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.

1-1 Introduction Introduction In many urban areas, traffic congestion commonly delays bus services and adversely affects schedule reliability. Bus priorities on streets and highways have been successfully used for almost a half century. More recently, some communities have adopted policies and regulations that permit buses to use shoulders on arterial highways and freeways to bypass congestion, either as interim or long-term treatments. Bus on shoulder (BOS) operations have been working suc- cessfully for nearly two decades in several urban locations. Lack of information on the benefits, issues in its interface with traffic operations, safety issues, and implementation issues have been some of the reasons for reluctance by other communities to use the BOS concept. The BOS Concept The BOS concept has been implemented in many forms for a variety of purposes, all with a number of similar traits. All but one of the current BOS applications allows buses to use the right-side shoulder. Cincinnati’s BOS application allows buses to use the left-side (median) shoulder. Typically, the BOS projects limit buses using the shoulder to times when traffic on the highway is congested and moving very slowly, and they cap the speed buses are allowed to oper- ate on the shoulder. The Toronto application is an exception, allowing buses to use the shoulder at all times and not restricting bus speeds on the shoulder. BOS applications minimize congestion-related schedule reliability problems; they improve the competitive travel times for buses versus cars; they reduce bus running times; they are low cost and easy to implement; they do not require new rights-of-way; and they are not obtrusive. BOS’s context sensitive design features (low visual impact), low cost, ease of implementation, and support of more efficient and attractive transit services resonate with numerous public policies. In addition, the BOS concept appears to be popular with bus passengers. They seem to like the feeling of preference as their bus passes stop-and-go traffic in the general purpose traffic lanes. It is not uncommon for passengers to suggest that bus drivers move onto the shoulder when traffic begins to slow. The perceived travel time benefits are generally greater than actual, but since perception is a key factor in increasing transit market share, this is a very important benefit. To date, safety experience has been excellent. TCRP Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders, a state of the practice, was published in 2006. TCRP Synthesis 64 found that little information was available on many key issues, as some BOS projects had been implemented without rigorous documentation. Information on early BOS projects is mostly limited to what can be seen on the street. Limited history exists on the institutional, legal, project development process, costs, and performance of these early BOS projects. Better informa- tion would be useful to communities considering implementation of BOS and those interested S e c t i o n 1

1-2 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems in improving current BOS projects. It may also be valuable for the FTA “New Starts” project alternative definitions and evaluations. Recent implementation of BOS in the San Diego region, in northern Atlanta, three cities in Ohio, Old Bridge, New Jersey, and in Miami, Florida, have more recent and detailed planning development and engineering documentation. These recent efforts provide an opportunity to better describe the “how to” and the state-of-the-practice design elements. This report was initiated to provide technical information on operating prac- tices, design requirements and performances, and agency/passenger response to BOS projects. Key Research Objectives TCRP’s Project D-13 research objectives were intended to provide a decision-making guide to assist transit operators, state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other stakeholders to assess the feasibility of the BOS concept, develop safe and effective BOS plans, implement, operate, and maintain BOS operations. The primary focus is to recommend mea- sures that safely move people through congested corridors. Accordingly, the research identifies the following key design and operational issues: • Conditions under which shoulders can be used for bus travel, including design and opera- tional criteria; • The advantages and disadvantages and the cost/benefit potential of BOS operations programs; and • Procedures and strategies that may be used by stakeholders to successfully implement BOS projects. The following key issues, initially identified in TCRP Synthesis 64, needed further investigation and research and were the focus of the TCRP Project D-13 research effort: 1. What are the market and patronage benefits associated with BOS and how can project design maximize these benefits? Surveys would be useful to better understand passenger perceptions as well as the perceptions of motorists using the adjacent general purpose lanes. Understand- ing perceptions of these groups would help better design BOS projects as well as provide guidance to marketing efforts. Quantification of before and after bus patronage in corridors is also needed. 2. What are the bus running time and reliability benefits resulting from BOS operations? Expe- rience indicates that bus running times in general purpose lanes vary widely depending on weather and traffic conditions. Operating speeds on shoulders tend to be more predictable. Thus, the travel time savings and schedule reliability benefits that are provided by BOS are closely linked to traffic speeds and conditions in adjacent travel lanes. Quantification of run- ning time savings and schedule reliability benefits, therefore, should focus closely on traffic conditions in BOS corridors. Driver surveys would help complement the travel time data. 3. What is the safety history of BOS operations and how might the design of BOS applications minimize safety risks? A review of accident data and discussions with enforcement, driver training, and bus safety staff can help assess key safety concerns and identify myths. 4. Most of the BOS projects that have been implemented employed a multi-agency team plan- ning, design, and implementation approach. More information is required on these multi- agency partnership efforts, as well as on the legal aspects of project implementation. 5. What geometric improvements are needed and what are their guidelines for costs? The mini- mum shoulder widths need further definition. Should shoulders be wider on bridges and underpasses and on other segments with horizontal obstructions nearby? Is there a maxi- mum distance that minimum-width shoulders are tolerable? Should shoulders be wider at sharp curves? What are the desired geometrics for BOS transitions and interchange ramp weave areas? What is the minimum pavement strength required? How important are modi- fications to drainage inlets? What are the desired and maximum drainage cross slopes for

