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 4-1 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts CHAPTER 4. COMPONENT FEATURES, COSTS, AND IMPACTS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the characteristics, costs, and impacts of different BRT components and contains guidelines for developing and assessing individual components. Profiles have been developed for the following: • Running way components > Busways on separate rights-of-way (ROWs) > Arterial bus lanes > Transit signal priority > Queue jumps/bypass lanes > Curb extensions • Station components • Vehicle components > Size of vehicle > Modern vehicle styling > Low-floor boarding > Propulsion technologies > Automatic vehicle location > Driver assist and automation • Service and system components > Service plan features > Fare collection > Passenger information > Enhanced safety and security systems • Branding Each of the component profiles includes the following information: • Scale of application • Selected typical examples • Estimated costs (capital, operating) • Likely impacts (ridership, operating cost savings, land development, etc.) Where applicable, component profiles also include the following information: • Conditions of application • Design and operating features The component profiles provide basic information and guidelines that will help practitioners. There are five categories of BRT component profiles in the Guide.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-2 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • Implementability (institutional factors) • Analysis tools (analogy/synthesis, analytical modeling, simulation) The general component analysis framework is shown in Exhibit 4-1. Components such as busways and bus lanes enhance ridership by saving time in conjunction with expanded service. Other components such as improved urban design or passenger amenities may enhance ridership (or even enhance development directly). Implementability is an essential consideration in assessing components. BRT components should be “implemented” by achieving a reasonable balance between costs and benefits and without introducing any major adverse impacts. BENEFITS COSTS IMPACTS IMPROVE AMENITY, IMAGE Expanded Service, Improved Travel Times Increase Ridership Land Development Implementation 1 2 NOTE 1: Physical/operational factors (e.g., bus lanes) NOTE 2: Branding and passenger information (for example) SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-1 General BRT Component Analysis Framework RUNNING WAY COMPONENTS Running ways, along with stations and vehicles, are essential parts of any BRT system. How well they perform has an important bearing on BRT speed, reliability, identity, and passenger attraction. Running way types vary in degree of separation, type of marking, and extent of lateral guidance. Each feature has an important bearing on BRT system performance and costs. Examples of running way performance are set forth in Exhibit 4-2. Photos of various types of running ways are in Exhibit 4-3 through Exhibit 4-9.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-3 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-2 Generalized Effects of BRT Running Way Elements System Performance Element Travel Time Savings Reliability Identity and Image Safety and Security Capac- ity System Benefits Running Way Segregation Types:
Mixed-flow lanes with queue jumps
Designated (reversed) arterial lanes
At-grade exclusive lane (transitway)
Grade- separated exclusive lane (transitway) Congestion delays decrease with increased running way segregation. Running way segregation reduces the risk of delay due to non- recurring congestion and accidents. Running way segregation highlights a permanent investment and the special treatment for BRT. Separation of BRT vehicles from other traffic streams reduces hazards. Multiple lanes increase capacity. Segre- gation reduces conges- tion delay, increas- ing through- put. Running way segregation highlights a permanent investment that attracts develop- ment. Speed benefits associated with the running way enhance ridership gain and environ- mental benefit. Running Way Marking:
Signage
Lane delineators
Alternative pavement color/texture Markings highlight that BRT running ways are a special, reserved treatment. Running Way Guidance Types:
Optical guidance
Electromag- netic guidance
Mechanical guidance Guidance allows operators to operate vehicles safely at maximum speeds. Guidance provides a smoother ride, enhancing image. Guidance allows for safer operation at higher speeds. SOURCE: CBRT (1) SOURCE: http://www.allaboutsilverline.com EXHIBIT 4-3 Bus Tunnel (Boston)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-4 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: www.gobrt.org EXHIBIT 4-4 Grade-Separated Busway (Pittsburgh) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-5 At-Grade Busway (Orlando) SOURCE: www.gobrt.org EXHIBIT 4-6 Median Busway (Vancouver)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-5 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-7 Curb Bus Lane (Los Angeles) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-8 Dual Curb Bus Lanes (New York City) A more detailed classification of running ways by degree of access control (segregation) is given in Exhibit 4-10. At one end of the spectrum is operation in mixed traffic; at the other is grade-separated busways. Grade-separated BRT operations are generally considered “full BRT.” BRT operations in bus-only lanes or in mixed traffic are generally considered “light BRT.”

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-6 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-9 Bus-Only Street (Portland, OR) EXHIBIT 4-10 BRT Running Ways Classified by Extent of Access Control (Degree of Segregation) Class Access Control Facility Type I Uninterrupted flow - full control of access Bus tunnel Grade-separated busway Reserved freeway lanes II Partial control of access At-grade busway III Physically separated lanes within street right-of-way Arterial median busway Bus streets IV Exclusive/semi-exclusive lanes Concurrent and contraflow bus lanes V Mixed traffic operations SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Exhibit 4-11 gives examples of the various types of running ways in each access classification. Exhibit 4-12 gives order of magnitude costs as set forth in TCRP Report 90 (2). (Costs exclude the right-of-way costs that would be required for off-street BRT operation.) These costs provide an initial planning guide and should be modified to reflect specific local circumstances. Options that have a high degree of right-of-way segregation cost more than those where BRT operates in mixed traffic or in reserved bus lanes. However, the former provide the fastest and most reliable BRT service, offer a high degree of system permanence, and may stimulate BRT-related land development. The choice of running way type for any given corridor will depend on market potential and route-specific opportunities and constraints. Key questions to be addressed are as follows: • What are the markets to be served, and how well are these markets served by proposed alignments? • Will there be a sufficient “presence” of buses in any corridor to make running way improvements worthwhile—especially busways and bus lanes? The choice of running way depends on market potential and route-specific opportunities and constraints. There are four key questions to ask in identifying the type of BRT running way needed.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-7 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts • Are suitable rights-of-way available for busway development, and can these rights-of-way effectively connect with the city center and other major activity centers? • Are arterial streets and roadways wide enough to provide segregated median BRT running ways? EXHIBIT 4-11 Examples of Various Types of BRT Running Ways Facility Type Access Class Examples Busways Bus tunnel Grade-separated busway At-grade busway I I II Boston, Seattle Ottawa, Pittsburgh Miami, Hartford, Los Angeles (Orange Line) Freeway lanes Concurrent flow lanes Contraflow lanes Bus-only or bus priority ramps I I I Ottawa, Phoenix New Jersey approach to Lincoln Tunnel Los Angeles Arterial streets Arterial median busway Curb bus lane Dual curb lanes Interior bus lanes Median bus lane Contraflow bus lane Bus-only street Mixed traffic flow Queue jump/bypass lane TSP III IV IV IV IV IV IV V V V Curitiba (Brazil), Vancouver (BC), Cleveland Rouen (France), Vancouver, Las Vegas New York City (Madison Ave)* Boston Cleveland Los Angeles, Pittsburgh Portland (OR)* Los Angeles Leeds (UK), Vancouver Los Angeles, Oakland * Regular bus operations SOURCE: Updated from TCRP Report 90 (2) EXHIBIT 4-12 Typical BRT Running Way Costs as of 2004 (Excluding Right-of-way) Component Cost (Millions) Running Way Type Grade-separated busway Below grade (tunnel) Aerial $60 to $105 per lane-mile $12 to $30 per lane-mile At-grade busway Separate ROW or median Arterial lanes (reconstructed) $0.5 to $10.2 per lane-mile $2.5 to $2.9 per lane-mile Mixed flow lanes - queue jump $0.1 to $0.29 per lane-mile Guidance Type Optical $11,000 to $134,000 per vehicle Electromagnetic sensors $20,000 per mile Hardware and integration $50,000 to $95,000 per vehicle SOURCE: CBRT (1) Busways on separate rights-of-way provide the highest type of BRT service in terms of travel speeds, service reliability, BRT identity, and passenger attraction. However, they can be costly, are sometimes difficult to build, and are not always located in the major transit corridors; therefore, on-street BRT operations in median busways, bus lanes, or even mixed traffic often become necessary.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-8 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide BRT on city streets should use the “fastest” streets available wherever possible, because bus speeds correlate closely with automobile speeds for any given stop frequency and dwell times. Transit-sensitive traffic engineering treatments are essential. These treatments include the following: • Peak-period or all-day curb parking and left/right-turn restrictions. Curb parking should be prohibited wherever curb bus lanes are provided. • One-way traffic movements (but only where they do not adversely affect passenger access to bus stops) • Traffic signal timing strategies that use shorter rather than longer cycles • Traffic signal coordination for general traffic and, in some cases, for BRT • Special lanes for left and right turns • Special treatments for buses (bus lanes, traffic signal priorities, and queue bypasses) > Bus lanes are desirable wherever there is a sufficient “presence” of buses, the lanes improve BRT running times and reliability, curb parking can be prohibited when curb bus lanes operate, and the service requirements of adjacent establishments can be accommodated. > Bus TSP and queue bypass lanes are desirable, especially where it is not practical to provide bus lanes. • Effective enforcement of traffic controls and bus lanes Exhibit 4-13 identifies the impacts of different running way components on travel time savings in cities with existing BRT systems. EXHIBIT 4-13 Sources of BRT Travel Time Savings BRT System Exclusive Running Way Increased Stop Spacing Exclusive Lanes/Queue Bypass TSP Adelaide (Australia) 55% 40% 3% 2% Los Angeles: Wilshire-Whittier — 67% — 33% Los Angeles: Ventura — 67% — 33% South Miami-Dade Busway 50% 25% — 25% SOURCE: TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) The profiles that follow give guidelines for busways, bus lanes, TSP, queue jumps/bypass lanes, and curb extensions. These guidelines cover planning, design, costs, and effects. Busways Busways are separated roadway facilities for the exclusive use of buses, either within an overall roadway right-of-way or in a separate right-of-way. Busways— especially when off-street and grade-separated—are the most effective BRT running way option in terms of operating speed, service reliability, and BRT identity. They mirror rail transit facilities in both operating features and permanence. When placed in major travel corridors, they can attract many riders. This profile gives guidelines for busway planning and design and for assessing costs and effectiveness. Traffic engineering treatments must be integrated into the BRT running way. Busways offer high operating speeds and reliable BRT service. Busways also establish a clear BRT identity and a sense a permanence.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-9 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Scale of Application Busways may connect the city center with outlying parts of the urban area (radial busways) or with the terminus of a rail transit line. They also may take the form of a bus subway (tunnel) within the central area. They may be fully or partially grade-separated, or they may operate fully at grade. They may be placed in separate right-of-way, alongside or within a freeway, or within the center of a wide arterial street. They generally extend for at least 5 miles (usually more). Selected Typical Examples Examples of each type of busway follow: • Radial Busways from City Center—Brisbane, Australia; Ottawa; and Pittsburgh • CBD Bus Tunnels—Boston and Seattle • Extensions of Rail Transit Line—Los Angeles (Orange Line), Miami (South Dade), and Philadelphia (Ardmore Line) • Grade-Separated Busways—Brisbane, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh • At-Grade Busways, Separate Right-of-Way—Los Angeles (Orange Line) and Miami (South Dade) • Median Arterial Busways in City Streets—Bogotá, Colombia; Curitiba, Brazil; Cleveland; and Vancouver (Richmond), BC Conditions of Application Busways typically involve substantial development costs. Experience suggests that they are mainly a large-city treatment (i.e., used with urban populations exceeding one million people). However, where suitable rights-of-way are readily available, they also may be appropriate in smaller urban areas. Desired conditions of application (or “applicability”) are as follows: 1. Radial Busways from CBD (or other major anchors). These busways usually require at least 75,000 jobs in the city center. 2. Extensions of Rail Transit Line. Busways should be keyed to heavily used rail transit terminals (or outlying stations). Available right-of-way, such as an abandoned railroad line or a utility corridor, can afford a cost-effective extension. 3. Median Arterial Busways. Wide arterial streets are essential. A minimum 80- to 90-foot curb-to-curb width is desirable to allow far-side BRT stops and near-side left turns to share a common envelope. The absolute minimum width is 70 feet. The minimum width requires providing left turns and stations at different locations as well as transitioning of the busway alignment when station platforms or turn lanes are provided to save space. Busways may be located in separate right-of-way (Ottawa and Pittsburgh), alongside or within a freeway envelope (Brisbane), in a downtown bus tunnel (Boston and Seattle), or in the center of a wide street (Cleveland). Location and Alignment Ideally, busways should penetrate high-density residential and commercial areas, traverse the city center, and provide convenient access to major downtown activities. They should be located on their own right-of-way wherever possible. There are various degrees of grade separation for busways. Busways are usually applied in larger cities. Busways in the center of arterial roadways normally require a curb- to-curb width of at least 70 feet.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-10 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Locations in order of desirability are (1) separate right-of-way, (2) one side of a freeway, and (3) within freeway or city street medians. Railroad and freeway rights-of-way offer opportunities for relatively easy land acquisition and low development costs. However, the right-of-way availability should be balanced with its proximity and access to key transit markets. Such right-of-way may generate little walk-on traffic, limit opportunities for land development, and require complex negotiations. Busways should be long enough to save at least 5 minutes of travel time over bus operations along arterial streets. Generally, radial busways should be at least 5 miles long; 10 miles or more usually will be desirable. Alignment should be direct, with a minimum number of sharp bus turns. Stops should be widely spaced in outlying areas. It is generally desirable to provide at least three stops in the CBD, spaced at 1/4- to 1/2-mile intervals. Busways on separate right-of-way should enable express BRT services to pass around stopped buses at stations. This characteristic increases service flexibility, reliability, and capacity, but it requires cross sections of about 80 feet at stations. Busways could be designed to allow for possible future conversion to rail or other fixed guideway transit. A 60-foot, mid-station, right-of-way width and an 80- foot width at stations can allow BRT service during the conversion period. Structures should be able to sustain train loadings, and clearances should be adequate for train operations. Busway stations should be accessible by foot, automobile, bicycle, and/or bus. They should be placed at major traffic generators and at intersecting bus lines. Park-and-ride facilities should be provided in outlying areas where most access is by car. Busways can be integrated with the design of new communities and provide a framework for transit-oriented developments. Suitable connections to the urban street network (at-grade or grade-separated) are desirable where BRT vehicles enter and leave busways and intermediate points. Design and Operation Busway design should permit safe and efficient operations. Designs should be keyed to the characteristics of vehicles and the capabilities of bus drivers. Busways should operate in normal flow, with outside shoulders wherever possible. Center- island busway stations should be limited to BRT vehicles with doors on both sides. Roadway geometry should be governed by the performance and clearance requirements of standard 40- to 45-passenger buses and 60- to 70-foot articulated buses. Joint-use guideways should be able to accommodate light rail vehicles. Design speeds of 60 to 70 miles per hour are desirable for grade-separated buses and 50 to 60 miles per hour for other busways. Busway lanes should be 11.5 to 12 feet wide on separate right-of-way and at least 11 feet wide where buses operate within street medians. Grades should be less than 6% wherever possible with 9% the absolute maximum. Vertical clearances should be at least 13 to 14.5 feet for urban transit buses. The BRT service plan associated with busways should depend upon land use and BRT market characteristics. Typically, one (or two) basic all-stop high- frequency bus services should be provided with “overlay” peak-period express routes. An excessive number of service varieties should be avoided to minimize passenger confusion. Busways should save at least 5 minutes in travel time. Busway stations typically have a higher level of access facilities. Busways should operate in normal flow.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-11 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Estimated Costs Busway development costs include land acquisition, construction, and engineering. These costs vary by running way location, type, design features, and the type of terrain traversed. Costs, therefore, should be carefully estimated for each busway facility. Experience can serve as a guide in (1) making initial estimates or (2) checking actual estimates. See Exhibit 4-14 through Exhibit 4-17. Exhibit 4-14 gives total busway development costs for bus tunnels, grade- separated busways, and at-grade busways. The (rounded) reported cost ranges (in millions of dollars per mile by facility type) are as follows: • Bus tunnels $214-329 million per mile • Grade-separated busways $6-50 million per mile • At-grade busways on dedicated right-of-way $1-15 million per mile • Median arterial busways $6-16 million per mile Exhibit 4-15 gives land costs set forth in the TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3). Land costs ranged from $0.5 to $6 million per mile (rounded). Typical costs (rounded) follow: • Cleveland: Euclid Busway $1 million per mile • Pittsburgh (two busways) $4 to 6 million per mile EXHIBIT 4-14 Reported Busway System Development Costs (U.S. Dollars) Busway Type and System Year Opened Miles Cost (millions) Cost (millions)/Mile Bus Tunnels Boston - Silver Line1 Seattle1 2005 1989 4.1 2.1 $ 1,350.0 $ 450.0 $ 329.3 $ 214.3 Grade-Separated Busways Adelaide, Australia (guided bus)1 Brisbane, Australia2 Ottawa2,3 Pittsburgh: South Busway1 Pittsburgh: East Busway1 Pittsburgh: East Busway Extension2 Pittsburgh: West Busway2,4 1989 2001 1983 1977 1983 2003 2000 7.5 10.3 16.0 4.3 6.8 2.3 5.0 $ 67.9 $ 330.1 $ 297.1 $ 27.0 $ 130.0 $ 68.8 $ 249.9 $ 9.1 $ 32.0 $ 18.6 $ 6.3 $ 19.1 $ 29.9 $ 50.0 At-Grade Busways (Off-Street) Hartford: New Britain (proposed)1 South Miami-Dade1 South Miami-Dade Extension2 2007 1996 2007 9.6 8.2 11.5 $ 145.0 $ 59.0 $ 13.5 5 $ 15.1 $ 7.2 $ 1.2 At-Grade Busways (On-Street) Bogotá, Colombia: TransMilenio1 Cleveland: Euclid Avenue2,6 Quito, Ecuador: Trole Bus1 2000 2008 1996 23.6 10.7 10.0 $ 184.0 $ 168.4 $ 57.6 $ 7.8 $ 15.7 $ 5.8 1 From TCRP Report 90 (2) 2 From TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) 3 Miles and Cost reflect only the grade-separated busway portion of the BRT route. 4 Does not include Wabash HOV facility. From Port Authority of Allegheny County data. 5 Does not include land acquisition costs 6 Under construction. Miles and Cost include only the transitway portion of the BRT route. SOURCE: Adapted from TCRP Report 90 (2) Busway development costs depend on running way type, location, features, and type of terrain traversed. BRT busway system development costs vary widely.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-12 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-15 Reported Busway Land Acquisition Costs (U.S. Dollars) Busway Type and System Miles Cost (millions) Cost (millions)/Mile Grade-Separated Busways Adelaide, Australia (guided bus) Pittsburgh: West Busway1 Pittsburgh: West Busway2 Pittsburgh: East Busway Extension 7.5 5.0 5.0 2.3 $ 4.0 $ 26.3 $ 31.5 $ 10.0 $ 0.5 $ 5.3 $ 6.3 $ 4.3 Other Busways Cleveland: Euclid Avenue Hartford: New Britain (proposed) 10.7 9.6 $ 13.7 $ 12.0 $ 1.3 $ 1.3 1 Cost obtained from FTA 2 Cost obtained from Port Authority of Allegheny County SOURCE: TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) Exhibit 4-16 gives busway construction costs set forth in TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3). Running way costs for grade-separated busways ranged from $5 million (rounded) per mile in Adelaide to $44 million (rounded) for Pittsburgh’s West Busway (which traverses hilly terrain and includes a rehabilitated rail tunnel). Costs for Ottawa’s Transitway and Pittsburgh’s East Busway (mainly built in the 1980s and 1990s) were $13 million (rounded) per mile and $17 million (rounded) per mile, respectively. The at-grade busways in Cleveland (under construction) and Hartford (proposed) were estimated to cost approximately $4 million per mile and $6 million per mile, respectively. Exhibit 4-17 gives the busway construction cost ranges set forth in CBRT (1). The ranges are expressed in terms of costs per lane-mile and should be doubled to obtain costs per route-mile. The below-grade busway costs appear to be less than those previously cited for Boston and Seattle. Busway operating costs have been estimated at $10,000 per year per lane-mile. EXHIBIT 4-16 Reported Busway Construction Costs (U.S. Dollars) Busway Type and System Year Opened Miles Cost (millions) Cost (millions)/ Mile Bus Tunnels Boston: Silver Line1 Seattle1 2005 1989 4.1 2.1 $ 1,350.0 $ 450.0 $ 329.3 $ 214.3 Grade-Separated Busways Adelaide, Australia (guided bus)2 Brisbane, Australia: South East Busway2 Ottawa: Transitway2,3 Pittsburgh: South Busway1 Pittsburgh: East Busway1 Pittsburgh: East Busway Extension1 Pittsburgh: West Busway2,4 1989 2001 1983 1977 1983 2003 2000 7.5 10.3 16.0 4.3 6.8 2.3 5.0 $ 37.0 $ 262.8 $ 212.6 $ 27.0 $ 113.0 $ 30.1 $ 220.9 $ 4.9 $ 25.5 $ 13.3 $ 6.3 $ 16.6 $ 13.1 $ 44.2 At-Grade Busways (Off-Street) Hartford: New Britain (proposed)1 South Miami-Dade1 South Miami-Dade Extension2 2007 1996 2007 9.6 8.2 11.5 $ 53.8 $ 57.0 $ 9.5 $ 5.6 $ 7.0 $ 0.8 At-Grade Busways (On-Street) Bogotá, Colombia: TransMilenio1 Cleveland: Euclid Avenue2,5 2000 2008 23.6 10.7 $ 184.0 $ 44.3 $ 7.8 $ 4.2 1 From TCRP Report 90 (2) (development costs) 2 From TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) (running way costs) 3 Miles and Cost reflect only the grade-separated busway portion of the BRT route. 4 Does not include Wabash HOV facility. From Port Authority of Allegheny County data. 5 Under construction. Miles and Cost columns include only transitway portion of BRT route.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-13 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-17 Busway Construction Costs by Type (U.S. Dollars) Busway Type Cost/Lane-Mile (millions) At Grade $6.5 to $10.2 Aerial $12 to $30 Below Grade $60 to $105 Additional Lanes $2.5 to $3.0 (within existing roadway profile) $6.5 to $10.2 (outside existing roadway profile) SOURCE: CBRT (1) Likely Impacts BRT busways (especially when grade-separated) reduce travel times and improve reliability. They enhance ridership by both their travel time savings and sense of permanence. They also can encourage new land development near stations. Travel Time Savings Busway travel time savings can be estimated (1) by analogy with existing BRT systems and (2) by analyzing the relationships among busway design speed, station spacing, and dwell times at stops. Speeds are improved by service patterns that provide express (non-stop) operations. Typical urban transit buses operate at speeds of about 10 to 12 miles per hour. Speeds up to 20 miles per hour can be anticipated with arterial median busways. Speeds of 25 to 40 miles per hour can be anticipated with grade-separated busways. Exhibit 4-18 gives estimated average bus speeds on busways, assuming a maximum 50 miles per hour busway running speed. For a maximum 55 miles per hour running speed, these speeds would be increased about 4 miles per hour. Thus, assuming a 15-second dwell time per stop, average bus speeds would range from 26 miles per hour with half-mile station spacing to more than 40 miles per hour when station spacing exceeds 1.5 miles. EXHIBIT 4-18 Estimated Average Busway Speeds Average Dwell Time per Stop (seconds) Average Stop Spacing (miles) 0 15 30 45 60 0.5 36 mph 26 mph 21 mph 18 mph 16 mph 1.0 42 mph 34 mph 30 mph 27 mph 24 mph 1.5 44 mph 38 mph 35 mph 32 mph 29 mph 2.0 46 mph 41 mph 37 mph 35 mph 32 mph 2.5 46 mph 42 mph 39 mph 37 mph 35 mph NOTE: Applies to busways or exclusive freeway HOV lanes with assumed 50- mph top bus running speed SOURCE: CBRT (1) Exhibit 4-19 gives actual reported busway speeds. Express buses typically operate at 40 to 60 miles per hour on busways, while all-stop service ranges from 24 to about 30 miles per hour. The exceptions are Miami, where speeds are constrained by “Stop” signs along the busway at non-signalized intersections, and the downtown Seattle Bus Tunnel, which has closely spaced stations. Grade-separated busways permit schedule speeds of 25 to 40 mph depending on frequency of stations.