bus service technically control the siting of bus stops, although the public perceives bus stops as the portal into our system. Snow removal from bus stops is a major challenge. Lack of pedestrian infrastructure along important corridors is one of the most frustrating issues to overcome in terms of stop placement, spacing, access and safety. Stop-specific improvements along underdeveloped corridors are more challenging to build and have reduced impact without suitable connectivity. Land use conflicts, roadway condition Coordination with City/County/State: the transit agency serves 22 jurisdictions + has bus stops in the State right-of- way. Of 850 bus stops, only 10 are on property owned by the transit agency. Hence we must obtain approvals by multiple agencies; each has its own procedures and “sympathy” to establish and/or maintain bus stops. 10. Please describe strategies or tactics used to overcome any major challenges. Responses summarized in Table 50, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Try to work with jurisdictions to get sidewalks and/or crosswalks added and with businesses to improve access. Worked with MPO to get Complete streets policy, and stress to jurisdiction importance of connectivity. Public with concerns regarding the lack of improvement to bus stops in areas mentioned will be asked to contact their state representative. Meeting with the planners during the planning stages. This allows a transit agency an opportunity to point out something they may have overlooked regarding an adjacent bus stop. The transit agency has made a lot of progress in this area; bus stop improvements are now included in the drawings/plans with the City, County and Townships on several projects each year. Relocating stops to the farside where acceptable. Working with local planners and developers to help them understand how the built environment and parking policies impact the ability to provide efficient and accessible public transportation. It is an education effort that takes persistence and creativity. I can’t afford to move utilities so I often have to relocate a planned bus stop to an inferior location if I want it to be ADA accessible. I’ve had some success in getting the city to work with me on traffic signals, like burying their conduits deeper and putting in pedestrian signal buttons on separate bollards in locations where I couldn’t pour concrete within reach of the existing signal poles. The city has been cooperative to work with as it relates to ADA access. Other utilities won’t budge unless we pay to move them. Bringing all major players involved in a stop placement to the table and coming to the best solution for the given circumstances. We research the property owners and request permission to obtain ROW or easement to place a bus shelter. More than 95% of the time, property owners will not respond to our requests. The tactic we use is to select sites that offer the fewest constraints (for example ones where the City already had ROW) and focus on those. As funding is available, we make as many improvements as we can. Working with local jurisdictions at least makes them aware of our issues, but most times does not address the problems in a timely manner. We’ve recently constructed a downtown transit Hub consolidating the main downtown stop in a weather-protected facility in the CBD. We have a heated “head house” as well as a pavement snow melting system. We are also implementing a “next

90 bus” system for all routes in all our entire system that will allow customers to track their bus before they leave weather protection to go to their bus stop. We have developed an internal review and scoring process that identifies stops that need to be enhanced and/or to improvements made for pedestrian and ADA access. We review this on an annual basis since boardings, a prime variable for scoring stops, changes over time or between stop enhancement projects. The transit agency has offered to share the cost of cleaning and trash collection at stops. We work with the City, County, and State to identify bus stops that need sidewalk repairs or ADA improvements. Repairs to existing sidewalks are usually made by the City, County, or State Highway Administration. Improvements usually are made in coordination with planned revitalization projects. We recently implemented a major route restructuring and replaced all of our bus stops as part of the process. This exposed process problems that weren’t an issue when we were only making changes to 10 to 50 stops at one time but became major problems when we needed to replace about 2,000 signs at once. We have formed a working group and will fix the process problems and create clear lines of responsibility. PLUS: We do not have solid tactics for overcoming this issue. Many residents will not listen to reason and often use concerns about pedestrian safety as a proxy for keeping unsightly buses or low-income persons out of their neighborhood. In this case, since the road is asphalt, an asphalt landing pad could be constructed at a minimal costs. Informing customers that they may have to walk an extra 4—6 blocks to the nearest bus stop is also an option, though not well received. Adapt a stop would be another strategy, where a landowner or group would pay for curbside improvements. The regulations could have significant funding impacts if we were required to install 20 concrete pads on a route extension, so one of the tactics would be to plan extensions/ route changes only to accessible streets, and to minimize extensions to non-ADA areas. Our staff works extensively with local government and the state DOT to ensure that local and county bus stop proposals are designed to meet established State safety and traffic engineering requirements. In this light, the transit agency has been granted the approval to “self certify” bus stops for local and county roads, without the need for a State staff inspection. We also strive to set up state highway proposals in the exact format that the state wants and requires, to streamline the approval process as much as possible. Reallocating street space to better meet all needs and working closely with community Developed a regional program with funding for bus shelter installations Ask property owners for easements; coordinate with local jurisdictions for condemnation/purchase of rights of way. Working with Developers—when new homes are constructed in the County. Installing new bus stop shelters is never mandated by any entity, so if we encounter a proposed site that is deemed unfeasible for whatever reason, we just abandon the proposed installation. In other instances, we adjust our proposed installation location to accommodate the combined wishes of DOT, local property owners, riders—all while incorporating traffic engineering standards. Sometimes, political influence can help overcome resistance by a permitting authority. We are still struggling with this. We are trying to get the word out that the transit agency is interested in working collaboratively on bus stop issues. We are also trying to insert ourselves into the planning and design phases of roadway and streetscape projects so that we can make sure our stops are designed appropriately into the plans early on. However, we are still working to establish solid relationships so that we’re capturing all of the projects and not just those we hear about. We have seen some success with this, and we are increasingly being approached by consultants, municipalities, and developers as they begin designing projects. Formal policies for this kind of coordination still have to be developed. We have been meeting with the appropriate officials but have not yet resolved the issue. Every situation is unique. However, with a dedicated staff (construction, engineering and planning) that have worked together for years, we can typically overcome most all challenges. It is a process and the relationships we have developed (internally and externally) help us. Dealing with private adjacent landowners is usually the only major challenge, but often we can come up with a compromise. We generally address the right-of-way issue by obtaining either a formal easement for the shelter placement or we negotiate an agreement with the property owner for the encroachment onto private property. In the instance of a significant ADA accessibility issue—the absence of sidewalks—we actually budget funds to construct sidewalks to the bus stop. Stops are relocated when and where practical, provided that riders are not negatively impacted. In most cases, the stop is located where it is for a reason, and relocating or removing it is not feasible. In these cases, we work with our Transit Enforcement to increase patrols of the stop and area, and with our operations department if there is any one-time or spot cleaning that is possible.

91 Regular meetings with city officials with regards to the planning of cycling infrastructures. Being involved in plan validations in order to avoid bus/users/bike conflicts. Keep our union partner informed. We have worked to become more involved in the planning process both publicly and privately for projects related to sidewalks, streets and the like to ensure the needs of bus stops are taken into account. For the 1st issue, there is an ongoing effort to engage property owners to attempt to mitigate issues. For the 2nd issue, we have a list of stops we have prioritized and have taken control of all maintenance. This allows us to deal with our most sensitive stops. Outreach and have board members, community, and businesses understand the need for safe and accessible transit services. 1) The transit agency received an FTA New Freedom grant to improve stops to ADA compliance, but at just over $1.2 million it is expected to only improve approximately 75 stops. There is a renewed emphasis from our Board of Directors on the impact of inaccessible stops on Paratransit eligibility, which is leading to more attention paid to this issue regionally. Every bus stop improved to ADA compliance means the potential of great savings on providing expensive paratransit trips to those who can access the fixed route system otherwise. Better data on ridership and paratransit destinations is also helping prioritize investments. 2) The transit agency is working with the local Department of Transportation to develop a toolkit for the deployment of curb bulbs in parking lanes, along with assistance on engineering standards for these facilities. Work with the adjacent private property owner to obtain agreement to site facilities on their property; work with jurisdictions to relocate conflicting street furniture; modify pedestrian route of travel in ways that are not necessarily ideal in order to get around the desired passenger amenities; develop new designs for passenger amenities (e.g., shelters) that achieve both shelter cover and accommodate pedestrian travel. 1. We improve low-cost bus stops first. 2. Ask the municipalities to cost share 50%/50% for the improvements. 3. Set up priorities. The transit agency is adding resources to our street amenities including bus stops. We also reach out regularly to municipalities, businesses, schools, and property owners for their help and support regarding street amenities. We have been able to work through our Technical Advisory Committee to help “pave the way” with the Traffic Engineering and Public Works Departments who are focused much more on autos. This took much education of our highway and engineering sections, first. The transit agency is currently in the final stages of writing a “Bus Stop Design Guide” that has been reviewed and vetted by the City as well as surrounding municipalities and builder/developer groups. The intent of this document is to educate officials and developers about how to build streets and streetscapes that are more amenable to the establishment of bus stops and passenger amenities. Furthermore, the document lays out specific guidelines and best practices that should be followed by transit agency staff so that there are “policies” to guide where we will and will not consider installation of passenger amenities. Through coordination with the vendor and the city Department of Transportation, the transit agency has prioritized the shelters to be relocated, based on ridership and other data. As opportunities arise, such as a new development or a streetscape project, the transit agency pursues the shelter relocations. We surveyed all of our bus stops, and refresh the survey for 20% of the bus stops each year. We are attempting to have better coordination with the towns surrounding the central city on streetscape projects. We have pretty good coordination with the city DOT. We review rezoning requests and ask for bus stop improvements where applicable, typically paid for by the developer as a condition to get their rezoning approved. There is give and take. We also have a limited budget to make our own improvements to bus stops, which usually does not require coordination on any significant level. Initiate a pedestrian network study highlighting deficient corridors, intersections and gaps in network. Partner with jurisdictions seeking multiple grants to fund specific roadway improvements. If funded, create streamlined approach to design/engineer and construct (in a supporting role). Smaller targeted pedestrian and bus stop improvements can be addressed by transit agency. We try not to site bus stops at supermarkets and gas stations, but sometimes we must. As regards asphalt condition at bus stops, the city standard is a 12” reinforced concrete pad at bus stops, with steel-face curbs. Coordination with City/County/State: the transit agency has developed a PowerPoint to raise the awareness of our needs at bus stops, such as--various coach lengths, various locations of wheelchair lifts, various locations of bike racks, hours of operation, bus stop accessibility, ADA requirements, conflicts w/ street furniture, various turning requirements, conflicts

92 w/ driveways, design of roundabouts, maintenance. We will reach out to all jurisdictions we serve and post the PowerPoint on our web site. ASSESSMENT 11. How would your agency rate its efforts to provide better on-street bus stops? Very successful 26.7% 12 Somewhat successful 56.3% 24 Neutral 11.1% 5 Somewhat unsuccessful 6.7% 3 Very unsuccessful 2.2% 1 12. What has been the primary benefit of these efforts? Responses summarized in Table 52, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Better amenities for customers and jurisdictions. Bus stops that have bus cut-outs, improved shelters, improved accessibility to bus stops by ambulatory and disabled persons. Overall improved waiting experience for customers. Reduction in bus stop complaints. Improved accessibility at bus stops overall. More amenities at bus stops. Improved bus stop spacing by consolidating stops in some corridors. Improved maintenance program for shelter cleaning resulting in cleaner stops. Consistency; stops are more uniform with signs installed by following standards and guidelines. Our bus stop and shelter program has made improvements that are being noticed. In FY 2013, 51 shelters were installed. The transit agency is on target to meet its goal of 25 shelters installed in FY 2014 and will continue to seek funding and collaborative opportunities to increase the number of ADA bus stops and shelters in future years. Some of the planners and community development staff begin to incorporate public transportation perspectives into their processes. This often will result in policy changes that help memorialize the change and encourage consistency in the future. A well-designed, comfortable and accessible bus stop is very visible and appreciated by more than just the few passengers that use it but is also appreciated by the neighborhood. As long as we can keep the costs reasonable, we see it as a very large bang for our buck. Having parties involved in the process have a stake in the success and promotion of the stop/facility. More accessible stops. In the last decade we have moved from having only 4 bus shelters (out of about 300 bus stops) to having over 100 bus stops with bus shelters. ADA accessibility. Stops at locations passengers like “A trip begins before you get on the bus.” Providing amenities (shelter, bench, and where possible, solar lighting) has improved customer’s experience. Customers have recognized and appreciate the stop improvements. Given our local climate (lots or rain), shelters and lighting make using our transit system easier to use. A more informed public resulting in greater ridership. Customers are able to have a safe, clean place to wait for the bus. We have a clear process for ADA evaluations. Where passenger boardings are high, improvements to bus stops can result in even higher ridership. Where passenger boardings are low, improvement to bus stops often do not result in increased ridership.

93 We have been able to transform bus stops into “real-time” schedule informational sites, through implementation of our “My Bus Now” program with each of our 16,000 signed bus stops displaying a unique 5-digit ID number that can be used via text message, phone call, or via computer or smart phone access to obtain real-time predictive bus arrival data. Easier operations for transit vehicles and better access for customers Investments in on-street amenities Improved safety, improved image for transit. Overall good, when new construction is completed. A very limited evaluation of the effect on ridership shows no impact. However, the Board has been very focused on adding new shelters, so they are pleased with the efforts to install many more. There is certainly an impact on the ability of pedestrians to easily access bus stops in all weather. We have not completed any large-scale systematic attempts to improve stops in recent years. We feel that we do a good job of handling issues case-by-case, but we have not been affecting large-scale improvements yet. We also have a shelter program that puts out a small number of shelters and benches annually. We are planning several major projects for the next few years that should significantly improve things—this includes a new comprehensive bus stop inventory, which will provide the key data required to do a route-by-route bus stop evaluation project. This will assess each stop to identify and resolve issues with spacing, safety, and access. We are hoping to coordinate with the local municipalities to resolve issues outside of the transit agency’s control such as curbside conflicts, ADA issues, parking conflicts, etc. Fewer stops with more concern for safety Improved customer experience. We believe we retain choice riders and attract new riders by having safe, convenient well-maintained bus stops. Properly located bus stops make the service accessible to riders while promoting reasonable travel times by consolidating boarding and alighting activity. Our focus has been on bringing stops and access to stops into ADA compliance. All users benefit from the enhancements, but seniors and the disabled are the primary beneficiaries. Future efforts will include new shelters and amenities that are not only functional but are also attractive, which benefits our users as well as the communities they are located in. Able to keep a coherent approach with our partners. We can justify easily why we can or cannot move a bus stop. Better safety for users and bus drivers. We do a better job of creating bus stops to meet customers’ needs. We have also done a better job ensuring stops are ADA compliant. We have been able to improve some locations in conjunction with municipal and private projects. Stops that may have been obstructed by parking or other issues have become more accessible as a result of our efforts. Safe and accessible bus stops, enhanced passenger amenities such as bus shelters and bus stop benches, increased ridership at some improved stops, visitors know where to get on and where to get off a bus. Vastly improved visibility of bus stops due to the design of a new bus stop flag, and vastly improved customer information by the use of customized (by location) and simpler, customer-focused information at bus stops. Each jurisdiction in our service area has a bus stop coordinator, who is instrumental in making changes and improvements in rights-of-way that we operate within but don’t own (most stops). We have also increased the transit agency’s staff commitment to construction/ development project design review and coordinating bus stop changes due to construction project phasing. Greater passenger satisfaction with wait and security, leading to increased patronage; placement of amenities at locations that benefit the most passengers; lower dwell time at stops, which improves operational efficiency. Improved bus stops and better customer service. The primary benefit to the transit agency is added ridership to our system. The primary benefit for our customers is safer and easier access to bus stops and places they need to go throughout the area. We are able to provide more conveniently located bus stops (primarily in relation to closeness of stops to potential passengers). At this point, the primary benefit of our efforts to create a “Bus Stop Design Guide” has been the education of internal staff as well as government and private partners. Since the beginning of this process, the transit agency has developed a couple of new bus stop locations with improved passenger amenities, and they have been held to a very high standard. Our hope

94 is that this standard will be followed at all future locations, and perhaps we will even be able to upgrade existing bus stop locations that need refurbishment. Bus stop improvements include lengthening the stops so that buses can properly curb. This helps keep buses out of the flow of traffic to reduce rear-end collisions (cars striking buses). Getting the bus closer to the curb also helps load and unload passengers safely and efficiently. Adding full-width sidewalks helps establish the bus stop, improves customer boarding and alighting, and allows the agency to mount signage to the sidewalk. In-street concrete pads help to give buses a smooth surface for approaching the stop and also help buses to align with the curb. ADA curb ramps and crosswalks have also benefited the safety of our customers. It improves safety for pedestrians in addition to accessibility. It also improves the visual aspect of the stops and improves the overall impression of the transit system in the community. Improved safety and accessibility for patrons boarding and alighting buses and waiting at stops. Improved patron comfort/ convenience when amenities including shelter, seating, and lighting are included. Access to safer crossings. Improved bus/ patron interface contributes to operational consistency. Generally we have a small number of truly problematic bus stops. When necessary we work with community groups and Elected Officials to reach a solution. Over time we have lengthened bus stops where necessary, have eliminated some bus stops where they are too close together (moving from 600’ spacing to 750’ in the CBD). The overall effect of these actions has been bus stops that function better operationally, and from a traffic management standpoint and which function better for customers. Raising awareness of staff and local jurisdictions of ADA requirements, design issues, operational issues. 13. What have been the primary drawbacks of these efforts? Responses summarized in Table 53, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Being able to keep up with cleaning and maintenance. Jurisdictional approval and right-of-way issues installing amenities. Excessive staff time in pursuing these changes; costs associated with delays in obtaining permissions to improve; improving stops that are not as widely used in place of stops that are not as frequently used, but offer less resistance and cost to having them improved. Expectations; transit riders seem to request shelters, benches, concrete walks at more stops than can be provided. The guidelines are important to help understand the threshold. Budgeting constrictions can be a significant drawback and can limit how many bus stop improvements can be completed each year. The cost of a bus stop project is considerable especially when stormwater is impacted. More improvements are needed than can be funded or accomplished. In the County and municipalities, minimal bus stop/transit facility land development regulations transfers most of the responsibility for bus stop improvements to the transit agency. If the change does not become memorialized in policy, then a change in staffing can quickly reverse many years of work to make the changes needed to support public transportation services. The time involved is staggering. A small bus stop that costs $5,000 sometimes has to go through almost as many steps, reviews, reports, sign-offs, permits, inspections and fees as any multi-million dollar capital project. Coming to stalemates where no reasonable resolution can be found. Reduced on-street parking The process is very SLOW. In addition to the difficulty of finding sites, we have funding issues preventing us from quickly adding shelters. Funding issues affect not only procurement and installation but also ongoing maintenance. Negotiating private property agreements in order to provide compliance with the ADA The time needed to get stop locations The only downside is somewhat general. Given the cost of stop improvements we have to rely on the general use pattern of a stop and prioritize the need. Basically, that means we cannot afford to make improvements to every stop we have even though a customers might request an improvement and/or amenity. Expense. Many small- to mid-sized properties would struggle to find the funding for a next-bus system. There have been issues with trash collection, cleaning and maintenance.

