Strategy Guide to Enable and Promote the Use of Fixed-Route Transit by People with Disabilities (2014)

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.

44 C h a p t e r 5 Improving the accessibility of bus stops and the pedestrian infrastructure is an important strategy for enabling people with disabilities to use fixed-route transit. Transit agencies have addressed the accessibility of bus stops for some years; however, the need for accessibility extends beyond the bus stop and, increasingly, transit agencies are expanding their accessible bus stop programs to focus on improving pathways of travel to and from stops, facilitating travel to and from the accessible stops for people with disabilities. This broader geographic scope, which includes the bus stop and immedi- ate connecting sidewalks, including curb ramps and crosswalks, is referred to as the pedestrian infrastructure, pedestrian environment, transit infrastruc- ture, and path-of-travel infrastructure. These various terms share a relation- ship with concepts underlying walkable communities, livable communities and complete streets, all of which feature design attention to creating communities that facilitate pedestrian travel with higher densities, mixed land uses, and street networks favorable to pedestrians as well as bicycles and transit. Every bus trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip, thus the pedestrian infrastructure is integral to increasing fixed-route transit use by people both with and without disabilities. This chapter provides background information on bus stop and pathway accessibility, including common problems. Information from the research project’s survey efforts related to stop and infrastructure accessibility is summarized, and recent studies undertaken to assess and improve stop and infrastructure accessibility are highlighted, including those of several of the case study transit agencies. Strategies to improve stop and infrastructure accessibility are then provided, with details for conducting a field assessment of stops and connecting pathways. This chapter also discusses the results, costs, and benefits of stop and pathway accessibility improvements and then describes techniques to evaluate such improvements. Data and results of efforts of the following six transit agencies that participated in the research project as case studies provide valuable material for this section, including: • Cary Transit, Town of Cary, North Carolina. • Intercity Transit, Olympia, Washington. • Link Transit, Wenatchee, Washington. • RideOn, Montgomery County, Maryland. • Sun Tran, City of Tucson, Arizona. • TriMet, Portland, Oregon. Accessible Bus Stops and Pedestrian Infrastructure Accessibility to the fixed-route sys- tem starts with bus stops, but also includes the pedestrian environ- ment around stops.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 45 5.1 Background—The Bus Stop and Beyond The Bus Stop Accessibility requirements for bus stops are defined through the ADA Standards for Trans- portation Facilities (ADA Standards). Where constructed, bus stop boarding and alighting areas must have a firm and stable 5 × 8 foot surface for wheelchair lift or ramp deployment. The boarding and alighting area must also be connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible route. Many transit agencies across the country have undertaken efforts to improve the acces- sibility of their bus stops, thus improving access to fixed-route transit service for riders with disabilities. Accessible and well-defined boarding and alighting areas not only benefit people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices, but riders with vision disabilities and other riders as well. However, accessible connections to and from the stop are not always provided, often because the transit agency does not have authority over sidewalks or other parts of the rights- of-way where bus stops are located. But without an accessible pedestrian infrastructure link- ing accessible stops to and from riders’ trip origins and destinations, riders with disabilities may have to use the roadway to access the stop or, in some cases, they may not be able to use the stop at all. Beyond the Bus Stop Since passage of the ADA, transit agencies across the country have made great strides in providing accessible public transit. Industry data show that 99.8% of transit buses are acces- sible; 85.1% of commuter rail cars are accessible; 98.7% of heavy rail vehicles are accessible; and 88.2% of light rail vehicles are accessible. (8) Additionally, transit facilities are increasingly accessible: there is functional access to 648 of the 681 stations identified as key stations in the nation’s oldest rail systems, access to 84% of light rail stations, and 100% access to new rail stations built since 1990. (2) Despite these notable achievements, accessibility gaps remain, particularly regarding access to and from fixed-route transit service. Incomplete sidewalks, difficult street crossings, lack of curb ramps, and obstacles in the pathway such as utility poles create barriers for riders with disabilities, limiting or preventing access to fixed-route transit service. To complicate matters, the barriers and their improvements vary in how they affect mobil- ity by people with different disabilities. A rider who uses a wheelchair requires curb ramps to cross a street for accessing a bus stop, yet certain types of curb ramps (diagonal) are unsafe for an ambulatory rider with a vision impairment, channeling the rider using a white cane into the middle of—rather than across—the intersection. People who use wheelchairs and scooters require a wider path of travel than riders who are ambulatory. Cross-slopes that change very rapidly cause problems for wheelchair users. For ambulatory riders who use walkers, there may be problems with steep grades and steep cross-slopes, as well as uneven surfaces. Transit infor- mation display cases installed on a bus stop pole that are rotating circular tubes are designed so that a person using a wheelchair can move the tube to see all the information, but some people with limited vision cannot read the information clearly due to the curvature of the tube case. These different types of barriers, their impacts on riders with disabilities, and the different improvement requirements make both the assessments of the pedestrian infrastructure and the subsequent improvement efforts complex.

