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.

8 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes findings from a literature review related to bus stops. A TRID search was conducted using various keywords to aid the literature review. Reports are grouped into two categories: the big picture and bus stop location and design. THE BIG PICTURE Texas Transportation Institute (1) developed guidelines for locating and designing bus stops in various operating envi- ronments. The guidelines include three sections: the “big picture,” streetside design, and curbside design: • The big picture section of the guidelines (chapter two) addresses the need for cooperation and coordination among stakeholders during bus stop design and loca- tion. Such efforts result in mutually satisfying out- comes for diverse interests and can preclude many problems that often arise. • The streetside section (chapter three) discusses mat- ters such as curb radii, when to consider installing the various bus stop configurations (curbside, tran- sit curb extension, bus bay, open bus bay, and queue jumper bus bay), and different bus stop locations (nearside, farside, and midblock). This section of the guidelines addresses possible effects of bus stop location and design on bus operations and traffic flow. Figure 5 shows an example of streetside stop design, with a stop length of 90 ft for farside stops, 100 ft for nearside stops, and 150 ft for midblock stops. A streetside placement checklist is included at the end of the chapter. • The curbside section addresses community integra- tion; pedestrian access to bus stops; placement of bus stops in the right-of-way; environmental treatments; bus shelter designs; shelter construction materials; and amenities, such as lighting, benches, vending machines, trash receptacles, telephones, bus route and schedule information, and bicycle storage facilities. Figure 6 shows an example of curbside stop design with various amenities. A curbside placement checklist is included at the end of the chapter. FIGURE 5 Typical dimensions for on-street bus stops. Source: Texas Transportation Institute, TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (1, p. 25). FIGURE 6 Curbside stop design. Source: Texas Transportation Institute, TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (1, p. 81). The study (published as TCRP Report 19) remains the most comprehensive study to date, providing very thorough guidance on the design of all bus stop types. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), in conjunction with the Congress for the New Urbanism, pre-

9 pared a report on the design of walkable urban thorough- fares (2) that includes the following minimum dimensions for bus stops: • Farside: 80 ft plus 5 ft from crosswalk or curb return • Farside after turn: 90 ft plus 5 ft from crosswalk or curb return • Nearside: 100 ft • Midblock: 120 ft. The Canadian Urban Transit Association (3) prepared a handbook addressing bus stops in the context of transit- land use relationships as well as from a transit operations perspective. Recommended bus stop lengths are as follows: • Farside: 25 m (82 ft) • Nearside: 30 m (98 ft) • Midblock: 35 m (115 ft). The U.S. Department of Justice (4) published standards that address ADA accessibility at bus stops. The standards specify minimum areas, slopes, and clearances for bus stop pads (i.e., where passengers in wheelchairs board and alight), shelters, and accessible paths as well as signage standards. Levinson et al. (5) conducted a review of ongoing and completed research reflecting the experience of more than 200 bus priority treatments in the United States and else- where. The appendices address bus stop issues. Levinson et al. (6) prepared guidelines for efficient bus use of urban highway facilities based on a review of bus pri- ority treatments in the United States and abroad. This report, which complements an intensive report on the state of the art of bus use of highways, presents the principal findings of 10 study tasks and contains significant bus design param- eters, concepts and criteria, planning and design guidelines for principal bus priority measures, and measures of effec- tiveness associated with bus highway facilities. Bus stops are important in ensuring that bus priority measures work to their maximum capability. In the past two editions of the Transportation Planning Handbook (7, 2nd and 3rd editions), ITE included chapters on public transportation. Chapters 14 (Transportation Ter- minals) and 16 (Transit Planning) of the 3rd edition address bus stops from a transportation engineering perspective. Chapter 13 of the 2nd edition, authored by Thomas F. Lar- win, provides a thorough overview of urban transit. Several TCRP reports have examined bus stops from a variety of perspectives. Fitzpatrick et al. noted two main objectives in their study (8): (1) to recommend selected engineering treatments to improve safety for pedestrians crossing high-volume, high-speed roadways at unsignalized intersections, in particular