95 Nearby property owners can be a drawback. Especially in residential neighborhoods. We often receive requests to relocate bus stops even when the stops themselves are ADA accessible and/or equipped with amenities such as trashcans, benches, or shelters. We do not have clear areas of responsibility for bus stops. It is shared by up to 6 departments. The bus stop data is in at least three databases and there is some resistance to consolidate into one. PLUS: It has become much more difficult to site new stops, particularly in some communities that lack proper infrastructure to maintain ADA eligibility. Also, getting improvements made to stops in some communities is difficult because some cities do not want to ease the use of bus service in their jurisdictions. This means there are sometimes areas where bus stops are too far apart. Without careful monitoring and cost/benefit analysis, stop improvements can seriously eat into a capital improvement budget, with little ridership to show. Even when improvements are made to high-ridership stops, they are expensive. No real drawback other than the constant limitation of establishing bus stops in municipalities that, for one reason or another, are not motivated to establish a sufficient network of bus stops by formal ordinance or resolution. Community backlash and parking loss The transit agency is not the road authority We are getting political pressure to put new shelters in areas where we lack right of way to safely install the shelters. Not being aware when construction starts. Lots of staff time spent negotiating with the various permitting authorities. N/A Customer complaints While very important, our charge is to make our system 100% ADA compliant. This means we are retrofitting all old existing stops (previous programs / previous compliance rules, etc.). So this takes time and dedication. We have a staff that is reviewing and building/rebuilding bus stops every single day. We have an expected completion date to achieve this. Meanwhile, our system continues to grow and change. The better we perform at providing desirable bus stops and other passenger amenities, the higher the expectation becomes for further enhancements. The cost of improvements at some locations is prohibitive, and at times requires a great deal of work beyond our boundaries, such as ADA ped ramps that could require storm drain or signaling changes, etc. Lack of flexibility in some cases. Ensuring that these efforts are done consistently. We must remain vigilant for new projects coming on the horizon to ensure they have taken into account transit; if not, we must ensure we comment accordingly. In most cases if we do not ensure the needs of transit passengers are addressed no one else will. Parking in highly dense areas must be removed, which causes political and business conflicts. Maintaining accurate customer information that is customized to each stop is expensive for a large system that undergoes service changes up to four times per year. Increased visibility of improved bus stops makes the deficient ones even more obvious, but we are ticking away at the problem. When people see the new flag and customer information they might think the stop is “good enough” but we need to continue focusing on ADA improvements which benefit all customers. Increased staff time and capital costs. None A couple of the biggest drawbacks are increased expectation and push back from property owners. While customers appreciate the added street amenities and convenient stop locations there are constant requests for more and more. Many business owners complain that a bus stop or shelter is located near or in front of their business due to some loitering and trash. Likely, we receive more customer comments about negative issues than we would otherwise. There really have not been any drawbacks so far, other than the expectation from some parties that all bus stops everywhere should be equipped with sidewalks, ADA landing pads, and passenger shelters. Adding permanent infrastructure makes it more difficult to move or eliminate a bus stop because of sunk costs.

96 It takes a lot of effort among staff, and the cost is significant when we upgrade our stops on our own dime. Increased cleaning and maintenance responsibilities. More pressure on adjacent property owners. Less flexibility when considering stop and service changes. When we lengthen stops we often encounter complaints from merchants and homeowners, and there are parking concerns as well. Sometimes a bus stop moving away from a business becomes controversial. (1) Much preparation to assemble and explain ADA requirements, design requirements, and operational requirements. (2) Lack of having transit agency standards and guidelines for bus stops. (3) Keeping current w/ new research and studies. 14. What was the most successful action taken, and why? Responses summarized in Table 54, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Started a community grant program for jurisdictions. It allows the jurisdiction to install what they want in amenities, and they are responsible for maintenance A stop that resulted in a design that allowed for a bus turn-out, complete sidewalk improvement resulting in full accessibility, full-sized shelter, with adequate space for mobility impaired, solar lighting, and elegant landscaping. The Adopt-A-Stop program has given us the opportunity to have more amenities out in the system, and also allows us to make better use of our resources in terms of maintenance. In the winter time when clearing snow, the more partners you have the better! The transit agency continues to seek opportunities to reduce the cost of ADA bus stops and shelter installation. The County approved contracts for shelter installs in May 2013. Working with local planners to work on formally adopting elements of our stop design into their administrative rules for design. We had grant money to improve ADA access. To choose which bus stops to apply the money to, I put together a small committee representative of the disabled community. Some were disabled themselves but all worked for various local government or social service agencies. While I have anecdotal information about bus stops for which we’d received complaints over the years, they were in positions to know about where their clients lived and traveled and therefore how much impact any particular bus stop would have. Establishing ourselves as the lead determining force behind the ultimate decision and keeping an open dialog about the process with all involved parties. Paying particularly close attention to those who may have not gotten their ideal outcome in the process. Identifying sites where the City already has ROW to place the majority of the shelters. Through 20+ years of persistence, local jurisdictions are now including us in their sidewalk and streetscape design efforts. Face-to-face meetings at the stop locations with city staff Building a series of ‘bulb-outs’ in a central downtown district. It provided additional room to install shelters/amenities, improved ADA accessibility, provided safer operating conditions for coach operators (didn’t require pulling all the way out of travel lane, which also makes it easier for them to get back into traffic), and a new shelter’s design is noticeably more attractive (improved “branding” of our service). Probably the construction of our downtown Transit Hub. We have a timed-transfer system in downtown in off-peak & weekend periods. 60% of our riders transfer. The physical situation for the transferring customer prior to construction of the Transit Hub was dismal: a four-corner operation fully exposed to the elements with little information and no bathroom facility. Many customers had to negotiate up to 6 lanes of traffic to transfer from one bus line to another. We have approached all the cities in our service area and are working to update MOU’s for cleaning and trash collection. Bus shelters. We have 400+ bus shelters installed throughout the system. We are currently working on developing a new shelter installation and maintenance project to increase the number of new shelters, replace old ones, and to increase management efforts. The formation of a bus stop implementation committee. This group was initially formed to complete the installation of the 2000 new bus stops needed for the January 2014 service change. The bus stops are mostly installed correctly but it was completed about 60 days late. PLUS: The most successful approach is to start early or to ask cities for “temporary” or “conditional” approval of a stop to get a stop placed somewhere, thus getting our foot in the door and easing permanent approval. It also helps to have customer reports requesting service to a particular area.

97 As stated in the answer to Q. 10, the My Bus Now project has been our most successful action taken in years because it significantly upgraded the level of key information now available to our customers. Installation of bulb outs—They require less parking removal than bus zones, allow us to stay in traffic, and provide a larger, more accessible space for customers. Partnering with local business owners and national chain retailers to obtain easements for transit amenities. Public-private partnership to improve bus stop safety. Working as a team and Installing Bus Pads for Shelters, and providing ADA for wheel chair patrons. In 2008, we secured a congressional earmark of $800,000 to pour concrete pads along a notoriously pedestrian-unfriendly corridor. The pedestrian access has vastly improved. N/A Reduction of 15% of stops to improve travel speeds A dedicated funding cycle (Board approved) and support from leadership to have dedicated staff. We were able to secure specific grant funding dedicated to the provision of shelters, benches and bus stop area improvements. This action allows us to be very proactive in responding to passenger needs and to provide attractive, durable, comfortable passenger facilities at bus stops. We are able to include solar lighting where appropriate and to construct sidewalks and/or landing pads in addition to maintaining a relatively aggressive program of both adding facilities and replacing older, high-maintenance and high-cost shelters. Most successful has been our attempts to improve access at the bus stop location itself, largely by removing news racks and other impediments. We worked closely with the local jurisdiction in crafting their new news rack ordinance to make sure that bus stops are called out for special treatment, due to bus door opening locations and our riders’ needs for circulation. This is another twofold answer. Part of our efforts has dealt with communication. We have done a much better job informing cities and property owners of the need for new stops. We have also created an annual review of all our stops with the aim to install new ADA pads at high-boarding stops and also at low-boarding stops upon customer request. Through our efforts we have been able to install multiple bus bulbs in the largest jurisdiction we serve and have shown that they can be useful not only from a transit perspective but from a design and traffic perspective as well. Developing stop guidelines and standards as it provides a rule-book on what would be the ideal bus stop. Creating a comprehensive database of regional bus stops. You have to know the location and condition of your stops in order to know what information to provide and what improvements to make. Keeping up with the data is a challenge as we have over 11,000 stops. Upgraded passenger amenities at bus rapid transit stops, including real-time bus arrival signs and off-board fare validation; these increase passenger satisfaction and reduce operating costs. Cost sharing the expenses to improve bus stops The transit agency has a BRT style of service along one major corridor. This is a limited stop service with specialized buses and large shelters or transit stations. These stations are brightly lit, and have audio and a digital display for next- time bus arrivals. There was significant infrastructure work done at each site ensuring ADA and pedestrian access. The customers are very happy with these stations because they feel safer, are more comfortable, and are more confidant with knowing when the next bus will arrive. Convincing the City to include the transit agency as a “reviewer” on all development plans for both buildings and right- of-way work. Transit agency staff are now able to review project proposals to determine their effects on our transit routes and stops, and we provide feedback regarding streetscape schemes, bus stop locations, and possible bus stop amenities. Notably, we have been able to get developers to build concrete passenger landing pads at all bus stop locations within their project area if they are already doing sidewalk work. This means that the developers have (so far) been willing to absorb the cost of these “wheelchair” loading pads into their large projects, which provides ADA-accessible bus stops at more and more locations. In-street bus pads are now included in city Department of Transportation arterial resurfacing projects at no cost to us. The concrete pads help preserve the street pavement and make it easier for buses to enter and exit the bus stop. The transit agency is also involved in other street improvements and complete street initiatives, such as bike lanes and streetscape projects. These projects provide some funding for bus stop improvements. Reviewing rezonings and working with developers, because we get improvements without cost to us

98 We struggled for years just to get towns to accept uniform bus stop signage. Now we are working with those towns that are willing (mainly a central city) to establish new passenger waiting shelters with advertising. Advertising revenue will help defray the cost of shelter maintenance. Building a foundation of partnerships and processes to: create a shared a vision of bus service stops and amenities; identify funding opportunities to be at the table when streets are redesigned and private development is proposed; develop expedient permitting approaches etc. to aid the implementation of successful bus stop improvements. Our current “lollypop” bus stop design is very good urban design, and offers good static information for the customer. The sign is high enough to see from across the street when there is a bus in the stop. Preparing a PowerPoint w/ an overview of transit agency operations and operating requirements. Why? Public Works officials are not usually in tune w/ bus operations and our needs. Also, there is a frequent turn-over of staff so I believe performing occasional outreach w/ public works staff and having our PowerPoint available on-line will be a tremendous benefit to establishing new and maintaining existing bus stops in our service area. 15. If you could change ONE aspect in the process of designing and locating bus stops, what would you change? Responses summarized in Table 55, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Having full authority and jurisdiction in determining where bus stops are to be placed. Give more authority to transit agency or MPO on placement and design. Bus stop spacing; most agencies have stops that have been at locations for years, agencies have added stops over the years, and rarely do we take them away. We are getting better at consolidating stops. It would be great to remove all the stops on a route and start over from scratch. It’s always easier to add a stop than to take one away. Reducing the cost and time to design, construct, purchase and install shelters. In 2014, the transit agency is developing an RFP for Construction Manager at Risk to design, construct, purchase and install shelters and is being evaluated for FY 2015. Not having to choose what stops were able to have shelters and what ones had to go without. I believe bus stop design standards should be no different that standards for sidewalks, driveways, streets, etc. It will only be when it is considered just another part of developing the overall transportation infrastructure that it will no longer be considered an option or an afterthought. When I first started doing this, I didn’t know anything about it. I wish I could have taken a class on designing bus stops. It involves only about 10% planning, 15% landscape architecture, 30% engineering and 45% administration of red tape. It is a very labor-intensive process from selecting sites, acquiring shelters and procuring installation, and maintenance. Our administrative staff is very small, so, in my opinion, it takes an inordinate amount of staff time to move a bus shelter program forward in an acceptably prompt period of time. ADA compliance Encroachment permits that are not needed It starts at local land use provisions, which are multifaceted. But within that frame work, improving local jurisdictional process for locating and permitting stops for both existing stops and new stops associated with new land use developments. Due to topography, weather, lack of sidewalks &/or ADA compliant sidewalks, many of our stops are not ADA accessible; yet all stops are signed as ADA compliant. Due to lack of manpower & financial resources, the Authority has no ability to do a real assessment of all bus stops based on ADAAG standards. Given the ability to do a comprehensive assessment; that’s the one action I’d choose. Having to determine who will pay for ongoing cleaning and trash collection. The power and funds to make ADA improvements. A standard procedure that would apply to all 22 cities we serve would reduce staff time and rely less on individual memories of how each city operates. I would give the transit agency more legal authority to establish bus stops, as long as we follow stated policy and guidelines for safety and traffic engineering, as established by the state DOT. Approval and change process. Very labor intensive. Operating funding to influence bus stop investments, improvements or better locations

99 Eliminate local building/zoning department review of transit amenities installation. Like to work with contractors towards installing sidewalks and curb cuts before the stops are installed. A streamlined approval process for construction permit applications--or better yet, no approval process at all. We’re not clear as to whether this question is asking about the overall multi-agency/multidisciplinary process of adding a stop or the existing internal transit agency process, so we’re providing two answers—pick whichever suits the question’s intent. Overall, better coordination between us and our local governments so that the design and placement of the stop effectively includes measures/improvements to make sure the ROW and curbside environment are adequate for waiting and safe boarding (as opposed to the put-it-wherever-you-can approach of the past). Internally, better coordination (or consolidation of functions to one bus stop group) so that we have a simplified management structure. This could help us improve when coordinating stop locations with passenger amenities, having clearly defined roles and responsibilities, communicating bus stop practices out to other departments (ex: Bus Operations), working on problems with a multi- disciplinary approach, etc. Give the transit agency the ability to create stops where needed and impose the proper parking regulations. Have flexibility in the type of amenities that can be installed. This sometimes leads to challenges in being able to accomplish the ideal vs. the acceptable. Our service area includes thirteen municipalities, each of whom has somewhat differing requirements for the placement of the facilities at bus stops. The simple location of a bus stop placement of appropriate signage is not the issue, but the requirements for design, approval and installation of shelters is a particular challenge to manage. A uniform approach among the jurisdictions would be helpful. Standardize jurisdictional street, sidewalk, and landscape design guidelines in a way that is compatible with bus stop placement. Have decision-making autonomy in issues of stop location and pad/shelter placement. Despite our best efforts public and private entities still must often be reminded of the presence of bus stops and bus routes and that they are an important piece that must be considered from the beginning during design phases of projects. Having the design and locating process better codified in local development codes would help, especially if it applied consistently across jurisdictions. Have policy dictated by the implementing agency and not via an outside board/group that does not understand transit. We do not have good knowledge of when our stops are changed by others. DOTs and other ROW owners may do resurfacing projects that normally they would not coordinate with us, but they install bus stop amenities and improvements at the same time. We need better and more up-to-date information on the condition and attributes of our stops. Streamlined jurisdictional review and approval. Additional funding availability More cooperation from municipalities and DOT regarding pedestrian access to bus stops. Cooperation among local and state agency has become much better through the years but there is need for much more. More cooperation from local and state agency regarding maintenance and snow removal is needed. The one aspect of this process that the transit agency would like to change is actually the environment surrounding the entire process. To be more specific, it feels like we are the only entity that ever considers the location and design of bus stops, whereas this is an afterthought (at best) within the development community and even among municipal officials. The transit agency would like for bus stop locations and amenities to be a consideration in every single project that ever occurs in the region from the very early planning stages. However, there is nothing in our local codes or laws that dictates for this to happen. Additionally, there are really no incentives or penalties offered in this region in order to encourage developers to consider transit in their projects. I would like to see a higher priority placed on proactively improving bus stops. They are typically addressed when a property owner or elected official has a specific complaint, or when a project (public or private) is implemented that affects a bus stop. Better coordination with the towns surrounding the major city we serve. Many people on town councils are not educated on ADA, and some representatives want to remove the stop instead of dealing with the issue in a positive manner. Most of our stops are nearside. The jury is out on the relative advantages of nearside vs. farside stop locations. Nearside stops are generally more passenger-friendly if they are at a signalized intersection, but they are prone to safety issues when traffic is trying to turn.

