National Academies Press: OpenBook

Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds (2014)

Chapter: Chapter Five - Case Examples

« Previous: Chapter Four - Agency Assessment of Actions to Improve Bus Speeds
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 47

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.

34 CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (COLUMBUS, OHIO) Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) is the public trans- portation operator in the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. COTA serves portions of five counties, with a service area population of 1.11 million. COTA operates 258 peak buses directly. Annual bus ridership was 18.8 million in 2011. Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds COTA reported a minor downward trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. The major action taken was the multiyear Bus Stop Service Improvement Project (BSSIP) to review bus stop spacing on all routes. The chief executive officer (CEO) of the agency rode the system regularly and came to the conclusion that stops were too close. He directed the staff to develop a policy on bus stop spacing. COTA staff first reviewed policies developed by other agencies. COTA analyzed a local route, a crosstown route, and an express route to explore potential strategies, and concluded that between 25% and 35% of bus stops could be removed. COTA convened a stakeholder group composed of metro- politan planning organization members and riders, including two riders with disabilities, and presented preliminary ideas on stop spacing. Stakeholders were initially not entirely pleased with the concept. At the end of the meeting, COTA invited all stakeholders to board a bus waiting outside the building and ride along on one of the busiest routes, stop- ping at every bus stop. This experience in the field convinced stakeholders that a real problem existed and that a new policy was needed. The stop spacing standard was supported by the stake- holders and adopted in 2010. The policy called for varied stop spacing, based on land use and density: • High-density residential areas (20+ persons per acre), CBD, and shopping areas: 500 to 700 ft (152 to 213 m); • Fully developed residential areas (10 to 20 persons per acre): 700 to 850 ft (213 to 259 m); INTRODUCTION Synthesis survey results provide an overview of the actions taken to improve bus speeds. Following a review of these results, six agencies were chosen as case example sites. Per- sonnel directly involved with these programs agreed to be interviewed by telephone. In all cases, more than one person at an agency either participated in the interviews or reviewed the draft summary of the case example. The case examples provide additional details on innovative and successful prac- tices, guidance in the form of lessons learned, and insights into overcoming obstacles to implementation. The selection process for case examples had several criteria: (1) include transit agencies of various sizes in different parts of the country; (2) include agencies that have taken different types of actions; (3) include agencies that reported detailed and interesting observations in the survey; and (4) include at least one agency that assessed its actions as less than some- what successful to reflect real difficulties facing attempts to improve bus speeds. More than 60% of responding agencies offered to serve as a case example. The six agencies chosen provide an overview of the current state of strategies for improving bus speeds. Figure 2 in chapter one shows the location of the case example cities. The six case example cities and agencies are: • Columbus, Ohio: Central Ohio Transit Authority • Gainesville, Florida: Gainesville Regional Transit System • Nashville, Tennessee: Metropolitan Transit Authority • New York City: MTA–New York City Transit • San Francisco, California: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Spokane, Washington: Spokane Transit Authority The case examples summarize survey responses and interview observations from each agency. The introduc- tion to each case example includes a basic description of the system, with data provided by the agency or taken from fiscal year 2011 National Transit Database reports. The interviews explored issues raised by the survey responses in greater depth. chapter five CASE EXAMPLES

35 a stop proposed for removal. The complaint proved to be unfounded. Operator reaction was very positive. At the end of a monthly meeting with operators to discuss scheduling issues, an opera- tor volunteered that changes to a major bus line allowed her to operate more smoothly, not to begin slowing down for the next stop when still accelerating from the last stop. The other operators immediately agreed. Recently, operators who drive affected routes have been invited to the meetings to provide input on candidate stops for removal. COTA has long had a very positive relationship with the city of Columbus. The city understands the agency’s reason- ing and sees benefits in terms of parking management (addi- tional spaces become available), financial impacts (fewer concrete pads), and impacts to traffic flow. The Columbus Dispatch carried an article on the bus stop service improvement project. COTA shared the methodology used to decide the fate of individual stops, and the article discussed the rational approach underlying the entire project. Shortly thereafter, the paper published an editorial in support of the BSSIP. The agency noted that it is extremely difficult to isolate indi- vidual components affecting bus speeds. Along with changes to bus stop spacing, COTA took other actions, such as purchas- ing low-floor buses, adjusting running times, and streamlin- ing routes. Low-floor buses decrease dwell times at stops, but fewer seats on these buses result in more standees. Operators protested that the back doors on the first low-floor buses placed into service operated so slowly that it lengthened dwell times and caused them to fall behind schedule. In addition, operators select their work every 4 months, and the impact of operators with different driving styles is real, even if difficult to quantify. During the past 5 years, scheduled speed for local service decreased by less than 2% (see Table 30) while local rider- ship increased by 17%. COTA credits the bus stop spacing standard and its implementation with allowing speeds to be maintained during a period of major ridership growth. COTA cited staffing as the only major constraint. Limited staff availability supported the decision to follow an incre- mental process instead of changing everything at once. At the outset of the project, COTA set a goal to review routes with a total of 400 to 500 bus stops each 4-month service period. One staff person conducted the analysis, although other per- sons reviewed comments before making the final decision. The process of actually removing a stop is labor intensive and involves City as well as agency staff. Benefits and Drawbacks The primary benefit of actions to improve bus speeds came through the BSSIP: the ability to maintain existing local bus • Low-density residential areas (three to 10 persons per acre): 850 to 1,200 ft (259 to 366 m); • Rural (zero to three persons per acre) or express bus service areas: 1,200+ ft (366+ m). Mindful that the research had shown that large-scale efforts across an entire system engendered extensive resistance, the agency began implementation with express routes, followed by crosstown routes, smaller local routes, and finally major local routes. COTA focused on stop removal as opposed to stop repositioning to avoid the need to move stop signage, pads, shelters, and benches. COTA prepared geographic information system (GIS) maps showing density, land use, and boardings per stop (using automatic passenger counter or APC data) and used these to identify stops that did not meet the spacing standard. GIS maps that showed 0.25-mi (0.4-km) buffers around each stop demonstrated that there was very little loss of coverage. The process can be summarized as: 1. Analyze the stops on a given set of routes and identify stops for removal. 2. Post commuter bulletins at all affected stops for at least 3 weeks to solicit comments. 3. Post the information and solicit comments on the COTA website as well as at public meetings. Figure 4 shows a map of a segment of Line 2 East Main showing all stops. Stops to be removed are marked by red circles with a text balloon noting stop number and location. This type of information was posted on the COTA website, first as proposed changes and then (revised as necessary) as final changes. COTA reevaluated certain stops based on public input and operator comments. Input regarding ADA customer use and other arguments (e.g., inadequate queuing space at the near- est stop) influenced decisions to retain a given stop. After final decisions were made, new notices were placed at all stops that were changing several weeks in advance of the changes. Customer Service telephone personnel were fully informed throughout the project regarding the plan’s purpose as well as specific proposals. The CEO strongly supported the program throughout the process, allowing staff to stand up to political pressure. One example involved a stop outside a private school. The APC data showed four boardings per day, but parents protested and claimed that the nearest stop was too far away. COTA prepared maps showing that the walking distance from the school entrance to the nearest stop was only 50 ft (15 m) more than to the stop being removed and distributed these maps to all involved. The stop was ultimately removed. There were also humorous moments. Staff recalled the complaint regarding pigeon droppings at the stop closest to