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-14 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-19 Reported and Anticipated Busway Speeds Facility Express Service Speed (miles/hour) All-Stop Service Speed (miles/hour) Hartford: New Britain (proposed) 38 32 South Miami-Dade 18 14 Ottawa Transitway 60 24 Pittsburgh: South Busway 40 30 Pittsburgh: East Busway 40 30 Pittsburgh: West Busway 40 30 Seattle Bus Tunnel — 13 SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Reported (and anticipated) travel time savings as a result of busway operation are given in Exhibit 4-20. According to Exhibit 4-20, travel times are typically reduced about 20% to 40% depending upon initial bus speeds. Travel time savings are generally about 2 to 3 minutes per mile for grade-separated busways and about 1.5 to 2.0 minutes per mile for at-grade busways. Where busways serve as queue bypasses, as in the case of Pittsburgh’s West Busway, time savings can exceed 4 to 5 minutes per mile. EXHIBIT 4-20 Reported Travel Time Savings of Busways Travel Time (minutes) Travel Time Savings (Minutes) Busway Type and System Before After % Reduction Total Per Mile Grade-Separated Busways Adelaide, Australia Brisbane, Australia Pittsburgh: South Busway Pittsburgh: East Busway Pittsburgh: West Busway Seattle 40 — — 51-54 — 15 25 — — 30 — 10 38 — — 41-94 — 31 15 — 6-11 21-24 25-26 5 2 22 1.4-2.6 3.1-3.53 5.0-5.24 2.4 At-Grade Busways Bogotá, Colombia Cleveland1 Hartford: New Britain1 Porto Alegre, Brazil — 41 35 24 — 33 20 17 32 20 43 29 — 8 15 7 — 1.2 1.6 2.1 1 Anticipated 2 Estimated 3 East Busway all-stop service 4 Morning peak-hour inbound only SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Ridership The improved busway travel times should be introduced into the travel demand and mode-split models to assess future ridership. In addition, based on a maximum in-vehicle travel time bias constant of 10 minutes, the following busway travel time factors should be used in the modeling process: • Grade-separated busway (special right-of-way) 20% (2 minutes) • At-grade busways on separate right-of-way 15% (1.5 minutes) • Median arterial busways 10% (1.0 minute) Grade-separated busways typically save passengers several minutes per mile.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-15 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Cost-Ridership Considerations The number of passengers using BRT services on a busway should bear a reasonable relationship to the development costs incurred. Ideally, the travel time benefits, measured by the value of time saved for bus passengers, should exceed the annualized development and operating/maintenance costs. Typical values are shown in Exhibit 4-21. These values assume that the value of travel time increase in future years would offset the effects of the time value of money. EXHIBIT 4-21 Busway Riders Needed to Produce a Net Benefit Time Savings (minutes/mile) Busway Cost (millions/mile) 1 2.5 5 7.5 $10 11,000* 4,000* 2,200 1,500 $25 27,500* 11,000* 5,500 3,700 $50 55,000* 22,000* 11,000 7,300 $200 (bus tunnel) 220,000 88,000 44,000* 29,300* $300 (bus tunnel) 330,000 132,000 66,000* 44,000* * Typical value NOTE: Capital recovery parameters are 50 years at 5% interest with 300 days per year and a value of time of $10 per hour. SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Operating Benefits Operating benefits of busways include (1) greater driver productivity, (2) lower fuel consumption, and (3) greater safety. Examples of these benefits are given in Exhibit 4-22. Values for any BRT system will require careful assessment of bus miles and bus hours, both with and without busways. Operating costs per passenger trip for Pittsburgh’s East Busway were substantially lower than costs for the city’s local bus routes because of a combination of high ridership and high busway speeds (4). EXHIBIT 4-22 Reported Busway Operating Benefits System Benefits Ottawa Transitway 150 fewer buses, with $58 million (Canadian) savings in vehicle costs and $28 million (Canadian) in operating costs Seattle Bus Tunnel 20% reduction in surface street bus volumes and 40% fewer crashes on tunnel bus routes Bogotá, Colombia, TransMilenio Median Busway 93% fewer fatalities and 40% drop in pollutants Curitiba, Brazil, Median Busway 30% less fuel consumption per capita SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Land Development Benefits Land development impacts depend upon the busway features provided (e.g., attractive stations), the travel time savings, the land development potentials in their environs, and supportive land development policies. The reported land development benefits along busways given in Exhibit 4-23 illustrate what might be achieved elsewhere. (See also Chapter 6.) Travel time benefits should exceed annualized BRT costs.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-16 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-23 Reported Land Development Benefits along Busways System Benefits Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within a 1,500-ft radius of station; $302 million in land development benefits of which $275 million was new construction and 80% is clustered at stations Ottawa Transitway $1 billion (Canadian) in new construction at Transitway stations Adelaide, Australia, Guided Busway Tea Tree Gully area is becoming an urban village. Brisbane, Australia, South East Busway Up to 20% gain in property values near Busway; property values in areas within 6 miles of station grew 2 to 3 times faster than those at greater distances SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Implementability Busways require off-street corridors or wide city streets—conditions that may be difficult to take advantage of in many cities. Because of potential land and environmental impacts, community concerns, and costs, busways may sometimes be challenging to implement, especially in the short run. Costs may sometimes require substantial funding support from state and federal agencies. Getting community acceptance may be time-consuming and may require adding design features to ameliorate community concerns. Such features may add to project costs. (An example is the sound barriers along Los Angeles’ Orange Line Busway). However, while busway development costs are high relative to BRT operations in bus lanes or mixed traffic, so are the benefits. As stated earlier, speeds up to 20 miles per hour can be anticipated with arterial median busways, and speeds of 25 to 40 miles per hour can be anticipated with grade-separated busways. Thus, busways perform equivalent to (and sometimes better than) light rail transit, and they should be viewed as a viable, cost-effective alternative. Evaluation Busways are an attractive BRT option in terms of speed, reliability, passenger attractiveness, and permanence. Operating speeds and passenger attraction can equal those for many rail transit lines. Designs should provide adequate downtown distribution as well as line-haul service. Maximum community benefits accrue when land development policies encourage transit-oriented development in busway corridors and around stations. Arterial Bus Lanes Bus lanes are a means of improving the speed and reliability of BRT on city streets. The basic goals of bus lanes are to give BRT vehicles an operating environment that is free from delays caused by other vehicles and to improve bus service reliability. Bus lanes also increase the visibility and identity of the BRT system. Bus lanes may operate in the same direction of general traffic (concurrent flow) or in the opposite direction (contraflow) along one-way streets. Scale of Application Bus lanes may operate along short sections of street or they may operate over a large part of the BRT route. Dedicated bus lanes should be provided over as much of a given BRT route as financially, physically, and operationally practical. Busways can perform equivalent to or better than LRT from a travel time perspective. Either concurrent or contraflow operation is possible for arterial bus lanes.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-17 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Conditions of Application Bus lanes require (1) a sufficient frequency of buses, (2) traffic congestion along the roadway, (3) suitable street geometry, and (4) community willingness to enforce the regulations. From a BRT perspective, bus lanes are useful in establishing a clear identity for the BRT service’s running way. Guidelines for the operation of arterial bus lanes include the following: • Concurrent flow lanes may operate along the outside curb, in the lane adjacent to a parking lane (interior lane), or in a paved median area. • Concurrent flow lanes can operate at all times, for extended hours (e.g., from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), or just during peak hours. • Contraflow lanes should operate at all times. • Under conditions of heavy bus volumes, dual concurrent-flow or contraflow lanes may be desirable. • Where the bus lanes operate at all times, special colored pavement may be desirable to improve the identity of the BRT operations. • Bus lanes should be at least 11 feet wide to accommodate an 8.5-foot bus width. • The bus lanes should carry as many people as in the adjacent general traffic lane. Generally, at least 25 buses should use the lanes during the peak hour. (Ideally, there should be at least one bus per signal cycle to give buses a steady presence in the bus lane.) There should be at least two lanes available for general traffic in the same direction, wherever possible. • Parking should be prohibited where bus lanes are along the curb, but it may remain where interior bus lanes are provided. (Interior bus lanes are located in the lanes adjacent to the curb lanes.) • There should be suitable provisions for goods delivery and service vehicle access, either during off-hours or off-street. The primary basis for determining whether lane dedication is applicable should be a comparison of costs and benefits. The “operating without a dedicated running way” scenario should be compared to the “operating a dedicated running way” scenario. Effectiveness should be analyzed in terms of changes in total person travel time for all travelers in the given corridor irrespective of mode. The analysis should take into account potential shifts by motorists to parallel arterials if capacity is taken away from general traffic on the arterial in question. The most critical parameters influencing the outcome of any evaluation of dedicated lanes are the number of buses in the peak hour and peak direction and the number of people on the buses. Travel time savings for current transit users and the potential attraction of new riders, along with potential operating and maintenance cost savings, is traded off against changes in travel times for current automobile users, access, and parking impacts at adjacent land uses. Selected Typical Examples There are several examples of arterial bus lanes integrated into existing and planned BRT systems in North America. Exhibit 4-24 gives the relative magnitude of different placements of the bus lanes along selected arterial BRT corridors. Bus lanes require a sufficient presence of buses, auto traffic congestion, suitable street geometry, and community willingness to enforce regulations. Costs and benefits should be compared to assess the feasibility of dedicating a travel lane to BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-18 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-24 Integrated BRT Systems with Arterial Bus Lanes Percentage of Running Way Curb Lanes Interior Lanes Median Lanes or Transitway City BRT System Street <50% >50% <50% >50% <50% >50% Boston Silver Line Phase 1 Washington St X X Las Vegas MAX N Las Vegas Blvd X Los Angeles Rapid Bus Wilshire Blvd X Orlando Lymmo Magnolia St/ Livingston St X 1 Vancouver, BC 98B Granville St/ Road B X X York, ON VIVA X 2 Ottawa Transit- way Albert St/ Slater St CBD CBD Cleveland 3 Euclid Ave X X Eugene 3 EMX Various X 1 Both directions on one side of respective streets 2 Queue jumpers using right-turn bays 3 Under construction SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team Estimated Costs Initial capital and ongoing operating and maintenance costs depend on the “before” situation for the particular corridor in question and the precise nature of what is to be implemented. If the proposed bus lane is to be taken from an existing general traffic or parking lane, initial and ongoing costs should be minimal; however, if the addition of a bus lane involves procurement of new right-of-way and new construction, initial costs could be substantial while the operating/maintenance costs for the new dedicated transit facility will be modest. Capital Cost The cost of implementing dedicated bus lanes depends on the current situation and the nature of the planned changes. Unit costs for both initial construction and subsequent lane operation/maintenance can be obtained from city and state departments of transportation in the respective community. Capital costs are affected by right-of-way needs and costs, the design details of the existing arterial street (e.g., Are utilities to be moved? Is a median to be cleared and paved? Will sidewalks be rebuilt?), and the design details of the new lanes themselves. If existing lanes are utilized with no new construction, the initial capital costs will be limited mainly to modest re-striping and signage costs. According to CBRT (1), the range of costs for adding new bus lanes is as identified in Exhibit 4-25. Capital costs for bus lanes depend on the extent of new construction.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-19 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-25 Range of Capital Costs for Adding New Bus Lanes Type of New Arterial Transit Lanes Cost Range (Exclusive of Right-of- way and with Uncolored Pavement) Curb or off-set lanes $2 to $3 million per lane mile Median transitway $5 to $10 million per lane mile SOURCE: CBRT (1) Where existing lanes are converted to bus lanes, capital costs may range from $50,000 to $100,000 per mile for re-striping and signing. Where street reconstruction is required to provide new bus lanes, as noted in Exhibit 4-25, the costs are substantially higher. The reconstruction of 2.2 miles of Washington Street in Boston for the Silver Line Phase 1 cost $10.5 million per mile, of which about 20% was for brick-paved sidewalks and crosswalks, architectural street lighting, and landscaping. Operations and Maintenance Cost The operations and maintenance (O&M) cost for dedicated bus lanes includes the costs for street lighting and routine maintenance (e.g., pothole and crack filling, cleaning, and snow plowing). The incremental O&M costs for a dedicated bus lane depend on the nature of the situation before and after the dedication. If the dedicated bus lanes were formerly devoted to either parking or general traffic, there would be no incremental operating and maintenance costs other than those associated with more frequent maintenance. The O&M costs of the new dedicated bus lanes themselves are not the only O&M cost impact. If a bus lane saves enough time that a decrease in the number of buses necessary to provide a given level of service is possible, transit O&M costs are likely to decrease as well. If the proposed dedicated lanes result from a widening, the incremental O&M costs should be modest: certainly less than $10,000 per lane-mile per year (based on national average O&M costs for arterial streets). Most transit agencies have fully allocated or marginal O&M cost models that have vehicle hours and peak vehicle requirements as primary input. Analysis of revenue travel speeds and times is necessary to ascertain the degree to which both of these would be decreased as the result of the addition of dedicated bus lanes. Likely Impacts Travel Time and Reliability The primary reason to add dedicated transit lanes to a BRT package is to improve travel times and reliability over mixed-traffic operation. The benefits of reduced travel times for transit users and improvements in reliability are traded off against increased travel times for other highway system users if the new dedicated arterial transit lanes are taken away from the general traffic stream. Reliability is as important to BRT users and service providers as travel time savings. Improved travel time consistency means that regular transit users enjoy the ability to begin their trips at the same time every day, and transit operators can reduce the amount of recovery time built into their schedules, which potentially saves O&M costs. The likely benefits of bus lane operation depend upon the length of the lane and the amount of time saved. Some observations on likely benefits follow: Incremental O&M costs for bus lanes vary based on before and after conditions.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-20 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • A small amount of time savings mainly results in passenger benefits. • As the travel time savings increase, the bus lane may reduce fleet requirements and operating costs. • Time savings of more than 5 minutes (on a typical trip) can affect mode choice, further increase ridership, and possibly encourage land development. Exhibit 4-26 illustrates these relationships. SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) EXHIBIT 4-26 Degree of Bus Lane Impacts Examples of Travel Time and Reliability Improvements Examples of travel time savings observed with certain arterial street bus lane treatments are shown in Exhibit 4-27. Examples of improvements in bus lane reliability are shown in Exhibit 4-28. The improved reliability is measured by the percentage change in the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean). Operating Cost Savings Operating cost savings may result from reduction in journey time, especially where buses run at close headways. For example, when buses operate on a 10- minute headway, a 5-minute time savings each way would require one less vehicle. The extent of benefits of a bus lane depends on the amount of in-vehicle travel time saved.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-21 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-27 Observed Travel Time Savings with Arterial Bus Lanes City Street Savings (Minutes per Mile) Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd 0.1 to 0.2 (a.m.) 0.5 to 0.8 (p.m.) Dallas Harry Times Blvd 1 Dallas Ft. Worth Blvd 1.5 New York City Madison Ave (dual bus lanes) 43%* express bus 34%* local bus San Francisco 1st Street 39%* local bus * Percentage reduction in travel time SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2), TCRP Report 26 (5), TCRP Project A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-28 Observed Reliability Improvements with Arterial Bus Lanes City Street % Improvement* Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd 12 to 27 New York City Madison Ave 57 *Coefficient of variation multiplied by 100 SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) and TCRP Report 26 (5) Parking and Access to Adjacent Properties Negative consequences of dedicating a curb lane to transit are (1) the impact on access to adjacent properties and (2) the loss of parking if parking is currently allowed during the period of operation. Both impacts can be mitigated by the use of either interior or median lanes, among other techniques. Also, deliveries can occur in alleys, to the rear of establishments, from the opposite side of the street, or, in some cases, from cross streets. Evaluating the impact on parking requires an analysis of current and future parking conditions. Land Development Effects Bus lanes on city streets generally have minimum land development effects. However, when the bus lanes are part of major street reconstruction and beautification, the overall project could have a positive effect when the market conditions are right. (An example is the Boston Silver Line interior bus lanes on Washington Street, where the street reconstruction resulted in $700 million of new development). However, such impacts are site-specific and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Implementability Bus lanes generally can be easily and quickly implemented. Their installation costs are low; they typically require no property acquisition; and they have minimum environmental impacts. There are, however, concerns that should be addressed in planning and development: • Where bus lanes operate on streets lined with many businesses, curb access for deliveries and services is essential. This need for access may require (1) providing bus lanes adjacent to the curb lane (interior lanes) Evaluation of bus lane impacts on parking and access is critical. Bus lanes could have land development impacts when there is major street reconstruction.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-22 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide when space permits, (2) limiting the hours of curb bus lane operation (e.g., to the CBD during the morning peak and from the CBD during the afternoon peak), or (3) initially relying on turn restrictions and/or parking controls to improve traffic flow. Obviously, where alleys or off-street access to businesses are available, the need for curb access is less crucial. • Where streets are heavily traveled, bus flows are light, and there is a limited presence of buses, installing bus lanes may be counterproductive and met most with resistance from street traffic and transportation agencies. In these cases, queue bypasses or TSP at intersections may be a more appropriate solution to improve bus flow. Analysis Tools Travel Time Changes Analysis of the travel time implications of new dedicated bus lanes should cover all persons traveling in the respective corridor, including automobile drivers and passengers, not just existing and future transit passengers. Historic information on changes in transit travel times from implementation of bus lanes can be obtained from a variety of sources, including CBRT (1) and TCRP Report 90 (2). The Highway Capacity Manual (6) can be used to calculate the impact of removing a general traffic lane from an arterial and dedicating it to the exclusive use of transit. It should be noted that when the effect of removing a lane from general traffic use is analyzed, path changes for existing highway users must be accounted for. For example, if the corridor is part of a continuous grid of major arterials, some general traffic may divert to parallel streets after a lane is removed. The likely changes in travel times resulting from installing a bus lane can be estimated in three basic ways: • Analogy (an estimate based on a synthesis and analysis of actual operating experience; see subsequent discussion) • Application of Highway Capacity Manual Signalized Intersection Delay Analysis • Computer simulation Estimated travel time rate reductions based on analogy (analysis/synthesis of experience) are shown in Exhibit 4-29. These values can provide an initial order of magnitude estimate of time savings. More refined estimates of travel time savings and speed increases can be obtained from the values shown in Exhibit 4-30, Exhibit 4-31, and Exhibit 4-32. The top half of Exhibit 4-30 shows the estimated speed changes resulting from installing a curb bus lane for various initial speeds. Exhibit 4-31 graphs the speed before and after bus lane installation. Given the initial bus speed, the chart may be used to estimate the benefits of a curb bus lane. The gain in speed ranges from less than 1.5 miles per hour for initial bus speeds lower than 6 miles per hour to more than 2 miles per hour for greater initial bus speeds. These benefits are generally consistent with the 1.5- to 2.0-miles-per-hour gain in speed reported in a 1961 Progress Report on transit capacity (7). General traffic diversion impacts should be assessed if a bus lane is created from a general traffic lane. Travel time savings from bus lanes can be estimated based on existing operating experience, application of Highway Capacity Manual procedures, and computer simulation. Bus lanes typically increase bus speeds by 1.5 to 2.0 mph.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-23 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-29 Estimated Travel Time Rate Reduction with Arterial Bus Lanes— Generalized Based on Analogy Location Minutes per Mile Reduction Highly congested CBD 3 to 5 Typical CBD 1 to 2 Typical Arterial 0.5 to 1 SOURCE: Bus Rapid Transit Options for Densely Developed Areas (8) EXHIBIT 4-30 Estimated Travel Time Rate Reduction with Arterial Bus Lanes - For Specific Cases Based on Analogy Item Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Initial Speed (mph) 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Speed with Curb Bus Lane (mph) 4.4 5.7 8.0 10.2 12.2 mph Gain 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 % Gain 47.0 42.0 33.3 27.5 22.0 Initial Minutes/Mile 20.0 15.0 10.0 7.5 6.0 Minutes/Mile with Bus Lane 13.5 10.5 7.5 5.9 4.0 Minutes/Mile Gain 6.5 4.5 2.5 1.6 1.1 % Gain 32.5 30.0 25.0 21.3 18.3 SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Initial Bus Speed (MPH) B us S pe ed o n B us L an e (M PH ) Initial Bus Speed with Bus Lane SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-31 Arterial Speeds with and without Curb Bus Lane

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-24 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Minutes per Mile M in ut es p er M ile w ith C ur b B us L an e without Bus Lane with Bus Lane SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-32 Time Savings with Curb Bus Lane The bottom half of Exhibit 4-30 and Exhibit 4-32 show the time savings in minutes per mile resulting from installing a bus lane. The percentage of time saved declines from about 33% at the lowest initial speeds to about 20% at speeds that are typical for an arterial bus (or BRT route). The actual time saved depends upon the length of the bus lane. For example, based on Exhibit 4-31, a bus traveling at about 10 miles per hour (6 minutes per mile) before bus lane installation may expect a savings of about 1 minute per mile after bus lane installation. If the bus lane is 5 miles long, the total savings would be 5 minutes. Overall Arterial Bus Lane Evaluation Exhibit 4-33 gives a framework for assessing the current and proposed situation along a BRT corridor for potential bus lane application. Key factors include travel time, ridership, parking effects, and O&M costs for new dedicated bus lanes. The flowchart in Exhibit 4-34 illustrates how the situation would be analyzed. Transit Signal Priority TSP along the through lanes (or “mainline”) of a roadway is the process of altering the signal timing to give a priority or advantage to transit operations. TSP modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicles within the coordinated operation of the signal system along a corridor. TSP is different from signal preemption, which interrupts normal signal operation to accommodate special events (e.g., a train approaching a railroad grade crossing adjacent to a signal or an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call).