46 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Common Problems Recent stop and pathway accessibility studies (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) have found that the more common problems relate to: • Accessibility from both directions at the nearest street intersection—there may be a curb ramp on one side of the street but not on the other side. • Lack of a compliant landing pad—the stop may have no pad at all or there may be a “func- tional” pad, but it is smaller than what the ADA requires. • Sidewalks that do not connect with the bus stop—the sidewalk may connect with the landing pad or stop short of the bus stop. • Sidewalks that are obstructed by public amenities and public utilities—utility poles, vendor boxes, public seating, and trash receptacles constrict the usable space of a sidewalk. • Over-growth from adjacent shrubbery obstructs access along the sidewalk—there may be adequate sidewalk connections to and from the stop but the untrimmed shrubs reduce the usable sidewalk space for persons using a wheelchair, or present a hazard to a person with a vision disability. • Physical conditions on sidewalks and landing pads where they exist—infrastructure that otherwise meets minimum accessibility standards may be rendered inaccessible by broken or uneven pavement. To be fully usable, sidewalks must be in a state of good repair. FTA’s S. 5310/Enhanced Mobility Program Now Funds Access for Fixed-Route Transit Improvements Recognizing the importance of improving access to fixed-route transit service for people with disabilities, FTA’s Section 5310 Program, as amended by MAP-21, adds a new eligible activity for funding—“public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route transit service and decrease reliance by people with disabilities on complementary paratransit.” The objective of this is removal of barriers, including improving access to public rights-of-way as well as installing elevators in rail stations not required by the ADA to have elevators, so people with disabilities have better access to bus stops and rail stations. (16) 5.2 Current Practices—Findings of the Research The research project investigated the role of bus stop accessibility and the pedestrian infra- structure on fixed-route transit ridership by people with disabilities as well as transit agency efforts to improve stops and access to and from stops. Recent stop and infrastructure studies are also highlighted. The Perspective of Riders with Disabilities The project’s online survey of people with disabilities, with more than 1,900 responses (including respondents who use fixed-route transit only, fixed-route transit and ADA paratransit, only ADA paratransit, and non- transit users) found that barriers in the pedestrian environment affecting access to bus stops and transit stations was the most important factor of 15 that impact use (or potential use) of fixed-route transit service. Interestingly, for those respondents who use only fixed-route transit and not ADA para- transit service, barriers in the pedestrian environment was ranked fourth of the 15 factors, indicating that those individuals have often found alternative ways to get to and from the stops and stations that they use. However, for those respondents who use both fixed-route transit and ADA paratransit As noted in Section 2.2, the sur- vey of people with disabilities indicated that accessibility of the pedestrian environment to and from transit stops and stations was the most important factor in deter- mining whether or not fixed-route transit could be used.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 47 service, the pedestrian environmental barriers were the most important factor and likely pre- vent their ability to use fixed-route transit more often. From the Perspective of Transit Agencies Study efforts also show that many transit agencies are addressing the accessibility of their stops as well as connecting sidewalks and pathways. According to the study’s survey of transit agencies: • 60% work with local jurisdictions to construct improvements at non-accessible bus stops. • 58% reported that they had undertaken an inventory of their bus stops and identified those that were not accessible. • 38% have programs to add bus pads and/or accessible connections to non-accessible bus stops. • 8% noted efforts to improve access at rail stations beyond the minimum “key” and “new station” requirements. Almost one-fifth of transit agencies reported “other efforts,” several of which are highlighted below: • [We] respond to customer requests to add bus stops or amenities to increase accessibility. • We are working to look beyond the bus stop to consider the entire path of travel, working with the city to make sidewalk connections. • We are starting to replace our fixed-route bus stop round poles with square poles to inform those that are visually impaired that they are at a bus stop. We also take and consider recom- mendations from the community as to which bus stop needs to have additional accessibility. Through various responses regarding “other efforts,” an interesting range of funding pro- grams and sources have been used for bus stop and connecting sidewalk accessibility improve- ments: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) Transportation Enhancement Program, FTA New Freedom, private developer funds through city development conditions, private businesses proximate to bus stops, and local government funds. The survey of transit agencies also asked the agencies for a subjective rating of the effective- ness of their efforts to improve the accessibility of stops and connecting sidewalks. Just over two-thirds (68%) gave themselves a “3” or “4” on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating moderate effective- ness. Few (8%) rated their efforts as very effective, a “5.” These self-selected ratings may reflect the fact that few transit agencies appear to have com- prehensive evaluations of their stop and connecting pathway improvements, so they cannot definitively assess effectiveness. Data providing boarding counts by stop for riders with dis- abilities, particularly those using mobility devices (through lift/ramp deployments), provide one level of assessment. However, if an objective of stop and pedestrian infrastructure improve- ments is to facilitate increased use of fixed-route transit rather than ADA paratransit, a com- prehensive assessment could also look at impacts on ADA ridership. Evaluation is discussed in more detail in a following section of this chapter. Bus Stop and Pedestrian Infrastructure Accessibility Studies and Improvement Programs Transit agencies and communities conduct bus stop and pedestrian accessibility studies for various reasons. Often, the studies and subsequent improvement programs result from concerted and coordinated efforts of the stakeholders involved—the transit agency, the local government (or governments, where transit serves more than one jurisdiction), and often the transit agency’s rider advisory group and disability community.

48 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Use of CDBG Funds: Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, Utah In Salt Lake City, for example, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) identified problems with the pedestrian infrastructure when the Authority began to implement conditional eligibility for its ADA paratransit program after the fixed-route transit system became fully accessible. UTA’s disability advisory group identified inaccessible bus stops and impassable sidewalks as the most significant barriers to use of fixed-route transit by riders with disabilities. In review- ing stops, the Authority found that the problems were mostly access to the stop, such as the sidewalk or crosswalks, elements that were outside the control of UTA. As part of improvement plans, one of the agency’s board members spearheaded an effort to use Community CDBG funds to improve the stops and adjacent sidewalks. (17) Comprehensive Bus Stop Accessibility Study: Sun Tran, City of Tucson, Arizona More recently, the City of Tucson, AZ, through a regional study that identified key sidewalk gaps and missing curb ramps and a subsequent ADA Bus Stop Accessibility Study, identified needed access improvements to the City’s fixed-route transit service, Sun Tran. Based on sum- mary data on all 2,200+ bus stops and connecting sidewalk segments collected through the study, improvements were prioritized in consultation with the disability advisory committee and an action plan for constructing improvements was created. More than 150 stops have been upgraded for improved accessibility as of early 2013, with most completed by Tucson though some were constructed by neighboring jurisdictions and private business. Figure 5-1 provides a sample before and after Sun Tran bus stop. Low-Cost Bus Stop Pads: Link Transit, Wenatchee, Washington Transit agencies in rural areas have also taken efforts to improve stop and infrastructure accessibility. Link Transit, serving 17 communities in Chelan and Douglas Counties in cen- tral Washington State, has made significant progress ensuring its fixed-route transit service is fully accessible to riders with disabilities, which has included accessibility improvements to the transit environment—bus stops and connecting pathways. The impetus for these efforts was, in part, the growing financial requirement for ADA paratransit, which was becoming financially unsustainable, consuming half the agency’s budget. Before: Inaccessible stop in Tucson in 2008 that presented safety issues for all riders. After: Improved bus stop with level lift area, accessible curb cuts and extended concrete pad allowing passengers to safely alight from rear of bus onto level surface with stable footing. Figure 5-1. Bus stop improvements, city of Tucson Sun Tran fixed-route transit system (photos courtesy of city of Tucson).

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 49 Accessibility improvements, however, have been a challenge given the large service area and lack of sidewalks as well as the many unimproved bus stops along rural routes. Among various improvements to ensure accessibility such as extra training for fixed-route transit drivers and extensive travel training, Link Transit identified high use stops and installed benches and shel- ters, used New Freedom funds to construct curb ramps at a major medical facility, and coordi- nated with local businesses such so that these private entities made accessibility improvements at their store fronts. Other businesses donated easements and electrical hook-ups to allow for installation of shelters and enhanced signage. Along rural roads on which stops are often just a pole in the unpaved shoulder with limited space for improvements, Link Transit identified stops with higher than average usage and serv- ing origin and destination locations of ADA paratransit riders who might benefit from acces- sibility improvements. For those stops at which there was space for improvements, the agency used a commercial material, informally known as “rhino snot,” a vinyl acetate-acrylic copoly- mer, marketed as a high-performance, environmentally safe, low-cost material, to stabilize the soil or ground. Link Transit uses the “rhino snot” to provide a flat, even, and solid surface at the bus stops to improve the safety and convenience of the waiting area and as the boarding and alighting pad for riders using mobility devices (Figure 5-2). Improving Access and Pedestrian Safety: RideOn, Montgomery County, Maryland Other reasons for stop and infrastructure improvement relate to pedestrian safety. In Mont- gomery County, Maryland, a large suburban county outside the nation’s capital, a bus stop and connecting pathway study was conducted as part of a countywide initiative to combat increas- ing numbers of pedestrian accidents and fatalities. Specific objectives of the study included assessing unsafe pedestrian connections to bus stops, unsafe stop and waiting locations, as well as identifying non-ADA-compliant stops for the county-operated RideOn transit service. With $9.5 million of local money secured to fund improvements, and the study’s recommendations and prioritization for those improvements, the County has improved more than 2,500 stops as of 2012. Of the total 5,000+ stops, the majority are RideOn stops with another approximately 1,200 stops either shared with the regional provider, WMATA, or exclusive stops of the regional provider (Figure 5-3). Figure 5-2. Link Transit: an improved rural bus stop using “rhino snot” (photo courtesy of Link Transit).