36 FIGURE 4 BSSIP map for Line #2 East Main.

37 • Be transparent in your analysis. Use GIS-generated maps to show the results of the analysis of specific routes. • Involve your stakeholders early in the process, par- ticularly those who can be expected to be opposed to the project. In retrospect, staging a bus to take stake- holders on a trip along a major bus route right after the initial meeting was crucial in convincing the skeptics in the group, including members of the disabled com- munity, that the proposed actions were necessary. The broad support among stakeholders minimized negative reaction. • Be reasonable for your community, and know what they will tolerate. There is a general unwillingness to walk in Columbus, as in many American communities. The stan- dards were set with this in mind. • Use feedback from bus operators to improve bus speeds. • Ensure support of upper management at the outset. In COTA’s case, the CEO was the driving force behind the policy and its implementation, and his support was vital in overcoming obstacles, especially in the early stages of the project. COTA’s advice to another agency trying to replicate its program is to adopt a policy then work hard to adhere to it. Keep the public and bus operators involved. Be flexible, but only when it makes sense. Follow through on stop removal to ensure that everything is done correctly. GAINESVILLE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA) The Regional Transit System (RTS) is the public transporta- tion operator in Gainesville, Florida, the home of the Uni- versity of Florida. RTS serves a service area population of 188,000. RTS operates 93 peak buses directly. Annual bus ridership is 10 million. Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds RTS reported a minor downward trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. The agency took actions regarding stops, vehicles, and schedules to address this decline. The primary efforts to improve bus speeds relied on stop-related actions. Actions are described in the following paragraphs. Stop-Related Actions RTS set a guideline for bus stop spacing as part of its Bus Service Improvement Program (BSIP) in three categories: urban (eight stops per mile: every 660 ft or 200 m); suburban (six stops per mile; every 880 ft or 268 m); rural (four stops per mile; every 1,320 ft or 402 m). Urban stops were often tied to redevelopment or infill efforts. The BSIP also created speeds during a period of major ridership growth. The pri- mary drawback was disgruntled passengers who did not want their stops removed, although this was mitigated by estab- lishing a reasonable and defensible process based on data and open to public input. COTA answered every complaint with an explanation of the purpose of the project and a direct response to the specific argument. Through this process, even unhappy passengers felt as though their complaints had been heard and acknowledged. As noted, COTA did reevalu- ate stops when there was a legitimate reason to do so but did not promise to do so at every challenge in the absence of compelling evidence. COTA was flexible in its dealings with major trip generators, such as Ohio State University; the number of campus stops was reduced, but compromises were struck over specific locations. The most successful actions were the establishment of new bus stop spacing standards and the BSSIP. The impact of not having to stop so often is hard to measure, given ongo- ing construction projects and the different driving patterns of different operators. COTA sees a future benefit in addition to its current ability to maintain speeds in a period of growing ridership: new riders will accept the new stop locations as a given. COTA also uses the spacing standards to respond to requests to add, relocate, or remove stops. Changes/Lessons Learned If COTA could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would have been more aggressive in increasing stop spacing. At the outset, staff believed that a reduction of 25% to 35% in the number of stops would be the maximum politically feasible change. The BSSIP has generated broad support and encountered minimal negative reaction. COTA offers several lessons learned through its imple- mentation of the BSSIP: • Establish a policy standard that is reasonable and defen- sible. Analysis of different types of service at the outset of this process helped to ground the process in common sense. Year Average Speed (mph) 2007 13.66 2008 13.52 2009 13.45 2010 13.55 2011 13.53 2012 13.39 % change, 2007–2012 –2.0% Source: Unpublished COTA data. TABLE 30 SCHEDULED SPEED FOR COTA LOCAL BUS SERVICE, 2007 TO 2012

