National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (2003)

Chapter: Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems

« Previous: Chapter 8 - Bus Operations and Service
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 - Financing and Implementing BRT Systems." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 183

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.

9-1 CHAPTER 9 FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTING BRT SYSTEMS Implementing BRT calls for a clear understanding of its benefits and costs, the availability of funding, and the differ- ent mechanisms that can be used to finance, develop, and operate a BRT project. The planning and development process for BRT should be similar to that of other transit modes. However, because BRT systems have attributes that distin- guish them from other rapid-transit modes, including flexi- bility in operations and incremental development, there are several unique implementation issues associated with the development of BRT systems. In developing BRT systems, it is necessary to establish how the system will be planned, designed, built, operated, and fully integrated into the overall transport system. BRT should be developed with each stage keyed to levels of pas- senger demand and available resources. In addition, because BRT systems can operate on different types of running ways (e.g., dedicated busways or local streets), a number of agen- cies will be involved in implementing and operating the sys- tem. This creates an additional level of institutional complex- ity to the development of BRT projects. This chapter includes guidelines on developing and implementing BRT systems, including information on benefits and costs, funding sources, institutional arrangements, policy issues, and project delivery mechanisms. 9-1. GENERAL GUIDELINES Several general guidelines for implementing BRT systems can be drawn from a review of previous experience with BRT systems worldwide. These guidelines include the following: 1. BRT systems should be integrated with other transit services in terms of route structure, services coordi- nation, and fares. 2. Overall system benefits—as measured by travel time savings, operating cost savings, and land development benefits—tend to increase in correlation with operat- ing speeds. High speeds, however, usually result from operating on dedicated busways, which have higher development costs. 3. When travel time savings and ridership are substantial and market conditions are right, BRT can generate substantial land development benefits. 4. BRT systems can be financed through combinations of federal, state, and local government funding, as well as financed by the private sector. 5. Value capture, benefit assuming, and other public- private partnerships can complement public funding in special circumstances, particularly in proximity to major transit stations. 6. Transit agencies, city transportation departments, and, in some cases, state departments of transportation must work together in planning, designing, and maintain- ing BRT systems. Close cooperation and coordination is essential. 7. Most BRT systems have been developed under tra- ditional design-build arrangements. However, for major integrated projects, alternative project delivery strategies, such as design-build-operate-maintain arrangements, may also be appropriate (as demon- strated by international experience with rail systems). 8. BRT is well suited for incremental development because of its flexibility. Each stage should contain a well-packaged series of BRT elements and should produce tangible benefits. Early action is essential to maintaining community interest and support. 9. BRT systems, like any rapid-transit system, should be designed to be as cost-effective as possible. However, planners should not “cut corners” by eliminating key system elements and their integration because it will still be possible to attain minimal functionality of the bus system. Cutting corners will greatly reduce the potential benefits that can be achieved by a fully integrated BRT system. 10. BRT busways can be designed for possible future con- version to rail as needs arise or ridership warrants. 11. Parking and land use policy should be carefully designed to reinforce BRT operations. 9-2. BENEFITS AND COSTS Benefits and costs should be estimated for each BRT line based on the area that is traversed, the travel time saved, and the type of construction. Existing BRT experience can be used as a guide in this effort.

9-2 9-2.1. Benefits The benefits of BRT systems—largely a result of faster jour- ney times, higher frequency, and better reliability—translate into increased ridership, lower operating costs, less fuel con- sumption, greater safety, and better land development benefits. 9-2.1.1. Ridership Reported increases in BRT riders range from 20 to 80%, as shown in Table 9-1. The increases reflect the provision of expanded transit service, reduced travel times, system iden- tity and branding. Collectively, they clearly demonstrate that BRT can attract and retain new and discretionary riders. Some evidence suggests that many of the new riders of BRT were previously motorists and that improved bus service results in more frequent travel. In Houston, for example, up to 30% of the Transitway system riders did not make the trip before, and up to 72% were diverted from automobiles. In Vancouver, 20% of new B-line riders previously used auto- mobiles, 5% represented new trips, and 75% were diverted from other bus lines. Increases in ridership attributed to BRT have ranged as high as 100% or more over the initial application period. For example, transit ridership in Miami-Dade’s South US-1 cor- ridor has increased from approximately 7,000 daily trips in 1996, before the South Miami-Dade Busway opened, to over 14,000 trips per day today. In Honolulu, ridership has gone from approximately 3,000 on corridor bus routes to more than 6,500 trips per day in the year since CityExpress! opened. Implementation of the Metro Rapid bus on Los Angeles’s Wilshire, Whittier, and Ventura Boulevards has resulted in increases of 20% and 50%, respectively, in total corridor bus ridership. Over one-third of the new trips on the Metro Rapid bus services were made by travelers who did not previously use transit at all before the lines opened. In the Wilshire- Whittier corridor, over 60,000 trips per day are currently made on Metro Rapid bus, a number currently constrained by the capacity of 40-foot buses (to be replaced by articulated 60-foot buses, currently in procurement). 9-2.1.2. Travel Time Savings Reported travel time savings over pre-BRT conditions are given in Table 9-2. Time savings range from 23 to 32% for city street operations and go up to 47% for operations on busways or reserved freeway lanes. Busways on dedicated rights-of-way generally save 2 to 3 minutes per mile compared with pre-BRT conditions, including time for stops. Bus lanes on arterial streets typically save 1 to 2 minutes per mile. The time savings are greatest where the bus routes previously experienced major congestion. Pittsburgh, for example, has reported travel time savings of up to 5 minutes per mile during peak hours. Time savings can result in economic benefits, according to the amount of time saved. Figure 9-1 shows the following: • A small amount of time savings merely results in pas- senger benefits; • As the time saved increases, it reduces fleet require- ments and direct operating costs; • A time savings of more than 5 minutes on a typical urban work trip can affect modal choice, and, under certain cir- cumstances, it can foster land development. MBTA estimates that the Silver Line project will result in a 3- to 5-minute travel time saving from Washington Street to downtown. In Eugene, Oregon, the Lane Transit District estimates that the BRT system will decrease travel time by 20% as compared with regular bus service in the year imple- mentation of BRT begins. 9-2.1.3. Operating and Environmental Benefits The travel time savings associated with buses operating on their own rights-of-way are also associated with beneficial effects on operating costs, safety, and environmental bene- fits. Table 9-3 shows the following; • Services using Ottawa’s Transitway system require 150 fewer buses than if the Transitway system did not exist, resulting in savings of roughly $58 million in vehicle costs and $28 million in annual operating and mainte- nance costs. • Seattle’s bus tunnel has reduced surface street bus vol- umes by 20%. Buses using the tunnel also had 40% fewer accidents than in mixed traffic operations. • Bogotá’s TransMilenio Busway reduced fatalities among transit users by 93%. In addition, a 40% drop in pollutants was recorded during the first 5 months of operation. • Curitiba uses 30% less fuel per capita for transportation than other major Brazilian cities. This has been in part due to the huge success of the BRT system. TABLE 9-1 Reported ridership gains Application Ridership Gain Remarks Los Angeles + 30% > 2 years, strike Miami + 80% > 4 years Brisbane + 60% > 18 months Vancouver + 20% > 1 year, strike Boston + 50% > 5 months after opening SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003.