50 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Transition Planning: Bellevue, Washington Some communities have addressed the needs for pedestrian infrastructure improvements for better fixed-route transit access as part of their required Transition Plans. These plans, required under Title II of the ADA, apply to public entities with 50 or more employees. The Transition Plan is an action plan to remove structural barriers to people with disabilities, which results from a self-evaluation of structural and other barriers that prevent access to the public entity’s programs and services. It identifies structural barriers and details the steps and timetable to complete the required modifications to ensure access. In Bellevue, WA, the City’s Transition Plan was the impetus for efforts to assess and plan improvements to its pedestrian infrastructure. While fixed-route transit was not the primary factor behind the City’s efforts, proximity to fixed-route transit service was included in priori- tizing improvements. Bellevue’s efforts are notable for use of an innovative tool to collect data on sidewalks as part of the assessment of sidewalks and curb ramps: rather than use a more traditional survey method, the city tested and used an Ultra-Light Inertial Profiler mounted on a scooter. This device, with its displacement laser, distance measurement instrument, and gyro- scope, captured highly accurate sidewalk information. One technician operated the scooter and a second rode a bicycle and used a handheld geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver to conduct the curb ramp inventory. Once collected, the data were processed, stored in the city’s geographic information system (GIS) database, and assessed as to compliance. (18) Town Land Development Ordinance: Cary, North Carolina Improvements to stops and the pedestrian infrastructure can also be achieved through com- munity development and redevelopment efforts. This approach is facilitated when the transit service is part of city or county government, which controls local development, but can also be achieved when the transit agency, as a separate entity, seeks participation and input to the devel- opment process. This can include ongoing participation as well as the publication of design guidelines for bus stops and their connecting sidewalks. The Town of Cary actively uses its control of local development to improve its pedestrian infrastructure for a more walkable community, which benefits access to fixed-route transit. Among other specifications, the Town’s Land Development Ordinance specifies requirements for sidewalks in residential and non-residential areas and addresses standards for public transit access and transit amenities at shopping centers and other similar land uses. Regarding transit access at shopping centers, this ordinance requires that bus stops be located “within close prox- imity” to one of the shopping center main entrances, minimizing walking distances for transit Figure 5-3. Bus stop improvements, Montgomery County, Maryland, RideOn, before and after bus stop (photos courtesy of KFH Group).

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 51 users. Additionally, the Town’s public transit staff is specifically included during the review process for new development and redevelopment. Bus Stop Specification Guidelines: Intercity Transit, Olympia, Washington Intercity Transit, a municipal corporation, also pursues accessibility improvements through the local development process, as well as through other efforts. Transit staff actively participate in the local land-use review and development permitting process and requests sidewalks and ADA accessible bus stops as part of this process. The agency has developed and published Bus Stop Specification Guidelines, which address stop spacing, accessibility, stop and shelter design, and engineering guidelines. These Guidelines are posted online and provided to jurisdictions in the Intercity service area and to land developers. Additionally, Intercity has made stop improve- ments in response to requests from riders and, at times, improvements or stop re-locations in response to a request from the agency’s travel trainer. 5.3 Strategies to Improve Bus Stops and Pedestrian Infrastructure Accessibility Improving the accessibility of stops and the pedestrian infrastructure is a process involv- ing various strategies and actions and, often, different agencies. Bus stop improvements are the responsibility of the transit agency if the transit agency owns the land on which the stops are located, or if the agency is part of a local government (e.g., a city or county) that owns the land. Where the transit agency is a separate entity from the jurisdiction served (e.g., a transit authority or special district), improvements to the pedestrian environment are the responsi- bility of the local government. Successful improvement efforts typically involve cooperative efforts between the two. There are several strategies transit agencies can use to approach bus stop improvements. The strategy that provides the greatest utility to the transit agency for a variety of applications— including indispensable data that can be used for individual trip planning, conditional ADA paratransit eligibility determination, travel training, service planning, facility needs assess- ment and prioritization, facility maintenance planning, and capital investment planning—is the development of a comprehensive bus stop inventory and assessment. Comprehensive Bus Stop Inventory and Assessment The foundation of a proactive bus stop improvement program is a comprehensive assessment of existing bus stops and their connecting pathways. This assessment will ideally evaluate the conditions at each bus stop and the immediate connections, using a field survey and trained surveyors. In urban areas, experience finds that an assessment will evaluate sidewalks up to the nearest intersection, since the ability to cross the street to access transit vehicles traveling in both directions is a critical element of a functionally accessible pedestrian environment. In suburban or rural areas, there may be no sidewalk that connects to the bus stop; the stop may be located along the shoulder of the road. The ADA does not require that sidewalks be installed for bus stops in such areas. However, the assessment should look at features that affect the accessibility of the stop and potential improvements, such as the width of the shoulder, the rights-of-way, and, importantly, the road crossing environment. Since the closest intersection may be some distance away, given that suburban and rural roads do not have short blocks as do most cities, factors affecting the road crossing are important, such as the existence of a median and whether this is raised or grass. A comprehensive assessment of existing bus stops and connect- ing pathways is the first step in implementing a proactive bus stop accessibility improvement program.