100 ADA requirements that prohibit us from placing a new bus stop where the surface is unpaved, or where there are trees in a potential bus stop zone. More waivers would help. 16. Please describe any “lessons learned” that would benefit other transit agencies. Responses summarized in Table 56, Chapter 4 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Dedicate personnel to review public works projects so that bus stops can be requested and required as part of the project, and monitor compliance with having the stops constructed as designed during the initial design process. Transit agencies don’t have the resources to solve all the issues alone. Build partnerships. The transit agency is collaborating with neighborhood communities and not-for-profit organizations to reduce costs and speed up the process for constructing a shelter pad and installing shelters. Three successful projects are underway in a neighborhood in the unincorporated portion of the County. One new project is just starting with the Boy Scouts. This model is a win-win for the community! 1) Costs are reduced for the transit agency. 2) Projects get underway and are completed more quickly than could be achieved due to lack of funding, right of way, or other priority. 3) The community has ownership and pride in the project and takes on a maintenance component. 4) More people learn about transit and the opportunity to ride the system! It takes patience and persistence to see change happen. It also means being willing to educate non-transit planners on how important improvements to bus stops are to how well a transit system can serve its customers. Utilities and topography have always been the project-killers for me. You’d think our city is flat but two or three feet could mean expensive retaining walls and excavation of shallow utilities. Spend ample time on each site taking pictures and poking around. Learn to look for problems. It’s better to move the bus stop away from the problems if you can rather than issue change orders after digging has begun. Keep an open and honest dialog with all parties involved. Consider the added maintenance cost of putting bus shelters at bus stops when costing out a bus shelter program. If your transit agency has a rule, such as stop placement every 2 blocks within an urban area, make it a “soft” rule and allow for some flexibility. Talk with city staff and meet out at the location Get to know your local jurisdiction staffs responsible for street design, land use and traffic so that stop locations are more fully understood (and hopefully supported). As a State Authority, the transit agency has the ability to put bus stops wherever necessary in the public domain. However, the state is a Home Rule state, meaning municipalities control their own land use. It’s important to cultivate & educate municipal officials on the importance of considering the transit systems & its needs when considering zoning code. We are currently considering a BRT system, which will require Transit Oriented Design code around stations & stops. Without it, forget about getting FTA financial help. Most municipalities here do not have TOD on their radar. It is helpful to have up-to-date MOU’s with cities. This way responsibilities are clear when a customer complains about a stop being dirty. Just because you have an internal system of handling the normal level of bus stop changes don’t assume it can handle a major service change or the replacement of an old sign design with a new design (or worse, both at once). PLUS: Cultivate good relationships with city staff and start early in the process. Carefully plan route changes. Put stop improvements into a budget so the transit agency is not surprised. It is necessary to have dedicated, expert staff that can establish good relationships with local government to both gain their trust on bus stop issues and to establish a rapport that will yield a climate of customer-sensitive interest in establishing and maintaining bus stops for local residents. Outreach—intense in the areas that are changing to adjacent landowners and customers. Getting everyone on the same page with the same information up front helps the process move forward. Learn experience working with the transit agency and attending transit agency FORCE meetings. The transit agency has a contract with a shelter manufacturer that allows us to buy several different styles of shelter. We let the local municipality choose which style they want in their town. That helps us get approval to install new shelters.

101 1. Be proactive when it comes to dealing with curbside and ROW issues (streetscape or parking conflicts). With recent trends of stimulus/TIGER grant streetscapes and complete streets projects, it’s critical to make sure that bus stops are properly designed into plans from the beginning rather than as an afterthought. This requires coordination with local governments, as well as with their consultants and contractors. 2. Use multiple outreach methods when trying to establish coordination with your member cities/counties. The transit agency’s Real Estate & TOD office informed their municipal contacts that we wanted to coordinate on bus stop issues and plan reviews, and we have been approached proactively by the cities on several occasions as a result. 3. Utilize a multi-disciplinary or cross-departmental approach when possible. By involving the expertise of others when handling problems, you can get a more balanced view of each situation and have a more functional outcome. Examples of this include having Planning, Safety, and Bus Operations work together to assess stop issues (we recently reviewed all stops with layovers using this combination)—it helps get buy-in from key areas when proposing a solution. We also have partnered with transportation planning and traffic engineering from local municipalities to resolve tough stop issues. Need to create good communication with local political officials and with officials responsible for authorizing/creating the parking regulations required to designate bus stops 1. Leadership support (top-down) 2. Dedicated Board support 3. Dedicated funding 4. Dedicated staff (actual staff who concentrate on this effort daily) 5. Established partnerships with external agencies (local, state, etc.) Simple is better. We originally designed our own unique shelters and paid the price for the “custom” nature of the shelter. When we planned an expanded shelter program and also began replacing older shelters, we selected a commercially available shelter that could meet our needs with minor adaptations making the shelters more readily available and reducing costs. Consolidation of bus stops has had a large benefit in improving service reliability, reducing local impacts of bus stops, and increasing our ability to concentrate on fewer problem stop locations. Bus stop maintenance could be a huge budget item (power washing, trash collection, etc.) but having an ability to do that, at least on a case-by-case basis, would be hugely beneficial. In some regards persistence has paid off. By constantly working with public and private groups to ensure transit needs are considered, some of those groups have begun to contact our transit agency at the beginning of their design phases to get our input and work with us to ensure our needs are met. N/A Local standards with buy-in from ROW owners are critical. This also helps communicate with developers who aren’t looking at some nationwide research report but rather at an adopted or generally accepted guidelines document. In cases where the ROW owner’s standard or guideline on bus stops doesn’t meet the transit authority’s needs, it is incumbent on the transit authority to work with the ROW owner to update their engineering standards. Identifying one point of contact at permitting jurisdiction for the review of proposed improvements; working with that individual to understand transit agency needs and the jurisdiction’s requirements so that plans are submitted consistent with meeting both agencies’ needs. None Safety is priority one even if that means not installing a bus stop. Work with all stake holders and local and state agencies to put all the pieces together. The bus system is within a four-county area so it takes many stake holders to make it happen. Build a rapport with city staff members before you make requests to install, relocate, or remove stops. Work with appropriate municipalities and other groups early on in the development of bus stop guidelines in order to get their buy-in. Projects like this are much more successful and efficient when agencies work together towards a common goal. We were able to frame the topic of bus stop development so that it fit in with pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects, and improvement of traffic flow. It is important to highlight the benefits that the community gets as a whole from the development of better bus stops. Collect data on bus stops that are targeted for improvement and prioritize these stops. Coordinate with as many groups as possible (departments of transportation, elected officials, private developers) to seek funding for improvements. Develop standards, diagrams and templates (in CAD if possible) so designers can easily incorporate the bus stop improvements and proper clearances into their plans. Make sure you have input into major streetscape projects in your community. You should be a check-off in terms of one of the agencies that have to review these projects. You can’t always get when you want.

102 Communicate as best you can w/ those agencies that directly impact your bus stop: city planning dept., public works dept., utility companies, and other transit operators. Since our region has a multitude of transit operators and organizations, it is best to find and participate in a standing committee so they are aware you (i.e., the bus company!) actually exist. In the event a standing committee does not exist, then you need to be pro-active and seek them out...and communicate. RESPONSIBILITIES AND COORDINATION 17. Who is ultimately responsible for deciding the location of a bus stop? Transit agency 38.6% 17 Municipality/county/state DOT 20.5% 9 Joint decision 38.6% 17 Other (please specify) 2.2% 1 Other includes: Municipality/County must approve the bus stop location. Transit Agency can reject bus stop location if not in agreement with Municipality/County 18. Who is responsible for stop installation? Transit agency 72.1% 31 Municipality/county/state DOT 9.3% 4 Other (please specify) 18.6% 8 Other includes: (1) Both. (2) For the most part it is the Transit Agency, but when a project is in its initial stages of design, can become part of the overall project, in which case it can be Transit Agency, Municipality, County or State DOT. (3) The transit agency determines where the stop should be and installs bus stop ID signs. Municipalities install parking regulatory signs. (4) It depends on the area. Some cities require their own workers to install stops. Some want Transit to do the work. Others are ok with a contractor doing the work. (5) Depends on the jurisdiction; some allow the transit agency to install the facilities; others maintain control of certain aspects of the stop (namely, curb paint and signage). (6) The transit agency installs the bus stop signage; city DOT installs regulatory signage, such as No Parking signs. (7) Transit agency is responsible for signage. Currently, towns are responsible for shelters. (8) The city installs the bus stops, but the transit agency pays the city for every bus stop action. 19. Who is responsible for stop maintenance? Transit agency staff 40.9% 18 Transit agency contractor 13.6% 6 Municipality/county/state DOT 6.8% 3 Private sector or other third party 2.3% 1 Other (please specify) 36.4% 16 Other includes: (1) All of above. (2) Generally it’s the transit agency, but we rely on a contractor for the benches. (3) Municipality is responsible for stop unless it is a shelter (which is transit agency staff responsibility). (4) The Transit agency (or its contractor) is responsible for maintaining our agency-brand shelter/bench style. If a city chooses a different type of bench or shelter, the city is responsible for maintaining it because the transit agency does not have the spare parts to do so. (5) The transit agency is responsible for maintaining agency-owned shelters, signage and infoboxes. Benches and trashcans are usually installed and maintained by the City/County/State who also maintains the sidewalks. (6) Transit agency maintains bus stop pole and sign and transit agency benches. Trash, other benches, shelters maintained by Municipality/third-party vendor. (7) Transit agency staff maintains signs and shelters (where installed). Municipalities and private parties must maintain paving, deal with trash, etc. at all locations. (8) Adjacent property owner is responsible for the condition of the sidewalk. Municipality is responsible for the street and, sometimes, trash collection. We (the transit agency) are responsible for maintaining our amenities (poles, shelters, benches, displays, etc.). (9) All are involved. (10) For issues related to installation of signs and poles the jurisdiction has responsibility. The transit agency is responsible for clean-up of litter, erection of shelters and snow removal at sheltered locations. (11) City is responsible for the infrastructure maintenance and transit agencies responsible for pole/flag maintenance. (12) The pole and flag (and attached information) are the transit agency. All other elements in public ROW are the municipality/county/state DOT. Most shelters are owned

103 by a franchisee under an advertising supported contract with the DOT. (13) Combination of transit agency staff and contractors. (14) Transit agency staff maintain bus stop signage and submit requests to city DOT if regulatory signage is damaged or missing. The shelter vendor maintains the areas around the shelter (e.g., cleaning, shelter repairs, snow removal). (15) The city does all maintenance, but the transit agency installs and maintains static bus schedule canisters at every stop. (16) Another case-by-case situation. Land owner (city/county/state/private) is usually responsible for sidewalk area. Shelters: depends on owner (could be us, land owner, or shelter provider like CBS Outdoor or Clear Channel). Signs: usually transit provider. Garbage can: ourselves or land owner. 20. Who is responsible for stop relocation decisions? Transit agency 47.7% 21 Municipality/county 4.6% 2 Joint decision 47.7% 21 Comments include: Usually the transit agency decides on stop relocations. However, we have been requested to add/relocate/remove stops by the City/County/or State for a variety of reasons. Municipality/County must approve the bus stop relocation. The transit agency can reject bus stop relocation if not in agreement with Municipality/County. Bus stop can be removed by Municipality/County. Primarily, the transit agency is responsible for these decisions, but we try to coordinate and work jointly with local governments when they have a concern or we are asking for something. Transit decision in a cooperative way, as much as possible, with municipality. Usually led by the transit agency, but occasionally impacted by unrelated jurisdictional public works projects that impact existing bus stops. Elected officials have input in stop location decisions. 21. Describe the relationship between your transit agency and the primary or largest municipality served with regard to bus stops. Very good – meet on a regular basis to discuss issues 18.2% 8 Good – quick response to requests/open dialogue 36.4% 16 Fair – limited by administrative and funding issues we both deal with 47.7% 12 Could be better – generally unresponsive/requires prodding 6.8% 3 Poor – antagonistic/little communication 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 11.4% 5 Other includes: (1) I would say that our relationship with our central City is very good. We do not meet on a regular basis to discuss bus stop additions/relocations/removals. But they are quick to respond to our requests for information. We meet with City DOT on a regular basis for planned construction projects and events that will impact our service and bus stops for temporary, long term or permanent basis. (2) One and the same – the transit agency is part of the City and only serves one city. (3) Our service area = 19 boroughs and 13 smaller city. This is quite complex to manage even though relations are from good to very good. (4) There are three transit agencies which provide service in the City; in some cases the relationships among all three is very good, while on some controversial and coordination issues, the relationships could be better. (5) We serve 22 jurisdictions and our service is regional, so we don’t have a ‘primary jurisdiction.’ The relationship varies tremendously. The central City: generally receptive to our needs but “could be better.” State DOT: very unaware of our needs and at times antagonistic, so “poor.” The County: always antagonistic/little communication/pathetic, so VERY “poor.”