9-3 in other areas in the corridor, an increase largely attributed to the busway construction. 9-2.2. BRT Costs BRT costs are made up of capital costs (including all costs for facility development and construction) and operations costs, which include maintenance costs. 9-2.2.1. Capital Costs BRT facility development costs reflect the location, type, and complexity of construction. Reported median costs were $272 million per mile for bus tunnels (2 systems), $7.5 million per mile for independent, at-grade busways (12 systems), $6.6 million per mile for arterial median busways (5 systems), $4.7 million per mile for guided bus operations (2 systems), and $1 million per mile for mixed traffic and/or curb bus lanes (3 systems). The reported capital costs for several BRT pro- jects are shown in the summary tables located in Appendix F. BRT can achieve significant performance improvements without large capital expenditures. Although desirable, it is not necessary to construct a fully dedicated transitway over the entire distance of a busy corridor to guarantee a high level of speed, safety, and reliability for services covering its entire extent. For example, although only the first approximately 8 miles from downtown Pittsburgh westward are covered by the West Busway (or Airport Busway), West Busway BRT users in Pittsburgh enjoy an almost congestion-free ride at all times of day on the over 20-mile distance between the Pittsburgh airport and downtown Pittsburgh. BRT running ways are also less expensive to construct from scratch (per unit length) than rail-based modes (all things TABLE 9-2 Examples of travel time savings Type of Running Way Reported Increase Busways, Freeway Lanes 32–47% Bus Tunnel—Seattle 33% Arterial Street Busways / Bus Lanes 29–32% System Reported Increase Bogotá 32% Porto Alegre 29% Los Angeles Metro Rapid Bus 23–28% SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003. D eg re es o f S ec on da ry Im pa ct Minutes 0 5 10 CBD Bus Lane - 1/2 Mile Arterial Bus Lane - 4 Miles Busway Affects Modal Choice May Impact Development Affects Operating Costs and Fleet Requirements Passenger Time Savings Only Figure 9-1. Examples of BRT impacts. 9-2.1.4. Land Development Benefits Reported land development benefits with full-featured BRT are similar to those experienced along rail transit lines. These benefits vary by location and also depend on the pres- ence of supportive land use policies and favorable real estate market conditions. Table 9-4 illustrates several reported land development benefits of BRT systems. Studies have indicated that construction of the Ottawa Transitway led to over $675 million (U.S. dollars) in new construction around transit stations from the time of its incep- tion to the mid-1990s. A study completed by the Port Author- ity of Allegheny County reported that $302 million in new and improved development occurred at East Busway stations during a similar period. Property values within walking dis- tance of Brisbane’s South East Busway grew 20% faster than

being equal) because they are simpler. Their construction can be competitively procured from a much larger number of local firms than other forms of rapid transit. BRT also does not require elaborate, purpose-built signal or power supply sys- tems, and implementation of BRT rarely means construction of totally new, expensive operating and maintenance yards and shops. Sophisticated, electronically guided BRT vehicles can be maintained and stored off-line where it is convenient (e.g., at an existing bus operating and maintenance facility). BRT vehicles can be conventional, low-floor, low-noise and low-air-emissions buses. With seating and door configu- rations optimally suited to the nature of a given market, BRT vehicles can be painted in special livery with special graphics to provide a system identity consistent with the rest of the given line’s stations, running ways, and so forth. At the other end of the spectrum, manufacturers around the world are pro- ducing special rubber-tired, steered or guided, specialized rapid-transit vehicles. Irrespective of whether they are conventional buses or purpose-built vehicles, BRT vehicles are typically less expen- sive than other rapid-transit vehicles, even when the price is adjusted for capacity and service life. A variety of factors make BRT vehicles less expensive, including economies of scale, competition, and lower structural strength requirements. 9-4 9-2.2.2. Operating Costs Operating costs for BRT service are influenced by wage rates and work rules, fuel costs, operating speeds, and rider- ship. Operating costs for Pittsburgh’s East and South Busways (1989) averaged $0.52 per passenger trip. 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). These comparisons sug- gest that BRT can cost less per passenger trip than LRT under the demand and operating conditions found in most U.S. cities. Figure 9-2 illustrates operating costs per vehicle rev- enue hour for several BRT systems. Farebox cost recovery ratios depend on system speed, rid- ership density, fare structure, and operations wages. Ottawa has experienced a 60% farebox recovery systemwide, but actually turns a small operating profit on the two routes that operate on its Transitway system. Vancouver’s #99 B-line has achieved a 96% farebox recovery as compared with 32% systemwide. Some South American cities with high ridership densities (e.g., Bogotá and Curitiba) also fully cover BRT operating costs from fares. For BRT operations in the United States and Canada, a target recovery ratio of at least 40 to 50% should be realized on BRT routes. TABLE 9-3 Reported operating benefits System Benefit Ottawa Transitway 150 fewer buses, with $58 million ($C) savings in vehicle costs and $28 million ($C) in operating costs. Seattle Bus Tunnel 20% reductions in surface street bus volumes. 40% fewer accidents on tunnel bus routes. Bogotá TransMilenio Median Busway 93% fewer fatalities. 40% drop in pollutants. Curitiba Median Busway 30% less fuel consumption per capita. SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003. TABLE 9-4 Reported land development benefits SYSTEM LAND DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within a 1500-ft radius of station. $302 million in land development benefits of which $275 million was new construction. 80% is clustered at station. Ottawa Transitway System $1 billion ($C) in new construction at Transitway Stations. Adelaide Guided Busway Tea Tree Gully area is becoming an urban village. Brisbane 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: Levinson et al., 2003.

At the demand volumes found in most U.S. corridors, BRT can be the least expensive rapid-transit mode to operate and maintain. The major operating and cost difference between any form of rapid transit and local bus service is operating speed, not the size of the basic service unit. For example, all things being equal, local buses going 12 miles per hour in mixed traffic, stopping at every street corner, are half as pro- ductive as BRT vehicles or LRT trains making limited stops on a dedicated transit guideway where they might average 24 miles per hour. The basic unit of capacity for BRT, an individual vehicle 40 to 82 feet long, is smaller than most LRT vehicles. This means that the number of BRT vehicles and drivers required to carry a given number of passengers past a point can be higher than with rail rapid transit, all things being equal. How- ever, BRT line-haul services can be integrated with collection/ distribution, meaning that the additional overhead costs of having separate rapid-transit, feeder, and circulator services can be eliminated. Also, the marginal costs of maintenance of way, signals, and power for BRT are either nonexistent or low. BRT vehicle maintenance costs are also relatively low (adjusted for capacity), and implementation of BRT usually does not mean staffing a wholly new maintenance and oper- ations base. BRT vehicle operations and maintenance can also be competitively procured from any number of local transit providers. 9-3. FUNDING AND FINANCING OPTIONS Like other forms of rapid transit, funding and financing of BRT systems can be accomplished through a combination of funding and financing mechanisms. Funding can be obtained from sources at the local, state, and federal level. In addi- tion, innovative private-sector finance strategies and project delivery mechanisms may enable project sponsors to lever- age additional funding from nongovernmental sources. 9-5 9-3.1. Funding Sources BRT projects may be funded through several categories of federal, state, and local funding. Several issues associated with government funding include the eligibility of BRT projects, competition with other transit-related projects or uses, and long-term commitment of funds for capital and operating expenditures related to BRT projects. 9-3.1.1. Federal Funding Sources Although there is no federal program specifically designed to fund BRT projects, federal funding for BRT projects is available from several FTA programs. These include the New Starts program, the Urbanized Area Formula Grants program, the Bus Capital program, and the Fixed Guideway Modernization program. In addition, funding for parts of BRT projects may be obtained from flexible multimodal capital assistance programs delivered as part of the federal highway program. Section 5309 New Starts Program. FTA provides grants to state and local governments for the development of new and improved transit facilities and services, including BRT and fixed-guideway rail projects. FTA’s Section 5309 New Starts program provides funds for fixed-guideway projects, including both BRT and rail. The New Starts program is dis- cretionary, meaning that funding decisions are made on a project-by-project basis using information generated during the alternatives analysis/major investment study process. The planning and project development process for New Starts projects is the forum for the development and refine- ment of the project justification and local financial commit- ment. FTA evaluates and rates candidate projects at specific milestones throughout each project’s planning and develop- ment. New Starts projects must be justified based on project $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ – Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose LRT BRT (SOURCE: Mass Transit—Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, 2001) Figure 9-2. Operating costs per vehicle revenue hour.

