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

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.

5-1 CHAPTER 5 BRT STATIONS AND FACILITIES Bus stops, stations, and terminals, as well as associated facilities such as park-and-ride lots, form the interface between passengers and the BRT system. These facilities should be convenient, comfortable, safe, and accessible to passengers with disabilities. These facilities should support a strong and consistent identity for BRT in the community while respecting and enhancing the surrounding urban context. Facilities design for BRT is similar to that for LRT, as both modes can operate in a wide variety of running way environ- ments, most often on the surface in urban settings using exclu- sive or semi-exclusive rights-of-way. Cities that have both LRT and BRT systems (e.g., Rouen and Paris) use the same basic station design for both modes. However, BRT’s flexi- bility and diverse operating environments present unique challenges and opportunities for the facilities designer that are not often encountered in the design of LRT or other fixed- guideway transit modes. This chapter sets forth the primary considerations in the planning and design of BRT stations and facilities, with an emphasis on issues and elements that are unique to the mode. For detailed discussions of those principles that are common to all modes of transit (such as determining pas- senger circulation and waiting area requirements), the reader should refer to information contained in sources such as TRB’s HOV Systems Manual (Texas Transportation Insti- tute et al., 1998); NCHRP Report 155: Bus Use of High- ways: Planning and Design Guidelines (Levinson et al., 1975); the Transportation Engineering Handbook (Pline, 1999); the "Geometric Design Guide for Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets" (NCHRP Project 20-7[Task 135]) (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, 2002); the Tran- sit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Kittelson and Associates, Inc., 1999); and TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (Texas Transportation Institute, 1996). Volume 1 of TCRP Report 90, Case Stud- ies in Bus Rapid Transit, provides a wealth of valuable infor- mation about existing BRT facilities applications. 5-1. SYSTEMWIDE DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGN INTEGRATION One of the most important roles of BRT facilities design is to support an appealing, cohesive visual identity for the transit service while at the same time reflecting the varying character of the neighborhoods and districts in its service area. Some important aspects of BRT facilities design are the following: • High-Quality Design and Passenger Amenities. High- quality design—with particular attention to passenger amenities such as shelters, seating, and lighting—supports a positive public perception of the transit service. This is particularly important for BRT, which must over- come negative stereotypes of bus passenger facilities (e.g., small prefabricated bus shelters with poor lighting, minimal signage, and few amenities) that often hamper public support for the mode. • BRT as an Urban Design Asset. Although integration of a BRT guideway into an urban setting presents many chal- lenges, it also presents an opportunity to improve and enrich streetscapes by incorporating new amenities such as landscaping and recreational trails (Figure 5-1). Because guideway construction may displace lighting, sidewalks, and street furniture, these elements can and should be reconstructed or replaced so as to reinforce new, unified design themes. The Orlando Lymmo system is an excellent example of such an approach (see Photo 5-A). • Elements of Continuity and Variability. In addition to projecting an image of quality and safety, BRT running ways and stations should support an integrated system identity, keeping the transit service visible and recog- nizable to the community as a distinct “brand.” This is accomplished by establishing consistent themes of form, material, and color and applying these themes in the design of one or more system elements such as shelters, signage, guideway pavements, street amenities, and even vehicle livery. Rouen demonstrates how the BRT guide- way can maintain a consistent yet respectful presence in varying urban environments (see Photo 5-B). • Context-Sensitive Design. Although a cohesive, branded identity is desirable for the transit service, it is of equal, or greater, importance that BRT facilities recognize the unique character of neighborhoods and districts served by the system. BRT service areas may extend across a wide variety of urban environments and penetrate into the smallest neighborhoods. Sys- temwide design themes must be sufficiently flexible to

5-2 in mind that such rights-of-way may not serve high- density areas as well as existing streets. • Community Participation. Station locations and designs should be developed cooperatively with the surrounding community. Community support is essential in identi- fying and assessing potential sites for transit facilities and for developing design concepts. 5-1.1. Station Location and Spacing BRT station location and spacing are primarily in the realm of operations planning because they strongly influence patron- age and operating speeds. However, certain fundamental plan- ning principles will be of interest to the facilities planner. As a general rule, BRT stations should be placed as far apart as possible, particularly on trunk lines. This is essential to achieving high operating speeds and minimizing trip times. However, station spacing will vary according to the type of run- ning way, development density, and mode of arrival. Suggested guidelines for BRT station spacing are provided in Table 5-1. Generally, the pedestrian arrival mode occurs most often in urban cores, and the automobile arrival mode is most often seen Figure 5-1. BRT guideway in urban setting. (Photo Credit: HHI, Orlando, FL) Photo 5-A. Orlando Lymmo. Photo 5-B. Rouen guideway. encourage an appropriate balance with the diverse characteristics of neighborhoods. The designer must apply judgment on a project- and site-specific basis to determine the appropriate balance between system continuity and contextual design. • Relationship of Transit to Land Use. As with all modes of public transit, BRT alignments and station locations should be integrated with current and future land use. In general, higher-density, mixed-use development is most favorable to transit because it generates greater patron- age, and guideways and stations can often be more effec- tively integrated into such development. It should be noted that when evaluating potential alignments using abandoned railroad rights-of-way, it is important to bear

