A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems (2012)

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.

T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 151 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2012 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subscriber Categories Public Transportation • Planning and Forecasting A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder (BOS) Systems Peter Martin Wilbur Smith ASSociAteS San Francisco, CA Herbert S. Levinson Wallingford, CT Texas Transportation Institute College Station, TX

TCRP REPORT 151 Project D-13 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-25820-3 Library of Congress Control Number 2012939366 © 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activ ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without com pensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many transit agencies, MPOs, State DOTs, and other agencies provided valuable support for this Bus On Shoulders Guidelines research effort. Special thanks are offered to Jennifer Conover (MnDOT), Carl Jensen (MnDOT), Michael Abegg (MVTA), Emerson Barrow (SANDAG), Brent Boyd (SDMTS), Jesus Guerra (Miami Dade MPO), Jill Hedges (Minnesota Metro Transit), Steve Legler (Minnesota Metro Tran- sit), William Lenski (Chicago RTA), Lou Millan (NJ Transit), Doug Moore (COTA), Dave Schumacher (SANDAG), Jim Schwartzwalder (NJ Transit), Pat Scrimgeou (Ottawa Transit), and Fred Silverman (Par- sons Corp). Herbert Levinson and Anthony Voigt (TTI) were invaluable sub consultants in this research. And thanks, too, to the TCRP Project D-13 project panel. CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 151 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Stephan A. Parker, Senior Program Officer Megha Khadka, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Editor TCRP PROJECT D-13 PANEL Field of Engineering of Fixed Facilities Clarence Barber, Jr., Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Allen, TX (Chair) Jennifer Conover, New Richmond, WI Ronald Downing, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, San Rafael, CA Fred M. Gilliam, Gilliam and Associates, Austin, TX Jack M. Gonsalves, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Portland, OR Taqhuiddin Mohammed, Pace Suburban Bus Service, Arlington Heights, IL Andrea H. Talley Brennan, Teamplete, Palatine, IL John D. Wilkins, Gillette, NJ John G. Bell, FTA Liaison Venkat Pindiprolu, FTA Liaison Jennifer Flynn, Universtity of South Florida Liaison Dennis P. Hinebaugh, USF Center for Urban Transportation Research Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison

TCRP Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder (BOS) Systems provides guidelines for the planning, design, and implementation of BOS operations along urban freeways and major arterials. Making BOS a reality requires a closely coordinated partner- ship effort involving transit agencies, state departments of transportation (DOTs), met- ropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), enforcement agencies, and FHWA. The report should be useful as a decision-making guide to assist transit operators, state DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders in assessing the feasibility of the BOS concept, developing safe and effective BOS plans, implementing initial BOS operations, and maintaining or expanding ongoing BOS operations. In the research effort led by Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc., the guide was developed through a review of literature, analysis of existing installations, interviews with agency staff involved in BOS projects, and feedback from bus passengers and bus drivers in BOS com- munities. Rather than performing the analysis remotely, the research team emphasized on- site observations, discussions, and data collection with BOS stakeholders and users. This approach involved a two-stage process of visits to selected BOS sites. The primary focus of the first set of site visits was to understand BOS implementation decision-making processes. The second set of site visits focused on data collection, analysis, and formulation of BOS guidelines. This guide includes seven “case study” BOS sites, with information on other new and potential BOS communities. The case study communities are: • Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; • Miami-Dade, Florida; • San Diego, California; • Old Bridge, New Jersey; • Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; • Columbus, Ohio; and • Atlanta, Georgia. This guide and a PowerPoint presentation describing the entire project are available on the TRB website at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx. F O R E W O R D By Stephan A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

S-1 Summary S-1 Context S-1 Bus On Shoulder Concept S-2 Transit Operating Guidelines S-2 Speed Protocols S-2 User Surveys S-3 Auxiliary Lanes and Ramp Metering S-3 Congestion Fluctuations S-3 Design Guidelines S-3 Traffic Guidelines S-4 Implementation Guidelines S-4 Conclusions 1-1 Section 1 Introduction 1-1 Introduction 1-1 The BOS Concept 1-2 Key Research Objectives 1-3 Report Organization 1-3 Definitions and Acronyms 2-1 Section 2 Overview of Bus On Shoulder Projects 2-1 Introduction 2-1 Minnesota, Twin Cities Area 2-3 BOS Development Process 2-5 Corridor/Network Features 2-6 Operating Protocols 2-8 BOS Facilities 2-10 Legal 2-11 Driver Training 2-11 Experience to Date 2-13 Miami, Florida: Don Shula and Snapper Creek Expressways 2-13 BOS Development Process 2-16 Corridor Features 2-16 Operating Protocols 2-17 BOS Facilities 2-18 Legal 2-18 Driver Training 2-19 Experience to Date 2-19 San Diego, California: SR-52 and I-805 2-21 BOS Development Process 2-21 Corridor Features 2-21 Operating Protocols 2-21 BOS Facilities 2-22 Legal C O N T E N T S

