Better On-Street Bus Stops (2015)

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.

33 CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESULTS: AGENCY ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS TO PROVIDE BETTER ON-STREET BUS STOPS include: better relationships with municipalities; safer bus operation; ridership increases; ensuring ADA compliance; and investments in on-street amenities. One agency com- mented that ridership increases occurred only at high-rid- ership stops; improvements to low-ridership stops did not result in added ridership. TABLE 52 PRIMARY BENEFITS OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE ON-STREET BUS STOPS Benefit No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Better customer access to stops 10 24 Improved overall customer experience 10 24 Improved customer safety 9 21 Better relationship and clearer under- standing with municipalities 7 17 Safer bus operation 5 12 Ridership increases 5 12 Investments in on-street amenities 5 12 Ensuring ADA compliance 5 12 Improved image for transit 3 7 Fewer stops 3 7 Better customer information at stops 3 7 Improved stop visibility 2 5 Easier for visitors to get around 1 2 Reduced number of complaints 1 2 Improved maintenance at shelters 1 2 Consistent stop appearance 1 2 Total agencies responding 42 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 53 summarizes the responses to an open-ended question on the drawbacks of actions to improve on-street bus stops. Budgetary impacts and staff time were men- tioned most frequently as drawbacks. Other drawbacks cited by at least 10% of respondents include: higher expec- tations for future stop enhancements; procedural or policy issues with local municipalities; pushback from property owners; and loss of parking. Increased complaints occurred as riders’ expectations rose and unimproved stops became less acceptable. Lack of flexibility refers to greater diffi- INTRODUCTION This is the second of two chapters that present the results of a transit agency survey about better on-street bus stops. The previous chapter addressed survey results related to aspects of bus stop design and location, responsibilities, coordination, pedestrian access, and amenities and passen- ger information at stops. This chapter focuses on agencies’ evaluations of their efforts. Specific topics include agency assessment of the success of actions taken, benefits and drawbacks, potential improvements, and lessons learned. AGENCY ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE ON-STREET BUS STOPS Table 51 shows transit agencies’ ratings of actions taken to improve on-street bus stops. Actions include more and improved shelters, better pedestrian connections to and from stops, wider sidewalks, additional amenities, improved and more consistent customer information, lengthened bus stops, and newly designed bus stop signs and flags. Most respondents (80%) rated their actions as either “very suc- cessful” or “somewhat successful.” One agency noted that planners and community development staff have begun to incorporate transit perspectives into their processes. TABLE 51 AGENCY RATING OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE ON-STREET BUS STOPS Agency Rating No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Very successful 12 27 Somewhat successful 24 53 Neutral 5 11 Somewhat unsuccessful 3 7 Very unsuccessful 1 2 Total agencies responding 45 100 Source: Survey results. Table 52 summarizes the responses to an open-ended question on the primary benefits of these actions. Better cus- tomer access to stops, an improved overall customer experi- ence at stops, and improved customer safety are the leading benefits. Other benefits cited by at least 10% of respondents