justification criteria, shown in Table 9-5. Project justification criteria are initially developed as part of the alternatives analy- sis and are refined throughout the preliminary engineering and final design phases of project development. New Starts project sponsors must also demonstrate ade- quate local support for the project, as measured by the pro- posed share of total project costs from sources other than from the New Starts program, the strength of the proposed project’s capital financing plan, and the ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the entire system as planned once the guideway project is built. New Starts funding is limited under current law to projects that operate within a separate right-of-way. Although many BRT projects use separate rights-of-way, they may also use HOV lanes as well as city streets. Therefore, many BRT projects, or large elements of BRT projects, may not be eligi- ble for New Starts funds. Rigid application of this requirement detracts from the flexibility afforded by BRT improvements that can be achieved outside of a separate right-of-way. This requirement also has the potential to skew alternatives analy- ses toward projects that are eligible for New Starts funds, as opposed to projects that meet specific performance goals. The 2003 FTA budget proposal to Congress represents a change in FTA’s philosophy toward funding eligibility for New Starts funds. It includes provisions for New Starts funds to be used for all elements of BRT projects (including ITS improvements, vehicles and equipment, and stations) even if they are not on a dedicated running way. The Section 5309 New Starts program is highly competi- tive. New Starts funds are extremely limited, and demand for these funds is significantly greater than the funds available. BRT projects face stiff competition from a huge “pipeline” of light-rail, heavy-rail and commuter-rail projects. Funding for additional projects is significantly constrained. Through 2001, only two BRT projects received Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century funding commitments for construc- 9-6 tion from the current New Starts program, totaling about $831 million (the South Miami-Dade Busway Extension and the South Boston Piers Transitway). Several BRT systems that have been implemented or are under development have received federal funding for plan- ning, engineering, or development through the New Starts program in the past, including the following: • Pittsburgh—West Busway, • Boston—Silver Line and South Boston Piers Transitway, • Houston—Regional Bus Plan, • Connecticut—New Britain–Hartford Busway, • Virginia—Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, • Cleveland—Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, and • Miami—South Miami-Dade Busway Extension Funding for New Starts projects in Fiscal Year 2001 is shown in Table 9-6. Few projects have been considered for New Starts funding through Fiscal Year 2002, for several rea- sons. First, few BRT projects are ready for funding consid- eration. This is mainly due to the newness of the BRT con- cept and decisions by local governments that are responsible for conducting analyses of various alternatives and proposing projects for funding. Second, FTA’s ability to make new fund- ing commitments for projects of any type is extremely limited because of limited resources. Finally, many BRT projects are not eligible for funding because projects must operate on a dedicated running way for exclusive use of transit and HOV. Section 5307—Urbanized Area Formula Grant Pro- gram. Section 5307 funds are the main category of federal funds used for transit improvements at the state and metro- politan levels. BRT projects are eligible for Section 5307 funds, although they must compete with other transit-related uses at the local level. State agencies, local governments, and/or local transit agencies may apply for, receive, and TABLE 9-5 New Starts project justification criteria Criterion Measure(s) Mobility Improvements  Hours of Transportation System User Benefits  Low-Income Households Served  Employment Near Stations Environmental Benefits  Change in Regional Pollutant Emissions  Change in Regional Energy Consumption  EPA Air Quality Designation Operating Efficiencies  Operating Cost per Passenger Mile Cost-Effectiveness  Incremental Cost per Hour of Transportation System User Benefit Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns  Existing Land Use  Transit Supportive Plans and Policies  Performance and Impacts of Policies  Other Land Use Considerations Other Factors  Project Benefits Not Reflected by Other New Starts Criteria SOURCE: "Advancing Major Transit Investments Through Planning Project Development," 2003.

dispense funds for projects in designated transportation management areas. Activities that are eligible for Section 5307 funding include the following: • Planning, engineering design, and evaluation of tran- sit projects and other technical transportation-related studies. • Capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment, and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities. • Capital investments in new and existing fixed-guideway systems including rolling stock; overhaul and rebuild- ing of vehicles, track, and signals; communications; and computer hardware and software. All preventive main- tenance and some ADA complementary paratransit ser- vice are considered capital costs. Areas with populations over 200,000 may use these funds for capital projects. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003, MBTA planned to fund the Silver Line project with $150 million in Section 5307 funds, about $330 million in New Starts funds, and $120 million in Massachusetts state bonds. Bus Capital Program. The discretionary Bus Capital program refers to grants made to public bodies and agencies to assist in financing bus and bus-related capital projects that will benefit the country’s transit systems. This program is characterized by a relatively large number of small grants. The funds may be used for the following: • Acquisition of buses for fleet and service expansion, • Bus maintenance and administrative facilities, • Transfer facilities, • Bus malls, • Transportation centers, • Intermodal terminals, • Park-and-ride stations, 9-7 • Acquisition of replacement vehicles, • Bus rebuilds or bus preventive maintenance, • Passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, • Accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, and • Costs incurred in arranging innovative financing for eligible projects. BRT is an eligible use for these funds, although Bus Capital program grants tend to be relatively small. Although these funds can be used in combination with other federal funds, such as New Start funds, this program is unlikely to be a sig- nificant contributor to BRT projects. Flexible Funds for Highway and Transit. Flexible funds are categories of funds that may be used for either transit or highway purposes. This provision was first included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1999 and was continued with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The idea of flexible funds is that a local area can choose to use certain federal surface transportation funds based on local planning priorities, rather than on a restric- tive definition of program eligibility. Flexible funds include FHWA Surface Transportation Program funds and Conges- tion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds and FTA Urban Formula funds. Among other things, Surface Transportation Program funds are provided to states to be used for capital costs of transit projects. Congestion Mitiga- tion and Air Quality Improvement Program funds are gener- ally available to states for transportation projects designed to help them meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Flexible funds have provided a substantial new source of funds for transit projects. When FHWA funds are transferred to FTA, they can be used for a variety of transit improve- ments such as the following: • New fixed-guideway projects, • Bus purchases, TABLE 9-6 Funding for New Starts projects, 2001 Category of projects Number of New Starts projects Actual or proposed funding (millions) Number of BRT projects Actual or proposed funding (millions) Projects with full funding grant agreements 26 $8,296 2 $831 Projects pending full funding grant agreement 2 157 0 0 Projects in final design 9 1,456 1 23 Projects in preliminary engineering 31 8,350 6 490 Other projects authorized 137 N/A 5 N/A Total 205 $18,259 14 $1,344 SOURCE: Mass Transit—Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, 2001.