in the suburbs. However, these are by no means hard-and-fast rules. Because BRT operates in a wide variety of urban envi- ronments, a single route may include in-street, pedestrian-ori- ented collector service in smaller neighborhoods that joins trunk-line service in the secondary and primary urban cores. Station location should be keyed to major passenger con- centrations such as business districts, large office complexes, and employment areas; universities and high schools; cultural and recreational centers; and major residential areas. Stations should be placed where major bus routes and/or major arte- rial roadways cross or converge at the BRT line, and stations should be configured to provide a safe environment. 5-2. STATION DESIGN This section examines key issues common to design of all BRT stops, stations, and terminals. These include operations planning issues, fare collection, passenger amenities, illumi- nation, safety and security, and barrier-free design. BRT plat- form characteristics are discussed in Section 5-3. 5-2.1. Operations Planning Issues Operations planning issues are a strong influence on BRT station and guideway design. The flexible, diverse nature of BRT presents issues and challenges that are less common in other fixed-guideway transit modes. Two operations plan- ning issues that require consideration are the following: • Platform Requirements. Close coordination with bus operations planners is essential in planning stations and terminals. Critical program information includes the number of berths needed for revenue service (and lay- over where applicable) and the type of service (e.g., determining whether bus routes will be scheduled and/or assigned to berths, which requires independent bus entry and exit). • Bypass Capabilities. BRT operating plans typically pro- vide both express and all-stop service; it is therefore necessary that express buses be able to bypass buses dwelling in stations. Bypass lanes are essential for bus- only roads (or busways) located on separate rights-of- way and are desirable (where space permits) for median arterial busways. Buses using curb lanes can use adja- cent travel lanes as needed. When space is limited, sta- tion platforms may be offset to provide far-side stops with offset passing lanes (see Figure 5-4 for an example of offset bypass lanes). 5-3 5-2.2. Fare Collection Fare payment and collection policies also have a strong influence on the design of passenger facilities. Unlike con- ventional transit bus service, BRT often uses off-board fare collection to reduce dwell times and improve the passenger experience by accommodating multiple-door boarding and alighting. (Multiple-door boarding and alighting is essential for high-volume BRT applications.) Off-board fare collec- tion may be accomplished in one of two ways: • Controlled Access. The station environment is divided into free and paid areas. Passengers pay a fare to pass through turnstiles or other control devices into the paid area of the station. To limit public access, the paid area is enclosed by fare barriers. This arrangement, common in grade-separated BRT systems as well as other modes, is difficult to implement in on-street stations, as the bar- riers are physically and visually obtrusive. Bogotá is an example of a controlled-access station in an on-street median. Note that a paid area is very difficult to imple- ment for curbside running ways. • Proof of Payment. Under this arrangement, passengers purchase fares in advance of boarding the vehicle (either a multiple-journey pass or single-ride fare), and are required to carry a pass or receipt proving that the fare has been paid. Enforcement is usually performed by police who check a sampling of passengers for proof of payment. This eliminates the need for fare barriers, but places an added burden on personnel and increases operations costs. 5-2.3. Passenger Amenities Public acceptance of BRT can be hampered by negative stereotypes about bus service. Passenger amenities can help to overcome this public-perception issue and should receive a high priority in BRT passenger facilities. Some of the more important amenities include the following: • Shelters. Shelters should be provided at every BRT sta- tion and stop. Ideally, shelters extend the full length of the platform so that all vehicle doors are protected. Although high-quality prefabricated shelters are available, consid- eration should be given to larger, customized shelters that provide added amenities and foster a sense of permanence (see the Los Angeles Metro Rapid system shelters shown in Photo 5-C). Shelters provide overhead shade in warm climates and protect riders from precipitation in all cli- mates. To provide protection against wind and wind- driven precipitation, at least one side of the shelter should have a windscreen (in the coldest climates, shelters should have windscreens on at least three sides, as shown in Photo 5-D). In areas with the coldest winter climates, timed radiant heaters should be considered, although they have disadvantages with regard to maintenance, operating TABLE 5-1 Typical BRT station spacing Main Arrival Mode Spacing (Miles) Pedestrians 0.25–0.33 Bus 0.5–1.0 Automobile 2.0

5-4 local neighborhood maps should be placed in consis- tent locations at each station and use common sys- temwide design themes. Signage and graphics should readily distinguish BRT stations from regular bus stops. If advertising is to be present at stops and sta- tions, the systemwide facility design should establish specific locations and formats that do not conflict with directional and informational signage. Tactile sig- nage and audible information may also be used to serve persons with visual impairments. • ITS Displays. Real-time, variable message signs should be provided at station entries and on platforms to provide “next bus” and systemwide schedule and delay information at each platform. This amenity should receive serious consideration in all systems, as it is greatly appreciated by passengers. • Street Furniture. Whenever possible, stops and stations should accommodate waiting passengers by providing seating and/or leaning rails and trash receptacles. • Other Amenities and Facilities. Other useful passen- ger conveniences that may be warranted at stops and stations include bicycle racks, newspaper vending equipment, and public telephones. These elements should be placed at consistent locations with respect to the station entrance and platforms. Larger and/or enclosed station or terminal facilities may also provide drinking fountains, restrooms, and expanded retail services such as food and beverage concessions, news- stands, convenience stores, and bank ATMs. 5-2.4. Illumination Adequate lighting of station buildings, platforms, walk- ways, roadways, and parking areas is essential to the attrac- tiveness, safety, and security of the BRT station environ- ment. All lighting should be configured to simplify relamping and be vandal resistant. Lighting on open plat- forms should be in the range of 5 footcandles, with areas beneath canopies increased to 10 to 15 footcandles. Light- ing type and illumination levels should be planned in coor- dination with adjacent, exterior public spaces. Lighting guidelines for parking facilities, streets, and sidewalks can be found in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s Value of Public Roadway Lighting (1987) and AASHTO’s Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facil- ities (1992). 5-2.5. Safety and Security Both actual security and the passenger’s perception of security are essential to safe operation and public acceptance of the transit system. Security provisions are essential because BRT stops and stations are likely to be open for extended hours, and many stations are likely to be unattended. Photo 5-C. Los Angeles shelter. Photo 5-D. Vancouver shelter. costs, and vandalism concerns. Shelter roofs should be configured to direct rainwater and snow away from the vehicle side. Shelters should incorporate materials that are readily available, durable, easy to maintain, and vandal resistant. See Section 5-2.6 for dimensional information. • Passenger Information. All BRT stops and stations should provide some form of consistent passenger infor- mation, including the following: • Signage and Graphics. Bold, prominently placed sta- tion identification signage, transit route maps, and

