Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide (2007)

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.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-1 Planning Framework CHAPTER 2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW BRT should be an outgrowth of a planning and development process that stresses solving demonstrated current and forecast future problems and related needs. Planning for BRT calls for a realistic assessment of demands, costs, benefits, and impacts for a range of alternatives that includes a “base case” and may include one or more rail-based rapid transit alternatives. The basic planning objective should be to provide attractive and reliably fast transit service that • Serves demonstrated current and forecast future transit demand and needs, • Provides reserve capacity for future demand growth, • Attracts auto drivers to transit, • Relates to and reinforces transit- and pedestrian-oriented development plans, and • Has affordable initial implementation and ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Plans for BRT should focus on major markets, take advantage of incremental development opportunities, and promote complementary Transit First policies. “Deconstruction” of a BRT system by removing elements critical to its success to cut costs should be avoided. At the same time, the addition of unnecessary, capital cost–intensive features should be avoided. BRT can be especially desirable in large cities, where passenger flows warrant frequent service and there is a sufficient presence of buses to justify dedicated running ways. The following thresholds are suggested: • There should be one or more strong anchors (such as the city center) and a large tributary area. Current experience suggests that, in the United States or Canada, urban population should generally exceed 750,000 and central business district (CBD) employment should generally be at least 50,000 (1). However, a large university or other outlying activity center may support a BRT route or system. • Desired trunk line BRT headways should not be more than 8 to 10 minutes during peak periods and not more than 12 to 15 minutes during off-peak periods. • Ideally, there should be at least one BRT (and local) bus per traffic signal cycle where buses operate in a dedicated arterial street BRT lane. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CONTEXT Good transportation planning practice requires that major infrastructure investment proposals derive from an objective analysis of a reasonable range of investment options, including a base case. These alternatives are developed from an understanding of the transportation and transportation-related challenges and problems faced in metropolitan areas in general and specific corridors in particular. The planning process should be open and objective. It should reflect each area’s needs, opportunities, and resources. Studies involving a major capital investment (such as a busway) should include an alternatives analysis performed in accordance with FTA guidelines. However, low-cost, short-term operational Do not remove critical BRT system elements to cut costs. BRT needs one or more strong anchors and a tributary area.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-2 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide strategies may be implemented by the transit agencies in conjunction with highway and street traffic agencies. The SAFETEA-LU legislation requires a less rigorous alternatives analysis and FTA evaluation process for projects where less than $75 million of federal funds is requested. However, the new Small Starts transit capital assistance program follows the basic analysis process described above. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the different types of analyses that are part of the transportation planning continuum and relates them to different levels of FTA funding programs. Note that the information needs and ridership forecasting process for the various planning activities are different in both breadth and depth. EXHIBIT 2-1 Types of Analyses for Assessing Transit Project Development Planning/Project Development Phase Bus Corridor Improvements, <$25 Million Small Starts, <$75 Million* New Starts, >$75 Million* Process Function: Identification and Screening of Broadly Defined System Package Concepts for Refinement and Analysis Criteria: Sketch Planning Level of Detailed Cost, Benefit, and Impact Estimates Screening of Alternatives/Systems Planning Products: Alternatives for Further Refinement and/or Analysis Process Functions: Less Detailed Analysis, Fewer “Justification” Criteria Needed; Otherwise Same as for New Starts Process Functions: Definition of Alternatives at Both BRT Element and System’s Package Level, Check Reasonability of Analysis Results Criteria: More Accurate Estimates of Costs, Benefits, and Impacts for System Alternatives Criteria: More Accurate Estimates of Costs, Benefits, and Impacts for System Alternatives Alternatives Analysis N/A Outcome: Single System’s Package to Bring into Project Development/PE Outcome: Single System’s Package to Bring into Project Development/PE Process Functions: Detailed Definition of Each Element in Selected System Package, Assessment of Reasonability of Specifications, and Cost Estimates, by Element Criteria: Detailed Cost, Performance, and Impact Estimates to Take into Final Design and Implementation Preliminary Engineering Outcome: Detailed Definition of Project to Take into Final Design/Implementation *Limit of federal funding SOURCE: CBRT (2) FTA requires that an alternative be developed to serve as a base case for developing and evaluating a complete range of “build” alternatives. For both New Starts and Small Starts projects, this base case alternative will be different from a traditional “do nothing” or “no project” alternative. FTA requires that the base case alternative achieve the most benefit from existing transit and highway infrastructure with only modest additional investment. Sometimes it is called a transportation system management (TSM) option. FTA also requires that the range of alternatives includes options that are intermediate in cost between the baseline and more expensive fixed-guideway (usually rail transit) investments. In recent years, the need to consider a BRT project development activities are related to level of funding. FTA’s new Very Small Starts funding category within Small Starts has “no build” as the baseline alternative.