34 culty in moving or discontinuing improved stops. Internal issues include clear responsibilities, consistency, and accu- rate information. TABLE 53 DRAWBACKS OF ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPROVE ON-STREET BUS STOPS Drawback No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Budgetary impacts 11 27 Staff time/slow process 9 22 Higher expectations for further enhancements 5 12 Procedural/priority issues with local municipalities 5 12 Pushback from property owners 4 10 Loss of parking 4 10 Increased complaints due to riders’ higher expectations 3 7 Lack of flexibility (e.g., moving bus stops) 3 7 Internal issues 3 7 Community backlash 2 5 Need to be vigilant regarding new construction projects 2 5 Cleaning and maintenance 2 5 Avoiding complacency (“good enough is not the goal”) 1 2 Improving the “wrong” stops because of cost or resistance 1 2 Changes made need to be memorial- ized in policy 1 2 Stalemates where there is no reasonable solution 1 2 Negotiating agreements with property owners to ensure ADA compliance 1 2 Total agencies responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 54 reports the most successful (as defined by the respondents) actions taken. Partnerships and improved communication with municipalities and others leads the list, followed by grants and funding for stop improvements and bus shelters. Specific successful actions within these general catego- ries include the following: • Development of regional programs that establish pri- orities for bus stop improvements and cost-sharing arrangements (50/50 split) with the municipalities within their service areas. • A community grant program for local jurisdictions that allows them to install the amenities they want at bus stops as long as they agree to maintain the stop. TABLE 54 THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ACTIONS TAKEN Action No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Partnerships/communication with municipalities and others 11 28 Grants/funding for stop improvements 5 13 Bus shelters 5 13 Transit curb extensions 3 8 Reviewing plans/working with developers 3 8 Bus pads 2 5 Upgraded amenities at BRT stops 2 5 Real-time information at bus stops 1 3 Improved bus speeds due to stop consolidation 1 3 New, highly visible bus stop sign 1 3 Removing unneeded street furniture to improve access to stops 1 3 Locally developed bus stop guidelines 1 3 Comprehensive database of all bus stops 1 3 A “complete” bus stop as an example of what can be done 1 3 New Downtown Transit Center 1 3 Total agencies responding 39 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. • Agreement with the city DOT to install concrete bus pads as part of any arterial resurfacing project at no cost to the transit agency. • As a formal reviewer on all development plans and right-of-way improvements, the transit agency has suc- cessfully encouraged developers to install passenger landing pads at all bus stops within the project area if they are already doing sidewalk work. • Greater involvement in Complete Streets initiatives that can provide funding for bus stop improvements. • Partnerships with local business owners and national chains to obtain easements that provide room for added amenities at bus stops. • A foundation of partnerships and processes to (1) create a shared vision of the importance of bus stops and ameni- ties, (2) be at the table when streets are redesigned and new developments are proposed, (3) identify funding opportu- nities, and (4) develop expedient permitting procedures. • Dedicated funding and staff for bus stop improvements. • Reduction in the number of stops by 15% to improve travel speeds. • Establishment of a small committee characteristic of the disabled community to provide guidance in priori- tizing stops for improved ADA access. • Face-to-face meetings with city staff at stop locations in the field.

35 • Addition of a unique five-digit identification number on every bus stop sign that can be used by means of phone, text, or smartphone to obtain real-time bus arrival time at the stop. Respondents were asked, “If you could change ONE aspect in the process of designing and locating bus stops, what would you change?” Table 55 summarizes the results. Streamlined and simplified approval processes, legal author- ity to establish bus stops where needed, better coordination with local governments, and standard procedures in all municipalities served were the most frequent answers. TABLE 55 ONE CHANGE TO THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND LOCATING BUS STOPS Change No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Streamlined/simplified approval process 8 21 Legal authority to establish bus stops where needed 7 18 Better coordination with local governments 6 15 Standard procedures in all municipali- ties served 4 10 ADA compliance/comprehensive assessment/waivers 3 8 Higher priority on proactively improving bus stops 2 5 Additional funding 2 5 Flexibility in types of amenities installed 1 3 Nearside stops 1 3 Contractor cooperation in installing sidewalks/curb cuts 1 3 Bus stop spacing 1 3 Bus stop design standards elevated to same level as municipal standards re: streets and sidewalks 1 3 Guidance on bus stop design 1 3 Sufficient funding to avoid having to choose shelter locations 1 3 Total agencies responding 39 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. LESSONS LEARNED Lessons learned that would benefit other agencies are shown in Table 56. Ongoing external communications that begin before a major bus stop improvement project are very help- ful. Partnerships strengthen relationships with other agen- cies and facilitate a clear understanding of each agency’s priorities and requirements. Internally, a multidisciplinary, cross-department approach yields many benefits. TABLE 56 LESSONS LEARNED Lessons Learned No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Good ongoing communications and partnerships with external agencies 13 35 Multidisciplinary, cross-department agency approach 5 14 Cross-understanding of agency needs and jurisdictional requirements 3 8 Locally developed guidelines and standards 2 5 Funding/budget 2 5 Be proactive in dealing with streetscape/parking conflicts 2 5 Multiple outreach methods to munici- palities, landowners, and customers 2 5 Education re: importance of bus stops 2 5 Simple yet flexible shelter designs 2 5 Get to know city staff/meet in the field 2 5 Other 13 35 Total agencies responding 37 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Key lessons learned are presented by category in italics. All comments are reported verbatim as expressed by agency respondents except for minor grammatical changes. Communications with External Agencies • Need to create good communication with local politi- cal officials and with officials responsible for autho- rizing/creating the parking regulations required to designate bus stops. • Transit agencies don’t have the resources to solve all the issues alone. Build partnerships. • Established partnerships with external agencies (local, state, etc.). • The transit agency is collaborating with neighborhood communities and not-for-profit organizations to reduce costs and speed up the process for constructing a shel- ter pad and installing shelters. Three successful projects are under way in a neighborhood in an unincorporated part of the county. One new project is just starting with the Boy Scouts. This model is a win-win for the com- munity! (1) Costs are reduced for the transit agency. (2) Projects get under way and are completed more quickly than could be achieved due to lack of funding, right-of- way, or other priority. (3) The community has owner- ship and pride in the project and takes on a maintenance component. (4) More people learn about transit and the opportunity to ride the system! • Build a rapport with city staff members before you make requests to install, relocate, or remove stops. • Keep an open and honest dialog with all parties involved.