introduction 1-3 BOS shoulders? What lighting improvements, if any, are desired for the BOS segments? What minimums can be accepted, particularly for interim applications? 6. What signage and striping guidelines/standards are recommended and should these be included in the next update of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets? 7. How might variable or changeable message signs and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies be used to improve BOS safety? 8. How does the design of the BOS facility affect the operating speed? Most BOS operations in the United States restrict bus operating speeds, while Canadian BOS operations allow unrestricted full-speed operations. What are the differences that allow full-speed operation in Canada and how might they carry over to the United States? 9. What is the preferred treatment of shoulder lanes in the immediate vicinity of major entry and exit ramps? Report Organization Following this introductory section, this report is organized into six sections: Section 2—Overview of Current BOS Applications, Section 3—Operations Guidelines, Section 4—Design Considerations and Guidelines, Section 5—Traffic Operations Issues for Bus On Shoulders, Section 6—Recommended Decision-Making Framework, and Section 7—Conclusions. Definitions and Acronyms AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Auxiliary Lane (Aux Lane)—Refers to the portion of the roadway adjoining the main travel way for speed change, turning, storage for turning, weaving, truck climbing and other purposes supplementary to through-traffic movement. BOS—Bus on shoulder. BBS—Bus bypass shoulder, used in TCRP Synthesis 64 to describe bus use of highway shoul- der lanes to bypass congestion. It does not include shoulders used for general traffic or on-ramp bypasses. MUTCD—Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, which is pub- lished by the Federal Highway Administration. Pork Chop—A pork-chop shaped traffic channelization island that is designed to facilitate free right turns at intersections. Transit priority versions of pork-chop islands allow buses to utilize the right-turn approach lane to bypass the through-movement traffic queue at signalized intersections, and once up to the right-turn channelization pork-chop shaped island, to con- tinue straight across the intersection (bus-only movement). Station Stopping—Describes a mode of bus operations on freeways in which buses on a route make stops at all or most interchanges along the corridor. Shoulder—Refers to the portion of the roadway contiguous with the travel way that accom- modates stopped vehicles, emergency use, and lateral support of sub-base, base, and surface courses.

1-4 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Queue Jumper—A physical facility that allows eligible traffic (buses) to bypass localized congestion. HOV—High-occupancy vehicle, which is generally defined as either two or more, or three or more, persons per vehicle. DOT—Department of transportation. MPO—Metropolitan planning organization. NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act. Direct HOV access ramps—Most HOV lanes are located in the median of freeways and require carpoolers and buses to weave across general traffic lanes to enter and exit the freeway using ramps located on the right side of freeways. Direct access ramps eliminate the weaving for buses and HOVs by providing entry and exit access ramps directly to the center median HOV lanes. These direct ramps are costly, need additional rights-of-way, and add to the visual impact of freeway interchanges. VPH—Vehicles per hour flow rate. PPH—Persons per hour flow rate.