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-25 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-33 Dimensions of Overall Bus Lane Evaluation Proposed Current Bus Service Levels and Types # of General Traffic Lanes # of Parking Lanes and Controls Level of General Traffic Conges- tion Inter- section Controls Critical Inter- section Turning Move- ments Level and type of bus service (e.g., local v. express) Number of general traffic lanes Number of parking lanes and parking controls ROW width Level of general traffic congestion Intersection controls Turning movements at critical intersections Adjacent land uses SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-34 Evaluation of BRT Arterial Bus Lanes The usual TSP treatment is a relatively minor adjustment of phase split times at a traffic signal. The green phase serving the approaching bus may start sooner or stay green a little longer, so that the bus delay approaching the intersection will be reduced or eliminated. The lengthened transit phase split time is recovered on the following signal cycle so that the corridor signal coordination timing plan can be maintained. Transit signal priority is not the same as preemption.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-26 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Two characteristics differentiate TSP from emergency vehicle preemption. First, the phase is served in its “normal” position in the signal cycle (as opposed to preemption, where the signal controller immediately brings up the preempt phase). Second, the background arterial coordination timing is maintained through the entire priority event (as opposed to preemption, where the controller immediately drops the coordination timing). Exhibit 4-35 illustrates the green extension/red truncation concept. Bus approaches red signal RED TRUNCATION GREEN EXTENSION Bus approaches green signal Signal controller detects bus; terminates side street green phase early Signal controller detects bus; extends current green phase Bus proceeds on green signal Bus proceeds on extended green signal SIGNAL CONTROLLER SIGNAL CONTROLLER SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) EXHIBIT 4-35 TSP Green Extension/Red Truncation Concept TSP systems can be manually implemented by the bus operator or automatically implemented using on-board technology. The latter is the preferred method because it eliminates the human factor requiring the operator to remember to activate the emitter. In many cases, the automated TSP will be tied to an AVL system that can provide priority only if the corresponding bus is behind schedule. The priority is based on the TSP logic programmed into the traffic signal controller. TSP detection can be provided by several different means. In many cases in the United States and Canada, agencies use optical detection to transmit requests from buses to the traffic signal controller. Inductive loop–based systems use an inductive loop embedded in the pavement and a transponder mounted on the underside of the transit vehicle to distinguish transit vehicles from other traffic. Detection systems based on global positioning system (GPS) technologies are emerging, and radio frequency (RF) systems have been used in several cases. The predominance of optical detection is generally attributed to its existing, widely deployed use for emergency vehicle preemption. TSP strategies include passive, active, and real-time priority. Passive strategies attempt to accommodate buses through the use of pre-timed modifications to the TSP keeps a signal system in coordination. There are different ways of providing TSP detection.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-27 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts signal system that occur whether or not a bus is present. Strategies can range from simple changes in intersection signal timing to systemwide retiming to facilitate bus operations. Passive strategies can utilize bus operations data, such as bus travel times along street segments, to derive enhanced signal timing coordination plans. Active strategies adjust the signal timing after a bus is detected approaching the intersection. Depending on the capabilities of the signal control equipment and the presence of bus location or passenger loading detection equipment on board the bus, TSP may be either unconditional or conditional. Unconditional strategies provide priority whenever a bus arrives. To decide whether to provide priority for a given bus, conditional strategies incorporate information from on-board AVL equipment (which can identify if and by how much the bus is behind schedule) and/or automatic passenger counting equipment (which can identify how many people are on board), along with signal controller data on how recently priority was given to another bus at the intersection. Real-time or adaptive strategies consider both bus and general traffic arrivals at an intersection or network of intersections. Such strategies require specialized equipment that is capable of optimizing signal timings in the field to respond to current traffic conditions and bus locations. The green time can be advanced or extended within any signal cycle. Exhibit 4-36 identifies common TSP treatments related to the different priority strategies. TSP can be activated either at a distributed or centralized level. At the distributed level, decisions on TSP activation at an intersection are dependent on local interaction between the bus and signal controller. In a centralized system, the bus and signal controller operation to activate TSP are controlled by a centralized traffic management system. Passive priority systems must be activated at the distributed level, while active and real-time priority systems can be activated at either the distributed or centralized level. More detail on TSP can be found in the ITS America publications An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (10) and Transit Signal Priority: A Planning and Implementation Handbook (11). EXHIBIT 4-36 Common TSP and Preemption Treatments Treatment Description Passive Priority Adjust cycle length Reduce cycle lengths at isolated intersections to benefit buses Split phases Introduce special phases at intersection for bus movement Areawide timing plans Preferential progression for buses through signal offsets Bypass metered signals Buses use special reserved lanes, special signal phases, or are rerouted to non-metered signals Adjust phase length Increased green time for approaches with buses Active Priority Green extension Increase phase time for current bus phase Early start (red truncation) Reduce other phase times to return to green for buses earlier Special phase Addition of a bus phase Phase suppression Skipped non-priority phases Real-Time Priority Delay-optimizing control Signal timing changes to reduce overall person delay Network control Signal timing changes considering the overall system performance Preemption Preemption Current phase terminated and signal returns to bus phase SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) TSP can be active or passive. TSP can be conditional or unconditional. TSP can be activated at the intersection level or at a centralized level.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-28 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Scale of Application TSP can be applied at a single intersection experiencing extensive bus delay or at a number of intersections along a corridor, whether or not a coordinated signal system is in effect. TSP is an integral part of arterial BRT operations and is applied in most of the cities either operating or developing BRT systems. It is also now being applied in corridors with just local bus operation—a good example being Portland, OR, where TSP has been implemented at more than 250 intersections. Conditions of Application TSP is typically applied when there is significant traffic congestion and, hence, bus delays along a roadway. Estimated bus travel time and delay can be identified through field surveys of existing conditions or through simulation modeling of future conditions. Studies have found that TSP is most effective at signalized intersections operating under level of service (LOS) D and E conditions with a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) between 0.80 and 1.00. There is limited benefit in implementing priority under LOS A through C conditions as the roadway is relatively uncongested and neither major bus travel time nor reliability increases can be achieved. Under oversaturated traffic conditions (v/c greater than 1.00), long vehicle queues prevent buses from getting to the intersection soon enough to take advantage of TSP without disrupting general traffic operations. A basic guideline is to apply TSP when there is an estimated reduction in bus delay with negligible change in general traffic delay. Given this condition, the net total person delay (on both buses and general traffic) should decrease with application of TSP at a particular intersection or along an extended corridor. Given the frequency of bus service in a given corridor, TSP may be given only to certain buses such that the disruption to general traffic operations is minimized. Conditional priority is most commonly accepted as an initial TSP application in a corridor, assuming that buses would be issued priority only if they are behind schedule or have a certain number of persons on board the bus. Los Angeles Metro Rapid, for example, limits TSP to every other signal cycle. For TSP to be most effective, bus stops should be located on the far side of signalized intersections so that a bus activates the priority call and travels through the intersection and then makes a stop. Past studies and actual applications have shown that greater reduction in bus travel time and variability in travel times can be achieved with a far-side vs. near-side stop configuration. Selected Typical Examples As of 2005, almost 40 urban areas provided some form of TSP (for bus and/or rail) in North America. Exhibit 4-37 gives a representative set of agencies with the specific TSP strategy employed. TSP is most effective at intersections operating under LOS D and E conditions. Conditional priority is typically the initial TSP application. Far-side bus stops facilitate TSP.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-29 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-37 TSP and Preemption Strategy by Agency Agency City Ea rl y G re en (R ed Tr u nc at io n ) G re en Ex te n si o n P ha se In se rt io n P re em pt io n O th er AC Transit Oakland, CA X X Ben Franklin Transit Richland, WA X X Calgary Transit Calgary, AL X X LYNX Orlando, FL X City of Glendale Glendale, CA X X Charlotte Area Transit Charlotte, NC X Houston METRO Houston, TX X X X Illinois DOT (RTA) Chicago, IL X X X Jefferson Transit Authority Port Townsend, WA X King County Metro Seattle, WA X X LA County MTA Los Angeles, CA X X X Metropolitan Transit Minneapolis, MN X City of Ottawa Ottawa, ON X X Pace Suburban Bus Service Arlington Heights, IL X X Pierce Transit Tacoma, WA X X Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh, PA X Sacramento RTD Sacramento, CA X X SCVTA Santa Clara Co., CA X X X X Skagit Transit Burlington, WA X X SEPTA Philadelphia, PA X X St. Cloud MTC St. Cloud, MN X X TriMet Portland, OR X X X Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, UT X X WMATA Washington, D.C. X X SOURCE: Transit Signal Priority (11) Estimated Costs Costs for implementing TSP along a BRT corridor will depend on the configuration of the existing signal control system (with higher costs associated with signal upgrades), equipment/software for the intersection, vehicles, and the central management system. Costs specifically associated with TSP are highly dependent on whether the TSP system will be localized to a corridor or centralized and integrated into a transit or regional traffic management center. To implement a conditional priority system, the central signal system needs to be integrated into the transit management center. A key assessment in determining cost is whether or not existing traffic control software and controllers are compatible with TSP. Estimates for traffic signal controller replacement range between $3,500 and $5,000, depending on the vendor and the functionality prescribed for TSP. Costs for communication links needed to integrate these traffic signals into the existing signal system and costs for future signal system upgrades would be extra and would vary depending on the specific signal system configuration and extent of TSP application. In general, if existing software and controller equipment can be Costs depend on whether TSP is localized to a route or integrated with a transit management center.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-30 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide used, costs can be less than $5,000 per intersection, but costs can increase to $20,000 to $30,000 per intersection if equipment needs to be replaced. Costs for transit detection vary significantly based on the ultimate technology chosen. Exhibit 4-38 provides capital and operating costs for different TSP detection systems. EXHIBIT 4-38 Characteristics of Different TSP Detection Systems System Technology Cost/ Intersection Cost/Bus O&M Costs Optical Optical emitters Moderate ($15,000) Moderate ($2,000) Emitter replacement ($1,500) Wayside Reader Radio frequency (RF) technology. Uses bus- mounted tags and wayside antenna, which must be located within 35 feet of bus. Radio transmits and decoder reads rebound message. High ($20,000) Low ($250) Tag replacement ($50) “Smart” Loops Loop amplifier detects transmitter powered by vehicle’s electrical system. Low ($2,500 per amplifier; use existing loop detector) Low ($500) Same as loop detector SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team Likely Impacts Exhibit 4-39 and Exhibit 4-40 present the measured/estimated impacts of TSP in selected cities on travel time, reliability (schedule adherence), and operating costs, as well as the impacts of TSP on general traffic. Expected benefits of TSP vary depending on the application. A summary of these impacts follows. EXHIBIT 4-39 Reported Initial Estimates of Benefits to Buses from Traffic Signal Priority Location % Running Time Saved % Increase in Speeds % Reduced Intersection Delay Source Anne Arundel County, MD 13-18 — — 9, 12 Bremerton, WA 10 — — 2, 9, 12 Chicago: Cermak Road 15-18 — — 12 Hamburg, Germany — 25-40 — 2 Los Angeles: Wilshire-Whittier Metro Rapid 8-10 — — 2, 12 Pierce County, WA 6 — — 2 Portland, OR 5-12 — — 9 Seattle: Rainier Avenue 8 — 13 2, 12 Toronto 2-4 — — 2 SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9), “Evaluation of Service Reliability Impacts of Traffic Signal Priority Strategies for Bus Transit” (12), and TCRP Report 90 (2) TSP benefits vary based on type and degree of application.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-31 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-40 ITS America’s Summary of TSP Benefits and Impacts Location Transit Type Number of Inter- sections TSP Strategy Benefit/Impact Portland, OR: Tualatin Valley Hwy Bus 10 Early green, green extension Bus travel time savings = 1.4-6.4%. Average bus signal delay reduction = 20%. Portland, OR: Powell Blvd Bus 4 Early green, green extension, queue jump 5-8% bus travel time reduction. Bus person delay generally decreased. Inconclusive impacts of TSP on traffic. Seattle: Rainier Ave at Genesee Bus 1 Early green, green extension For prioritized buses:
50% reduction of signal-related stops
57% reduction in average signal delay 13.5% decrease in intersection average person delay. Average intersection delay did not change for traffic. 35% reduction in bus travel time variability. Side-street effects insignificant. Seattle: Rainier Ave (Midday) Bus 3 Early green, green extension For TSP-eligible buses:
24% average reduction in stops for eligible buses
34% reduction in average intersection delay 8% reduction in travel times. Side-street drivers do not miss green signal when TSP is granted to bus. Europe Bus 5 study sites Various 10 seconds/intersection average signal delay reduction. 40-80% potential reduction in transit signal delay. Transit travel times in England and France reduced 6-42%. 0.3-2.5% increase in automobile travel times. 1- to 2-year payback period for installation of TSP. Sapporo City, Japan: Rt 36 Bus Unknown Unknown 6.1% reduction in bus travel time. 9.9% increase in ridership. Toronto Street- car 36 Early green, green extension 15-49% reduction in transit signal delay. One streetcar removed from service. Chicago: Cermak Rd Bus 15 Early green, green extension 7-20% reduction in transit travel time. Transit schedule reliability improved. Reduced number of buses needed to operate the service. Passenger satisfaction level increased. 1.5 seconds/vehicle average decrease in vehicle delay. 8.2 seconds/vehicle average increase in cross-street delay. San Francisco LRT & Trolley 16 Early green, green extension 6-25% reduction in transit signal delay. Minneapolis: Louisiana Ave Bus 3 Early green, green extension, actuated transit phase 0-38% reduction in bus travel times depending on TSP strategy. 23% (4.4 seconds/vehicle) increase in traffic delay. Skipping signal phases caused some driver frustration. Los Angeles: Wilshire and Ventura Blvds Bus 211 Early green, green extension, actuated transit phase 7.5% reduction in average running time. 35% decrease in bus delay at signalized intersections. SOURCE: An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (10)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-32 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Travel Time Travel time savings associated with TSP in North America and Europe have ranged from 2% to 18%, depending on the length of corridor, particular traffic conditions, bus operations, and the TSP strategy deployed. A reduction of 8% to 12% has been typical. The reduction in bus delay at signals has ranged from 6% to 80%. In Los Angeles, in the initial Wilshire-Whittier and Ventura BRT corridors, average running time along both corridors decreased by 7.5%; the decrease was attributed directly to TSP. This decrease corresponds to 0.5 minute per mile on Wilshire-Whittier Boulevard and 0.3 minute per mile on Ventura Boulevard. The reduction in bus signal delay at intersections with TSP was 33% to 36%. In Chicago, buses realized an average 15% to 18% reduction in running time along Cermak Road, with the reductions varying from 7% to 20% depending on the time of day. Along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, each bus saved an average of 5 seconds per intersection with TSP. BRT vehicles along Vancouver’s 98B line saved up to 1.5 minutes per trip. Service Reliability Schedule adherence as measured by variability in bus travel times and arrival times at stops improves significantly with TSP application. In Seattle, along the Rainier Avenue corridor, bus travel time variability was reduced by 35%. In Portland, OR, TriMet avoided adding one more bus to a corridor by using TSP and experienced up to a 19% reduction in travel time variability. In Vancouver, the travel time variability decreased about 40%. Bus Operating Costs By reducing bus travel time and delay and the variability in travel time and delay, transit agencies have realized both capital cost savings (by saving one or more buses during the length of the day to provide service on a route) and operating costs savings (due to more efficient bus operation). In Los Angeles, the MTA indicated that, before the Wilshire-Whittier and Ventura BRT implementation, the average cost of operating a bus was $98 per hour. A traffic signal delay reduction of 4.5 minutes per hour translates into a cost savings of approximately $7.35 per hour per bus for the initial two BRT corridors. For a bus operating along these corridors for 15 hours a day, the cost savings would be approximately $110.25 per day. Assuming 100 buses per day for an average of 300 days per calendar year in the two corridors, this translates into an approximately $3.3 million annual operating cost savings for the MTA. This savings does not include the added benefit of travel time savings for the Rapid Bus passengers. With an anticipated project life cycle of 10 years, the relative benefits-cost ratio for TSP associated with the Wilshire-Whittier and Ventura BRT corridors was estimated to be more than 11:1. General Traffic Increases in general traffic delay associated with TSP have been shown to be negligible, ranging in most cases from 0.3% to 2.5%. In Los Angeles, the effects of TSP on side-street traffic in the Wilshire-Whittier and Ventura corridors were found to be minimal, where the average increase in delay was 1 second per vehicle at the 12 test locations measured. TSP typically reduces transit travel times by 8% to 12%. TSP saved buses 0.3 to 0.5 minute per mile on average in Los Angeles. Travel time savings from TSP can translate into reduced operating costs. TSP typically results in negligible increases in general traffic delay.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-33 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Analysis Tools Field surveys and both analytical and simulation modeling can be used to estimate the reduction in bus delay and, hence, reductions in overall travel time associated with the application of TSP. A description of the potential application of surveys and simulation follows. Field Surveys The most accurate yet perhaps most time-consuming and expensive way to identify the impact of TSP is to conduct a “before” and “after” evaluation of changes in bus travel time and schedule adherence through field data collection. An on-board bus travel time and delay survey is the most appropriate tool to be applied. Measuring changes in general traffic delay associated with TSP is much more cumbersome as extensive staff are required to manually record vehicle delays in the field, videotape general traffic conditions, and then decipher changes in delay through video observations. Analytical Model As mentioned previously, TSP advances or extends the green time whenever buses arrive within the designated windows at the beginning or end of the cycle. Therefore, the red time that buses incur is reduced. Delays to buses with and without TSP can be approximated by using delay curves for signalized intersections that relate intersection approach green time available per cycle (g/C) to the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of the approach. Such signalized intersection delay curves are presented in Exhibit 4-41 through Exhibit 4-44 for different signal cycle lengths. Thus, assuming 10% of the cycle time for a TSP window, the delay savings for any given v/c for the particular intersection approach can be estimated by comparing the delays for the initial g/C value with those for an appropriate curve with a higher value (e.g., comparing the curves in the figures that follow). Exhibit 4-45 gives an example of how priority for buses can reduce delay. A 90-second cycle with a g/C of 0.4 is assumed as a base with a v/c ratio of 0.8. The base delay is 33 seconds. An increase in g/C to 50% would result from TSP. The longer green period would result in a 26-second delay, which is a savings of 7 seconds or 21% per signalized intersection. This savings compares to an average 5 to 6 seconds saved per bus found along Wilshire-Whittier and Ventura Boulevards in Los Angeles and along San Pablo Avenue in Oakland. Before-and-after travel time and delay assessments can quantify the impacts of TSP. Highway Capacity Manual delay curves for signalized intersections can be used to estimate travel time savings from TSP.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-34 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-41 Signalized Intersection Delay (60-Second Cycle and 50% Effective Green) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio D el ay , s ec on ds p er v eh ic le Total Delay; G/C = 0.4 Total Delay; G/C = 0.5 Total Delay; G/C = 0.6 G/C = 0.40 G/C = 0.50 G/C = 0.60 SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-42 Signalized Intersection Delay (60-Second Cycle and Range of Effective Green)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-35 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio D el ay , s ec on ds p er v eh ic le Total Delay; G/C = 0.4 Total Delay; G/C = 0.5 Total Delay; G/C = 0.6 G/C = 0.40 G/C = 0.50 G/C = 0.60 SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-43 Signalized Intersection Delay (90-Second Cycle and Range of Effective Green) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio D el ay , s ec on ds p er v eh ic le Total Delay; G/C = 0.4 Total Delay; G/C = 0.5 Total Delay; G/C = 0.6 G/C = 0.40 G/C = 0.50 G/C = 0.60 SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-44 Signalized Intersection Delay (120-Second Cycle and Range of Effective Green)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-36 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio D el ay , s ec on ds p er v eh ic le Total Delay; G/C = 0.4 Total Delay; G/C = 0.5 Total Delay; G/C = 0.6 G/C = 0.40 G/C = 0.50 G/C = 0.60 Before TSP, 33 seconds After TSP, 26 seconds SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-45 Effect of TSP on Signalized Intersection Delay (90-Second Cycle) Simulation Modeling Another method to identify TSP impacts is to develop a simulation model of “before” and “after” conditions at an intersection or along a corridor and measure the change in bus travel time and delay and general traffic delay. The model should be calibrated to field conditions through some level of field data collection of bus travel times and bus and general traffic delays. Given the time to develop a simulation model plus added field data collection for calibration, this analysis approach can be very expensive. Decision Framework In deciding if and to what extent TSP should be integrated along a BRT corridor, the following questions should be addressed: • Are traffic conditions and bus volumes along the corridor currently within or projected to be within the “operationally feasible” range to successfully implement TSP? • Can TSP be implemented without creating undue congestion on heavily traveled cross streets? • Is it possible to implement an extended preferential treatment along the corridor, such as arterial bus lanes or a busway, and if so, would TSP provide added benefits to warrant the added cost? • Can bus stops be located on the far side of the intersection (or mid-block) so that effective TSP can be provided? • Is the existing traffic signal control system capable of providing TSP? If not, can it be easily modified? • Will AVL be integrated with the BRT vehicles (which will dictate whether conditional or unconditional TSP can be applied)? Simulation modeling is a tool that can be used to assess TSP impacts.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-37 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts The flowchart shown in Exhibit 4-46 illustrates different factors (and their relationships) to be considered in deciding on the application and configuration of TSP for a BRT project. Analysis tools: - Field survey - Analytical modeling - Simulation Identify intersections w here TSP w ould be operationally feasible. Compare TSP to other potential preferential treatments at intersections or along the corridor. Identify the extent of TSP application. Identify the type of TSP--conditional or unconditional. Identify distributed vs. centralized TSP system. Identify specif ic signal system improvements. Evalute the impact of TSP. Is an AVL system available? Identify the bus detection system. SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-46 TSP Decision Framework Queue Jumps/Bypass Lanes BRT vehicles can bypass traffic queues at intersections through either the application of a “queue jump” or “bypass lane.” With a queue jump, the bus would enter either a right-turn lane (as shown in Exhibit 4-47) or a separate lane developed for buses only between the through and right-turn lane and then stop on the near side of the intersection. A separate, short bus signal phase would then be provided to allow the bus an early green to move into the through lane ahead of general traffic. Typically, green time from the parallel general traffic movement is reduced to accommodate the special bus signal phase, which typically is only 3 to 4 seconds. With a bypass lane (illustrated in Exhibit 4-47 and Exhibit 4-48), the bus would not have a separate signal phase but would continue through the intersection into a far-side stop before pulling back into general traffic. Queue jumps or bypass lanes are applied as an alternative to mainline TSP. With either a queue jump or bypass lane treatment, a right-turn lane or separate lane for buses must be provided. A separate lane is essential where there are heavy right turns that move on special phases. This lane should be of sufficient length to allow the buses to bypass the general traffic queue at the intersection most of the time. On a roadway with existing shoulders, a queue jump or bypass lane treatment can be developed assuming the shoulder is of sufficient width (10 feet minimum) and pavement design to accommodate bus traffic. Queue jumps are a near-side intersection treatment with an added signal phase. Bypass lanes are similar but do not have a separate signal phase. Queue jumps and bypass lanes can be an alternative to TSP. A right-turn lane or separate lane is required to implement a queue jump lane or bypass lane.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-38 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-47 Queue Jump and Bypass Lane Operation SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-48 Bypass Lane Signs (Portland, OR, and Las Vegas) With a queue jump, the bus stop (if there is one at a particular intersection) needs to be on the near side, as the bus would trigger a separate signal phase after it serves a stop. With a bypass lane, the stop should be on the far side, which will reduce the conflict with right-turn traffic. For either treatment, right-turn channelization must not interfere with bus movements either back into general traffic or straight through the intersection.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-39 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts With a queue jump, the typical type of bus detection is either a loop located in the pavement of a right-turn lane or separate bus lane on the near side of the intersection (just short of the stop bar or crosswalk) or video detection. Scale of Application Queue jumps and bypass lanes are applied at a single intersection or a series of intersections along an arterial roadway. Bus volumes are typically fairly low because high bus volumes may warrant bus-only lanes. Selected Typical Examples Queue jumps and bypass lanes have been developed in several U.S. cities, including Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Seattle. Estimated Costs The cost of a queue jump or bypass lane will vary widely based on whether an existing right-turn lane or shoulder is present to develop a bus queue bypass. If existing roadway lanes or shoulders are available to develop an adequate queue jump or bypass lane treatment, then the costs of the installation will focus on roadway signing and striping modifications and the provision of a separate signal for the queue jump treatment. The signing and striping costs have ranged from $500 to $2,000 for applications in the United States. The cost of a bus queue jump signal is estimated to range from $5,000 to $15,000, based on the type of detection deployed (loop vs. video). A queue jump signal with loop detection typically has a lower cost than one with video detection. The development of a new separate lane for buses for a bypass or the development of a new or lengthened right-turn lane will be dependent on the availability of right-of-way, existing utilities present, and other roadside features. Costs for new lane construction will vary widely based on the extent of roadway reconstruction, utility modification, and right-of-way acquisition required. If a far- side bus pullout is provided, added costs would be incurred. Likely Impacts Travel Time and Reliability By allowing a bus to bypass general traffic queuing at a signalized intersection, bus travel time is reduced with improved service reliability. The extent of bus travel time savings will depend on the extent of general traffic queuing at a signalized intersection, the extent to which a bypass treatment can be developed to bypass the general traffic queue, and the magnitude of right-turn traffic if the queue bypass uses such a lane (and also whether or not free right turns are allowed from the right-turn lane). With either a queue jump or bypass lane, some increase in delay to right-turn traffic could occur if a separate lane for buses is not provided. Bus travel time savings are reduced if the right-turn lane traffic volume is heavy and there is limited opportunity for free rights or right turns on red. Application of bus queue jumps has been shown to produce 5% to 15% reductions in travel time for buses through intersections. Service reliability is improved because of reduced bus delay at signals. Costs for queue jumps and bypass lanes depend on the availability of existing roadway lanes and/or shoulders. Queue jumps and bypass lanes have been shown to reduce transit travel times by 5% to 15%.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-40 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Reported travel time savings associated with queue jumps/bypass lanes are as follows: • 7- to 10-second bus intersection delay savings on Lincoln Street at 13th Avenue in Denver • 27-second reduction in bus travel time along NE 45th Street route in Seattle during morning peak period • 12-second reduction in bus travel time along NE 45th Street route in Seattle during afternoon peak period in Seattle • 6-second reduction in bus travel time along NE 45th Street route in Seattle across an entire day Operating Cost Savings By reducing bus travel time, some operating cost savings can be achieved with queue jumps and/or bypass lanes if implemented in a systematic manner. Safety With either a bus queue jump or bypass lane treatment at a signalized intersection, extra signing and pavement marking are important given the potential perception by motorists of unexpected bus maneuvers (e.g., a bus pulling ahead of general traffic from a right-turn or separate lane or buses going through the intersection in a right-turn lane). Ridership If queue jumps and/or bypass lanes are applied in a systematic manner along a corridor, a potentially sizable reduction in bus travel time could occur, which could attract increased ridership. Similar to arterial bus lanes, elasticity factors can be applied to translate identified bus travel time savings to the potential for increased ridership. Implementability A bus queue jump or bypass lane is an alternative to TSP in the through lanes at a signalized intersection, and it becomes more attractive if (1) existing right-turn lanes and far-side bus pull-off areas are available and (2) TSP would have an unacceptable impact on bus travel times and/or general traffic delay. Queue jump and bypass lane treatments are also more effective where the bypass lane is sufficiently long to bypass the general traffic queue and the right-turn volume in the bypass lane is relatively low. Analysis Tools The reduction in bus delay and, hence, travel time associated with the provision of queue jumps or bypass lanes can be estimated by using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (6). Intersection approach delay for general traffic can be identified for a condition where buses would be in the general traffic stream with no queue jump/bypass treatment being provided. The delay to buses with the queue jump/bypass treatment can then be estimated in the separate lane where buses would operate, accounting for any delays associated with right-turn traffic. With a queue jump signal, some increased general traffic delay would occur due to the reduction of green time for cross-street through traffic to create a separate bus signal phase. Queue jumps and bypass lanes become more attractive if TSP has unacceptable impacts. Highway Capacity Manual procedures can be used to estimate the delay reduction from queue jumps and bypass lanes.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-41 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Exhibit 4-49 presents a graph that identifies the travel time savings associated with a queue jump treatment assuming (1) the queue jump lane is long enough to function effectively and (2) an advance green of about 10% of the cycle length is provided. The example assumes an initial g/C (effective green time per cycle) of 50% and v/c of 0.8. After the queue jump is installed, the g/C is assumed as 0.6 and the v/c at 0.2. In this example, a bus travel time savings of 17 seconds would result. Comparative benefits for other values of g/C and v/c can be obtained either by interpolation or by application of the delay equations. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio D el ay , s ec on ds p er v eh ic le Total Delay; G/C = 0.4 Total Delay; G/C = 0.5 Total Delay; G/C = 0.6 G/C = 0.40 G/C = 0.50 G/C = 0.60 Before Bypass, 26 seconds After Bypass, 9 seconds Queue Bypass Savings 17 seconds SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team EXHIBIT 4-49 Effect of Queue Jump with Advanced Green on Signalized Intersection Delay (90-Second Cycle) Simulation modeling can also be applied to identify impacts to both bus travel time and general traffic delay associated with queue jump or bypass lane application. Curb Extensions Curb extensions can serve as bus preferential treatments along arterial street BRT operations. The concept involves extending the sidewalk area into the street so that buses do not have to pull out of a travel lane to serve passengers at a stop. Thus, a curb extension can also serve as a BRT stop. Curb extensions can be far- side, near-side, or mid-block. Curb extension operation is illustrated in Exhibit 4- 50. A far-side curb extension is depicted in Exhibit 4-51. To develop a curb extension, either a parking lane or loading zone must be available to develop the expanded passenger waiting area. This treatment requires the elimination of two or more parking spaces or a loading zone to provide a sufficient length to develop the curb extension. Another term for these treatments is “bus bulbs.” On-street parking or a loading zone is necessary to create a curb extension.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-42 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Before Bus pulls to curb at bus stop: must wait for gap in traffic to proceed. Curb extended into parking lane, bus stops in travel lane; more curbside parking available. After BUS STOP BUS STOP P P SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) EXHIBIT 4-50 Curb Extension Operation SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) EXHIBIT 4-51 Curb Extension (Portland, OR)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-43 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts In addition to serving as a bus preferential treatment, curb extensions provide an opportunity to beautify the streetscape by providing added space for landscaping and passenger amenities such as benches, telephones, and pedestrian- scale lighting. Curb extensions also reduce the pedestrian crossing distance across the street on which the bus is operating. The placement of street furniture and landscaping must not impede intersection sight distance. Scale of Application Curb extensions can be provided at single stops or along a section of a bus route. A typical width for a curb extension is the width of the parking lane or loading zone removed (8 to 10 feet). Lengths of curb extensions can range from 30 to 40 feet for a standard bus to 50+ feet if multiple standard buses and/or articulated buses are accommodated. Outside of the curb extension, there is typically a curb return to the side street on one side (if the extension is at an intersection) and a transition taper to a parking lane or loading zone on the other. Conditions of Application Curb extensions are feasible where arterial traffic volumes are low, bus service is frequent, pedestrian volumes are substantial, development densities are high, and curb parking is permitted at all times along the roadway. Curb extensions can only be applied where it is possible to widen the sidewalk either at an intersection or mid-block. For use as bus stops, curb extensions are typically associated with near-side bus stops. If far-side stops are developed as curb extensions, blockage to general traffic caused by the bus stopping should not result in unacceptable queuing and potential traffic conflicts at the intersection. Given the limited benefit associated with providing TSP in general traffic lanes where near-side bus stops exist, curb extensions are typically applied at near-side stops without TSP. Selected Typical Examples Curb extensions are provided along bus routes in several U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Charlotte, Orlando, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Portland (OR), Seattle, West Palm Beach, and St. Petersburg (13). Estimated Costs The cost of a curb extension varies based on the length and width of the treatment, site constraints, and the specific design of the curb extension. In San Francisco, costs of existing curb extensions have ranged from $40,000 to $80,000 each. Much of the cost stems from the need to provide adequate drainage, which often necessitates re-grading the street and sidewalk and moving drains, manholes, street lights, signal poles, street furniture, fire hydrants, and other features. Likely Impacts Travel Time and Reliability By allowing a bus to stop in the general traffic lane and not have to pull over to a curb at a bus stop, travel time is reduced by eliminating “clearance time,” which is the time a bus waits to find an acceptable gap in the traffic stream so that the bus can pull back into the general traffic lane. The clearance time depends on the adjacent lane traffic volume, and various studies have shown that clearance times can range from 9 to 20 seconds. There are opportunities for added streetscaping with curb extensions. Curb extensions work well on streets where bus service is frequent, travel volumes are low, there are higher pedestrian volumes, and curbside parking is permitted at all times. Curb extensions eliminate bus “clearance time.”