36 • Work with appropriate municipalities and other groups early on in the development of bus stop guide- lines in order to get their buy-in. Projects such as this are much more successful and efficient when agencies work together toward a common goal. • It is helpful to have an up-to-date Memorandum of Understanding with cities. This way, responsibilities are clear when a customer complains about a stop being dirty. • Work with all stakeholders and local and state agen- cies to put all the pieces together. The bus system is within a four-county area, so it takes many stakehold- ers to make it happen. • Cultivate municipal officials on the transit systems and its needs. • Coordinate with as many groups as possible (depart- ments of transportation, elected officials, private developers) to seek funding for improvements. • Communicate as best you can with those agencies that directly impact your bus stop: city planning depart- ment, public works department, utility companies, and other transit operators. Because the region has a mul- titude of transit operators and organizations, it is best to find and participate in a standing committee so they are aware you (i.e., the bus company!) actually exist. • Establish good relationships with local government to both gain their trust on bus stop issues and to establish a rapport that will yield a climate of customer-sensitive interest in establishing and maintaining bus stops for local residents. Internal Agency Approach • Utilize a multidisciplinary or cross-departmental approach when possible. By involving the expertise of others when handling problems, you can get a more balanced view of each situation and have a more functional outcome. Examples of this include having Planning, Safety, and Bus Operations work together to assess stop issues (we recently reviewed all stops with layovers using this combination)—it helps get buy-in from key areas when proposing a solution. • Just because you have an internal system of handling the normal level of bus stop changes, don’t assume it can han- dle a major service change or the replacement of an old sign design with a new design (or worse, both at once). • Carefully plan route changes. • It is necessary to have dedicated, expert staff that can establish good relationships with municipalities. • Dedicated staff (actual staff who concentrate on this effort daily). Understanding Each Other’s Needs • We were able to frame the topic of bus stop develop- ment so that it fit in with pedestrian improvements, streetscape projects, and improvement of traffic flow. It is important to highlight the benefits that the com- munity gets as a whole from the development of better bus stops. • Work with jurisdictions to understand transit agency needs and the jurisdiction’s requirements so that plans are submitted consistent with meeting both agencies’ needs. • In some regards persistence has paid off. By constantly working with public and private groups to ensure tran- sit needs are considered, some of those groups have begun to contact our agency at the beginning of their design phases to get our input and work with us to ensure our needs are met. Locally Developed Guidelines and Standards • Local standards with buy-in from Right-of-Way (ROW) owners is critical. This also helps communicate with developers who aren’t looking at some nationwide research report but rather at an adopted or gener- ally accepted guidelines document. In cases where the ROW owner’s standard or guideline on bus stops doesn’t meet the transit authority’s needs, it is incum- bent on the transit authority to work with the ROW owner to update their engineering standards. • Develop standards, diagrams, and templates (in CAD if possible) so designers can easily incorporate the bus stop improvements and proper clearances into their plans. Funding/Budget • Put stop improvements into a budget so the agency is not surprised. • Dedicated funding. Proactive Approach • Be proactive when it comes to dealing with curbside and ROW issues (streetscape or parking conflicts). With recent trends of stimulus/TIGER [Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery] grant streetscapes and complete streets projects, it’s critical to make sure that bus stops are properly designed into plans from the beginning rather than an afterthought. This requires coordination with local governments, as well as their consultants and contractors. • In the event a standing committee does not exist, then you need to be proactive and seek them out...and communicate. Multiple Outreach Methods • Use multiple outreach methods when trying to estab- lish coordination with your member cities/counties. The agency informed their municipal contacts that we wanted to coordinate on bus stop issues and plan