• Construction and rehabilitation of rail stations, • Maintenance facility construction and renovations, • Alternatively fueled bus purchases, • Bus transfer facilities, • Multimodal transportation centers, and • Advanced technology fare collection systems. These funds have been used for a variety of transit capi- tal projects, but for only one BRT project. The initial South Miami-Dade Busway extension project was built entirely with flexible funds. In addition, the 11-mile busway exten- sion is being built with $39 million of flexible funds through the Florida Department of Transportation and New Starts funds. 9-3.1.2. State and Local Funding Sources Because federal funding has not kept pace with inflation or supported the costs associated with federal mandates, tran- sit agencies have increasingly looked to other sources of fund- ing. Many states rely on at least two sources of revenue to fund transit, discretionary transfers from general funds or highway funds and dedicated sources such as lotteries, spe- cial taxes, or sales taxes. Transit systems in states with ded- icated funding sources receive more consistent, predictable, and reliable state contributions. A wide range of funding programs is also used at the local level to support the operations of public transit services. These include local sales taxes, local property taxes, general rev- enues, and other sources. Local funding sources may be used to fund capital improvements or long-term operating support. These funds may come from county sources, city or munici- pal budgets, or local transit or transportation authorities. The legality and ease of implementing each type of local funding source will vary by state. Several evaluation crite- ria can be used to evaluate these supplemental local revenue sources. They address the financial, political, legal, burden, administration, and economic effects of the revenue sources listed above. The evaluation criteria are the following: • Revenue Generation—Candidate funding sources are evaluated on financial criteria based primarily on revenue generation. The primary objective of a financial plan is to meet project costs. Associated financial considerations include stability/reliability of the funding source and growth potential. • Acceptance—Following evaluation by revenue genera- tion criteria, candidate funding sources are screened based on political/public acceptance. This is a subjec- tive evaluation and requires significant input from indi- viduals involved with the project. It frequently acts to eliminate poor alternatives and thus limit the number of funding alternatives for further consideration. • Legality—Most funding candidates will require some type of legal action. This may entail enabling legisla- 9-8 tion at the state level or action by a city council. Realiz- ing these requirements makes it essential that the fund- ing sources carried forward in the financial plan provide sufficient revenue capacity. • Burden—Candidate funding sources are evaluated based on the incidence of the levies used to generate revenues for project funding. This evaluation focuses on levies that target project users/beneficiaries. The evaluation also assesses the potential of passing through burden to nonresidents and assesses equity. • Economic Effects—Evaluation of economic effects examines the impacts of funding sources and the form of the levy on the regional economy, especially those industry segments of the economy that are directly affected by a levy. The objective is to structure a fund- ing package that limits negative economic effects by limiting any displacement of economic activity, which could occur when a levy alters pricing and consequently negatively affects demand and industry revenue. 9-3.1.3. Public-Private Funding Sources A number of strategies have been developed and imple- mented for generating private funding for transit improve- ments. These strategies may include the use of transit assets to generate additional revenues or partnerships with private parties such as equipment manufacturers, investors, devel- opers, retailers, and the users or groups within the commu- nity that benefit directly from the transit system. These strate- gies include the creation of special districts to capture the value of transit improvements to adjacent properties, lever- aging private investment in capital equipment and transit vehicles, and joint development of land adjacent to transit stations in order to finance system improvements. Because BRT can provide levels of service comparable to that of rail and has the demonstrated potential to stimulate higher-density transit-oriented development, public-private funding strategies can potentially be used for BRT projects. These strategies will have the most potential in areas that are experiencing high levels of growth and/or infill development and that are currently underserved by transit. Tools for deter- mining the potential for such public-private financing tools include interviews with major landowners and developers to determine the potential value added to commercial develop- ment as a result of the BRT investment; analysis of available build-out maximum densities allowed under existing land use and zoning regulations; and examination of the redevel- opment potential for properties within station areas based on current use, age and functionality of the structure, and site constraints. Tax Increment Financing Districts. A tax increment financing (TIF) district is set up to encourage development and improvement of a specific area. The TIF district is estab-

lished for a set number of years and can involve residential, commercial, or industrial uses. At the beginning of the dis- trict’s existence, the value of the property is assessed, and property taxes are collected on that amount. As the district develops, the value of the property increases, thereby increas- ing the taxes. This rise in property tax revenue is dedicated to necessary improvements to or around the district. Once these modifications are made to the area, the assessed property value will escalate again and generate more funds for further improvement of the TIF district. This cycle will continue for the lifetime of the district. Benefit Assessment Districts. A benefit assessment dis- trict is composed of a number of properties defined by set boundaries. Inside the district’s borders, each property is taxed or pays a fixed fee to generate money for improve- ments in the district. This can be a one-time fee or a recur- ring charge. The revenue produced by the district can be used to directly pay for the enhancements or to repay the bonds that were used to finance the project. The amounts of the assess- ments that are levied are directly related to the benefits that each property receives from the improvement, the distance of the property is from the improvement, and the cost of the improvement. The assessment fees will typically range from $.05 to $.45 per square foot. Economic assessments employ the user fee principle: those who benefit pay, and those who benefit the most pay the most. Examples of special districts used for transit projects else- where include the following: • Los Angeles, California—Southern California Rapid Transit District. Two benefit assessment districts were established on July 11, 1985, around the CBD station area and the Wilshire Boulevard/Alvarado station area. The district boundaries are a 1⁄2-mile radius out from the CBD and a 1⁄3-mile radius out from the Wilshire Boule- vard district. These boundaries were established based on walking distance from the station. The purpose of the districts is to help fund the construction, maintenance, and operation needs of Metro Rail transit. All properties within the district borders pay the same assessment rate, $.30 per square foot. The rates are to be reviewed at least every 2 years with the ceiling rate set at $.42 per square foot. In 1998, the CBD station business improvement district generated $11.5 million, whereas the Wilshire Boulevard Station district generated $500,000. • Denver, Colorado. Downtown Denver, Inc., manages the 16th Street Mall, a downtown, rubber-tired transit mall bordered by a mix of retail, high-rise office, and residential property opened in October of 1982. In order to fund the necessary maintenance costs of the mall, a benefit assessment district was formed that was made up of the properties immediately adjacent to the mall. The district encompasses 120 city blocks and is composed of 677 commercial property parcels, 2.6 million square feet 9-9 of retail space, 23 million square feet of office space, 14 hotels, 4,000 residential units, and 34,000 parking spaces. The district does not generate revenue to be used for construction purposes. Assessment rates for all prop- erties in the district depend on the amount of land area occupied as well as distance from the mall. The rates vary from $.05 to $.45. In 1984, Downtown Denver, Inc. col- lected $1.67 million; 1998 revenue reached $2.2 million. Joint Development. Joint development strategies are typically used to fund a specific transit facility (such as a BRT station at a major business center) but generally not used for overall system finance. Joint development occurs between a transit system and the immediate surrounding community, generally through ground and/or air rights leases of transit property for other development uses. The purpose is to secure a revenue stream for the transit system as well as promote appropriate growth in the station’s vicinity. Joint development has been used successfully in Brisbane along the South East Busway, although it has not been used widely for BRT systems in the United States. Some of the larger rail transit systems in the United States have used joint development successfully. These include rail systems in Wash- ington, District of Columbia; Atlanta, Georgia; and Santa Clara Valley, California. The joint development arrangements of these rail systems are the following: • The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has developed formal procedures for identifying and implementing joint development. In 1998, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority participation in 26 projects generated $5.5 million. The revenue has not increased in proportion with the number of projects because individual projects range in size and level of participation. • In Atlanta, in 1985, IBM built a five-story tower office building adjacent to a Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tran- sit Authority station. By 1991, the IBM tower had gen- erated $1.5 million in lease revenue to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. • In California, the Valley Transit Authority of Santa Clara has utilized joint development to create a new revenue stream for the transit authority while promoting eco- nomic development in the community. The Valley Tran- sit Authority of Santa Clara, which operates light rail and bus services in the Silicon Valley region, has part- nered in a major mixed-use development at the Ohlone- Chynoweth light rail station. Joint development pro- visions under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century permitted the agency to use FTA funds to purchase a parking lot adjacent to the station. The Valley Transit Authority of Santa Clara now receives $300,000 in annual revenue under a 75-year lease arrangement with an adjacent residential and retail development and uses those funds to meet additional transit-related needs.