52 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities A suggested process for the assessment of stops and connecting pathways is described below, building on the case study findings and direct experience by members of the research team with stop and infrastructure improvement studies. Once the assessment is complete and improvements prioritized, the next steps would involve planning for construction of the improvements. Transit agencies that follow this type of process will be well positioned to complete any bus stop planning requirements that might emerge under federal transit asset management requirements. Step One: Preparation and Planning The first step should involve preparing and planning for the bus stop survey. If the transit agency has already compiled an inventory of bus stop locations and/or amenities such as shelters, this can be used for planning the survey fieldwork. The fieldwork can in turn be used to update the initial inventory. Preparation also involves developing an intake form for data on each bus stop. Exhibit 5-1 shows the data elements that should be assessed for each stop. Location - Longitude and latitude coordinates—captured from GPS device - Nearest intersection on-street cross street adjacent property address (if not near an intersection) - Heading—direction of vehicle when stops at the stop north, south, east, west - Position—relative to the nearest intersection near-side, far-side, mid-block - Adjacent land use Pole and Sign - Bus stop pole - Bus stop sign* Passenger Amenities - Information case* - Shelter* - Bench - Trash receptacles - Bicycle racks Accessibility - Boarding and alighting area* - Sidewalk* - Curb ramps* - Obstructions* Safety - Proximity to controlled intersection - Lighting - Sight-lines - Marked crosswalk - Pedestrian crossing signal* - No parking zone - Proximity to potential safety hazards (e.g., steep drop-off, railroad tracks, etc.) * Data should be collected on these elements relative to adherence to the ADA Standards. For example, a sidewalk is subject to such ADA Standards requirements as width, running slope, cross slope, and changes in elevation. Exhibit 5-1. Survey data.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 53 Develop Annotated Data Dictionary. The transit agency should develop an annotated “data dictionary,” providing a list of data fields, a detailed description of each field, the data format and structure of the field, and the types of information to be collected. This is essentially a detailed outline for the survey instrument. Consult with the agency’s information technology (IT) or GIS staff when this data dictionary is developed, as the data should be compatible for input into some type of relational database (e.g., Microsoft Access, SQL, Oracle) for analysis. Develop Survey Form. Once the data and data fields are defined, the survey form can be devel- oped. As appropriate, create pick-lists/drop-down menus for responses to the survey questions and minimize the use of open-ended questions. This will expedite the field survey process. Avoid creating questions for which the surveyor has to make a judgment call in the field, for example, providing a “yes” or “no” to a question regarding whether an item is ADA compliant or not. Structure the survey questions to the extent possible so that the surveyor documents abso- lute values. For example, to determine whether the size of the bus boarding and alighting areas (landing pad) is ADA compliant, the survey should require that the surveyor enter the dimen- sions of the landing pad, rather than simply entering “yes” or “no” regarding compliance. This method allows for greater data consistency and flexibility in who is used for the survey effort. Survey Tools A number of specific tools are recommended to collect the data in the field. Mobile Device with GPS—A GPS device will allow for the capture of spatial location infor- mation such as the longitude and latitude coordinates of the stop. Furthermore, the device will allow surveyors to electronically enter the information without having to later transcribe it into a database and, because the information is entered once, it will minimize the risk of errors in the data. Electronic Survey—So that the surveyors can input survey information into a mobile device, an electronic version of the survey needs to be created. This will usually involve purchasing third-party software that will facilitate the development of the electronic survey and the load- ing of the electronic survey onto the mobile device. Inclinometer—Measurement of the running slope and cross slope of the bus stop landing pad, the sidewalk, and curb ramps are all part of an ADA bus stop evaluation. An inclinometer is a digital slope measurement tool that will make it simple to collect slope information. An inclinometer that allows the slope information to be collected in either degrees or percentages is suggested (Figure 5-4). Measuring Wheel—A measuring wheel makes it easy to collect measurements regarding the dimensions of the landing pad, sidewalk width, shelter clearances, and the length of the no parking zone (Figure 5-5). Digital Camera—When acquiring a digital camera to be used in the field, consider the follow- ing: it should be water resistant (doesn’t have to be waterproof); it should have the ability to date-stamp images; it should use readily available “AA” batteries rather than specialty batteries; and it does not need to be an expensive camera. Figure 5-4. Inclinometer.

54 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Assess Available Resources A critical part in preparing for a bus stop inventory effort is to identify the surveyor resources because the fieldwork is labor intensive and time consuming. On average, a trained surveyor can complete approximately 20 bus stops in an eight-hour period (typically also including travel time to the stops). The field survey can be conducted using in-house agency staff or interns, or a private com- pany can be contracted for the work. • Staff—Using transit agency staff is a cost-effective method of conducting the field survey. However, since agency staff will have other roles and responsibilities, it may be difficult for staff to allocate adequate time to conduct the field survey in a timely manner. • Interns—Using interns is also cost effective, particularly for a transit agency with limited staff and budget for the fieldwork, but there are considerations. The first is the time period needed to conduct the fieldwork. If longer than two months, college interns may not be a practical choice, since they are usually available only two to three months during their sum- mer break. Interns available for a semester or longer may be more practical. In either case, interns will need to be properly trained before they are sent out into the field. • Contractor—Use of a private company under contract for the survey effort is another option. With this option, experience shows that surveying bus stops will cost $70 to $90 per stop. While this is the more costly of the three options, use of a company with experience in bus stop and pedestrian accessibility assessment will allow the effort to be completed in a set and condensed time period and should help to ensure that the correct information is collected. Step Two: Field Survey Prepare Assignments. To maximize surveyors’ time in the field and minimize the distances that need to be traveled between stops, create field survey assignments that group bus stops together for each surveyor. The use of GIS to help create the survey assignments will facilitate the identification of clusters of bus stop locations. Figure 5-5. Measuring wheel.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 55 Conduct the Survey. Surveying a bus stop for ADA compliance and accessibility should not be limited to just the bus stop. For stops that are within 100 feet to an intersection, the sidewalk leading to the inter section should also be surveyed for ADA compliance. This 100-foot distance is not an ADA requirement, but represents a reasonable walking range based on experience of the research team. At the intersection, the curb ramp connections, crosswalks, and pedestrian crossing signals should be surveyed. An important part of the survey is to take photos of each stop from multi- ple angles (i.e., approaching from both sides of the sidewalk, as well as focusing on any potential problems identified). The photos will provide verification of the data that was surveyed. The photos also serve as a good way to communicate and illustrate accessibility and other issues found at the bus stops. When taking photos of the stop, make sure there is a procedure in place to accurately correlate the photos with the correct stop. Store Data in Database. It is good practice to store all of the bus stop data in a relational data- base. An Excel spreadsheet is not a database. Examples of a relational database are Microsoft Access, SQL database, and Oracle. It is best to work with either the GIS manager or IT staff to develop this database. Storing the data in a relational database will allow for analysis, reporting, asset management, and other applications. Quality Assessment and Quality Control (QA/QC). Once the database is created, check the data as to accuracy and completeness, and make any revisions as needed. This may involve, for example, cross tabulations to assess reasonableness (e.g., data indicates the stop has a shelter but there is missing information on access to the shelter) and verification of the survey data by examining the photographs on a specified sample of stops. Step Three: Analysis Improvement Prioritization. Unless there are unlimited financial resources to make all of the nec- essary stop and connecting pathway improvements, it will be necessary to prioritize what improve- ments will be made, and when. A scoring scheme should be developed based upon local initiatives and priorities. Factors such as safety, usage (measured by on/off counts), accessibility, and land use are examples of criteria that can be used in the prioritization. Input from the transit agency’s advi- sory committee, including riders with disabilities, should also be considered. Figure 5-6 depicts a prioritization scoring scheme developed for a study in Prince Georges County, MD. Improvements can then be categorized as short term, medium term, and long term. Short- term improvements should target those bus stops with issues that can be resolved rather eas- ily and inexpensively or have an immediate safety risk. Medium-term improvements would require making a more substantial financial investment at locations that will have the great- est impact. Long-term improvements would require a significant financial investment and will have the least amount of impact. Examples of short-term, medium-term, and long-term improvements are shown in Figure 5-7. Improvement Costs. Estimating what it would cost to make the accessibility and safety improvements will help to determine the extent of the improvements that are needed. Fig- ure 5-8 provides a general sense of the direct costs associated with bus stop improvements. Labor costs are additional for construction and will vary between communities; there will likely be other costs associated with the improvements, such as traffic mitigation during con- struction and right-of-way acquisition, which can be significant. To maximize funding available for improvements, coordinate the improvements with the jurisdiction’s local ADA and sidewalk programs (and, if the timing is appropriate, with adjacent land-use developments). By coordinating with other programs to make the improvements, some economies of scale can be achieved and costs potentially shared. For example, if there is a