37 reviews, and we have been approached proactively by the cities on several occasions as a result. • Outreach to adjacent landowners and customers is intense in the areas that are changing. Getting every- one on the same page with the same information up front helps the process move forward. Education • It takes patience and persistence to see change happen. It also means being willing to educate nontransit plan- ners on how important improvements to bus stops are to how well a transit system can serve its customers. • It is important to educate municipal officials on the importance of considering the transit systems and its needs when considering zoning code. We are currently considering a BRT system, which will require Transit Oriented Design (TOD) code around stations and stops. Without it, forget about getting FTA financial help. Most municipalities here do not have TOD on their radar. Shelter Design • Simple is better. We originally designed our own unique shelters and paid the price for the “custom” nature of the shelter. When we planned an expanded shelter program and also began replacing older shel- ters, we selected a commercially available shelter that could meet our needs with minor adaptations, making the shelters more readily available and reducing costs. • The agency has a contract with a shelter manufacturer that allows us to buy several different styles of shelter. We let the local municipality choose which style they want in their town. That helps us get approval to install new shelters. Other • Learn experience working with and attending meetings with other agencies. • Leadership support (top-down) and dedicated Board support. • Consolidation of bus stops has had a large benefit in improving service reliability, reducing local impacts of bus stops, and increasing our ability to concentrate on fewer problem stop locations. Bus stop maintenance could be a huge budget item (power washing, trash col- lection, etc.) but having an ability to do that, at least on a case-by-case basis, would be hugely beneficial. • Consider the added maintenance cost of putting bus shelters at bus stops when costing out a bus shelter program. • Identify one point of contact at permitting jurisdiction for the review of proposed improvements. • Safety is priority one even if that means not installing a bus stop. • Make sure you have input into major streetscape projects in your community. You should be a check- off in terms of one of the agencies that has to review these projects. • Collect data on bus stops that are targeted for improve- ment and prioritize these stops. • Dedicate personnel to review public works projects so that bus stops can be requested and required as part of the project and monitor compliance with hav- ing the stops constructed as designed during the ini- tial design process. • Utilities and topography have always been the project- killers. You’d think the service area is flat, but 2 or 3 ft could mean expensive retaining walls and exca- vation of shallow utilities. Spend ample time on each site taking pictures and poking around. Learn to look for problems. It is better to move the bus stop away from the problems if you can rather than issue change orders after digging has begun. • If your agency has a rule, such as stop placement every two blocks within an urban area, make it a “soft” rule and allow for some flexibility. • You can’t always get what you want. SUMMARY This chapter has described agency assessments of actions taken to provide better on-street bus stops. Key findings include the following: • Assessments of the success of actions taken are gen- erally positive. Most respondents (53%) rated their actions as “somewhat successful” and 27% rated their actions as “very successful.” • The primary benefits of these actions are better customer access to bus stops, an improved customer experience at stops, and improved customer safety, each cited by at least 20% of all respondents. Other ben- efits include better relationships with municipalities, safer bus operation, ridership increases, ensured ADA compliance, and investments in on-street amenities. • The major drawbacks of these actions are bud- getary impacts and staff time. Other drawbacks include higher expectations for future stop enhance- ments, procedural/policy issues with local municipal- ities, pushback from property owners, loss of parking, increased customer complaints, lack of flexibility, and internal issues. • Partnerships and improved communication with municipalities and property owners were most fre- quently mentioned as the most successful actions, followed by grants and funding for stop improve- ments and bus shelter installation. Specific successful actions described in this chapter include cost-sharing arrangements with municipalities, agreements with

38 municipalities and developers to provide bus stop improvements as part of their ongoing work, pursuit of funding opportunities that benefit all parties, real-time information at bus stops, dedicated funding and staff for a bus stop program, and means to involve riders and city staff in prioritizing stop improvements. • Streamlined and simplified approval processes, legal authority to establish bus stops where needed, and better coordination with local governments were most frequently mentioned in response to the question: “If you could change ONE aspect in the pro- cess of designing and locating bus stops, what would you change?” Respondents also mentioned standard- ized procedures across municipalities. • Lessons learned emphasized ongoing external com- munications that begin prior to a major bus stop improvement project, partnerships to facilitate a clear understanding of each agency’s priorities and requirements, and a multidisciplinary cross- department approach within the agency.