9-3.2. Financing Options 9-3.2.1. Leveraging Funding Through Debt Issuance Financing BRT projects may be accomplished through financing mechanisms similar to those of other transit projects. Most major transit improvements, including BRT capital improvements, are financed through combinations of state and federal grants and/or long-term borrowing options that permit agencies to use public funds for debt financing. Transit agencies often issue debt in order to generate rev- enue for capital purposes. Traditionally, this scenario pertains to the issuance of long-term debt that provides investors with both interest and principal payments. The benefit of tradi- tional debt financing is the immediate receipt of revenue from the issuance. One major problem of transit borrowing is how to raise funds for debt service. Fareboxes fall far short of provid- ing enough revenues even for operating expenses, and, to be saleable, transit bond issues must be backed by non-fare rev- enue sources that lenders will accept as adequate and depend- able. Examples of strategies for raising debt service include the following: • Pledging Revenues of an Earmarked Tax or Taxes. Property and sales taxes are commonly used for this purpose. • Pledging Surplus Revenue of Other Sources. This device has been used by bridge and tunnel authorities, which have issued their own bonds, backed by motor vehicle tolls, to build transit links. • Bonds Issued by State and Municipal Governments. Debt service for these bonds is usually paid from gen- eral funds. • Bonds Issued by Transit Agencies. Debt service may be shared among participating jurisdictions according to a formula. MBTA in Boston has issued this approach extensively. The functions of financing transit capital and operating a transit agency need not necessarily be combined in the same agency. Borrowers may be municipal or county governments, state governments, or special districts or authorities with sur- plus revenues that can be pledged for debt service. This usu- ally requires authorization of the state legislature and, in many cases, permission of holders of outstanding bonds. 9-3.2.2. Federal Credit Programs— Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) The TIFIA program has been established by the U.S. DOT to provide three forms of credit assistance to surface trans- 9-10 portation programs of national or regional significance. These forms of assistance include secured (direct) loans, loan guar- antees, and standby lines of credit. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century made a total of $10.6 billion in lend- ing authority available for surface transportation projects. As of 2002, approximately $3.6 billion has been committed to projects and leveraged to support over $15 billion in surface transportation projects. To be eligible for the TIFIA program, projects also must generally cost at least $100 million, or their cost must be equal to at least 50% of the amount of federal highway assistance funds apportioned for the most recent fiscal year to the state in which the project is located. The projects also must be supported at least partially by user charges or other dedicated revenues. Eligible transit projects include design and construction of stations, track, and other transit- related infrastructure; purchase of transit vehicles; pur- chase of intercity bus vehicles and facilities; construction of publicly owned intermodal facilities that are near or adjacent to the National Highway System; provision of ground access to airports or seaports; and installation of ITS systems. To date, TIFIA has not been used for BRT projects. How- ever, examples of transit projects that have used TIFIA to secure additional funding include the following: • Tren Urbano, San Juan, Puerto Rico. TIFIA funding will enable Tren Urbano, a transit system under construc- tion, to complete a 17-kilometer rapid rail system. The $1.7-billion project will be assisted with a $300-million TIFIA loan to the Puerto Rico Highway and Transporta- tion Authority. • Farley-Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project, New York City. This $750-million project will convert the Farley post office building adjacent to the existing Pennsylvania Station into an intermodal facility and commercial center serving Amtrak, commuter rail, and subway passengers. The project will receive a TIFIA loan of $140 million and a TIFIA line of credit of $20 million. • Metro Capital Program, Washington, District of Colum- bia. This project will help accelerate a 20-year, $2.3-bil- lion capital improvement program for the transit system in the nation’s capital. The project will rehabilitate and replace vehicles, facilities, and equipment on the 103-mile Metrorail system. It will receive a $600-million TIFIA loan guarantee. 9-3.3. Project Delivery Options Transit agencies have used a variety of mechanisms for implementing transit capital projects that can be applied to BRT planning and implementation.

9-3.3.1. Traditional Procurement Traditional design-bid-build procurement involves issuing separate requests for proposals and selecting independent contractors for each stage of the project. In such a procure- ment, a transit agency would likely procure a designer and a construction company in two separate steps. The entire design would have to be completed before the builder was selected and construction could begin. This timing leads to a lack of communication between the designer and the builder, which may result in frequent change orders and cost increases dur- ing construction. 9-3.3.2. Design-Build Procurement In design-build procurement, the designer and builder would propose as a team, and there is only one initial procurement process. After the team is selected, the engineers (or archi- tects) begin the design process. With the construction com- pany involved in the design process, inputs, comments, and changes to the design occur early in the design phase. This process reduces the need for change orders and can create additional efficiencies in the design and construction process. Once design is completed for early components of a project, construction can begin while design on the other com- ponents proceeds. Under this arrangement, critical aspects of the project, including purchasing and scheduling, are directed by a single source. As a result, construction delays and start- up difficulties are minimized, resulting in lower project costs and shorter completion times. 9-3.3.3. Turnkey Arrangements Public agencies can contract with private companies to add finance, operations, and maintenance components to a contract. A transit agency would contract with a private developer to finance and oversee the design, construction, and operation of transit projects and facilities. After operating the project for a certain portion of time (thereby allowing the private part- ner to recoup its investment), the private company will trans- fer the asset back to the public sector. Variations of this approach used for transportation projects include build-operate-transfer and design-build- operate-maintain. These projects are also referred to as “turnkey” projects because after building, operating, or maintaining the system, the private partner in effect “turns the keys” back over to the public. 9-3.3.4. Applicability of Public-Private Partnerships to BRT Public-private project delivery approaches are most appro- priate for projects with steady revenue potential, either 9-11 through fares or joint development opportunities. Most transit projects have limited farebox revenue potential, and the revenue stream will be subject to fluctuations in ridership. In addition, revenues from joint development or concessions may take place over a longer period of time and therefore are not sufficient for establishing early cash flow. As a result, in order for a public-private venture for a tran- sit project to succeed, some financial assistance from the public sector is typically required to allocate risk among the public- and private-sector partners for the project’s financial performance. These payments may take the form of loan guar- antees, annual payments for a minimum level of ridership (sometimes called “shadow fares”), or shared funding for cap- ital and operating costs. One critical aspect of these projects is careful scoping and estimation of the project’s full cost. A review of areas likely to impact cost or schedule is required. The elements of risk— including construction costs, schedule, and ridership fore- casts—must be accurately assessed by both the public and private parties. Responsibility for areas outside the control of the developer—such as redefined or changed conditions, environmental permits, or right-of-way acquisition—should remain with the public agency. The delivery method used to develop and implement a project should be based on consideration of the following issues: • Available financial resources, • Complexity of the BRT project, • Estimated cost, • Amount of design control that the project sponsor would like to retain, • Local contracting experience with public-private part- nerships, and • Existing relationships between potential partners. These approaches have not been used extensively for tran- sit projects in the United States, and to date they have not been used for implementing BRT projects in the United States. There is, however, potential for these strategies to be employed for BRT and rail-based rapid transit. One potential scenario for private development is that a BRT system would be devel- oped as an interim strategy to establish ridership and revenue streams in a corridor with significant ridership potential. The BRT project could be converted later to a rail-based system if warranted by ridership demand and financial performance. An example is the York regional government outside of Toronto, Canada, which is employing a public-private part- nership approach to develop the York Rapid Transit Project, a multimodal rapid-transit project that will include the devel- opment of BRT in several major corridors. The private part- ner is a consortium of engineering and construction companies, equipment manufacturers, a transit operator, and a financial institution.