56 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities LAND USE (10 Points) Proximity to a Hospital (3 Points) Inside of Half Mile Buffer (3) Outside of Half Mile Buffer (0) Proximity to a School (3 Points) Inside of Half Mile Buffer (3) Outside of Half Mile Buffer (0) Proximity to a Priority Funding Area (2 Points) Inside (2) Outside (0) Proximity to anM NCPPC Center or Corridor (2 Points) SAFETY (40 Points) Number of Incidents and Proximity of Automobile Pedestrian Accident (40 Points) Five or More Incidents, Inside of 165 Feet (40) Two to Four Incidents, Inside of 165 Feet (30) One Incident, Inside of 165 Feet (20) Zero Incidents, Inside of 165 Feet (0) USAGE (30 Points) Classification of Transit Dependent Persons Density (15 Points) Very Low (3) Low (6) Moderate (9) High (12) Very High (15) Classification of Overall Population Density (15 Points) Very Low (3) Low (6) Moderate (9) High (12) Very High (15) ACCESSIBILITY (20 Points) Sidewalk Presence (8 Points) Yes (0) Obstructed (4) No (8) Landing Pad Presence (6 Points) Yes (0) Obstructed (3) No (6) Missing Crosswalks (3 Points) 0 (0) 1 or 2 (1) 3 or 4 (3) Missing Curb Ramps (3 Points) 0 (0) 1 or 2 (1) Figure 5-6. Example of a prioritization “scoring” system for bus stop assessment and improvement study, Prince Georges County, Maryland (M-NCPPC 5 Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission). Short Term: Low-cost fix by trimming back the shrubs. Medium Term: Unsafe accessibility for pedestrians at high activity location. Long Term: Low-activity stop without landing pad and sidewalk. Figure 5-7. Examples of short-term, medium-term, and long-term improvements (photos courtesy of KFH Group).

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 57 planned sidewalk extension that is being installed past an existing stop, coordinate the instal- lation of a landing pad with the sidewalk installation. In this example, there will be some cost savings since the labor, equipment, and materials will already be on site. Other Strategies Toward Bus Stop and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements In addition to conducting a comprehensive bus stop assessment, transit agencies can also improve bus stop accessibility on a smaller scale through a variety of approaches, such as: • Develop bus stop design guidelines. To help ensure that new sidewalk construction and bus stop improvements are fully accessible, transit agencies can develop their own design Curb Ramps $2,000 - $2,500 Sidewalk $3.00 - $5.00/square foot Shelter (installed)$10,000 - $15,000 Utility Pole Relocation $10,000 - $20,000 Bench (installed) $1,500 - $2,500 Figure 5-8. Sample direct costs related to bus stop accessibility improvements (photos courtesy of KFH Group).

58 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities guidelines that meet (or exceed) ADA requirements and encourage placement of ameni- ties in a way that does not impede access. These standards can be shared with the local jurisdictions and those planning any developments along existing or planned bus stops. • Participate in the development review process. Transit agencies that review and comment upon proposed land-use developments in their service area may be able to affect the instal- lation of an accessible bus stop as part of the development. • When planning new fixed routes, choose bus stop locations to maximize accessibility. Each time a transit agency develops a new fixed-route, or modifies the routing of an existing route, there is an opportunity to select bus stop locations that are accessible, or would require minimal improvements to make accessible. • Consult with transit riders. People with disabilities who are fixed-route transit riders pro- vide perhaps the most important perspective of all when it comes to the usability of a bus stop and its connecting pedestrian pathways, particularly for any stops that are questionable as to their functional accessibility. Although it may not be feasible to involve riders in assessing a large volume of bus stops, any complaints received from riders on stop accessibility should be assessed and programmed for improvement if possible. On an ongoing basis, consulting with the transit agency’s accessibility advisory committee on bus stop issues is recommended. • Consult with transit staff. It can also be highly beneficial to include the perspective of multiple functions of the transit agency, particularly for problem solving on a day-to-day basis. A member of the research team worked at Pierce Transit in the late 1990s as a planner responsible for the bus stop program and coordinated efforts with a bus stop working group composed of representatives of planning, operations, safety training, customer service, and marketing. Each bus stop complaint or request that was received from the public (or a driver) was shared with the group for investigation and input. The group convened to discuss more complex problems and reach consensus on the best solution, which might involve relocating the stop. In many cases, the perspective of a driver or safety trainer was invaluable in find- ing a solution, since these individuals know what the traffic conditions are like, where the bus can safely stop, how congested the sidewalks may be at certain times of the day, etc. The agency’s travel trainer was also frequently consulted. • Consult with travel trainers and paratransit eligibility specialists. In cases in which riders’ conditional eligibility for ADA paratransit depends on their ability to get to and from the bus stop, the eligibility specialists’ assessment of the paths of travel for the individual riders they work with can be used to determine bus stop and sidewalk improvement needs. • Ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Even perfectly accessible sidewalks and bus stops can deteriorate over time. Once a transit agency establishes a bus stop inventory, conditions at each stop need to be periodically monitored. This can be as simple as investigating com- plaints submitted by riders and drivers and updating the bus stop database accordingly, or as involved as conducting another round of field visits to each stop in the system or along a specific route or major corridor. In any case, damaged amenities and pavement should be repaired as soon as possible, particularly when the damage is hazardous or presents acces- sibility barriers. • Include tactile or technology elements to help riders with vision disabilities identify bus stop locations. While most transit riders will be able to find a bus stop with visual signage, those with vision disabilities need to rely on other cues. Even with mobility training and travel training, a bus stop sign pole may be easily confused with another type of pole if it is not a distinctive shape or size, or have some other non-visual distinguishing feature. One approach to address this is to work with local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that calls for bus stop poles to be a unique shape (e.g., square) and prohibits other poles for roadway signage from using this unique design. Figure 5-9 shows a bus stop at Lane Transit District in Eugene, OR. The pole is square, the unique shape called for in local ordinances. Other

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 59 strategies that can be employed to help riders with vision disabilities find the bus stop include tactile signage (with Braille and/or raised lettering), tactile sidewalk surface at the boarding location, and Remote Infrared Audible Signage System (RIAS) technology. 5.4 Outcomes, Costs, and Benefits Based on the literature search conducted for this study, limited data exists that documents outcomes, costs, and benefits associated with accessibility improvements to stops and connect- ing pathways. To supplement the information in the literature, the research team worked with several transit agencies to collect and develop outcome, cost, and benefit data. Following is data from the literature as well as the case studies. Maryland Transit Administration In one case, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) focused on financial factors, studying the costs to make bus stop improvements and comparing these to the costs for the agency’s ADA paratransit program. The MTA improved selected bus stops, some with “simple” improvements, costing on average $7,000 per stop, and others with “enhanced” improvements, at $58,000 per stop. The latter improvements included “minor” fixing of the adjacent sidewalks of the stops, among other changes. Using the fully allocated cost of $76.64 per ADA paratransit trip, the MTA’s study calculated an annual cost to the MTA of $38,000 for an everyday ADA paratransit rider. If that rider could transition to fixed-route transit, according to the study, the MTA would recover the stop improvement costs in 10 weeks for the simple improvements and in 18 months for the enhanced improvements. (19, 20) Figure 5-9. Lane Transit district bus stop with unique square pole (photo courtesy of TranSystems).