38 mobility devices. RTS policy is that ADA-certified passen- gers can ride fixed-route buses for free. Benefits and Drawbacks The primary benefit of actions to improve bus speeds is maintaining existing frequencies and high ridership without increasing operating costs. The primary drawback is less convenient access to bus stops. The most successful action was consolidating and remov- ing bus stops. Along with improving bus speeds, this action has a fiscal impact in terms of bus stop maintenance costs. In addition, bus stops can be maintained to a higher quality when there are fewer stops. Changes/Lessons Learned If RTS could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would have established a Bus Stop Review Com- mittee at the outset. This could have increased awareness of the importance of bus stops and created greater buy-in among stakeholders, including the city and the county. Bringing those in charge of right-of-way at the city and the county to the table through such a committee could foster meaningful discussions. RTS offers the following lessons learned through its bus stop consolidation efforts: • Post information at stops. This cannot receive too much emphasis when stops are being changed or removed. • Meet with neighborhood associations on a regular basis and partner with them in selling bus stop changes to the community. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE) The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is the public trans- portation operator in the Nashville, Tennessee, metropolitan area. MTA’s service area population is 627,000. MTA oper- ates 137 peak buses directly. Total ridership for all services MTA operates or manages exceeded 10 million in 2012. Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds MTA reported a minor downward trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. The major action taken was the introduc- a stop classification system that bases stop amenities on rid- ership and transit-supportive land use. The new stop classifi- cation system supports improved design layout and includes thresholds for bus stop amenities and increases to paved waiting areas. This guideline was not officially adopted but served to guide stops and amenities toward arterials on the premise that removing stops is more acceptable if nearby stops are upgraded. RTS applies the new spacing guideline to new or extended routes and has made inroads in stop removal. RTS posted notices at affected stops and took calls and comments for a 2-week period. Stops were restored if there were compel- ling reasons, such as ADA access. RTS identified 72 stops for removal, all with very low ridership activity, and actu- ally removed or consolidated 67 stops. Securing funds for the local match was a challenge in obtaining federal funding for enhanced stops. Public reaction was generally supportive because only stops with very low ridership activity were affected. Bus operators also were supportive. Motorists were happy because they were less likely to get stuck behind a stopped bus. Opposition came from the maintenance person who had been respon- sible for stop oversight for several years and was passionate about passenger access to the system. RTS is preparing a stop maintenance plan intended to improve the appearance and maintain the cleanliness of bus stops. The plan will specify when structures are obsolete and need to be replaced and a maintenance schedule. Staffing is an issue in plan implementation. Other Actions Low-floor vehicles comprise 57% of the RTS fleet. RTS has moved to a perimeter seating configuration on most buses to increase capacity, especially on routes serving the University of Florida campus, where full loads are a chronic problem. Approximately 10% of all routes have had recent running time adjustments that decrease scheduled bus speeds. RTS uses schedule adherence and ridership in evaluating the success of various strategies. Funding is the major con- straint. It is difficult to remove or consolidate bus stops with- out improving nearby arterial bus stops to support higher bus speeds. If there is a lack of funding to improve bus stops with shelters and other key amenities, how can you convince rid- ers of the importance of removing other more conveniently located stops? The overall response to these changes is neutral. The actions related to stop spacing have helped to mitigate the declining trend in bus speeds. RTS attributes this to increased boardings, especially passengers in wheelchairs and other

39 bus stop, but this reflects the availability of funds and not a lack of desire to improve. MTA cited passenger complaints and competing goals as major constraints. It has historically been very difficult from a public relations standpoint to remove bus stops or streamline a route with numerous turns. There can be a lack of understand- ing in other departments of the importance of maintaining or increasing bus speeds and the extent to which fare collection, stop spacing, inefficient routing, and other seemingly minor actions add up to a notable impact on speed of service. Recent efforts are beginning to overcome some of these constraints. MTA recently developed stop and amenity place- ment and stop spacing guidelines, balancing reasonable stop distances against the availability of pedestrian amenities. MTA is conducting a comprehensive bus stop survey, work- ing on one route each week. An interdisciplinary group goes out into the field with GIS maps that include a passenger boarding overlay by stop to update the stop database and to identify locations where stops could be eliminated or added. The new guidelines help; to date, a handful of stops have been eliminated. Fare policy actions, such as replacing transfers with day passes; issuing EasyRide smart cards to local government employees, college students, and some private-sector employ- ees; and eliminating fare zones, have reduced dwell times. Minimizing the number of coins required to pay the cash fare and encouraging prepaid media through discounted pricing are other actions that can lower boarding times. Although there will always be competing goals, successful implementation of limited-stop service has demonstrated the appeal of faster service for riders. Benefits and Drawbacks New BRT lite service on the Gallatin Pike has increased rid- ership in the corridor by 15%. MTA is looking forward to a new AVL system to analyze running times and bus speeds at a highly detailed level. From a monthly data sample, on-time performance has improved in the corridor. Running times decreased with limited-stop service. Anecdotal evidence sug- gests that new shelters dedicated for limited-stop and local passengers at the major stops are appreciated by both groups of riders. The primary drawback was the cost of adding service because local service still operates with the limited-stop ser- vice in the corridor. The support of the mayor, who made the new service one of his top priorities and promised to obtain funding for it, was invaluable in making implementation possible. The most successful action was the introduction of limited- stop service, for the reasons cited earlier. tion of limited-stop routes on two major corridors with traffic signal priority. The first corridor with “BRT lite” service, as it is called locally, was Gallatin Pike. The second corridor, as of April 2013, was Murfreesboro Pike. The MTA website describes BRT lite as follows: “Designed to move bus rid- ers along the city’s busiest corridors, this service offers more frequent service, fewer stops, and a greener attitude.” Gallatin Pike is characterized as a mixed-use, medium- to high-density corridor served by one of the highest ridership routes. The existing route had bus stops every other block, typical of most of the MTA network. Limited-stop service has 15 bus stops in each direction, compared with 100 over the 12-mi (19-km) corridor for local service. The average spac- ing for the limited stops is approximately 0.75 mi (1.2 km). Signal priority is provided at all signalized intersections outside of downtown. A bus will be given an additional 8 to 10 s of green time if it is at least 1 min behind schedule. The traffic controllers are old, so it takes several cycles before priority is granted to another bus. Before BRT lite came into use on Gallatin Pike, local ser- vice operated every 20 min throughout the day and every 40 min in the evening and on weekends. BRT lite service is provided every 15 min on weekdays before 6 p.m. and every 30 min in the evening and on Saturday. Local bus service is provided every 40 min on weekdays before 6 p.m. and every 60 min in the evening and on Saturday. No BRT lite service is operated on Sunday; local service is provided every 40 min. The same model is being used for Murfreesboro Pike. MTA learned the importance of shelter location at the stops and how to address conflicts with utilities during the Gallatin Pike implementation. MTA also learned the most effective way to do a comprehensive analysis of where to place the stops. The first step was to analyze manual ride checks, lim- ited APC data, and fare box data to identify the busiest stops. Next, representatives from Metro, MTA Planning, MTA Operations, and the city’s Public Works Department took a bus out on the corridor to identify the specific location of pro- posed stops. The operations department supported limited-stop service. On-time performance has improved, and operators can take their full recovery time. MTA has not aggressively reduced running times on routes other than the limited-stop routes. The city’s Public Works Department has been supportive for the most part, although it can be difficult to obtain a firm commitment regarding new strategies. There have been more serious conversations about a true BRT east-west line in the past few months. The ongoing relationship with the city is aided by the current mayor, a very strong transit advocate. Public Works also sees that cooperation can yield benefits, such as an opportunity to obtain new traffic control hard- ware. Lack of sidewalks and pedestrian amenities hampers the ability of residents in many neighborhoods to access a