SERVICES STATIONS VEHICLES RUNNING WAY SYSTEMS PRIMARILY LOCAL SIMPLE STOPS NO SPECIAL TREATMENT MIXED TRAFFIC RADIOS, ON-BOARD FARE COLLECTION MIXED LIMITED-STOP, LOCAL SUPER STOPS SPECIAL SIGNAGE DEDICATED ARTERIAL CURB LANES, COMPETING TURNS ALLOWED AVL FOR SCHEDULE ADHERENCE ALL-STOP (LOCAL), MIXED LOCAL/ EXPRESS ON-LINE AND OFF-LINE STATIONS, SIGNIFCANT PARKING FOR TRANSIT PATRONS DEDICATED VEHICLES, SPECIAL LIVERY DEDICATED FREEWAY MEDIAN LANES, MERGE/WEAVE ACCESS/EGRESS ITS PASSENGER INFORMATION, FARE COLLECTION POINT-TO- POINT EXPRESS TRANSFER/ TRANSIT CENTERS DEDICATED VEHICLES, UNIQUELY SPECIFIED, (E.G., DOUBLE- ARTICULATED BUSES, HYBRID PROPULSION) FULLY DEDICATED LANES, EXCLUSIVE FREEWAY ACCESS/EGRESS ITS VEHICLE PRIORITY INTERMODAL TRANSFER/ TRANSIT CENTER PARTIAL GRADE SEPARATION MECHANICAL OR ELECTRONIC GUIDANCE FULL GRADE SEPARATION, CURBED/ STRIPED/ CABLED FOR GUIDANCE ITS VEHICLE LATERAL GUIDANCE FULLY ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM OVERHEAD POWER CONTACT SYSTEM ITS AUTOMATION, ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM SOURCE: Zimmerman, 2001. 9-4. INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF BRT PROJECTS BRT has tremendous potential for incremental (or staged) development and can be used to get rapid-transit operating as quickly as possible with the least amount of funds, while pre- serving options for later expansion and upgrading. In con- structing BRT, it is not necessary to include all the final ele- ments before beginning operations; it is possible to phase in improvements over time. Improvements such as signal pri- oritization and low-floor buses, which improve capacity and bus speed, can be added incrementally and still have signifi- cant effects. In many cases, it may be useful to identify a segment for immediate, early implementation. This early action is essen- tial to retain sustained community support and continuity of public agency staff. This can demonstrate BRT’s potential benefits as soon as possible to riders, decision makers, and the public, at relatively little cost, while still enabling system expansion and possible future upgrading (e.g., to more tech- nologically advanced vehicles). The time frame for which a BRT project is implemented will be based on demand, avail- ability of right-of-way, sources of capital and operating funds, and community support. 9-12 As an example, the initial segment of a BRT system could include curb bus lanes that may be upgraded to busways in the future. BRT service along a busway does not preclude ultimate conversions to rail transit when and if such a con- version is warranted by ridership or other considerations. A BRT line can serve as a means of establishing a transit mar- ket for a possible future rail line. In developing a BRT system incrementally, it may be desirable to maximize the initial system by adopting an “outside-in” development strategy. This approach was used in Ottawa to provide broader BRT coverage. It has proven more cost-effective in attracting riders and influencing travel choices than the traditional concentration on the shorter, most costly inner city segments. Each stage of BRT system development should contain a well-packaged series of BRT elements and should produce tangible benefits. Early action is essential to maintain community support. 9-4.1. Packaging BRT Elements Examples of packaging BRT elements are shown in Table 9-7. This table illustrates how BRT features could be pack- aged in a system for a BRT application of relatively modest TABLE 9-7 Packaging BRT elements—modest-demand and modest-cost BRT system

cost, appropriate in a low- to medium-demand operating envi- ronment. Such a system would likely include mixed types of bus service; super stops; standard vehicles in special livery (paint scheme); a mix of dedicated arterial, highway, and mixed traffic running ways; and standard systems such as radios and on-board fare collection. Where a particular application would be in the continuum shown in Table 9-7 is dependent on the following operating environment characteristics: • The nature of current and future land use and demographic characteristics (population, employment, and densities); • Current and expected future transit markets, such as origin-to-destination patterns, expected rapid-transit ridership, and total and maximum load point volumes; • Right-of-way (stations and running way) availability and characteristics (e.g., width, length, number and types of intersections, traffic volumes, and ownership); and • Availability of capital, operating, and maintenance funds. Table 9-8 illustrates a similar packaging of BRT elements, but for a high-demand, high-cost BRT application. For the BRT application described in the table to be justified, there would need to be a relatively large market and an operating 9-13 environment that allowed the highlighted package to be imple- mented cost-effectively for the size of that market. At this level of development, a BRT system would include mixed local and express services and point-to-point expresses; developed on- line and off-line stations with parking (possibly with transfer centers); uniquely developed rail-like vehicles; a fully dedi- cated right-of-way; and ITS systems for off-board fare col- lection, passenger information, and transit vehicle priority. Table 9-9 shows how several BRT projects have packaged BRT elements. It is essential that BRT systems include all the elements of any high-quality, high-performance, rapid-transit system. These elements should be adapted to BRT’s unique charac- teristics, especially its service and implementation flexibil- ity. There is a need to focus on service, station and vehicle features and amenities, and integrated system and “image” benefits, rather than merely costs. 9-4.2. Staged Development As described above, BRT offers the flexibility to be devel- oped incrementally in several stages. Staged development of a BRT system is highly dependent on demand, market TABLE 9-8 Packaging BRT elements—high-demand and high-cost BRT system SERVICES STATIONS VEHICLES RUNNING WAY SYSTEMS PRIMARILY LOCAL SIMPLE STOPS NO SPECIAL TREATMENT MIXED TRAFFIC RADIOS, ON-BOARD FARE COLLECTION MIXED LIMITED-STOP, LOCAL SUPER STOPS SPECIAL SIGNAGE DEDICATED ARTERIAL CURB LANES, COMPETING TURNS ALLOWED AVL FOR SCHEDULE ADHERENCE ALL-STOP (LOCAL), MIXED LOCAL/ EXPRESS ON-LINE AND OFF-LINE STATIONS, SIGNIFCANT PARKING FOR TRANSIT PATRONS DEDICATED VEHICLES, SPECIAL LIVERY DEDICATED FREEWAY MEDIAN LANES, MERGE/WEAVE ACCESS/EGRESS ITS PASSENGER FARE COLLECTION POINT-TO- POINT EXPRESS TRANSFER/ TRANSIT CENTERS DEDICATED VEHICLES, UNIQUELY SPECIFIED, (E.G., DOUBLE- ARTICULATED BUSES, HYBRID PROPULSION) FULLY DEDICATED LANES, EXCLUSIVE FREEWAY ACCESS/EGRESS ITS VEHICLE PRIORITY INTERMODAL TRANSFER/ TRANSIT CENTER PARTIAL GRADE SEPARATION MECHANICAL OR ELECTRONIC GUIDANCE FULL GRADE SEPARATION, CURBED/ STRIPED/ CABLED FOR GUIDANCE ITS VEHICLE LATERAL GUIDANCE FULLY ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM OVERHEAD POWER CONTACT SYSTEM ITS AUTOMATION ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM SOURCE: Zimmerman, 2001. INFORMATION,

