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.

13 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS: BUS STOP CHARACTERISTICS agency or cited in a TCRP report. Only 38% of agencies make their guidelines available on their website. Most others indicated a point of contact within the agency, and two respondents stated that the guidelines are an internal reference document. TABLE 2 STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES FOR BUS STOP DESIGN Standards or Guidelines for Bus Stop Design No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Agency-developed 37 77 Refer to those developed at other agencies or in TCRP reports 7 15 None 4 8 Total agencies responding 48 100 Sources: Survey results. Bus stop design guidelines address some or all of the following: • Stop placement (nearside/farside/midblock, installa- tion and safety issues) • Stop elements (types of stops, length, accessibility, ADA compliance, agency signage, regulatory signage, passenger information, ADA landing pads) • Stop amenities (shelters, benches, trash receptacles, lighting, bicycle racks, newspaper boxes, landscaping) • Stop layout and design • Stop spacing (can also be addressed in service guidelines) • Roadway design and treatments (lane width, grade, pavement, in-street concrete bus pads, curb height, turning radii, clearance requirements, bicycle lanes) • Stop access (streetside, sidewalk, and pedestrian issues) • Transit-friendly design. Examples from stop design guidelines are shown in Fig- ures 7 through 10. Figure 7 shows a schematic of what hap- pens at a bus stop. Figure 8 presents various configurations of a bus stop with a grass strip between the sidewalk and the street. Figure 9 shows turning radii for transit vehicles. Fig- ure 10 shows elements of a successful transit center at a sub- urban mall. These examples are typical of what is included in bus stop design guidelines. INTRODUCTION This is the first of two chapters that present the results of a survey of transit agencies concerning better on- street bus stops. The survey solicited information on actions implemented and their effects, challenges, les- sons learned, and guidance. The survey asked about the following items: • Design standards or guidelines for bus stops • Responsibilities and coordination • Bus stop design and location • Stop length • Stop types • Pedestrian access to bus stops • Passenger information • Amenities • Bus pads • Curb cuts • ADA considerations • Challenges • Assessment: lessons learned (addressed in chapter four). Forty-eight completed surveys were received from the 60 agencies in the sample, a response rate of 80%. The 48 agen- cies range in size from 12 to more than 3,000 buses operating during peak periods in service areas ranging from 73,000 to more than 8 million in population. Appendix A lists the responding agencies. This chapter presents survey results about design stan- dards for bus stops, responsibilities and coordination, stop design and location, stop length, types of stops, pedestrian access, passenger information, amenities, bus pads, curb cuts, ADA considerations, and challenges. Chapter four discusses survey results related to the responding agencies’ assessment of actions taken. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR BUS STOPS Table 2 shows that standards or guidelines for the design of bus stops are common among transit agencies. More than 75% of agencies have developed their own guide- lines, and others use guidelines from another transit

14 FIGURE 7 Common movements and activities of bus passengers at a bus stop. Source: Greater Vancouver Transit Authority, Universally Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidelines (28). FIGURE 8 Basic and expanded bus stop designs. Source: TriMet, Bus Stop Guidelines (29).

15 FIGURE 9 Ideal curb radii designs for transit vehicles. Source: Central Ohio Transit Authority, Bus Stop Design Guide (30). FIGURE 10 Elements of a successful transit center at a suburban mall. Source: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, SEPTA Bus Stop Design Guidelines (31).

16 RESPONSIBILITIES AND COORDINATION Responsibility for deciding on the location of bus stops is often shared between the transit agency and the local municipality, as shown in Table 3. Almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that the local municipality has sole responsibility. TABLE 3 RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING THE LOCATION OF A BUS STOP Responsible Agency No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Joint decision 17 39 Transit agency 17 39 Local municipality 9 20 Local municipality must approve, transit agency can reject 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Sources: Survey results. Table 4 presents responsibility for bus stop installa- tion. More than 70% of respondents stated that the transit agency is responsible for installing stops. “Other” responses included: usually the transit agency but not always; transit agency installs bus stop signs and local municipality installs parking regulation signs; responsibility varies by munici- pality; both are responsible (e.g., agency installs signage and municipality installs shelter; municipality installs signs); and is paid by the transit agency. TABLE 4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUS STOP INSTALLATION Responsible Agency No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit agency 31 72 Local municipality 4 9 Other 8 19 Total agencies responding 43 100 Sources: Survey results. Table 5 shows that responsibility for bus stop main- tenance can be divided in many different ways. Twenty percent of respondents indicated that responsibility is split between the transit agency and local municipality, but the division of specific tasks is different in almost every case. Respondents indicated that bus stop relocation decisions are made either by the transit agency or jointly between the transit agency and the municipality. Only two respondents in Table 6 reported that the transit agency has no say in stop relocation decisions. TABLE 5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUS STOP MAINTENANCE Responsible Agency No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit agency 18 41 Transit agency and local municipality 9 20 Private contractor 6 14 Local municipality 3 7 Agency, municipality, and private contractor 3 7 Agency, municipality, and property owner 2 5 Agency and private contractor 2 5 Other third party 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 6 RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUS STOP RELOCATION Responsible Agency No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Joint decision 21 48 Transit agency 21 48 Local municipality 2 5 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. The survey asked about the relationship between the tran- sit agency and the primary or largest city in which it oper- ates, with multiple-choice answers permitted. Table 7 shows the results. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported a good or very good relationship. TABLE 7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSIT AGENCY AND PRIMARY MUNICIPALITY Relationship No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Very good: meet on a regular basis to discuss issues 9 20 Good: quick response to requests/ open dialogue 16 36 Fair: limited by administrative and funding issues we both deal with 12 27 Could be better: generally unrespon- sive/requires prodding 3 7 Poor: antagonistic/little communication 0 0 No primary city 2 5 Varies by issue 1 2 Agency is part of the city 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.