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-44 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Exhibit 4-52 identifies clearance times associated with different adjacent-lane mixed-traffic volumes under particular bus operating conditions. A volume of 300 to 500 vehicles per lane (typical for a city street and the upper volume limit for constructing curb extensions) results in a savings of up to 5 seconds per stop. By eliminating clearance time, the variability of clearance time at stops along an arterial corridor can be improved, and, thus, bus service reliability also can be improved. At the same time, provision of a near-side curb extension precludes the ability to provide a dedicated right-turn lane at an intersection. EXHIBIT 4-52 Average Bus Clearance Time (Random Vehicle Arrivals) Adjacent Lane Mixed- Traffic Volume (vehicles/hour) Average Re-Entry Delay (seconds) 100 1 200 2 300 3 400 4 500 5 600 6 700 8 800 10 900 12 1,000 15 SOURCE: Computed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (6) unsignalized intersection methodology (minor street right turn at a bus stop) assuming a critical gap of 7 seconds and random vehicle arrivals. Delay based on 12 buses stopping per hour. Operating Cost Savings By reducing bus travel time, some operating cost savings can be achieved with curb extensions if implemented in a systematic manner. Safety A curb extension for a BRT stop can improve pedestrian safety because the crossing distance is reduced. At the same time, given that curb extensions have a relatively tight curb return on the intersection end of the treatment, vehicles turning right must be able to make the turn safely. Curb extensions are typically not provided where there are high right-turn volumes (particularly truck traffic) and where a larger curb return would cut back on the space available to develop a curb extension at an intersection. Ridership If curb extensions are applied in a systematic manner along a corridor, a potentially sizable reduction in bus travel time could occur, which could attract increased ridership. Similar to arterial bus lanes, elasticity factors could be applied to translate identified bus travel time savings into the potential for increased ridership. Curb extensions work best when traffic in the adjacent curb lane does not exceed 400 to 500 vehicles per hour. Curb extensions reduce the length of crosswalks. Systematic application of curb extensions can result in a sizable reduction in bus travel times.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-45 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Implementability The ability to develop curb extensions depends on the ability to remove parking or a loading zone at an intersection or mid-block. Curb extensions for bus preferential treatments are most appropriate when TSP is not feasible and when bus queue jump or bypass lane treatments are either not possible or would have unacceptable operational or safety impacts. Analysis Tools The reduction in clearance time at bus stops with the provision of curb extensions can be estimated using the procedures in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9). The difference in intersection approach delay if a bus stops at a near-side curb extension as opposed to traveling through the intersection can be estimated by using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (6). If the curb extension is at an unsignalized intersection or a mid-block location, the added intersection approach delay is associated with the time the bus is stopped serving passengers and whether there is an adjacent traffic lane that other vehicles can use to get around the bus. At a signalized intersection, there is the added factor of whether a bus stops at a near-side stop during the green or red signal phase. If a bus stops during a green phase, then the delay to general traffic would be similar to an unsignalized intersection or mid-block stop condition. Simulation modeling can be applied to identify the impacts to bus travel time and general traffic delay associated with curb extension application. STATION COMPONENTS Stations provide the key link between passengers and the BRT system. Along with vehicles and running ways, they are essential components. They are also important in providing a clear system identity and reinforcing development in their environs. They can range from simple stops with well-lit shelters to complex facilities with extensive amenities and features (such as those found at many rail stations). This profile provides guidelines for key station features. Automated passenger information and off-vehicle fare collection (which are both associated with stations) and station spacing are discussed in separate profiles. Scale of Application BRT stations (in contrast to bus lanes and busways) are provided along the entire BRT route or system. They are widely spaced (except in central areas and other densely developed areas) to allow high operating speeds; the wide spacing also reduces station investment costs. Stations should be placed at transit-supportive major activity centers (which may include the city center, outlying office and retail complexes, large schools, and hospitals), at major intersecting transit lines, and at interchanging arterial streets. Good pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and park-and-ride access is essential. The feasibility of curb extensions depends upon the ability to remove on-street parking and/or loading zones. Stations are the link between passengers and vehicles.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-46 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Selected Typical Examples Examples of BRT stations are shown in Exhibit 4-53 through Exhibit 4-61. These examples illustrate the wide range of station types that have been keyed to specific local conditions. All give BRT stations a clear, specific identity. SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-53 BRT Station Examples (Los Angeles)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-47 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-54 BRT Station Example (Pittsburgh) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-55 BRT Station Example (Orlando) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-56 BRT Station Example (York, ON)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-48 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-57 BRT Station Example (Miami) SOURCE: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada EXHIBIT 4-58 BRT Station Example (Las Vegas) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-59 BRT Station Examples (Boston)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-49 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org EXHIBIT 4-60 BRT Station Example (Brisbane, Australia) SOURCE: www.i70mtncorridor.com EXHIBIT 4-61 BRT Station Example (Ottawa) Types and Features A wide range of station types and features influences both costs and performance. These types and features include the following: • Type of running way (busway, median arterial busway, or city street operations) • Type of construction (at-grade, elevated, or subway) • Platform length and height • Auxiliary features (such as telephones, temperature control, automated passenger information, and security provisions) • Passenger amenities (such as benches, restrooms, and drinking fountains) • Need for stairs, escalators, and pedestrian bridges There is a wide range of BRT station types and features.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-50 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • Station building type and design • Need for passing lanes Exhibit 4-62 gives examples of station features and amenities for selected BRT systems (circa 2002). Exhibit 4-63 gives features of BRT stations as reported in CBRT (1). Exhibit 4-64 lists features that may be provided for various running way alignments. The exhibit can serve as a guide in designing and costing stations. EXHIBIT 4-62 Examples of BRT Station Features and Amenities City Service Features Boston Silver Line Mezzanines in four tunnel stations with fare collection provisions. Six curbside stations on Washington Street have seating, information panels, telephones, trash receptacles, and communications panel. Cleveland Euclid Avenue Shelters, amenities, and possibly fare vending machines. Hartford New Britain- Hartford Busway Passenger drop-off areas, some park-and-ride. Full range of amenities, climate-controlled buildings, restrooms, and telephones at major stations. Houston Transit centers Have extensive park-and-ride lots at stations. Los Angeles San Bernardino HOV/Busway; Wilshire- Whittier; Ven- tura Metro Bus Circular island at El Monte Station; large park-and-ride there. Major stations: double canopy shelter and “Next Bus” display signs. Other stations: single canopy shelter and bollards. Miami South Miami- Dade Translucent, waterproof fiber canopies, pay telephones, and benches. New York City I-495 bus lane New Jersey buses use 200-berth Midtown Bus Terminal. Ottawa Transitway system Passenger shelters, radiant heat, benches, telephones, and television monitors announcing bus arrivals. Pittsburgh Busways Simple shelters, some with telephones. Seattle Bus tunnel Architectural features such as murals/clocks. Vancouver, BC B-Lines Well-lit, distinctive shelters; real-time electronic bus information displays; and customer information signage. Adelaide, Australia On guided busway Protected shelters, bicycle access/storage, and short-/long-term parking. Brisbane, Australia South East Busway Architecturally distinctive designs, passenger protection, elevators and stations, covered pedestrian bridges over busway, real-time passenger information displays, ticketing machines, public telephones, passenger seats, drinking fountains, retail kiosks, public restrooms, and security systems. Sydney, Australia Liverpool- Parramatta Bus- way; bus lanes Real-time passenger information, lighting, and security cameras. Rouen, France Optically guided bus lanes Most stations are simple bus shelters; some have ticketing provisions. Bogotá, Colombia TransMilenio Similar to rapid transit station in design, with fare payment provisions and high platform. Quito, Ecuador Trolebus Tube-like shelter at stations, off-vehicle fare collection, and high platform. SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-51 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-63 Features of Selected Existing BRT Stations Feature B os to n ( Si lv er Li n e P ha se 1 ) H on ol u lu ( C it y Ex pr es s) La s V eg as (N or th M A X ) Lo s A n g el es (M et ro R oy al ) M ia m i ( So u th D ad e B u sw ay ) O ak la nd ( Sa n P ab lo R ap id ) O rl an d o (L ym m o ) P it ts b ur gh (B u sw ay s) P h oe n ix (R ap id ) Station Geometry Platform Height A A C A A A A B A Maximum Vehicles Accommodated 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 Passing Capability D D E D F D G F E Passenger Amenities and Services Telephone X Restroom Vending X Seating X X X X X X X Trash Container X X X X X X X Temperature Control X Public Art X Public Address X X Emergency Telephone X X X Security Monitoring/Police X NOTE: A = standard curb, B = raised curb, C = level platform, D = adjacent mixed-flow lane, E = bus pullouts for station, F = passing lane, and G = no passing. SOURCE: CBRT (1) EXHIBIT 4-64 BRT Station Types and Features Curbside Bus Stop Median Arterial Busway Busway Feature Typ- ical Major Typ- ical Major Typ- ical Major Inter- modal Center Conventional shelter1 X Unique BRT shelter X X X X X X X Illumination X X X X X X X Telephones/security phone X X X X X X Temperature control X X2 X2 X X Passenger Amenities Seating X X X X X X Trash containers X X X X X X Restrooms X Public address/automated passenger information systems X X X X X X Passenger Services Vending machines, newsstands X X X X X X Shops X X Special services (e.g., dry cleaners) X X 1 Conventional shelter is a minimum treatment that generally should not be used for a BRT service. 2 In some environments NOTE: Major stations should be provided at interchanging transit lines, large park-and-ride lots, and important passenger generators. SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-52 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Estimated Costs Reported station costs for various BRT station features are shown in Exhibit 4- 65 through Exhibit 4-67. The following observations apply: • Costs for busway stations range from about $150,000 (Miami) to more than $3 million (Ottawa). A major cost item is the provision of a station building. • Costs for stations on arterial streets range from about $60,000 to $100,000 (Los Angeles and Vancouver) to $250,000 (Las Vegas). The stations in Las Vegas have adjusted the curb heights to permit level boarding of Civis Iris buses. • Costs for bus shelters are modest. They are increased only slightly by providing benches, telephones, trash receptacles, special painting, and bicycle racks. Station costs are substantially increased when ticket vending machines are added. Costs are also increased substantially when roadway widening at stations is included. • Station buildings (such as provided in Brisbane and Ottawa) are the major cost item. They can cost several million dollars—even more when grade- separated pedestrian-ways are provided. • Passing lanes at stations can also account for sizeable costs. EXHIBIT 4-65 Reported BRT Station Costs by Type of Running Way Type of Running Way System Cost/Station (millions) Adelaide, Australia $1.50 Brisbane, Australia $1.90 Hartford (proposed) $2.40 Miami (extension) $0.15 Pittsburgh: West Busway $0.45 Pittsburgh: East Busway (extension) $0.50 Busway Ottawa $3.30 Freeway shoulder lanes Ottawa $4.40 Median arterial bus lanes Cleveland $0.30 Boston $0.23 Las Vegas $0.25 Los Angeles $0.06 to $0.10 Ottawa $0.10 Mixed traffic or bus lanes Vancouver, BC $0.07 SOURCE: TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) EXHIBIT 4-66 Reported BRT Station Costs by Type of Station and Roadway Features Item Cost Type of Stop/Station Simple stop $16,000 to $26,000 per shelter Enhanced stop $25,000 to $35,000 per shelter Designated station $150,000 to $2.5 million Intermodal transit center $5 to $20 million Roadway Feature Bus pullout $0.05 to $0.06 million per station platform Passing lanes at station $2.5 to $2.9 million per mile per lane SOURCE: CBRT (1) Major cost items for stations include provision of station buildings and passing lanes for buses. Ticket vending machines can substantially increase station costs.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-53 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-67 Reported BRT Station Costs by Station Component Component Cost Cleveland Bench $2,000 Standard shelter $15,000 Upgraded shelter $150,000 Posted bus information $10,000 Real-time bus information $15,000 Ticket machine $10,000 Artwork/landscaping $1,000,000 overall Trash receptacle $1,000 Telephone $500 Miami Bench $60 Ticket vending machine $27,700 Telephone $850 Trash receptacle $6 Special painting/logo $350 Bicycle racks $1,000 Ottawa 5’ x 10’ shelter $4,500 Oversized shelter $11,000 to $15,000 Large station building Several million dollars Vancouver, BC Cost per shelter $44,600 Services per platform $26,160 SOURCE: TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report (3) Likely Impacts The generalized effects of various station features on BRT system performance and benefits are set forth in Exhibit 4-68. The benefits may include more riders and more potential development. More specifically, BRT stations afford three major benefits: • They can reduce travel times by expediting passenger boarding and alighting and by being widely spaced (where the spacing is appropriate for the surrounding land uses). See the “Fare Collection” and “Service Plans” sections of this chapter for discussion of these impacts. • They can attract riders by providing a range of services for boarding and alighting patrons, by being located convenient to transit-supportive destinations and attractions, and by being pedestrian-friendly and safe. Automated passenger information systems can also prove beneficial. See the discussion in the “Passenger Information” section of this chapter. • They can serve adjacent developments and encourage additional development in their environs. (See Chapter 6.) There are three major benefits of BRT stations.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-54 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-68 Generalized Effects of BRT Station Elements System Performance Element Travel Time Savings Reliability Identity and Image Safety and Security Capacity System Benefits Station Types:
Basic shelter
Enhanced shelter
Designated station
Intermodal transit center Integrated stations serving multiple modes minimize transfer time penalties. More distinct station types enhance the brand identity of the system. Additional amenities appeal to customers. More defined stations build in design treatments to link to surround- ing com- munities. Larger stations increase loading capacity at stations. More defined stations attract potential develop- ment. Platform Height:
Standard curb
Raised curb
Level platform Reduced vertical clearance facilitates boarding and reduces dwell time. Reduced vertical clearance facilitates boarding and reduces dwell time variability. Level platforms present an image of advanced technology, similar to some rail systems. Reduced vertical clearance may reduce tripping during boarding and alighting. Reduced dwell times for platform heights increase station throughput. Platform Layout:
Single vehicle- length platform
Extended platform with unassigned berths
Extended platform with assigned berths Allowing multiple vehicles to load and unload facilitates lower station clearance times. Allowing multiple vehicles to load and unload reduces delay. Longer platforms limit queuing delays for vehicles waiting to load. Passing Capability:
Bus pullouts
Passing lanes at stations Passing at stations allows for express routes and minimizes delays at stations. Passing at stations allows for schedule maintenance and recovery. Passing limits queuing delays at stations. Station Access:
Pedestrian linkages
Park-and- ride facility Treatments to highlight station access attract riders. Better pedestrian linkages to com- munities facilitate integration with com- munities. Better access attracts customers. SOURCE: CBRT (1)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-55 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Ridership Effects of Station Features There is some evidence that BRT systems attract riders as a result of their running way permanence, attractive vehicles and stations, clear and frequent service, and good connections to adjacent development. Station components have been estimated to account for up to 15% of a maximum 10-minute travel time bias constant or 25% added ridership beyond that obtained by travel time and service frequency improvements alone. The likely additional ridership associated with various station components is as shown in Exhibit 4-69. The increments are additive up to a total of 15%. EXHIBIT 4-69 BRT Station Component Contribution to Ridership Increases Component Contribution to Ridership Increase Unique, attractively designed shelters 2% Illumination 2% Telephones/security phones 3% Climate-controlled waiting area 3% Passenger amenities 3% Passenger services 2% Total 15% SOURCE: Estimated by TCRP A-23A project team Land Development Effects Attractively designed BRT stations with conflict-free, weather-protected pedestrian access to adjacent activity centers can have a positive effect on land development. Examples of development adjacent to busway stations in Ottawa and Brisbane are shown in Exhibit 4-70 through Exhibit 4-72. Exhibit 4-70 shows the entrance to Bayshore Shopping Centre in Ottawa, which was constructed to provide direct access to and from the Bayshore Transitway station. In Exhibit 4-71, two existing office towers have direct access to a Transitway station. A third tower is under construction. The developer advertises ready Transitway access as an advantage of the property. SOURCE: Steve Brandon, www.flickr.com EXHIBIT 4-70 Bayshore Transitway Station (Ottawa)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-56 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: http://www.oxfordproperties.com EXHIBIT 4-71 Office Development at Kent Transitway Station (Ottawa) More than $1 billion (Canadian) in new residential and commercial construction has occurred along Ottawa’s Transitway system. The St. Laurent shopping center, which is directly connected to the Transitway, is one of Canada’s busiest and most productive shopping centers. A substantial proportion of its patrons use the Transitway. Design Guidelines BRT stations should be permanent, weather-protected facilities that are convenient, comfortable, safe, and fully accessible. They should be fully integrated with their surroundings and should be an urban design asset. They should provide a full range of passenger amenities, including shelters, passenger information, telephones, lighting, and security provisions. They should provide a unified design theme; there should be a consistent pattern of station location, configuration, and design. A BRT “icon” designating each station is essential. Convenient, weather-protected, and conflict-free connections to nearby destinations are essential. Station designs should integrate BRT, traffic, and pedestrian movements and separate them as appropriate. Stations should provide a full range of passenger amenities and a unified design theme. Stations should be permanent and provide protection from the weather.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-57 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts NOTE: These photos show the Queensland Art Gallery (adjacent to the Cultural Centre station’s pedestrian bridge), the Queen Street Mall (above the Queen Street station), and a connection to the South East Busway inside Queen Street Mall. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org EXHIBIT 4-72 Commercial Development around South East Busway (Brisbane)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-58 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Berth Design Linear parallel berths are desirable for most BRT stations. However, shallow saw-tooth berths are desirable in terminal areas where independent entry and exit is essential. Each berth should be at least 45 to 50 feet long for a 40-foot bus and at least 65 to 70 feet long for a 60-foot articulated bus. Berths should be at least 11 feet wide. Additional distance is needed for independent entry and exit. The number of berths should be sufficient to accommodate anticipated peak- hour bus flows without frequent spillback. For busways and median arterial busways, a minimum of two berths should be provided in each direction of travel. Exhibit 4-73 gives the approximate number of berths that should be provided for various bus flow rates and dwell times assuming a 5% failure rate (i.e., a 5% probability that one bus will arrive at a berth to find another bus already occupying it). More detailed procedures for different failure rates that take into account the decreasing efficiency of multiple berths are set forth in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9). In general, linear, online stations without bus passing capabilities have a maximum of three to four effective berths. EXHIBIT 4-73 Approximate Number of Bus Berths Required for a 5% Failure Dwell Time (Seconds per Stop) Bus Flow Rate (Buses per Hour) 10 20 30 40 50 60 Unsignalized 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 2 45 1 1 1 1 2 2 60 1 1 2 2 2 3 75 1 2 2 2 3 3 90 1 2 2 2 3 4 105 1 2 3 3 4 4 120 2 2 3 3 4 5 Signalized (50% Green per Cycle and Near-Side Stop) 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 2 2 45 1 1 2 2 3 3 60 1 2 2 2 3 4 75 1 2 3 3 4 5 90 2 3 3 4 5 5 105 2 3 4 5 5 6 120 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOTE: Assumes 10-15 seconds of clearance time between buses and a 60% coefficient of dwell time variation. SOURCES: TCRP Report 26 (5) and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) Platform Design There are two basic options for BRT platform configuration: side platforms and center platforms. Side platform configurations are common along streets and busways. They adapt to the right-hand (curb) side of door arrangements in the United States and Canada. Far-side stations and near-side left-turn lanes can share the same envelope along median arterial busways. More detailed procedures for estimating the required number of berths are contained in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. BRT can use side platforms or center platforms.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-59 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Center platform configurations are used along several busways in South America (e.g., Bogotá and Curitiba). They are used by trolley buses operating in the Harvard Square Tunnel in Cambridge, MA, and will be used in downtown Cleveland along the Euclid Avenue Busway. They allow more efficient and economical station design where buses have doors on both sides. However, they require left-hand doors and may limit operations in mixed traffic if there are no doors on the right-hand side of the bus as well. Side platforms should be about 10 to 12 feet wide. A 20- to 25-foot width is desirable for center platforms. Platform heights should be coordinated with vehicle design and fare collection methods. High-level platforms similar to rail rapid transit are used in Bogotá and Curitiba, where BRT service is limited to locations with these platforms. In the United States, the trend is toward low-floor buses coordinated with low-floor platforms. Low-floor platforms are typically 6 inches above street level, leaving about 8 inches to the base of the vehicle. “Raised curbs” are typically 9 to 10 inches above the street level, leaving about 5 inches to the base of the vehicle. “Level” platforms are typically 14 inches high. “High” platforms as in Bogotá are several feet above street level. Platform designs should accommodate space for fare collection and passenger queuing. Passenger Area Design Passenger waiting area design should include shelters, wind screens, radiant heaters in cold climate, signage and graphics, ITS displays, telephones, possibly bicycle racks, and possibly newspaper vending. Larger, enclosed stations and terminal facilities may also provide drinking fountains, restrooms, and expanded retail services. Adequate vandal-resistant and easily maintained lighting should be provided. Lighting levels on open platforms should be about five footcandles, and lighting levels should be increased to 10 to 15 footcandles beneath canopies. Both actual security and perceived security are essential. Both require good visibility. Passengers should be able to see and be seen from locations within the station and from outside space. Abrupt or blind corners should be avoided. Security equipment such as emergency call boxes and closed circuit television may be warranted. Stations should be barrier-free and comply with ADA guidelines (14). Where a vehicle-mounted lift or ramp is employed for wheelchair access, a clear area 96 inches long (measured perpendicular to the vehicle) and 60 inches wide (measured parallel to the vehicle) is required for lift deployment and wheelchair maneuvering. The cross slope of this area should not exceed 2% (measured parallel to the vehicle). Operational Considerations Station configurations and design should support the BRT service plan and operating philosophy. There should be convenient transfers between the BRT service and intersecting transit routes. Independent bus arrivals and departures should be provided at major transit centers and terminal stations. Low-floor platforms range from typical curb height to “level” platforms. BRT stations must comply with ADA guidelines.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-60 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Evaluation Stations are an essential BRT component. For maximum cost-effectiveness they should be coordinated with adjacent development, widely spaced (insofar as it is appropriate for the surrounding land uses), and economically designed while still providing the necessary passenger services and amenities. The wide spacing will provide BRT travel time benefits, while the station design itself enhances ridership and may stimulate land development. VEHICLE COMPONENTS BRT vehicles have important bearing on ridership attraction, system performance, and environmental compatibility. Propulsion systems impact revenue, service times, emissions, and operating and maintenance costs. Seating arrangements, floor height, and door configuration impact dwell time at stations, BRT travel time, and passenger comfort. Physical vehicle size; aisle width; and number, width, and arrangement of doors influence BRT system capacity. The number of bus sizes, types, and propulsion systems on the market has increased as more transit systems are using specialized vehicles for their BRT services. Experience has suggested the following general guidelines for vehicle selection, design, and operation (2,15): • Vehicles should be selected, and designed, for the type of services offered (e.g., local and express) and the nature of markets served. • Vehicles should provide sufficient capacity for anticipated ridership levels, on-board rider comfort, wheelchair securement, bicycle storage (if bicycles are allowed on board), and planned service frequencies. Lengths ranging from 40 to 45 feet for single-unit vehicles and from 60 to 82 feet for articulated and double-articulated vehicles can be considered. • Vehicles should have strong passenger appeal and should be environmentally friendly, easy to access, and comfortable. Desirable features include air conditioning, bright lighting, panoramic windows, and real-time passenger information. • Vehicles should be easy to board and alight. Low floor heights of 15 inches or less above the pavement are desirable unless technologies and station designs permit reliable level boarding. • A sufficient number of door channels should be provided, especially where fares are collected off-vehicle. Generally, one door channel should be provided for each 10 feet of vehicle length. • Wide aisles and sufficient passenger circulation space on buses can lower dwell times and allow better distribution of passengers within the bus. • The allocation of space between standing and seated passengers depends upon the markets served. Total passenger capacity increases when the number of seats is reduced. Accordingly, on heavily traveled BRT routes, it may be desirable to provide 2-and-1 transverse seats or longitudinal seats on both sides of the bus. • Emissions of particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide can be reduced by using ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel with digital filters or by operating compressed natural gas (CNG) or hybrid electric buses. Hybrid propulsion is quiet, improves fuel economy,

