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.
35 Findings pertaining to the following four project characteristics are summarized for the projects in the Access + Safety category: project impetus, internal process and partnerships, procurement and implementation, and triumphs and lessons learned. PROJECT IMPETUS (a) The following projectsâ access and safety elements were included as a part of a multipart pilot project: â¢ 5L Fulton Limited Pilot (San Francisco, CA), â¢ Bancroft West Pilot Project (Berkeley, CA), â¢ Broadway Bus Lane (Everett, MA), â¢ King Street Transit Pilot (Toronto, CAN), â¢ Mt. Auburn Street Bus Lanes (Cambridge/Watertown, MA), â¢ Oakland Bus Boarding Platforms (Oakland, CA), and â¢ Streets for People (Miami, FL). A few of the above more complex projects, such as the 5L Fulton Limited and King Street Transit Pilots, observed that the combination of the various elements and treatments resulted in a generally safer roadway condition for all users, even if the elements that were to specifically address access and safety were a smaller part of the overall project. For example, eliminating through traffic on King Street created a street where people felt more comfortable walking and biking, and enjoyed spending more time. On the Fulton Street corridor, the road diet allowed for wider lanes for the buses to reduce sideswipe collisions, and the wider lanes enabled the installation of a pedestrian refuge to ease crossing the corridor. A few of the bus stops that were removed were along the parts of the corridor with higher speeds and volume and were unsignalized. (b) The following projects were conceived to primarily address issues of access and safety: â¢ Go Ave 26 (Los Angeles, CA), â¢ Hands on Exchange (Akron, OH), â¢ Los Angeles Bus Boarding Platforms (Los Angeles, CA), ACCESS + SAFETY: SUMMARY 5L FULTON LIMITED PILOT BANCROFT WEST PILOT PROJECT BROADWAY BUS LANE GO AVE 26 HANDS ON EXCHANGE KING STREET TRANSIT PILOT LOS ANGELES BUS BOARDING PLATFORMS MT. AUBURN STREET BUS LANES NOLENSVILLE CROSSING TREATMENT NYC BUS BOARDING PLATFORMS OAKLAND BUS BOARDING PLATFORMS SOLANO AVENUE BUS PARKLET STREETS FOR PEOPLE 13 projects 12 cities
36 â¢ Nolensville Crossing Treatment (Nashville, TN), and â¢ Solano Avenue Bus Parklet (Albany, CA). (c) Of the above projects, the following projects were initiated as a result of grant awards: â¢ Go Ave 26 (Los Angeles, CA), â¢ Hands on Exchange (Akron, OH), â¢ Solano Avenue Bus Parklet (Albany, CA). (d) The following bus platform projects tested the infrastructure primarily out of curiosity than anything for the purposes of being innovative and expanding their toolkit of transit access solutions: â¢ Los Angeles Bus Boarding Platforms (Los Angeles, CA) and â¢ NYC Bus Boarding Platforms (New York, NY). INTERNAL PROCESS + PARTNERSHIPS (a) The projects with the least complex internal processes of the Access + Safety projects were: â¢ Los Angeles Bus Boarding Platforms (Los Angeles, CA) and â¢ NYC Bus Boarding Platforms (New York, NY). In New York City, an existing partnership between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the DOT through the Select Bus Service Program has created a process for joint execution of transit projects across the city. Also, the New York City DOT manages the roadways, and it used internal crews for the assembly and disassembly of the platforms, knowledge they wanted to arm their staff with for efficient installations in the future. In Los Angeles, the bus stop at which the first boarding platform was installed was serviced by DASH, a transit service provided by the Los Angeles DOT. This allowed the Los Angeles DOT to procure, install, and progressively revise the design of the boarding platform quickly and efficiently. (b) The following projects were either led or had significant contributions from nonprofit or non-governmental entities: â¢ Bancroft West Pilot Project (Berkeley, CA), â¢ Go Ave 26 (Los Angeles, CA), â¢ Hands on Exchange (Akron, OH), â¢ Nolensville Crossing Treatment (Nashville, TN), â¢ Solano Avenue Bus Parklet (Albany, CA), and â¢ Streets for People (Miami, FL). TEGIN TEICH Mt. Auburn St. Bus Lanes 5L Fulton Limited Pilot SFMTA
37 Where the nonprofit or agency was not the lead on the project, other entities played a pivotal role in the projectsâ conception, implementation, and evaluation. For example, Bike East Bay assisted with public outreach and evaluation of the Bancroft West Pilot Project. Walk Bike Nashvilleâs advocacy regarding the unsafe pedestrian conditions on the Nolensville Pike was key in encouraging quick action. In Albany, the original request for the project came partly from business owners on the street, who also designed the bus parklet for the city and AC Transit. (c) Project teams that expressed particular challenges with their execution include the following: â¢ Bancroft West Pilot Project (Berkeley, CA), â¢ Go Ave 26 (Los Angeles, CA), and â¢ Hands on Exchange (Akron, OH). PROCUREMENT + IMPLEMENTATION There was more variation in the procurement and implementation of the access and safety projects as compared with the speed and reliability projects. For example, the process for the implementation