Visibility is the single most important attribute of security. Passengers should be able to see their surroundings and be seen from locations within and outside the station. Platforms should be sited so that there is an unobstructed view to and from the street or a public way. Abrupt or “blind” corners and dead ends should be avoided in pedestrian walkways. Shel- ter walls should be glazed so that persons and activity within can readily be observed. Staffed stations should be designed to maximize the station agent’s view of the platform and adjoining passages. Landscaping should be planned so as to not obscure visibility. Ample lighting is also essential to effective and perceptible security; see Section 5-2.4 for addi- tional information. Security equipment that may be warranted at stations includes closed-circuit television monitoring and prominently placed emergency call boxes. It is important to stress that these items should be used to supplement, not replace, the funda- mental principles of station visibility and adequate lighting, discussed in the previous paragraph. 5-2.6. Barrier-Free Design BRT stations should be accessible to persons with impaired mobility. In the United States, station design must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (2000). The facilities designer must be familiar with the applicable guidelines, which consider factors such as pathway width, space for wheelchairs, grades, treatment of obstructions, and place- ment and design of signs. Chapter 10 of the ADAAG specifically addresses transportation facilities; a brief sum- mary of the guidelines specific to bus transportation facil- ities follows (state and local building codes must also be consulted in addition to the ADAAG, as standards in some jurisdictions are more stringent): • Bus shelters must be accessible from a public way via an ADAAG-compliant accessible route that leads to a clear area entirely within the shelter, with a minimum clear floor area at least 30 inches long and 48 inches wide. • If a vehicle-mounted lift or ramp is to be employed for wheelchair access, a clear area that is 96 inches long (measured perpendicular to the vehicle) by 60 inches wide (measured parallel to the vehicle) is required for lift deployment and wheelchair maneuvering. The cross slope of this area is limited to 2%, measured perpendic- ular to the vehicle. • New signage must meet ADAAG standards for charac- ter height, proportion, finish, and contrast (bus schedules posted at stops are exempted from this requirement). 5-3. BRT PLATFORM CHARACTERISTICS BRT presents a unique array of options and requirements for platform design. This section presents planning consider- 5-5 ations for platforms in all BRT station types, including dimen- sional guidelines, berth configurations, and platform height and vehicle-interface issues. 5-3.1. Berth Quantities and Platform Dimensions The platform length will generally be governed by the number of bus berths required. This should be based on the design bus volumes and service times at any given station. These berth capacities can be based on the guidelines con- tained in Appendix A, and a margin of safety is highly desirable. As a general rule, two to three loading positions per platform should be provided along busways. Terminals and major intermodal facilities will usually have more bays, as multiple routes will terminate and originate at these stations. 5-3.2. Platform Width Platform width is determined by ADAAG, patronage, and vertical circulation requirements. A minimum clear width of about 10 to 12 feet is desired at curbside bus stops and busway side platforms. For center platforms, a 20- to 25-foot width is desirable. Platform width should accommodate peak 15-minute ridership, using a planning horizon at least 5 to 10 years in the future. Passengers should be able to “clear” the station before the next bus (or group of buses) arrives. Similarly, there should be adequate space to avoid spillback on platforms, especially when fare collection facilities are provided. The facilities planner should consult Pedestrian Planning and Design (Fruin,1987) for complete pedestrian planning guidance. Appendix B contains details on pedes- trian capacities and service levels. 5-3.3. Berth Types Bus berth configurations are strongly influenced by the running way configuration and service plan. The latter fac- tor is particularly important because the facility may need to accommodate scheduled operations, in which buses arrive and depart at set times, and therefore must be able to independently enter and exit their berths. This flexibility is not required for headway-based operations. In all cases, driving lanes should be wide enough for buses to pass a disabled vehicle. Linear parallel berths are well suited to most BRT online stations. They require an additional 11 to 12 feet of space beyond the travel lane. There are two linear berth arrange- ments. The typical arrangement (see the In-line Platform Typical Berth in Figure 5-2) is for buses to approach and depart in a single line. The first bus to arrive is the first bus to depart. For planning purposes, 5 to 10 feet between dwelling vehicles should be assumed. Thus, a typical two-berth design for 60-foot-long articulated buses along linear platforms would be about 130 to 140 feet. This is the

L 2' MIN TO WALL OR FENCE 11' MIN B A 2' TAIL OUT L 2' MIN. TO WALL OR FENCE 22' MIN. L C 8' 15' 10' 22' MIN 2' MIN. TO WALL OR FENCE Travel Lane 19' - 20' 1. IN-LINE PLATFORM TYPICAL BERTH 2. IN-LINE PLATFORM - INDEPENDENT ARRIVALS NORMAL BERTH 3. SHALLOW SAWTOOTH PLATFORM B A C L SINGLE UNIT BUS ARTICULATED BUS 40' 80' 45' 65' 60' 100' 65' 85' (Adapted from Levinson et al., 1975 and Fuhs, 1990) most space-efficient configuration. An alternate configu- ration (see the In-line Platform–Independent Arrivals Nor- mal Berth in Figure 5-2) requires that buses approach the parallel berth from an adjacent travel lane. This allows independent entry and exit, but it requires greater operator skill and more platform length. Shallow sawtooth bays (see the Shallow Sawtooth Plat- form in Figure 5-2) allow independent entry and exit and are desirable at terminals. They require a minimum 19- to 20-foot envelope beyond the travel lane for 40-foot buses and an envelope of approximately 23 to 25 feet for 60-foot articu- lated buses. Head-in angle docking bays are generally limited to inter- city operations and should be avoided in BRT as well as other transit bus operations because they require the bus to back up to leave the stall. These docking bays should be considered only when dictated by space limitations at major terminals, where buses operate at long headways. 5-6 5-3.4. Side Platform Configurations Several options exist for the placement and height of plat- forms. Table 5-2 provides platform features for selected BRT systems. Side platforms may be placed in tandem (opposite each other) or staggered. Two platform configurations are the following: • Tandem side platforms may be used on dedicated bus- ways with grade-separated pedestrian crossings. • Staggered far-side platforms are desirable along at-grade busways, median arterial busways, and in most curbside operations, especially at signalized intersections. They prevent right-turn conflicts, are more conducive to pref- erential signal treatments, and may allow left-turn lanes and platforms to use the same envelope. At stations with at-grade pedestrian crossings, they allow pedestrians to cross to the rear of stopped buses. Figure 5-2. Illustrative berth configurations.