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-61 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts allows buses to accelerate faster, eliminates abrupt shifting, and improves ride quality. • Use of electronic, mechanical, and optional guidance systems enables rail- like passenger boarding and alighting convenience and rail-like service times at stations. Guidance systems may also reduce right-of-way requirements. • Standard, stylized, and specialized vehicles can be used in BRT service. Each should have distinct livery, graphics, and icons to create a unique BRT identity and image. Each should have suitable door arrangements and internal layouts. • Vehicles should be well-proven in revenue service before being introduced into BRT operation, especially where frequent service is anticipated. • Costs should be evaluated on a life-cycle basis that considers both the initial investment and the recurring operating and maintenance costs. Size of Vehicle Bus size should be based on BRT passenger capacity and operations requirements. Bus dimensions have become fairly standard with small variations, and most buses can be classified into one of three categories: small buses (around 30 to 35 feet in length) typically used in small communities or as feeders or shuttles; standard buses (40 to 45 feet), which are the most commonly used buses for transit service; and articulated buses (60 feet and longer), which are used for heavy patronage routes and for BRT service. Double-articulated buses with a length of 80 feet are used in some places (such as Curitiba). Exhibit 4-74 shows typical sizes and capacities for buses in the United States and Canada. Exhibit 4-75 shows a standard length bus and an articulated bus used in the same BRT service. EXHIBIT 4-74 Typical Bus Sizes and Capacity Length Width Floor Height Number of Door Channels Number of Seats (including seats in wheelchair tie- down areas) Maximum Passenger Capacity (seated plus standing) 40 ft (12.2 m) 96-102 in 13-36 in 2-5 35-44 50-60 45 ft (13.8 m) 96-102 in 13-36 in 2-5 35-52 60-70 60 ft (18 m) 96-102 in 13-36 in 4-7 31-65 80-90 80 ft (24 m) 96-102 in 13-36 in 7-9 40-70 110-130 SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) The size of BRT vehicles has an impact on the ability to transport bicycles. Some agencies that provide BRT service using standard-length vehicles have front- mounted bicycle racks on the vehicles; others do not allow bicycles on BRT. Agencies that provide BRT service using articulated vehicles may or may not allow bicycles on board. The decision to allow bicycles on board should be sensitive to anticipated ridership levels (seated passengers, standing passengers, and bicyclists), headways, dwell times, and interior space available to accommodate bicycles as well as wheelchairs. Buses used for BRT range in size. Standard-length (40 to 45 feet) buses and articulated buses are the most common.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-62 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-75 Standard-Length and Articulated Buses (Van Hool BRT) Seating arrangements should facilitate passenger flow through vehicles. A 2-1 seating configuration may be desirable for heavily used BRT routes. Scale of Application Based on a biannual BRT Vehicle Demand and Supply Analysis Update (17) conducted by the FTA, the average annual demand for BRT vehicles based on size is 325 articulated, 115 40- to 45-foot buses, and 80 30- to 35-foot buses. This demand analysis was based on 48 cities with plans for BRT system implementation. Exhibit 4-76 identifies select agencies’ tentative vehicle demand by size for a 10- year period ranging from 2004 to 2013. Conditions of Application The size of buses for a BRT operation should depend on the overall estimated ridership for the new service, the planned frequency of service, and a maximum tolerable passenger loading condition on the vehicle. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) identifies the level of service associated with certain passenger loading conditions on a transit vehicle. Selected Typical Examples Exhibit 4-77 contains an inventory of buses currently available specifically for BRT service along with a brief description of their seating and standee capacity, and dimensions. Exhibit 4-78 through Exhibit 4-81 show available BRT vehicles.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-63 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-76 Tentative Vehicle Demand for Select Cities for 2004-2013 City/ Community Transit Authority/Agency Artic- ulated Vehi- cle 40- to 45-ft Vehi- cle 30- to 35-ft Vehi- cle Alameda-Contra Costa Counties, CA AC Transit 60 3 Albany Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) 20 Atlanta Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) 32 12 165 Austin Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 25 Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 146 100 Charlotte Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) 16 Chicago Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Chicago Dept of Transportation (CDT) 80 355 Cleveland Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority (GCRTA) 81 Denver Denver Regional Transit District (RTD), U.S. 36 Transportation Management Org. 25 Detroit Metropolitan Affairs Coalition 27 El Paso Sun Metro 10 Eugene, OR Lane Transit District (LTD) 15 Fort Collins, CO Transfort Dial-a-Ride, City of Fort Collins 22 Hartford Connecticut Department of Transportation 44 10 10 Honolulu Department of Transportation Service, City and County of Honolulu 25 Indianapolis Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation 40 Kansas City, MO Kansas City Area Transit Authority (KCATA) 12 Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) 40 Los Angeles Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 901 243 Louisville Louisville Transit Authority River City (TARC) 44 Miami Miami-Dade County Transit Agency 15 10 600 Milwaukee Milwaukee County Transit System 30 Minneapolis Minneapolis Metro Transit 14 12 Montgomery County, MD Public Works and Transportation, Division Transit Services, "Ride On" 197 310 33 New York MTA Long Island Bus 650 Newark New Jersey Transit 18 Northern Virginia Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 7 Orange County, CA Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 38 Orlando-FlexBRT Florida Department of Transportation 36 Phoenix City of Phoenix 15 Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County Planning Department 25 Reno Reno Regional Transportation Commission 15 7 Salt Lake City Utah Transit Authority 40 San Diego San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) 60 San Francisco San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) 66 17 Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara Valley Transportation 120 Seattle King County Metro Transit and Seattle County Sound Regional Transit 357 Snohomish City Washington Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (Community Transit) 20 Total 3,257 1,174 844 SOURCE: Vehicle Demand and Supply Analysis Update (17)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-64 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-77 Inventory of BRT Vehicles Standard-Length Buses Make/ Model Description Length Width Height NABI 40 - LFW
Seats - 40
Standees - 30
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Two wheelchair positions
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors 40 ft 102 in. 116 in. Orion VII
Seats - 43 (37 seated passengers with 2 wheelchair positions filled)
Standees - 34
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors 41 ft 101.8 in. 132 in., 135 in. Hybrid, CNG Stylized Standard-Length Buses Make/ Model Description Length Width Height New Flyer - Model Invero D40i
Seats - 44 (90% forward facing with perimeter seating available)
Standees - 46
Patented two-stage wheelchair ramp
Low floor at all doors, step rear
Plug slide front and rear doors 41 ft 102 in. 126 in. with rear-mount HVAC New Flyer - Model D40LF
Seats - 39 (70% forward facing with perimeter seating available)
Standees - 43
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Low floor at all doors, step rear
Slide glide front and rear doors 40 ft 102 in. 111 in. with rear-mount HVAC Van Hool - Model A330
Seats - 33 forward-facing
Standees - 49
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Low floor at all doors
Three doors (first and third pivot in, center wide door opens out) 40 ft, 6.6 in. 102 in. 122 in. NOVA LFS
Seats - 47 various configurations
Standees - 32
Two ultra-wide doors
Wheelchair ramps
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors
Full low-floor, ADA compliant 40 ft 102 in. 123 in. NABI CompoBus 45C - LFW
Seats - 46 transit and suburban configurations available
Standees - 23
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Two wheelchair positions
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors 45 ft 102 in. 126 in. Conventional Articulated Buses Make/ Model Description Length Width Height NABI 60 - LFW
Seats - 62
Standees – 31
Two doors, third door optional
Choice of door width and type
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Two wheelchair positions
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors 60 ft 102 in. 116 in. (continued on next page)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-65 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Neoplan AN 460LF
Seats - 68, customer selectable
Standees - 29
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Two wheelchair positions
Full low-floor for easy entry/exit
Two or three doors, extra-wide plug 60 ft 102 in. 135 in. New Flyer - Model DE60LF
Seats - 62 forward-facing, perimeter seating available
Standees - 53
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Low floor at all doors, rear riser
Up to three slide and glide doors 61 ft 102 in. 131 in. with roof-mount battery pack Stylized Articulated Buses Make/ Model Description Length Width Height NABI 60 - BRT
Seats - 60, transit and suburban configurations available
Standees - 30
Front- or rear-door wheelchair ramp
Two wheelchair positions
Low-floor entry/exit at all doors (15”)
Two doors, third door optional
Up to two left-side doors 60 ft 102 in. 135 in. New Flyer - Model DE60- BRT
Seats - 47 to 53 (75% forward facing with perimeter seating available)
Standees - 53
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Low floor at all doors, rear riser
Three to five slide and glide doors 61 ft 102 in. 131 in. with roof-mount battery pack Van Hool - Model A300
Seats - 43 forward-facing
Standees - 57
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Full low floor and at all doors
Four doors - first, third, and fourth pivot in, second (center wide door) opens out 60 ft, 6.6 in. 102 in. 134 in. Specialized BRT Vehicles Make/ Model Description Length Width Height APTS - Phileas 60
Seats - 37 forward-facing
Standees - 67 (1 passenger/2.7 ft2)
Full low-floor (100%)
Three doors, on one or on both sides 60.5 ft 100 in. 123 in. Irisbus CIVIS
Seats - 27 forward and perimeter
Standees - 90 (1 passenger/2.7 ft2)
Flip-out wheelchair ramp
Full low-floor
Four wide doors, on one side 60 ft 100 in. 134 in. SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) SOURCE: KCATA EXHIBIT 4-78 Stylized Standard-Length Bus (Gillig BRT)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-66 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide NOTE: This bus is no longer being manufactured. SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) EXHIBIT 4-79 Conventional Articulated Bus (Neoplan AN 460LF) SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) EXHIBIT 4-80 Stylized Articulated Bus (NABI BRT) SOURCE: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada EXHIBIT 4-81 Specialized Articulated Bus (CIVIS) Estimated Costs Exhibit 4-82 shows approximate prices (in 2005 dollars) for BRT vehicles based on size and styling options. Hybrids will cost about $150,000 more per vehicle. EXHIBIT 4-82 Costs of BRT Vehicles by Size Bus Type Bus Length Typical Price Range Conventional Standard 40-45 ft $300,000 to $350,000 Stylized Standard 40-45 ft $300,000 to $400,000 Conventional Articulated 60 ft $500,000 to $600,000 Stylized Articulated 60 ft $600,000 to $950,000 Specialized BRT 60-80 ft $950,000 to $1,600,000 SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) and NCHRP Project A-23A research team BRT vehicle costs range widely based on length, style, and features.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-67 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Likely Impacts Certain economic considerations should be taken into account when selecting a bus size. Larger buses provide added capacity and, hence, can accommodate a particular ridership demand with fewer vehicles or longer headways. This results in operating cost savings and potential capital cost savings. Larger buses also have greater potential for absorbing added ridership under less-crowded conditions. Passenger waiting time at stations can also be reduced with larger buses when transit routes are operating under peak load conditions. However, larger buses may also require new garage and storage facilities, and, where BRT penetrates neighborhoods, smaller buses may be more appropriate. Implementability The implementability of a specific bus size should be based on a capacity analysis that takes into account peak-hour passenger volumes. Buses should be large enough to reasonably accommodate peak-hour loadings while maintaining a balance with station capacity and adequate frequency. Labor costs are similar for both small and large buses because drivers for either size of bus may be paid the same; this factor introduces an initial disadvantage to running a fleet with small buses. Analysis Tools The vehicle size is required for capacity calculations. Based on Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9), the total capacity of a bus is normally equal to 125% to 150% of seating capacity at maximum schedule load Pmax. Passengers per hour can be calculated using the following equation: ),min( maxmax PHFBPPHFfPP ××××= (4-1) where: P = person capacity (persons/hour) f = scheduled bus frequency (bus/hour) B = station capacity (see Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual [9]) PHF = peak-hour factor Modern Vehicle Styling Modern vehicle styling refers to the physical “modern” or “futuristic” internal and external appearance of buses used in BRT systems. This characteristic can influence riders’ perception of the BRT system (e.g., by providing an added feeling of safety). Additionally, modern-looking, attractive, and comfortable vehicles have been shown to increase ridership. Good interior styling is desirable. Scale of Application The extent of external modern styling application ranges from retrofitting standard buses to include front cone treatments to create a modern, sleek appearance to purchasing new buses with a modern, rail-like appearance. For BRT systems, all vehicles providing the particular service should be stylized vehicles. Enhanced interior styling and design is also offered on most BRT vehicles available in the market. Some enhanced interior design features include larger, frameless windows; tinted sun guard on windows; pleasant color schemes; high- quality interior materials and finishes; enhanced, more comfortable seat designs Bus capacity is typically 125% to 150% of seating capacity at maximum scheduled load. Stylized vehicles should be used for BRT service. Vehicle styling is an element of branding.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-68 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide with high backs; small worktables at some seats; wider aisles; added leg room; and a continuous, brightly lit interior. Conditions of Application Modern vehicle styling may be applied as part of BRT branding to provide customers with an improved perception of the transit system in its entirety. Various levels of vehicle styling exist in the market, with the more futuristic– looking vehicles involving greater initial costs. Additionally, unlike 60-foot BRT vehicles, the market offers few options in terms of highly futuristic styling for 40- to 45-foot vehicles. Another important consideration, particularly for 40- to 45-foot BRT vehicles, is the accommodation of bicycles on board. Front-mounted bike racks may adversely impact the futuristic external appearance of the vehicle; nevertheless, some agencies have gone ahead with this bike rack placement option without receiving any negative feedback from the public. The interior styling and design of the vehicle should have the objective of being functional, pleasant, and comfortable. In addition to aesthetics, the interior styling and design should be planned in conjunction with elements such as seating and standing capacity, wheelchair accommodations, and additional passenger amenities that may be implemented (such as closed-circuit television or worktables). Selected Typical Examples Exhibit 4-79 through Exhibit 4-81 illustrated various levels of styling for 60-foot buses. Some agencies that use stylized vehicles for BRT service are identified in Exhibit 4-83. Exhibit 4-84 shows an example of a NABI stylized 42-foot BRT vehicle. The modern, rail-like appearance of the NABI stylized vehicle is intended to improve users’ perception of BRT service. Exhibit 4-85 illustrates a 40-foot stylized bus manufactured by Gillig. This vehicle has a more subtle futuristic design without wheel covers and a less-pronounced front cone. Exhibit 4-86 shows a non-stylized bus for comparative purposes. EXHIBIT 4-83 Agencies Operating Stylized Vehicles Agency Buses in Operation Manufacturer Los Angeles County MTA - Metro Rapid, Orange Line Stylized 40-ft and stylized 60-ft articulated NABI Phoenix - Rapid Express Stylized 40-ft NABI AC Transit Stylized 41-ft and stylized 61-ft articulated Van Hool Las Vegas Specialized 60-ft articulated Irisbus SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) Some internal design options may provide additional comfort and convenience to users. Exhibit 4-87 shows two BRT vehicle interiors. Exhibit 4-88 illustrates contoured seats with high backs and small worktables. Exhibit 4-89 shows a support for standees in the articulation joint of a 60-foot BRT vehicle.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-69 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: NABI EXHIBIT 4-84 Example of a Stylized BRT Vehicle SOURCE: Gillig EXHIBIT 4-85 Example of a Stylized BRT Vehicle SOURCE: Gillig EXHIBIT 4-86 Example of a Non-Stylized Vehicle SOURCE: DMJM+Harris EXHIBIT 4-87 Examples of BRT Vehicle Interiors

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-70 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: York Region Transit EXHIBIT 4-88 Example of Seats with High Backs and On-Board Worktables SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-89 Example of Support for Standees in the Articulation Joint of a Bus Estimated Costs Stylized vehicles are more expensive than conventional non-stylized vehicles. However, although initial costs may be higher, these vehicles may have a positive impact on ridership that offsets the initial cost difference relative to a regular, non- stylized vehicle. Exhibit 4-82 shows some examples of typical prices for conventional and stylized buses. These prices may increase considerably with hybrid power systems.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-71 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Likely Impacts The implementation of modern-looking vehicles with improved interior aesthetics has been proven to have a positive impact on ridership. Additionally, larger windows and higher roofs give clients a feeling of added security and space (1). These factors combined can have a positive effect on the image of the BRT system. A characteristic closely tied to modern vehicle styling is branding, which has been shown to increase ridership by 35% to 100% and time savings by 17% to 43%. Implementability Application of complete modern vehicle styling may require the purchase of new vehicles. A cost analysis should determine if the added stylized features of new vehicles will improve ridership, improve the image of the BRT system, and provide any additional benefits expected by the transit agency. Vehicle storage requirements should also be considered if an agency plans to upgrade from conventional 40- to 45-foot vehicles to articulated or specialized vehicles. The interior design of the vehicle may be designed to accommodate agency-specific requirements and amenities. This process will require direct communication with the manufacturer before and during the procurement process. Analysis Tools Three basic methods may be used to analyze the impact of modern vehicle styling and enhanced interior design: (1) surveys that reflect public opinion of BRT systems with and without these components, (2) a study that reflects ridership variations with the application of these components, and (3) cost analysis of the increased revenues from ridership and a comparison to the additional cost of vehicle purchase and maintenance. Low-Floor Boarding Ease of vehicle access is determined by two factors: bus floor height and bus door characteristics. Low-floor buses have a floor height that allows easier access into the vehicle as well as faster loading times for abled and disabled passengers alike. A low-floor bus (like that shown in Exhibit 4-90) typically has a floor height of around 15 inches and enables one-step passenger boarding. These buses use ramps for disabled passenger loading as opposed to the lifts used on high-floor buses. (In some BRT systems, level loading on high-floor buses may be available through the use of platforms.) An added characteristic of these buses is relocation of vehicle components that would typically be found under the bus to other, unconventional areas. Door characteristics such as size, number of doors, and location of doors also impact the ease of access to a bus. Door characteristics also impact dwell time. Exhibit 4-91 shows Lane Transit District’s custom BRT vehicle, which has three doors on the right side and two doors on the left side. Vehicle access depends on floor height and number and width of doors.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-72 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-90 Low-Floor Bus (Las Vegas) SOURCE: Lane Transit District EXHIBIT 4-91 BRT Door Configuration (Eugene, OR) Scale of Application In 2003, less than 20% of the U.S. bus fleet consisted of low-floor buses. (See Exhibit 2-12 in Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual [9].) Based on a research study conducted by APTA and reported in the 2005 Public Transportation Factbook (18), the proportion of buses using low-floor boarding in 2005 was found to be approximately 39%. Additionally in 2004, 82.7% of buses built were low-floor buses, and a similar number had been placed on order as of January 2005. The study covered approximately 70% of all U.S. transit agencies. The vast majority of agencies planning bus deliveries between 2002 and 2012 selected continuous low-floor buses as their first choice instead of low-floor buses with a step or high-floor buses (17). The continuous floor improves passenger circulation inside the vehicle. Conditions of Application Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, low-floor vehicles are quickly becoming the predominant choice of transit agencies around the country. ADA Title II states that public transportation agencies must comply with There is a trend toward purchase of continuous low- floor buses. Continuous floors on low-floor buses improve passenger circulation.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-73 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts accessibility requirements in newly purchased vehicles. Additionally, agencies must make efforts, within their economic capabilities, to modify existing buses or purchase or lease used buses that meet the accessibility requirements. However, there is no impending time limit or fixed requirement that obligates transit agencies to use low-floor vehicles. Selected Typical Examples Low-floor buses are found in many of the BRT systems that operate across the United States. Examples of these agencies include AC Transit (CA), Los Angeles MTA, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PA), the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, and the Charlotte Area Transit System. Estimated Costs The cost difference between low-floor buses and regular high-floor buses has greatly diminished from a 20% higher cost for low-floor buses in 1997 to a virtually equal cost in 2005. This cost reduction is because low-floor buses have become an industry standard in the past few years and proportionally more low-floor buses are built today than high-floor buses. The conventional 40- to 45-foot partial low-floor bus ranges in price from $300,000 to $350,000. A 40-foot bus of this type has a boarding floor height of 14 inches above the pavement and can accommodate between 35 and 44 seated passengers and between 50 and 60 seated-plus-standing passengers. Passenger capacity increases to between 35 and 52 seated and between 60 and 70 seated-plus- standing for a 45-foot bus. Maintenance costs for low-floor buses remain slightly higher than for high- floor buses because of the accessibility difficulties encountered with components typically placed under the bus, which have to be relocated to unconventional areas. The higher bus maintenance cost is somewhat offset by the lower cost of ramp maintenance for low-floor buses as opposed to lift maintenance for high-floor buses. The maintenance cost of a bus ramp used to aid loading of passengers in wheelchairs into a low-floor bus ranges from $50 to $300 per bus per year while the maintenance cost of a lift for a conventional bus ranges from $1,500 to $2,400 per bus per year. Likely Impacts The number and size of doors influence passenger flow rates and dwell times. Double-channel doors process passengers faster than single-channel doors. However, the size of doors in BRT systems has a limited effect on passenger flow rate within certain size limits. For example, there is little, if any, difference between 3.75-foot and 4.5-foot double-channel doors because, in either case, only two streams of flow will typically be used, with occasional one- and three-stream flows. The number of door channels available will affect dwell time because a greater number of door channels can lessen dwell time and a malfunctioning door may cause delays for passengers. It is desirable to provide one door channel for every 10 feet of vehicle length on heavily traveled BRT routes. However, additional doors may take away area for seating capacity in the vehicle and may lower passenger quality of service from that perspective. In passenger service time calculations, the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) reduces boarding times by 20% with the application of low-floor buses. This reduction varies in real value according to the number of doors available, as Low-floor buses have slightly higher maintenance costs, but this is compensated for by the lower cost of wheelchair ramp maintenance. The number and size of doors influences passenger flow rates and dwell times. Low-floor buses allow faster passenger boarding than high-floor buses.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-74 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide illustrated in Exhibit 4-92. Faster boarding times may also have a positive effect on bus frequency in high passenger density areas. EXHIBIT 4-92 Passenger Service Times Door Channels Passenger Service Time (seconds/passenger) 1 2.5 2 1.5 3 1.1 4 0.9 6 0.6 NOTE: Reduce times by 20% for low-floor buses. SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) Low-floor buses also enhance passenger comfort when boarding. However, the seating capacity of these vehicles is less than for high-floor buses, which adversely affects another aspect of quality of service: There is greater probability of passengers having to stand. Exhibit 4-93 shows the capacity differences between low-floor and high-floor buses. EXHIBIT 4-93 Capacity of Low-Floor vs. High-Floor Buses Capacity Bus Type and Length Seated Standing Total Low-floor, 35 feet 30-35 20-35 55-70 Low-floor, 40 feet 35-40 25-40 55-70 High-floor, 35 feet 35-40 20-30 50-60 High-floor, 40 feet 40-45 20-35 65-75 SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) For disabled users, wheelchair loading times for high-floor buses using lifts range from 60 to 200 seconds, depending on the experience and severity of the disability of the user. Low-floor buses reduce loading times to between 30 and 60 seconds. Implementability Low-floor buses have become the industry standard and are currently ordered in higher numbers than high-floor buses. Although these buses are becoming the norm, there are still transit agencies in cities such as New Orleans that prefer high- floor buses due to the possibility of street flooding. Capacity requirements are another consideration: Low-floor buses have a slightly lower seating capacity because space is taken up by wheel wells and relocated vehicle components, and this may pose additional costs for agencies with high passenger volumes where additional buses would be required to meet peak passenger demands. Analysis Tools Vehicle accessibility has a considerable effect on passenger service times. Low- floor boarding and number of doors available are important determinants of passenger service times, as shown in Exhibit 4-92.