40 Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds NYCT reported a minor downward trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. The agency took a variety of actions regard- ing stops, vehicles, schedules, routes, internal policies, and external policies to arrest this decline. Many of the actions centered on the introduction of BRT service (known locally as Select Bus Service or SBS). Actions are described in the following paragraphs. Stop-Related Actions NYCT has increased bus stop spacing for local routes in a few instances when there was an opportunity to do so. The typical opportunity is a rebuilding of a street by the City, which would pour and pay for new concrete pads. Bus stops might also be removed when articulated buses began service on a route; lengthened stops would sometimes be practically adjacent to each other. After experimenting with various designs, NYCT and the city installed three bus bulbs in 2012 and are planning to install 30 this year. These are primarily along SBS routes (see Figure 5), but the city has also installed bus bulbs as part of a sidewalk widening project and at bus stops under- neath elevated trains, where the stop historically is at the pil- lar (between the travel lane and the parking lane (Figure 6) and not at the curb. NYCT is also experimenting with level boarding at stops. The low-floor bus entrance is 13 in. above the street. Where conditions permit, the city is installing 10-in. curbs at stops. When the bus kneels, the floor of the bus is at the same level as the curb. Vehicle-Related Actions Sixty percent of the NYCT local bus fleet consists of low- floor buses. NYCT is increasing the use of articulated buses. Three-door articulated buses were introduced in 2010. Changes/Lessons Learned If MTA staff could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would allow the scheduling and operations staff more decision-making power in the management of bus stops and route structure. The standard answer to decreased bus speeds in the past has been to add resources or, if resources are not available, to reduce service. Scheduling and opera- tions staff are analyzing data and observing operations on the street and are thus developing better, more nuanced, answers. MTA offers several lessons learned through its implemen- tation of limited-stop service and other actions to improve bus speeds: • The perception that increases in travel times are inevitable is not true. Identify actions that can be taken proactively to stem the decline in, if not increase, bus speeds. • Promote these actions and their effects within and outside the transit agency. The actions may not save a bus, but they can avoid the need to add a bus in the near future, or at least put off the need for a few years. MTA’s advice to another agency trying to replicate its pro- gram is: • Examine the busiest corridors stop by stop, and assess what constitutes a reasonable distance between stops. Use current boarding/alighting data to flag low-usage stops. • A strong relationship with city hall at all levels, from the CEO on down, is vital to the success of the program. • Being able to demonstrate the effect these changes can have on bus speeds is very important for interagency and intraagency relationships. Other departments and agen- cies will have different priorities and will not immedi- ately understand the importance of what you propose to do. • Upper management allowed MTA staff to fix the things that needed to be fixed, but it is necessary to bring these issues constantly to their attention. Bus speed is never an emergency. Other “fires” tend to take precedence, unless transit staff keep bus speed on the radar of upper management. MTA–NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT (NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK) MTA–New York City Transit (NYCT) is the public transporta- tion operator in the city of New York. NYCT serves a service area population of 8.0 million. NYCT operates 3,727 peak buses directly. Annual bus ridership is 800 million. FIGURE 5 Bus bulb in Manhattan.