those served by public transpor- tation; and (2) to recommend modifications to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices pedestrian traffic signal warrants. The report noted that the presence of a bus stop is not considered in pedestrian signal warrants, yet the pedes- trian environment is a strong factor in transit mode choice. Several agencies address pedestrian issues through bus stop design and location. Along routes with widely spaced sig- nals, transit agencies have no option other than placing stops at unsignalized locations. Worksheet 2 in Appendix A of this report is intended to guide the selection of pedestrian treat- ments where a major transit stop exists. In an earlier report, Fitzpatrick et al. (9) examined transit curb extensions, which were used in only a limited num- ber of cities at the time of this report. A major advantage of extensions is the creation of additional space at bus stops; this space allows for bus patron amenities such as shelters and benches where the inclusion of such amenities would otherwise be limited. Other advantages of transit curb exten- sions are reduced crossing distance for pedestrians (which improves safety, especially for pedestrians who are older or have physical disabilities) and reduced bus stop space requirements because no additional room is necessary to maneuver into or out of the bus stop. The study analyzed available space for pedestrians, average pedestrian flow, and impacts on vehicle and bus speeds at the block and corridor level. It found that replacement of a bus stop with a tran- sit curb extension resulted in an increase in bus and vehicle speeds, even though it takes a parking or travel lane away. The third edition of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (10) explored bus stop issues throughout the document. Chapter 3 of the Manual discusses stop char- acteristics, including stop spacing, dwell time at stops, and number of bus berths in terms of their effects on capacity, speed, and reliability. Chapter 4 considers stop amenities and the pedestrian environment as important contributors to perceptions of service quality. Chapter 6 analyzes bus transit capacity, with bus stop characteristics as a major determi- nant. Chapter 10 examines stop and station capacity. Tyler (11) served as editor of a book examining the pro- cess of designing an accessible bus system from underlying principles through to practical implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Bus stop design, interaction with traffic, and urban and rural systems are all examined in some detail. Chapter 4 examines operational impacts of bus stops and Chapter 5 summarizes bus stop infrastructure. Easter Seals Project ACTION (12) released a toolkit addressing bus stop accessibility and safety. Intended for use by agencies responsible for bus stop design and place- ment, the toolkit was designed to enhance accessibility of specific stops or to serve as a resource in the preparation of a plan to achieve systemwide accessibility. After presenting

10 principles of bus stop design, the report focused on elements that make bus stops accessible and safe. Weiner and Singa (13) presented an overview of the Proj- ect ACTION toolkit and its contents. This paper described how bus stops are a key link in the journey of a bus rider. For people with disabilities, inaccessible bus stops represent the weak link in the system and can effectively prevent the use of fixed-route bus service. Physical, cognitive, and psy- chological barriers associated with bus stops can severely hamper bus ridership by the disability community, thus limiting their mobility and potentially leading to increased paratransit costs. APTA prepared a Recommended Practice report about the design of and access to on-street transit stops (14). This report provides guidelines in the areas of street connectiv- ity, street design, surrounding land uses, and location and design of stops, and presents good and bad examples in each subject area. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (15) developed the Urban Street Design Guide. A blueprint for designing 21st-century streets, the guide unveiled the toolbox and the tactics cities use to make streets safer, more livable, and more economically vibrant. The guide outlined both a clear vision for complete, sustainable streets and a basic road map for how to bring them to fruition. With regard to transit, the guide noted that bus stop planning and design involves thinking about existing and new stops from both the macro framework of system design and the micro level of conditions around the transit stop. Specific guidance for bus stops includes the following: • Bus stops must have safe access by means of sidewalks and appropriate street crossing locations. Where pos- sible, pedestrian crossings will be accommodated behind the departing transit vehicle (e.g., farside stops). • At major bus stops, cities may enhance the experience of passengers and passersby through the addition of shel- ters, benches, area