characteristics, and the availability of capital and operating funds. Figure 9-3 illustrates how a BRT system can be devel- oped by (1) extending or upgrading the system on the same corridor and (2) providing BRT in other corridors. Once an initial BRT segment is operational, it can be upgraded and/or extended through the following steps: • Adding elements or features; • Upgrading to more advanced versions of key elements such as vehicles, stations, or fare collection systems; • Relocating services to an off-road running way; and • Extending the system corridor (e.g., the Ottawa Transit- way or South Miami-Dade Busway Extension). Alternatively, BRT can be developed in another corridor. As additional corridors become available and land uses and population demographics change, the type, frequency, and route of busway services can be adapted. Additional access points to a line haul busway can be added to provide service to additional markets, additional stations can be constructed as adjacent areas develop, or the busway can be extended along the same route or connected to another route. Several BRT systems in the United States have had seg- ments of the system planned, designed, and implemented incrementally. For example, the Port Authority of Allegheny County opened the busways in Pittsburgh in several stages, as shown below. South Busway 4.3 miles 1977 East Busway 6.8 miles 1983 West Busway 5.6 miles 2000 East Busway 2.3 miles Under extension construction 9-14 In Boston, MBTA is developing the Silver Line system in several stages also. Section A 1.1 miles, mainly in tunnel 2004 Section B 2.2 miles, surface route 2002 Section C 0.8 miles, all in tunnel 2008 Any staged additions or alterations to an operational busway should be planned or designed such that the opera- tions of the working busway are not adversely affected. Construction can potentially impact busway ridership. The impacts should be mitigated as much as possible to avoid disrupting services. 9-4.3. Possible Conversion to Rail Transit One of the benefits of BRT is the potential to upgrade the system to a higher-capacity mode (such as light rail). The move to rail is facilitated if provisions for rail are designed into the BRT system from its inception, subject to cost- effectiveness and funding. If developed incrementally, BRT can be used to reserve right-of-way, build transit markets, spur transit-oriented development, and build community support. If BRT is being planned and designed for future conver- sion to rail transit, the running way should be designed ini- tially to meet rail-transit operating requirements. This can reduce long-term right-of-way costs and minimize costly alterations to the surrounding road network. The most likely scenarios for converting BRT to rail are as follows: • Locations where resources permit and demand warrants. For example, a “feeder” busway can be converted to rail in order to extend the rail system. TABLE 9-9 Elements of BRT in the FTA demonstration projects Bo st on C ha rl ot te C le ve la nd W as hi ng to n, D .C ., D ul le sa Eu ge ne H ar tfo rd H on ol ul u M ia m i Sa n Ju an Sa n Jo se Busways • • • • Bus lanes • • • • • Bus on HOV- Expressways • • a • • Signal priority • • • • • Fare collection improvements • • • Limited stops • • • • • • Improved stations & shelters • • • • • • • • Intelligent transportation systems • • • • • • • • • • Cleaner/quieter vehicles • • • NOTE: Individual elements may change as demonstrated projects evolve. aWashington, D.C., includes the use of a limited-access airport road. SOURCE: Mass Transit—Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, 2001.

• Locations where the BRT was built as a “first stage” operation during the construction period for rail transit. • Locations where rail transit is built in another corridor, and the conversion of BRT to rail would provide inte- grated and through rail service. • Locations where peak-hour peak-direction passenger volumes exceed 7,500 to 10,000 passengers per hour on a busway. With the introduction of a higher-capacity mode such as LRT, a number of systems must be fully operational at the commencement of service. These include fare collection, traf- fic signal preemption, electric supply, and communications. Failure to fully introduce these systems to be fully introduced at the time that an LRT service becomes operational will lead to poor performance of the new system. Introducing aspects of a future service as part of the BRT system allows a transit agency the opportunity to “fine tune” components of the system. Various components can then be fully operational at the time that the higher-capacity mode is introduced, and a market for the transit service has been established. BRT also allows time for more in-depth analy- sis as to whether the investment in a rail-based system is appropriate. 9-5. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Many BRT projects, like transit properties, operate across multiple jurisdictional boundaries and involve multiple stake- 9-15 holders. These stakeholders typically bring their own priori- ties and agendas to the planning process. To work effectively, most BRT systems require transit agencies to reach agree- ment on issues related to infrastructure, technologies, opera- tions, and responsibilities. For any rapid transit system to be successful, a great deal must be known about the institutions that will plan, build, and operate the system. There is a wide and varied group of insti- tutions that may be involved in the development of a BRT project, including the following: • Federal, state, local or regional public officials; • State transportation, environment, or planning depart- ments; • Transit agencies and operators; • Local planning, transportation, and economic develop- ment agencies; • Local traffic engineering or public works departments; • Police services involved in safety and traffic enforcement; • Private developers or major landowners at station areas; • Large private institutions such as hospitals, universities, commercial/retail organizations, or tourism facilities; and • Representatives of local environmental or user groups. Issues raised by any institution can have significant impacts on the location, alignment, or cost of a BRT project. These issues can also affect location of stations, integration with the regional transportation system, environmental constraints, staging options, and whether BRT will be considered a viable option at all. Mixed Flow Busw ay Bus Lane City Center Bus Tunnel Bus way Mixed Flow 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 Urban Area Li mit Figure 9-3. Illustrative incremental development of BRT.

Intergovernmental agreements may be needed for agen- cies to reach agreement on the roles and responsibilities asso- ciated with a BRT project, including operation of the BRT sys- tem, traffic operations and signalization, zoning and land use planning, parking policies, fare policy, enforcement, finance, and construction of BRT facilities. These may also require an agreement for the shared use of funds for the development and operation of a BRT system. No single governance scheme and/or intergovernmental agreement will be appropriate for all areas. In some areas, the local transit property might be the agency that implements a busway. In some cases, the implementation agency might be a county or state DOT. A state DOT might build and main- tain a busway that one or more transit services may use for operations. It is also possible that a private party might build and operate a busway. Examples of institutional arrangements for existing BRT systems include the following: • The Los Angeles Metro Rapid system was developed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the buses, and the City controls street traffic operations. • Ottawa’s Transitway was initially developed by OC Transpo in conjunction with the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario. OC Transpo is now one of four sec- tions within the Department of Transportation, Utilities, and Public Works that responds to the Ottawa City Coun- cil through the City Manager. • The Pittsburgh busways were developed by the Port Authority of Allegheny County in cooperation with the City of Pittsburgh and the state of Pennsylvania. Several of the most prevalent institutional issues that arise during BRT development include the following: • Local and business community opposition to restricting or removing parking spaces for BRT use; • Availability and acquisition of right-of-way or physical space; • Integration of multiple priorities, objectives, and agendas; • Impacts of BRT on roadway operations; • Finding political champions to support BRT; • Gaining community support for transit-oriented devel- opment; • Educating the public on BRT; and • Managing perceptions and expectations. A number of additional issues may apply to specific types of BRT systems. Institutional issues associated with BRT operating in mixed traffic include concerns over street depart- 9-16 ments and highway departments relinquishing control of their infrastructure, reaching an agreement on station area enhancements, and capital costs associated with BRT. Institutional concerns associated with BRT operating in exclusive facilities include BRT being viewed as a top-down solution to local transportation problems, community opposi- tion to BRT, lack of information on the effects of BRT on land use, and BRT being perceived by developers as less perma- nent than other modes and therefore having less of an effect on land use. 9-5.1. Integration with Regional Systems A successful BRT project that achieves its full potential calls for more than building a bus-only lane or even building a dedicated busway. The integration of the entire range of rapid-transit elements into the larger regional system, includ- ing the development of a unique system image and identity, are equally, if not more, important. The integration of BRT facilities with other regional tran- sit facilities can be considered in five major categories: • The physical location of stations or terminals and pedes- trian connection between facilities, • Timetables and route maps, • Fare structure and policy, • Passenger information systems, and • Cooperation rather than competition between modes. The physical location of the BRT system and other local and regional services is critical because they need to fit together in a logical way. Many examples exist of facilities run by dif- ferent entities that overlook the benefits of physically inte- grating their respective services. Each group tries to optimize its own location without considering potential users. Pedes- trian and bicycle connections are particularly important and are often overlooked in the planning and design process. As services are integrated, timetables and route maps are items in which integration is noticed by transit patrons. They should be seamlessly integrated with common styles and infor- mation. BRT routes should have a clear identity in timetables and route maps. A common fare structure and policy should be established, and cooperative agreements between agencies should be nego- tiated. This is difficult to establish in regions with many cities, counties, private operators, and governments with completely different fare policies. Developing “revenue neutral” pro- posals, in which no agency is worse off than another after the integration, can be extremely beneficial to all partners. Information systems, like fare structure and timetables, should be transparent to the user and convey the notion of a single integrated system. A fully integrated system should also reduce competition between modes. Ideally, the BRT system