41 two of the corridors in operation and on one of the corridors scheduled for 2013 implementation. SBS has increased speeds, compared in most cases to previ- ous limited-stop routes in the same corridors. Table 31 shows before and after speeds for the first three SBS routes. NYCT has made changes to specific routes, but there has been no overall policy change. Forty limited-stop routes have been introduced incrementally since 1975, including four or five new routes in the past several years. Internal Policy Changes All-door boarding, off-board fare collection, and changes to bus door practices have all been introduced on three of the four SBS services. Fare machines that issue proof-of-payment receipts have been installed at all SBS stops. Prepayment allows all-door boarding, and bus operators open all three doors at all stops. The combination of off-board fare collec- tion and all-door boarding has resulted in a 9% reduction in running time on the three SBS routes. MetroCard fare discounts, including free transfers between bus and subway, were introduced in 1998 and resulted in Schedule-Related Actions NYCT adjusts schedules on all routes within a 3-year cycle. The primary schedule-related action has been headway-based schedules for SBS and some limited-stop routes. This action has been a bone of contention internally. The NYCT Depart- ment of Buses has concerns regarding headway-based sched- uling because it makes road supervision more difficult at the same time as dispatcher positions are being eliminated. The bus operator unions also oppose this action, although anec- dotal information suggests that the bus operators themselves do like headway-based schedules. NYCT has made some adjustments, such as adding a few more time points along certain routes. The agency is awaiting the full implementa- tion of Bus Time, an AVL program that tracks bus location in real time, to address the issues surrounding headway-based schedules with real data. Route-Related Actions The primary change in recent years has been the introduction of four SBS routes since 2008. All feature bus lanes, low- floor buses, and wide stop spacing. Three routes use articu- lated buses, three have off-board fare collection, two routes have traffic signal priority, and bus bulbs are being built on Route Average Speed Before SBS Average Speed After SBS Fordham Road, the Bronx (Bx12 limited) 9 mph, 14 kph 12 mph, 19 kph First/Second Avenues, Manhattan (M15 limited) 6.75 mph, 10.86 kph 8 mph, 13 kph Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island (S79 local) 10 mph, 16 kph 13 mph, 21 kph Source: Unpublished MTA–NYCT data. FIGURE 6 Stop under the elevated station at Freeman Street (left) before and (right) after. TABLE 31 BEFORE AND AFTER SPEEDS FOR SBS ROUTES IN NEW YORK

42 Decreased general traffic speeds are good for a city with so many pedestrians but are not so good for bus speeds. How- ever, these measures are sometimes helpful to bus service in terms of making access to bus stops easier and safer for customers. NYCT uses a variety of metrics to measure impacts. Among these are analysis of components of travel speed, time and delay studies, changes in average bus speeds, schedule adherence, operating cost, ridership, and qualitative measures from passenger outreach in evaluating the success of various strategies. NYCT cited passenger complaints, union concerns, con- cerns from operations, competing goals, funding, general notable ridership increases. More boardings affected bus speeds negatively. Swiping, or more precisely “dipping,” the MetroCard takes longer than depositing a token in the fare box. The MetroCard has had many benefits for NYCT, but increased bus speed is not among them. NYCT is consider- ing contactless fare cards, but this remains an elusive tech- nology for the agency. External Policy Changes New York City has had bus-only lanes for many years, but the implementation of SBS has expanded the number of bus lanes. Currently there are 70 mi (113 km) of bus lanes on arterials and 10 mi (16 km) of physically separated lanes on express- ways. Most arterial bus lanes are curb lanes, but approximately 10 mi (16 km) are offset lanes (see Figure 7). Offset lanes are becoming the standard for new SBS routes because they leave the curb lane available for deliveries and parking. Offset lanes work even better with bus bulbs. New York City expected to open an additional 20 lane-miles (32 lane-kilometers) of offset bus lanes during 2013. Between 10 and 15 routes operate on corridors with TSP. NYCT reports a minor increase in bus speeds associated with signal priority, but it is difficult to quantify because each intersection is different. Signal priority in tandem with bus lanes is very effective. Many streets have peak hour no-standing zones to increase traffic flow. Signal progression has been in place for a long time on several arterials, and the City continues to optimize the timing. Turn restrictions are also common. In recent years, New York City has introduced pedestrian plazas (Figure 8), pedestrian refuges, curb neckdowns (Fig- ure 9), bicycle lanes, and other general traffic calming mea- sures. The purpose of these measures is to slow all traffic. M15 SBS: Features FIGURE 7 Offset bus-only lane on First Avenue in Manhattan. FIGURE 8 Pedestrian plaza at Putnam Plaza. FIGURE 9 Curb neck-down.

43 by thorough analysis of all available data, and by moving forward with Bus Time (AVL) implementation. The most successful action was the combination of transit signal priority, bus-only lanes, off-board fare collection, all- door boarding, and increased stop spacing for SBS service. Changes/Lessons Learned If NYCT could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would obtain better, more accurate, and more timely data. The implementation of Bus Time is expected to meet many of these data needs. NYCT would not have delayed the SBS implementation to wait for Bus Time, but the data would have helped greatly in day-to-day road supervision and service optimization. NYCT offers the following lessons learned through its implementation of changes to improve bus speeds and advice to other agencies: • Keep at it. Off-board fare collection in tandem with all- door boarding is highly successful. • It is very easy to be influenced by the concerns of spe- cific groups. You cannot design an entire transit system around the concerns of any single group. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA; also known as Muni) is the public transportation operator in the city of San Francisco, California. SFMTA serves San Francisco, with a service area population of 805,000. SFMTA directly operates 375 peak buses, 210 peak trolleybuses, 115 light rail vehicles, 25 historic streetcars, and 30 cable cars. Annual ridership is 95.6 million on bus, 67.5 million on trolleybus, and 59 million on combined rail modes. Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds SFMTA reported a minor downward trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. The agency took a variety of actions regard- ing stops, vehicles, schedules, routes, internal policies, and external policies to arrest this decline. These are described in the following paragraphs. Stop-Related Actions SFMTA set bus stop spacing guidelines for each type of ser- vice and removed some stops that were too closely spaced. reluctance to change, and not in my backyard (NIMBY) atti- tudes as major constraints. Stop removal is certain to gen- erate passenger complaints, although SBS service on First and Second Avenues in Manhattan (a major improvement in frequency and speed) has received more complaints upon implementation than any other recent action. One possible explanation is that trips may be shorter in these corridors. Union complaints arise from a general mistrust of manage- ment and a sense that faster service might somehow be used to reduce the labor force. The NYCT Department of Buses is very concerned about headway-based scheduling, which increases the workload for road supervisors at a time when the number of these posi- tions is being reduced. Each division within operations is held to a strict on-time performance goal, so minor opera- tional modifications, such as stop removals, are common. Safety has not been raised as an issue. Competing goals (speed versus convenience; traffic calm- ing versus bus speeds) are difficult to resolve. The customer perception is very different depending on whether the cus- tomer is waiting at a local-only stop watching a limited-stop bus go by or whether the customer is on the limited-stop bus. Reluctance to change is a human condition. This is magni- fied in New York, where a majority of the population rides public transit. NYCT works within all these constraints by consistently stressing the benefits to be gained. NYCT uses phased imple- mentation, partnerships with the city, particularly the NYC Department of Transportation, and reliance on data to sup- port the actions. NYCT received many fewer complaints than expected for its most recent SBS implementation on Hylan Boulevard in Staten Island. The local newspaper, not known as a supporter of NYCT, published several favorable articles. By aggressively employing a wide variety of actions, NYCT was able to mitigate the decrease in speed on some bus routes, reversing a longtime trend. Overall, SBS service has increased speeds in a noteworthy manner on the corridors that have been converted to SBS. Benefits and Drawbacks The primary benefits of actions to improve bus speeds are increased ridership and additional service at the same cost. NYCT has reinvested the savings generated by much faster operation on SBS service into improved headways or extended span of service. Drawbacks include expense (e.g., off-board fare collection), added work for road supervisors because of headway-based scheduling at a time of decreasing super- visory resources, and a lack of robust data at the stop and route segment levels. NYCT has worked around these draw- backs by opting not to deploy off-board fare collection on the Hylan Boulevard SBS route with few high-boarding stops,

