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.

39 CHAPTER FIVE CASE EXAMPLES Table 57 provides a basic description of the transit agen- cies included in the case examples, including ridership, ser- vice area population, and peak bus requirements. Sources are the FY 2012 National Transit Database (NTD) reports or data provided by the agency, or both. The case examples summarize survey responses and inter- view observations from each agency. The interviews explored in greater depth the issues raised by the survey responses. CAPITAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CAPITAL METRO, AUSTIN, TEXAS) Capital Metro is the transit provider in Austin, Texas. Capi- tal Metro operates multiple modes, including directly oper- ated and contracted bus service. The service area population is 1.02 million. Capital Metro oversees operation of 273 local buses, 18 MetroRapid (BRT) buses, and 33 express buses during maximum service. Annual bus ridership was 33.5 million in 2012. Challenges Key challenges that emerged from the interview were as follows: • Financial. Finances are always an issue, but the situa- tion at Capital Metro has changed, as discussed in the next section. • Dealing with adjacent private landowners. Not everyone wants a bus stop adjacent to their property, although some do. Capital Metro has an interlocal agreement with the city of Austin to place bus stops along the public right- of-way within the city. Survey results indicate that this arrangement is atypical. As a courtesy, Capital Metro contacts any business or residence concerning placement or movement of an adjacent stop to explain its reasoning. • ADA compliance. The Capital Metro Board directed the agency to identify the number of bus stops not com- pliant with current ADA accessibility regulations and develop a plan to bring them into compliance. INTRODUCTION Synthesis survey results provide an overview of actions taken to improve on-street bus stops. Following a review of these results, six agencies were chosen as case example sites. Personnel directly involved with bus stop improvements were interviewed by telephone. The case examples provide additional details on challenges, solutions, stop design and location, and lessons learned. The selection process for case examples included sev- eral criteria: (1) transit agencies of various sizes in different parts of North America; (2) agencies that have taken differ- ent approaches; and (3) agencies that reported detailed and interesting observations in the survey. More than 80% of responding agencies offered to serve as a case example. The six agencies chosen provide a sample overview of the cur- rent state of strategies to improve bus stops. Figure 4 in chapter one shows the location of the case example cities. The six case example cities and agencies are • Austin, Texas: Capital Metro • Columbus, Ohio: Central Ohio Transit Authority • New York, New York: MTA–New York City Transit • Portland, Oregon: TriMet • San Francisco, California: Golden Gate Transit • Washington, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. TABLE 57 CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE EXAMPLE AGENCIES Agency Annual Ridership (million) Service Area Population (million) Number of Peak Buses Capital Metro 33.5 1.02 324 Central Ohio Transit Authority 18.4 1.37 257 MTA–New York City Transit 829.2 8.18 3,691 TriMet 59.5 1.49 496 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District 6.7 0.87 168 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 137.8 3.72 1,281 Source: FY 2012 National Transit Database reports and agency data.

40 Solutions • Dedicated funding and staff. The Capital Metro Board, recognizing the importance of bus stops for all customers and especially for ADA customers, has committed funds for bus stop improvements. Austin has a very vibrant and active transit community, and advocacy groups have lob- bied the Board on the need for all bus stops to be accessible. The Board understands that money ($2.2 million in FY 2013; $2.5 million budgeted for FY 2014) and staff posi- tions are needed to carry out the ambitious goal of mak- ing all stops accessible within 4 years. Capital Metro is carrying out an ongoing daily program of updating stops, trying to improve the landing area footprint (defined as a firm, stable surface 8 ft deep and 5 ft wide that is free from obstructions—see Figure 19 as an example), and provid- ing sidewalks to the adjacent intersection. This program is possible only with agency (Board, leadership, and staff) support. The percentage of stops lacking full accessibility was 69% in FY 2008 and has fallen to 29% in FY 2013, with further improvements programmed. FIGURE 19 Before and after bus stop, new landing pad connected to the sidewalk. Before After • Personal contact. Capital Metro exercises its preroga- tive to locate stops with care. The agency often reaches a compromise with the landowner; for example, not placing a stop directly in front of the door or provid- ing a bench so that waiting passengers are not standing around in front of the business or residence. Personal contact with the landowner makes a difference, and Capital Metro believes that the culture is a little more polite in the South, especially in Austin. • Great relationship with the city of Austin. The relation- ship begins at the top of the organizational chart and is reinforced by working together on various bus stop issues. If either agency has a team in the field, that team will take care of all transit and city