17 The actions listed in Table 9 have generally been success- ful in helping agencies locate bus stops at their preferred location, as shown in Table 10. TABLE 10 RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE COORDINATION RELATED TO BUS STOPS Result No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Very successful 13 30 Moderately successful 25 57 Moderately unsuccessful 2 5 Varies with action 1 2 Not applicable 3 7 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. The survey asked about financial and institutional barri- ers to improving bus stops. Table 11 presents the responses about financial barriers. Insufficient capital funding to build or improve bus stops is the major financial barrier. TABLE 11 BIGGEST FINANCIAL BARRIER RELATED TO BUS STOPS Financial Barrier No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Lack of capital funds to build or improve stops 21 50 Lack of funds to maintain stops/low priority for municipality 10 24 Lack of local matching funds to build or improve stops 1 2 All of the above 1 2 General lack of funds or funds reduced over time 6 14 No barriers 2 7 Shelter maintenance a low priority for municipalities 1 2 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. The most frequently mentioned institutional barrier is deal- ing with multiple municipalities, as shown in Table 12. This was an open-ended question. Internal agency issues also ranked high in terms of institutional barriers. Transit agencies also do not control streets or parking policies. “Other” responses included: required public hearings for stop changes; lack of right-of-way; and unauthorized use of stops by other operators. BUS STOP DESIGN AND LOCATION The survey included a series of questions addressing bus stop location and design. Table 13 shows respondents’ Relationships between the transit agency and other municipalities within its service area are shown in Table 8. Only 41% of respondents reported a good or very good rela- tionship with other municipalities. TABLE 8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSIT AGENCY AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN SERVICE AREA Relationship No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Very good: meet on a regular basis to discuss issues 3 7 Good: quick response to requests/ open dialogue 15 34 Fair: limited by administrative and fund- ing issues we both deal with 5 11 Could be better: generally unresponsive/ requires prodding 4 9 Poor: antagonistic/little communication 0 0 Varies by municipality 12 27 Only one city 2 5 No primary city 2 5 Only demand response service in secondary city 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Respondents were then asked if steps had been taken to improve interagency coordination related to bus stops. As Table 9 indicates, the most common responses were out- reach to individual agencies as needed and review of site plans for new developments. Many agencies reported a com- bination of actions. TABLE 9 ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE COORDINATION RELATED TO BUS STOPS Action No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Outreach to individual agencies as needed 15 34 Combination of actions 12 27 Provide comments during review of site plans for new developments 9 20 Attend standing coordination meetings 3 7 Work through the Metropolitan Planning Organization 1 2 Provide comments during review of environmental documents 1 2 Talk daily; meet in field weekly 1 2 Persuade city to exempt agency from building permit fee for shelter 1 2 None of the above 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.

18 TABLE 14 REASONING BEHIND PREFERRED LOCATION FOR BUS STOPS Preferred Location and Reason No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Farside: better for pedestrian safety 16 37 Farside: less delay from traffic sig- nals/ better for traffic signal priority 15 35 Farside: fewer conflicts with turning movements 10 23 Depends on specific location 10 23 Nearside: closer to intersection/opera- tor can see pedestrians 4 9 Nearside: legacy/cultural 4 9 Farside: easier bus access/egress/ requires less space 4 9 Farside: sight distance/visibility 4 9 Nearside: usually a sidewalk/more passenger friendly 3 7 Nearside: avoid pedestrians crossing midblock in front of bus 2 5 Farside at signals, nearside at stop signs 2 5 Farside: no need to stop twice 2 5 Nearside: no need to stop twice 1 2 Farside on wide streets, nearside on narrow streets 1 2 Farside: dwell time savings, bus can depart right away 1 2 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. More than 70% of respondents indicated that their agen- cies always consider safe street crossings in stop location decisions, and almost 90% always consider safe street cross- ings in urban areas. The most common additional factors affecting an agen- cy’s decisions on stop locations are stop spacing and adja- cent land uses or trip generators. Many other responses to this open-ended question are reported in Table 15. “Other” responses included: public comment; parking; ridership; equity; opportunity for dwell time/layover; stops in both directions; and proximity to park-and-ride lot. STOP LENGTH Table 16 reports on the length of a standard or typical bus stop. Sixty ft was cited most often in this multiple-choice question (with the choices of 40, 60, 80, or 100 ft), but many agencies indicated other specific lengths. Table 16 suggests that bus stop lengths at most agencies are shorter than the guidelines cited in the literature review in chapter two—90 ft farside, 100 ft nearside, and 150 ft midblock. Several agencies stop location preferences. Farside (beyond the intersec- tion) is mentioned four times as often as nearside (before the intersection), but the actual decision making is more nuanced than a multiple-choice question allows. Sub- sequent responses indicated that many agencies that responded “depends on specific location” do have a gen- eral preference for either farside or nearside, and agen- cies reporting a specific preference do make exceptions at specific locations. TABLE 12 BIGGEST INSTITUTIONAL BARRIER RELATED TO BUS STOPS Institutional Barrier No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Multiple municipalities/lack of cooperation and support 9 23 Funding 6 15 Internal agency issues (low priority/ coordination/procedures) 6 15 No transit agency control over street and parking 4 10 Defining responsibilities 3 8 None 3 8 Conflicting interests/lack of interest 2 5 Staff time 2 5 Meeting federal requirements 2 5 Other 3 8 Total agencies responding 40 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 13 PREFERRED LOCATION FOR BUS STOPS Preferred Location No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Farside 21 48 Depends on specific location 15 34 Nearside 5 11 Changing from nearside to farside 1 2 Differs by urban/suburban/rural 1 2 Anyplace but midblock 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. The farside/nearside debate has a long history in the tran- sit industry, so it is not surprising that one of the highest response rates (and the longest responses) was to an open- ended question asking agencies to explain the reasoning behind their preferred stop location. Table 14 summarizes responses. The stated reasons match closely with benefits and disadvantages cited in the transit literature.