44 All-Door Boarding All-door boarding has been the major internal policy change, taking effect in July 2012, on all services except cable car (light rail had all-door boarding before July 2012). SFMTA released an update on all-door boarding after 6 months, in February 2013. An informal policy previously had permit- ted boarding through the rear doors. Use of the rear doors has increased to 51% at stops with 10 or more boardings per trip, and dwell times at these stops have decreased by 3 to 4 s per stop. Passengers continue to board primarily through the front door at less busy stops, with no measurable impact on dwell times. Eleven fare inspectors were added in July 2012. Fare eva- sion has declined from 4.6% to 3.5%. Perception of fare eva- sion has gone up among riders, which may be the result of an unclear policy regarding when a rider needs to tag his/her card on the Clipper device (prepaid electronic fare instrument) at the rear doors. Monthly pass holders do not always tag. The most dramatic impact of all-door boarding can be seen in the afternoon on outbound express buses in downtown San Francisco, where queues of 40 people are not uncommon. The boarding process is much faster, but some express riders have complained that even if they arrive early at the stop, they can no longer get “their” seat because passengers entering through other doors take it. SFMTA is conducting a comprehensive overview that will include a running time analysis for selected routes. Anecdotally, the primary impact appears to be helping buses to keep to schedule. External Policies Bus-only lanes have been in effect for many years in the down- town core on major corridors such as Mission Street and Geary Street. Approximately 15 mi (24 km) of bus lanes are currently in place. The city and SFMTA are focusing on expanding transit-only lanes. The newest pilot project (Spring 2013) is on a three-block congested segment of Church Street. At this location, the city has painted the bus lanes red (“red-carpet lanes”) in an attempt to make the lanes self-enforcing (Fig- ure 10). A May 2013 press release reported a 5% reduction in travel time and an increase of 20% in travel time reliability on Route 22-Fillmore as a result of the transit-only lane on Church Street. Future expansions are planned for 8X Bayshore Express (on Third Street) and the N-Judah light rail line by Spring 2014. Bus-only lanes will be part of the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project, and the TEP proposes expansion to other major corridors. TSP has been expanded to 200 intersections affecting 20% of all SFMTA routes. The Mission corridor and Third Street corridors have TSP, and the Geary corridor is next on The guidelines call for stops every two to three blocks on local routes, depending on block lengths. The Transit Effec- tiveness Project (TEP) developed proposals to modify stop locations based on these guidelines, and stop modifica- tion has been one of the most controversial actions for bus riders. The TEP team is conducting a second round of exten- sive public outreach. Customers are concerned about route accessibility. The agency is also increasing stop lengths to accommo- date more and larger vehicles at stops. Bus bulbs are being planned and have been installed at key stops in corridors with very heavy traffic or in locations where buses have difficulty pulling back into the travel lane. SFMTA is also optimizing transit stop placement by establishing near-side stops at inter- sections with stop signs and far-side stops at inter sections with traffic signals. Vehicle-Related Actions The primary vehicle-related action is the purchase of low- floor buses. Low-floor buses currently comprise 10% of the bus fleet, and plans call for a fleet of 100% low-floor buses in the future. Light rail vehicles will continue to be high floor because of platform infrastructure and subway expansion currently under construction. SFMTA has not found any real differences in bus speeds as a result of low-floor buses, but the existing low-floor buses are scattered throughout the system, and there are not enough to make a difference on any one line. The lower seating capacity of low-floor buses is a major concern, given the crowded conditions on the buses. All low-floor buses use wheelchair ramps instead of lifts. Schedule-Related Actions SFMTA is implementing a program to adjust schedules on approximately 30% of its routes each year. As part of this process, SFMTA constantly reevaluates the mix of local and limited-stop routes to maximize efficiency. The limited-stop buses have become more popular and are frequently over- crowded, severely so during peak periods, whereas local buses have seated loads. After analyzing loads, SFMTA will consider changing the mix as part of ongoing schedule adjustments. Route-Related Actions The agency has streamlined about 10% of its routes to reduce the number of unnecessary deviations and turns and to mini- mize route redundancy. These changes were implemented as part of major service modifications for budgetary rea- sons in 2009. Recently, a new limited-stop route was added (Route 9L). The TEP proposes additional route realignments to streamline service.