issues. Informal relationships are built on trust, a by-product of working together over the years. Stop Design and Location • Capital Metro’s stop design guidelines are the basis for its decisions. Provision of amenities at a stop is based on current or projected ridership. • Consistency in procedures is important. Capital Metro controls the bus stop process and thus can ensure con- sistency. Consistency, however, does not prevent test- ing of new ideas. • Equity is another consideration, in two senses. One involves improving stops in all quadrants of the city. The second involves fairness in how stops are sited: procedures are identical in all neighborhoods. • What makes a bus stop better? Capital Metro looks at several elements: – Full accessibility, with a level landing pad. Figure 19 earlier in this section shows an example of a stop’s new landing pad that is now connected to the sidewalk. – Connectivity: sidewalks extending to the adjacent intersection with a curb ramp. Capital Metro will build a curb and gutter at the stop and in the vicinity and will fix a broken sidewalk. Figure 20 is a before-and-after example of a stop with an extended sidewalk. – Right-sized pad, based on ridership at the stop. – Concrete, always. – An empowered staff that can field-engineer solutions to unanticipated issues on site. Capital Metro crews are out in the field every day and understand the work and the regulations. The agency seeks out project managers and engineers who are problem solvers with the experi- ence and common sense to make decisions in the field. – Place making: identifying safe and suitable bus stop locations that work to blend in and enhance the sur- rounding area. Advice to Other Agencies Capital Metro offers the following keys to its success in improving bus stops:

41 • Good working relationships among internal teams. The Safety, Operations, Construction, and Planning departments work together on the bus stop program at Capital Metro. • Good working relationships with external groups. The city of Austin is the most important jurisdiction, since most transit service and bus stops are within the city. Capital Metro also has good relationships with the Texas Department of Transportation (some stops are on state highways) and suburban municipalities. • Investing the time needed to make sure agency staff understands the main principles of the bus stop pro- gram. While many agency employees are never involved with bus stops in their daily work, this effort goes a long way toward ensuring smooth internal relationships. • Support from leadership. In Capital Metro’s case, this support extends to top management and to the Board. The Board clearly understands the importance of improving bus stops, in part by hearing from advocacy groups, and is willing to allocate dollars and staff to achieve the goal of making all stops accessible with good connectivity. The current work program could not happen without this support. The support actually goes beyond the Board to the community as a whole that favors smart investments to create a safe, vibrant place to live and work. CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (COLUMBUS, OHIO) Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) is the transit pro- vider in Columbus, Ohio. COTA operates 257 buses during maximum service in a service area with 1.37 million resi- dents. Annual bus ridership was 18.4 million in 2012. Challenges • Adjacent property owners. Everyone wants service, but they do not want a bus stop directly in front of their home or business. • Lack of sufficient right-of-way. In many locations, the available right-of-way is not wide enough to make desired improvements. This limits the agency’s ability to provide amenities. • No dedicated source of funding for bus stops. COTA has funding for shelters but not for right-of-way, sidewalks, or ADA landing pads. The agency funds and maintains almost all of its passenger shelters and amenities, and performing the sidewalk and curb work necessary to make a completely accessible and ADA-compliant bus stop area is often financially burdensome. • Lack of clarity in ADA regulations concerning where a bus stop ends and right-of-way begins. Many loca- tions throughout the service area either lack side- walks completely or have sidewalks that are not ADA-compliant. This generally means that COTA is hesitant to “build” any infrastructure at these bus stop locations to avoid ADA noncompliance. If COTA installs a stop or shelter that involves construction, then it will ensure full ADA compliance. If the city of Columbus is adding sidewalks, COTA asks that it also upgrade the stop, passenger loading pad, and shelter pad to be in full compliance. The city has been will- ing to do so in most cases. • Land use and transit. As areas such as the High Street corridor and Short North attract development, requests to relocate bus stops have increased. Relocation can be difficult given the desirability of on-street parking spaces. Additionally, interior roads at major malls are often not designed for buses, resulting in a walkability issue from the bus stop across a 10-lane roadway and through a large parking lot. Before FIGURE 20 Before and after bus stop, South 1st Street at Hyde Park in Austin, TX. After