19 agreed with the guidelines in specifying longer lengths for nearside stops than for farside. It is also important to note that respondents did not define how bus stop length is measured. TABLE 15 ADDITIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING BUS STOP LOCATION Factor No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Stop spacing 14 40 Adjacent land uses/trip generators 12 34 Private property owners 9 26 General accessibility/passenger convenience 7 20 ADA accessibility 6 17 Utility lines/poles/trees 6 17 Personal safety/lighting 6 17 Sightlines 5 14 Turn lanes/turning movements 5 14 Sensitive land uses (senior living centers/medical/schools/social service agencies) 5 14 Transfer opportunities 4 11 Right-of-way availability 4 11 Sidewalks/crosswalks 4 11 Operational safety 4 11 Traffic volume/speed 4 11 Hilly terrain 3 9 Traffic signal priority 3 9 Municipality concurrence 2 6 Political issues 2 6 Driveways/loading zones 2 6 Other 7 20 Total agencies responding 35 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Respondents were divided about whether the required length of bus stops has increased, as shown in Table 17. The primary reason is the increased use of longer buses and articu- lated buses. Other reasons include: multiple agencies at a given stop; greater safety entering and leaving the traffic stream; and greater likelihood of multiple buses at a stop at the same time. There is no consensus among respondents concerning different stop lengths for nearside and farside stops (Table 18). As noted earlier, agencies with different lengths for far- side and nearside stops require longer nearside stops. Most agencies, particularly smaller agencies, do not have different stop length standards for different bus types (Table 19). Some agencies reported that bus stops are designed to accommodate the longest bus in the fleet, so different stan- dards are not needed. Others add 20, 30, or 50 ft to the stop length if the stop is served by articulated buses. TABLE 16 LENGTH OF STANDARD OR TYPICAL BUS STOP Length No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding 40 ft 2 5 60 ft 12 27 80 ft 10 23 100 ft 5 11 25 ft (long enough to have concrete under both doors) 1 2 25 ft for a landing area/60+ ft for BRT station 1 2 40 ft in urban settings, 60 ft in suburban settings 1 2 60 ft farside/80 ft nearside/ 100 ft midblock 1 2 80 ft minimum for new stops 1 2 80 to 100 ft, at a minimum 1 2 80 ft farside/100 ft nearside 1 2 80 ft farside/120 ft nearside 1 2 85 ft 1 2 85 ft minimum/100 ft preferred/add 20 ft for stops served by articulated buses 1 2 90 ft 1 2 90 ft for standard bus/120 ft for articu- lated bus 1 2 100 ft at major stops 1 2 110 ft/145 ft midblock 1 2 No standard; depends on length of bus serving stop and frequency 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 17 LONGER BUS STOPS IN RECENT YEARS? Longer Stops No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes, longer and/or articulated buses 15 37 Yes, for other reasons 5 12 No 21 51 Total agencies responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 18 DIFFERENCES IN DESIRED STOP LENGTHS FOR FARSIDE AND NEARSIDE STOPS? Difference No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 19 45 No 23 55 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results.

20 TABLE 19 DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR STOP LENGTHS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSES? Different Standard No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 16 38 No 26 62 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results. Most agencies in the survey do not base stop length stan- dards on the volume of buses serving the stop, as shown in Table 20. Agency comments included the following: • Add 50 ft for each additional 40-ft bus expected to use the stop at the same time and 70 ft for each additional articulated bus. • Stops serving more than one route will be longer. • [Stop length] depends on the available space or foot- print; if space allows, we extend platforms to accom- modate two or three buses. • At stops with multiple routes, bus volumes contribute to nearside/farside location and bus zone length. TABLE 20 STOP LENGTH STANDARDS BASED ON NUMBER OF ROUTES SERVING THE STOP? Different Standard No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 9 21 No 33 79 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results. An open-ended question asked what agencies do if they cannot obtain sufficient length at a particular bus stop. Table 21 shows that the most common responses were to look for a nearby alternative or to make do with a shorter stop. “Other” responses included: reach agree- ment with drivers union; reconsider size of the bus; and change routing. Table 22 indicates use of multiple berths at a single stop based on volume of buses or number of routes serving the stop. The majority of respondents do use multiple berths somewhere in their system. Places where multiple berths are used include the following: • Transit centers, major transfer points, rail stations, and park-and-ride lots • Major downtown corridor • At the end of the line, especially if there is a layover • Downtown and elsewhere, with separate berths for dif- ferent service types. TABLE 21 AGENCY RESPONSE IF SUFFICIENT LENGTH CANNOT BE OBTAINED Action No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Look for nearby alternative 18 49 Make do with a shorter stop 14 38 Work with municipality to solve 6 16 Eliminate/do not install stop 5 14 Stop in roadway/block traffic/block driveway if demand at stop is great 4 11 Case-by-case evaluation 3 8 Install if stop is critical and safety is not compromised 2 5 Install transit curb extension 2 5 Other 3 8 Total agencies responding 37 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 22 USE OF MULTIPLE BERTHS AT A SINGLE STOP? Multiple Berths No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 28 67 No 14 33 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results. Figure 11 shows an example of bus berths at a single stop. Figure 12 is a schematic showing how one stop can accom- modate multiple buses. FIGURE 11 Multiple berths at a single bus stop. STOP TYPES The survey asked agencies about the use of special types of stops. Table 23 presents the responses. The lone agency

21 Agencies were also asked to rate each type of stop accord- ing to various criteria. Table 24 shows ratings for passenger safety. Most agencies rated passenger safety as good or very good for bus bays and transit curb extensions, but not for median stops. TABLE 24 PASSENGER SAFETY RATINGS BY STOP TYPES Stop Type % Agencies Responding Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Bus bay/cut outs 48 33 15 3 — Transit curb extensions 45 50 5 — — Stops in the median of a street — 20 60 13 7 Stops on left side of the bus — — 100 — — Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Table 25 indicates respondent ratings for passenger acces- sibility. As with passenger safety, most agencies rated pas- senger accessibility as good or very good for bus bays and transit curb extensions. Table 26 presents respondent ratings for bus operator safety. Most agencies rated operator safety as good or very good for all stop types. Table 27 shows respondent ratings for the ability to reen- ter the traffic flow from the bus stop. A majority of agencies rated the ability to reenter the traffic flow as good or very good for all stop types except bus bays/cut outs. with stops on the left side of the bus has them only at down- town BRT stations. An example of a left-side stop is shown in Figure 13. TABLE 23 USE OF VARIOUS STOP TYPES Stop Type No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Bus bay/cut out 33 75 Transit curb extensions 23 52 Stops in the median of a street 15 34 Stops on left side of the bus 1 2 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. FIGURE 13 BRT bus station on left side of street in downtown Cleveland. FIGURE 12 Schematic of multiple bus berths. Source: Central Ohio Transit Authority, Bus Stop Design Guide (30).