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-75 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Propulsion/Fuel Technologies Description Propulsion technologies are constantly changing to meet stricter emissions standards as well as provide propulsion systems with higher efficiency. Diesel buses currently dominate most BRT operations; however, other propulsion technologies are also available and becoming increasingly popular, such as natural gas and diesel-electric hybrids. Electric trolley buses (including dual-mode vehicles such as those operating in Boston and Seattle) are less popular, and their application is expected to be limited in the coming years. Scale of Application The most commonly available propulsion systems today are diesel, natural gas, and hybrid electric engines. The use of ULSD and CNG engines is expected to increase dramatically as new emissions caps are implemented by the U.S. EPA. Exhibit 4-94 illustrates the number of vehicles powered by ULSD and CNG engines projected for purchase through 2013. After 2009, more vehicles are expected to be powered by CNG than ULSD based on the preferences of transit agencies across the country. SOURCE: Vehicle Demand and Supply Analysis Update (17) EXHIBIT 4-94 Projected BRT Vehicle Deliveries with ULSD and CNG Propulsion Systems Exhibit 4-95 and Exhibit 4-96 illustrate the fuel preferences expressed by U.S. transit agencies for future vehicle purchases. Exhibit 4-95 identifies ULSD and CNG as the preferred fuel alternatives for articulated vehicles with very little preference expressed for other fuel types. Exhibit 4-96 also identifies ULSD and CNG as the preferred fuel alternative for 40- to 45-foot BRT vehicles. Conditions of Application New U.S. EPA caps limiting the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx), hydrocarbon (HC), and particulate matter emissions will be phased in between 2007 and 2010. These caps will contribute to the increased application of ULSD engines, which will become conventional on newly built diesel transit vehicles. New U.S. EPA standards for bus emissions are being phased in.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-76 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19) EXHIBIT 4-95 Fuel Preferences for Articulated Vehicles SOURCE: Vehicle Demand and Supply Analysis Update (17) EXHIBIT 4-96 Fuel Preferences for 40- to 45-Foot Vehicles Exhibit 4-97 identifies the percentage of manufactured heavy vehicle that must meet the emissions caps starting in 2007. Particulate matter emissions must be dropped to 0.01 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) beginning in 2007. NOx and HC emissions will go through a phasing process in which 25% of vehicles manufactured in 2007 must have NOx emissions at a maximum of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and HC emissions of 0.14 g/bhp-hr. These percentage requirements for NOx and HC emissions will increase to 50% by 2008, 75% by 2009, and 100% by 2010. EXHIBIT 4-97 Heavy Duty Truck and Bus Emission Standards for 2004-2010 Type of Emission 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PM (g/bhp-hr) 0.10 (0.05 for urban buses) 0.01 NOX (g/bhp-hr) 25% of vehicles at 0.20 50% of vehicles at 0.20 75% of vehicles at 0.20 100% of vehicles at 0.20 HC (g/bhp-hr) 1.3 25% of vehicles at 0.14 50% of vehicles at 0.14 75% of vehicles at 0.14 100% of vehicles at 0.14 SOURCE: Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-77 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Selected Typical Examples Most vehicle manufacturers today offer a variety of propulsion system options. The application of a given type of propulsion system typically depends on performance requirements by the transit agency, budget, and experiences with different propulsion systems. For example, a hybrid vehicle may be purchased by an agency for noise reduction purposes rather than improved gas mileage. Exhibit 4-98 identifies the different propulsion system options that BRT vehicle manufacturers currently provide. These systems are available for both articulated and 40- to 45-foot vehicles. EXHIBIT 4-98 Propulsion System Options by Manufacturer Manufacturer Propulsion System Options NABI ULSD, CNG, LNG, Diesel-Electric Hybrid New Flyer ULSD, Diesel-Electric Hybrid, Gasoline-Electric Hybrid, Natural Gas, Electric Trolley Van Hool ULSD, CNG NOVA ULSD Neoplan ULSD, CNG/LNG SOURCE: Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update (16) Estimated Costs The California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition gives an average capital cost of $25,000 per bus for fueling stations for fleets with more than 100 buses. This value may vary considerably based on factors such as distance to gas lines, land acquisition issues, and labor costs, among others. Operating costs for CNG buses may vary from 20% higher than diesel- powered buses to equal or lower prices than diesel buses. This difference changes significantly with newer, modern CNG buses as compared to newer, modern diesel buses because the newer CNG buses are cheaper to operate. Additionally, the cost of CNG is about 30% cheaper than diesel. One example of this is Pierce Transit in Tacoma, WA, where CNG buses are reported to have fuel costs nearly 7¢ less per mile than diesel buses. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has some of the same characteristics of CNG, such as low emissions and similar costs for a fueling station. The primary advantage of LNG is that LNG is a higher-density fuel that provides about 2.5 times the range of CNG. The disadvantage of LNG in comparison to diesel is that fuel tanks must be twice as big and 800 pounds heavier to provide a similar range. Additionally, the high capital costs associated with the implementation of LNG infrastructure may offset the cheaper LNG fuel cost in comparison to diesel. Hybrid-powered vehicles use a small auxiliary engine powered by either diesel or natural gas and an electric motor as the main power source. These power units can produce up to 90% fewer emissions, quieter performance, less brake and transmission wear, and better fuel economy (19). Another advantage reported is the lower maintenance costs for brakes associated with hybrid vehicles. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable when vehicles operate with frequent stops. Although Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19) mentions 25% to 50% better fuel economy, these values are high in comparison to improvements in fuel economy experienced by some transit agencies. Aspen RFTA, for example, reported fuel economy improvements for their hybrid buses ranging from 4% to 22% depending on route characteristics and vehicle age, among Application of a certain propulsion system for BRT vehicles depends on transit agency performance requirements, budget, and past experience with propulsion systems. Hybrid engines are more expensive than diesel engines but are expected to become more popular as maintenance expertise improves and diesel engine costs increase to comply with new EPA standards.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-78 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide other factors. This range is considerably lower than values reported in Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19). A disadvantage of hybrid power systems is the higher capital cost in comparison to diesel engines. Hybrid engines on transit vehicles usually cost $100,000 to $250,000 more than diesel engines. Also, maintenance may be higher because of vehicle battery pack costs. Hybrid engines, however, are expected to become increasingly economically attractive as maintenance expertise increases and diesel engine costs increase to comply with 2007 and 2010 EPA standards. Likely Impacts The implementation of the new emissions caps by the EPA will require manufacturers to produce cleaner and more efficient propulsion systems. These requirements will lead to considerably lower particulate matter and NOx emissions. Exhibit 4-99 and Exhibit 4-100 illustrate the expected improvements in particulate matter and NOx emissions with the new standards. In the year 2030, approximately 155,000 short tons per year of particulate matter would have been produced without the implementation of the new standards, in comparison to the expected 30,000 short tons per year with the new standards. Similarly, NOx emissions would have remained at around 3,000,000 short tons per year by 2030 without the new standards; in comparison, only 400,000 short tons per year are expected to be produced by 2030 with the new standards. Besides the inherent benefits of lower emissions with more technologically advanced propulsion systems, other impacts of advanced propulsion systems can also be observed. Two examples are noise reduction and lower brake maintenance costs associated with hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles produce considerably lower noise levels than diesel engine vehicles. Lower noise levels can be an important factor that drives agencies to purchase hybrid vehicles. For example the Aspen RFTA purchased hybrid buses at a cost nearly $200,000 higher than diesel buses for noise reduction purposes. SOURCE: Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19) EXHIBIT 4-99 Projected Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions Reduced noise and less brake maintenance are associated with hybrid vehicles.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-79 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles (19) EXHIBIT 4-100 Projected Vehicle Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Implementability The implementation of different types of propulsion systems must be carefully analyzed during the preliminary engineering stage of a BRT project. Agency requirements and needs, budget, fuel availability, maintenance facility requirements, and experience should play an important role in helping agencies identify the ideal propulsion system. Most manufacturers currently produce vehicles that meet or exceed EPA requirements; nevertheless, agencies should ensure compliance during the procurement process through a specific clause in the procurement contract. Automatic Vehicle Location AVL technology is used to track the location of vehicles in real time through the use of GPS devices or other location relay methods. Information about the vehicle location is transmitted to a centralized control center in either raw data format or as processed data. Exhibit 4-101 identifies methods used for identifying vehicle positioning. Exhibit 4-102 shows a central monitoring system and AVL display. AVL can be used in conjunction with other vehicle ITS systems, including automatic passenger counters (APCs). Using AVL with APCs can provide transit agencies with passenger origin-to-destination data. The left side of Exhibit 4-103 shows two overhead APC sensors mounted on York Region Transit’s BRT vehicles. The right side of the exhibit shows one of the sensors in detail. CBRT (1) reports that APCs cost $1,000 to $10,000 per bus. AVL tracks the location of BRT vehicles, thus facilitating TSP and automated passenger information.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-80 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-101 Methods Used To Determine Vehicle Position System Technology Description Advantages/Disadvantages Global Positioning Systems (GPS) The location of the GPS device is determined through an interpolation of satellite signals. Until 2000 it had an accuracy of only 100 meters due to the intentional degradation applied to the system by the U.S. military. Once this degradation was removed the accuracy improved to between 10 and 20 meters; however, agencies had already adopted DGPS and the increased accuracy has not yet been proven to be sufficient for an AVL system. Differential GPS (DGPS) A permanent GPS receiver is placed at a location with known coordinates. The difference between the known coordinates and the GPS measured coordinates is applied as a correction factor to GPS-determined vehicle locations on the system. This system provides accuracy around 1 meter. The U.S.DOT is deploying a National DGPS (NDGPS), which will eliminate the need to have unique differential stations as was done before this initiative. Signpost System Radio beacons are placed on signposts along a bus route; when a bus passes the signpost, the short-range radio reads the location of the bus. This system was used before GPS although it is still in use by the King County Transit Authority (Seattle). This system cannot read the location of a bus when it strays off its route and would require modification to the radio beacon placements if routes are modified. Odometer and Compass This method calculates the location of a vehicle based on odometer and direction readings; it is usually used as an additional aid to any of the methods above to more accurately estimate the vehicle location. This method is economic but accuracy is limited and therefore is generally used as a supplement to more accurate methods. SOURCE: Automatic Vehicle Location: Successful Transit Applications (20) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-102 BRT Monitoring System and AVL Display (York, ON)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-81 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-103 APC Sensors (York, ON, Region) Scale of Application Based on data provided by FHWA, currently 69% of fixed-route transit vehicles in the 78 largest metropolitan areas use AVL systems. This percentage includes both BRT and non-BRT vehicles. Exhibit 4-104 shows a continuously increasing trend in the application of AVL systems in the United States. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1997 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 Year Pe rc en t SOURCE: Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Infrastructure in the USA (21) EXHIBIT 4-104 Percentage of Transit Vehicles Using AVL Systems Conditions of Application AVL systems are primarily applied to track the location of transit vehicles in a route network, with certain vehicle diagnostic systems and security features incorporated to provide enhanced vehicle monitoring. The result is a quicker response to breakdowns and emergencies on the vehicles. AVL also can be integrated with TSP and real-time passenger information systems. Selected Typical Examples Agencies that operate BRT or premium bus services and use AVL devices include TriMet (Portland); King County Metro (Seattle); Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston); Greater Hartford Transit District (BRT under development); Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; BC The proportion of transit agencies using AVL systems continues to grow.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-82 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Transit (Vancouver); Glendale Beeline (Glendale, CA); Queensland Transport (Brisbane); State Transit Authority of New South Wales (Sydney); and TransMilenio S.A. (Bogotá). TriMet and Glendale Beeline both use GPS for AVL. King County Metro uses the signpost system. Estimated Costs Capital costs of AVL systems, with reported costs per vehicle, are shown in Exhibit 4-105. These values were obtained from TCRP Synthesis 48 (22), which included agencies in the United States, Finland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Taiwan. Likely Impacts Some likely impacts of the application of an AVL system are as follows: • Improved system control. The system in general can be calibrated with greater ease to distribute service times and coverage adequately through the application of TSP. • Improved bus safety. In an emergency, the control center can relay vehicle location immediately to authorities. • Improved quality of service. Passengers can be notified in real time of the location of the next bus and its expected arrival time. • Improved system integration. Vehicle connections can be better scheduled and controlled by knowing the location of each vehicle. • Reduced need for voice communication. This can simplify vehicle operation for the driver. Some agencies reported specific economic benefits from reductions in bus fleet size, increased ridership, and lower operating costs associated with the AVL system. Cost reductions associated with person-hours saved due to improved schedule adherence through the application of TSP were also reported. Exhibit 4- 106 summarizes economic benefits reported by selected agencies. Driver Assist and Automation Automation and driver assist systems include components such as vehicle collision warning systems, precision docking assistance, and vehicle guidance systems. Guidance systems can be used either throughout a bus route or only when the bus approaches a station. The guidance systems can be physical, optical, or electronic. Physical systems use a guideway that may connect to the bus through guide-wheels or guide-rail, in which case the driver only needs to control acceleration and braking. Optical systems use painted stripes on the road to control lateral distances and guide the bus forward. Electronic control systems can fully automate the control of the bus through differential GPS (DGPS), magnetic markers, or other accurate positioning technology. Other driver assist systems include TSP, side collision warning systems (SCWS), and frontal/rear collision warning systems. SCWS allows detection of objects during turning or merge movements, providing a warning for the driver to avoid possible collisions. AVL improves system control, bus safety, quality of service, and system integration. AVL reduces voice communication. Driver assist and automation systems include collision warning systems, precision docking assistance, and vehicle guidance systems. Guidance systems can be physical, optical, or electronic.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-83 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-105 Capital Costs and Reported per Vehicle Costs of AVL Systems Agency Number of Vehicles with AVL Type of AVL Total Capital Cost of AVL System Reported AVL Cost per Vehicle RTD 1,111 GPS $15,000,000 N/A City Bus 25 GPS $150,000 $3,000 DTC 189 GPS $12,000,000 N/A Fairfax CUE 12 GPS $60,000 $5,000 Glendale Beeline 20 GPS $171,000 (includes the capital cost of 2 signs) $8,100 LADOT/LACMT A - Metro Rapid 150 Loop inductors $2,100,000 (includes cost of TSP system - signal equipment, roadway sensors, etc.) $100 San Francisco Muni 827 GPS $9,600,000 N/A TriMet 689 GPS $7,000,000 $4,500 ATC Bologna 450 GPS $4,891,400 $4,891 Taipei 135 GPS $270,000 $2,000 London Buses (U.K.) 5,700 Signpost $23,251,500-$27,901,800 $3,100-$4,650 YTV 340 DGPS and signpost $1,400,000 $3,000 Centro 6 GPS $705,300 N/A King County Metro 1,300 Signpost $15,000,000 $7,000 Dublin Bus (Ireland) 156 GPS $660,300 $2,919 Kent County Council 141 DGPS $2,000,000 $5,000 SOURCE: TCRP Synthesis 48 (22) EXHIBIT 4-106 Economic Benefits of AVL Systems Agency Location Reported Benefits MARTA Atlanta, GA $1.5 million annual savings in operating costs London Transit London, ON $40,000 to $50,000 savings on each schedule adherence survey KCATA Kansas City, MO $189,000 maintenance and $215,000 labor savings by reducing fleet size MTA Baltimore, MD $2 to $3 million per year savings on reduced fleet size PRTC Prince William County, VA $870,000 annual savings TriMet Portland, OR $1.9 million annual savings in operating costs. Increase of 450 in ridership on a specific route (Fall 1999 to Fall 2000). RTD Denver, CO 5.1% increase in ridership (1995 to 1996) and 33% reduction in passenger assaults (AVL in combination with silent alarms) MCTS Milwaukee, WI 4.8% increase in revenue ridership (1993 to 1997) TTC Toronto, ON Estimated 0.5% to 1.0% increase in ridership SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) Scale of Application Driver assist and automation systems can be applied individually or collectively on a new BRT vehicle, and the extent of systems incorporated can substantially increase the cost of a new vehicle. Collision warning systems are still somewhat in the experimental stage and have had only limited application to date.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-84 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Conditions of Application The ADA encourages the construction of new facilities with improved access to vehicles and reasonable retrofits of existing facilities. Automated docking systems provide this access because, generally, these are constructed to offer passengers level boarding with a very small gap between the curb and the vehicle. Automated guidance and collision warning systems are particularly attractive where BRT operates along a lane of restricted width and/or in congested traffic conditions. Selected Typical Examples Some current examples of driver assist and automation include the North Las Vegas MAX service’s original use of precision docking for its vehicles and the use of collision warning in Phoenix and Pittsburgh. Los Angeles Metro Rapid also implemented loop detectors that specifically identify buses approaching the intersection in order to apply TSP. The North Las Vegas MAX service has CIVIS buses equipped with optical guidance technology. This technology consists of a vertical camera mounted on the front top part of the bus that points directly down to stripes painted on the pavement (as shown in Exhibit 4-107). A computer analyzes the image, and information is sent to electronic lateral controls in real time to correct the direction of the vehicle. According to FTA, the lateral guidance system can keep the bus within 1.9 inches of the desired path at 50 mph. SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-107 Precision Docking (Las Vegas) The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation deployed SCWS in 100 transit buses operated by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), and feedback was obtained from drivers to determine the efficiency of the SCWS in helping drivers identify vehicles in blind spots and avoid collisions. Based on the feedback from drivers, a redevelopment of the SCWS was planned. Estimated Costs Exhibit 4-108 presents illustrative costs for driver assist systems. The guidance system for the BRT line in Las Vegas has been discontinued because the high-temperature climate prevents the guide stripes from reliably adhering to the pavement.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-85 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-108 Driver Assist System Costs Driver Assist and Automation System Cost Loop detectors $13,500/intersection Magnetic tape (3M) $5,000-$1,000/vehicle Curb-guided, rail-guided, grid-based $3 to $15.5 million per lane-mile Vision and magnetic plug/tape-based $20,000 per lane-mile DGPS $250 per lane-mile (cost for building digital map) SOURCE: CBRT (1) and Bus Rapid Transit Lane Assist Technology Systems (23) Likely Impacts Precision docking can have a considerable impact on dwell time since vehicles stop at the same location every time, allowing passengers to board in a more organized manner through a well-marked path to the vehicle. Automated guidance and collision warning systems, if working properly, will provide for safer bus operations. SERVICE AND SYSTEM COMPONENTS Service Plans BRT service plans (in terms of route structure, service span and frequency, and station spacing) complement BRT physical features in developing the overall BRT system. The underlying goals are to provide rapid and reliable service, ensure passenger safety and security, and provide a pleasant, comfortable, and convenient ride. This profile gives guidelines for developing and assessing service features. Fare collection practices—which are also associated with service plans, stations, and vehicles—are discussed in a later profile. Scale of Application The BRT service plan may cover a single route, a series of routes, or the entire BRT system. It may be provided in stages that are compatible with related infrastructure development. Types, Features, and Examples Service types (spans and frequencies) for various running ways and examples of each are shown in Exhibit 4-109, Exhibit 4-110, and Exhibit 4-111. Observations based on these tables are as follows: • Along arterial streets, a single BRT route can be provided (e.g., the Silver Line in Boston). Usually, this service is “overlaid” on the existing local service (as in the case of Ventura Boulevard Metro Rapid in Los Angeles). • Along busways (and freeways), a single service can be operated (e.g., along the Orange Line busway in Los Angeles). More common is the provision of a basic “all-stop” BRT that is complemented by daytime or peak-hour service (as in Miami, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh). • A commuter-type service can operate in freeway bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes during peak hours (as in Houston). Strictly speaking, however, this is more of an express bus operation than a BRT service. • BRT routes usually run all day (i.e., about 6 a.m. to midnight). Where BRT service complements local service, a 12-hour span may be appropriate. BRT service plans may cover a single route or several routes, or an entire BRT system may be coordinated with local bus service.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-86 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • Service frequency is tailored to market demands. Most existing systems have headways of 10 minutes or less during peak hours. • Station spacing along arterial streets ranges from about 0.25 mile to 1.2 miles, with most systems exceeding 0.5 mile for spacing. (See Exhibit 4- 111.) Station spacing along busways ranges from 0.6 mile in Miami to about 1.1 miles in Pittsburgh. The average station spacing is about 1.0 mile along Brisbane’s South East Busway, 1.3 miles along Ottawa’s Transitway system, and 0.8 mile along Vancouver’s Granville Street 98B Line. EXHIBIT 4-109 BRT Service Types Service Span Principal Running Way Type Service Pattern Weekdays Saturday Sunday Example Arterial Streets Mixed traffic All-stop All day All day All day Los Angeles, Oakland Bus lanes Connecting bus routes All day All day All day Median busways (no passing) Richmond, BC (B Line); Curitiba Freeways Mixed traffic Non-stop with local distribution All day All day — Phoenix Bus/HOV lanes Commuter express Rush hours — — Busways N/A All-stop All day All day All day Los Angeles (Orange Line), Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Miami N/A Express Daytime or rush hours — — N/A Feeder service Daytime, all day, or rush hours Daytime Daytime Ottawa N/A Connecting bus routes All day All day All day Ottawa NOTE: All day is typically 18 to 24 hours. Daytime is typically 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Rush hours are typically 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) BRT typically runs at 10- minute headways or better during peak hours, with all-day service.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-87 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-110 Examples of BRT Service Patterns BRT Service Service Pattern Arterial Streets Boston - Silver Line Cleveland - Euclid Ave (under construction) Curitiba - various routes Los Angeles - Wilshire and Ventura Blvds New York City - proposed BRT routes Vancouver, BC - 98-B and 99-B Lines BRT only BRT only BRT only BRT overlaid on local service BRT overlaid on local service BRT overlaid on local service Busways Boston - Silver Line Los Angeles - Orange Line Miami - South Miami Dade Busway Ottawa - Transitway system Pittsburgh - Busway system 3 basic BRT routes All-stop BRT route All-stop BRT route + peak-period express routes 2 basic all-stop BRT routes + many peak-period express routes Basic all-stop routes + peak-period express routes SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-111 Experience with BRT Service Plans Miami Oakland Orlando Pittsburgh Phoenix Service Plan Characteristic South Dade Busway San Pablo Rapid Lymmo Busways Rapid Route Structure Integrated network of routes BRT route overlay onto local route BRT route replaced local downtown circulator Integrated network of routes Express routes Number of Routes Oper- ating in Network 6 1 1 3 4 Number of All- Stop Routes 2 1 1 3 — Number of Express Routes 4 — — — 4 Span of Service All day All day All day All day Weekday peak hour only Frequency of Service (head- way during peak hour) 10 minutes 12 minutes 5 minutes 1 minute 10 minutes Station Spacing (average) 0.57 mile 0.56 mile 900 feet 0.57 to 1.14 miles 0.25 mile SOURCE: CBRT (1) Conditions of Application General guidelines for developing BRT service plans should reflect city structure, types of running ways, potential markets, and available resources. General guidelines include the following: • BRT routes should serve corridors and areas with high employment and passenger concentrations. • Routes generally should be radial, with the CBD, a major activity center, or a rail transit terminal serving as the anchor. However, in very large cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, BRT may be appropriate in heavily traveled cross-town corridors.