60 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Montgomery County, Maryland Montgomery County’s assessment of its improvement efforts looked to pedestrian safety results, since improved safety was a primary objective of its efforts. According to County data from 2011 and compared to 2000, pedestrian collisions decreased by 4% and pedestrian fatali- ties by 39%. Costs for improvements are tracked by Montgomery County through a robust and cre- ative database, developed as a “wiki,” a web application that allows designated users to add, modify and delete content in a collaborative way. Called a “geo-wiki” by the County, this site has streamlined the County’s process of updating the bus stop database, coordinating improvements (e.g., with the bus shelter franchisee), generating and tracking work orders for improvements (e.g., with the construction contractor), surveying stops, and monitoring stop improvement activities. As of the end of calendar year 2012, the improvements were about 70% completed, cost- ing $7.4 M, with an average cost per improved stop of $2,931. The geo-wiki summarizes the improvements through the end of 2012 with construction of: • 1,583 ADA-compliant stops; • 2,230 ADA-compliant pads; • 72,414.5 feet (13.7 miles) of sidewalk linking stops to adjacent sidewalks and pathways; • 735 intersections with ramps installed; and • 61 new medians, providing, for example, pedestrian refuge islands or traffic calming. Link Transit, Wenatchee, Washington Link Transit’s efforts to improve its fixed-route transit accessibility for riders with disabilities, of which the stop and infrastructure improvements were only a part, resulted in a shift of trips from ADA paratransit to fixed-route transit, with trips on ADA paratransit decreasing 41% from 2002 to 2010 and trips on fixed-route transit increasing 106% during this time period. With its limited funds, Link Transit focused on cost-effective improvements for stops and infrastructure, leveraging private business dollars, grant funding, and use of the low-cost “rhino snot.” Using this material, costs for the rural stop improvements averaged $50-$75 for materials and one to two hours of labor per stop. Cost for the “rhino snot” depended on the location’s soil but it was no more than $25 for the 8 ft × 8 ft (larger than ADA requirements) pad typically installed. The largest cost was for the concrete blocks used for slope retainage. Intercity Transit, Olympia, Washington The results of Intercity Transit’s stop and infrastructure improvements were analyzed with the assistance of the agency’s staff. Looking at the 24 stops improved in 2010, ridership on fixed-route transit was compared for the year before and year after the improvements. At those 24 improved stops, total board- ings increased by 14%, as compared to a system-wide increase of 5%. More telling is that lift deployments at these stops increased by 37% compared to 16% system-wide, indicating that the stop improvements are very likely a factor in the increased use by riders using wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Figure 5-10 shows an example of improvements to one of Intercity’s bus stops, with before and after photos. Improvements constructed at this stop included using a 6 inch curbed land- ing pad with a ramp to the shoulder, since there are no sidewalks along this road. The stop was “functional” and now is “accessible.”

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 61 At Intercity, the increase in lift deployments represented 467 trips at the 24 improved stops. Providing those trips on fixed-route transit rather than Intercity’s ADA paratransit service in 2011, the transit agency saved $17,996, based on the 2011 net difference between the trip cost of ADA paratransit versus fixed-route transit. Each trip on fixed-route transit that is shifted from ADA paratransit represents a net saving to the transit agency of $38.54 (2011 dollars). At Intercity, ridership and lift deployments were also assessed for the years before and after bus stop improvements constructed in 2005. While stop level data were not available at that time, the increase shown in Intercity’s lift boardings system-wide following the improvements is significant (36%) and higher than in other years and could be attributed, at least in part, to the stop improvements. TriMet, Portland, Oregon TriMet conducted a comprehensive assessment of the results of bus stop and infrastructure improvements constructed along a high-ridership corridor in 2009. Significantly, this assess- ment looked not only at changes in fixed-route transit use by riders with disabilities at improved stops, but also ridership changes on ADA paratransit within a ¼-mile radius of the improved stops. The improvements, undertaken in partnership with the Oregon Department of Trans- portation, were substantial, with more than $0.5 million spent to upgrade 17 bus stops, with repair and construction of incomplete and damaged sidewalks, and the addition of ten bus shelters and concrete pad at the stops. Figure 5-11 shows the before and after photos of one of the 17 stops. Figure 5-10. Intercity Transit: before and after construction of a curb-height concrete pad spanning culvert, with ramp to shoulder (photos courtesy of Intercity Transit).

62 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities The fixed-route transit data for the 17 improved stops shows that lift deployments nearly doubled after the improvements (increasing by 96% from fall 2008 to fall 2009, and continued to climb, with a 112% increase from 2008 to 2011). Assessing ADA paratransit ridership in the ¼-mile radius of the improved stops, the data show that ridership by conditionally eligible riders decreased 12%, comparing the year before the improvements to 2011. Data for fully eligible riders, however, showed a different pattern, with essentially no change over the same time period (a 0.5% decrease). It is conditionally eli- gible riders who will most benefit from stop and infrastructure accessibility improvements, as these are the riders who are able to use fixed-route transit in some cases. Regarding costs, if one assumes that the new lift/ramp trips at the 17 bus stops can be attributed to the improvements, and that without the improvements those trips would be on TriMet’s ADA paratransit service, then TriMet is saving nearly $60,000 per year by accommodating additional lift/ramp-using riders on fixed-route transit as a result of the improvements installed in 2009 (using the FY 2012 operating cost per ADA paratransit trip of $29.875). 5 Source: http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf, as accessed 12/7/12, p. 3, “Operating Cost/Boarding Ride” for LIFT/Cab. Figure 5-11. TriMet’s bus stop improvements along Tualatin Valley Highway, “before” and “after” (photos courtesy of TriMet). A comprehensive assessment by TriMet found that ADA paratransit ridership by conditionally eligible riders decreased by 12% in areas where bus stop access had been improved.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 63 While the analyses do not definitively prove the new lift/ramp-using riders at the improved stops would have otherwise used ADA paratransit, the data are powerful nonetheless. Improve- ments to bus stops and their connecting pedestrian infrastructure do induce additional fixed- route transit use by riders with mobility devices. Also important to recognize is that there may be new fixed-route transit ridership by others with disabilities that is not captured in the data because the disabilities of those riders do not require a lift or ramp deployment. Summary While there is limited documentation showing the specific results of stop and pedestrian infrastructure improvements for riders with disabilities, data collected for the research proj- ect shows that ridership on fixed-route transit service by those requiring a lift or ramp does increase following bus stop and connecting infrastructure accessibility improvements. Moreover, given that the available data measure ridership impacts just for those riders with disabilities needing a lift or ramp, accessibility improvements, particularly to connecting side- walks and pathways, likely benefit the wider disability community—those individuals who can board without a lift/ramp, including, for example, those with vision disabilities and those who need a stable, even surface to walk. Furthermore, the infrastructure improvements benefit all transit riders as well as non-transit riders who are pedestrians using the improved infrastructure. Available data also show large differences in costs for stop and infrastructure improvements (see Table 5-1), which is not surprising given the major variations in what can be involved to ren- der a stop and connecting sidewalk accessible. Such an improvement might involve the relatively low cost for repairs to an existing connecting sidewalk, for example, to the major costs required by TriMet and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) for accessibility improvements. Several of the TriMet stop improvements required extensive work to mitigate safety concerns related to the presence of an active freight line parallel to the roadway. The MTA’s “enhanced” stops included, among other costs, trenching to provide electricity for lighted shelters. (21) 5.5 Implementation Issues and Lessons Learned This project’s case study transit agencies shared noteworthy implementation issues based on their experience as well as on the “lessons” they learned. Transit Agency Number of Stops/Connecting Infrastructure Improvements Year Improvements Constructed Cost Average Cost per Improved Stop Intercity, Olympia, WA 24 2010 $164,606 $6,859 Maryland Transit Administration, Baltimore, MD 26 “simple” improvements (e.g., minor sidewalk repair) 2005–2006 $183,000 $7,000 14 “enhanced” improvements (e.g., lighted shelter) 2005–2006 $813,000 $58,000 RideOn, Montgomery County, MD 2,510 2006–2012 $7,356,879 $2,931 TriMet, Portland, OR 17 2009 $512,167 $30,127 Table 5-1. Cost data for bus stop and connecting pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