22 TABLE 25 PASSENGER ACCESSIBILITY RATINGS BY STOP TYPES Stop Type % Agencies Responding Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Bus bay/cut outs 45 36 15 3 — Transit curb extensions 64 36 — — — Stops in the median of a street 7 20 53 13 7 Stops on left side of the bus — 100 — — — Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 26 BUS OPERATOR SAFETY RATINGS BY STOP TYPES Stop Type % Agencies Responding Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Bus bay/cut outs 33 39 24 3 — Transit curb extensions 45 32 18 5 — Stops in the median of a street 27 33 33 — 7 Stops on left side of the bus — 100 — — — Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 27 ABILITY TO REENTER TRAFFIC FLOW RATINGS BY STOP TYPES Stop Type % Agencies Responding Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Bus bay/cut outs 3 15 45 24 12 Transit curb extensions 86 9 5 — — Stops in the median of a street 27 40 27 — 7 Stops on left side of the bus — 100 — — — Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Bus bays/cut outs and transit curb extensions are differ- ent in degree from standard bus stops in terms of location; that is, the stops are still on the sidewalk even though the sidewalk looks different. Median bus stops are by definition in the middle of the street on a traffic island. The survey asked about ADA considerations at median stops. Table 28 summarizes responses to this open-ended question. A few agencies indicated that their median stops are legacy stops and are no longer being established. The survey also asked about benefits and challenges asso- ciated with median stops. Safety issues, in terms of requiring a crossing to get to the stop and greater exposure to traffic, and capacity constraints are major challenges. Benefits noted by respondents include dedicated waiting area; potentially better environment for passengers (depending on design); and synergies with dedicated lanes or curbside bicycle lanes. TABLE 28 ADA CONSIDERATIONS AT MEDIAN STOPS Response No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No different from regular stops 6 46 More challenging 5 38 Need extra attention in design 2 15 Total agencies responding 13 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BUS STOPS Separate open-ended questions on key factors constraining pedestrian access to bus stops were posed for urban, subur- ban, and rural environments, since the issues vary by area type. Table 29 summarizes constraining factors in urban environments. Street furniture, narrow sidewalks, and safe places to cross the street top the urban list. TABLE 29 KEY CONSTRAINING FACTORS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BUS STOPS IN URBAN LOCATIONS Factor No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Presence of street furniture 12 32 Safe places to cross the street 11 29 Narrow sidewalks 11 29 Lack of sidewalks/paving to curb 9 24 ADA compliance issues, often related to limited space 9 24 Parking (including valet parking stands) 7 18 Adjacent land uses/landowners 6 16 Trees/landscaping 6 16 Condition of sidewalks 5 13 Lighting 2 5 Snow 2 5 Total agencies responding 38 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 30 reports on constraining factors in suburban environments. Lack of sidewalks and safe places to cross the street assume greater importance in the suburbs. “Other” responses included: driveways; inaccessible stops in winter; complaints from homeowners; and topography/hills.

23 sign with the route number(s) and a telephone number for information are the most common information elements at bus stops. TABLE 32 PRESENCE AND EFFECT OF BOLLARDS OR OTHER PEDESTRIAN BARRIERS AT BUS STOPS Presence/Effect of Bollards or Other Barriers No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Not present 28 64 Present, effects minimized 10 23 Present only at median stops 3 7 Present, access is more difficult 3 7 Total agencies responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 33 PASSENGER INFORMATION AT BUS STOPS Information Element % Agencies Responding Every Stop (or almost) Many Stops Major Stops No Stops Bus stop sign 91 7 2 — Route number 77 11 7 5 Phone number for information 75 14 7 5 Schedule 11 20 61 7 Route map 7 18 61 14 Stop number 48 16 14 23 System map — 9 56 35 Real-time information 9 2 41 48 Wayfinding information 2 5 36 57 511 or other traveler aid information 21 13 8 59 Information in languages other than English 7 7 26 60 Quick Response (QR) codes 7 5 12 77 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Table 34 shows the most common customer request for additional information at stops. Only five of the nine choices were mentioned; no agency reported a request for a phone number for information, route map, wayfinding information, or information in languages other than English. Real-time information about next-bus arrival and schedule were most frequently mentioned. “Other” responses included replace- ment of missing signs and stop lists by route. Figure 14 shows an example of how some European bus systems include a list of stops by route on bus stop signs. Three agencies in the “other” category had difficulty listing only one request. Fifty-nine percent of responding agencies have or are in the process of implementing real-time informa- TABLE 30 KEY CONSTRAINING FACTORS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BUS STOPS IN SUBURBAN LOCATIONS Factor No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Lack of sidewalks/paving to curb 22 65 Safe places to cross the street 15 44 Disconnected street network 7 21 Lengthy walk/difficulty in placing stops 6 18 Lack of signalized intersections 4 12 Width/condition of sidewalks 4 12 Lighting 3 9 ADA access 2 6 Other 4 12 Total agencies responding 34 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 31 summarizes constraining factors in rural envi- ronments. Lack of sidewalks and safe places to cross the street are even more important in rural areas. Safe waiting areas and roadway conditions/drainage ditches appear only on the rural list. “Other” responses included: topography; site distance; ability to see waiting riders; and sprawl. Use of flag stops may be established practice in many locations, but flag stops were not mentioned by any respondent. TABLE 31 KEY CONSTRAINING FACTORS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BUS STOPS IN RURAL LOCATIONS Factor No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Lack of sidewalks 26 87 Safe places to cross the street 15 50 Lack of safe waiting area/places to stop 6 20 Lack of signalized intersections 5 17 Roadway conditions/drainage ditches 5 17 ADA compliance 5 17 Lighting 3 10 Other 4 13 Total agencies responding 30 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Most agencies do not have to address bollards or other pedes- trian barriers at any of their stops, as shown in Table 32. Only 10% of respondents reported that the presence of bollards or other barriers make pedestrian access to bus stops more difficult. PASSENGER INFORMATION Respondents summarized the provision of passenger infor- mation at bus stops. Table 33 reports the results. A bus stop