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-3 Planning Framework “reasonable range of alternatives” has translated into the development and analysis of BRT options that usually cover a range of technological sophistication and costs. This chapter gives general guidelines for applying the alternatives analysis procedures to BRT. The best place to find more detailed information and guidance on the federal New Starts and Small Starts planning and project development process is at the following FTA web site: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html In most corridor applications, a BRT line will generally cost less than an LRT line. However, BRT can represent a substantial investment in both capital and operating and maintenance costs. Accordingly, the decision to invest in BRT should be taken seriously and follow the same basic project planning process used for any rapid transit investment, whether or not federal funding assistance is requested. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STEPS After policy endorsement of goals, objectives, and criteria, transportation planners should begin the rapid transit planning and project development process with an in-depth analysis of the characteristics and causes of current and potential future transportation and transportation-related problems and needs in a given corridor (or corridors). This corridor should have been identified by the ongoing systems planning process as needing a rapid transit investment. This analysis, known as an “alternatives analysis,” should focus on multi-modal (transit and highway) demand, supply, and performance in the corridor or corridors in question. It should also cover transportation-related environmental, social, economic development, and land use–related challenges and issues. The key steps in the alternatives analysis process are shown in Exhibit 2-2. They include the following: 1. Establishing goals 2. Evaluating current problems and future needs 3. Identifying investment alternatives 4. Evaluating the alternatives 5. Selecting the general alignment for the recommended mode The key questions to be addressed include the following: • What are the problems and needs now and in the future? • What are the modes, corridors, and service patterns? • What is the ridership? • What are the costs and benefits? After a complete analysis of the current and projected future situations (i.e., analysis of a “no project” or “do nothing” option), alternative rapid transit and/or other multi-modal solutions should be identified (with the exception of Very Small Starts projects). The first alternative to be identified should be one or more modest- investment alternatives also referred to as TSM or base case alternatives. This option should include both additions of new capacity and services as well as operational improvements. BRT investments should be studied to the same extent as rail-based transit investments. There are five key steps in the alternatives analysis process. An objective analysis of a full range of transit alternatives is necessary.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-4 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Establish Goals and Objectives (Transportation-Related, Quality of Life) Evaluate Current Problems and Future Challenges Identify Investment Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Decide on Mode and General Alignment SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 2-2 Alternatives Analysis Process Based on the analysis of the TSM alternatives, one or more rapid transit alternatives should be identified and analyzed. Where a modest BRT investment is contemplated, there may be only one rapid transit build alternative. However, where more expensive (e.g., in excess of $75 million in federal funding) BRT and rail-based alternatives are examined, less expensive rapid transit alternatives should be examined, too. Following an open, objective analysis of the full range of alternatives in terms of the goals, objectives, and criteria enunciated at the beginning of the planning process, policy officials will select a single rapid transit alternative to take into more detailed planning, engineering, and design. This alternative will be defined in terms of basic mode and general alignment. The next step in the process, preliminary engineering, defines the selected alternative to a level of detail normally requiring completion of 30% of engineering and design activities. At the conclusion of preliminary engineering, the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should have been completed, and the scope and cost of the project will be sufficiently defined to permit commitment to construction of the project by the various funding partners, including FTA. The federal commitment will reflect a rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing the results of the alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering processes. Realistic assessments of costs, ridership, benefits, and operating feasibility are essential. Establish Goals and Evaluate Problems and Needs At the outset, existing problems and needs of transit (and highway) services in a given corridor (or throughout the region) should be identified. Where for Preliminary engineering follows the alternatives analysis process. Environmental review follows preliminary engineering.