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-88 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide • Routes should be direct, and the number of bus turns should be kept to a minimum. • BRT routes should operate on partially or fully dedicated right-of-way wherever possible. When buses run in mixed traffic, they should use roadways that are relatively free-flowing. • BRT service should be clear, easy to understand, direct, and operationally efficient. Clarity of service is essential in reinforcing BRT identity. • Generally, a few high-frequency BRT routes is better than many routes operating on a long headway. • A single, non-branching BRT route can enhance BRT identity and permit short headways. However, in some cases, branches may be desirable at the outer ends of the route. In general, there should not be more than two basic BRT services per route. • BRT routes should provide convenient transfers to intersecting bus routes and rail transit lines. • BRT routes on city streets should have a single stopping pattern. BRT routes on busways should include a basic all-day “all-stop” service that may be complemented by peak-period express (or limited-stop) service. • The basic BRT service should operate at 5- to 10-minute intervals (or less) during peak hours, at maximum intervals of 8 to 12 minutes midday, and 12 to 15 minutes at other times. Express and feeder services can run at somewhat longer intervals. (See Exhibit 4-112.) • BRT routes should operate at less than 80% of their facilities’ capacities to avoid bus-bus congestion. (See Exhibit 4-113.) • BRT stations should be placed as far apart as possible to improve operating speeds. The actual spacing will depend upon the type of running way, the type of surrounding development, development density and form, passenger modes of arrival, and arterial street spacing. • Stations in the CBD and other places where passengers mainly arrive as pedestrians should be spaced 0.25 to 0.33 mile apart. • Stations where passengers mainly arrive by bus should be spaced about 0.5 to 1 mile apart. • Stations where passengers mainly arrive by automobile should be spaced 1 to 2 miles apart. • Bus lanes and busways may be used by all transit operators in a region where vehicles meet established safety requirements. • Emergency vehicles such as police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances should be allowed to use busways and bus lanes. • BRT may share reserved freeway lanes with HOVs when joint use does not reduce BRT travel times, service reliability, or identity.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-89 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-112 Typical BRT Service Frequencies Frequency (minutes)1 Service Type1 Peak Hours Midday Evening Saturday- Sunday All-stop (base service) 5-10 8-12 12-15 12-15 Express 8-12 10-152 — — Feeder 5-152 10-20 10-30 10-30 Commuter express 10-20 — — — Connecting bus routes 5-15 5-20 10-30 10-30 1 Per route 2 When operated SOURCE: Adapted from TCRP Report 90 (2) EXHIBIT 4-113 Estimated Speed Reduction Factors Resulting from Bus-Bus Interference Bus Berth Volume to Capacity Ratio Index (Speed Reduction Factor) <0.5 1.00 0.5 0.97 0.6 0.94 0.7 0.89 0.8 0.81 0.9 0.69 1.0 0.53 1.1 0.35 SOURCE: TCRP Report 26 (5) Estimated Costs Costs of BRT service plans include both capital and operating costs. Capital Costs BRT service plans have important impacts on fleet requirements that, in turn, influence vehicle acquisition costs. The buses needed for a given BRT route can be estimated by dividing the round trip travel plus layover times by the peak headway (in minutes). The relationships are as follows: LTVh LN +×= 60)2( (4-2) where: N = number of buses required L = one-way route length (miles) V = operating speed (mph) TL = layover time (minutes) h = headway (minutes) The number of BRT vehicles needed in a fleet depends on round-trip BRT travel time, layover time, peak BRT headway, and number of spare vehicles required.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-90 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Assuming that the layover/schedule recovery time equals 10% of the total round-trip running time, the previous relationship becomes the following: Vh L Vh LN 13260)2.2( =×= (4-3) The results of this computation are given in Exhibit 4-114 for a 20-mile round- trip route length with headways of 5, 10, and 15 minutes. It is desirable to add several spare vehicles to the numbers obtained. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2 4 6 8 10 12 MINUTES PER MILE N O . O F B R T VE H IC LE S 15 min headway 10 min headway 5 min headway NOTE 1: 20-mile round-trip length NOTE 2: Assumes round-trip times are increased 10% to account for bus layover EXHIBIT 4-114 Effect of Bus Travel Times on Vehicle Requirements This relationship is useful in assessing the effects of (1) improving bus speeds along an existing route and simultaneously reducing the headway of an existing route and (2) developing a new route. Exhibit 4-115 gives illustrative computations for each. Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimates of O&M costs are needed for (1) a new BRT route or system and (2) changes in existing system costs resulting from BRT operations. For example, if a BRT route replaces an existing limited-stop bus route, both the BRT route costs and the cost savings resulting from eliminating the limited-stop service should be computed. Another example is where local bus routes are restructured to feed a BRT station rather than operate parallel to it. O&M costs depend upon the extent and type of BRT service provided. Cost estimates should recognize the unique service aspects of BRT. The unique service aspects include the following: • BRT typically has a lower peak-to-base ratio than local bus service. This lower ration results in greater driver productivity and less “dead” mileage to and from bus garages. • BRT service is faster than local service. Fewer stops and starts can save fuel and reduce maintenance costs per mile of travel. • BRT systems may have increased O&M costs for running ways (e.g., busways), stations, off-vehicle fare collection, and ITS. BRT O&M costs depend on the extent and type of service provided. The faster scheduled speed offered by BRT reduces operating costs.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-91 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts • BRT operating costs are sensitive to “driver” wage rates and benefits and operating speeds. Therefore, they must reflect local conditions and must be developed specifically for each BRT system. • Annual O&M costs are generally computed from a three-factor cost model that is based on local transit operating experience. This model is as follows: Annual Costs = A (Bus Miles) + B (Bus Hours) + C (Peak Vehicles) (4-4) EXHIBIT 4-115 Examples of BRT Fleet Requirements Example 1 - Improving Speed of Existing Route 10-mile route length each way 10% added to round-trip running time for layover/recovery times each way Measure Before BRT After BRT Speed (mph) 12.0 15.0 Speed (minutes/mile) 5.0 4.0 Headway (minutes) 10.0 10.0 Buses required 11)10)(12( )60)(10)(2.2( ==N 9 )10)(15( )60)(10)(2.2( ==N Buses saved = 2 Example 2 - Improving Speed and Reducing Headways 10-mile route length each way 10% added to round-trip running time for layover/recovery times each way Measure Before BRT After BRT Speed (mph) 12.0 15.0 Speed (minutes/mile) 5.0 4.0 Headway (minutes) 10.0 8.0 Buses required 11)10)(12( )60)(10)(2.2( ==N 11 )8)(15( )60)(10)(2.2( ==N Buses saved = 0 Example 3 - New BRT Route Added to Existing System 10-mile route length each way 10% added to round-trip running time for layover/recovery times each way Measure Before BRT After BRT Speed (mph) — 16.0 Speed (minutes/mile) — 3.75 Headway (minutes) — 6.0 Buses required — 14)6)(16( )60)(10)(2.2( ==N Buses saved = N/A NOTE: About 10-15% spares would be required in both cases. SOURCE: TCRP A-23A project team

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-92 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide BRT O&M costs should also include (1) costs per station for station maintenance including passenger information systems, (2) costs per lane-mile for busway maintenance, and (3) costs for maintaining ITS systems (e.g., TSP). Including these cost items leads to the following (approximate) cost allocation model for BRT service: (4-5) Exhibit 4-116 gives the resulting cost allocation framework for establishing the appropriate unit cost coefficients (factors). The non-vehicle maintenance costs associated with running ways and stations are listed separately and are related to the specific number of units involved. O&M costs for ITS facilities are estimated separately for each facility. The preferred approach (also required for FTA Alternatives Analysis) involves detailed “resource build up” computations for each operating cost component. The actual pay-hours (as well as revenue bus hours) would be estimated for a given BRT route based upon service frequencies, running times, layover requirements, and prevailing wage rates and benefits. Bus maintenance, fuel consumption, supplies, and insurance costs would be keyed to bus miles—taking bus stopping cycles into account in estimating fuel costs. Station maintenance costs would be estimated on a per-station basis. Running way maintenance costs would be estimated as needed, on a per-mile basis. ITS costs would be estimated separately. Other non-vehicle maintenance costs and general administrative costs would be based on the actual time and materials involved. In both approaches, when dealing with operating costs, it may be possible to eliminate general administration costs, which are about 15% to 20% of the total. (See Exhibit 4-117 and Exhibit 4-118). Precise allocation of non-vehicle maintenance costs in the build-up approach may not be necessary since these costs typically account for less than 5% of the total. Operating cost comparisons conducted for the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh indicate that BRT can cost less per passenger trip to operate than LRT for the demand and operating conditions found in most U.S. cities. Operating costs for Pittsburgh’s East and South Busways (from 1989) averaged $0.52 per passenger trip. According to TCRP Report 90 (2), costs per trip for light rail lines in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego averaged $1.31; the range was from $0.97 (San Diego) to $1.68 (Sacramento). O&M Cost = A (Bus Miles) + B (Bus Hours) + C (ITS Peak Vehicles) + D (Number of Stations) + E (Miles of Running Way to be Maintained) + F (ITS Operating Costs)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-93 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-116 Example of Fully Allocated Approach for BRT Expense Items Function and Expense Object Class1 Vehicle Hours Vehicle Kilo- meters Peak Ve- hicles Lane- Miles of Special Run- ning Ways Number of Sta- tions ITS2 501 Labor 010 Vehicle operations 041 Vehicle maintenance 042 Non-vehicle maintenance Running ways Stations ITS 160 General administration X X X X X X X 502 Fringe benefits 010 Vehicle operations 041 Vehicle maintenance 042 Non-vehicle maintenance Running ways Stations ITS 160 General administration X X X X X X X 503 Services X 504 Materials and supplies 010 Vehicle operations 041 Vehicle maintenance 042 Non-vehicle maintenance Running ways Stations ITS 160 General administration X X X X X X X 505 Utilities X 506 Casualty and liability costs X 507 Taxes 010 Vehicle operations 041 Vehicle maintenance 042 Non-vehicle maintenance Running ways Stations ITS 160 General administration X X X X X X X 508 Purchased transportation X 509 Miscellaneous expenses X 510 Expense transfers X 511-516 Total reconciling items X 1 Adapted from FTA Section 15 Reporting System, Level R 2 Specifically computed

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-94 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-117 Operating Expenses for Bus Transit (2001) Item Percentage Vehicle Operations 50.5 Purchased Transportation 10 Vehicle Maintenance 19.6 Non-Vehicle Maintenance 4.1 General Administration 15.7 Total 100% NOTE: The total is $13,335,332,000. SOURCE: Public Transportation Handbook (24) EXHIBIT 4-118 Example Allocation Of Direct And Indirect Costs - Bronx New York (1975) Percentage Distribution Item Pay Hours Bus Miles Total Direct Operating Costs 43.2 13.8 57.0 Direct Overhead 10.7 8.4 19.1 Subtotal 53.9 22.2 76.1 Indirect Overhead 8.5 15.4 23.9 Total 62.4 37.6 100.0 SOURCE: How to Allocate Bus Route Costs (25) Likely Impacts The generalized effects of BRT route length, route structure, service span and frequency, station spacing, and method of headway control are set forth in Exhibit 4-119. More detailed discussion and guidelines for assessing travel time savings and ridership increases follow. Travel Time Savings BRT travel times depend upon (1) the type of running way, (2) the number of stops made, and (3) the dwell time at each stop. Along arterial streets, delays at traffic signals also affect running times. BRT operation on arterial streets has been shown to save up to 2 minutes per mile as a result of wider station spacing. For example, New York City’s limited- stop buses with stations placed at approximate 0.5-mile intervals save 0.9 minutes per mile overall. Savings are greatest in Manhattan (almost 2 minutes per mile) and least in Staten Island (0.5 minute per mile). The combined effects of stop spacing (stops made per mile) and dwell times for BRT service on freeways and off-street busways are shown in Exhibit 4-120 for a 50-mph top operating speed. This table can be used as a guide in estimating BRT performance. A top speed of 55 mph would result in an approximate 4-mph increase in the speeds shown. For additional information, see Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9). BRT travel times depend on type of running way, number of stops, and dwell times.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-95 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-119 Summary of Effects of BRT Service Plan Elements on System Performance and Benefits System Performance Service Plan Element Travel Time Savings Reliability Identity and Image Safety and Security Capacity System Benefits Route length Shorter route lengths may promote greater control of reliability. Route structure:
Single route
Overlapping route with skip-stop or express variations
Integrated or network system Integrated route structures reduce the need for transfers. Distinctions between BRT and other ser- vice may better define brand iden- tity. Integ- rated route structures may widen exposure to the brand. Span of service:
Peak hour only
All day Wide spans of service sug- gest the ser- vice is depen- dable. Frequency of service More fre- quent service reduces waiting time. High fre- quencies limit the impact of service inter- ruptions. High fre- quencies increase potential conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians. High fre- quencies reduce se- curity vul- nerability at stations. Operating capacity increases with fre- quency. Station spacing:
Narrow station spacing
Wide station spacing Less fre- quent station spacing re- duces travel time. Less frequent station spa- cing limits variation in dwell times. Method of schedule control:
Schedule- based control
Headway- based control Headway- based con- trol for high frequency operations maximizes speeds. Service plans are customer- responsive, attract ridership, and max- imize system benefits. SOURCE: CBRT (1)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-96 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Exhibit 4-120, Part A, shows how bus travel times relate to arterial street bus speeds and station dwell times. Exhibit 4-120, Part B, gives generalized values for estimating the effects of street-traffic delays for various operating environments. EXHIBIT 4-120 Peak-Hour Bus Travel Time Rates for Various Stop Spacings, Dwell Times, and Operating Environments A. Base Travel Time Rates (minutes per mile) Stops Made Per Mile Average Dwell Time Per Stop (sec) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 10 2.40 3.27 3.77 4.3 4.88 5.53 6.23 7.00 8.75 20 2.73 3.93 4.60 5.3 6.04 6.87 7.73 8.67 10.75 30 3.07 4.60 5.43 6.3 7.20 6.20 9.21 10.33 12.75 40 3.40 5.27 6.26 7.3 8.35 9.53 10.71 12.00 14.75 50 3.74 5.92 7.08 8.3 9.52 10.88 12.21 13.67 16.75 60 4.07 6.58 7.90 9.3 10.67 12.21 13.70 15.33 18.75 B. Additional Travel Time Losses (minutes per mile) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Signal Operation Bus Lane with No Right Turns Bus Lane with Right Turn Delay Bus Lanes Blocked by Traffic Mixed Traffic Flow Typical 1.2 2 2.5-3.0 3 Signal Set for Buses 0.6 1.4 N/A N/A Signals More Frequent Than Bus Stops 1.7-2.2 2.5-3.0 3.0-4.0 3.5-4.0 ARTERIAL ROADS OUTSIDE OF CBD Signal Operation Bus Lane Mixed Traffic Typical 0.7 1.2 Range 0.5-1.0 0.8-1.6 NOTE: Add values from Part A and Part B to obtain suggested estimate of total bus travel time. Convert total travel time rate to estimated average speed by dividing into 60 to obtain miles per hour. Interpolation between shown values of dwell time is achieved on a straight-line basis. SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2) and TCRP Report 26 (5) Exhibit 4-121 gives an illustrative example of how bus speeds vary as a function of stop spacing and various levels of traffic delays; it assumes 20- and 30- second dwell times.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-97 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 S T O P S P E R M IL E A VE R G E SP EE D (M PH ) 3 0 s e c D w e l l (1 m in /m ile t ra f f ic d e la y ) 2 0 s e c D w e l l (0 .5 m in /m ile t ra f f ic d e la y ) SOURCE: TCRP Research Results Digest 38 (26) EXHIBIT 4-121 Relationship Between Arterial Street Bus Speeds, Stop Frequency, and Dwell Times Travel time savings can be estimated in three ways: 1. Comparing BRT speeds on busways with local service. Obtain anticipated BRT speeds from Exhibit 4-120 and compare them with existing bus speeds in the corridor during rush and non-rush periods. (Speeds are essentially the inverse of delay rates). 2. Comparing BRT speeds on arterial streets with existing local bus speeds, when existing speeds are known. a. Obtain existing delay rates (speed) for each time period to be analyzed. b. Use Part A of Exhibit 4-120 to estimate the minutes per mile (delay rates) for both existing local services and proposed BRT services. c. Adjust results as follows: B ADD BA × = (4-6) where: B = minutes/mile from Exhibit 4-120, Part A, before BRT A = minutes/mile from Exhibit 4-120, Part A, after BRT DB = observed delay rate (inverse of bus speeds) before BRT DA = adjusted delay rate after BRT Savings = DB - DA See Example 1 in Exhibit 4-122. 3. Comparing BRT speeds on arterial streets when existing bus speeds are not known. a. Estimate delay rates for both existing and future conditions from Exhibit 4-120, Part A. b. Add about 1.0 to 1.2 minutes per mile for arterial traffic congestion for existing and proposed conditions (Exhibit 4-120, Part B). If the after- There are multiple ways to estimate BRT travel time savings.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-98 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide BRT condition includes a bus lane, add 0.5 to 1.0 minute per mile. (See Example 2 in Exhibit 4-122.) Illustrative calculations are given in Exhibit 4-122. EXHIBIT 4-122 Examples - Estimating Arterial Speed Changes Example 1 - Observed Bus Speeds 7.5 mph (8 min/mile) Existing Conditions BRT Conditions Stops/Mile 8 2 Dwell/Stop 20 seconds 30 seconds Min/Mile 6.87 (8.7 mph) 3.07 (19.5 mph) Adjustment to Reflect Observed Travel Times mph16.8min/mi3.57 6.87 8.003.07 ==× Example 2 - BRT On City Streets, Existing Bus Speeds Not Known Exhibit 4-120, Part A Existing Conditions BRT Conditions Stops/Mile 8 2 Dwell/Stop 20 seconds 30 seconds Min/Mile 6.87 3.07 Exhibit 4-120, Part B Additional Time Loss 1.00 min/mile 1.00 min/mile Total Time (Min/Mile) 7.87 4.07 Speed 7.6 mph 14.7 mph SOURCE: Computed Ridership Impacts The presence of all-day, short-headway BRT service with a simple route pattern can further enhance ridership. Collectively, these features would compose about 12% of a 10-minute travel time bias constant (1.2 minutes) and about 12% of a 25% ridership surcharge beyond that computed by travel time and service elasticities alone (about 3%). Estimated percentage contributions of various service features are as follows: • All-day service: 4% • High-frequency service: 4% • Clear, simple route structure: 4% Land Development Effects BRT facilities in Boston, Brisbane, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh have produced important land development benefits. These are discussed in detail under “Busways” and in Chapter 6. Implementability BRT service plans are straightforward and easy to implement once needed rights-of-way are obtained. The service can be readily expanded as ridership demands grow and/or running ways are extended. The main constraint to overcome is possible community reluctance to provide wide station spacing. As BRT service plans impact ridership. Communities may be reluctant to implement wider station spacing for BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-99 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts with other transit service improvements, resources should be available to provide the improved service. When a BRT route runs on a new right-of-way, changes in existing bus routes may be needed. These changes should take place when the BRT service commences or shortly thereafter. When the BRT operates on a rebuilt street or roadway, the existing bus service should be maintained throughout the construction period. Implications The BRT service plan brings together the many diverse yet related BRT elements. It should be viewed as an integral part of an overall BRT system—not just another route. From an operations management perspective, it should be treated similar to rail transit lines. BRT vehicles should endeavor to maintain uniform headways, the service should be rapid and simple, and the complexities inherent in many local bus services should be avoided. Fare Collection Fare payment has a large influence on dwell time and speed of service. Fares may be collected in a number of ways, either on or off the vehicle at each transit station. Some commonly used on-board methods for fare collection include exact change payments, use of proof-of-purchase tickets, and pass scanners. Off-board payment methods include payment booths located at each station, ticket vending machines (as shown in Exhibit 4-123), and prepayment boarding areas. The use of more advanced payment methods such as electronic smart cards increases boarding speed and can contribute to a considerable decrease in dwell time. Fare payment may be divided into three design attributes: fare collection process, fare media, and fare structure (1). The fare collection process refers to the use of different devices to validate payment; these can be on-board or off-board the vehicle depending on the BRT design. Fare media are the type of payments that are accepted, such as passes, cash, prepaid tickets, or smart cards. Types of fare media are shown in Exhibit 4-124. Fare structure refers to the systemwide structure for fare collection, such as using one payment valid for the entire trip, charging by distance traveled, or providing free transfers. Scale of Application Fare collection equipment is provided on vehicles and/or at stations depending upon agency policy, station passenger boardings, and station design. The most common BRT fare payment methods in the United States are (1) pay on boarding, (2) proof of payment, and (3) barrier system. Most U.S systems have implemented some electronic fare payment method, usually on board buses, to allow easier payment and faster boarding. Smart cards are being implemented in Chicago and Washington, D.C. With contactless smart cards, each rider needs only to wave the card in front of the reader, which can result in considerable time savings. In the Los Angeles BRT system, payment is through a combination of proof of payment and smart cards. BRT systems can utilize on- or off- board fare collection.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-100 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada EXHIBIT 4-123 BRT Ticket Vending Machine (Las Vegas) SOURCE: Chicago Transit Authority EXHIBIT 4-124 Smart Card and Single-Ride Fare Card Conditions of Application Fare payment methods for planned BRT systems should be analyzed based on the three design attributes: fare collection process, fare media, and fare structure. Each has implications that are specific to each BRT system and community. In areas of low passenger boarding, buses using electronic validation machines can collect fares. With high passenger volumes, additional investment in automated fare collection may be justified. The second and third design attributes should be selected through an evaluation of the BRT system structure and agency policies (e.g., if fares will be flat, variable by distance, or variable by zone, or if employee or frequent rider benefits will be implemented). The transit agency should also consider whether media would be multiuse (e.g., for toll payments) or be usable by other agencies for the purpose of integrating a regional transit system. The fare media and fare structure selected for a BRT system depend on BRT service structure and agency policies.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-101 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Selected Typical Examples Fare collection practices for U.S. BRT systems are shown in Exhibit 4-125. Most systems use a pay-on-board system. Las Vegas MAX uses a proof-of-payment system. Boston’s Silver Line bus tunnel uses barrier stations, as shown in Exhibit 4- 126. (Barrier stations, which can include turnstiles or fare gates, are also used in Curitiba’s BRT and Bogotá’s TransMilenio systems.) AC Transit, which uses a pay- on-board system on its San Pablo Avenue BRT, is planning on an ultimate BRT system that will use automated passenger counting technology; cash, card, and pass fare media; and a flat fare system. EXHIBIT 4-125 Fare Collection Examples for BRT Systems System Item B os to n S ilv er L in e C h ic ag o Ex pr es s H o no lu lu C it y Ex pr es s N or th L as V eg as M A X L. A . M et ro R ap id So u th M ia m i- D ad e B us w ay O ak la nd S an P ab lo R ap id P it ts b u rg h W es t B us w ay P ho en ix R ap id Fare Collection Process POB POB POB POP POB POB POB POB POB Fare Transaction Media C, P, MS C, P, MS C, P MS C, P, SC1 C, P C, P, SC C, P C, P Fare Structure F F F F F F F DB2 F Equipment at Stations TVM Equipment for On-Board Validation EF EF EF HV EF EF EF EF EF NOTE: POB = pay on board, POP = proof of payment, C = cash, P = paper, MS = magnetic stripe, SC = smart card, F = flat, DB = distance-based, TVM = ticket vending machine, EF = electronic farebox, HV = handheld validator 1 Future 2 For express service SOURCE: CBRT (1) SOURCE: MBTA EXHIBIT 4-126 Fare Payment in Barrier BRT System (Boston) Most BRT systems in the U.S. currently use a pay-on-board system.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-102 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Estimated Costs Exhibit 4-127 gives cost ranges for capital, installation, operation, and maintenance costs for various elements of bus fare collection systems. This table provides general fare collection equipment costs for all transit modes in general (i.e., it does not address BRT systems in particular). Likely Impacts Dwell Time The application of prepaid fare collection methods increases boarding speeds because it allows all doors of the transit vehicle to be used for boarding. This increase may not always occur for on-board fare payment because usually only one payment verification station is available on a bus (usually near the driver). However, double-channel front doors, with one channel used by riders with passes or swipe cards, could expedite passenger boarding. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9) provides ranges for passenger service times. These values have been reproduced in Exhibit 4-128. Convenience for Users The use of electronic payment methods increases the flexibility and convenience of payment for customers. Fare reductions may be implemented for a specific number of trips, or rolling activate-on-first-use passes may provide customers with the ability to store their payment cards as long as necessary. Another convenience to customers is the use of smart cards that can be simply scanned without removing them from a wallet. Convenience for Agencies Agencies can easily track BRT system usage by having an electronic record of ticket sales. This system allows easy determination of demand by zones. An inherent convenience of electronic payment is that exact change is not necessary and agencies may charge uneven amounts for transit service as required. Passenger Information Information can be relayed to passengers through various methods, including visual displays at stations or on vehicles, audible announcements, brochures, the Internet, the telephone, and mobile communications devices. Brochures and posters can inform passengers of BRT route and station locations. Displays and audible announcements at stations or on board vehicles can inform passengers of the next vehicle’s arrival time, the next station name, or possible delays, with accuracy and at programmed intervals. (Most passenger information systems of this type work in connection with AVL systems.) A single-line dynamic message sign in a BRT station is shown in Exhibit 4-129. A station-area kiosk is shown in Exhibit 4-130. On-board information displays are shown in Exhibit 4-131 (“transit TV”) and Exhibit 4-132 (dynamic message sign). Electronic fare payment increases convenience for BRT users and transit agencies. Transit information can be provided to BRT users through various methods.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-103 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-127 Fare Collection Equipment Capital and Maintenance Costs* Capital Cost Elements (Bus-Related Fixed Costs per Unit) Low High Mechanical farebox $2,000 $3,000 Electronic registering farebox $4,000 $5,000 Electronic registering farebox (with smart card reader) $5,000 $8,000 Validating farebox (with magnetic card processing unit) $10,000 $12,000 Validating farebox (with smart card reader) $12,000 $14,000 Validating farebox (with magnetic & smart card reader) $13,000 $17,500 Stand-alone smart card processing unit $1,000 $7,000 Magnetic fare card processing unit (upgrade) $4,000 $6,000 On-board probe equipment** $500 $1,500 Garage probe equipment** $2,500 $3,500 Application software (smart card units) $0 $100,000 Garage hardware/software $10,000 $20,000 Central hardware/software $25,000 $75,000 Payment Media Costs Low High Magnetic or capacitive cards $0.01 $0.30 Contactless cards (plastic) $2.00 $5.00 Contactless cards (paper) $0.30 $1.00 Contact cards $1.50 $4.00 Operation and Maintenance Costs Low High Spare parts (% of equipment cost) 10% 15% Support services include training, documentation, revenue testing, and warranties (% of equipment cost) 10% 15% Installation (% of equipment cost) 3% 10% Nonrecurring engineering & software costs (% of equipment cost) 0% 30% Contingency (% of equipment/operating cost) 10% 15% Equipment maintenance costs (% of equipment cost) 5% 7% Software licenses/system support (% of systems/software cost) 15% 20% Revenue handling costs (% of annual cash revenue) 5% 10% Clearinghouse (e.g., card distribution, revenue allocation) *** (% of annual automatic fare collection revenue) 3% 6% * Actual cost depends on functionality/specifications, quantity purchased, and specific manufacturer. ** In an integrated regional system, there is no additional cost for probe equipment. *** This cost depends on the nature of the regional fare program, if any. SOURCE: TCRP Report 94 (27) EXHIBIT 4-128 Passenger Service Times Associated with Different Payment Methods Payment Method Service Time (seconds/passenger) Pre-payment 2.25 to 2.75 Single Ticket or Token 3.4 to 3.6 Exact Change 3.6 to 4.3 Swipe or Dip Card 4.2 Smart Card 3.0 to 3.7 SOURCE: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (9)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-104 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-129 Real-Time Passenger Information Sign in Station (Los Angeles) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-130 Kiosk (Orlando) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-131 On-Board Passenger Information Display - Mounting and Screen Detail (Orlando)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-105 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-132 On-Board Passenger Information Display (Los Angeles) Vehicle coloring and design also can serve as a way to communicate BRT routes served and service type (if a BRT system has more than one service). For example, red buses may represent express service while green buses may stop more frequently. Branding and logos on vehicles increases the effectiveness of this type of communication. Exhibit 4-133 shows how the silver color theme of Boston’s Silver Line BRT service is developed in various components of the service. SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-133 Use of Color to Identify BRT Components (Boston) Silver Silver Silver