maps, plantings, vendors, or artworks. • Transit curb extensions will be applied where offset bus lanes are provided, where merging into traffic is difficult, or where passengers need a dedicated wait- ing area. Where applied, transit curb extensions are to be 40 ft long and at least 6 ft wide with no step to the sidewalk (based on a 40-ft bus). If there is a step to the sidewalk, it is important that the transit curb extension be at least 10 ft in width or be designed to accommo- date the length of the wheelchair ramp used on most standard 40-ft buses. • It is important that information provided to riders at a bus or transit stop include an agency logo or visual marker, station name, route map, and schedule. Bus stops would include a system or route map, or both, and a schedule on the bus shelter or other street furniture. Among a growing number of studies and reports about complete streets and sustainable urban design, the guide is a current example of incorporating transit needs into the bus stop design process. BUS STOP LOCATION AND DESIGN Streetcars usually had nearside stops. When streetcar lines were converted to buses, the nearside stop locations remained (at least initially). In a 1972 report, Kraft and Boardman (16) recommended farside bus stops as preferable to a nearside location in terms of travel time savings only when a high volume of right-turning vehicles and cross-street pedestri- ans are present. Two experiments were conducted in Louis- ville, Kentucky, to evaluate the effects of moving a bus stop from a nearside to a farside location. Traffic flow and volume measurements taken before and after the stop’s relocation are presented. Several studies have focused on choosing the optimum bus stop location for given situations; however, few have investi- gated the effects of bus stop design. Fitzpatrick and Nowlin (17) analyzed two separate aspects of bus stop design: curb- side versus bus bay/open bus bay, and queue jumper versus no queue jumper. The analysis consisted of investigating the relationships between variables such as travel time, speed, and traffic volume for given bus stop designs and locations. The bus stop locations investigated in the curbside bus bay/ open bus bay study included midblock and farside. Levinson et al. (18) presented planning and implementation guidelines for bus rapid transit (BRT). The guidelines were based on a literature review and an analysis of 26 case study cities in the United States and abroad. The guidelines covered the main components of BRT—running ways, stations, traf- fic controls, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, bus operations, fare collection, marketing, and implementation. The report noted that farside stops are generally desirable for BRT service and are essential when traffic signal priorities for buses are present. Several chapters address traffic engineering issues for BRT and BRT stations and terminals. In another BRT-related study, Mejia (19) developed a new methodology for the design, planning, and assessment of BRT stations based on the review of station design cri- teria given in literature, using a comparative approach. A proposal for globally applicable levels of service for station design assessment was derived and tested in the context of selected stations from Istanbul’s Metrobus BRT system. The results derived from this work are suitable for both the plan- ning process and the ongoing review and improvement of existing BRT systems. After a critical examination (using a computer-based traffic simulation model) of public transport priority layouts

11 crowdsourcing, drawing from an FTA pilot project focused on the application of crowdsourcing to bus stop design at the neighborhood scale. Next Stop Design was the name coined for this project. The bus stop designs submitted to the Next Stop Design site were imaginative and incorporate many modern technological amenities, although they are not nec- essarily practical. Fernandez and Tyler (25) discussed the importance of bus stops on bus operations and vice versa, and why bus stops should be included as the central element of bus priority schemes. As a result, the importance of designing bus stops was raised as the most important factor for improving the bus system. A bus spends a large proportion of its time in opera- tion at bus stops, which are the cause of many unnecessary delays because of, for example, interference between buses, difficulties for buses to regain the traffic stream on leaving the stop, and poor coordination of buses at the stops. The importance of bus stop design is then illustrated with exam- ples from simulation models and on-street practice. Results are given that show the types of bus system improvements that can be made with a clear understanding of bus stop operations; for example, which demand pattern will require another berth, when the platform should be extended and by how much, how long the gap should be between berths of a multiple bus stop, and how the bus stop should operate to obtain a given performance. Taking