104 22. Describe the relationship between your transit agency and municipalities other than the primary municipality served with regard to bus stops. Very good – meet on a regular basis to discuss issues 6.8% 3 Good – quick response to requests/open dialogue 34.1% 15 Fair – limited by administrative and funding issues we both deal with 11.4% 5 Could be better – generally unresponsive/requires prodding 9.1% 4 Poor – antagonistic/little communication 0.0% 0 Varies by municipality 27.3% 12 N/A – only one municipality served by our agency 4.6% 2 Other (please specify) 6.8% 3 Other includes: (1) We only have demand-response door-to-door service in our secondary municipality. (2) Our service area = 19 boroughs and 13 smaller city. This is quite complex to manage even though relations are from good to very good. (3) See answer to previous question. 23. Have any steps been taken to improve coordination related to bus stops? Attend standing coordination meetings 6.8% 3 Outreach to individual agencies – as needed 34.1% 15 Provide comments during review of site plans for new development 20.5% 9 Provide comments during review of environmental documents 2.3% 1 Work through MPO or similar regional agency 2.3% 1 None of the above 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 34.1% 15 Other includes: (1) Meet with jurisdictions and MPO. Provide comments to plans. (2) All of the above. (3) None of these apply. (4) We’re trying to talk them into either exempting us from building permit fees or doing some sort of blanket fee. Right now the permit for each bus shelter costs the same as a house. (5) We provide comments to developers and environmental documents and outreach to other agencies and jurisdictions. (6) Both outreach and comments on development. (7) Our transit agency does not serve one major municipality. Answers above represent an ‘average’ of our interactions with 100+ municipalities. (8) We have done a combination of the above: Outreach to individual agencies—as needed. Provide comments during review of site plans for new developments. Work through our MPO or similar regional entity. (9) We do portions of each of the above. (10) All of the above. (11) Several: coordination meetings, outreach, comments during both review periods. (12) Several of the above apply, including standing meetings, outreach to agencies, review of public and private development plans, review of environmental documents for larger public works projects. (13) All of the above. (14) We talk daily and meet in the field regularly. Sometimes we don’t agree, we will still have coffee together. (15) The survey does not allow me to choose more than one. This should be corrected. 24. Have these steps been successful in helping your agency locate stops where you want them to be? Yes, very successful 29.6% 13 Yes, moderately successful 56.8% 25 No, moderately unsuccessful 4.6% 2 No, not successful at all 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 9.1% 4 Other includes: (1) The city has never objected to any location during my tenure. What little steps we’ve taken have simply been to streamline the red tape and reduce our costs. (2) N/A, haven’t been able to take any of these steps. (3) Comments on new development plans, not always received plans or after initial comments not always updated on future plan changes. (4) N/A.

105 25. What is the biggest financial barrier faced by your agency with regard to bus stops? General lack of capital funds to build new bus stops or improve existing stops 50.0% 21 Lack of local matching funds to build new bus stops or improve existing stops 2.4% 1 Lack of funds to maintain a bus stop 23.8% 10 Other 23.8% 10 Other responses include: (1) All of the above. (2) Shelters in high demand. Our resources are limited so not all requests can be fulfilled. (3) Funding is available in grant line items, but lacking funding for staff to develop specs, etc. (4) The transit agency’s Office of Service Development does not have an allotted budget for new bus stops or bus stop improvements. We ultimately ensure that our new or relocated stops are in a safe location where the passengers are visible by the operators, there are no major obstructions or hazards, and there are at least sidewalks and curb cuts. (5) We have the dedicated funding for capital and staff. Often, people focus on “Capital” funding, when in reality, you really need to also be mindful of having “Operating” to design/build and maintain. We are fortunate. We could always use more funding to do more and better. (6) Issue is related to general lack of capital. No links to specific bus stop issues. (7) Currently, funding is satisfactory for our needs. (8) We have funds to maintain stops (using contractors), but funds have been reduced gradually over time such that we are receiving more complaints about unkempt stops related to trash because the intervals between maintenance visits gets further apart. (9) Until we implement shelters with advertising, all shelters are installed and maintained by towns for whom shelter maintenance is a low priority. (10) We allocate adequate funding to keep buss tops in proper condition. When stops are moved for construction, costs are borne by the developer / contractor. 26. What is the biggest institutional barrier faced by your agency with regard to bus stops? Responses summarized in Table 12, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Jurisdictional approval of bus stops. Improvements to Grandfathered stops would require significant dollar outlays in order to comply with changes in accessibility and other jurisdictional requirements such as static pads. This would be funding. Although the stop is recognized as being an integral part of the agency, funding for buses, software and new transit centers is always a higher priority to the agency. The bus stop often falls to the bottom of the priority list. Lack of right of way Currently it is the frequently changing and unclear direction received from our FTA region office on addressing NEPA requirements. Where bus stops are located on state right-of-way, the red-tape is considerably more than for those on City right-of-way. Funding Staff time to lay out bus stop, assess ADA compliance, and work with surrounding property owner. Lack of enough staff time to implement a good bus shelter program. N/A The success of this has varied over time, but on-going coordination efforts between different departments—in particular Planning, Facilities and Operations staff—who have different priorities can either make or break stop location improvements. We are fortunate though, in that our internal process has worked well and we rarely have upper management or transit authority board members getting down into the weeds. Funding Lack of funding, municipal mindset in suburban towns to construct sidewalks. Trash collection at bus stops. We do not have a contractor who can collect trash. Dealing with 22 cities and the state on bus stop issues, each with a different procedure for approval. The main point of contact with the cities is the bus field supervisors. We have up to 6 departments internally that control parts of the internal process. PLUS no clear owner of the process and no clear representative to individual cities. Since a bus stop is often the first thing the customer sees (hopefully not the back of the bumper as a bus pulls away), more attention should be given to bus stops from the agency. They are looked at as low-maintenance, low-cost items (“just stick a pole in the ground”), but good bus stops require planning, good construction practices, and ongoing maintenance. Legal limitations that do not permit us to establish bus stops or to self-certify for stops along state highways.

106 Public process. Stop changes must go to public hearing which can lead to no progress. Not the road authority Historic underfunding of shelter maintenance staff. It’s a tie between coordination issues as described in prior questions and a lack of internal agency-wide focus on bus stops (thereby contributing to that lack of capital funds from the last questions). Lack of cooperation by Municipalities I can’t think of one at the moment. Our bus stop process involves coordination across multiple departments with varying priorities and skill sets. Maintaining the degree of coordination and cooperation to deliver a successful program in the face of limited staffing levels is the biggest institutional barrier. Virtually zero community support and varying levels of political support for bus service infrastructure, including bus stops and terminals. Community support and demand for service is very high; support for the necessary infrastructure is very low. Lack of uniformity in installation policy between municipalities With over 1,600 bus stops we have to prioritize projects and funds to maximize our efforts Traffic and Parking Board controls parking at bus stops / not having an internal policy to control parking at bus stops. Our region is a mélange of different municipalities, some of them own their own ROW and in other cases it is owned by the State government. Interjurisdictional coordination is the biggest barrier. Some jurisdictions prioritize and staff work on bus stops, and others less so. Cumbersome/lengthy internal process for design and construction of facilities. Conflicting interests Not enough internal resources and need for better understanding of what’s going on at the bus stop level on the street. Who has versus who wants the responsibility for maintaining the area around bus stops? Probably trying to define the boundary of the “bus stop” that the transit agency is responsible for versus what the municipality or property owner is responsible for (i.e., pedestrian access to the bus stop) We depend on the City Department of Transportation and local elected officials to fund bus stop improvements in the public right-of-way. When there is no project planned or desire to make improvements, the improvements are difficult to implement. Funding See previous comments Most institutional barriers have been addressed. Other bus operators who use our stops wither with, or more often without, authority. The tour bus operators and on-street intercity operators are a very big challenge. We do not own the bus stops and must ALWAYS deal w/ the owner of the lands within the bus stop. Often the land owner is not on-board w/ our objectives to serve the public, so we end up w/ driveways thru our stops, bus stops that are too short, sidewalks that haven’t been maintained or upgraded to current standards. STOP DESIGN AND LOCATION 27. What is your agency’s preferred location for bus stops? Farside 45.5% 20 Nearside 9.1% 4 Midblock 0.0% 0 Differs by urban/rural/suburban area 2.3% 1 Depends on specific location 34.1% 15 Other 9.1% 4

107 Other responses include: (1) Nearside, with a change to farside. (2) There has been some debate on the preferred location for bus stops. We prefer nearside or farside stops. City DOT has expressed preference to farside stops when possible as they have less of an impact on traffic but still place passengers close to the intersection to discourage midblock crossing. We now avoid placing new stops at midblock locations unless it is located at a crosswalk. (3) See earlier comment. We mostly use nearside but acknowledge the drawbacks. (4) We have a farside preference, especially along corridors with TSP, but make decisions on an individual stop basis. 28. Please explain the reasons behind your agency’s preferred stop location. Responses summarized in Table 14, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Not always able to place in same position Allows for passengers to alight and proceed to the rear of the bus in order to access crosswalks or controlled intersection. Bus is free to proceed without possible pedestrian interference. Farside is typically endorsed by TCRP and other publications as having fewer safety issues surrounding them than nearside and midblock. Bus drivers prefer them as well because they have cleared the traffic signal. Sight lines and pedestrian movements are improved with farside. Right turn lanes impact locating a bus stop nearest the intersection. More and more stops are being located farside. Farside locations are being preferred as more intersections are being converted to roundabouts and bus pullouts are being considered for operational improvements. This has proven to be the best for customer safety (fewer cases of crossing in front of the bus when exiting) and to maintain traffic flow. Does not block site distance as much for vehicles entering from a side street or driveway. Forces passengers to cross the street at the intersection behind the bus rather than stepping out in front of the bus where they can’t see oncoming traffic and won’t be seen until it’s too late. Sometimes allows the bus to pass through the intersection and stop only once rather than stopping at the red light and then again at the bus stop. This is particularly helpful on corridors and at signals where we have transit signal priority activated as stopping before passing through the detector confuses the signal controller and it resets to another cycle. Situations change and different areas call for different considerations. So that passengers cross street behind the bus and so that right-turns are not blocked at traffic signals. We prefer farside, but realistically we are ultimately limited by site constraints: can ROW or easement can be acquired, existing structures, presence or lack of ADA access, etc. Not blocking visibility of intersections. Farside works really well with traffic signals, allowing us opportunities to merge in to traffic. Preferred “farside” isn’t always possible since it really depends on the location, but our interest is to get a bus past the intersection, especially if there’s a traffic control signal there. We find it safer than nearside, which runs the risk of vehicles turning in front of a bus, and it typically means we don’t have additional delay time that a red light might create at an intersection. Get the bus through the intersection; force passenger to go behind the bus to cross the street. Because that’s the way we’ve always done it. Seriously. The stop system was established as the trolley system evolved in the early 1900s. Most transit corridors still have the same stop patterns. When pressed, Operations Dept. personnel think nearside stops are safer. Personally, I’d like to move towards a farside system, for the very same reason. The bus is able to get through the intersection before stopping. There are typically crosswalks available for safe pedestrian crossing. For the safety of our riders in order to minimize midblock crossing where there is not a traffic signal or crosswalk. Fewer conflicts with car turning movements. Less delay caused by traffic signals. Easier to align with the curb line to load/ unload passengers. PLUS farside allows our buses to clear an intersection prior to making the stop. Farside is preferred so passengers go behind the bus to the crosswalk The bus driver can see passengers crossing the street in front of the bus. Fewer passengers go around the back of the bus, as the front of the bus is closer to the crosswalk.

108 Farside stops are preferred because: * enables better on-time performance since stop occurs after passing thru traffic signal; * improves safety as customers are less likely to cross in front of the bus after alighting past the intersection; * easier access/egress for buses due to improved angle approaching farside stop after a traffic signal, using the intersection itself as a buffer to get over to the stop. Farside at stop lights, nearside at stop signs Will work better for Transit Priority and past crosswalks Better for pedestrian safety and farside stop doesn’t block right turns on red—better for air quality and congestion. We take advantage of transit signal priority, so we want the bus to get through the (sometimes extended) green light, and then make its stop, and then proceed. We have a legacy of nearside stops, but are looking at it case-by-case until we develop our own placement policies. Based on curb space, turning movements, traffic signals. We attempt to be sensitive to the access needs of passengers, the traffic conditions in which we operate, the nature of adjoining land use, the degree to which stops accommodate on-street transfers and the safety of the location. We probably have more nearside stops because of long-standing tradition but we continue to work toward the best possible solution for our riders and the environment in which we operate. The standard answer is “farside,” but the reality is that there are too many variables to choose one preference. Aside from that, a policy or procedure that favors one location type over another provides bus stop opponents a built-in argument against a facility that you’ve determined is in the best location. Cultural, to avoid pedestrian crossing midblock. Farside stop can exist mainly where there are major transfer between two lines. People attempt to cross the street in front of the bus. Nearside stops ensure customers will be crossing at the controlled intersection. At farside stops, people still attempt to cross in front of the bus which leads to unsafe conditions. Jurisdictions have final authority on stop locations. The majority are placed nearside but some prefer a farside stop. Stops are often considered on a case-by-case basis. It depends on each location, both nearside and farside are preferred as compared to midblock—nearside closer to intersection/crosswalks but can get caught at a signal. Farside is good for getting buses through the signal and to get people to cross behind the bus. The adjacent land use tends to drive many stop location decisions. Regardless of far or nearside, we would rather have a bus stop next to a park or shopping center than next to someone’s residence or a day care. The location should be somewhere that is less likely to see people illegally parking or stopping in the bus zone. Safety, sight distance and traffic operational patterns, transit signal priority. Lesser traffic conflicts Most urban bus stops are located nearside where there is a traffic light and crosswalk; rural areas may have safer bus stop locations midblock or farside depending on each location and whether it has a sidewalk or not. A few of our more rural streets have bus cut outs off of each side of the lanes for the bus stop. The bus cut outs work well depending on traffic and road speed. Farside—In cases where streets have wide shoulders and multiple lanes. Nearside—in cases of two-lane streets where autos are less likely to pass buses. There are many factors that go into the decision as to where to place the bus stop. However, if there are no other limiting factors, we prefer farside locations because they tend to be safer for pedestrians and encourage pedestrians to use the crosswalks appropriately. We prefer farside stops at signalized intersections, and nearside at stop-controlled intersections. The farside stops help buses to cross the intersection without stopping and minimizes conflicts with right-turning traffic. Nearside stops; stop signs prevents the buses from having to stop twice, once at the stop sign and again at the bus stop. If there is no stop sign at the corner, nearside is still preferred in case a stop sign is added in the future, and typically there is a full-width sidewalk to facilitate passenger boarding. We generally go for farside, but the individual geography of each stop means that we quite often are not able to get what we want. Each location is different. See earlier comment.

109 Improved visibility/safety when peds cross behind the bus. No right hook conflicts. Operational efficiency improved. It is better to be past the light and avoid conflicts with right-turning vehicles. Farside stops require less space. When the bus is done boarding, it can depart; big dwell time savings. Prefer nearside but ultimate location depends on: (1) safety: ped access (2) safety: presence or lack of crosswalk (marked or signalized) (3) safety: vehicular maneuverability or sight distance (4) willingness of local jurisdiction to provide on-street space (5) heavy right- or left-turn movements (6) facilitate transfers between routes (7) adjoining land use (8) ADA issues (9) ability to accommodate a shelter (10) adjoining land use or land owner 29. Does your agency consider safe street crossings in stop location decisions? Yes, always 70.5% 31 Yes, especially in urban areas 18.2% 8 Yes, especially in suburban areas 2.3% 1 Yes, especially in rural areas 2.3% 1 No 0.0% 0 Other 6.8% 3 Other responses include: (1) Yes, in all areas. (2) Given that the City has sidewalks and traffic signals almost everywhere, this is seldom an issue. There are some locations, particularly in outlying areas, where we must take pedestrian access into account. (3) Yes, in any case: urban, suburban, rural. 30. Are there any additional factors affecting your agency’s decisions regarding stop locations? Responses summarized in Table 15, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Traffic safety. Turns of vehicles. Driveway locations. Property owner in front. Jurisdictional approval. Lighting. Stops servicing medical, social and governmental locations. Midblock stops have become the biggest challenge because they encourage midblock crossing or jay walking. Still, midblock stops make up most of the transit agency’s stops. Land uses, especially commercial, office and institutional Spacing between stops, operational safety, and proximity to major trip generators. My favorite quote: “Nobody wants a bus stop in front of their home or business who doesn’t ride the bus” as stated by our COO. We try to be sensitive to the neighbors. Public comment. Walking distance, distance between stops based on traffic and speed limits, and the ability to run the routes on time! :: In-lane traffic controls that narrow down lane widths and/or create potential traffic safety issues. :: Outside lane widths (curb-side) and bicycle lanes. We try to get local jurisdictions to keep lane widths at least 11’ wide. But that’s not always possible. :: Trees planted at or near stops. Trees can scrape a bus or a bus breaks a tree limb. In addition, leaves on the ground can create other issues for riders getting on and off buses. :: Pedestrian cross-walk locations (too close and departing riders will walk in front a bus, creating further delay and a safety issue for not seeing on-coming traffic). :: Shelter or stop pole set-back from curb or traffic lane, which can sometimes create ADA accessibility issues. :: Sidewalk widths vary by jurisdiction and location. Making a stop ADA accessible can be a challenge. :: Location requirements of maintenance/facilities equipment (trucks) when stopped for cleaning a stop. :: Line of sight for getting in and out of a stop. :: Speed limits or sometimes an individual jurisdiction’s requirement for when a bus pull-out is needed for a stop. :: Creating “stand alone” stop designs for locations that don’t have sidewalks or adequate pedestrian pathways yet have resident or commercial developments close by. Whether there is a turnout or enough space for the bus to pull partially or fully out of traffic, especially on high-speed corridors (higher than 35 mph). We consider the ADA accessibility of the stop. We also try to anticipate the property owner reaction by avoiding placing the stop directly in front of the front of a house or business. We refer to our Municipality/County Traffic Engineering Departments as we do not have Traffic Engineering staff at the transit agency