5-3.5. Center Versus Side Platforms Side platforms are most commonly used along busways because they are compatible with conventional bus door con- figurations (bus doors are typically on the curb side of the vehicle, or the right side in North America). Center platforms (commonly used in rail stations) are rare in BRT because they require either contra flow operations with conventional buses or vehicles with one of the following nonstandard door configurations: • Dual side doors that add expense and reduce seating capacity or • Left-side doors that limit use of the vehicle on city streets or in conventional stations (left-side or dual door vehi- cles are found in a few existing bus systems such as the trackless trolleys in Cambridge, Massachusetts). If these disadvantages can be overcome, center platforms offer more efficient use of passenger facilities and equipment (par- ticularly vertical circulation) and may yield a narrower over- all station envelope. 5-3.6. Platform Height and Vehicle Interface Together with off-board fare collection, the platform/vehicle interface has a strong influence on passenger experience and boarding speed. Level boarding minimizes the horizontal and vertical gap between the platform edge and vehicle door threshold. This speeds boarding for all patrons and also allows wheelchair users to enter the vehicle without a lift or other assistance. For wheelchair access on fixed-guideway systems, ADAAG allows a maximum vehicle floor-to-platform gap of 5-7 3 inches horizontally and 5⁄8 inch vertically. Although the ADAAG requirement for buses is not as stringent, this is the standard to meet for the highest-quality, barrier-free access. For a bus and platform to meet this standard, some form of precision docking system (or a vehicle- or platform-mounted retractable ramp or bridge plate) is required, the platform height must match the vehicle floor height, and the platform must be located along a tangent section of roadway. Vehicle-based precision docking systems include opti- cally guided steering (as used in Rouen) or mechanically guided systems (as used in Adelaide and Essen). These sys- tems are needed to accurately steer the vehicle into alignment with the platform; a human driver cannot repeatedly dock the bus with the accuracy required. The platform itself may be detailed to provide a precision docking interface; one tech- nology under development is the Kassel Curb, a concrete curb with a concave profile on its street face. The driver steers the bus so that the bus tires are forced against the curb, which in turn places the bus in the proper alignment with the platform edge. This system has been shown to meet the ADAAG gap standard in regular use, but it is highly reliant on the skill and diligence of the driver. It may also accelerate tire wear because of repeated contact with the curb, and the curb height must be coordinated to avoid conflicts with wheel nuts and vehicle door operations. High-platform stations are most commonly found in heavy rail rapid transit and occasionally in light rail systems. Although high-platform stations are found along BRT lines in Bogotá, Curitiba, and Quito, the trend toward low-floor vehicles has reduced their desirability. In comparison with low platforms, high platforms are more expensive, occupy more space (lengthy pedestrian ramps are required for wheel- chair access), are visually obtrusive, and are likely to require a specialized vehicle with greater headroom than a conven- TABLE 5-2 Station platform features for selected systems CITY/SYSTEM LOCATION LENGTH PLATFORM PASSING OFF-VEHICLE FEET (BUSES) HEIGHT LANES FARE COLLECTION BUS TUNNELS BOSTON (SILVER LINE) SIDE 220(3) LOW LIMITED YES SEATTLE SIDE (2) LOW YES NO BUSWAYS BRISBANE SIDE (2–3) LOW YES NO MIAMI SIDE (2–3) LOW YES NO OTTAWA SIDE 180(3) LOW YES NO PITTSBURGH SIDE 120–240 LOW YES NO MEDIAN ARTERIAL BUSWAYS BELA HORIZONTE SIDE 1–4 LOW YES NO BOGOTÁ CENTER 130–490 HIGH YES YES CURITIBA SIDE 80(4) HIGH YES YES QUITO SIDE CENTER (1) HIGH NO YES SÃO PAULO SIDE 2–3 LOW YES NO SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003.

tional transit bus. They also limit BRT service to places with high platforms, thereby greatly limiting the flexibility of bus operations. ADAAG requires that high platforms be equipped with detectable warning edge treatments such as a 24-inch strip of color-contrasting material with raised, truncated domes. Low-platform stations are becoming increasingly com- mon as more low-floor buses enter service. Low-floor vehi- cles generally have a floor approximately 12 to 15 inches above the driving surface. This platform height is much more readily integrated into a typical in-street environment. Although ADAAG does not explicitly require a detectable warning on a low bus platform, this kind of platform is still significantly higher than a normal sidewalk, so it is good practice to use the warnings. Vehicle-based lifts are used by some systems to provide access for persons with disabilities using sidewalks and plat- forms at conventional curb height. Although common, this is not the most desirable approach for new construction because the lift adds significantly to dwell times and has an adverse impact on system reliability. The lift also requires intensive maintenance in order to provide reliable service. Bridge plates that are vehicle or platform mounted and retractable are used by some systems to provide a barrier-free boarding interface without use of a precision docking system. The vehicle is manually steered as close to the platform as pos- sible, and the plate is then deployed to bridge the remaining gap. Like lifts, retractable ramps and bridge plates adversely impact dwell times and require regular maintenance in order to provide reliable service. 5-4. STATION CONFIGURATION This section presents various BRT station types. The sta- tion configuration will reflect the type of running way; bus service frequency and operating plan; vehicle type, length, and door configuration; transit operating plan; and fare col- lection policy. Station configurations should be simple and consistent across the system. BRT station facilities fall into three broad categories: • Busway, or on-line stations; • Intermodal and terminal stations; and • Conventional, in-street stops served by buses in mixed traffic. 5-4.1. Busway Stations Busway or on-line stations are found in two basic config- urations: • Grade-separated busways, including freeway medians; and • Street-level busways, which may operate in a median reservation, in a curbside restricted lane, or in an interior lane (see Chapter 3). 5-8 5-4.1.1. Grade-Separated Busway Stations Grade-separated busways (as in Brisbane, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh) provide passing lanes in each direction at sta- tions. A station design concept is shown in Figure 5-3. Prin- cipal features of stations on grade-separated busways include the following: • A four-lane station envelope, with two bus lanes pass- ing through the station in each direction—one lane for dwelling vehicles at the platform and a bypass lane for express buses. • Minimum 1:30 roadway tapers on each end of the station. • A fenced 4- to 5-foot median center island to prevent or control at-grade crossings. • 12- to 15-foot side platforms. • Where warranted, a climate-controlled station building housing vertical circulation, fare collection, and retail services. The station building can be located over the busway or along one side of it, as shown in Figure 5-3. When busways operate in a grade-separated environment, cross-station pedestrian access must be carefully controlled. This is best accomplished with grade-separated walkways (as in Brisbane, shown in Photo 5-E), connected to the plat- forms by stairways and/or escalators, and elevators. When it is impractical to provide grade-separated pedes- trian access between platforms, staggered, far-side platforms should be used, and the central median barrier may be opened to allow a clearly delineated, at-grade pedestrian crossing at the rear of each platform. To ensure pedestrian safety, at-grade pedestrian crossings must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, considering anticipated bus operating speeds and volumes, transit patron age profile, and sight distances. With bypass lanes, minimum station envelopes of about 75 feet are possi- ble when stairs and elevators are placed at the far ends of platforms. It is more desirable to place these facilities at the center of platforms, but this requires a wider envelope. (Illustration Credit: Keith Hudson, AIA) Figure 5-3. Busway station concept.