2-22 Driver Training 2-23 Six-Month Assessment 2-23 Old Bridge, New Jersey: Route 9 2-23 BOS Development Process 2-23 Route 9 Corridor Features 2-23 Operating Protocol 2-24 BOS Facilities 2-26 Legal 2-26 Experience to Date 2-27 Ottawa, Ontario 2-27 BOS Development Process 2-27 Corridor Features 2-27 Operating Protocol 2-28 BOS Facilities 2-31 Legal 2-31 Driver Training 2-31 Columbus, Ohio: I-70 2-31 BOS Development Process 2-31 Corridor Features 2-32 Operating Protocols 2-33 BOS Facilities 2-33 Legal 2-33 Driver Training 2-33 Atlanta, Georgia: GA-400 2-33 BOS Development Process 2-34 Corridor Features 2-35 Operating Protocols 2-35 BOS Facilities 2-35 Legal 2-35 Driver Training 2-36 Other New Projects 2-36 Chicago Area (PACE Transit), Illinois 2-36 Cincinnati, Ohio 2-38 Cleveland, Ohio 2-38 Kansas City, Kansas 2-38 Raleigh, North Carolina 2-38 Montreal, Canada 2-38 Texas 2-38 ITS Research 2-40 Summary 3-1 Section 3 Operations Guidelines 3-1 Introduction 3-1 BOS Passenger Surveys 3-1 1997 Survey—Twin Cities BOS 3-2 Cincinnati I-71 Inside-Shoulder BOS 3-2 Miami Don Shula and Snapper Creek Expressway BOS 3-3 Twin Cities Highway 77 BOS 3-3 Bus Driver Surveys 3-7 Potential Benefits 3-7 Travel Time Savings

3-9 Running Time Savings 3-10 Reliability Benefits 3-10 Ridership Impacts 3-11 Service Refinements 3-11 Operating Guidelines and Protocols 3-11 Service Concepts 3-12 BOS Speed Protocols 3-13 Operating Protocols 3-13 Driver Training 3-14 BOS Start-up Measures 4-1 Section 4 Design Considerations and Guidelines 4-1 Introduction 4-2 Design Context—Exceptions and the Liability Aspects 4-4 Lane and Shoulder Width 4-5 Minimum Shoulder Width 4-6 Increasing Shoulder Width by Decreasing Other Lane Widths 4-7 Planning for Future BOS Operations in New Construction or Major Reconstruction Projects 4-7 Geometric and Other Features 4-8 Lateral Clearance 4-9 Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder Use 4-9 Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation Considerations 4-10 Highway Interchange and Ramp Interfaces 4-11 Entry Ramps 4-13 Auxiliary Lanes and Lane Drops 4-13 Exit Ramps 4-13 Dual Exit Lanes 4-14 Dual Entry Lanes 4-14 Other Interchange and Ramp Considerations 4-15 Pavement 4-16 Pavement Thickness 4-16 Pavement Slope Requirements 4-17 Drainage and Utility Considerations 4-17 Utility Considerations and Vertical Clearance 4-19 Checklist for Shoulder Use by Buses: Geometric Design Standards 5-1 Section 5 Traffic Operations Guidelines for BOS Operations 5-1 Introduction 5-2 Signs and Pavement Markings 5-3 Regulatory Signs for Preferential Lanes 5-3 Signing to Start and End BOS Operation 5-4 Signing Along the Route 5-5 Pavement Markings 5-7 Delineators and Object Markers 5-8 Rumble Strips and Stripes 5-8 Texture and Color 5-8 Lighting 5-9 Traffic Operations 5-9 Operational Speed Criteria 5-10 Merging To and From BOS Lanes 5-10 Operational Considerations for Motorists

5-11 Ramp Metering and BOS Operations 5-11 Arterial Operations 5-11 School Zones 5-11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity 5-12 Other Roadside Features 5-12 Access Management and Control 5-12 Safety 5-13 Crash History 5-14 Weather-Related Operational Issues 5-15 Roles for ITS 5-16 Dynamic Message Signs 5-16 Ramp Metering 5-17 Lane-Use Control Signals 5-17 In-Roadway Lights 5-17 Roadway Weather Information Systems (RWIS) 5-17 Incident Management, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Services 5-18 Highway Maintenance 5-18 Snow Storage and Removal 5-18 Summary 6-1 Section 6 Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-1 Introduction 6-1 Decision Stakeholders and Issues 6-2 Transit Agency Issues 6-2 Department of Transportation Issues 6-4 Reasons for Implementing BOS 6-4 Overview of Current Decision-Making Process 6-5 1. Identify Problem/Need 6-6 2. Develop Concept Plan 6-6 3. Establish Multi-Agency BOS Team 6-7 4. Perform Feasibility Assessment 6-8 5. Develop Project Definition 6-10 6. Plan Implementation 6-11 7. Project Start-up 6-11 8. Monitor Performance 6-12 Model Decision-Making Framework and Checklist 6-12 1. Identify Problem/Need 6-12 2. Develop Concept Plan 6-12 3. Establish Multi-Agency BOS Team 6-13 4. Perform Feasibility Study 6-13 5. Develop Project Definition 6-14 6. Plan Implementation 6-14 7. Project Start-up 6-14 8. Monitor Performance 7-1 Section 7 Conclusions R-1 References Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.