110 Sightlines, private property owners, access to developments, usable curb areas, stop spacing Adjacent land uses, trees, parking, transfer options Municipal authority concerns Trip generators We look at: Pedestrian facilities—sidewalks, crosswalks, signalization. Accessibility—clear access to front and back doors from curb, ADA factors (compliance preferred, but we try to make it functional if compliance is not possible), slope. Roadway—curves, sight distance, avoiding turn lanes. Developments—we try to coordinate with land use. Sensitive land uses—we will break spacing standard for senior homes, medical, key social agencies, etc. Spacing—we try to avoid placing new stops close together (800–1200 feet in most areas, depending on the street network—we don’t have consistent block lengths in most of our service area). Personal safety—lighting, woods/hiding places, known crime history at location, etc. Transferring opportunities, stop spacing, political factors. A. SPACING B. LOCATION: NEARSIDE STOP, FARSIDE STOP, MIDBLOCK STOP, BUS STOP SITE SELECTION, CRITERIA, AND CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Ridership 2. Right-of-Way (R-O-W) 3. Safety • visibility • ensure adequate bus turning at intersection. • drainage • flat terrain • conflicts in the traffic flow.• pedestrian movements of transferring passengers • adequate lighting • avoid isolated locations. 4. Equity 5. Accessibility/ADA 6. Impact on Adjacent Properties 7. Location of Sidewalks 8. Road Surface Condition and Street Grade 9. Traffic-related 10. Transit-related—facilitate movements of passage between intersecting routes 11. Location of Driveways and Loading Zones 12. Passenger Comfort and Convenience 13. Proximity of Utilities Lines, Poles, and Trees Of course, there are always those decisions that are made for the sake of maintaining positive relationships with elected officials, adjoining property owners, stakeholders and for other “sensitive” issues. Quite a few: ADA accessibility, waiting space available, street lighting, adjacent property use, shade/weather protection, traffic volume and speed, bus driver sightlines, nearby trip generators, etc. Our bus stop spacing protocols, business interests, property owner interests and customer interests. We consider proximity to other stops, accessibility to safe crossings and locations surrounding stops such as schools and medical centers. ADA Recently, we have needed to move stops in several corridors to farside in order to facilitate transit signal priority systems, which don’t work very well with nearside stops. Right of way for a bus shelter can also drive decisions—we might have it on one side but not the other. Yes, many. Adjacent land uses, transit signal priority, lighting, quality of waiting environment, pedestrian routes of travel, topography, conflicts with other public infrastructure, availability of right-of-way, support by adjacent property owners... Spacing, grades, developments in the neighborhood Safety is number one, but bus stop distance, destinations, surrounding infrastructure, land owners, and sidewalk/ pedestrian access is always considered regarding stop locations. No Existence of turn lanes, nearby land uses, objects in the right-of-way, bus stop spacing Existing uses in the curb lane heavily influence bus stop locations, for example, loading zones, pay to park locations, sidewalk cafes, and driveways. Land uses can also play a role, such as locating stops away from day care centers. Spacing Transfer locations, trip generators, appropriate spacing, land uses, existing infrastructure, planned infrastructure, available ROW, signal treatment types, bus turning movements, opportunity to dwell for timepoints and layovers, etc. If the bus is turning in a block or two that must be considered. Sometimes special land uses--Police Stations, Fire Stations, Houses of Worship, Schools, etc.--necessitate placing bus stops in suboptimal locations Bus stop spacing, complementary bus stop across the street, proximity to a park-and-ride

111 STOP LENGTH 31. How long is your standard or typical bus stop? 40 feet 4.6% 2 60 feet 27.3% 12 80 feet 22.8% 10 100 feet 11.4% 5 Other 34.1% 15 Other responses include: (1) Major stops are 100 feet, with a bus bay or pull off. (2) For transit shelter pads and amenities, 20 foot with 10 foot (by 8 foot deep) ADA wheel chair deployment area. The transit agency uses a 40 foot as the standard and 80 foot—100 foot for a bus stop is a minimum target. (3) 25 feet, just long enough to have concrete under the two doors. (4) In urban settings, 40’. In suburban settings, 60’. (5) Bus stop length can vary depending on level of service, if it is used as a layover, location, age of stop etc. The City has a standard bus pad length of 90 feet (concrete pad in road surface to minimize wear). Our stops usually take up the entire pad length at bus stops with pads. (6) 110 feet, generally (except for midblock stops, requiring 145 feet). (7) Depends on frequency of service and street location. Generally 80 feet for farside stops and 120 feet for nearside stops. (8) We don’t have a specified standard yet. Our driver training manual specifies that 85 feet are needed to pull parallel to the curb, so we’ve been using that length when doing plan reviews. (9) 80’ nearside, 60’ farside, 100’ midblock. (10) Depends. We have standards for Regular (up to 25 feet in length for the landing area) and Rapid (60+ feet for a station). (11) 80’ for farside, 100’ for nearside. (12) 90 feet for standard buses 120 feet for articulated buses. (13) Existing stops often do not have a typical length. Many require the bus to “angle in” to access the stop. For new stops, and relocated stops when possible, we seek to have a minimum of 80’ for stops served by 40’ buses. (14) Minimum 85 feet for stops served by standard 40’ buses, 100 feet is preferred. Add 20 feet for stops served by 60’ articulated buses. (15) No standard. We request length based on anticipated coach stop length or frequency 32. Has the required length of stops increased in recent years? Yes, longer and/or articulated buses have been placed into service 36.6% 15 Yes, for other reasons (specify below) 12.2% 5 No 51.2% 21 Comments include: (1) We don’t have any standards. Most of our legacy stops are just a pole in the dirt. If I have money to build something new and nice, I just make it fit in the space available but try to at least have concrete to step out onto from either door. (2) See above answer. (3) Many stops serve multiple operators—at times there are two buses stopping. Also provides a safer way for operators to merge back into traffic. (4) There has been more attention paid to a combination of traffic safety and the need for a bus to be able to safely leave and reenter the traffic stream. Longer bus stop zones allow this weave to happen more safely and efficiently for the bus. (5) Longer coaches, but also changes in the service structure requiring need to accommodate additional coaches in the bus stop simultaneously. (6) Our newly-developed Bus Stop Design Guide defines longer bus stop zones than requested in the past. However, the municipality ultimately decides how long they will allow the bus stop zones to be, and in places where on-street parking is at a premium, the transit agency will usually not be granted the amount of space that we desire. (7) More articulated (60-ft) and 45-ft coaches in our fleet. 33. Does the desired length of stops differ for nearside and farside stops? Yes 45.2% 19 No 54.8% 23 34. Does your agency have standards for length of stops based on the number of buses per hour at the stop? Yes (please describe below) 21.4% 9 No 78.6% 33 Comments include: (1) Stops servicing more than one route will be larger in order to accommodate the number of buses that may arrive within a scheduled period. These analyses are made taking into consideration delayed boarding or alighting due to disabled, and frequency of disabled riders. (2) This depends on the available space or footprint. We do extend platforms to allow for two, three connecting buses if the foot print allows. We have bus bays ranging from 60-100 ft. (3) We do not have formal adopted standards. (4) Depends on frequency of service, location, and length of buses used by

112 stop. Generally 80 feet for farside stops and 120 feet for nearside stops. Zones may be longer based on frequency. (5) Based on the number of routes serving the stop and the likelihood that more than one bus will arrive at the same time. (6) Add 50’ for each additional standard bus expected to use a stop at the same time (70’ for artic). (7) There are general guidelines that are used, in addition to strict standards. (8) If the stop has multiple buses schedule for the stop at once or a close running time then the bus stop needs to accommodate the highest amount of potential buses at that stop. (9) At stops with multiple routes, bus volumes contribute to nearside/farside orientation decision and bus zone length. This isn’t reflected in standards. (10) It is not a formula, but stops where more than approximately 20 buses per hour stop need to be longer. (11) No standards but a few stops in the central city have multiple berths so a very long bus stop could accommodate (say) 4 berths serving multiple routes. 35. Does your agency have standards for length of stops based on the types of buses serving the stop? Yes (please describe below) 38.1% 16 No 61.9% 26 Comments include: (1) We have some articulated buses with three doors. Those stops are longer. (2) Stops must be able to accommodate the 40’ and 60’ vehicles in our fleet. (3) We have some local neighborhood routes that only a 30’ bus can operate on (limited street width and corner turning radius). So those routes typically have a smaller stop-length foot- print. (4) We have 40’ and 60’ buses in our fleet. We strive to make sure that all newly established bus stops or relocated bus stops can accommodate a 60’ bus. We try not to take up more space than what is needed, especially in residential or other areas with street parking. (5) Stops along routes that typically require 60-foot buses are longer. Stops that could have multiple buses at that stop simultaneously are longer. (6) We will have longer stops at locations served by multiple routes. Shorter stops for routes served exclusively by 40’ coaches. (7) We currently operate 30-, 35-, and 40-foot buses. The 85-foot length in our training manual accommodates the longest buses. (8) Stops for routes utilizing articulated buses must be longer. (9) Depends. We have standards for Regular (up to 25 feet in length for the landing area) and Rapid (60+ feet for a station). (10) Add 20’ at the stop for each bus if articulated. (11) 90 feet for standard buses, 120 feet for articulated buses. (12) A route with 60’ buses will need longer stop zones. (13) We have articulated bus length standards that are longer than those for regular coaches. (14) At this point the transit agency does not have articulated buses and we do not differentiate the bus stop length for the different sized buses we currently have. (15) Minimum 85 feet for stops served by standard 40’ buses, 100 feet is preferred. Add 20 feet for stops served by 60’ articulated buses. (16) Bus stop lengths were not specifically changed when we introduced articulated buses. However, stop lengths for the BRT, both along the guideway and downtown, are designed to accommodate 60’ buses. (17) Standards are based on 40’ bus. We don’t have any artics in fleet. (18) Standard 80; artic 130. (19) No standard but we generally assume a new bus stop SHOULD be able to accommodate an articulated coach. 36. What does your agency do when it cannot obtain sufficient length at a given bus stop? Responses summarized in Table 21, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. If the demand by the public is great, the bus will stop in the roadway board and alight from that location. Great question, in these cases we may need to block an exit driveway or encroach on a driveway. If sufficient length cannot be obtained the transit agency would relocate the stop. In some cases, the transit agency will reduce the minimum 80 foot—100 foot standard if this reduction is operationally feasible and safe. Relocate the stop. Given no other alternatives, we do a minimum 5-foot-by-8-foot landing, enough for a wheelchair to maneuver, otherwise we do without. Move the stop to a location that is both accessible and safe. Depends on the location. If it’s an existing stop that has been in place for years we leave it where it is for the time being but also add it to our list as a future improvement. This means finding another location that can accommodate the size of bus we’re using on the route. We typically don’t want a bus that’s serving a stop to have its tail blocking an intersection or pedestrian cross walk (if it’s painted on the street). Or if there’s only limited space along a small neighborhood street we try and make the stop at or near an intersection. But we also work with the local jurisdiction and the property owner(s) to try and figure something out. And depending on where it is and traffic conditions, the stop will stay the way it is. Try to work with local jurisdictions to acquire on-street parking spaces. N/A Install the stop anyway & block traffic, when necessary, if it’s in a slower traffic, i.e., safer, setting.

113 Relocate the bus stop. We will not install a bus stop if there is not enough space to deploy the ADA ramp We look for alternative locations. If there aren’t any good alternatives and the stop isn’t a layover spot we will establish the stop without any red curb/no parking zone. When parking encroaches on bus stops, and because our bus lifts are at the front of the bus, if necessary, the driver can get his front door to the curb and hang the back of the bus out onto the travel lanes Generally, we will look for the nearest location that can satisfy the length requirements. In rare instances, we will try to make the shorter stop work, if local government requests it and cooperates with us. If stop is critical, may implement sub-standard stop permitting safety conditions In some cases make do. Evaluate on case-by-case basis. May select new location for stop. We either try to adjust the location or perhaps compromise on the ‘ideal’ length and settle on a location that has an acceptable length. Typically, we will relocate the stop (often a nearside to farside relocation). In a few cases, we’ve successfully worked with a municipality to eliminate obstacles such as on-street parking. We look at the entire circumstance. What standards do we violate? Stopping in front of a residential driveway might not be a problem. Blocking a commercial drive needs more analysis. What would be the distance between stops if no stop is allowed? What are the safety concerns if we stop in the travel lane? Ensure we have the minimum allowable of at least 25 feet (for both front and back door). If not, then at minimum 5x8 landing pad. We search for a reasonable alternative location. Find another spot or make an agreement with the drivers union. Install bus stop bulbs of either 15’ or 30’ Evaluate other options. We likely can shrink stops if necessary. We can also review the type of bus needed for service. Our standards are an ideal, but in many locations, especially in the urban area, they are not possible. Each is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if a shorter stop is serviceable in that location or if it needs to be located elsewhere. We will look at alternative locations and/or work with the local jurisdictions for solutions. Ask the ROW owner for additional length first. If it cannot be provided we make a determination of if it is physically possible and safe for the bus to enter and leave the stop location given the characteristics of the site. If it simply will not work, we won’t install the stop at that location and look elsewhere. In dense areas, additional coaches must wait to enter the bus stop Relocate the bus stop. We try to work something out with the municipality if the insufficient length is due to a parking spot or something within the control of the agency. If we have no options to increase the bus stop length to our standard we will not install a bus stop. Look elsewhere in the area. Might also consider rerouting the bus. In some existing stop locations, the length of the bus stop “no-parking” zone is a little too tight. Operators are just forced to drive very slowly and carefully, and sometimes they are unable to fully pull out of the travel lane and into the bus stop. For new bus stop locations, the siting decision may be changed based on how much space is available. One option is to eliminate the stop if another location will not work (e.g., nearside or farside). We do have stops that are shorter than standard. In these cases, bus operators must pull up to the stop as safely as possible. Put up the bus stop anyway, and make do Live with it, or move the stop. We have many stops that do not have bus zones, or no parking areas. At low-ridership locations, improvements are considered upon request. At moderate- to high-ridership stops, or stops with lift ridership we consider the following options: parking removal, stop relocation or removal, bus bulb outs, other construction options.