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-5 Planning Framework example, is transit service slow, overcrowded, and unreliable? Where is recurrent congestion that might be reduced by new transit or highway investments? Where can existing problems be alleviated by transit (and/or highway) operational strategies? How will future growth affect the problem? Where BRT is envisioned, an initial estimate of the demand for new BRT service should be undertaken. The following activities should be included: • Identifying the market segments to be served • Developing potential service configurations and frequencies for the new BRT service and local bus services in the corridor • Estimating ridership for both the BRT and the local bus service Existing bus ridership, land use patterns, and roadway characteristics may influence corridor selection and the viability of BRT service. Identify Market Segments BRT can and should serve multiple market segments, targeted to serve both choice riders and transit-dependent populations. Market segments will include commuter trips to downtown areas and shorter, intermediate trips along a route. A market segmentation analysis should serve as an input into the potential travel demand assessment for BRT travel. Initial Service Planning Associated with the initial market segment analysis, the desired configuration for new BRT service should be identified. This configuration could include a new limited-stop line-haul BRT service in a corridor or BRT running a portion in line- haul service with limited stops and then branching into local neighborhoods to serve as a circulator. Various options are shown in Exhibit 2-3. In any case, the impacts on local bus service in the corridor should be assessed. This assessment will include any changes in service frequency and/or span, as well as any restructuring of local bus service to complement the new BRT service. It could include allowing certain local buses to operate along all or part of the BRT facility. Identify Alternatives Once a preliminary estimate of BRT ridership demand and an assessment of potential service concepts is completed, running way opportunities and alternatives should be identified, along with an appropriate station spacing plan and approximate station locations. This alternatives development process should be structured to follow FTA alternatives analysis guidelines where federal funding is involved, including an initial alternatives scoping process. Both running way and station alternatives should be narrowed down and refined as the alternatives analysis process proceeds, with build alternatives compared to a designated base case or no-build alternative. BRT should be driven by both needs and opportunities. Identify potential markets and ridership for BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-6 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Non-Stop All Stops Limited Stops All Stops Limited Stops All Stops Limited Stops Limited Stops All Stops All Stops A A B B P P P P P Mixed Traffic Busw ay or Bus Lane Freew ay HOV Lane Rail Line Central Business District Station Park-and-Ride Lot 1. Single Route 2. Rail Extension 3. Integrated Line-Haul and Collection/Distribution 4. System of Routes 5. Commuter (High-Occupancy Vehicle) Route SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (1) EXHIBIT 2-3 BRT Route Configurations Identify Running Way Opportunities The corridor in which a new BRT route would operate typically would have a major roadway operating through a portion or all of its length, and/or a parallel rail route, and/or an open space corridor. Assessment of potential off-street running way opportunities, such as a busway, in the corridor will require obtaining data and insights on existing property ownership, environmental

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-7 Planning Framework features, existing/planned rail operations, and any other constraints to developing the corridor for BRT. Assessment of on-street running way opportunities should address the feasibility of developing bus lanes along the curb vs. in the median, including any potential for a median busway facility. The ability to modify parking regulations and other traffic controls should also be identified. In addition to the corridor-level, physical BRT running way alternatives, intersection preferential treatment alternatives should be assessed. These alternatives include the potential implementation of TSP, queue jumps/bypass lanes, and/or curb extensions. A key decision is the trade-off between developing an exclusive busway or bus lanes vs. developing intersection preferential treatments in a BRT corridor. The need and opportunity to package new facilities and preferential treatments to maximize travel time savings for BRT should be indicated. Identify Station Locations Once different running way alternatives are established for a BRT corridor, station locations and functions should be identified. Stations should be located in accordance with an overall BRT station spacing objective for the corridor; they should serve major activity centers along the route, as well as major crosstown transit routes. Evaluate Alternatives An objective analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives is required for informed decision-making. Each option should be evaluated for its costs, effectiveness, and community impacts. Assessments should include ridership, travel times, constructability, operating feasibility, land development benefits, environmental effects, and capital and operating costs. Realistic and reliable estimates of costs and benefits are essential. Estimate Ridership Ridership estimates are paramount among decision criteria. Ridership estimation is one of the most important activities that takes place during alternatives analysis for a number of reasons: • Ridership reflects the ability of a given investment to attract new riders. Thus, ridership in itself is an important direct benefit. In quantitative terms, the benefits of new transit systems are related to the increase in ridership they generate multiplied by the change in the generalized “price” (linear combination of time and cost) of using them, both compared to a base case. • Ridership is indirectly related to most other transit