24 tion at bus stops. Table 35 summarizes responses to an open-ended question about benefits and disadvantages of real-time information as seen by customers and the opera- tions department. Customers value real-time information because they can make choices at the stop; one agency noted that college students will decide whether to wait for the bus or walk to class. Customers who rely on the system can become frustrated when it does not work cor- rectly. A commitment to system maintenance is required to minimize system downtime. “Other” responses included: expense; unclear format for text messaging; passengers cannot see the exact location of the bus and must trust the time estimate; increased complaints when bus is late; and only limited-stop buses are equipped. TABLE 34 MOST COMMON REQUEST BY PASSENGERS CONCERNING INFORMATION AT BUS STOPS Information Element No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Real-time information (next-bus arrival) 17 40 Schedule 16 37 Route number 3 7 System map 1 2 Stop number 1 2 Other 5 12 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. FIGURE 14 Bus stop sign on Via del Tritone in Rome listing all stops along each route. The increasing popularity of real-time information at bus stops is evident: 67% of agencies that do not have real-time information are planning to implement next- bus information at stops. Cost is the major reason cited by agencies with no plans to implement. Reliance on mobile device applications, lack of demand, and lack of an automatic vehicle locator system are other reasons mentioned. TABLE 35 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF REAL-TIME INFORMATION AT BUS STOPS Benefit or Disadvantage No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Customers know when next bus will arrive, can make choices at stop 13 52 Frustrating for customers when system does not work 9 36 Significant IT staff/budget commitment to maintain 5 20 Still new, not much information yet 5 20 Fewer questions/complaints for operator; fewer customer calls 3 12 Not reliable; useless in bad weather (affects traffic) or unusually heavy traffic 3 12 Increased customer confidence 2 11 Perceived wait time is less 2 11 Uses mix of real-time and schedule infor- mation; can be confusing 2 11 Other 5 20 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. PASSENGER AMENITIES AT BUS STOPS Respondents summarized the provision of passenger ameni- ties at bus stops. Table 36 reports the results. Shelters, trash receptacles, benches, and traditional lighting are the most common amenities at bus stops. “Other” amenities include additional or expanded waiting areas and fare machinery for BRT prepayment; telephones were not mentioned. Agen- cies also noted that amenities can be installed as part of streetscape projects and that certain amenities exist at some stops but not necessarily major stops. TABLE 36 PASSENGER AMENITIES AT BUS STOPS Amenity % Agencies Responding Every Stop (or almost) Many Stops Major Stops No Stops Shelter — 52 48 — Trash receptacle 2 59 34 5 Bench — 66 29 5 Traditional lighting 12 52 21 14 Bicycle rack — 15 50 35 Solar lighting — 20 38 43 Newspaper boxes — 8 41 51 Other 13 25 13 50 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Table 37 shows the most common customer request for passenger amenities at stops. Shelters were named as the most common request by almost two-thirds of responding agencies.

25 TABLE 37 MOST COMMON REQUEST BY PASSENGERS CONCERNING PASSENGER AMENITIES AT BUS STOPS Amenity No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Shelter 28 65 Bench 10 23 Trash receptacle 3 7 Bench plus lighting 1 2 Shelter plus heat and lighting 1 2 Total agencies responding 43 100 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. An open-ended question asked what amenity was most valued by customers. As shown in Table 38, a shelter was chosen overwhelmingly as the most valued amenity. TABLE 38 STOP AMENITY MOST VALUED BY CUSTOMERS Amenity No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Shelter 32 78 Bench 7 17 Lighting 1 2 Real-time information 1 2 Total agencies responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. How do agencies decide to provide amenities at a given stop? Table 39 indicates that the feasibility of providing ame- nities at a particular location and guidelines based on stop usage are the most common decision tools. “Other” responses included: decided by others; part of a streetscape project or development approval process; budget; negotiation with private property owner for nonstandard amenities; direct requests; land use attributes; and combination of factors. IN-STREET BUS PADS Seventy-two percent of survey respondents have criteria for the design or location of an in-street bus pad at bus stops. Bus pads are installed to support the added weight of buses and to withstand the shear forces applied to pavement surfaces during bus stop and start movements. Bus pads are concrete or reinforced concrete pavement extending the length of the stop to a depth of at least 8 in. Figure 15 shows an in-street bus pad. Figure 16 shows a cross-section of the concrete bus pad. Table 40 summarizes reported criteria based on open-ended descriptions. “Other” responses included: combination of agency and jurisdiction; rely on another transit agency’s guide- lines; American Concrete Institute standards; and boardings and alightings at stop. Fifty-four percent of responding agen- cies reported that they use a single design for all bus stop pads. TABLE 39 DECISION FACTORS IN PROVISION OF AMENITIES AT BUS STOPS Factor No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Feasibility of providing amenities at a given location 36 84 Guidelines based on stop usage 34 79 Request by elected officials 19 44 “Squeaky wheel” approach 13 30 Decided by municipality 10 23 Balanced provision of amenities across jurisdictions served 10 23 Decided by street furniture contractor 6 14 Ad-hoc decision 3 7 Other 9 21 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. FIGURE 15 In-street bus pad. Only 13 agencies responded to an open-ended question about which bus stop pad designs are most effective. The response to this question is low probably because munici- palities are frequently the ones to make bus pad decisions. Table 41 shows the variety of responses. CURB CUTS/DRIVEWAYS The survey included two open-ended questions about bus stop locations at curb cuts/driveways. Response rates were low to these questions because some agencies interpreted curb cuts as referring to curb ramps related to ADA compliance. Figure 17 illustrates issues associated with driveways near bus stops.

26 FIGURE 16 Cross-section for concrete bus pad. Source: Central Ohio Transit Authority, Bus Stop Design Guide (30); based on city of Columbus standards. TABLE 40 CRITERIA FOR DESIGN AND/OR LOCATION OF IN-STREET BUS PADS Criterion No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Municipalities set criteria 8 30 Agency specifications 7 26 Specific dimensions described 3 11 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 3 11 Varies by location 2 7 Other 4 15 Total agencies responding 27 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 41 BUS PAD DESIGNS THAT HAVE WORKED BEST Design No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Each location unique 6 46 Concrete 4 31 General dimensions described 2 15 Specific dimensions described 1 8 Total agencies responding 13 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. FIGURE 17 Driveway locations near bus stops. Source: TriMet, Bus Stop Guidelines (29).

27 The decision-making responsibility to approve or deny a request for a curb cut/driveway at an existing bus stop rests with the municipality, according to 73% of survey respon- dents. Table 44 describes the transit agency’s role in this decision. The majority of respondents noted that the agency is consulted but does not have final say. TABLE 44 AGENCY ROLE IN APPROVING OR DENYING PROPOSED CURB CUTS/DRIVEWAYS AT AN EXISTING BUS STOP Role No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Agency is consulted but does not have final say 23 62 Decision is made without agency input 13 35 Agency has veto power over proposed curb cuts at existing bus stops 1 3 Total agencies responding 37 100 Source: Survey results. ADA CONSIDERATIONS Two survey questions explored how agencies address ADA requirements at existing and new bus stops. Table 45 indi- cates that, for existing stops, responsibility most often lies with the agency. Several factors affect the ability or decision to improve a stop. “Other” responses included: agency pri- oritizes stops for improvement, often based on ridership and input from disabled community leadership; an upgrade to the stop requires the entire stop to be in compliance; based on available funds; agency has funds to make all stops ADA-compliant; and occasionally the agency partners with the landowner, depending on cost. TABLE 45 ADDRESSING ADA REQUIREMENTS AT EXISTING STOPS Response No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Improvements made based on avail- able funds within jurisdiction 23 53 Improvements made based on cus- tomer complaints 22 51 Improvements made based on use and need 21 49 Responsibility lies exclusively with jurisdiction or adjoining property owner 11 26 Other 8 19 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 46 addresses new stops. The majority of respon- dents take a holistic approach to addressing ADA require- Table 42 shows agency policies about bus stop location at curb cuts/driveways in commercial areas. Policies can forbid or discourage stops at curb cuts/driveways in commercial areas and may allow a curb cut/driveway at the back door of the bus. Over 30% of responding agencies indicated no official policy. TABLE 42 AGENCY POLICIES CONCERNING BUS STOPS AT CURB CUTS/DRIVEWAYS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS Policy No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No official policy 8 32 Try to avoid but locate stops at curb cuts if necessary 6 24 No bus stops at curb cuts 5 20 Front door never in a curb cut; back door acceptable if no alternative 3 12 Avoid interference with businesses or commercial traffic 2 8 Relocate stops at curb cuts 1 4 Municipal decision 1 4 Total agencies responding 25 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 43 shows agency policies concerning bus stop loca- tion at curb cuts/driveways in residential areas. Responses were similar, but some agencies allow stops at curb cuts/ driveways in residential areas. Traffic volumes and bus pas- senger activity are lower in residential areas, and stops at curb cuts/driveways are less of a safety issue in these areas compared with commercial areas. TABLE 43 AGENCY POLICIES CONCERNING BUS STOPS AT CURB CUTS/DRIVEWAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Policy No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No official policy 8 32 No bus stops at curb cuts 5 20 Front door never in a curb cut; back door acceptable if no alternative 3 12 Try to avoid but locate stops at curb cuts if necessary 3 12 Generally allow 2 8 Many exist now, but no new stops will be located at curb cuts 1 4 Relocate stops at curb cuts 1 4 Municipal decision 1 4 Avoid blocking residential access; do not stage or wait at these locations 1 4 Total agencies responding 25 100 Source: Survey results.

28 ments at new stops. “Other” responses included: local jurisdiction is responsible; new stops must be 100% ADA-compliant; new stops with shelters must be ADA- compliant; attempt to place new stops at ADA-compliant locations; and new stops only at locations with sidewalks and curb cuts. TABLE 46 ADDRESSING ADA REQUIREMENTS AT NEW STOPS Response No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding ADA requirements are applied to the immediate bus stop with consider- ation given to the path of travel to and from the bus stop 27 63 ADA requirements are considered only for the “immediate” area of the bus stop (i.e., excludes crosswalks or pathways to and from the bus stop but includes the shelter, bench, or adjoin- ing sidewalk) 9 21 Other 7 16 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. CHALLENGES Respondents described various challenges in the provision of bus stops. Table 47 displays the results. Absence of side- walks and property owners’ concerns were rated as major challenges by over half of the respondents. ADA issues, conflicting curbside uses, and coordination with cities/coun- ties/states were rated as major challenges by at least 40% of respondents. “Other” challenges mentioned by multiple agencies include: different attitudes among municipalities/ different levels of community buy-in; snow removal; and physical conditions around stops. Storm water management was not a major concern in the survey, but several agencies noted that it is an emerging issue. Many municipalities are installing rain gardens (also referred to as bio-swales or planters) as part of streetscape projects to improve aesthetics and reduce storm water runoff. Figure 18 shows an example of a bus stop that restricts the ability to exit via the rear door. As municipalities and transit agencies gain experience with rain gardens, a clearer under- standing of potential impacts at bus stops will be gained. At this stage, however, transit agencies may need to be vigilant in reviewing streetscape plans. TABLE 47 RATINGS OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Potential Challenge Major Challenge Minor Challenge Not a Challenge No. Agencies Responding Absence of sidewalks 69% 29% 2% 48 Property owners’ concerns 60% 34% 6% 47 ADA issues 52% 48% 0% 48 Conflicting curbside uses; e.g., street furniture or landscaping 47% 51% 2% 47 Coordination with city/county/state 40% 52% 8% 48 Absence of crosswalks 38% 56% 6% 48 Width of sidewalks 35% 65% 0% 48 Funding 33% 54% 13% 48 Driveway issues 29% 63% 8% 48 Right-of-way availability (to locate or improve bus stop and amenities) 27% 69% 4% 48 Restrictions on stop locations on state highways 25% 38% 38% 48 Traffic engineering concerns 21% 79% 0% 48 Developer concerns 21% 75% 4% 48 Balancing customer and operational perspectives 21% 73% 6% 48 Stop maintenance 21% 63% 17% 48 Ability to select shelter sites 17% 56% 27% 48 Roadway grades 13% 73% 15% 48 Sight distance 8% 83% 8% 48 Lack of emphasis within transit agency 8% 33% 58% 48 Conflicts with bicycles (bike lanes and stations) 4% 71% 25% 48 Storm water management 4% 54% 42% 48 Other 59% 24% 18% 17 Source: Survey results.

29 FIGURE 18 Rain garden blocking exit path from rear door of bus. Table 48 summarizes differences in major challenges by transit agency size. Differences are defined as disparities of at least 10 percentage points from the overall percentage of respondents rating a specific element as a major challenge. For example, 90% of small systems rated absence of side- walks as a major challenge, compared with 69% of all agen- cies. Small systems have greater concerns about sidewalks, crosswalks, ADA issues, and roadway grades and lesser concerns about coordination. Medium-sized agencies have lesser concerns about traffic engineering, width of side- walks, funding, and absence of crosswalks. Larger agen- cies have greater concerns about funding, coordination, and balancing customer and operational perspectives and lesser concerns about right-of-way availability, ability to select shelter sites, roadway grades, width of sidewalks, and stop location restrictions on state highways. Respondents also answered an open-ended question to describe the major challenge affecting bus stop provision and improvements. Table 49 summarizes detailed responses. Verbatim examples of specific responses are shown in italics in the following paragraphs. 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 side- walks that are not ADA-compliant. This generally means TABLE 48 DIFFERENCES IN MAJOR CHALLENGES BY AGENCY SIZE Agency Size Greater Challenges Lesser Challenges Small (less than 250 peak vehicles) Absence of sidewalks 90% ADA issues 70% Width of sidewalks 60% Absence of crosswalks 55% Roadway grades 25% Coordination with city/ county/state 30% Medium (250–999) None Traffic engineering concerns 10% Width of sidewalks 20% Funding 20% Absence of crosswalks 25% Large (1,000+) Funding 50% Coordination with city/county/ state 50% Balancing customer and operational perspectives 38% Right of way availability 0% Ability to select shelter sites 0% Roadway grades 0% Width of sidewalks 13% Restrictions on stop locations on state high- ways 13% ADA issues 25% Source: Survey results. Note: Percent rating element as a major challenge shown next to individual elements. TABLE 49 ONE MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS Challenge No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Coordination with/funding from local/ county/state 12 28 Absence of sidewalks 7 16 Obtaining sufficient right-of-way 6 14 ADA issues 4 9 Balancing concerns/many items to juggle 3 7 Parking conflicts 2 5 Opposition to bus stops from adjacent property owners/residents 2 5 Snow removal 2 5 Land use conflicts 1 2 Bicycle conflicts 1 2 Agency does not own bus stops 1 2 Buried utilities 1 2 Stop maintenance and trash collection 1 2 Total agencies responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.

30 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 pos- sibility 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. 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 agency and the local governments. As a result, we do not cur- rently have a lot of long-term relationships with staff—there is not 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 are not 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 does not control— notably sidewalks, crosswalks, and ADA issues where we do not own the property or site, conflicting curbside uses, bike facilities, etc. We have had a number of pedestrian improve- ment projects that have added landscaping and furniture zones to the curbside environment, eliminating usability for our buses’ ADA ramps—we have actually lost ADA compli- ance 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. Lack of pedestrian infrastructure along important cor- ridors 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. Being able to determine the most effective location for a particular stop with numerous issues (challenges) facing the project. Accessibility concerns, customer demand/needs, property owner preferences, road conditions at best option site, etc. Available right-of-way is a major challenge in our ser- vice area. In many cases right-of-way is at the back of side- walk, 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. The state has a new “complete streets” law, which our department of transportation (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” sig- nals, painting crosswalks, etc. As intersections are improved or roadways widened, right turn lanes are added to improve vehicular level of service. Bus stops then need to be relocated away from the inter- sections, passengers must walk further, and in some cases, other conflicts such as driveway entrances, storm water, or adjacent land uses make locating and improving a bus stop location challenging. Agencies also described strategies or tactics used to overcome any major challenges. Table 50 summarizes the results. Agency strategies focus on building partnerships with localities and property owners and taking a proactive stance to address issues under the agency’s control. TABLE 50 AGENCY STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS Strategy No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Work more closely with localities/ involve transit agency in planning process 22 54 Use agency funds for maintenance or minor improvements 8 20 Work with property owners 7 17 Ensure that agency’s own house is in order (procedures/staff development) 6 15 Prepare agency guidelines and studies 4 10 Work closely with the community 3 7 Develop a regional program with shared costs for stop improvements/ shelters 2 5 Minimize actions not in agency’s best interests 2 5 Keep union informed 1 3 Relocate stops to farside to minimize conflicts with turning movements 1 3 Focus on sites with the fewest con- straints (e.g., where the city owns ROW) 1 3 Construct new Downtown Transit Center and implement “next bus” to minimize weather effects 1 3 Total agencies responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. One interesting strategy was the development of regional programs that establish priorities for bus stop improve- ments and cost-sharing arrangements (50/50 split) with the municipalities within their service areas. The two agencies

31 that reported this strategy are Canadian, but it is a promising approach to overcome funding issues and could be imple- mented in the United States. SUMMARY This section summarizes the key findings of the agency sur- vey concerning responsibilities and coordination; bus stop design, location, length, and type; pedestrian access; pas- senger information; amenities; bus pads; curb cuts/drive- ways; ADA considerations; and challenges. Responsibilities and Coordination Responsibility for deciding on the location of bus stops is often shared between the transit agency and the local munici- pality (typically the DOT or Department of Public Works). More than 70% of respondents stated that the transit agency is responsible for installing stops. Responsibility for stop main- tenance can be divided in many different ways. Even when responsibility was split between the agency and local munici- pality, the division of specific tasks was different in almost every case. Half of the respondents indicated that stop reloca- tion decisions are made jointly between the transit agency and the municipality. Fifty-six percent of transit agencies reported a good or very good relationship with the primary or largest city in which they operate. Only 41% of respondents reported a good or very good relationship with other municipalities. Steps taken to improve interagency coordination related to bus stops include outreach to individual agencies as needed and review of site plans for new developments. Many agen- cies reported a combination of steps and also reported that the actions have been successful in helping agencies to locate bus stops at their preferred location. Insufficient capital funding to build or improve bus stops is the major financial barrier. The most frequently mentioned institutional barrier is deal- ing with multiple municipalities. Internal agency issues also ranked high in terms of institutional barriers. Bus Stop Design and Location More than 80% of agencies have developed their own bus stop design guidelines. A preference for farside stops is more common than a preference for nearside, but actual decision making is more nuanced than a multiple-choice question allows. Subsequent responses indicated that many agencies that responded “depends on specific location” do have a gen- eral preference for either farside or nearside stops, and agen- cies reporting a preference do make exceptions at specific locations. In older parts of the service area, stop locations have often been inherited from the previous operator, some- times going back to the days of streetcars. Agencies provided thorough explanations for their preferred stop location. The stated reasons match closely with benefits and disadvantages cited in the transit literature. More than 70% of respondents indicated that their agencies always consider safe street crossings in stop location decisions, and 90% always con- sider safe street crossings in urban areas. Among additional factors affecting an agency’s decisions on stop locations are stop spacing and adjacent land uses or trip generators. Stop Length Sixty or 80 ft was cited most often in the multiple-choice question on stop length (with the choices 40, 60, 80, or 100 ft), but many agencies indicated other specific lengths. The responses suggest that bus stop lengths at most agencies are shorter than the guidelines cited in the literature review in chapter two—90 ft farside, 100 ft nearside, and 150 ft mid- block. Several agencies agreed with the guidelines in speci- fying longer lengths (most often 20 ft longer) for nearside stops than for farside. It is also important to note that respon- dents did not define how bus stop length is measured. A majority of respondents stated that the required length of bus stops has increased in recent years owing to increased use of longer buses and articulated buses. Most agencies in the survey do not base stop length standards on the volume of buses serving the stop. If agencies cannot obtain sufficient length at a particular bus stop, the most common responses are to look for a nearby alternative or to make do with a shorter stop. The majority of respondents use multiple berths somewhere in their system, typically at transit centers, along major downtown bus corridors, at the end of the line, and on corridors with different service types. Stop Types Most on-street bus stops are located along the curb. However, bus bays/cut outs, transit curb extensions, and stops in the median of the street are fairly common. Most agencies rated passenger safety and accessibility as good or very good for bus bays and transit curb extensions. A majority of respond- ing agencies rated bus operator safety as good or very good for all stop types. Most agencies rated the ability to reenter the traffic flow as good or very good for all stop types except bus bays/cut outs. Safety issues, in terms of requiring a crossing to get to the stop and greater exposure to traffic, and capac- ity constraints are major challenges associated with median stops. Respondents were split on the issue of whether ADA compliance is more difficult at median stops. Pedestrian Access to Bus Stops Street furniture, narrow sidewalks, and safe places to cross the street are major constraining factors to pedestrian access in urban environments. Lack of sidewalks and safe places to cross the street assume greater importance in the suburbs and are even more important in rural areas. Most agencies do not have bollards or other pedestrian barriers at bus stops.

32 cut/driveway at the back door of the bus. Responses were similar in residential areas, but some agencies do allow stops at curb cuts/driveways in residential areas where traffic vol- umes and bus passenger activity are lower and stops at curb cuts/driveways are less of a safety issue. The decision-mak- ing responsibility to approve or deny a request for a curb cut/ driveway at an existing bus stop rests with the municipality, according to 73% of survey respondents. The majority of respondents noted that the agency is consulted but does not have final say. ADA Considerations Two survey questions explored how agencies address ADA requirements at existing and new stops. For existing stops, responsibility most often lies with the agency. Several fac- tors affect the ability or decision to improve a stop. The majority of respondents take a comprehensive approach to addressing ADA requirements at new stops. Challenges Absence of sidewalks, property owners’ concerns, and ADA issues were rated as major challenges by at least half of the respondents. Conflicting curbside uses and coordi- nation with cities/counties/states were rated as major chal- lenges by more than 40% of respondents. Respondents also answered an open-ended question to describe the major challenge affecting bus stop provision and improve- ments. Coordination with local governments, absence of sidewalks, and obtaining sufficient right-of-way were each mentioned as the biggest challenge by at least 10% of respondents. Agency strategies to overcome any major challenges focus on building partnerships with locali- ties and property owners and taking a proactive stance to address issues under the agency’s control. One interesting strategy was the development of regional programs that establish priorities for bus stop improvements and cost- sharing arrangements (50/50 split) with the municipalities within the service area. Passenger Information A bus stop sign with the route number(s) and a telephone num- ber for information are the most common information elements at bus stops. The most common customer request for additional information at stops is for real-time information about next- bus arrival, followed by schedule information. Almost 60% of responding agencies have or are in the process of implementing real-time information at bus stops. Customers value real-time information because they can make choices at the stop. Cus- tomers who rely on the system can become frustrated when it does not work correctly. A commitment to system maintenance is required to minimize system downtime. Seventy-five percent of agencies that do not have real-time information are planning to implement next-bus information at stops. Cost is the major reason cited by agencies with no plans to implement. Passenger Amenities at Bus Stops Shelters, benches, trash receptacles, and traditional lighting are the most common amenities provided at bus stops. The most common customer request for passenger amenities at stops is shelters, and agencies overwhelmingly rate shelters as the most valued amenity. Guidelines based on stop usage and feasibility are the most common factors in deciding when to provide amenities at a given stop. In-Street Bus Pads Seventy-two percent of survey respondents have criteria for the design or location of bus pads, which are concrete or reinforced concrete pavement installed in the street to support the added weight of buses. The municipality often sets the criteria for bus pad design and location. A variety of responses was received about which bus stop pad designs work most effectively. Curb Cuts/Driveways Agency policies often forbid or discourage stops at curb cuts/driveways in commercial areas but may allow a curb