64 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities Implementation Issues As reported by the case study transit agencies, implementation issues include: • For multi-jurisdictional transit services, good working relationships between the tran- sit agency and its jurisdictions are important and can facilitate leveraging of additional funding for the improvement projects. TriMet reports that, when feasible, improvements are constructed and installed as part of a larger project such as adjacent land-use develop- ment or street projects. This is facilitated as TriMet participates in the jurisdictional site review process. Intercity Transit works with the cities it serves when stops are improved, and often a city will participate with additional pedestrian infrastructure improvements, such as a curb bulb-out for a stop located near a street corner and share funding through an interagency agreement. • When contracting out stop improvements, the work should be enough to encourage cost- effective, competitive contracting. Intercity Transit’s experience finds that “enough” is at least 15 to 20 stops for improvement for each bidding opportunity. • Constructing improvements can be facilitated if the local jurisdiction handles the engi- neering and construction. For example, Montgomery County uses its in-house engineer- ing staff to design improvements that require engineering analysis rather than contracting out this work. TriMet contracts directly with the City of Portland to construct pedestrian sidewalk improvements in that city without a need for detailed engineering or design ser- vices. For work in other jurisdictions that TriMet serves, the transit agency has used a con- tractor to construct improvements but has been able to fast-track much of the permitting via in-kind staff support from the jurisdictions, which constitutes part of the local match of the project. • Ownership of the rights-of-way can be an issue. The City of Tucson tries to place stops at ¼-mile intervals, but finds it difficult to maintain this spacing and also install ADA- compliant stops when planned stop placement abuts private property. Montgomery County has not tackled stop improvements that require purchase of ROW from private property owners: cost estimates show that ROW purchase alone is an estimated $15,000 per stop. • Community involvement, including through the transit agency’s advisory group, has been useful in identifying and prioritizing stops for improvement as well as sidewalk improvements, as reported by several of the case study transit agencies. The Town of Cary, for example, has a popular annual sidewalk request program in which citizens’ requests con- tribute to prioritization for sidewalk improvement funding, along with proximity to transit, which is another factor in funding decisions. Lessons Learned Collective “lessons learned” from the stop and pedestrian infrastructure improvements implemented by the case study transit agencies include both those at the policy and planning level as well as on-the-ground implementation tips. • Building good relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and intra-jurisdictional depart- ments (e.g., the traffic engineering department) as well as educating them is very useful to facilitate implementation of improvements. Such efforts support coordinated planning and construction of improvements as well as cost-sharing. • Recognition at the policy level that riders’ transit experience begins before they get on the bus is very important to garnering support for making bus stop improvements. Having the transit agency’s top leadership on board is essential. • Going into the grant cycle application process with a game plan in mind—with improvement needs identified and prioritized through a systematic process—is important for successfully obtaining funding. The intent of pursuing improvements needs to have a basis and criteria for why each stop has been chosen.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 65 • The inclusion of transit-related design standards for development and redevelopment can help support improved access to public transit for residential projects and retail/commercial activity centers. • Transit agencies should advocate strongly the importance of constructing sidewalks to bus stops. Regional planning targets, new or sustained transit service, and targeted bus stop investments should be used to encourage jurisdictions and developers to partner with the transit agency in constructing sidewalk improvements that connect with transit. • Don’t let the scale of the problem keep efforts from being started. It may not be possible to identify the funding to make all bus stops accessible, but don’t let that be a reason for not getting started at some level. Make as many improvements as funding allows each year and work toward accessibility over time. • Target improvements where they are most needed and will yield the maxi- mum benefit. With limited funds, improvements should be made at those stop locations with larger numbers of riders and with riders with dis- abilities and, as appropriate, where the improvements demonstrate to the broader community that the transit agency is investing in the pedestrian infrastructure. Such improvements benefit not just transit riders but also all citizens who walk about in the community. • Establish realistic expectations: have a plan but realize that not everything will go according to that plan. Anticipate adjustments and refinements in design. • Involve all stakeholders from the beginning and keep them informed along the way. This will make it easier to get them up to speed on any issues that arise. • Establish and maintain clear and frequent lines of communications, especially with adjacent businesses during construction phase. • Be aware of future development projects that can affect an existing non-compliant bus stop, or one that is already compliant. Have the developer, as part of the development or redevelop- ment project, do the necessary ADA improvements to the bus stop or make sure a compliant stop remains so when the developer’s work is done. • When an improvement is needed at a roadway intersection for safer pedestrian accessibil- ity, all four corners of the intersection should be improved if funding permits. This allows pedestrians and bus riders to access nearby activity centers from various directions. • Addressing the need for graffiti-prevention on new concrete pads is strongly recommended at the pre-bid meeting with construction contractors, as well as being written into the contract. • Using a curbed landing/shelter pad, where there is no sidewalk available, is best done with two accessible ramps on either side of the pad. This will prevent erosion on the side without a ramp and decreases safety concerns of having a 6 inch curb suddenly appear in front of pedestrians, bike riders, or vehicles. • When making a stop improvement, use the opportunity to make other improvements that benefit all riders. For example, the City of Tucson tries to provide a larger than ADA-required pad—up to 30 feet long—so riders deboarding from the rear door find a firm stable surface rather than loose gravel. Summary The case study transit agencies generally share the importance of cooperation and collabo- ration with neighboring jurisdictions and with their own intra-jurisdictional departments for planning and constructing bus stops and connecting infrastructure improvements. Signifi- cantly, such collaboration may also result in sharing costs for the improvements. It is also clear that input from the community and the agency’s advisory group is important, particularly for prioritizing stops for improvement. Other issues and lessons learned are more specific to each transit agency’s experience. Get started at whatever scale you can. Make bus stop and infrastruc- ture improvements as plans and funding allow. It isn’t necessary to identify funding for the entire sys- tem before making at least some improvements. Prioritize and work toward accessibility over time.