5-9 forms closer together is an advantage in terms of passenger security. 5-4.1.2. Freeway BRT Stations BRT may operate along freeways in mixed traffic or in exclusive median or shoulder lanes. On-line freeway stations are located on auxiliary roadways that are physically sepa- rated from the main travel lanes to protect stopped buses from errant vehicles and to prevent pedestrians from entering the main freeway lanes. These roadways should be 24 feet wide to enable buses to pass around disabled vehicles. There should be sufficient deceleration distances to minimize delay to other vehicles, and acceleration lanes should be long enough to per- mit easy reentry into travel lanes. A minimum 1:30 taper for deceleration and a 1:40 taper for acceleration are desirable. If the busway is fully separated from general freeway travel lanes, bypass lanes for express service are likely to be needed, increasing station envelopes by about 25 feet. As shown in Figure 5-5, either side or center platforms can be used depending on traffic flow and vehicle door configu- rations. Because most freeway stations will warrant grade- separated pedestrian access with stairs (and/or escalators) and elevators, a center-platform configuration is desirable in order to minimize the cost of these vertical circulation elements. In some cases, it may be desirable to provide off-line sta- tions adjacent to the freeway. These stations are usually less costly than on-line stations because they simplify station design and pedestrian access. However, this configuration is likely to reduce BRT operating speeds in comparison with a station at the freeway level. Off-line stations are an attractive option for incremental BRT implementation because they can be constructed as a first stage that is followed by construction of Bus Pull Off Lane 30m (100') Bus Pull Off Lane 14.25m (47.5') Pedestrian Crossing Northbound Bus Lane Southbound Bus Lane Bus Pull Off Lane 30m (100') Pedestrian Crossing 22.8m (76') Northbound Bus Lane Southbound Bus Lane OFFSET PLATFORM LAYOUT MODIFIED OPPOSITE PLATFORM LAYOUT Figure 5-4. New Britain–Hartford platform layouts. Photo 5-E. Grade-separated pedestrian crossing from Brisbane. Alternative configurations of busway station designs (for the planned New Britain–Hartford Busway) are shown in Figure 5-4. Diagram A in Figure 5-4 shows an offset (or stag- gered) concept that allows the entire busway and station to be provided within a basic four-lane, 48-foot envelope, using staggered, far-side platforms. This concept minimizes real estate acquisition needs and is widely used along median arterial busways in Brazilian cities. Diagram B in Figure 5-4 shows a semi-staggered platform that provides bypass lanes in each direction and results in a 76-foot-wide envelope. Pedestrians cross the busway at a single central location to the rear of each bus stop. Two pedestrian islands in the cen- ter of the roadway provide refuge for pedestrians; fencing could be added to preclude errant crossings. Bringing the plat-

more elaborate in-line stations if warranted by ridership and available funding. Ideally, access to such stations should be via dedicated bus-only ramps, but in some cases patronage, bus volumes, and traffic conditions may allow BRT vehicles to share ramps with general traffic and to operate for short distances on local streets to reach the stations. 5-4.1.3. Median Arterial Busway Station Median arterial busways provide clear physical BRT iden- tity and offer good schedule reliability at moderate capital costs. Left turns must be carefully controlled (usually by traf- fic signal phasing), rerouted, or prohibited. Guideways and platforms along median arterial busways are constrained by the street space available and by traffic operations. Pedes- trian access to median stations requires patrons to cross traf- fic lanes; such access should be provided at signalized inter- sections wherever possible. Three types of platforms are used in median arterial busway stations: • Side platforms should be located on the far side of inter- sections, as shown in Figure 5-6. This allows near-side left-turn lanes to be placed in the “shadow” of each plat- form, and it works well with traffic signal prioritization. Left turns should be permitted only at signalized inter- sections. Pedestrian access should be from the cross street end of each platform. A disadvantage of the far- side configuration is that without signal priority, buses will often be forced to double stop at intersections, once for the signal and once at the platform. 5-10 • Center-island platforms can be located on one or both sides of a cross-street intersection. (Figure 5-7 shows a single, center-platform configuration). The platform should be at least 20 feet wide. The main pedestrian entrance should be from the cross street, along with any fare equipment. This design concept requires buses that have dual or left-side doors or buses that operate in a contra flow configuration. It also makes left turns very difficult to implement. • Midblock stations with passing lanes can be provided when space is available. As shown in Figure 5-8, a three- lane busway section allows two lanes each way adjacent to the platforms, with a single central pedestrian cross- ing to the rear side of bus stops. 5-4.1.4. Curbside BRT Stations Curbside BRT stations, at which BRT vehicles receive and discharge passengers along curbs, can be implemented with low capital costs and minimal loss of general traffic lanes. Curbside stations provide good access for pedestrians and can be readily integrated with the overall streetscape design. Although the stations present no interference with general traffic left turns, they may create right-turn conflicts. Restricted curbside lanes are difficult to enforce and relatively un- favorable in terms of schedule reliability. Curbside stations may be unpopular with abutters because the vehicles and shelters tend to obstruct access to and views of storefront businesses, and the restricted BRT lanes impact access to adja- cent driveways, parking, and loading zones. TCRP Report 19: 44' 60' min. 60' Min. (52' min. if stairs at end of platform) 8' 10' 12' 12' 10' 8' 4' 12' 10' 8' 10' 12' 4' SIDE PLATFORMS CENTER PLATFORMS (Crossovers or left-side vehicle doors required) Figure 5-5. Highway BRT stations.