45 means of APCs has created an insatiable appetite for data to analyze components of travel speed. Only a portion of the fleet is equipped with APCs, but SFMTA will evaluate the pilot bus lane on Church Street through close analysis of travel times and dwell times at stops on and adjacent to this three-block segment. SFMTA also uses changes in average bus speeds, schedule adherence, operating cost, ridership, and qualitative measures from passenger outreach in evaluating the success of various strategies. SFMTA cited passenger complaints, safety concerns from operations, funding, and neighborhood opposition as major constraints to implementation. Passenger complaints focused primarily on bus stop removal. Neighborhood opposition arose when stop signs were proposed for removal to improve travel speed; neighborhoods generally prefer slower traffic for safety reasons. Concerns from operations include operational flexibility, safety, and operator quality-of-driving-experience issues. Funding concerns were shared by the city for traffic engineering measures and by SFMTA for expanded service. The constraints have delayed the bus stop consolidation pro- gram, but SFMTA and the city have been able to implement other actions. Benefits and Drawbacks The primary benefits of actions to improve bus speeds included an improved customer experience and more consistent run- ning times. Bus bunching is a major frustration for custom- ers. Signal priority and bus lanes have not solved the problem, but bunching occurs less frequently. Passenger response to limited-stop service is positive, and SFMTA is seeking ways to expand limited service. Drawbacks vary by type of improvement. Stop removal is the most controversial policy for SFMTA because it reduces access to the system in the eyes of many customers. Increas- ing use of bus bulbs and right-turn pockets reduces the amount of on-street parking. The most successful action was TSP. It increased bus speeds and reduced variability in running times with mini- mal impacts. Changes/Lessons Learned If SFMTA could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would streamline the public process. This change concerns the internal processes of the agency, which manages all transportation in San Francisco, not just transit. In such a large agency, multiple projects have an effect on other projects. At times, SFMTA has gone out to the public multiple times about the same street or corridor. Packaging changes across the agency before going out to the public (which would require extensive coordination in the planning the list. TSP has the biggest impact of any actions taken to improve bus speeds. SFMTA reports an increase of between 5% and 10% in bus speeds associated with signal priority. The city has made changes in signal timing progression to favor transit on the Geary and O’Farrell corridors. The impact of these changes is lessened by the number of bus stops, but SFMTA has seen a minor (less than 5%) increase in bus speeds as a result of signal timing. San Francisco has had restrictions on left turns and park- ing during peak hours for some time, making it difficult to assess their impact. Recently, the city has installed right-hand turn pockets at congested intersections to separate vehicles making a right turn from through buses. These are created by prohibiting parking on the near side of the intersection, creating a lane for right-turning vehicles. Turn pockets serve a similar purpose as queue jumps, which are not prevalent in San Francisco. The city and SFMTA are looking to expand the use of boarding islands (already on Market Street) to other corridors with sufficient width. Boarding islands also separate buses from right-turn queues. SFMTA uses a variety of metrics to measure impacts. The availability of segment-level and stop-to-stop travel times by FIGURE 10 Bus-only lanes on Church Street in San Francisco.

46 stops and on its website. A single point of contact was estab- lished at STA to ensure that all input was received and all the information provided was consistent and correct. The initial information signs at affected bus stops were orange (Figure 11) and included a brief summary of the pro- gram, notice that the agency was proposing to remove this stop, the location of the two closest stops, and STA’s website address for customers to obtain additional information and comment on the plan. When a final decision was made, a red sign (Figure 12) was posted for 2 weeks, indicating that the stop would be removed and giving an approximate date for removal. In each phase of the project, STA decided to keep a lim- ited number of stops, usually after receiving overwhelming public input with compelling arguments for keeping the stop. In several cases, STA removed an adjacent stop when putting back a stop. Retained stops received a green sign (Figure 13). The decision to phase in the SCP is worth noting. As stated, the most frequent routes were included in Phase 1 in 2010 to achieve the greatest benefits for the greatest number of riders. Phase 2 occurred in 2011, when the agency imple- mented a major service reduction (7% reduction in revenue hours of service and a system restructuring that was preceded by a 3% service reduction in 2010 for a cumulative total phase and greater flexibility in implementation) would be valuable. The primary lesson learned at SFMTA through its imple- mentation of changes to improve bus speeds is that more out- reach at earlier stages of project development is better, but it still does not guarantee success. SFMTA’s advice to another agency trying to replicate its program is: • Know your community, what it will and will not tolerate. • Know your stakeholders and get buy-in at an early stage. • Be prepared for a lot of planning work on the back end of the project, to ensure that the actions work as planned. SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (SPOKANE, WASHINGTON) Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is the public transportation operator in Spokane, Washington. STA serves a service area population of 394,000. STA operates 112 peak buses directly. Annual fixed-route bus ridership is 11.0 million. Actions Taken to Increase Bus Speeds STA reported a mixed trend in bus speeds over the past 5 years. Anecdotal information suggests that overall speeds are roughly the same. The agency took actions regarding stops, schedules, and routes to improve bus speeds. The pri- mary effort to improve bus speeds was the Stop Consolida- tion Plan (SCP). The Stop Consolidation Plan began in 2010 and is now in its fourth and final phase. The impetus for the program was new service design guidelines that called for maximiz- ing ridership while being cost-effective and energy efficient. General stop spacing had been every two blocks on average, or 600 ft (183 m), with many stops closer. The new standard, prepared in 2009 in conjunction with new service guidelines and approved by the STA Board as part of the 2010 Compre- hensive Plan, is 800 to 1,500 ft (244 to 457 m), with a targeted average of 1,200 ft (366 km). STA submitted Phase 1 of the SCP to the Board as an information item following adoption of the standard. STA made the decision to start on the six routes with 15-min head- ways, the busiest routes in the system, because changes to these routes would yield the greatest improvements. STA encountered opposition from riders and to a lesser extent from a limited number of bus operators. The news media ran three features telling the stories of riders opposed to the changes. STA provided information at affected bus STOP #1201 This bus stop is proposed to be eliminated as part of Spokane Transit Authority’s (STA) Stop Consolidation Project. If this stop is eliminated, the next two closest stops are located at: • Broadway and Maple OR • Broadway and Adams FIGURE 11 Stop closure sign.