114 We make do, though in some cases, we may have to move or eliminate a bus stop. Create another bus stop and assign routes to a specific stop. 37. Does your agency have multiple berths at a single stop location based on volume of buses or number of routes serving a stop? Yes (please describe below) 66.7% 28 No 33.3% 14 Comments include: (1) Some stops must accommodate more than one vehicle at a time. The transit agency is developing a conceptual standard for a “Super Stop.” (2) Only at limited transit centers and transfer points. (3) We’ve got three stops with multiple berths, one with three another with two. (4) At hold-over points multiple vehicles may pull out simultaneously or depending on departure time, independently. (5) Only three locations where we have nodes for rider transfers. (6) Volume of buses serving the stop. Timed transfer locations typically need to have sufficient space for a number of buses that serve it. Currently, the only locations that have bus bays are large off-street stations where there is room to accommodate it. On-street stations utilize a longer stop zone to accommodate more than one bus (first in goes to the front). (7) Yes at transit hubs, of which we have four. Otherwise, no. (8) Yes, only at transit centers. (9) We have a number of facilities/on-street stops that have several bus bays or long bus lanes for a number of routes. These are usually located within transit centers, rail stations, and park and rides. (10) We have an extra-long no parking zone at some route terminals or stops that are shared between routes especially if the stop is used as a terminal for one of the routes. (11) Transit Centers and regional rail stations we have multiple berths. (12) Yes, but very rarely. We do have an instance where we have two stops back-to-back with route restrictions so that one route can get over to make an upcoming left turn. (13) Provided space is available, we mark berths at terminal stops and at off-street locations. We have separated stops along busy corridors to minimize the number of buses arriving at stops during peak times. Also, along our most congested downtown pickup corridor, we designate “first bus” and “second bus” areas so that 2 buses load at the same time. Operators are instructed not to stop twice at the same stop. (14) In Downtown, we have just instituted multiple berths within the same block based on types of services (Local vs. Express vs. Rapid). At our newest transit centers and Park & Rides we use dedicated bays. (15) Within the Central Business District and at a few locations outside the CBD where there is a high concentration of service. (16) Streetside bus stops are almost all first-in, first out. Standard stop length is increased if multiple buses are anticipated to be at a stop simultaneously. (17) We have stops that can hold multiple buses due to high volume of service in area. (18) Not usually, because where there are many buses converging, these are usually at rail stations or we have built a transit center to handle the volume of buses. (19) Occasionally, typically at larger transit centers only. (20) In places such as the downtown area, bus stop lengths are significantly increased due to the expected volume of buses. We have no rigid criteria for determining this extra length. For bus pullouts, however, we have standards for how long the pullout should be in order to accommodate the number of buses expected to arrive and/or layover there at any one time. (21) This is typically implemented at the end of a route at a layover location. Buses in live service must bypass the staged buses to access the bus stop. This usually requires provision of a bypass lane. (22) See comment above re BRT. (23) Buses going to the same general destination may share a berth, but generally we have different berths for different services. (24) Yes in some pick-up stops in the central city (stops are assigned stops by routes) and transit centers we serve. STOP TYPES 38. Does your agency use bus bays/cut-outs to stop (i.e., curbside stops out of the right-hand traffic lane)? Yes 75.0% 33 No 25.0% 11 39. Please rate bus bay stops on the following criteria. Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Passenger safety 0.0% 3.0% 15.2% 33.3% 48.5% Passenger accessibility 0.0% 3.0% 15.2% 36.4% 45.5% Operator safety 0.0% 3.0% 24.2% 39.4% 33.3% Ability to re-enter traffic flow 12.1% 24.2% 45.5% 15.2% 3.0%

115 40. Does your agency use bus bulb stops (i.e., curb extensions into a parking or traffic lane)? Yes 52.3% 23 No 47.7% 21 41. Please rate bus bulb stops on the following criteria. Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Passenger safety 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 50.0% 45.5% Passenger accessibility 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 63.6% Operator safety 0.0% 4.6% 18.2% 31.8% 45.5% Ability to re-enter traffic flow 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 9.1% 86.4% 42. Does your agency locate any stops in the median of a street (i.e., on a traffic island)? Yes 34.1% 15 No 65.9% 29 43. Please rate median stops on the following criteria. Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Passenger safety 6.7% 13.3% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% Passenger accessibility 6.7% 13.3% 53.3% 20.0% 6.7% Operator safety 6.7% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 26.7% Ability to re-enter traffic flow 6.7% 0.0% 26.7% 40.0% 26.7% 44. Describe ADA considerations at median stops—do they differ from other types of stops? Responses summarized in Table 28, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Space enough in the island for chair users to access, safely wait and safely board vehicles. In some cases, these locations are more difficult from an ADA consideration due to limited access for pedestrians to reach these locations. Same regulations apply Wide enough to be universally accessible Highly recommend marked and signalized crosswalks. No. We try to make sure that they have an accessible boarding/alighting area at the front of the bus. We also try to avoid these whenever possible, but have a few at intersections with large islands due to channelized turns. Please disregard if we misunderstood the question. We only utilize median stops on our BRT service Yes, an extra emphasis is placed on how a customer safely exits the pad and provisions are made for safe crossings. Does not differ—requires curb ramp from the sidewalk to the median stop location—median stop platforms are 10’ x 75’ Greater challenge in maintaining accessible route of travel to the bus stop; greater need for positive barriers to increase pedestrian safety. These stops are mainly legacy stops; however, any new median stops must meet ADA standards. We currently avoid median stops, as most (in our service area) are not designed specifically for transit, and therefore do not have optimum dimensions or locations for bus interface. Many median stops do not meet ADA standards for accessibility or width. We have such stops on various streets. We also have stops under elevated train tracks. These are median stops of a different type, but they are 100% non-ADA compliant with no curb whatsoever. At a few locations we have extended the sidewalk out to the pillars to create a huge bus bulb, which is ADA compliant.

116 These bus stops: (1) must be 8-ft deep in order to meet ADA requirements to deploy a wheelchair lift, (2) are generally accessible via a crosswalk--some crosswalks are midblock (bad), some coincide with crosswalk at an intersection (better) 45. Please describe any specific benefits and challenges associated with median stops. Making sure there is sufficient space for people to wait and keep them out of traffic. We do have stops that are located at medians. However, it is now written in our guidelines that median stop locations should be avoided. On some major state highways, these are the only locations that may be available for bus stops, despite the obstacles associated with them. In the absence of these stops (especially for “legacy” locations where the stops were established decades ago), it would be extremely difficult to serve these key commuter corridors at all. Our islands are narrow and pose some challenge due to capacity constraints. Islands allow for quick boardings but can encourage delinquent behavior when customers are accessing. All our median stops are associated with BRT routes and dedicated transit lanes. Requires a crossing to get to the stop location, and passengers are more exposed to traffic. It also may require passengers to exit through the front door only. Space is limited. It is a less than ideal waiting area for customers. Safety is a major concern. Provides a dedicated area for passengers to wait, but requires passengers to cross traffic to get to the stop May accommodate more coaches or may provide more space for passenger amenities and queuing. These are best used in combination with dedicated lanes or in a bus terminal. The number of lanes that pedestrians must cross to access the stop should be minimized. These may work well with curbside bike lanes. See above. See above. Sometimes it’s a transit oasis, can be a good environment for transferring pax—depending on how it is configured. 46. Does your agency have stops on the left side of the bus, either in a median or on a one-way street? Yes 2.4% 1 No 97.6% 41 47. Please describe the conditions that led you to implement a bus stop on the left side of the bus. Detour only/construction Downtown BRT stations Left side of the STREET. These situations are a result of: (1) coincide w/ a streetcar stop, (2) traffic on right side is too heavy (bus can’t pull in or out), (3) not enough curb space on right side, or (4) nearside stop on left side to allow bus to make left turn at intersection. 48. Please rate stops on the left side of the bus according to the following criteria. Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Passenger safety 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Passenger accessibility 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Operator safety 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ability to re-enter traffic flow 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

117 PEDESTRIAN/CUSTOMER ACCESS TO BUS STOPS 49. What are the key constraining factors for pedestrian access in urban locations? Responses summarized in Table 29, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Missing concrete wheelchair pad in right of way Extremely narrow sidewalks. Lack of curb ramps, street lighting and sidewalks. Distance between traffic signals. The availability of signalized pedestrian crosswalks or other enhanced pedestrian crossings. Overzealous streetscaping, furniture, trees, shrubs, etc. On street parking, lane width, curb cuts... Sidewalk width. ADA ramps to and from a sidewalk. Clear space/width around sidewalk obstructions: street lights, trees or tree wells. Jurisdiction permitting codes for passenger amenities on sidewalks. Conflicts with businesses (especially around entrance doors) where a stop is located. Limitations by jurisdiction to build a stop pad with 6” curb height. Presence of ADA-accessible paths to the bus stops Accessibility Sidewalks and crosswalks *Lack of adequate sidewalks. *Snow &, by extension, people/municipalities who don’t shovel their sidewalks. ADA compliance Our level of pedestrian access is probably at its highest in urban locations. Access is more challenging in urban or rural areas. Safe places to cross the street; enough sidewalk width to accommodate waiting passengers; enough clear sidewalk space for wheelchair boardings/alightings; PLUS many urban streets in the County are too wide, making crossing the street needlessly difficult/dangerous. Resistance to removal of parking and loading/unloading zones in business districts Generally, in urban locations, pedestrian access is good, with the exception of narrow sidewalks and presence of street furniture, vendors, etc. Sidewalk width, trees, adjacent land uses, safe crossing None Lack of sidewalks in some areas. Lack of marked crosswalks. Inability to place stops in close proximity to intersection. Street furniture We have a significant lack of sidewalks in our urbanized area, mostly from mid-century suburban-style developments in town that did not regard pedestrians highly. Sidewalk conditions are also a problem; many sidewalks are damaged and have not been repaired in recent years. We also have a highly disconnected street network, even in many parts of the central city—much of the city does not follow much of a grid, so our passengers may have a significant walk to reach our service. Lastly, we’ve seen a fair amount of access issues due to street furniture and landscaping in streetscape projects that did not consider the presence of our stops. Lack of paving to curb (tree lawns). Sidewalks and signalized crossing (we are working with the city to continue building more signalized midblock crossings). We are also mindful of existing crossing signals to assist with ped crossing Other on-sidewalk objects including sign/utility poles, newspaper boxes, signal equipment cabinets, and, in some cases narrow sidewalks. Of a more recent vintage, there have been bus stop access issues because of valet parking stands. 1) Sidewalk width, especially in older areas 2) Obstructions (light posts, news racks, sign posts, telephone poles, trash cans, fire hydrants, etc.). Lack of space between street and building in high-density areas.

118 Location of crosswalks. Also, maintained sidewalks is an issue for customer access to bus stops. Accessible paths. Many locations lack cohesive sidewalk networks, ADA ramps Sidewalk width, parking, other street furniture, trees, traffic, lighting, stop distance Existence of a sidewalk is primary—wish we had one in every bus corridor but we don’t due to various factors, especially community opposition or environmental impact. Insufficient sidewalk width, due to volume of users and presence of other conflicting infrastructure in public right of way; meeting ADA requirements (i.e., space for properly designed ramps that don’t conflict with signal poles or other obstructions). None Parking and snow Width of streets, traffic volumes and speed limits Street furniture and signage in the right-of-way as well as non-ADA-compliant sidewalks and curb ramps. Most urban areas have sidewalks, but many of them are in poor condition. Sidewalk condition; street crossing in some locations Private property issues In urban locations the biggest conflict to pedestrian access is the competition for space. Crossings are both better and more frequent, but busses compete for curb space with on-street parking, passengers compete with street furniture, bio features, cafe seating, A boards, newspaper boxes etc. In highly urban locations we have no real pedestrian issues. The city has sidewalks almost everywhere, curb cuts almost everywhere and traffic signals at all major intersections Sidewalk width, sidewalk condition, placement of street furniture, trees and other landscaping along curb, space allocated to on-street parking, adjoining space allocated to bike stations 50. Are there other key constraining factors for pedestrian access in suburban locations? Responses summarized in Table 30, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Missing sidewalks. Poor development patterns. Extremely narrow sidewalks or lack of sidewalks Complaints from homeowners. Some just don’t want a bus stop in front of their home. Traffic volumes Curb cuts, sidewalks, sprawl... Poor street network design that creates significant out-of-direction travel to reach the bus stop. Also frequent incomplete sidewalk network. The winding sidewalk in the wide right-of-way. Looks pretty, but it never seems to come close enough to the curb. Lack of sidewalks. Lack of safe pedestrian pathways along or near roads that a transit route uses. Lack of ADA-accessible sidewalks. Limited area/locations where a bus stop can be placed. Limitations by jurisdiction to build a stop pad with 6” curb height. We don’t serve suburban areas No Sidewalks and crosswalks Topography (hills), ADA access, not a large population living within 1/4 mile of a stop. Lack of sidewalks Lack of sidewalks; landscaped planter strips between the sidewalk and curb; PLUS the suburban street grid limits routing options, meaning many pedestrians have to walk farther to access stops. Ability to place bus stops in residential areas in front of homes

119 Sometimes, sidewalks are not consistent, creating pedestrian access obstacles. Roadways often have higher speed operations, making street crossing more difficult. Only urban operations None Lack of crosswalks Lack of sidewalks to/from bus stop locations. Suburban roadway design has been unfriendly for pedestrians and transit riders. Arterial roads are wide and fast, and crossing opportunities are limited. Signalized intersections may be far apart, and crosswalks are often not installed. We see issues with existing pedestrian crossing signalization—both timing and maintenance are issues in some areas. Our suburban areas have a highly disconnected street network as well, so passengers may have a significant walk to reach our service on the major roads. Lack of traffic signals along high-volume streets and lack of crosswalks. Lack of continuous sidewalks. We often build to the bus stop but cannot create a continuous system (too expensive and challenging) Primarily, the absence of sidewalks both in residential communities and, in particular, in office parks. Walled communities limit access to bus stops. Lack of sidewalks, lack of signalized and/or safe pedestrian crossings. Lack of sidewalks Lack of sidewalk and traffic considerations. Also, as stops are often not on sidewalks, they can be inaccessible during winter and force customers into traffic to wait. Speed of traffic, lighting, stop distance The walk required from the bus stop to the nearest safe crosswalk location can sometimes be lengthy. Wide roadways that are hard to cross in a single cycle length. Driveway access points; width and condition of existing sidewalks (depending on when the suburban area was developed); roadway speeds; infrequency of intersecting roadways and clearly-defined pedestrian crossings of major arterials. None Lack of sidewalks and crosswalks and ped lights. Cannot think of any Lack of sidewalks is the biggest issue in suburban locations, but also the building setbacks from the street can impose walking distance hardships Provision of sidewalks and sidewalk width Lack of sidewalks at times Lack of sidewalks and marked crossings Street crossings are a greater concern in suburban areas, as are accessibility issues. Sidewalk infrastructure is less consistent, and there is often landscaping separating sidewalk and street. Yes, in low-density areas we must consider safe crossings and pedestrian access paths to/from the bus stop. We also must consider lighting Lack of: marked crosswalks, signalized crosswalks, adequate lighting, posted speed limits, adequate sidewalk width 51. Are there other key constraining factors for pedestrian access in rural locations? Responses summarized in Table 31, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. High-speed roads. No sidewalks. No sidewalks, no improvements allowed to existing stops that have not had improvements made prior to ADA. Site distance for motorists, difficulty for bus drivers to see waiting riders

120 Lack of sidewalks and persistence of open drainage roadway sections Lack of sidewalks, higher speed limits, and a lack of lighting. Bar-ditches and soft shoulders. Sprawl! Accessibility. Lack of safe pedestrian pathways along or near roads that a transit route uses. Open storm water catchment along roads that limit where a stop can be placed. Lack of ADA accessible sidewalks with curb height. Limited area/locations where a bus stop can be placed. Limitations by jurisdiction to build a stop pad with 6” curb height. N/A Distance between stops Sidewalks No sidewalks, ADA compliance, no shelter from heat/rain, no crosswalks. Lack of sidewalks, lighting, and safe street crossing. Lack of sidewalks, lack of safe waiting areas unsignalized pedestrian crossings on high-speed rural roads, lack of street lights Lack of sidewalks The main rural constraints are the absence of sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals, making access/egress from bus stops far more difficult for pedestrians. Only urban operations Lack of sidewalks No sidewalks Lack of sidewalks to/from bus stop locations. We have very little service in any area that could be considered rural—our example is a state road with no pedestrian facilities and few crossings (except in small downtown areas along the route). No rural service Typically, streets do not have curb/gutter. We can build and accessible bus stop, but connectivity to activity generators can be a challenge. We do not serve rural locations Lack of sidewalks, lack of signalized and/or safe pedestrian crossings. N/A N/A Rural areas typically lack sidewalks, curb ramps and safe crossings and in some cases along highways, lack room for the bus to pull out of the lane of travel. N/A Having no sidewalks makes it hard to get to the stop and wait for the bus. Incomplete or non-existent sidewalk network; impediments to travel paths; roadway speeds; infrequency of intersecting roadways and clearly-defined pedestrian crossings of major arterials. No Lack of sidewalks and crosswalks and ped lights. Same as 41 plus topography Lack of sidewalks, high-speed roadways The transit agency does not serve rural areas Lack of sidewalks