9-lane roadway envelope Prohibit left turns along transitway or provide left turn lanes. NOTE: Figure 5-7. Median station, center platform. 5-11 11-lane roadway envelope Figure 5-6. Median station, side platforms.

Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (Texas Transportation Institute,1996) provides very thorough guid- ance on the design of curbside bus stops. Curbside stops may be located near-side, far-side, and mid- block, as shown in Figure 5-9. Table 5-3 presents the relative merits of near-side, far-side, and midblock stops, which are summarized as follows: • Near-side stops are preferable when bus flows are heavy, traffic conditions are not critical, and some curb parking is permitted during peak periods. From the transit oper- ator’s point of view, near-side stops make it easier to rejoin the traffic stream, particularly when curb parking is permitted during peak periods. A major disadvantage of near-side stops is that right-turn traffic and departing buses often conflict with each other. • Far-side stops (shown in Figure 5-10) are preferable when buses have exclusive use of the curb lane, when peak-hour (or all-day) parking is prohibited, and when buses get priority at traffic signals. These conditions are likely to occur under BRT operations. • Midblock stops are not common in practice, and they are generally limited to downtown areas where multiple routes require long loading areas, possibly extending an entire block. Midblock stops can also occur on extremely long blocks requiring intermediate access points. When a cross street carries a bus route, a near-side or far-side 5-12 stop is preferable to minimize walking distances for trans- ferring passengers. Under all configurations, the use of extended curbs, or bus bulbs, (as shown in Figure 5-10) should be considered to simplify the approach to and departure from the platform. Use of these kinds of curbs can improve ride quality for pas- sengers and allow for curbside parking. Passenger facilities are, however, constrained by available sidewalk space. Shel- ters and street furniture should be placed where they mini- mize conflicts with pedestrian circulation. Stops should be paved, well drained, suitably illuminated, and connected to paved sidewalks. Multiple-berth stops should be provided when bus flows are heavy. A peak flow rate of 60 buses per hour would require two loading positions for a 30-second stop and three loading positions for a 60-second stop. (See Appendix A.) An addi- tional 50 feet for each regular bus and 70 feet for each articu- lated bus should be provided. 5-5. INTERMODAL AND TERMINAL STATIONS Intermodal and terminal stations are essential complements to BRT running ways and on-line stations. They reinforce the effectiveness of BRT operations because they promote trans- fer between BRT and connecting bus lines, and they simplify 11-lane roadway envelope Figure 5-8. Median station, side platform with bypass lane.

both BRT and local bus service patterns. Large terminals in urban areas may provide intermodal connections to other modes such as LRT and heavy rail. At the smaller end of the BRT application continuum, terminals and bus-to-bus trans- fers may be simple, in-street activity. However, most BRT systems employ some type of specialized off-street inter- modal stations and/or terminals. These range from smaller facilities with fewer than five bus bays to massive urban ter- minals with hundreds of berths. Site-planning fundamentals for intermodal stations and terminals are the following: • Site planning should separate BRT, feeder bus, and pri- vate automobile traffic as much as possible, with the highest priority given to direct BRT access. • Intermodal transfer and/or park-and-ride facilities may be placed on one or both sides of the BRT line, but it is best to favor the “inbound” side of the BRT line relative to the city center. • Site design should minimize walking distances and bus- pedestrian conflicts for transferring passengers. • The following location priorities should be observed in terms of proximity to the BRT passenger loading area: (1) pedestrian arrivals, including ADAAG-accessible 5-13 route(s); (2) bicycles; (3) feeder buses; (4) kiss-and- ride, short-term parking, and motorcycles; (5) taxis and HOVs; and (6) park-and-ride, or long-term parking. • Long-term parking may be provided at intermodal sta- tions and terminals as an alternative to excessive feeder bus service in low-density residential areas (refer to Sec- tion 5-6 for additional information and planning data). Planning guidance for BRT and feeder bus platforms in intermodal stations and terminals is summarized as follows: • At terminals, shallow sawtooth berths are usually desir- able to allow independent bus entry and exit. As for all stations, close coordination with operations planners is essential to ensure that the facility functions effectively. • Adequate space for bus layover and short-term bus stor- age must be provided. • As a rule of thumb, it should be assumed that one berth is required for each six buses per hour. Capacities may be greater when there is free transfer between BRT and connecting bus lines. There should not be more than two to three connecting services per boarding berth. This may increase the number of boarding positions required. (SOURCE: Texas Transportation Institute, 1996) Figure 5-9. Curbside bus stops.