a slightly different perspective, Lusk (26) exam- ined bus stop and bus designs that could lessen the percep- tion of crime based on the aesthetic or architectural features of the bus stop and bus. The study stated: “One of the many reasons people have been unwilling to forgo their cars is they perceive the bus to be unsafe related to crime.” The results demonstrate that the participants preferred a bus stop with a shelter that looks like a house, has a pitched roof, and has at least one side fully opened. Other findings addressed the bus design, where clear glass was highly preferred. Sunderland et al. (27) reported on “adopt-a-stop” programs. These programs can alleviate the difficulty that overextended transit agencies face in keeping transit stops clean and safe. A secondary benefit is the development of partnerships between the transit agency and local community groups. SUMMARY The literature review summarizes major studies as well as reports looking at specific aspects of bus stop location and design in specific places. Many transit agencies have prepared bus stop design guidelines. These have not been included in the literature review because (1) there are so many of them and (2) the availability of the guidelines varies by agency. The survey results in chapter three and the case examples in chap- ter five incorporate bus stop design guidelines. in the Milan road network, Decio (20) formulated practi- cal micro-design criteria (lane capacity, bus trajectories on curves, bus stop location, terminus design) and made some suggestions about daily highway and traffic operations. Lin and Demetsky (21) identified those elements associ- ated with the location and design of bus stops that affect the efficiency of transit and traffic operations, and developed guidelines to assist transportation engineers and planners in technical and policy decisions concerning bus stops in urban areas. Two nationwide questionnaire surveys, one for city transportation officials and the other for bus transit opera- tors, were conducted to establish a systematic definition of the operational dimensions of a bus stop that could be shown to influence the performance of the traffic and bus trans- portation systems. Criteria for evaluating bus stop perfor- mance were then derived and applied in practical situations in Arlington County, Virginia. The evaluation found that guidelines, not numerical warrants, should be used to deter- mine bus stop location and design. In locating stops, each should be treated individually. Also, right-turn-on-red and on-street parking conflict with bus stop operations. Bygrave (22) developed a tool for assessing bus stop design and accessibility that was originally used for urban bus stops in Bromley, London. After a literature review, an audit framework based on the transport users’ viewpoint was developed. It gave scores for information (getting to transport), infrastructure (getting to transport), board- ing (ease of use), information (ease of use), environmental (waiting in safety), security measures (waiting in safety), lighting (waiting in safety), quality of environment (waiting in comfort), maintenance and cleanliness (waiting in com- fort), and waiting area (waiting in comfort). A questionnaire found that people are most concerned with personal security, availability of information, and finding the bus stop. Rec- ommendations were used to make a successful bid to fund improvements in Bromley. The development of pedestrian environment review software is described. Silveira (23) focused on the development and deployment of user information and wayfinding at bus stops. Matrices summarize the provision of information from site visits at 29 agencies in North America and highlight innovative ele- ments. Recommendations are presented for the conceptual- ization and development of bus stop signage that integrate many of these innovative elements as well as ADA regula- tions to improve user information at transit agencies. The appendix pulls together evaluations of all case studies with photographs to illustrate relevant elements. Brabham et al. (24) recognized that the collective intel- ligence of communities is largely untapped by traditional public participation (P2) methods, which may result in less- than-ideal transit plans that neglect the needs of diverse constituencies. This paper discussed a P2 model using

12 and case examples. Further research needs have been devel- oped based in part on unclear or conflicting information. The next two chapters present the results of a transit agency survey about better on-street bus stops. Survey results provide a snapshot of the state of the practice as it exists today. The literature review has been consulted in the develop- ment of the survey instrument used to gather input from transit agencies. Results are generally in accord with liter- ature findings but go beyond the literature in the survey’s focus on the transit operator’s perspective. The conclusions chapter reflects the literature review as well as the survey