121 No No pedestrian infrastructure, drainage ditches, no street lighting, infrequent cross streets and access points, high traffic speeds etc. N/A Lack of sidewalk, lack of adequate sidewalk width, lack of marked and signed crosswalks, lack of traffic signals adjoining bus stops, general lack of capital facilities that support bus stops including roadway surface, poor maintenance of roadway and sidewalks at bus stops, high posted speed limits, general lack of shelters 52. Does your agency incorporate bollards or other pedestrian barriers at any stops? Yes 34.9% 15 No 65.1% 28 53. How do these barriers affect access to the bus stop itself? Access is much more difficult 0.0% 0 Access is more difficult 18.8% 3 Effects on access are minimized because the barriers are far enough away from the stops 18.8% 3 Barriers are only used on bus stops located in the median to protect customers from adjoining traffic 18.8% 3 Other (Please specify) 43.8% 7 Other responses include: (1) Used at transit centers to keep pedestrians from walking in drive lanes. Must use walkways. (2) This is only at stops designed by others mostly at community colleges. (3) Bollards are only used to protect a shelter from a parking lot. (4) Only in specific locations but they do not affect passengers or boarding/deboarding. They are for safety. (5) Uses at stops in the median and at stops where there were prior accidents. (6) Barriers are only used at a few shelter locations and do not interfere with pedestrian access. (7) ADA access is always considered when barriers are incorporated. One or more direct accessible pathways are incorporated into the design. PASSENGER INFORMATION 54. Please summarize provision of various elements of passenger information at bus stops. Every stop (or almost) Many Stops Major Stops No Stops Bus stop sign 90.9% 6.8% 2.3% 0.0% Route number 77.3% 11.4% 6.8% 4.6% Phone number for info 75.0% 13.6% 6.8% 4.6% 511 or other traveler aid info 20.5% 12.8% 7.7% 59.0% Stop number 47.7% 15.9% 13.6% 22.7% Schedule 11.4% 20.5% 61.4% 6.8% Route map 6.8% 18.2% 61.4% 13.6% System map 0.0% 9.3% 55.8% 34.9% Real-time information 9.1% 2.3% 40.9% 47.7% QR codes 7.0% 4.7% 11.6% 76.7% Wayfinding information 2.4% 4.8% 35.7% 57.1% Information in languages other than English 7.0% 7.0% 25.6% 60.5%

122 55. What is the most common request from passengers regarding information at stops? Route number 7.0% 3 Phone number for info 0.0% 0 Stop number 2.3% 1 Schedule 37.2% 16 Route map 0.0% 0 System map 2.3% 1 Real-time information (next-bus arrival) 39.5% 17 Wayfinding information 0.0% 0 Information in languages other than English 0.0% 0 Other 11.6% 5 Other responses include: (1) Most of the requests that we receive are to replace missing bus stop signs due to weather events, recent car accidents, theft. We are currently working on a new bus stop sign design to include more information such as stop name, route destinations, stop ID for real time, phone numbers, route maps. (2) We receive requests for stop lists by route. Something that we don’t provide. (3) Tie between route number and schedule. (4) Combination of schedule, route map, and real-time information. I just completed a large regionwide survey of what improvements customers want at bus stops. (5) Schedule, “direction” info (i.e., where does this bus go?) and fare. Non-English info requested at bus stops in communities w/ recent immigrants—not throughout service area. 56. Has your agency implemented real-time next-bus information at bus stops? Yes 59.1% 26 No 40.9% 18 57. Please describe the benefits and disadvantages of real-time information as seen by the operations department and by customers. Responses summarized in Table 35, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Only have at transit centers. Can be confusing to customers if issues with GPS accuracy. Helps passengers know when to be at stop. Technology is expensive and requires trouble shooting. If the information is not accurate, now you’ve created a different problem by putting out inaccurate information. When the technology works the customer will benefit from this type of signage. The benefit of real-time information is that passengers know when the bus will arrive. The disadvantage of real-time information is that it requires IT and sufficient staff to update and maintain. We’ve only got it on one route. It’s been difficult to maintain the LED signs at the stops and we’ve had some issues with the equipment on buses. We’ll do it all over the system eventually because people like it but it’s not without its own issues. Benefits—Ability to predict exactly when you will be picked up at the stop you are at. Disadvantages—Unclear format for using the text for next-bus feature. (StopNumber_RouteNumber, i.e., 1234_01) Can’t help you much here. We’re implementing it in stages & hope to have it up in all four of our counties in the next year or so. The one major advantage we’ve seen to date is we’ve used the project to replace our aging radio communication system with a VOIP system. “Next bus” info, numerically indexed bus stops, AVL, APCs & a host of other benefits are coming. Passengers know when the next bus is arriving. Passenger cannot see where the bus is located. The accuracy is good at most stops except the first stop of a route. PLUS any additional information for our customers is a big benefit to the Operations group. Customer Service has indicated there was a 50 percent drop in customers’ calls once Stop IDs and the 511 number were placed on stops. Customer may know when the next bus arrives. However this is on a limited-stop route. The overlay bus does not have this real-time information, so the information does not tell the customer when the next bus is coming, only the next limited- stop bus.

123 Benefits are obvious...customers know when the bus will actually show up! Operators get fewer complaints because more customers know what is going on. Only real disadvantage is when the system doesn’t work, reverting back to scheduled times, which can confuse customers and cause problems where customers think that a bus is coming when it is not. Great for customers when it works. Operational issues can lead to poor prediction quality which is frustrating to customers. Customers can make choices, particularly where they could take more than one route. We just began with our BRT system (first phase). The challenge is that this system is operated on a frequency base schedule and we have new technology. So we are still tweaking/streamlining. We are only 2 months into actual activation but our plans are to move forward with the entire system. Our real-time information is currently based upon the use of mobile phone technology to text the stop number and receive the next-bus information. Individual bus operators are likely to see the information as positive, giving the customer a realistic expectation of the bus’s arrival. Operations management sees some negative from the possibility of increased complaints when customers perceive that buses are late. Customers view the information positively -- so long as it is reliable and reliably accurate. If the information is not correct/accurate, customers are frustrated. Impact to customers is undetermined. Besides the obvious benefit, the drawbacks are if the prediction is inaccurate and the bus passes earlier than displayed, or takes significantly longer than displayed. Only half of our fleet is equipped to provide real-time arrival status, so the other half shows scheduled. This inconsistency is a drawback for riders. On the agency side, it is a major I.T. staff and financial commitment to keep the hardware and back-end service all working, at multiple locations spread throughout a large service area. Real-time signage not only helps our customers shorten their wait time for buses, but it also shortens their perceived wait time, which enhances their overall experience. The main drawback is the fact the information is useless in times of bad weather/traffic. We put up messages but customers still are often upset by the fact that the real-time sign may have said 10 minutes but the bus didn’t arrive for 30 minutes. When it is running well and providing accurate information, the signs are only positive. But that’s not the sign, it is the back-end systems that provide the arrival prediction along with the on-board bus equipment. It is a major challenge to get it all working properly so that the arrival predictions customers see are accurate. Someone has to be watching the system for the entire operating day and making sure it’s working. When it is not working correctly, it is a huge billboard displaying how your system doesn’t work right, and generates a ton of customer complaints. Decreases perception of wait time; increase confidence in speed and reliability of service. This item is new to the system and there is not much info available We have real-time information along one route and the benefits have been embraced by both the customers and the operations department. This keeps the drivers from getting many questions about when the next bus will be arriving and gives the customer confidence on when the next bus will be arriving. As anything on the street there is a maintenance aspect but there have not been any disadvantages that I am aware of. We actually cannot fully answer this question yet. We are in the process of testing and implementing real-time information access at bus stops, but it is not live yet. Once implemented, people with smartphones will be able to locate real-time information at their bus stop using our main website and either activating GPS on their phone or entering in the stop’s unique ID number. At some point customers will also be able to get real-time information via SMS text messaging using the stop ID number. Roll-out of real-time information access is expected for mid-April of this year. Bus Tracker information is posted on each bus stop sign. Customers can access arrival information by sending a text message with the stop ID. In addition, many shelters have digital screens with bus arrival information. The benefit is that customers have better information on the arrival times, especially when frequencies are lower. A disadvantage is that the system needs to be maintained and can sometimes provide inaccurate information. The system reports erroneous information too often. Not reliable. University students like it a lot because they can make a decision whether to walk to their next class or catch the shuttle based on the real-time system. But this is offered on phones, and not at the stop. We developed our own real-time information displays at bus stops over a decade ago. The cost associated with maintaining wireless routers was prohibitive and reliability was suspect. We chose to focus real-time displays at rail platforms where hard-wired option was available. For many years now real-time information has been available for all bus stops via our transit tracker, accessible by computer or mobile device. Bus stop ID numbers are available at many bus stops and soon will be at all stops. The main benefit is it gives customers a realistic expectation of when the bus will arrive. Its biggest

124 disadvantage is that it assumes perfect conditions, and is therefore suspect when conditions (like recent snow storms) impact operations. We are just beginning to put real-time displays at stops (3 to date). But by spring, every stop will have a QR code and real-time information will be available by phone/text, etc. Obviously customers crave real-time information; there are no disadvantages. Operations has some concerns about showing bad service, i.e., next bus is 30 stops away. In reality though, information that the next bus is very far away is critical for the customer. 58. Is your agency planning to implement real-time next-bus information at bus stops? Yes 66.7% 12 No 33.3% 6 59. Why is your agency not planning to implement real-time information at bus stops? (Check all that apply.) Cost 83.3% 5 Lack of demand 16.7% 1 Lack of infrastructure (e.g., no AVL system) 16.7% 1 Other (please specify) 50.0% 3 Other responses include: (1) Mobile device applications that show this information. We did have it at a couple of major transit centers but the system died and is currently too expensive to replace. We do anticipate adding it back when funding is available and the cost becomes reasonable. (2) Using web-based and text-based systems to provide real-time information to passengers with mobile phones or smart phones. (3) We are not aware of any plans to do so at this time at bus stops, though we have real-time information at our rail stations. We have had discussions about it. It aligns with the agency’s strategic initiatives, so it may be coming at some point soon. PASSENGER AMENITIES 60. Please summarize provision of various passenger amenities at bus stops. Every stop (or almost) Many Stops Major Stops No Stops Bench 0.0% 65.9% 29.3% 4.9% Traditional lighting 11.9% 52.4% 21.4% 14.3% Solar lighting 0.0% 20.0% 37.5% 42.5% Trash receptacle 2.4% 58.5% 34.2% 4.9% Shelter 0.0% 52.4% 47.6% 0.0% Bicycle rack 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% Newspaper boxes 0.0% 7.7% 41.0% 51.3% Other 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% Other responses include: (1) I would note you need another column that has “some stops,” since I would have been able to use that one. For some I’ve indicated ‘no’ when in fact it’s a few. (2) The only amenities that the transit agency provides at on-street stops are bus shelters. Other amenities are usually installed by the city/county/state or community effort. (3) We have tried solar lighting before (first-generation I-Stops, by Carmanah Technologies—they have been discontinued). We have also installed Simme Seats, a seating amenity that can meet the need for benches with a smaller footprint. A number of non-transit-agency owned amenities, particularly benches and trash cans. Bike racks are installed as part of streetscape projects, and do not seem to be placed in coordination with bus stops. (4) Additional/expanded waiting areas. (5) Need a category for “some stops” that aren’t necessarily “major stops.” For instance bike racks and solar lighting may be present at some stops, but these might not be the “major” or “most important” stops. Newspaper boxes are provided by others, and appear at some stops, not just “major.” (6) The transit agency does not currently install any “free-standing” benches at bus stops. They are only provided inside passenger shelters. There are advertising benches in some locations, but the transit agency has no control over these. Additionally, the transit agency doesn’t install very many bicycle racks, largely because the major city and other entities have provided many of those, and they often happen to be located near bus stops. (7) The transit agency does not provide these amenities; they are typically provided by the city or a neighborhood group. (8) Fare

125 machinery at BRT stops. (9) Nearly all of the above are installed at “some” stops. Their installation depends on many factors and so they don’t have to be a “major” stop to have a trash receptacle or bus shelter. 61. What is the most common amenity requested by passengers at stops? Bench 23.3% 10 Lighting 0.0% 0 Trash receptacle 7.0% 3 Shelter 65.1% 28 Bicycle rack 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 4.7% 2 Other responses include: (1) Bench and lighting are probably pretty equal in requests. (2) Shelter with heat and lighting. 62. In your agency’s experience, what is the stop amenity most valued by customers? Responses summarized in Table 38, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Shelters A full service Shelter—Shelter, bench, trash receptacle, bicycle rack, lighting. Shelters go hand in hand with accessible bus stops. So we focus on improving accessibility and then adding a shelter. Bench and clean bus stop Shelter Shelter Shelter Shelter (we always include a bench) and trash receptacle. A bus shelter to provide shade and wind protection. Shelters and benches. Bus stop shelters Bench Bench Lighting. Lighting is the one thing in my experience that customers have expressed that makes them feel safer and more comfortable in their surroundings. Benches are nice but lighting is a must. Shelters In many cases benches are preferable to shelters, as they provide a rest area without the greenhouse effect of the shelter. Benches also show permanence of a route in the community. Bus shelters that provide shelter from heat/rain, etc. Shelters and real-time information Bus shelters, schedules and accessibility Shelter. Protection from sun/wind and lighting at night. Shelter It seems to be shelters. Shelter installations have garnered political weight in some cases (pressure on the transit agency to place a shelter, or a placement lauded by local elected officials, etc). We have also had several municipalities partner with us on stop improvement projects that are usually primarily focused on shelters, as that’s what they feel their riding residents want. I do not know that we get thorough feedback on this topic though. We get lots of requests but far fewer thank-you notes. Shelter Bench

126 Shelters. Our shelters include seating. A bench for waiting Bus shelters Shelter with heat and lighting Benches are certainly desired by customers. Benches are under contract with private vendors and the local jurisdictions, however customers often complain about the lack of benches or removal of them, or request an install to the transit agency, which has no authority to place or remove them. Bus shelters with lighting (solar or electric) and bench Shelters for sure. In my Love Your Bus Stop survey, I didn’t even ask about shelters because I did not want people to focus on something I don’t have the ability to provide. The jurisdictions have to provide shelters. My survey asked about other amenities. Shelter Bus shelters Shelters with lighting Passenger shelters and/or benches. As stated above, the transit agency does not currently install free-standing benches. However, this has been requested by customers, and the transit agency is considering benches for the future, as they would be less expensive than passenger shelters while still providing a nice amenity for passengers. At the right location, I believe a shelter is the most-valued amenity. Shelter Real time next-bus info Bus shelters Shelters Shelter since also provides bench, lighting and weather protection. In near future will also include real-time signing. 63. How does your agency decide which amenities are provided at a given stop? (Check all that apply.) Guidelines based on stop usage 79.1% 34 Feasibility of providing amenities at a given location 83.7% 36 Ad hoc decisions 7.0% 3 “Squeaky wheel” approach 30.2% 13 Request by elected officials 44.2% 19 Balanced provision of amenities across jurisdictions served 23.3% 10 Decided by street furniture contractor 14.0% 6 Decided by municipality 23.3% 10 Other (please specify) 20.9% 9 Other includes: (1) All of the above. (2) Many of the factors. Should allow more than one check. (3) Often shelters are provided as part of new development approval process. (4) Guidelines based on land use attributes and/or individual request (especially ADA needs). (5) We have a list of “top 200” bus stops that do not currently have shelters and have the highest APC ridership statistics, or that we received direct requests about from the public. These are the locations that would be the most ideal based on ridership and demand. However, they have yet to be investigated for installation feasibility. This will be done in coordination with the contractor once a contract is awarded. Other requests are forwarded to the city/county/state. (6) The transit agency partners with municipalities and developers who want shelters through our “non-standard shelter agreement.” The transit agency is occasionally approached by someone who wants to install a shelter, typically of their own design. We review the design and provide feedback or approval. If approved, the transit agency and the interested party sign a non-standard shelter agreement allowing the install and delegating the maintenance (including emergency maintenance) to the installer. (7) Budget. (8) The transit agency does not provide these amenities; they are typically provided by the city or a neighborhood group; the transit agency works to ensure the placement of street furniture will not interfere with passenger access. (9) Streetscape projects will include well-planned transit improvements

127 that include stop consolidation, ADA, safety and amenity upgrades. We often require stop improvements as part of private developments, depending on scope and scale. BUS PADS 64. Does your agency have criteria for the design and/or location of bus stop pads? Yes (please describe below) 71.8% 28 No 28.1% 11 Comments include: Specifications regarding design and amenities for varied locations that a stop may be considered. From sheltered to non- sheltered. New design, existing remodel. We are currently addressing bus stops with 20+ riders on/off combined daily Transit agency bus stop design standards and spacing criteria (every 800 foot—1200 foot between stops) Standard that meets ADAAG for pads and shelter locations. We have design guidelines based on ADA requirements. The attributes of a stop location is influenced by required 8’ depth and a 5’ wide ‘landing pad,’ sidewalk or pedestrian pathway depth and whether or not a planter area exists between curb and sidewalk. In addition, we’ have designs for areas that require stand-alone stops that provide 6 curb height. We have design only for the basic bus shelter pads, but not on a site-by-site basis Pads must follow ADA guidelines. What’s a bus stop pad? You mean for a shelter, or a concrete pad in the street where the bus stops? If the former, yes. If the latter, no. For the latter, we have a few, but they were built by others in all cases. Criteria are set by city/county/state. We refer to the Orange County Transportation Authority’s guidelines, but the decision is the municipality/county’s 8’ deep by 5’ wide is the new minimum pad We have detailed specifications for required space and quality of pavement to install bus stop poles and signs. Not our agency, but Department of Public Works does We do not have criteria or a design for a bus stop pad (interpreting this as an ADA-compliant concrete pad that provides a stable surface for boarding and alighting). We do not construct these and typically try to have them built by the local governments when we have accessibility issues. We’ve also been successful at getting some installed through our plan reviews with the municipalities, though we have only provided the ADA regulations for reference. Each location is unique given the environment to build/place There are standard design drawings for both bus stop pads and pads to accommodate shelters. These differ in size depending on use. Criteria are a general guideline; the local jurisdiction is responsible for pavement maintenance and ultimately provides the specifications for any concrete or asphalt enhancements at bus stop locations. Our concrete bus pad guideline is 9” PCC (8” if reinforced) on 6’ concrete treated base. Standardized format and route information Sized to include shelters and poles New stop locations, or locations being revised as part of a capital project, may receive a bus pad if necessary. These are in jurisdictional ROW and up to them to provide or not. To meet minimum accessibility requirements. The transit agency uses the American Concrete Institute Standards for bus stop and shelter pads. We make sure any stop pad is at least 5’ x 5’ and shelter pads are at least 5’ from street curb.