• Buses may unload and load at the same location when space is constrained or bus volumes are light. Higher- volume operations may require separate unloading and loading areas. In these arrangements, buses (1) unload, (2) pass through a holding area as needed, and (3) then proceed to a loading berth for passenger boarding. 5-5.1. Intermodal Stations Interchange facilities should be provided whenever local bus lines cross or meet at BRT stations or terminals. When- ever possible, off-street transfer facilities should be provided, particularly when multiple feeder bus bays are required. How- ever, if some feeder buses serve the station without termi- nating, these berths may best remain in the street. When BRT 5-14 operates along dedicated and/or grade-separated busways, there are two basic configurations. The first is conventional on- or off-street bays adjacent to the busway station. (Figure 5-3 shows an application with off-street bays.) The second configuration (for higher-volume applications) may use shared platforms or grade-separated facilities to minimize walking distances for transferring passengers. Two potential configu- rations are shown in Figure 5-11. 5-5.2. BRT Terminal Stations Terminal stations may be either on line or off line, depend- ing on the BRT route(s) being served. All terminal stations require adequate space for a turning loop for buses. Passenger- oriented retail such as newsstands, food and beverage services, TABLE 5-3 Advantages and disadvantages of near-side, far-side, and midblock stops Location Advantages Disadvantages Far-side
Minimizes conflicts between right- turning vehicles and buses
Provides additional right-turn capacity by making curb lane available for traffic
Minimizes sight distance problems on intersection approaches
May encourage pedestrians to cross behind the bus, depending on distance from intersection
Creates shorter deceleration distances for buses, since the intersection can be used to decelerate
Buses can take advantage of gaps in traffic flow created at signalized intersections
Facilitates bus signal priority operation, as buses can pass through intersection before stopping
May result in intersections being blocked during peak periods by stopped buses
May obscure sight distance for crossing vehicles
May increase sight distance problems for crossing pedestrians
Can cause a bus to stop far-side after stopping for a red light, interfering with both bus operations and all other traffic
May increase the number of rear-end crashes since drivers do not expect buses to stop again after stopping at a red light
Could result in traffic queued into intersection when a bus stops in the travel lane Near-side
Minimizes interference when traffic is heavy on the far side of the intersection
Allows passengers to access buses close to crosswalk
Intersection width available for bus to pull away from the curb
Eliminates the potential for double- stopping
Allows passengers to board and alight while stopped for red light
Allows drivers to look for oncoming traffic, including other buses with potential passengers
Increases conflicts with right-turning vehicles
May result in stopped buses obscuring curbside traffic control devices and crossing pedestrians
May cause sight distance to be obscured for side street vehicles stopped to the right of the bus
Increases sight distance problems for crossing pedestrians
Complicates bus signal priority operation, may reduce effectiveness or require a special queue-jump signal if the stop is located in the parking lane or a right-turn lane Midblock
Minimizes sight distance problems for vehicles and pedestrians
May result in passenger waiting areas experiencing less pedestrian congestion
Requires additional distance for no- parking restrictions
Encourages passengers to cross street mid-block (jaywalking)
Increases walking distance for passengers crossing at intersections SOURCE: Texas Transportation Institute, 1996 (adapted).

BUSWAY BU S ST O P BU S ST O P BUSWAY STAIRS LOCAL BUSES LOCAL BUSES BRT BRT PLATFORM/BUILDING PLATFORM PLATFORM ELEVATOR OVERPASS LOCAL BUS LOCAL BUS 1. BUS LINES OVER BRT 2. BUS LINES PARALLEL TO BRT (schematic - not to scale) Figure 5-11. BRT transfer station concepts. 5-15 Figure 5-10. Far-side curbside sketch.

and drycleaners are highly desirable at BRT terminals. Fig- ure 5-12 shows a typical on-line terminal station. Off-street bus transfer stations (or “transit centers”) are usually found in areas located about 4 to 10 miles from the city center. Their size will depend on the number of connecting routes served and the likely interchanging passenger flow. Figure 5-13 shows a design for a small, off-line terminal facility that incorporates a small enclosed pavilion for retail and passenger waiting. 5-5.2.1. Central Area Terminals Very large central area bus terminals for commuter or express bus services may be appropriate when there is good access to the central area, but there is extensive local street congestion within the area; when the terminal is located within a short walking distance of major employment concentra- tions; and when there is good supporting transit service to other areas. The most successful facilities offer direct con- nections to expressways and are located on the edge of the CBD core, close to major employment centers (but removed from peak land values). Under these circumstances, central terminals can productively serve peak-period express BRT. Examples of this type of facility are the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s 225-berth terminal in Manhattan, San Francisco’s 37-berth Transbay Bus Terminal, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA’s) 54-berth South Station Bus Terminal in Boston (shown in Photo 5-F). Although central terminals work well for express service, they are not as well suited to high-frequency BRT operations. The disadvantages include high capital and operating costs; longer dwell and maneuvering times for buses; inability to pro- vide through BRT service, which results in forced transfers; greater walking distances for many passengers; and increased bus-to-bus congestion on terminal approaches. Therefore, BRT service is usually better served by having buses remain on CBD streets and busways. 5-6. PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Park-and-ride facilities should be provided at BRT stations when a large number of potential riders are located beyond 5-16 easy walking distance of stations, or when riders cannot be served effectively by connecting bus services. Park-and-ride facilities are generally associated with suburban areas and mainly serve commuters, although some settings may gener- ate off-peak demands as well. Park-and-ride facilities should save BRT passengers travel time and simultaneously expand the service catchment area. The secondary distribution by automobile (1) expands the BRT market, (2) reduces the need for feeder bus service, and (3) permits wider BRT sta- tion spacings. Park-and-ride facilities are most successful when free or low-cost parking is offered, peak-hour BRT ser- vice headways are 10 minutes or less, and BRT trips to the city center save at least 5 minutes of travel time. Free park- and-ride facilities may be offered to BRT patrons, park-and- ride fees may be incorporated into the BRT fare, or park-and- ride facilities may be separately priced. Outlying parking is likely to be more economical than local feeder bus service when land costs are low and travel distances to line-haul bus service are long. Some issues to consider in relation to park- and-ride facilities are the following: • Location. Park-and-ride facilities should be accessible, visible, and located where future expansion is possi- ble. They should be sited in areas that are compatible with significant open spaces or large structures. They should have good road access from major cross-town and circumferential roads and be located where they can intercept motorists before points of congestion or road convergence. Sites should be selected to minimize backtracking, as most patrons approach from the far or outbound end of stations.Figure 5-12. Typical on-line terminal station. (Illustration Credit: Keith Hudson, AIA) Figure 5-13. Small off-line terminal station.

