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.

53 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS The further research needs offered here would address a greater detail of analysis about impacts on ridership, extent of agency–municipality partnerships, unanticipated impacts of ADA compliance at stops, the role of real-time bus arrival information at stops, and transferability of findings across cities and transit agencies. FINDINGS CONCERNING BETTER ON-STREET BUS STOPS • Responsibilities and coordination. Responsibility for deciding bus stop location and relocation is often shared between the transit agency and the local munic- ipality (typically the Department of Transportation or Department of Public Works), while the transit agency is generally responsible for installing stops. Responsibility for stop maintenance can be divided in many different ways. Even when responsibility was split between the agency and local municipality, the division of specific tasks was different in almost every case. Most respondents reported a good or very good relationship with the primary or largest city in which they operate, but fewer reported a good or very good relationship with other municipalities. • Improved coordination. Steps taken to improve inter- agency coordination related to bus stops include out- reach to individual agencies as needed and review of site plans for new developments. Many agencies reported a combination of steps and also reported that the actions have been successful in helping agencies to place 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 dealing with multiple munici- palities. Internal agency issues also ranked high in terms of institutional barriers. • Bus stop design and location. More than 80% of agen- cies have developed their own bus stop design guide- lines. A preference for farside stops is more common than a preference for nearside, but actual decision making is more nuanced than a multiple-choice ques- tion allows. Subsequent responses indicated that many agencies that responded “depends on specific location” do have a general preference for either farside or near- side stops, and agencies reporting a specific prefer- INTRODUCTION The purpose of this synthesis is to report on major issues and successful approaches that address on-street bus stops from the transit agency’s perspective. This approach also includes the customer’s perspective, because the bus stop is where the customer’s journey on transit begins. The survey of transit agencies was important in defin- ing the current state of the practice with regard to actions taken to improve on-street bus stops. The sampling plan involved a sample of 60 transit agencies. Forty-eight completed surveys were received from the 60 agencies in the sample, a response rate of 80%. Survey results address design guidelines for bus stops, responsibilities and coordination, stop design and location, stop length, types of stops, pedestrian access, passenger informa- tion, amenities, bus pads, curb cuts, ADA considerations, challenges, agency assessment of the success of actions taken, benefits and drawbacks, potential improvements, and lessons learned. Case examples provide additional details on challenges, solutions, bus stop design and location, and lessons learned. Six agencies were selected as case examples: • 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. This chapter summarizes key findings, presents conclu- sions from this synthesis project, and offers areas for future study. Findings from the literature review, survey responses, and particularly the case examples identify and assess the factors contributing to the success of actions to improve bus stops. The chapter is organized into five sections: • Findings concerning better on-street bus stops • Agency assessments • Lessons learned—survey respondents • Lessons learned—case examples • Conclusions and areas for future study.

54 ence do make exceptions at specific locations. In older parts of the service area, stop locations have often been inherited from the previous operator, sometimes dat- ing back to the days of streetcars. Agencies provided thorough explanations for their preferred stop location. Additional factors affecting an agency’s decisions on stop locations include stop spacing and adjacent land uses or trip generators. • Stop length. Survey responses suggest that bus stop lengths at most agencies are shorter than the guide- lines cited in the literature review in chapter two—90 ft farside, 100 ft nearside, and 150 ft midblock. Several agencies agreed with the guidelines in specifying longer lengths (most often 20 ft longer) for nearside stops than for farside. It is also important to note that respondents did not define how bus stop length is mea- sured. Most respondents stated that the required length of bus stops has increased in recent years to accom- modate the 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 particu- lar bus stop, the most common responses are to look for a nearby alternative or to make do with a shorter stop. Most respondents use multiple berths at bus stops somewhere in their system, typically at transit centers, major downtown bus corridors, at the end of the line, and on corridors with different service types. • Stop types. A majority of agencies rated passenger safety and accessibility as good or very good for bus bays and transit curb extensions. The major problem with bus bays is the difficulty of reentering the traffic flow. Safety issues and capacity constraints are major challenges associated with median stops. • Pedestrian access to bus stops. Provision of good pedestrian access to bus stops is a key design objec- tive. 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. Many transit agencies are concerned about liability regarding access to bus stops. • Passenger information. A bus stop sign with the route number(s) and a telephone number 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. 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 fac- tors in deciding when to provide amenities at a given stop. • In-street bus pads. Most survey respondents have cri- teria 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. • Curb cuts/driveways. Agency policies often forbid or discourage stops at curb cuts/driveways in commercial areas but may allow a curb cut/driveway at the back door of the bus. 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-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 respondents. • ADA considerations. For existing stops, responsibility for addressing ADA requirements most often lies with the transit agency. Several factors affect the ability or decision to improve a stop. Most respondents take a comprehensive approach to addressing ADA require- ments at new stops. • Challenges. Absence of sidewalks, property owners’ concerns, and ADA issues were rated as major chal- lenges by at least half of the respondents. Conflicting curbside uses and coordination with cities/counties/ states were rated as major challenges by more than 40% of respondents. Respondents also answered an open-ended question to describe the major chal- lenge affecting bus stop provision and improvements. Coordination with local governments, absence of side- walks, 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. AGENCY ASSESSMENTS • Assessments of the success of actions taken are gen- erally positive. Most respondents (53%) rated their actions as “somewhat successful” and 27% rated their actions as “very successful.” Actions include more and improved shelters, better pedestrian connections to

55 and from stops, wider sidewalks, additional amenities, improved and more consistent customer information, lengthened bus stops, and newly designed bus stop signs and flags. One agency noted that planners and community development staff have begun to incorpo- rate transit perspectives into their processes. • The primary benefits of these actions are better customer access to bus stops, an improved customer experience at stops, and improved customer safety, each cited by at least 20% of all respondents. Other ben- efits include better relationships with municipalities, safer bus operation, ridership increases, ensured ADA compliance, and investments in on-street amenities. • The major drawbacks of these actions are budget- ary impacts and inefficient use of staff time. Other drawbacks include higher expectations for future stop enhancements, procedural/policy issues with local municipalities, pushback from property owners, loss of parking, increased customer complaints, lack of flex- ibility, and internal issues. • Partnerships and improved communication with municipalities and property owners were most fre- quently mentioned as the most successful actions, followed by grants and funding for stop improve- ments and bus shelter installation. Specific successful actions described in chapter four include cost-sharing arrangements with municipalities, agreements with municipalities and developers to provide bus stop improvements as part of their ongoing work, pursuit of funding opportunities that benefit all parties, real-time information at bus stops, dedicated funding and staff for a bus stop program, and ways to involve riders and city staff in prioritizing stop improvements. • Streamlined and simplified approval processes, legal authority to establish bus stops where needed, and better coordination with local governments were most frequently mentioned in response to the question: “If you could change ONE aspect in the pro- cess of designing and locating bus stops, what would you change?” Respondents also mentioned standard- ized procedures across municipalities. LESSONS LEARNED: SURVEY RESPONDENTS Survey respondents shared lessons learned from efforts to improve on-street bus stops. Lessons learned emphasized ongoing external communications that begin before a major bus stop improvement project, partnerships to facilitate a clear understanding of each agency’s priorities and require- ments, and a multidisciplinary, cross-department approach within the agency: • Outreach to external stakeholders, including munic- ipalities and other groups, early in the development of bus stop guidelines or improvement programs invites them into the process as partners in iden- tifying solutions. Projects are much more successful and efficient when agencies work together toward a common goal. Providing the context for future stop- related requests is more likely to succeed than making requests “out of the blue.” Establishing good relation- ships builds trust on bus stop issues and creates a rap- port that will yield a climate of customer-sensitive interest in establishing and maintaining bus stops for local residents. • Working with jurisdictions to explain the transit agency’s needs and understand the jurisdiction’s requirements helps the transit agency to craft plans that are consistent with meeting the needs of all par- ties. One agency was able to frame the topic of bus stop development so that it fit in with pedestrian improve- ments, streetscape projects, and traffic flow improvement. It is important to highlight how the community as a whole benefits from the development of better bus stops. • Using a multidisciplinary or cross-departmental approach within the transit agency can achieve a more balanced view of each situation and produce a more functional outcome. For example, having plan- ning, safety, bus operations, real estate, and construc- tion departments work together to assess stop issues can create internal consensus for the proposed solution. • Locally developed bus stop design and location standards and guidelines are extremely effective in communicating with municipalities and develop- ers. The municipality or developer is more receptive to guidelines that are responsive to local conditions and express what the transit agency needs. If a bus stop is 75 ft long but needs to be 100 ft, case example agencies have found that their own guidelines receive a better response than national studies. One agency suggested developing diagrams and templates in CAD (if pos- sible) so designers can easily incorporate the bus stop improvements and proper clearances into their plans. A by-product of the process was the education of agency staff on bus stop issues. LESSONS LEARNED: CASE EXAMPLES Several themes ran through the case examples in terms of lessons learned, including the following: • Develop your own local bus stop design guidelines. Customized guidelines are more effective in communi- cating with local jurisdictions and developers, because they understand that the guidelines are responsive to local conditions and express what the transit agency needs. • Outreach and communication are critical. Communicate as effectively as possible with agencies whose work directly affects your bus stop: the city planning department, the public works or transporta-

56 tion department, utility companies, and others. The transit agency needs to be proactive and seek out the relevant agencies. Communication helps the transit agency to understand others’ needs and to clarify its needs. • Commit to strong partnerships with local jurisdic- tions and the state. These partnerships can create a shared vision of bus service stops and amenities, iden- tify funding opportunities, obtain a seat at the table for the transit agency when streets are redesigned and private development is proposed, and develop expedi- ent permitting approaches, all of which aid the imple- mentation of successful bus stop improvements. • Make bus stops an agency priority. No one else will treat bus stops as important unless the transit agency does. Invest the time to ensure that transit agency staff understands the importance of bus stops. Maintaining accurate customer information at bus stops will likely increase staffing needs. • Demonstrate to cities that the transit agency can be a great partner. Work with cities to prepare grant applications to fund sidewalk improvements. The tran- sit agency can frame the topic of bus stop develop- ment so that it fits in with pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects, traffic flow improvement, and other municipal priorities. It is important to highlight how the community as a whole benefits from the devel- opment of better bus stops. Other lessons learned include the following: • Support from transit agency leadership is very important for the success of any bus stop improvement program. • Farside stops are generally preferred. • Provision of information at bus stops is critical. Electronic information may be the wave of the future, but riders continue to value schedule information and route maps at the bus stop. • Identifying BRT stop locations is not especially dif- ficult. Major intersections with connecting routes are obvious stop location choices. As with local routes, it is wiser to err on the side of fewer stops. • The process of improving bus stops creates a positive, self-sustaining cycle. As the transit agency does more to make bus stops a community asset, the communities become more responsive. CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS OF FUTURE STUDY • Absence of sidewalks, concerns of property own- ers, and ADA compliance are among the major challenges facing transit agencies as they attempt to improve bus stops. These issues were mentioned by at least half of all survey respondents. Coordination with local governments and obtaining sufficient right- of-way were the most common responses to an open- ended survey question on the one major challenge facing transit agencies. • Cooperation and partnerships with local munici- palities, counties, and states are vital to the success of any efforts to improve on-street bus stops. The transit agency does not own the streets on which its service operates. Survey results indicate that 56% of transit agencies have good or very good relationships with the primary city served, but only 41% have good or very good relationships with other municipalities within their service area. These other municipalities tend to be less urban, with fewer pedestrian amenities and a higher priority for automobile traffic than for transit. The case examples suggest that going beyond cooperation to a partnership arrangement (where each side benefits from the other’s actions) has been impor- tant in achieving success. For example, the transit agency can place bus stop improvements in the con- text of pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects, and municipalities’ other priorities, but it first needs to understand these priorities. Establishing good relation- ships builds trust on bus stop issues. These partner- ships 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 redesigned and private development is proposed, and develop expedient permitting approaches, all of which aid the implementation of successful bus stop improvements. • Agencies that have developed their own bus stop design guidelines emphasize the importance of this process. A common theme in case example “lessons learned” is the usefulness of having locally developed guidelines that an agency can hand to a municipality or a developer as a model of how projects can be designed to accommodate bus stops. The municipality or devel- oper is more receptive to guidelines that are respon- sive to local conditions and express what the transit agency needs. If a bus stop is 75 ft long but needs to be 100 ft, case example agencies have found that their own guidelines receive a better response than national studies. A by-product of the process is the education of agency staff on bus stop issues. • A successful effort to improve bus stops brings together various departments within the transit agency. Each department brings its own perspective to bus stop improvements, and participation by operations, safety, and planning departments builds internal con- sensus and ultimately strengthens the bus stop improve- ment plan. • Assessments of the success of actions taken are gen- erally positive. Most respondents (52%) rated their actions as “somewhat successful” and 26% rated their actions as “very successful.” Primary benefits are improved customer safety and better customer access

57 to bus stops. The major drawbacks are financial needs and staff time required. • The priority agencies place on bus stop improve- ments affects the success of these efforts. If the agency does not place a high priority on improving bus stops, neither will anyone else. Findings from this synthesis suggest seven areas of future study: • Ridership impacts of and customer satisfaction with improved bus stops. Several agencies mentioned rider- ship increases as a benefit of bus stop improvements. One agency mentioned that ridership increases occur only at high-ridership stops; bus stop improvements at low-ridership stops have no effect on ridership. Another agency cited retaining choice riders and encourag- ing new ridership as a benefit of improved bus stops. Conventional wisdom suggests that the more inviting and safely designed a bus stop is for pedestrians, the more likely that people will use transit. A study of rid- ership impacts would provide very useful information. • The role of real-time bus arrival information at stops. Only three agencies in the survey indicated no plans to implement real-time information, and all gave cost as the reason. Real-time information, either at stops or by means of text messages, improves customer satis- faction as well as the image of the transit agency. Do some real-time systems yield better predictions under these situations than others? Is the technology evolv- ing to include factors such as these in the time predic- tion methodology? With rapid changes in the pace of adoption of this technology as well as in the technology itself, it may be difficult to answer all these questions. These are, however, important questions. • More detailed information on transit agency-munic- ipality bus stop partnerships. Several interesting approaches were revealed in the survey responses and the case examples. While communication with exter- nal agencies remains an issue, the relationship between transit agencies and cities appears to have improved. Are there other examples of partnerships? The ongo- ing TCRP Project A-39 is identifying how to establish good working relationships with external stakeholders, particularly roadway agencies, when implementing transit preferential treatments. • Safe pedestrian access to bus stops. How do the “com- plete streets” movement and increased attention to pedestrian safety tie in with efforts to improve bus stops? To what extent are pedestrian injuries and fatali- ties related to patrons crossing to and from bus stops? Can warrants for pedestrian signals at or adjacent to bus stops be developed? Can guidelines be developed for stop placement and design that specifically address the proximity and quality of street crossings? Would transit agencies bear increased liability for stops with no or poor adjacent street crossings, and if so, what impacts would this have on transit accessibility within a reasonable walking distance? • Research on the unanticipated impacts of ADA com- pliance on bus service. The overall impact of ADA requirements at bus stops has been positive for all riders, especially riders with disabilities. Some agencies noted a reluctance both to expand service to areas requiring a significant effort to establish ADA-compliant stops and to make minor improvements to a bus stop if it would trigger the need to bring the stop into full compliance. This issue has not been explored in the literature. • Conflicts between bus stops and bicycle facilities. Bicycle racks on buses have become ubiquitous as tran- sit agencies realize the benefits of attracting bicycle rid- ers to transit. In-street bicycle lanes are often between the parking lane (or the sidewalk) and the travel lane used by buses, and the conflict is heightened at bus stops. Cycle tracks on sidewalks may have impacts on pedestrian access to bus stops. How can these conflicts best be managed? • Storm water management issues. Municipalities through- out North America are increasingly incorporating rain gardens and planters in their streetscapes. The improved streetscapes can enhance the attractiveness of bus stops, but several transit agencies noted that they have not been included in streetscape planning. As a result, some stops are no longer ADA-compliant because opportunities to enhance both the bus stop environment and the safe oper- ation of buses, such as the placement of rain gardens, are being missed. What must be done to incorporate transit needs into “green” streetscape design?