128 The design of bus stop pads (in the street) is governed by the City or other appropriate municipality. Historically, the City has funded and installed these pads, and thus the transit agency was not responsible for designing them or deciding the location. Criteria were developed by the City Department of Transportation We have our own criteria and design for shelter pads, ADA landing pads, carriage walks, transit curb extensions, in-street bus pad design etc.—I am assuming this refers to an in-street pad. Bus stop pads are constructed whenever a street is reconstructed. In very bad cases pads may be built on a case-by-case basis by DOT. The pads are 12” thick and the length of the stop. Location: see Q25 65. Does your agency use different types of bus stop pad designs? Yes 46.3% 19 No 53.7% 22 66. What bus stop pad designs have worked best? Responses summarized in Table 41, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Ones that connect curb and sidewalk and are large enough for front and back boarding. Pads designed to encompass both ambulatory and mobility impaired that allow for both to traverse unobstructed. We prefer to have the shelter positioned behind the sidewalk with a pad in front leading to the curb stop. We have photos of these configurations. Shelter pad that accommodates bike racks and trash receptacles. The narrow cantilevered shelter has allowed the transit agency to construct shelter pads and install shelters in approximately 8 foot of right of way. Standard concrete that meet ADA standards. Almost every one is different to fit in the space available. Simple, streamlined. Pad connected to the curb with an access sidewalk from traditional sidewalk. Bench/shelter located mid to rear of pad. We design a pad based on the requirements at each individual stop. NA Concrete pad Concrete is best at high-volume locations. Less maintenance but more expensive to build. Asphalt sinks around pad though. Moving towards replacing all pads with concrete at all stops. Ideal design is a pad that stretches between a sidewalk (behind the bus stop) and the curb, with a shelter located at one side of the pad to allow pedestrian/wheelchair clearance from the sidewalk to the shelter to the curb. Again, each location is unique. There is no one particular design. Generally similar to sidewalks extending from the back of the curb to a distance equivalent to what would be present if there were a sidewalk. Depends on situation. We strive for 5’ width and 9’ depth If in street—60’ x 10’ concrete pad—10” 4000 psi concrete pad with #4x18 deformed steel tie bars @30” centers over 12” compacted 11/2” -0” aggregate base. If referencing boarding area—we design stop improvements to fit the need. We don’t have a “one size fits all” bus pad design. They are all concrete. The only variances in their design are length (depending on the stop in question) and specific soil conditions at the specific stop. We have one design that, if asked, will provide to geotech to structural engineers w/ the understanding that “local conditions” and frequency of bus service may alter the design of the bus pad.

129 CURB CUTS 67. Please describe your agency’s policy regarding bus stop location at curb cuts in commercial areas. Responses summarized in Table 42, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Try to place near for accessibility. Must meet all accessibility and ADA requirements. We do have curb-cut bus bays on high-speed corridors throughout our system. These vary in length and sometimes in width depending on the available right of way. N/A Only in areas with speed limits over 40 mph. Avoid interfering with business/commercial traffic as much as we can. Adapt to meet concerns of business owners and the community at large. Not sure I understand the question. We rarely place any stop at a curb cut. We prefer having a 6” curb for ease of getting on or off a bus and bus ramp deployment. Our current fleet is all low-floor vehicles and a curb stop location is by far the preference. None No policy Can’t say it’s an official policy but, in general, we try to avoid blocking curb cuts when possible. However, if it’s a stop we really want/need, we’ll put the stop in anyway. We have no policy N/A New bus stops should be installed at locations that have sidewalks and curb cuts. We don’t have a policy for this No official policy. Try to avoid it but do it when needed. N/A We meet ADA guidelines when pouring a connecting sidewalk to a curb that leads to a crosswalk We don’t have a formal policy, but do have a practice of attempting to avoid placing stops at locations where they would block entrances/exits to businesses. We’re usually able to do this without too much trouble. We do have some locations where this is a legacy issue that we plan to work on with our upcoming bus stop evaluation project. Make every attempt not to block curb cut No Issue if you mean accessible to this. We don’t place exactly at the curb ramp, but build a level landing pad with access to it. The bus must be able to stop with both doors clear of any driveways or inlets. Low floor buses ideally have a 6”–8” landing surface for the wheelchair ramp, so our front door is never placed in a curb cut. If no other location is available, we may accept the rear door opening into a curb cut, depending on condition, traffic volume, etc. No policy. It is integrated in city road work design. No policy. We have stops at curb cuts but it is our intent to relocate such stops when practical, typically as part of a larger project. Bus stops must be installed with an 8’x8’ unobstructed passenger loading pad area or larger. Curb cuts should not be installed directly at bus stops. All bus stops should provide access to a sidewalk and a curb ramp/cut which leads to another curb ramp/cut and sidewalk. We will never block a curb cut with a bus stop.

130 The head of the bus stop cannot be within a “curb cut” (or “driveway”), however rear doors may open into a driveway, and a stopped bus may momentarily block driveway access. N/A The transit agency tries to locate bus stops as close to curb cuts as possible, but direct access to bus stop, parking driveways, lighting, and sight line my play a role in the location. The transit agency does not install bus stops at curb cuts (neither driveways nor pedestrian curb cuts) The transit agency generally attempts to avoid placing bus stops where there are curb cuts. If the stop can be placed in between driveways, the stop can be accommodated. At minimum the front door needs to be positioned at a sidewalk with a level surface, and the rear of the bus needs to be out of the crosswalk when making the stop. I don’t understand these questions Decision is entirely in the hands of municipalities. Please better define curb cut. Curb ramp for pedestrian crossing or a driveway? If we are discussing curb ramps for ADA access to street crossings we pursue them at any stop we plan improvements at that has a curb but no ramp. We may also provide curb ramps on the other side of the street if they are so there is at least one pathway connection. We avoid ramps to nowhere. It is also worth noting that since 1992, our major city and other regional partners have aggressively retrofitted old sidewalks with ramps. This isn’t much of an issue anymore. We try not to have curb cuts in commercial areas. In rare instances we have to live with a curb cut. We don’t like them and request the local jurisdiction to not install new driveways at existing bus stops. The decision to include a driveway ultimately depends on the local jurisdiction. If problematic and an alternative site is available, we would abandon the bus stop. 68. Please describe your agency’s policy regarding bus stop location at curb cuts in residential areas. Responses summarized in Table 43, Chapter 3 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Try to place near for accessibility. Must meet minimal ADA requirements We have no such policy at this time. N/A This is not one of our practices. Try and avoid blocking residential access and be sure not to stage or wait at residential stop locations. Not sure I understand the question. We rarely place any stop at a curb cut. We prefer having a 6” curb for ease of getting on or off a bus and bus ramp deployment. We do have stops in newer residential developments that incorporate pedestrian bulb-outs so we don’t take away on-street parking. These bulbouts have curb cuts but the stop utilizes the 6” curb area with an 8’ depth and 5’ wide landing pad. None No policy Same as above We have no policy N/A New bus stops should be installed at locations that have sidewalks and curb cuts. We don’t have a policy for this. No official policy Try to avoid it but do it when needed. N/A We meet ADA guidelines when pouring a connecting sidewalk to a curb that leads to a crosswalk

131 Same practice as #57 but with respect to driveways. We attempt to avoid placing stops at locations where they would block driveways. We’re usually able to do this without too much trouble. We do have some locations where this is a legacy issue that we plan to work on with our upcoming bus stop evaluation project. Generally will allow No Issue if you mean accessible to this. We don’t place exactly at the curb ramp, but build a level landing pad with access to it. The bus must be able to stop with both doors clear of any driveways or inlets. Low-floor buses ideally have a 6”–8” landing surface for the wheelchair ramp, so our front door is never placed in a curb cut. If no other location is available, we may accept the rear door opening into a curb cut, depending on condition, traffic volume, etc. No policy. It is integrated in city road work design. No policy See previous question. Bus stops must be installed 8’ x 8’ unobstructed passenger loading pad area or larger. Curb cuts should not be installed directly at bus stops. All bus stops should provide access to a sidewalk and a curb ramp/cut which leads to another curb ramp/cut and sidewalk. We will never block a curb cut with a bus stop. The head of the bus stop cannot be within a “curb cut” (or “driveway”), however rear doors may open into a driveway, and a stopped bus may momentarily block driveway access. N/A The transit agency tries to locate bus stops as close to curb cuts as possible, but direct access to bus stop, parking, driveways, lighting, and sight line my play a role in the location. Residential driveways do not have the same access concerns as commercial properties, but the similar considerations apply. The transit agency generally attempts to avoid placing bus stops where there are curb cuts. If the stop can be placed in between driveways, the stop can be accommodated. At minimum the front door needs to be positioned at a sidewalk with a level surface, and the rear of the bus needs to be out of the crosswalk when making the stop. See above See above We have residential curb cuts at many locations, but we will not add a new stop with residential curb cut. We find it helpful not to put the pole in the driveway 69. Who makes the decision to approve or deny a request for a curb cut at an existing stop? Municipality/county/state DOT 73.2% 30 Transit agency 9.8% 4 Other 17.1% 7 Other responses include: (1) We work with county, state regarding planning of these. (2) N/A (3) Both depending on the scenario. (4) Cut outs are put in by the developer. We ask they put them in at the design stage. (5) Both. What is a curb cut? Do you mean curb ramp or driveway cut? (6) Ultimately the municipality decides whether to approve or not approve a proposed bus stop location. However, the transit agency does not request bus stop locations at curb cuts. (7) This is the City’s role (Department of Buildings) but in reality, nobody does it. 70. Does your agency have a role in approving/denying a proposed curb cut at an existing stop? Yes, we have a veto at an existing bus stop 2.7% 1 Yes, we have a role but not final say 62.2% 23 No, the decision is made without our input 36.1% 13

132 ADA CONSIDERATIONS 71. How does your agency address ADA requirements at existing stops? (Check all that apply.) Improvements made based on available funds within jurisdiction 53.5% 23 Improvements made based on utilization and need 48.8% 21 Improvements made based on customer complaints 51.2% 22 Responsibility lies exclusively with local jurisdiction or adjoining property owner 25.6% 11 Other (please specify below) 18.6% 8 Other responses include: (1) Due to funding constraints, review of stop requests will establish priority of bus stops to be improved. (2) We established a bus stop accessibility improvement program several years ago, this criteria is strongly based on daily boarding data as well as demand requests from riders. (3) We’ve done a bunch with grant money. Tapped into local disabled community leadership for help in deciding and prioritizing projects. (4) Improvements made based on available funds with the transit system. (5) We only make ADA improvements at all that are improved by placing a shelter at the stop. All of our bus shelters meet ADA accessibility requirements. (6) When we upgrade a stop with a transit-agency-installed bench or shelter, the entire stop area must be made compliant (triggers ADA requirements for “improvement” that require us to take responsibility at that location). When we receive complaints or requests, we forward them to the local jurisdiction. (7) We are funded to improve and make the entire system 100% fully ADA compliant. (8) Occasionally we partner w/ the land owner. This decision depends on cost and use of the bus stop. 72. How does your agency address ADA requirements at new stops? (Check all that apply.) ADA requirements are only considered for the “immediate” area of the bus stop (i.e., excludes crosswalks or pathways to/from the bus stop but includes the shelter, bench, or adjoining sidewalk) 20.9% 9 ADA requirements are applied to the immediate bus stop with consid- eration given to the path of travel to/from the bus stop 62.8% 27 Other (please specify below) 16.3% 7 Other responses include: (1) It can be both items stated above. But the ADA “requirement” is for stops with shelters. (2) We install stops at locations that at least have sidewalks and curb cuts. Other requests for ADA improvements are sent to the city/county/state. (3) As we are not responsible for making ADA improvements in the ROW, we do not make new stops compliant (this complies with ADA regulations and Access Board clarifications). However, we make all attempts to locate new stops at ADA-compliant locations if the infrastructure is there. (4) We attempt to place stops in areas that conform to ADA requirements. We will not place a shelter in a manner that does not meet ADA. Sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and paths to the curb are the responsibility of the local municipality. (5) No ADA jurisdiction in Canada. (6) Improvements to the public right of way are the responsibility of the municipality or the property owner. The transit agency is responsible for meeting ADA requirements on our facilities (e.g., terminals). (7) New stops must be 100% ADA compliant. CASE STUDY 73. Would you be willing to participate further as a case study, involving a telephone interview going into further detail on your agency’s experience, if selected by the TCRP panel for this project? Yes 83.7% 36 No 16.3% 7 OTHER AGENCIES 74. Is there another transit system that you suggest we contact for this synthesis project? If you know of a contact at that system, please also list the name. Various responses.

NEED SPINE WIDTH TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR SHERRY LITTLE Spartan Solutions LLC MEMBERS MICHAEL ALLEGRA Utah Transit Authority GRACE CRUNICAN San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District IAN JARVIS South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority RONALD KILCOYNE Lane Transit District RALPH LARISON HERZOG JOHN LEWIS LYNX-Central Florida RTA KRIS LYON Lane Transit District JONATHAN H. McDONALD Atkins North America THERESE McMILLAN FTA E. SUSAN MEYER Spokane Transit Authority BRADFORD MILLER Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority GARY THOMAS Dallas Area Rapid Transit MATTHEW O. TUCKER North County Transit District DENISE TYLER Delaware Transit Corporation PHILLIP WASHINGTON Denver Regional Transit District PATRICIA WEAVER University of Kansas EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY APTA NEIL J. PEDERSEN TRB FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT AASHTO GREGORY G. NADEAU FHWA TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS SANDERS APTA SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TRB TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2015 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Vice Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS VICTORIA A. ARROYO, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC SCOTT E. BENNETT, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. STEWART FOTHERINGHAM, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, University of Arizona, Tempe JOHN S. HALIKOWSKI, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort SUSAN HANSON, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA STEVE HEMINGER, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA CHRIS T. HENDRICKSON, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA JEFFREY D. HOLT, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville GERALDINE KNATZ, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence JOAN McDONALD, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany ABBAS MOHADDES, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA DONALD A. OSTERBERG, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor, University of Texas, Austin HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing GARY C. THOMAS, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX PAUL TROMBINO III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames PHILLIP A. WASHINGTON, General Manager, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Denver, CO EX OFFICIO MEMBERS THOMAS P. BOSTICK (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC TIMOTHY P. BUTTERS, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT ALISON JANE CONWAY, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, NY, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council T. F. SCOTT DARLING III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT SARAH FEINBERG, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT DAVID J. FRIEDMAN, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT LeROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC JOHN T. GRAY II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT PAUL N. JAENICHEN, SR., Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT THERESE W. McMILLAN, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC GREGORY G. NADEAU, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Acting Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT MARK R. ROSEKIND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT CRAIG A. RUTLAND, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA GREGORY D. WINFREE, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT FREDERICK G. (BUD) WRIGHT, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC PAUL F. ZUKUNFT (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of February 2015.* Membership as of February 2015. Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Better On-Street Bus Stops TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMTCRP SYNTHESIS 117 TCR P SYN TH ESIS 117 Better On-Street Bus Stops NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 648 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Transit Practice Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration