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.

6-1 S e c t i o n 6 Introduction BOS experience has shown that the concept does work. It saves bus passenger travel time with- out increasing accidents or congestion to the general purpose travel lanes. Bringing these benefits to other communities requires (1) locations where buses encounter congestion; (2) continuous shoulder of at least 10 feet (preferably more) and (3) close cooperation amongst transit agen- cies, highway agencies, and corridor communities. Section 6 is organized into the following four elements: • Identification of BOS stakeholders and issues, • Reasons for implementing BOS, • Overview of current BOS decision-making process, and • Recommended BOS decision-making process. Most BOS projects are low cost, and relatively easy to implement transportation system man- agement (TSM) measures. The decision-making process needs to incorporate the careful design of a project to ensure safety, but it also often needs to balance ideal highway standards with other mobility objectives. Keeping projects simple and low cost using good engineering judgment is important. Decision Stakeholders and Issues The decision-making processes that have been employed to implement BOS projects have involved partnership efforts among transit service operators, state DOTs, other highway agen- cies, metropolitan planning organization (MPOs), and often the police. It is difficult to isolate the decisions of transit service operators from those of other team members. It is also difficult to generalize the processes that they have followed, as BOS issues and institutional frameworks for transportation decisions very much influence how decisions are made. MPOs typically are key agencies in BOS project development and implementation. Most transit agencies do not have in-house traffic engineering or highway design resources. As such, transit agencies often do not fully appreciate the traffic engineering and highway design challenges associated with implementing BOS projects. Conversely, many state DOTs do not have bus transit operating skills in-house and, therefore, do not fully understand the perspec- tives of transit operators. MPOs tend to have both skills in-house and often function as a bridge between transit providers and DOTs. Involvement of the FHWA is sometimes direct and other times coordinated through state DOTs. Recommended Decision-Making Framework

6-2 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Transit Agency Issues Transit agencies differ in their size, types of operations, institutional makeup, and many other aspects. Many metropolitan areas also have more than one public transit operator providing service on its freeways. Some transit agencies are part of multimodal transportation agencies and some cover multiple jurisdictions rather than being confined to a city service area. These features influence how decisions are made on many issues including BOS. Transit agencies are usually the first proponent in communities for BOS operations. This is because they understand their operating problems and their passengers’ needs more than other agencies. They are the first to appreciate congestion affects on their running times and schedule reliability. They understand their competitive position in the regional travel marketplace and are most aggressive at seeking measures to be more competitive. For those transit agencies with buses operating along congested highway segments, the basic question tends to be “why can’t we do it here?”. Eleven objectives and issues have been identified for transit operators. These are in addition to the definition of the corridor and its termini. Objectives 1. Added satisfaction benefits to existing riders and the potential for increased ridership; 2. Operating cost savings resulting from reduced labor time, reduced vehicle operating costs, and the ability to schedule a second peak direction peak trip per bus; 3. Running time savings for average trips and for worst case trips (bad weather or accident delays); 4. Schedule reliability improvements; 5. Ride quality for passengers; Issues and Concerns 6. Safety for vehicles and passengers; 7. Capital costs required to make physical, traffic control, and other BOS improvements; 8. Priority policy for clearing debris, disabled cars, snow, and other blockages of the shoulder; 9. Effort required for driver training; 10. Legal and code changes required to authorize BOS and allow its enforcement; and 11. Definition of operating protocols for the shoulder–times, speeds, eligibility, use of flashers, and maximum differential speed. Department of Transportation Issues State DOTs are organized in variety of ways. Often they have sections responsible for geo- graphic districts as well as headquarters’ functions, and they generally have sections for engi- neering design, traffic operations, maintenance, and the like. Most have multimodal sections either at the headquarters level or integrated into each local district office. Thus there are many decision makers within a DOT, and each decision maker or group tends to have its own objec- tives. Because most DOT resources are focused on highways, vehicle traffic capacity and safety tend to be the primary concerns. Freeways and expressways have proven successful at moving high volumes of traffic rapidly and safely. Speed, capacity, and safety changes to freeway and expressway facilities, therefore, are cautiously approached by DOTs. This holds true even for non-multimodal changes like closely spaced interchanges. DOTs invest considerable resources in the development, operation, and maintenance of the freeways and expressways, and they are generally reluctant to depart from

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-3 established design and operating standards. BOS facilities in some respects are a departure from established practice. Wide lanes, absence of surprises (uniformity) and minimal speed differen- tials, and design continuity are all features that favor traffic safety. The success of the Twin Cit- ies area BOS, however, proves that BOS can work when done correctly by retaining safe design factors and by preserving highway capacity and safety. For turnpike or toll facilities, the issue of revenue is also a concern related to BOS operations. A number of basic issues and concerns related to highway operations, design, and safety were identified for DOTs. Need—A fundamental concern is determining the benefit of implementing BOS projects. Will the project increase person carrying throughput of the corridor? Will it reduce person delay? Will it increase transit usage? Essentially, what are the benefits that justify departures from conventional shoulder use and design? Traffic Safety—The most common concerns that were identified by the TCRP Synthesis 64 survey respondents dealt with traffic safety. The following 11 traffic safety concerns were identified: • Conflicts at on- and off-ramps, • Sight distance adequacy, particularly at on-ramps, • Conflicts for motorists pulling onto the shoulder, • Loss of safe evasive movement shelter area, • Need for bus driver training, • Speed differential, • Impact on adjacent lane motorists, • Return merge distance adequacy, • Shoulder area debris hazards, • Reduced clearance for buses at bridge abutments, and • Drainage and hydroplaning. Shoulder Functions—Roadway shoulders provide a range of important functions. The following five shoulder-use functional categories were identified as concerns by the TCRP Synthesis 64 survey respondents: • Removal/storage of disabled vehicles and accidents, • Emergency vehicle use, • Stormwater drainage, • Staging area for maintenance work, and • Snow storage. Use of the shoulder facilities at times when the highway is congested and moving very slowly, therefore, could affect these functions, even if limited to bus use. Physical Design—Design practices and operating environments vary by jurisdiction. The following seven concerns were identified in TCRP Synthesis 64 for physical design: • Shoulder width adequacy, • Shoulder pavement strength, • Signage needs, • Lateral obstruction adjacent to shoulder, • Need to narrow general purpose lanes, • Modifications to drainage inlets compromise function, and • Conflicts with pavement edge rumble strips.

6-4 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Reasons for Implementing BOS Reasons cited for implementing BOS operations have included the following: 1. Pilot testing of the concept; 2. Temporary construction impact mitigation needs or emergency response needs; 3. Interim measure until ultimate transitway, managed mane, or freeway widening project can be funded and constructed; 4. Long-term ultimate transit solution for the corridor/network; and 5. Support for new express bus service strategy in the corridor. Of the seven case-study communities: • Ottawa initiated its first BOS segment in coordination with a construction project and has extended and added to the initial application as interim solutions until their transitway net- work can be expanded in the future. • The Twin Cities BOS project began as a long-term solution to an expressway bus operat- ing problem and was substantially expanded after a major flood. Its continuing expansion is part of the region’s multimodal strategy for transit priority and is considered a long-term investment. • The BOS project in Miami is seen as an interim solution, until addition of managed lanes or addition of more general purpose lanes can be implemented. • The New Jersey Transit Old Bridge Township BOS project is viewed as a long-term solution to congestion problems. • The San Diego BOS operation is seen as an interim improvement until managed lanes can be funded and constructed. The Miami, San Diego, and Columbus BOS applications are “pilot/demonstration” projects. The recent Atlanta BOS project is also considered an interim solution for its corridor. In the BOS implementation communities, the transit operators have not seen the need for a pilot having seen the success in the Twin Cities area. The need for a pilot or demonstration project has gener- ally related to satisfying state and local traffic engineers that the concept works. Overview of Current Decision-Making Process TCRP investigations did not discover any formal decision and implementation process. There were no rigidly defined “alternatives analysis” processes and often there were not even detailed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, since most BOS projects were NEPA categorical exclusion projects. Rather, agencies tended to work through decisions and issues in a team process. Decision making was more a cooperative and pragmatic process of identifying needs and opportunities and of addressing various agency concerns. The decision process tended to include eight steps, some of which were accomplished together, particu- larly if dictated by urgent needs. The eight steps, shown in Figure 6-1, generally included the following: 1. Identify problem/need, 2. Develop concept plan, 3. Establish a multi-agency BOS team, 4. Perform feasibility assessment, 5. Develop project definition, 6. Plan implementation, 7. Project start-up, and 8. Monitor performance.

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-5 1. Identify Problem/Need Transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have typically led this phase of project development. Transit agencies regularly monitor their services, including running times and schedule reli- ability for planning and scheduling purposes. They also develop near-term and long-term service and infrastructure plans often with transit priority elements. These in-house efforts can help to identify a freeway service operating problem. Transit agencies see the travel time, reliability and passenger attraction benefits as well as potential cost savings associated with BOS operations. A number of non-transit agency planning efforts sometime “flag” arising congestion prob- lems. MPOs also have ongoing updates to their multimodal Regional Transportation Plans. These Regional Transportation Plans are another potential source for identifying near-term and long-term BOS applications. Lastly, state DOTs coordinate highway improvement planning with the MPOs and sometimes with transit agencies. Some state DOTs have ongoing freeway/ highway performance monitoring systems that can provide useful information. Once freeway/highway bus service problems are identified, the search for solutions should include consideration of BOS measures. Unless the transit agency advocates its consideration, it is unlikely that BOS solutions will be considered. It should be noted that non-transit stakehold- ers often believe that a minimum volume of buses are required to warrant priority measures like BOS. As such, education of other stakeholders is sometimes required on the subject of priority measures for low-volume bus services (less than 20 buses an hour). The initial expansion of the Twin Cities’ BOS arterial highway projects to freeway applications involved an emergency response collaboration between the Minnesota DOT, Metro Transit, and the MPO. 1. Identify Problem/Need 2. Develop Concept Plan 3. Establish Multi-Agency BOS Team 4. Perform Feasibility Assessment 5. Develop Project Definition 6. Plan Implementation 8. Monitor 7. Project Start-up Figure 6-1. Key BOS Decision Steps.

6-6 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems 2. Develop Concept Plan Based on an understanding of current and future congestion on bus operating performance in terms of location and intensity, the next step has been to define a vision for the potential BOS application. In essence, a “purpose and need” reason is useful for recruiting other non-transit agencies to get involved and support transit improvements in the corridor(s). This general proj- ect description might include the desired termini of the BOS segments, bus operation strategy, and potential project benefits: running time savings, schedule reliability improvements, benefits to existing ridership, potential patronage increases. DOTs have generally not been involved in this phase of project development. As the con- cept becomes better known, however, some DOTs may suggest BOS as a potential solution to corridor congestion. The BOS concept seems like a reasonable concept for consideration in comprehensive corridor NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studies as a TSM option. None of the implemented BOS projects were the TSM alternative of a major cor- ridor improvement study. BOS projects would seem to be a very logical TSM treatment or alternative. 3. Establish Multi-Agency BOS Team If an established multi-agency committee is not in place to coordinate transit priority projects, it should be quickly established at the outset of the BOS decision-making process. All five of the case-study communities employed a multi-agency committee to implement BOS projects. Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities—Team Transit was established and continues to function. Team Transit consists of the Minnesota DOT, Metro Transit, suburban bus operators, Metro Council of Governments, local counties, and the Minnesota State Patrol. Ottawa, Ontario—A Transit Priority Task Force has been established to coordinate transit priority in the region. The intent was to strengthen the dialogue between transit staff (who identify problems and propose solutions) and traffic operations staff (who assess trade-offs and implement solutions). The Task Force has helped each group understand the other’s world and facilitated “outside-the-box” thinking and that has helped to overcome resistance to new ideas. Miami-Dade, Florida—The BOS effort arose from a Miami-Dade MPO planning effort, which involved Dade County, Miami-Dade Transit, the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, and the Florida DOT, Miami-Dade Public Works and the Turnpike Enterprise. The General Manager for Miami-Dade Transit became a strong advocate or champion for the BOS concept implementation. Columbus, Ohio—The transit operator, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), pro- posed the BOS project on I-70 and in partnership with the Ohio DOT, the City of Columbus, the Ohio Highway Patrol, FHWA, City of Columbus Police, and the MPO (Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission), implemented the pilot project. This group is called the Transit Advan- tage Group. San Diego, California—The BOS concept was proposed by the MPO (SANDAG) and a team was established, including the transit operator (Metropolitan Transit System), Caltrans, the Highway Patrol, and the MPO. Caltrans ultimately became the lead agency responsible for implementing the BOS project. The partnership sign (see Figure 6-2) is displayed on the back of BOS service buses. Atlanta, Georgia—The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) proposed the BOS concept and worked closely with the Georgia DOT to implement it. Another transit opera- tor, MARTA, also operates buses on Georgia 400 and the state patrol assists with enforcement.