42 Solutions • Bus Stop Design Guide. This internally developed guide was completed in April 2014 and has been reviewed and vetted by the city of Columbus as well as surround- ing municipalities and builder/developer groups. This document is intended to educate officials and develop- ers 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 for COTA staff to follow, to guide where COTA will and will not consider installing passenger amenities. Preparation of the guide has been a good educational process for COTA and city staff, bringing important issues to the forefront and encouraging reflection about bus stops and transit in general. Key values guiding the develop- ment of the guide include – Clearly defining responsibilities concerning bus stops and surrounding areas specific to COTA’s ser- vice area; – Focusing on provision of the most accessible and safest bus stops possible given available resources; – Providing guidance for current and future COTA staff that will result in uniform bus stop placement and development practices; and – Engaging the larger planning and development community in developing better bus stops and bus stop areas. COTA is now regularly contacted by consultants and project managers seeking input on how their projects should be designed and constructed to accommodate bus stops. Fig- ure 21 from the Bus Stop Design Guide shows a bus stop prototype. Other examples are included in the discussion in chapter three. • Cooperation with the city. Columbus and other cities that COTA serves must be willing to require develop- ers and their own staffs to submit initial plans and final designs to the transit agency for review. Streetscape elements are often not addressed until later stages. COTA is now a part of the plan review process in Columbus. COTA has been less successful with other cities and private developers. COTA has requested minor changes such as installation of a bus pad or modifications to improve access to and from the bus stop, and these have usually been approved. • Working relationships with developers. A primary impetus for developers is the need for a letter of sup- port from the transit agency in a grant application. This need for support can start the dialogue between devel- oper and transit agency. From the agency’s perspec- tive, the goal of this dialogue is for developers to gain a better understanding of transit’s needs at a particular location. COTA has persuaded several developers to build concrete passenger landing pads at all bus stop locations within their project area if they are already doing sidewalk work. • Bus stop inventory. COTA has a stop database in its scheduling software, but few attributes are included and it is not always accurate. COTA is preparing a bus stop inventory with detailed stop attributes such as the slope of the landing area, clear floor space for wheelchairs within the shelter, and accurate GPS coordinates. This inventory will provide a clear indication of where problems exist, and can be com- bined with ridership information to prioritize stop improvements. • Downtown bus stops. For a long time, the city did not allow bus stop signs in the downtown area. Once downtown bus stop signs were approved, COTA pre- pared CAD drawings for every bus stop location in the FIGURE 21 Bus stop prototype from Bus Stop Design Guide.

43 process of adding signage, at the city’s request. The city now requests CAD drawings for any new bus stop to ensure that no infrastructure (e.g., pipes, snow-melt- ing devices) is at risk. Figure 22 shows an example of a CAD drawing for a COTA bus stop. A student intern well versed in CAD prepares the drawings with all physical characteristics. • Public involvement. Public outreach can create support among stakeholders and the city by inviting residents into the process as partners in identifying solutions. COTA has undertaken extensive public involvement in its Bus Stop Service Improvement Project, which con- solidated bus stops across the service area. In a recent dispute over an existing bus stop that a new restau- rant wanted replaced with parking spaces, the city of Columbus supported COTA and resolved the issue by offering an additional valet parking space nearby. A cur- rent transportation study by The Ohio State University could result in improved stops and amenities at major transfer locations on or adjacent to campus. • Request form for new stops and stop relocations. COTA is developing a more transparent process that solicits specific reasons for a new stop or stop reloca- tion. It plans to place the request form on its website. COTA will evaluate each submitted request and report its decision to the requestor. Stop Design and Location • COTA prefers farside stops for pedestrian safety, but decisions are made on a site-specific basis. • COTA has established guidelines for provision of trash cans and shelters. The standard is at least 35 boardings at the bus stop on an average weekday. The agency recognizes special needs populations at a senior center or health care facility and will place a shelter at these locations even if passenger activ- ity is lower. Placement of trash cans is more flexible, because adjacent land uses such as fast-food restau- rants can generate more trash. COTA tracks trash complaints and uses this information in deciding whether a trash can is needed. Advice to Other Agencies COTA offers the following advice to other transit agencies desiring to improve their bus stops: • Work with appropriate municipalities and other groups early on in the development of bus stop guide- lines in order to get their buy-in. Projects such as this are much more successful and efficient when agencies work together toward a common goal. FIGURE 22 CAD drawing of COTA bus stop. Source: Central Ohio Transit Authority.

44 • Prepare bus stop design guidelines specific to your agency. COTA performed all work on its Bus Stop Design Guide internally. This lengthened the process, but the agency cannot stress enough the usefulness of the process and the final document. COTA can now hand this document to cities, developers, consultants, and others to provide a complete picture of what a bus stop should be. One immediate impact is that Columbus is retrofitting “rain gardens” at bus stops to ensure that they do not interfere with passenger boarding and alight- ing flows. The process of preparing the guide also served to educate COTA staff. • Communicate to cities that the transit agency can be a great partner. COTA worked with the city of Columbus to prepare successful grant applications to fund side- walk improvements, and both partners noticed that funding agencies like partnerships. COTA was able to frame the topic of bus stop development so that it fit in with pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects, traffic flow improvement, and other city priorities. It is important to highlight how the community as a whole benefits from the development of better bus stops. An emerging issue in the COTA service area is rain gar- dens and planters. Every community is looking to reduce infrastructure costs by installing rain gardens to reduce storm water construction costs and planters to improve streetscape aesthetics. As shown in Figure 23, incorrect installation either causes safety concerns for someone alight- ing from the rear door or simply restricts the location where a bus stop can be created. Although it has taken a couple years, the rain garden in Figure 23 is being redesigned to make it more pedestrian-friendly for transit users, and the Bus Stop Design Guide includes a section identifying how rain gardens or planters can be incorporated in the bus stop area so as not to impede the loading zone. MTA–NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT (NEW YORK, NEW YORK) MTA–New York City Transit (NYCT), the primary transit agency in New York City, operates multiple modes, includ- ing an extensive bus network. Service area population is 8.18 million. MTA–NYCT operates 3,691 buses during maximum service. Annual bus ridership was 829.2 million in 2012. FIGURE 23 Rain garden improperly installed at bus stop. Challenges • Length of bus stop. Buses sometimes cannot get to the curb or stops are not adequate to serve multiple routes. The bus stop can take 140 ft in a 230-ft block. Objections from the community are not so much about parking as concerns over multiple demands for curb space (for example, delivery vehicles). Length is also a challenge because of the increased use of articulated buses. • Pavement conditions in the bus stop. Bucking, rutting, and sliding of blacktop create a very rough roadway and pedestrian hazards. • Coordination with the city. MTA–NYCT is fortu- nate to work with only one jurisdiction (New York City, through the New York City Department of Transportation or NYCDOT) and cooperation has improved in the past several years, but the fact remains that the city has final say. • ADA compliance. Even in New York City, some stops in outlying areas are basically a pole in the dirt, with no sidewalks. These conditions are an ADA issue as well as an accessibility issue. • Bollards. Post-9/11, many buildings are surrounded by bollards, and the bus stop in front of the building is no longer ADA-compliant as a result (see Figure 24). • Trees in a bus stop can be an ADA violation. The issue is similar to bollards. This is not an issue with existing stops that are grandfathered, but the presence of trees limit the ability to lengthen a stop. In such a case, the lengthened stop will end before the tree. • A neighborhood bus stop becomes part of the culture of the neighborhood. Attempts to relocate can engender strong neighborhood opposition. Also, property own- ers assume significant responsibility (trash clearance, insurance issues) with a stop on their property. Solutions • Cooperation. One factor encouraging closer coopera- tion is that MTA–NYCT now pays NYCDOT for each bus stop action. Years ago, when relations between the two agencies were very different, relocating a bus

45 stop could take 6 months. Now, the stop is installed or changed within 45 days or NYCDOT will explain why it cannot be done, and it is not uncommon for stops to be installed within a week if needed. • Adaptation. MTA–NYCT adapts as best it can to bus stops with less-than-optimal lengths, recognizing that stops of this nature will always be present in New York City. • Transit curb extensions. New York City has built, or is building, transit curb extensions at approximately 40 locations. They have generally been built on Select Bus Service routes (New York’s name for BRT) where they are paired with offset bus lanes one lane away from the curb lane, but not exclusively so. NYCDOT designs and owns the asset when it is built. In an excellent example of interagency cooperation, approximately 25 of the transit curb extensions were actually built by NYCT using city funds. Typically the transit curb extensions are a 9-ft- wide extension of the sidewalk (or the width of the park- ing lane). They are as long as required by the frequency and characteristics of the bus service. If space permits, they are built to approximately 140 ft to accommodate two articulated buses. While extending the sidewalk would appear to be straightforward, drainage issues are critical. In addition, particularly in midtown Manhattan, utility relocation requirements add enormously to the time and cost required to construct the transit curb extensions. Where slopes and drainage and local con- ditions permit, a 10-in.-high curb is built. This permits almost level boarding. If the bus operator kneels the bus, then front-door boarding is essentially level. FIGURE 24 Bus bollards at a bus stop in Manhattan. Figure 25 presents a before and after example of a transit curb extension for Select Bus Service in Manhattan. Bus Stop Design and Location • MTA–NYCT works closely with NYCDOT on bus stops. When articulated buses are introduced on a route, agency staff drive the route with NYCDOT staff, dis- cuss options at each stop, and reach agreement on how to restructure the stops along the route. • MTA–NYCT does not solicit the public for approval on individual bus stops owing to the sheer number of bus stops in New York City. Changes to bus layover locations, however, do require consultation with local residents. • Stop locations adjacent to gas stations and supermar- kets are avoided. Driveways are the issue at gas sta- tions, because these are not safe places for passengers to wait for a bus. Curbside deliveries are the issue at supermarkets, since very few stores in New York City have loading docks. • Intermodal bus stops are a challenge. Many stops at a subway entrance are a half-block away, not an insur- mountable distance but not a seamless transfer either. Because of curb space limitations, the city has no kiss- and-ride locations. FIGURE 25 Bus stop with and without transit curb extension in Manhattan. Advice to Other Agencies MTA–NYCT offers the following advice to other transit agencies: • Farside stops are generally preferred. The overwhelm- ing majority of stops in the city are farside. There are specific cases where a nearside stop is required.

46 • If the agency does not control the bus stops, make sure that it has a good relationship with the agency that does. Even with a good relationship, the transit agency will not get everything that it wants. • Provision of information at bus stops is critical. The current “lollipop” bus stop sign works well as urban design, is highly visible, and provides good static infor- mation (see Figure 26). Each stop is now numbered and the sign includes a telephone number to call for next-bus information. Each stop also has a unique “box number” for texting and a scannable Quick Response (QR) Code. Electronic information may be the wave of the future, but riders continue to value schedule infor- mation and a route map, posted at every NYCT stop. • If the agency is unsure whether to put in a bus stop, don’t. It is much easier to put the stop in later if it is needed than to remove an existing stop. For the same reason, err on the side of fewer bus stops along a route. MTA–NYCT removed crosstown bus stops 10 years ago at Park Avenue in Manhattan, which has no bus services, and still receives complaints. • Identifying stop locations for Select Bus Service (or BRT) is not especially difficult. Major intersections with connecting routes are obvious choices for stop locations. As with local routes, it is wiser to err on the side of fewer stops. FIGURE 26 Lollipop bus stop sign and transit curb extension on Broadway. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (PORTLAND, OREGON) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) is the multimodal public transportation operator in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. Service area popula- tion is 1.49 million. TriMet operates 496 buses during maxi- mum service. Annual bus ridership was 59.5 million in 2012. Challenges TriMet reports that various challenges have evolved over the years. Development of Bus Stop Design Guidelines aided the response to many challenges and established a focus on pedestrian safety, accessibility of stops, and operational safety and efficiency. One of the biggest current challenges is dealing with changing infrastructure and infrastructure needs, including the following: • Bicycle facilities. TriMet has found that the incorpora- tion of separated in-roadway bikeways (cycle tracks, buffered lanes, etc.) needs to be carefully assessed by the transit agency during the design phase to ensure harmonious sharing of the roadway. Right turns across bicycle lanes are a concern, but more so with general traffic than with TriMet buses. Figure 27 shows an interesting example of bicycle lanes within the side- walk area along Moody Avenue. FIGURE 27 Bike lanes and storm water street planter along Moody Avenue, Portland. • “Green” storm water management features on tran- sit corridors. While very important, storm water street planters and curb extension planters compete for space with bus stops. As with bicycle facility improvements, transit agency involvement is key to reaching creative solutions that maintain stop viabil- ity and safety. Figure 27 also shows a storm water street planter along Moody Avenue. • Proliferation of “safe crossings.” In the region, the city of Portland is leading an effort to install cross- ing infrastructure (pavement marking, islands, exten- sions, hawk signals, rectangular rapid flash beacons or RRFBs, etc.) at locations where pedestrian access and safety is important. Figure 28 shows a hawk signal and Figure 29 shows an RRFB. While these greatly

47 enhance pedestrian safety, and are often intended to support access to transit, their specific location (mid- block, at T-intersections) does not always fit with stop spacing or preferred stop position. TriMet relies on public partners to stay apprised of projects and “hot spot” applications in order to arrive at positive out- comes for pedestrians and transit riders. • Stop accessibility. The sidewalk infrastructure is gen- erally good, but exceptions exist in the service area. Extension of the sidewalk network is a priority for the city of Portland and many local jurisdictions. FIGURE 28 Hawk Signal, Sandy and NE 18th Avenue, Portland. FIGURE 29 Street crossing with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs). Solutions • Bus Stop Design Guidelines. TriMet revised this docu- ment extensively in 2001 and has since made minor changes. The document continues to provide guidance on stop location, amenities, and stop design. Figure 30 shows a TriMet bus stop with a transit curb extension and amenities. Benefits accruing from the development and use of this document include the following: FIGURE 30 TriMet bus stop with transit curb extension and amenities, Pearl District. – A basis for discussing right-of-way and stop design with local jurisdictions and the Oregon Department of Transportation. – A basis for discussing these same issues with pri- vate property owners and developers. – Consistency in stop appearance. – A clear understanding within the agency of the importance of bus stops. • Pedestrian Network Analysis Project. TriMet part- nered with local municipalities to identify areas where sidewalks are missing, traffic volumes and speeds are high, and pedestrian crashes have occurred. The project developed a composite bus stop score to grade all TriMet bus stops. The study includes specific rec- ommendations in 10 key areas for pedestrian access improvements as well as principles for pedestrian design. Pedestrians are the top priority for the city of Portland, which has undertaken a process to map side- walks and other pedestrian facilities. • Integrating bus stop and bicycle facilities on transit streets. TriMet and city transportation planners and engineers spend considerable time together creating solutions to minimize bicycle-bus conflicts on an inter- section-by-intersection basis. Green Bike Boxes (see Figure 31) at intersections (where cyclists can queue in front of the bus or vehicle traffic), a low-cost solution to right-turn accidents, were introduced with some suc- cess about 6 years ago. Stop Design and Location • Farside stops are preferred, but each intersection is analyzed to identify the most logical spot. • Quantitative, ridership-based criteria are established for provision of stop amenities. • Stop design guidelines emphasize what the space at the bus stop should look like, including shelters and square footage.

48 FIGURE 31 Green bike box at an intersection. Advice to Other Agencies TriMet offers the following advice to other agencies in terms of improving bus stops: • Create your own design standards. • Create your own bus stop policy and follow it. Make sure it is sufficiently flexible to accommodate site-spe- cific characteristics. • Make bus stops an agency priority. In the past, bus stops were not always a high priority at TriMet. The agency came to realize that no one else would treat bus stops as important unless TriMet did. • Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Real oppor- tunities to secure federal and other funding for bus stop improvements are available. • Commit to strong partnerships with local jurisdic- tions and the state. These partnerships can create a shared vision of bus service stops and amenities, identify funding opportunities, obtain a seat at the table for the transit agency when streets are rede- signed and private development is proposed, and develop expedient permitting approaches, all of which aid the implementation of successful bus stop improvements. • Engage private developers. The Transportation Planning Rule adopted in 1991 encourages devel- opers to work with TriMet to design stops that fit into the context of the building. Developers receive lower parking ratio requirements (in some cases, no parking is required) and higher floor-area ratios in exchange for transit improvements adjacent to the development. TriMet will add its own amenities to an adjacent stop if existing or projected ridership meets its guidelines. • Understand that staff and funding are critical elements of a stop improvement program. Ongoing partner- ships with local jurisdictions and developers require resources, as does stop maintenance. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) is a regional transit provider in the San Fran- cisco, California, metropolitan area. GGBHTD operates the Golden Gate Bridge, Golden Gate Transit (GGT), and Golden Gate Ferry. The GGT service area, centered in Marin County and extending to San Francisco, Sonoma, and Contra Costa Counties, has a population of 869,000. GGT operates 168 buses during maximum service. Annual bus ridership was 6.70 million in 2012. Challenges • Multiple jurisdictions. GGT serves four counties and 22 jurisdictions and also has bus stops within the state ROW. The agency must obtain approvals by multiple agencies, each with its own procedures, standards, and attitude toward transit, to establish and maintain bus stops. Many stops are left over from the days of Greyhound operation and have not been upgraded. Figure 32 shows one example; problems with this stop include no side- walk, poor surface conditions (dirt and asphalt combi- nation), a very old shelter, insufficient length (the bus blocks access to the road on the right), and no delineated pedestrian access to and from the bus stop. FIGURE 32 Golden Gate Transit legacy stop in Marin County. • Different vehicle configurations. Wheelchair lifts are located in different places, and bicycle racks are either in front of the bus (three-position) or internal on the 45-ft over-the-road coaches used on commuter routes (two-position). Bus stops must be configured with these differences in mind.

49 • Local jurisdictions. Only 10 of the 850 bus stops within the service area are located on property owned by GGT. Local jurisdictions vary in their interest in transit and willingness to cooperate on bus stop issues. GGT is either given very short notification or not con- tacted at all on some construction projects affecting its stops and routes. • Emerging issues. These include bicycle tracks, either on the street or on sidewalks, and how they interface with bus stop locations, as well as safety issues, such as whether a yellow line is needed at the curb or the edge of the bus stop to indicate where passengers must wait. • Freeway stops. GGT has about 15 stops per direction on Highway 101 itself or on ramps leading to and from the freeway. Figure 33 shows the difficulty of locating these stops safely and ensuring good pedestrian access in a freeway setting. FIGURE 33 Golden Gate Transit freeway stop, Northbound US-101 and Tiburon Boulevard, Marin County. Solutions • GGT outreach efforts with the multiple jurisdictions it serves include ( for example) presentations at the monthly meeting of the Marin County Department of Public Works (DPW). These meetings afford the opportunity to meet face to face with DPW personnel and to encourage contact and cooperation. • GGT has developed a PowerPoint presentation to raise the awareness of its needs at bus stops, including – Various coach lengths, – Various locations of wheelchair lifts, – Various locations of bike racks, – Hours of operation, – Bus stop accessibility, – ADA requirements, – Conflicts with street furniture, – Various turning requirements, – Conflicts with driveways, – Design of roundabouts, and – Maintenance. The agency plans to reach out to all jurisdictions served and to post the PowerPoint presentation on its website. Fig- ure 34 shows a well-designed stop in a residential neighbor- hood. Good design elements include a farside stop, pullout area on a narrow street, shelter that is well maintained by the adjoining property owner, shelter configuration partially facing on-coming traffic versus centerline of the street, clear landing area for wheelchair lift operation, and separate pedestrian path to the adjoining building. FIGURE 34 Golden Gate transit stop in residential neighborhood, Sausalito. Stop Design and Location • Farside stops are preferred, with some exceptions. • Adjacent land use and changes in land use affect stop location decisions. One example is the open- ing of a very popular supermarket with a parking lot that exits into the right-turn lane where the bus stop was located. Another was a video store that was con- verted to a dry cleaning store with steady pedestrian traffic throughout the day; this led to complaints that the bus blocked access to the store. New or restored business buildings often do not want a bus stop out- side their doors. • Shelters and passenger amenities are more likely to be provided at inbound locations, especially on com- muter routes. • Shelter maintenance can be performed by the agency, the municipality, or the company that leases advertis- ing on the shelters. The quality of maintenance varies. Even when another agency is responsible for mainte- nance at a given stop, GGT often sends a crew to clean up litter, garbage, and shattered glass in response to complaints because the appearance of the stop affects the perception of transit and because riders view GGT as responsible for all aspects of the bus stops. • Informational elements at bus stops include descrip- tion of the route, a QR Code, and a unique stop identifi- cation number that feeds into the Bay Area 511 system and will provide scheduled bus arrival times. • GGT is planning for real-time next-bus informa- tion, but topography and complexity have delayed implementation. Advice to Other Agencies GGT offers the following advice to other transit agencies:

50 • Outreach and communication are critical. Communicate as effectively as you can with agencies whose work directly affects your bus stop: the city planning depart- ment, the public works department, utility companies, and other transit operators. If your service area has a multitude of transit operators and organizations, it is best to find and participate in a standing committee to increase awareness of your agency and its needs regard- ing bus stops. If no standing committee exists, then you need to be proactive and seek out the relevant agencies. Communication can address issues before they turn into problems. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (WASHINGTON, D.C.) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is the regional transit provider in the Washington, D.C., met- ropolitan area. WMATA operates multiple modes, including an extensive bus network. Service area population is 3.72 million. WMATA operates 1,281 buses during maximum service. Annual bus ridership was 137.8 million in 2012. Challenges • Proliferation of bus stops. For decades, residents asked for stops and the transit agency complied. Existing bus stops become part of the neighborhood culture and are very difficult to move or consolidate. • Community outreach. WMATA has embarked on a stop consolidation program. The first step is reach- ing out to local elected officials, often through the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions that have been established throughout the District of Columbia. WMATA performs its analysis as a precursor to out- reach to identify candidates for elimination based on proximity to another stop and stop usage (automatic passenger counter, or APC, data are a real blessing in this data-driven effort), and discusses the benefits of stop elimination for bus riders. The outreach with com- munity leaders has been successful. Outreach to riders occurs in the form of notices posted at stops proposed for elimination that include a phone number to call. If WMATA receives a high number of calls about a spe- cific stop, the decision will be reconsidered. • Local jurisdictions. WMATA, like most agencies, does not own any of its bus stops and so works with bus stop coordinators at local jurisdictions. The position of “bus stop coordinator” exists at local jurisdictions to oversee stops used by the local bus systems and is an excellent local contact for WMATA because the coordinator understands bus stop issues. WMATA typically co-locates its bus stops with those of the local agency except in extenuating circum- stances. WMATA also participates in the Regional Bus Stop Task Force. Despite these efforts, WMATA is not always notified of ongoing improvement proj- ects that may include sidewalk, roadway resurfacing, or ADA components. • Developers. The District of Columbia has a develop- ment review process that includes bus stops as a check- off box. Developers need to work with WMATA in a satisfactory way before the box can be checked. Developers vary in their willingness to do so and in their propensity to put up a fight. There is less of a defined process outside the District, and in these loca- tions WMATA is more likely to work with the jurisdic- tions rather than directly with developers. • ADA compliance. The Washington Metro area includes many jurisdictions and ROW owners, all with differ- ent contexts and their own standards on bus stops and sidewalks. Improving stops to ADA compliance regionally has been a priority only when streets are undergoing major capital improvements, and more than half of the region’s 19,000 bus stops remain inac- cessible. As noted previously, jurisdictions may not notify WMATA of improvement projects; at times, a project has made a bus stop ADA-accessible without WMATA’s knowledge. • Right-of-way constraints. In many locations where the ROW behind the curb is constrained, additional passen- ger waiting space, room for shelters, and the opportunity to speed up boarding and deboarding can be provided by a transit curb extension. However, municipalities have been reluctant to allow transit curb extensions, possibly because the bus will stop in a travel lane. Solutions • WMATA has developed bus stop design guidelines. The agency had previously relied on TCRP reports, including those referenced in the literature review in chapter two, as the basis for improvement requests. Use of its own guidelines tailored for its operating envi- ronment has been helpful in negotiating and in having jurisdictions and ROW owners understand the issues. • WMATA received an FTA New Freedom grant to improve stops to ADA compliance, but at just over $1.2 million it is expected to improve only about 75 stops. Its Board of Directors has placed renewed emphasis on the impact of inaccessible stops on paratransit eligibil- ity, leading to more attention to this issue regionally. Every bus stop improved to ADA compliance has the potential to create great savings by providing access to

51 the bus network in place of expensive paratransit trips for those who can access the fixed-route system. Better data on ridership and paratransit destinations are also helping to prioritize investments. • WMATA has updated its bus stop signs for a modern look, ADA compliance, and clear indication of different service brands (Figure 35). The “information case” at each stop has been standardized (Figure 36), although some legacy cases remain. Information at each stop is customized to indicate major destinations along the route, estimated travel times, and bus arrival times for that stop. This customized information replaced a full bus schedule that riders said was not always especially useful. The goal was to replace extensive schedule data with more useful information. The signage also indi- cates Metro Extra service that operates in limited-stop mode at least every 15 minutes with a different-colored bus (Figure 35 shows stop signage; Figure 37 is a pho- tograph of the Metro Extra bus). WMATA has posted new bus stop signage at approximately two-thirds of its 12,000 stops. FIGURE 35 WMATA updated bus stop sign showing Metro Extra Route. • APCs provide a wealth of current, up-to-date infor- mation at the bus stop level. WMATA summarizes average daily boardings by stop every quarter. This information is useful for analyzing stop usage. FIGURE 36 WMATA bus stop information case. FIGURE 37 WMATA Metro Extra Bus. • WMATA is working with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to develop a toolkit for the deployment of transit curb extensions in parking lanes, along with assistance on engineering standards for these facilities. As part of its green initiative, DDOT is now designing transit curb extensions into street reconstruction projects that include a place for storm water to gather, but bus stops are not necessarily incor- porated into the design. Stop Design and Location • Adjacent land uses tend to drive most stop location decisions. Regardless of farside or nearside, WMATA

52 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. • ROW for a bus shelter can also drive decisions; a shel- ter may be located on one side of the street but not on the opposite side. • Recently, the agency moved stops in several corridors to farside to facilitate transit signal priority systems, which work most effectively with farside stops. Advice to Other Agencies WMATA offers the following advice to other transit agencies: • Develop your own local bus stop design guidelines. These have been more effective for WMATA in com- municating with local jurisdictions, because the juris- dictions understand that the guidelines are responsive to local conditions and express what WMATA needs. If a bus stop is 75 ft long and needs but be 100 ft, citing the agency’s guidelines receives a better response than citing a national study. • Coordinate with the ROW owners in your service area to understand their needs and to make your agency’s needs clear. WMATA’s monthly meetings with DDOT are extremely helpful in terms of sharing technical knowledge and concerns as well as in terms of inter- action with the people who ultimately make decisions regarding bus stops. • In outlying portions of the service area, begin with the people you know to establish contact with local jurisdictions. WMATA has a few bus stops in Charles County, Maryland, outside the Metro Compact Area. Because the stops are on a state highway, WMATA reached out to the state DOT to establish a liaison. • The process of improving bus stops creates a positive, self-sustaining cycle. As WMATA does more to make bus stops a community asset, the communities become more responsive. • Maintaining accurate customer information at bus stops will likely increase staffing needs. An agency needs a dedicated team to keep up with periodic ser- vice changes and fix broken stops. New responsibilities tend to be secondary, but they are important to keep customer information up to date.