66 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities 5.6 Evaluation of Bus Stop and Connecting Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Several evaluation strategies are possible, from the less to the more involved, depending on data availability, and are listed below. Details are provided in Appendix D. Ridership Changes at Improved Stops by Riders with Disabilities This is a straightforward assessment, which looks at the change in number of lift/ramp deployments at the improved stops for a time period before the improvements to a similar time period after; a one-year time period is suggested. This change is then compared to the change in number of lift/ramp boarding system-wide. If the stop and infrastructure improvements induce new fixed-route transit ridership by individuals using wheelchairs and scooters, there would be a greater increase shown at those improved stops than shown system-wide. It is important to note that the assessment strategy focuses on riders who use mobility devices and who require a lift or ramp to board, rather than all riders with disabilities, given that stop by stop data collection practices by transit agencies typically track lift/ramp usage and do not collect stop level data on all riders with disabilities. Ridership Changes at Improved Stops—All Riders Because stop and pedestrian infrastructure improvements benefit all riders and not just those needing the lift/ramp to board, a transit agency can also evaluate if there is a change in total boardings at the improved stops for a time period before the improvements to a similar time period after; again, a one-year time period is suggested. This change is then compared to the change in boardings system-wide. If the stop and infrastructure improvements induce new ridership, there would be a greater increase shown at the improved stops than shown system-wide. Ridership Changes at Improved Stops by Riders with Disabilities Contrasted with Change in ADA Paratransit Ridership within Catchment Area of Improved Stops This evaluation strategy, used by TriMet to assess its 2009 improvements to 17 bus stops along a high-ridership corridor, is more involved and requires an assessment of both changes An overarching “lesson learned” from one of the transit agencies—Link Transit—captures the role of stop and connecting infrastructure accessibility improvements to the broader objec- tive of increasing fixed-route transit accessibility for riders with disabilities. Efforts to provide more accessible fixed-route transit service and to enable riders with disabilities to use that service must be holistic: the physical infrastructure— the bus stops and sidewalks—is only part of providing truly accessible service. The design and convenience of the service, the equipment used, pricing, agency staff attitudes, the attitudes of the larger transit-riding public, as well as the infrastructure are all critical factors in encouraging and enabling riders with disabilities to use fixed-route transit.

accessible Bus Stops and pedestrian Infrastructure 67 in fixed-route transit ridership at the improved stops as well as changes in ADA paratransit ridership within a ¼-mile radius of the improved stops. The assessment looks at the change in number of lift/ramp deployments at the improved stops for a time period before the improvements to a similar time period after: a one-year time period is suggested. It also looks at any changes in ADA paratransit ridership in the vicinity of the improved stops over the same time period, focusing on riders who have conditional eligibil- ity, as those are the riders who are able to use fixed-route transit in certain cases, and on that ridership within a defined ¼-mile distance around the improved stops. If the assessment finds both an increase in lift/ramp deployments at the improved stops and a decrease in ADA paratransit ridership by conditionally eligible riders within the catchment area of the improved stops, the transit agency can reasonably conclude that the improvements are very likely deferring ADA paratransit costs and are likely an important contributing factor in the decreased ADA ridership. Cost Analysis An evaluation of stop and pedestrian infrastructure improvements can look at cost impacts, with two strategies suggested. ADA Paratransit Costs Deferred with New Trips on Fixed-Route Transit by Riders with Disabilities This evaluation strategy assumes that new trips on fixed-route transit at the improved stops/ infrastructure by riders with disabilities (measured by lift/ramp deployments) would have other wise been taken on ADA paratransit. The calculation involves determining the net cost of an ADA paratransit trip and multiplying this by the new trips on fixed-route transit using the lift/ramp to determine the “savings” to the transit agency. “Break-Even” Number of Trips by Riders Who Use Wheelchairs/Scooters to Recover Cost for Stop/Infrastructure Improvements At a certain number of trips by riders who use wheelchairs/scooters at an improved bus stop, the cost of the improvements will equal the cost of providing that same number of trips by ADA paratransit, and the costs can be considered “recovered.” This assessment can be done for an individual stop that has been improved or for all the stops improved. Evaluation Summary Data on the ridership impacts of the bus stop and pedestrian infrastructure improvements are limited; however, available data show that improvements do induce new fixed-route transit use at the improved stops by riders with disabilities needing a lift/ramp to board and they also induce new fixed-route transit use by all riders. Data from Intercity Transit in Olympia, Washington, show that ridership by riders using wheelchair/scooters and needing a lift/ramp to board increased more than twice the rate shown for lift/ramp deployments system-wide: lift deployments at the improved stops increased by 37% compared to 16% system-wide, measuring before and after the improvements. Addition- ally, total boardings at the improved stops increased almost three times the rate shown system- wide: 14% at the improved stops as compared to a system-wide increase of 5%. Data from TriMet in Portland, Oregon, show that not only do lift/ramp deployments increase at improved stops, but ADA paratransit ridership within a ¼-mile radius of the improved stops shows a decrease by conditionally eligible riders over the same before-and-after time periods. TriMet’s data show that fixed-route transit lift deployments nearly doubled after the

68 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities improvements, measuring the year before and after the improvements, increasing 96%. Assess- ing ADA paratransit ridership in the ¼-mile radius of the improved stops, ridership by con- ditional riders decreased 12%, measuring before and after the improvements. Data for fully eligible riders, however, showed a different pattern, with essentially no change over the same time period (a 0.5% decrease). The extent to which stop improvements defer or save costs for ADA paratransit vary accord- ing to the ridership increase at the improved stops and the operating costs for ADA paratransit, and build on an assumption that the new trips requiring the ramp/lift at the improved stops would have otherwise been ADA paratransit trips. At TriMet, for example, if the new lift/ramp trips at the improved stops would have been trips on the ADA paratransit service without the bus stop improvements, the transit agency is saving nearly $60,000 per year. Finally, the research shows a large range in the costs to improve the accessibility of bus stops and the pedestrian infrastructure, with available data showing average costs per improved stop ranging from $3,000 to $58,000. The extent of required accessibility improvements also has a large range. At the lower-cost end, a stop may only need a short connection bridging the side- walk and curb over a grassy pedestrian buffer. At the costly end, a stop may need design and engineering work and construction to deal with significant land-use issues to provide a level boarding area and to install sidewalk connections to the closest intersection. Adding a shelter and other such amenities will further increase costs.