might evolve into the backbone of the regional transit system, with all the elements described above in place. 9-6. BRT-SUPPORTIVE POLICIES BRT should be viewed as an important community asset that improves mobility and livability. Therefore, land use and parking policies should be established to support BRT invest- ments and reinforce ridership. 9-6.1. Land Use Policies BRT and land use planning for station areas should be integrated as early as possible and done concurrently. Recent experiences illustrate that without strong, consistent, long- term support for planning that actively encourages and provides incentives for transit-supportive development in the vicinity of existing and future rapid-transit facilities, these facilities may never be successful in attracting adequate ridership buses. Any high-cost, long-term investment in transit infrastructure—whether it is subway, BRT, or new LRT—runs the risk that the development needed to sup- port the investment will not materialize. These risks can be minimized through the implementation of strong land use and economic incentive policies. In several communities with BRT systems, local gov- ernments have implemented land use planning policies that encourage development near BRT facilities. In the Ottawa- Carleton region, centers for major activities, such as regional shopping and employment, are required to locate near the busway. In Curitiba, the arterial median busways are integral parts of the structure axes along which high- density development has been fostered. Adelaide and Bris- bane have also demonstrated that BRT can have develop- ment benefits similar to the benefits resulting from rail transit when effective coordination of land use planning and BRT development is taken into consideration from the outset. Land use policies or zoning regulations should also be based on providing incentives for developers to build transit- oriented development near BRT stations, with an appropri- ate mix of land uses and adequate pedestrian connections. Although redevelopment of existing land uses only occurs under appropriate market conditions, such incentives can help stimulate real estate development that coincides with the implementation of the BRT system. A “transit overlay” zon- ing district may be an appropriate strategy for encouraging transit-oriented development in BRT corridors. Density bonuses may also promote mixed residential and commercial development around transit stations. 9-17 For the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit project, a proposed BRT/rail project in Fairfax County, Northern Virginia incor- porated changes into the comprehensive plan (which were subsequently adopted in the county’s zoning ordinance) designed to stimulate development at station areas. Density bonuses were provided for residential and commercial devel- opment of parcels within a 1⁄4 mile of station areas, and slightly lower density bonuses were allowed for properties within 1⁄2 mile of station areas. For properties within 1⁄4 mile of the stations, up to 40 dwelling units per acre of residential development are allowed or up to a 1.5 floor-area-ratio for office development. The bonuses encourage a mix of resi- dential and commercial uses, as well as provisions for afford- able housing and recreation. The density bonuses are trig- gered once construction of the BRT system commences. Although land use policies can be essential for stimulating transit-oriented development, the impacts of these policies on traffic, public services, and neighborhoods must be care- fully considered. These impacts must be balanced with the long-term impacts on land use patterns, economic develop- ment, and travel patterns within the region. 9-6.2. Parking Policies Ample parking should be provided along busways, espe- cially at outlying stations. Parking supply can expand the catchment area and reduce the need for extensive feeder bus service in low-density residential areas. Downtown parking supply and rapid-transit-related parking are related; an increase in one implies a decrease in the other. Studies have found an inverse relationship between the supply of downtown park- ing per employee and the proportion of CBD commuter trips by transit. Therefore, downtown parking supply should be limited where major BRT investments are planned. Such CBD parking supply constraints are in effect in several large cities. These may take the form of a “ceiling,” as in down- town Boston, or reduced zoning requirements for parking spaces, as in Ottawa and Seattle. Achieving such a policy requires that a large proportion of CBD workers commute by automobile to outlying BRT sta- tions and that adequate parking space is available. Thus, the preferred commuter parking policy option along BRT lines is to maximize the number of park-and-ride spaces, as shown in Figure 9-4. Care must be given so that extensive parking does not preclude joint development opportunities. Regular zoning requirements should be modified to reflect both transportation and development needs. Ranges in the maximum and minimum spaces for each land use can be estab- lished. Illustrative parking guidelines for rapid-transit systems are shown in Table 9-10. These guidelines suggest decreas- ing the number of allowable parking spaces as the distance between the activity center and transit station decreases.

Number of Spaces per Unit by Distance from Transit Stop 0–500 Feet 500–1,000 Feet 1,000–1,500 Feet Land-Use Activity Criterion Unit Minimum Required Maximum Allowable Minimum Required Maximum Allowable Minimum Required Maximum Allowable Residential Single family Housing unit 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.3 Multi-family Housing unit 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.3 Commercial General office Gross floor area (GFA), 1,000 sq ft – 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.7 2.9 Medical/Dental office GFA, 1,000 sq ft – 3.3 1.7 3.3 2.5 4.0 Retail GFA, 1,000 sq ft 2.0 3.3 2.5 3.3 3.3 5.0 Restaurant Seats – 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.25 Hotel/Motel Rental units 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 Industrial Manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale Employees 0.2 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.5 Institutionala Auditorium Seats 0.13 0.2 0.13 0.2 0.14 0.25 Hospital Beds 0.80 1.0 0.80 1.0 1.0 1.4 Church Seats 0.14 0.2 0.14 0.2 0.14 0.25 Educational Elementary and junior high school Classroom and office 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 Senior high school Classroom and office 0.7b 1.0d 0.8b 1.0d 0.8c 1.0e College and university Classroom and office 0.7b 1.0d 0.8b 1.0d 0.8c 1.0e a Where public use of auditoria is likely, specific auditorium standards should apply. b Plus 1 space per 10–15 students, except where constrained by policy. c Plus 1 space per 8–10 students, except where constrained by policy. d Plus 1 space per 8–10 students, except where constrained by policy. e Plus 1 space per 5–8 students, except where constrained by policy. SOURCE: An Access Oriented Parking Strategy, 1974. 9-18 TABLE 9-10 Illustrative parking policies for major transit corridors Ridesharing Auto Ride Outlying Parking at Transit Station Home Carpool/VanpoolOutlying Parking Parking in CBD Core CBD Destination Parking on CBD Periphery Bus Rapid Transit Ride (SOURCE: Weant and Levinson, 1991) Figure 9-4. Commuter parking policy options.

9-7. CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES “Advancing Major Transit Investments Through Planning Project Development” (Version 1.1). Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning, Washington, DC (January 2003). An Access Oriented Parking Strategy. Prepared for the Massachu- setts Department of Public Works in cooperation with FHWA. Wilbur Smith and Associates (July 1974). Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, R. L. Smith, J. Cracknell, and R. Soberman. TCRP Report 90:Bus Rapid Tran- 9-19 sit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2003). Mass Transit—Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, Report GAO- 01-984. U.S. General Accounting Office (September 2001). Weant. R., and H. S. Levinson. Parking. Eno Foundation for Trans- portation, Westport, CT (1991). Zimmerman, S. BRT—A Primer. Paper prepared for ITE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL (August 2001).

Next: Appendix A: Bus Capacity »
Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines discusses the main components of bus rapid transit (BRT) and describes BRT concepts, planning considerations, key issues, the system development process, desirable conditions for BRT, and general planning principles. It also provides an overview of system types. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit was released in July 2003.

March 29, 2008 Erratta Notice -- On page 4-11, in the top row of Figure 4-7, in the last column, the cross street green for the 80 sec cycle is incorrectly listed as 26 sec. It should be 36 sec.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!