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-106 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Scale of Application Passenger information systems used in some transit systems include telephone information stations, which require passengers to place a free call and request desired information; automated station announcements on vehicles, which annunciate the name of the next stop; and real-time information at stations, which uses AVL systems to track the arrival time of the next vehicle and communicate it through monitors or audible announcements to customers. Based on the 2005 U.S. DOT vehicle catalog, all buses being manufactured have some kind of passenger information system, such as audible announcements or visual liquid crystal display (LCD) screens. Some transit agencies also make real-time information about bus locations and bus arrivals available over the Internet, the telephone, and/or mobile communications devices (such as cell phones) for pre-trip planning purposes. Exhibit 4-134 shows a real-time vehicle location map available via the Internet to users of the TriMet transit system. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems allow users to request real-time information by voice input or touch-tone keypad input (28). Conditions of Application Adequate passenger information is essential both on vehicles and at stations. Real-time information systems can provide important information to passengers. They can relay regular schedule information, service delays or disruptions, temporary service changes, route and schedule changes, and emergency messages. They are essential at places of heavy boarding, alighting, and interchange, such as bus terminals or downtown transit stops. Both visual and audible messages can be provided. Information should be accessible by disabled riders. A study conducted by WestStart-CALSTART for the FTA on community preferences in BRT systems (17) found that most riders preferred both audible and visual next-stop information displays on buses and countdown timers, vehicle arrival signals, and interactive information systems at transit stations. Selected Typical Examples Exhibit 4-135 gives examples of passenger information systems that have been implemented for BRT systems in various cities, along with the type of information available to customers. Several cities in the United States have implemented or are planning to implement real-time passenger information systems. Among these are Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh. Cities outside the United States that have implemented these systems include Ottawa, Brisbane, Vancouver, and Curitiba. Estimated Costs Passenger information systems are part of ITS because vehicle location information provided to passengers is obtained with the use of AVL systems. Exhibit 4-136 shows cost ranges for passenger information components as well as some reported costs obtained from agencies across the United States. A survey conducted for FTA showed rider preferences for real-time passenger information on BRT vehicles and at BRT stations.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-107 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: www.trimet.org EXHIBIT 4-134 Real-Time Transit Information on the Internet (Portland, OR) EXHIBIT 4-135 BRT Passenger Information System Application Examples City Transit System Telephone Information Stations Passenger Information Automated Station Announcements On Vehicle Real Time Information at Stations US/Canada Boston Silver Line Yes Yes Yes Eugene, OR Arterial Median Transitway Yes Hartford New Britain Busway (proposed) Yes Yes Los Angeles Metro Rapid Yes Yes Yes Miami South Miami-Dade Busway Yes Pittsburgh South-East-West Busway Yes Some buses Vancouver, BC Broadway and Richmond “B” Lines Yes Yes Ottawa Transitway Yes Yes Some locations Australia Brisbane South East Busway Yes Yes Sydney Liverpool-Parramatta BRT Yes Europe Rouen, France Optically Guided Bus Yes South America Curitiba, Colombia Median Busway System Yes SOURCE: TCRP Report 90 (2)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-108 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide EXHIBIT 4-136 Passenger Information System Component Costs Component Cost Status sign (at stations) $4,000-$8,000 each Los Angeles Metro Rapid $5,000 TriMet $4,000 On-board passenger information $2,000-$7,000 per bus Los Angeles Metro Rapid $4,000 Voice and video monitoring $4,000-$5,000 capital, $25,000 O&M Electronic information kiosk $1.3 million (New York City, 20 kiosks) SOURCE: CBRT (1), TCRP Report 90 (2), and TCRP Synthesis 48 (22) Likely Impacts The availability of information to customers has numerous benefits for the BRT system in general: a greater distribution of posted, audible, visual, and Internet information increases the probability that more people will be willing to use the transit system. People who do not generally use the transit system but observe transit signs or well-branded stops near the places they commute may be more willing to try transit. Passenger information systems at transit stations may help avoid the crowding of people into the first vehicle they observe going to their destination if they are informed that a second vehicle on that route will arrive just 2 or 3 minutes later. Telephone communication can improve security. Implementability When considering the implementation of passenger information systems, an agency should take into account compatibility issues between various systems to make certain that software or hardware problems do not prevent the system from functioning adequately. Many agencies take a step-by-step approach to implementing these systems, which may lead to compatibility problems between systems acquired and implemented at different stages of BRT project development. Analysis Tools Passenger information availability is used along with spatial, temporal, and capacity availability to determine whether transit is an alternative for commuters in a particular geographic area. If commuters do not have information on the routes, departure times, or types of service, they are less likely to use the service in the first place. This analysis is a required early step in a quality of service evaluation. Availability of transit information to a population must be determined first, and quality of information provided to the population must be determined once transit is available. Enhanced Safety and Security Systems Safety and security of BRT services and facilities is essential. Transit agencies generally are responsible for the safety and security of BRT passengers and operators. The types of concerns that agencies should address range from criminal activity at stations and on buses (which are security concerns) to crash prevention and passenger well-being (which are safety concerns). Safety and security systems may be implemented using ITS and non-ITS solutions. Security systems typically focus on crime prevention and communication for quick response from emergency personnel. Safety systems

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-109 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts focus on maintaining the uninterrupted operation of the BRT system by preventing injuries to users and damage to system vehicles and infrastructure. Manual surveillance and the provision of defensible space are also essential. System designs and operating practices should also take into account protection against terrorism in a post-9/11 world. Good communication systems (e.g., GPS and real-time passenger information), multiple doors on buses, and two points of access to stations are desirable. In addition, alternative routes and services should be available. Useful references include Designing and Operating Safe and Secure Transit Systems (29) and Volume 10 of NCHRP Report 525 (30). Additional information on crime trends in transit systems can be obtained from the National Transit Database (NTD). Scale of Application Safety and security systems are being implemented in most new BRT systems through the application of both ITS technology and non-ITS solutions. All manufacturers of buses made for BRT operations offer standard and optional ITS safety and security technology. They should be applied on a systemwide basis. The typical technologies used for transit safety and security include alarms, closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems, call boxes, vehicle monitoring systems, pager systems, and driver assist technologies such as rear- or side-view cameras. An on-board CCTV camera, a station camera, and a station emergency phone are shown in Exhibit 4-137 through Exhibit 4-139. Non-ITS safety and security solutions also may be implemented and should be considered based on the specific characteristics of the BRT system. Non-ITS components for safety and security include adequate lighting and visibility at stations, security personnel at transfer stations, running way guidance and segregation, boarding platforms for level boarding, personnel training for emergency situations, and station designs providing good sight lines. Silent alarms have been implemented by transit agencies across the United States. Silent alarm systems immediately notify authorities of disruptive or threatening behavior on board a bus, and the perpetrator has no way of knowing that police have been notified. Remote monitoring of bus locations helps identify emergency situations through immediate communication if a vehicle strays off course or stops unexpectedly, assuring the safety of passengers on board. Monitoring cameras are commonly used security features on buses and transit stations; they can help in investigations of occurrences on board transit vehicles as well as deter criminal activity. Cameras may be monitored in real time to increase safety to users and increase response time in case of emergency. Security at transit stations can be increased by providing a well-lit environment with security personnel (where feasible). Other solutions such as the application of transparent walls at transit stops can help eliminate hidden areas that pose a security concern. A variety of safety and security systems (ITS and non-ITS) are available for use on BRT vehicles and at BRT stations. Security personnel could be placed at larger BRT stations.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-110 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-137 On-Board CCTV Camera (Las Vegas) SOURCE: DMJM+Harris EXHIBIT 4-138 BRT Station Camera (Brisbane, Australia) SOURCE: DMJM+Harris and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-139 BRT Station Emergency Phones

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-111 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Driver assist technology can aid in the safer operation of a transit vehicle. This technology includes components such as cameras for collision warning and prevention and voice and data communication with a central control center. Vehicle diagnostics systems help identify vehicle malfunctions as well as maintenance requirements, thereby increasing vehicle safety. Lane assist technology allows vehicles to operate at higher speeds in narrower lanes, and increases safety for passengers, improves functionality, and decreases the space required for buses. Conditions of Application An agency should obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the FTA for each safety certifiable element in the system. These elements include any part of the transit project that can pose a safety or security concern to transit agency passengers, employees, contractors, emergency personnel, or the general public. Selected Typical Examples One example of a transit agency with an aggressive safety and security program is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). This agency has earned the nation’s top safety award based on the safety and security programs implemented in its transit system. WMATA buses are equipped with silent alarms that automatically change destination signs to an emergency message upon activation; the silent alarms also cause vehicle running lights to flash repeatedly for police to easily identify the bus. An important component of safety is personnel training. WMATA, for example, has instituted biannual refresher courses in the Heimlich maneuver, CPR, and other first aid procedures for its personnel. Estimated Costs Costs for implementing ITS technology for safety and security may vary widely depending on the procurement strategy. Smaller agencies may see increased costs associated with ITS systems simply due to the smaller quantity of ITS components purchased. Examples of costs can be obtained from previous purchases by other agencies. (One example is the Intercity Transit Agency in Thurston County, WA, which operates 34 fixed-route buses. This agency allocated $500,000 for real-time on-board security monitoring systems.) Example costs for safety and security components described in this Guide are listed in Exhibit 4-67, Exhibit 4-108, and Exhibit 4-136. Likely Impacts Many agencies have experienced a considerable reduction in safety and security incidents through the implementation of ITS security systems. British Columbia’s Provincial Intelligent Transportation Systems Vision and Strategic Plan (31) documents a 33% reduction in passenger assaults with the implementation of security-focused Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). Additionally, crime prevention systems can have a very positive effect on overall agency operations because these systems lower the risk of damage to facilities and because users acquire an added sense of security, which positively affects ridership. A Certificate of Compliance for BRT system safety and security features should be obtained from FTA.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-112 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Implementability The implementation of safety and security systems should follow the recommendations presented in FTA’s Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification (32). The Handbook provides a series of steps that should be followed to obtain a Safety and Security Certification. FTA’s web site provides an abundant amount of information related to security measures that should be considered in implementing a safety and security system; a “Top 20 Security Program Action Items for Transit Agencies” list is available, which directly addresses safety and security concerns related to risk of terrorist attacks on transit systems. From an ITS point of view, the agency should ensure compatibility between safety and security systems. Ensuring compatibility is particularly important when systems have been obtained through separate procurements or when software has been upgraded. Systems should be tested, and response times to possible emergencies should be assessed. Some transit agencies conduct mock emergencies to determine how well emergency systems function and the readiness of transit employees and emergency personnel. Analysis Tools The primary tool for analyzing safety and security system standards is FTA’s Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification (32). The safety and security certification (SSC) program presented in the Handbook encompasses the equipment, maintenance and operation procedures, and facilities for the three categories listed in Exhibit 4-140. All systems should be analyzed to verify that they meet FTA safety and security requirements before a safety and security certification is issued to the agency. The following steps compose the certification process: 1. Identify certifiable elements 2. Develop safety and security design criteria 3. Develop and complete design criteria conformance checklist 4. Perform construction specification conformance 5. Identify additional safety and security test requirements 6. Perform testing and validation in support of the SSC program 7. Manage integrated tests for the SSC program 8. Manage “open items” in the SSC program 9. Verify operational readiness 10. Conduct final determination of project readiness and issue safety and security certification Branding “Branding” of BRT system facilities is designed to provide a unique identity. It includes a distinctive system name and logo that is applied to vehicles, stations, schedules, and various passenger amenities. The certification process in FTA’s Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification includes 10 steps. Branding should give each BRT system a unique identity. Branding is typically applied to BRT vehicles, stations, running ways, and schedule/marketing materials.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-113 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts EXHIBIT 4-140 Safety and Security Certification Program Categories Category Description Systemwide Elements Includes passenger vehicles, voice and data communications, CCTV, grade crossing and traffic control system, intrusion detection system, running ways, fare collection, supervisory control, fire protection and suppression systems, and auxiliary vehicles and equipment. Fixed Facilities Includes stations and shelter stops, pedestrian bridges, yard and shop structures, and the control center. Equipment installed in stations or sheltered stops such as HVAC, escalators, and elevators is also considered part of the facility. Plans, Procedures, and Training Includes emergency preparedness plans, security plans and procedures, training programs, rule books, and standard operating procedures. SOURCE: Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification (32) Scale of Application Branding should be applied systemwide and should include the following: • Branding stations and terminal features such as bus/BRT stop signs, passenger information boards, fare collection equipment, and media • Giving vehicles a special styling, unique livery, added passenger amenities, and marketing panels • Branding running ways by using special paving materials, colors, and markings • Branding marketing materials such as route maps, route schedules, web sites, and media information Bus operators in York Region Transit’s Viva BRT system wear a distinctive uniform, as shown in Exhibit 4-141. The uniform displays the name of the BRT service and is color-coordinated with the vehicles. SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-141 Branding Example - Operator Uniform (York, ON)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-115 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-144 BRT Branding Example - Logo (Orlando) SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT 4-145 BRT Branding Example - Station (Los Angeles) Estimated Costs Capital and operating cost information for branding is not readily available. The distinctive CIVIS bus used in Las Vegas costs about $1 million, which is approximately double the cost of other buses in BRT service.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-114 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Conditions of Application Branding should be an integral part of the overall BRT system design. There are no specific “warrants” as such. Selected Typical Examples Examples of current branding applications for existing BRT systems are presented in Exhibit 4-142 through Exhibit 4-145. EXHIBIT 4-142 Branding of Features of Existing BRT Systems City Service Lo go E nh an ce d S ta ti on s R ea l- ti m e P as se n ge r In fo rm at io n M od er n is ti c V eh ic le V eh ic le A es th et ic E nh an ce m en ts Boston Silver Line X X X X Honolulu CityExpress X Las Vegas MAX X X X X X Los Angeles Metro Rapid X X X X Oakland Rapid Bus X X X X Orlando Lymmo X X Phoenix Rapid X X X SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research SOURCE: DMJM+Harris EXHIBIT 4-143 BRT Branding Example - Signs (Brisbane)

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-116 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Likely Impacts Branding conveys a system identity/image to existing and potential passengers. This image may translate into increased ridership over the long run. Ridership Impacts No information was found on the likely ridership effect of improved branding. However, the effects may be inferred through analysis of the modal bias values used for rail transit. Guidelines for transferring rail transit bias constants to BRT are given in Chapter 3. Land Development Effects No information is available on the effects of branding on land development. Implementability Branding can be easily and quickly implemented. The installation costs are low, and there are no land acquisition or environmental impacts. Analysis Methods Two basic impact methods for analyzing branding impacts may be used: (1) similar experiments elsewhere and (2) stated preference surveys. The stated preference surveys should assess passenger response to specific branding features and identify the ridership effects of improved BRT branding. Exhibit 4-146 documents how the costs and effectiveness of a branding program can be analyzed. It is difficult to make generalizations about the analysis outcome in view of differences among potential BRT markets in different metropolitan areas and differences in attitudes toward the existing local bus system. SOURCE: TCRP A-23A research EXHIBIT 4-146 Impact Analysis: BRT Branding Preference surveys can assess passenger response to specific branding features.

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Page 4-117 Component Features, Costs, and Impacts REFERENCES 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants, DMJM+Harris, and OURCO, Inc. TCRP Project A-23A Interim Report. Unpublished. 2004. 4. Biehler, A.D. Exclusive Busways versus Light Rail Transit: A Comparison of New Fixed Guideway Systems. Special Report 221: Light Rail Transit: New System Successes at Affordable Prices. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 89–97. 5. St. Jacques, K., and H. Levinson. TCRP Report 26: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997. 6. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. 7. Rainville, Jr., W.S., W.S. Homburger, D.C. Hyde, and R. Strickland. Preliminary Progress Report of Transit Subcommittee. Committee on Highway Capacity. Proceedings, Vol. 40. Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1961. 8. Wilbur Smith & Associates. Bus Rapid Transit Options for Densely Developed Areas. UMTA, Washington, D.C., 1975. 9. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglass, Inc., and K. Hunter-Zaworski. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 10. Chang, J. (ed.). An Overview of Transit Signal Priority. Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Washington, D.C., July 2002. 11. Smith, H.R., B. Hemily, and M. Ivanovic. Transit Signal Priority: A Planning and Implementation Handbook. Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Washington, D.C., 2005. 12. Chang, J., J. Collura, F. Dion, and H. Rakha. Evaluation of Service Reliability Impacts of Traffic Signal Priority Strategies for Bus Transit. Transportation Research Record 1841. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 23-31. 13. Fitzpatrick, K., K.M. Hall, S. Farnsworth, and M.D. Finley. TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. 14. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. The Access Board, Washington D.C., Sept. 2002. 15. Zimmerman, S.L., and H.S. Levinson. Vehicle Selection for BRT: Issues and Options. Journal of Public Transportation. Vol. 7, No. 1. Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa, FL, 2004. 16. Vehicle Catalog 2005 Update. A Compendium of Vehicles and Hybrid Drive

Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Component Features, Costs, and Impacts Page 4-118 Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide Systems for Bus Rapid Transit Service. WestStart-CALSTART, 2005. 17. WestStart-CALSTART. Vehicle Demand and Supply Analysis Update. FTA, Washington, D.C., 2004. 18. Public Transportation Factbook. APTA, Washington, D.C., 2005. 19. FTA. Analysis of Fuels and Propulsion System Options for BRT Vehicles. Washington, D.C., 2004. 20. Automatic Vehicle Location: Successful Transit Applications: A Cross-Cutting Study: Improving Service and Safety. Joint Program Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems, FTA, Washington, D.C., Aug. 2000. 21. Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Infrastructure in the USA: FY2004 Results. Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, FHWA, Washington, D. C., July 2005. 22. Schweiger, C.L. TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 23. Metro Transit. Bus Rapid Transit Lane Assist Technology Systems. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2003. 24. Public Transportation Handbook. APTA, Washington, D.C., 2003. 25. Levinson, H., and P. Conrad. How to Allocate Bus Route Costs. Transit Journal. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 39-48. Washington, D.C., 1979. 26. St. Jacques, K., and H. Levinson. TCRP Research Results Digest 38: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials: Applications and Refinement. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Sept. 2000. 27. Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., and Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. TCRP Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 28. Raman, M., C. Schweiger, K. Shammout, and D. Williams. Guidance for Developing and Deploying Real-Time Traveler Information Systems for Transit. FTA, Washington, D.C., 2003. 29. Taylor, B., A. Loukaitou-Sideris, R. Liggett, C. Fink, M. Wachs, E. Cavanagh, C. Cherry, and P.J. Haas. Designing and Operating Safe and Secure Transit Systems: Assessing Current Practices in the United States and Abroad. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA, Nov. 2005. 30. Friedman, D., D. Bratvold, S. Mirsky, G. Kaiser, P. Schaudies, E. Bolz, R. Castor, and F. Latham. NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Vol. 10, Guide to Transportation’s Role in Public Health Disasters. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. 31. British Columbia’s Provincial Intelligent Transportation Systems Vision and Strategic Plan. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, Canada, Nov. 2001. 32. Adduci, R.J., A. Boyd, and J. Caton. Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. FTA, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2002.