benefits, including congestion relief, air pollution emissions and fuel consumption, and the ability to induce positive land use and economic development effects. • Ridership is an important input for detailed planning and design. Transportation planners, therefore, should accurately estimate ridership for a complete range of options to satisfy good planning practice and FTA requirements. However, providing BRT estimates has historically been difficult for two reasons. First, full-featured BRT (i.e., BRT including off-board fare collection, ITS, dedicated running ways, etc.) is a relatively new mode, with little documented ridership experience. Second, there is a difference of opinion among many citizens and transportation professionals as to the relative attractiveness of BRT and rail rapid There are trade-offs between running way improvements and intersection preferential treatments. BRT ridership forecasting is addressed in more detail in Chapter 3. Realistic and reliable ridership estimates are essential because ridership affects benefits and system design.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-8 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide transit, particularly in relation to transit’s competitiveness with driving. The public frequently associates “bus rapid transit” with conventional local bus service. Therefore, their response to abstract “stated preference” surveys could be significantly different from their actual response to something they see operating. Making ridership forecasting for BRT even more challenging is the flexibility of BRT’s relatively small vehicles and their ability to operate anywhere. This flexibility provides planners with a large variety of service plans and, hence, facility and equipment options. The traveler response to one BRT package with one level of completeness and quality may indeed be different from another, even if origin-to-destination travel times and costs are the same. Current experience suggests that, where rail and BRT alternatives have the same station spacing, amenities, vehicle quality, span of service, level of running way dedication, and fare collection methods, their impedance (generalized cost) functions and modal bias constants should be basically the same. If one alternative (e.g., BRT) was better than the other in these respects, it would be the more favorable. Accordingly, whatever ridership forecasting approach is used for one rapid transit mode should be used for the other, subject to the caveat of system content comparability. The operable guidance for forecasting is, therefore, to be conservative, consistent, and objective. Even where a detailed alternatives analysis is not mandated or warranted (e.g., because a major capital investment in BRT or any other mode is not being contemplated), ridership forecasting is important. Environmental impact assessment, evaluation of service plan options, estimation of vehicle and facility requirements, development of facility designs, and prudent financial planning all depend on good ridership information. Estimate Costs Capital and operating costs for each BRT option in a corridor are essential in comparing differences and obtaining funding. Capital cost estimates should include the costs of developing the new BRT running way, stations, vehicles, and system elements such as fare collection passenger information, security and safety systems, and branding. In the initial screening of different BRT corridor alternatives, generalized costs per station and per vehicle-hour can be applied based on costs derived from past BRT implementation efforts. Operating cost estimates should include the basic costs of operating and maintaining the new BRT service. Operating cost estimates should address changes in operating costs associated with any changes in local transit service in the corridor. Standard cost models based upon bus-hours, bus-miles, and peak vehicles can be used; however, annual maintenance costs for stations and special running ways should be added. Eventually transforming both capital and operating costs to a life-cycle cost assessment allows for a longer-term investment comparison of alternatives. Estimate Benefits The costs of different types and levels of BRT investment and the benefits of the new service for transit users, the agency providing the new BRT service, and the community as a whole should be indicated. A basic input to estimating ridership and operating cost savings is the travel time savings associated with the new BRT operation, stemming from the use of exclusive facilities, preferential treatments, low-floor boarding on vehicles, and/or Similar ridership forecasting approaches should be used for BRT and rail transit if BRT and rail transit have similar features. Ridership forecasts should be conservative, consistent, and objective. Life-cycle cost assessment should be a consideration. Travel time savings and improved service reliability are key BRT benefits.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-9 Planning Framework potential self-service fare collection, along with fewer stops. Travel time savings for transit users resulting from the new BRT service should be translated into cost savings by applying value of time assumptions. By attracting former automobile users, the new BRT service also can reduce automobile running times. By reducing travel time and improving reliability, the number of vehicles providing the service can be reduced. Benefits to the community associated with a new BRT service include potential reductions in motor vehicle volumes and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in a corridor. Associated with this is potential air quality benefits resulting from fewer vehicles, less VMT, and the typically lower emissions of new BRT vehicles. Constructability A key evaluation necessity even in the initial screening of BRT running way and station alternatives is determining whether the improvements can be constructed and operated without undue impact. “Undue impact” is defined as major right-of-way