47 of 10%). Phase 2 originally was envisioned to include all remaining stops within the city of Spokane but was adjusted to include only routes with major changes. This change was primarily to ensure schedule adherence on restructured routes. In 2012, Phase 3 included higher-ridership routes with 30-min headways. Phase 4, now under way, included all other routes. STA has also implemented two bus bulb stops in coop- eration with the city, and a third was planned for 2013. The SCP is approximately 80% complete. To date, there are approximately 24% fewer stops systemwide than in 2009. This percentage will increase to approximately 35% when Phase 4 is completed. STA has changed running times and streamlined several routes, but the SCP is the primary action taken to improve bus speeds. Owing to limited staff, a number of major road recon- struction projects happening concurrent with stop spac- ing changes and the lack of computer-aided dispatch or AVL data, STA has not conducted a systemwide analysis to mea- sure detailed effects of stop spacing and route streamlining efforts. The 10% reduction in service resulted in a 1% ridership increase in the first year, as the streamlined routes attracted additional ridership. Some routes experienced greater rider- ship increases that negatively affected travel times. Overall, STA is better off than if these actions had not been taken. STA uses ridership and discussions with operators in evalu- ating the success of the SCP program. Ridership impacts have already been noted. Operators with concerns have come to communicate stop-specific issues rather than take issue with the program as a whole. This has contributed to a positive working relationship between operators and service planners. Funding is the major constraint. STA did not ask for addi- tional local funding in 2011, choosing instead to live within its resources even in difficult financial times. The SCP served as a demonstration that STA is sensitive to the need for cost- efficient operation and provides good stewardship of public funds. If there is not a major new revenue stream (i.e., increase in tax rate by vote of the citizens), STA will be cutting ser- vice. The agency does not have extra revenue to make major capital investments otherwise. The long-range plan calls for high-performance transit (HPT), using BRT concepts while avoiding the polemic around what exactly “BRT” means. HPT encompasses several types of service: • Blue Line service, with freeway-type service with dedi- cated lanes, frequent peak service, and 30-min midday service; • Red Line service, with signal priority, frequency and spacing typical of BRT, which may or may not have dedicated lanes; STOP #1201 This stop will be eliminated as part of Spokane Transit Authority’s (STA) Stop Consolidation Project. This stop will be removed between July 1, 2013 and September 1, 2013. Please board the bus at: • Broadway and Maple OR • Broadway and Adams FIGURE 12 Stop removal sign. STOP #1199 Based on further evaluation and customer input, this bus stop will be retained at this time. FIGURE 13 Stop retained sign.

48 Coverage issues and not the SCP are likely the cause, but the SCP may have contributed somewhat to this response. The most successful action was stop consolidation, espe- cially on the busiest routes. The operation of these routes is more consistent and is favored by operators and most riders. On some routes, STA removed 40% or more of all stops. Changes/Lessons Learned If STA could change one aspect of actions to improve bus speeds, it would have had the ability to track prechange to postchange data in greater detail by means of an AVL sys- tem or some other means. STA also notes that it is difficult to communicate changes to all riders. Posted notices were torn down at some stops, often the most controversial ones. Despite extensive efforts by the agency to provide informa- tion, some riders complained that they were not informed of the prospective changes. STA offers the following lessons learned through its stop consolidation efforts: • Begin with the end in mind. The SCP was not only about bus stops. • Start with routes that will yield the biggest improve- ments. Phase 1 of the SCP targeted all routes with 15-min frequencies. • Do not be discouraged by media attention or initial complaints from riders and operators. Bus operators who initially oppose stop consolidation may become your biggest champions. Riders, too, will begin to push for stop consolidation as they see the benefits to their own commutes. • Green Line service, with signal priority and three- to five-block stop spacing and very frequent service. STA is focusing on a program of HPT in five to six cor- ridors that can be brought to a vote to increase funding. The planned HPT service has provided a guiding framework for the SCP, and the SCP helps to advance the argument that STA has been a good steward of public funds. Cost-effectiveness is a very big political argument, and STA has delivered on its promise to be more cost-effective. Productivity in terms of boardings per hour has risen from 22 in 2002 to 27 in 2009 and 29 in 2012. Operating costs are deployed efficiently with cost per revenue hour running nearly 20% below the average for large urban transit systems in Washington State. STA assesses the actions to improve bus speeds as some- what successful. The most common complaint now is over- crowded buses. Benefits and Drawbacks The primary benefit of actions to improve bus speeds is more rational stop spacing. STA also has relied on its warrants to add amenities to stops with confidence that it is a long-term investment. Future riders will accept the new stop spacing as a given. STA’s relationship with its bus operators has improved as a result of the SCP implementation. Ridership has increased even in the face of service cuts. Anecdotal data indicate that on-time performance has increased slightly. The primary drawback is resentment from some riders whose stops were removed. Complaints are magnified in winter weather. STA conducts a community perception sur- vey; recent results indicate that 1% to 2% of respondents do not ride the buses because the nearest stop is too far away.

Next: Chapter Six - Conclusions »
Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds Get This Book
×
 Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds
Buy Paperback | $68.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 110: Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds explores approaches transit agencies have taken to realize gains in average bus speeds.

The report also identifies metrics pertaining to measures such as changes in travel speed and its components, operating cost, and ridership. It shows the results of each or a combination of approaches implemented.

READ FREE ONLINE

  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!