of the boarding platforms was much more iterative. In all of the cities that implemented boarding platforms (Everett, Los Angeles, New York City, and Oakland), the project teams cited a lot of back-and-forth with the manufacturer, some of which contributed to more lengthy materials procurement processes than anticipated. This meant, however, that the platforms were very customizable, and the manufacturers were amenable to experimenting with different elements of their product to suit the citiesâ needs (e.g., markings, crossing treatments, height, ramps). By nature, the platforms were also being acquired for more location-specific treatment or were being integrated into existing streetscape or pilot projects as interim solutions. In Nashville, the materials for the crossing treatment were mostly what the two local government entities, the Tennessee DOT and Metro Nashville, had on hand or could procure relatively quickly. The refuge islands were procured, but the pedestrian beacons, posts, signage, and striping were all provided or produced in-house by either the Tennessee DOT or Metro Nashville. For Go Ave 26 and Hands on Exchange, the materials were purchased with grant money. Even though the projects received assistance from the city government for permitting and implementation, being able to bypass the citiesâ procurement processes to obtain the project materials was a distinct advantage. TRIUMPHS + LESSONS LEARNED Unique to the access and safety projects was the ability to reuse the project materials to test infrastructure at other locations. For example, the New York City DOT deinstalled the first platform on Utica Avenue in Brooklyn and reinstalled it in Harlem. The boarding platforms provide a sort of roving interim design solution once their deinstallation becomes more efficient. Also found more frequently in the access and safety projects was the contribution to a longer-term outcome that would guide similar projects in the future. For example, Go Ave 26 contributed to a proposal from LA MÃ¡s to the cityâs Department of Transportation and Public Works for an adopt-a-sidewalk program that would streamline permitting for future projects. Similarly, after the first parkletâs installation, AC Transit produced a Bus Parklet Design Manual to regulate the design and implementation of parklets in the future.
TIM FITZWATERHANDS ON EXCHANGE
Figure 6, Access + Safety Project Highlights. 39 THE NUMBERS 11 Recycled plastic modular boarding platforms installed across four cities. Project team lead entity: 1 8 4 Project community size: TRANSIT AGENCY CITY DEPARTMENT(S) OTHER Atlanta: 5.6 million x 200 Albany: 19,688 440 Percentage increase in bicyclist volumes along King Street during the AM commute. 65% Reduction in collisions on SW/SE 1st Street in Miami. 0 Pedestrian deaths since the installation on Nashvilleâs Nolensville Pike. 40% Increase in bicycle volumes on SW/SE 1st Street in Miami. NYC BOARDING PLATFORMS 1.5 MONTHS QUICKEST IMPLEMENTATION:
40 OAKLAND NEW YORK CITY EVERETT (BROADWAY) LOS ANGELES Figure 7, Boarding Platforms Map. ZOOM-IN: BUS PLATFORMS âTraffic models only do so much...â Transit Manager, City of Cincinnati
41 EVERETT (BROADWAY BUS LANE) LOS ANGELES OAKLAND NEW YORK CITY IMPETUS DESIGN ELEMENTS OUTCOME(S) COST/FUNDING SOURCE(S) Everett, MA 2 boarding platforms Los Angeles, CA 2 boarding platforms Oakland, CA 4 boarding platforms New York, NY 3 boarding platforms WHATâS NEXT? Building on the bus lane project and Everett Transit Action Plan â¢ Double white edge striping â¢ Red tactile warning pads First out of curiosity, now being incorporated into corridor projects â¢ Double yellow/ white edge striping â¢ K-71 bollards â¢ Bike ramps and markings Barr Foundation, BostonBRT program â¢ Over 80% of survey respondents found it easier to board the bus with the platforms. â¢ 81% said they wanted to expand the number of platforms. The first platform was given to the city by the manufacturer, the second is part of a streetscape project. â¢ The first platform was not evaluated, but the second and third will be more formally evaluated, including the collection of public feedback. More evaluation of the optimal design of the platforms A third will be installed in spring 2019 A part of the Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets Pilot Project â¢ Double white edge striping â¢ Crosswalk markings â¢ Bike ramps and markings Internal city funds (not capital funds) â¢ The city is still figuring out the best way to formally evaluate the platforms and plans to use them elsewhere around the city if necessary. Eyes and ears are open for other conditions that may warrant the use of the platforms First out of curiosity, now to more frequently address a variety of conditions (e.g., bike lane interactions, transit shutdowns) â¢ Double yellow edge striping Available internal funds, and then funds allocated to the Select Bus Service program â¢ Thereâs no formal evaluation of the platforms, but the city is confident theyâre well received and functioning as intended. A $3 million contract for up to 40 more platforms is underway Figure 8, Boarding Platforms Table.
JOE LINTON, STREETSBLOGLOS ANGELES BUS BOARDING PLATFORMS