acquisition/relocation, extraordinarily high construction costs, or major harm to the community. Examples of poor constructability are developing a median arterial busway where maintaining frequent local cross-street access is required and constructing a busway in an active rail corridor where the required separation of the two facilities would result in major property acquisition and relocation. Service Integration The type of BRT service to be provided in a corridor should be identified before alignment, station, and vehicle alternatives are developed and evaluated. As specific BRT running way and station alternatives are defined, the interface between the new BRT service and any existing local bus service in the corridor should be further addressed. One issue that should be addressed is determining whether BRT and local bus services will share the same stations or have separate stops. Having BRT and local buses at the same stations would require longer facilities (i.e., more berths) and potentially greater station costs; however, nearby local bus stops could be eliminated. Having a BRT station at a major crosstown bus route location may allow consolidation of BRT/crosstown stops, thereby facilitating passenger trips, which is critical for heavy bus passenger transfer movements. Community Development A key issue in any community is BRT’s ability to attract developer investment to a BRT corridor, particularly to areas around BRT stations. Several cities have found that BRT can increase development intensity, property values, and housing prices. Recent surveys in Boston and Ottawa (as documented in Chapter 6) identify factors that attract developer interest to BRT corridors. Being able to target developer interest early in the planning process and working to create joint development incentives and opportunities at certain BRT stations should be a major objective in any BRT development effort. Select and Refine Mode and Alignment After an initial evaluation of BRT service and routing options along a corridor, more refined planning and engineering analyses should to be undertaken to define and detail a preferred option. This preferred option could represent a combination of previous options considered or a totally new option. Determine the degree to which BRT and local bus service should be integrated.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-10 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Route/Alignment/Transit Preferential Treatments At the refined options stage, the specific route and alignment for the BRT service should be identified. This process will include identifying a specific on- or off-street alignment and a design treatment for the running way, as well as transit preferential treatment strategies (e.g., TSP, queue jumps/bypass lanes, curb extensions) to be applied at different locations along the route. The running way identification should be based on conceptual plans for the BRT facility, including typical sections, plans and profiles, grade-separated provisions for busways, and the location of stations and how they integrate with the BRT route alignment and the surrounding community. Trade-offs between different types of transit preferential treatments at intersections should be understood at this stage. The final need for and feasibility of implementing TSP vs. queue jump/bypass lanes vs. curb extensions should be identified and related to the final location of BRT stations. Refined Service Plan The refined BRT service plan should take the basic concept identified in the initial alternatives evaluation and identify a route structure, station locations, service span, and service frequency by time of day for the new BRT service. The service plan should also indicate modifications to any existing or new local bus service that would operate along all or a portion of the BRT corridor. Station Features In conjunction with locating stations along the preferred alternative, a station functional classification scheme should be prepared. A station functional classification scheme identifies the function and scale of station development appropriate for different types of locations. The functional classification scheme would include identifying the relative size of station facilities, access mode provisions (e.g., walk-in, bicycle, bus transfer, kiss-and-ride, and/or park-and- ride), and the extent of passenger waiting area and shelter amenities to be provided at different stations. Typically, larger BRT stations with more passenger amenities are provided at terminal and major bus transfer locations. “Intermediate” stations typically have smaller stations with fewer amenities. The size of passenger shelters based on anticipated ridership and other factors would be indicated in the station classification scheme. In addition to the size of the passenger waiting area and the extent of shelters, the need for other passenger amenities such as bicycle racks, a schedule information board, lighting, a telephone, a waste receptacle, landscaping, climate control, and real-time passenger information displays would be identified. The station classification scheme can vary by the “look” and “feel” of station materials where tied to a particular theme associated with the adjacent neighborhood or a specific development. Some minimum level of branding that ties stations together, such as the provision of a consistent station identification sign and schedule board, is essential. Vehicle Selection With the development of a refined BRT service plan and updated ridership projections, the size and type of BRT vehicle should be chosen. A basic decision is whether standard 40- to 45-foot buses, 60-foot articulated buses, and/or special BRT vehicles should be used for the new BRT service. The service plan may change once the vehicle size is established. A station classification scheme is helpful in developing design features. Choosing between standard- length and articulated buses is a basic decision.