• Size. The number of park-and-ride spaces should be keyed to projected station ridership. Experience with commuter rail and rail rapid-transit lines indicates that ridership is sometimes constrained by the lack of park- ing spaces. A parking space should be provided for every 1.2 to 5.0 boarding BRT passengers, depending on the number of feeder/connecting bus services. It is desirable to provide 10 to 15% more spaces to ensure space avail- ability. Land acquisition requirements should be based on 125 spaces per acre (about 400 to 450 square feet per space). To keep walking distances under 400 to 600 feet, surface parking lot size should not exceed 800 spaces, although facilities of 1,200 to 1,500 spaces can be accommodated in special cases. When more than 800 spaces are required, structured parking should be con- sidered to keep walking distances short. About 1 to 3% of the total spaces should be designated for short-term parking. These spaces should be clearly separated from commuter parking areas, but they could be used for mid- day parking if properly controlled. • Site-planning considerations. Park-and-ride facilities should provide direct, convenient pedestrian access to BRT stations. As with intermodal stations, they should provide convenient passenger drop-off, or “kiss-and- 5-17 ride,” space and accommodate most traffic in two short peaks. Facility site planning should minimize conflicts among buses, automobiles, and pedestrians. Separate access points for buses and automobiles are desirable when parking facilities exceed 500 spaces or when park- ing fees are charged. A site plan for a prototypical park- and-ride facility is shown in Figure 5-14. 5-7. ANCILLARY FACILITIES Ancillary facilities associated with BRT systems include operator welfare facilities, vehicle maintenance and storage facilities, and maintenance of way facilities. Frequently, most or all of these functions are consolidated at a single site. Operator welfare facilities range widely in size and com- plexity. The smallest facilities may simply provide an oper- ator toilet room at the outbound end of a route, whereas larger ones would provide amenities such as showers, lock- ers, canteens and lunchrooms, and “quiet rooms” for resting between shifts. The largest facilities include space for oper- ator training, administrators, supervisory personnel, and dis- patchers. Typically, all of these facilities are co-located with a terminal station or a maintenance and storage facility. Photo 5-F. MBTA South Station Intermodal Center.

Maintenance and storage facilities (MSFs) are very large, multiple-building complexes where vehicles are maintained and stored. Even if a transit agency already operates one or more maintenance facilities for its buses, a BRT system is likely to have a significant fleet of vehicles that exceed the capacity of existing facilities. Also, a BRT fleet may use ded- icated, specialty vehicles (e.g., articulated buses) that require space and equipment not required for existing fleets of con- ventional buses. MSFs occupy large land areas and tend to generate con- centrated morning and evening bus traffic. They are most compatible with industrial uses and other large-scale devel- opments. To the extent feasible, they should be sited to avoid sensitive receptors. However, it is important to note that with sensitive planning and design these facilities can be success- fully integrated with residential and other uses. In conventional bus systems, it is ideal to site the MSF near the center of the system’s service area. However, depending on the character of the BRT service, a BRT MSF may be more likely to be found at the outbound end of a major route so that the vehicles are positioned to enter ser- vice in the morning. The following are brief descriptions of major functions typically found at a BRT MSF: 5-18 • Service Lanes. These are semi-enclosed or covered areas used for daily servicing of buses including fueling, fluid dispensing, and interior and exterior cleaning. If on- board fare collection is used, the service lanes are also used for cash removal. Typically, the site is arranged so that buses enter the service lanes directly after leaving revenue service and prior to overnight storage. This pro- gram element should be provided at any facility where buses are stored overnight. • Maintenance Facility. A maintenance facility provides space for routine maintenance and inspection. This facil- ity should have provisions for maintenance bays, parts storage, tire storage, steam cleaning, and battery storage. It should also have a paint shop (including a preparation area and a paint booth), a shipping and receiving area, supervisors’ and administrative offices, employee locker rooms, and toilet facilities. • Heavy Maintenance Facility. A heavy maintenance facility is for activities such as engine and transmission rebuilds and major body work. Because these activities are less frequent and therefore are more likely to be out- sourced or shared with existing facilities, a heavy main- tenance operation is not always present in a BRT MSF. When present, such a facility is likely to include a machine Figure 5-14. Prototype park-and-ride plan.

shop as well as shop areas for electrical work, radiators, transmissions, woodworking, upholstery, welding, metal- working, graphics, thermal cleaning, and glass working. This facility would also include a shipping and receiv- ing area, a storage room, a lunchroom, lockers, and toilet facilities. • Bus Storage. Storage of buses requires large exterior spaces. The size of the storage area is strongly influenced by the bus parking configuration. System operators are likely to prefer a “scheduled pullout” arrangement, sim- ilar to a traditional parking lot, in which all buses are parked adjacent to a driving lane, and any bus can be accessed at any time. Ideally, angled spaces are used in single rows as shown in Figure 5-15, permitting buses to enter and leave a space without backing up. A more space-efficient “herringbone” pattern can be used, but 5-19 this requires buses to back up to depart. The scheduled- pullout arrangement offers the operator the greatest flex- ibility for dispatching or maintenance, but it occupies the greatest amount of space. When space is limited, a “stacked” arrangement may be used, in which multiple buses are parked bumper to bumper. Although not as flexible as the scheduled- pullout arrangement, the same number of vehicles can be stored in as little as one-third of the space. In North America, all facilities, parking, and bus stor- age areas should be arranged to accommodate left-hand turns and a counter-clockwise site circulation. Figure 5-15 shows a prototypical MSF site plan. • Maintenance of Way Facilities. These facilities are for personnel and equipment used to maintain stations and running ways. This function may be minor (and readily Figure 5-15. Illustrative maintenance and facilities site plan.

located with other municipal facilities) if the BRT sys- tem runs in the street with relatively small station facil- ities. However, a grade-separated BRT system with large stations is likely to require maintenance shops and dedicated equipment such as tow trucks, snowplows, and crew transportation. 5-8. CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. The Access Board, Washington, DC (September, 2002). www.access- board.gov/adaag/htm/adaag.html. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Elevator World, Mobile, AL (1987). Fuhs, C. A. High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities: A Planning, Design, and Operation Manual. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., New York, NY (1990). Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facilities. American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washing- ton, DC (1992). Kittelson and Associates, Inc. TCRP Web Document 6: Transit Capacity Manual and Quality of Service Manual (1st ed.). Trans- portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- ton, DC (1999). 5-20 Levinson, H. S., C. L. Adams, and W. F. Hoey. NCHRP Report 155: Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC (1975). Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, R. L. Smith, J. Cracknell, and R. Soberman. TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2003). Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. “NCHRP Project 20-7 (Task 135): Geometric Design Guide for Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets—Phase I Interim Guide.” Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC (2002). Pline, J. L. (ed.). Traffic Engineering Handbook (5th ed.). Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC (1999). Texas Transportation Institute, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, and Pacific Rim Resources, Inc. NCHRP Report 414: HOV Systems Manual. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC (1998). Texas Transportation Institute. TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC (1996). Value of Public Roadway Lighting. Illuminating Engineering Soci- ety of North America, New York, NY (1987).