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 2-11 Planning Framework In addition to the size of the BRT vehicle, its stylized look, fuel propulsion system, and interior layout should be identified. Input on the desired look and features of a new BRT vehicle can be obtained from preference surveys of both transit riders and non-riders. ITS Elements The extent and type of ITS components to be incorporated into the vehicle need to be identified. Basic ITS components on BRT vehicles typically include next-stop annunciators, AVL, automatic passenger counters (APCs), and vehicle diagnostics. Advanced ITS technology that could be integrated into the BRT vehicles includes precision docking, automated guidance, and collision warning and avoidance systems. Real-time passenger information could be provided at stations and on-board vehicles. Branding Strategy A branding strategy that creates a unique image for the new BRT service should complement running ways, vehicles, and stations and establish a BRT identity. Branding must be addressed in conjunction with further definition of the running way, station, and vehicle design to be applied. The branding strategy should include identifying a unique name, logo, and color scheme for the BRT service, identifying the different BRT system components to be branded, and developing marketing and other public information materials. Estimated Relationship of Ridership and Components As the new BRT service is further defined, the relative impact of different components on ridership can be estimated as an aid in prioritizing the extent of BRT component application given any financial constraints associated with the project. This process will include identifying the cost-effectiveness trade-off between the proposed running way treatment, the degree of station development, and the type/style of vehicle to be operated. Also, the relative merit of implementing certain passenger amenities at stations and certain ITS features on vehicles should be assessed. The use of preference surveys of both transit riders and non-riders can aid in identifying priorities in BRT component application. SYSTEM PLANNING PRINCIPLES The following principles should guide BRT planning, design, and development: • BRT should be developed as a permanently integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities. • The BRT system should afford the key attributes of rail transit to the maximum extent possible. • BRT should be complemented by appropriate Transit First policies. Examples include transit-oriented development, complementary downtown parking policies, and adequate park-and-ride space at outlying stations. • BRT should be rapid. It should operate on separate rights-of-way wherever possible and on wide, continuous, free-flowing streets where separate right-of-way is unavailable or removed from markets. Wide station spacing (except in downtown areas) is desirable. TSP treatments and transit-sensitive traffic controls are desirable. Branding of vehicles, stations, and marketing materials creates BRT’s image. The Guide identifies 10 BRT system planning principles.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Planning Framework Page 2-12 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • BRT systems should be capable of staged development. Subsequent development could include extending a BRT line or upgrading the running way. • BRT systems should be reasonable in their costs to the community, urban travelers (especially transit riders), and the transit agency. Investments should be balanced with present and likely future ridership. The system should be designed to increase transportation capacity in heavily traveled corridors, reduce travel times for riders, and minimize total person delay in the corridors served. A basic goal should be to maximize person flow with the minimum net total person delay over the long run. • Streets and corridors with existing long, heavily traveled bus routes are likely candidates for BRT. Often, BRT development will involve restructuring existing bus routes to provide sufficient service frequency along at least one BRT route. • System design and operations should enhance the presence, permanence, and identity of BRT facilities and services. BRT must be more than just express service along a bus lane or busway. • BRT should have a consistent, appealing image. BRT vehicles, stations, and marketing materials should convey the image of BRT as a rapid, easy- to-use service. • Each urban area has its own specific needs, opportunities, and constraints that must be recognized. Thus, BRT systems must be carefully customized in order to apply the various components, obtain public support, and translate plans into operating systems. BRT systems should focus on at least one major activity center, typically the CBD. As a result, BRT lines are usually radial. Sometimes, however, they may connect with radial transit lines. In very large urban areas, crosstown lines may be appropriate. BRT also can be introduced into areas with large existing suburban activity centers to attract single-occupant vehicle trips. Systems would be developed in stages, with BRT ridership planned to grow over time. In all cases, ridership should be sufficient to support frequent service. Communities contemplating BRT should have a clear vision of BRT needs and opportunities. BRT should be planned as interconnected systems of routes that can be incrementally developed, with the most promising lines built first. REFERENCES 1. Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, R. Smith, J. Cracknell, and R. Soberman. TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit: Vol. 1, Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, and Vol. 2, Implementation Guidelines. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 2. Diaz, R.B., M. Chang, G. Darido, E. Kim, D. Schneck, M. Hardy, J. Bunch, M. Baltes, D. Hinebaugh, L. Wnuk, F. Silver, and S. Zimmerman. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. FTA, Washington, D.C., 2004. BRT systems should focus on at least one major activity center, typically the CBD.