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-7 DOTs have been involved in the multi-agency teams that have successfully implemented BOS projects. They often have taken the lead for phases that follow planning—design and construc- tion. As the BOS shoulder is their facility, it is logical that the DOTs have control of these critical phases of BOS implementation. While the Twin Cities initial BOS segments were implemented without FHWA involvement, current BOS projects in the Twin Cities area are coordinated with the FHWA. The most recent projects in the United States have included the FHWA as a partner. In some locales, FHWA has been a direct participant in the project planning, while in other locales coordination with FHWA has been accomplished through the DOTs. Involvement of police is desirable. Participation by the police tends to decline once the BOS operation is up and running and has proven not to be an enforcement or safety problem. 4. Perform Feasibility Assessment The feasibility assessment is primarily a DOT activity. From a transit operator perspective, the key coordination input is how the operator might use the BOS facilities. Which bus routes might benefit and what features of BOS might the transit operator exploit for improved passen- ger service? For example, would the corridor market lend itself to a “station stopping” express bus service (form of bus rapid transit)? Ottawa operates some of its buses in a station stopping mode. Buses exit the shoulder onto the off-ramp, cross the intersecting street and make a pas- senger stop, re-enter the highway using the on-ramp and flow back onto the shoulder lane. Early input regarding new bus operations would allow highway and traffic engineers to consider minor improvements to interchanges in response to transit service needs. Columbus, Ohio, is considering rerouting the path buses use from the BOS segment into downtown to minimize bus traffic conflicts at the dual-lane I-70/I-71 interchange. For DOTs, this phase essentially seeks to identify physical or operational reasons that would permit or preclude BOS implementation or influence priority ranking of BOS corridors, includ- ing terminals. Key issues include the width of shoulders, pavement strength of the shoulders, worrisome weaving conflicts, overall traffic safety, and coordination with planned improvement construction. It also addresses how these features might be mitigated. Recent BOS planning in Kansas and Illinois have included field demo BOS trips with stakeholders invited to observe feasibility. Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities—In the Twin Cities area, most of the “low hanging fruit” BOS projects have been implemented. Substantial effort is now directed at maintenance and preservation of the current BOS network. Initial criteria for BOS implementation included regu- larly occurring congestion, a minimum of six buses per week must use the proposed shoulder, the expected time savings must be greater than eight minutes/mile/week, and the proposed shoulder must have a minimum 10-feet width. Source: Courtesy of San Diego Association of Governments. Figure 6-2. BOS Project Partnership Signage, San Diego.

6-8 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Ottawa—BOS segments have been implemented as interim transit priority measures until a full transitway extension can be funded and constructed. Miami—In Miami, the Phase II Special Use Lanes Study: Transit Use of Shoulder Bypass Lanes listed the following five criteria for BOS consideration: 1. Roadway characteristics (interchange spacing, traffic volumes/congestion, shoulder width, accidents and merge distances), 2. Programmed corridor improvements, 3. Proposed express bus service, 4. Potential for park-and-ride locations, and 5. Usable shoulder segments. The Miami BOS project is documented in terms of freeway corridor characteristics and the screening process. For each candidate corridor, interchange spacings, segment traffic volumes, 3-year accident history, weaving distances, identification of needed near-term con- struction, identification of bus services, assessment of park-and-ride lot potentials, assess- ment of reoccurring and non-reoccurring congestion, and shoulder widths and conditions were inventoried. San Diego—In San Diego. the pilot BOS project was selected for presence of congestion, adequate shoulder width, absence of near-term construction, and safe traffic operations features. The assessment of the SR-52/I-805 BOS project considered ridership need, potential time sav- ings, multimodal connectivity, viable alternatives, pavement strength, drainage modifications, shoulder width, enforcement/maintenance/emergency pullout needs, sign and striping, grade breaks and super elevation, lateral obstructions in the “clear recovery zone,” guardrail and dike modifications, and required “design exceptions.” Columbus, Ohio—In Columbus, the planning effort primarily looked for freeway segments with congestion, express bus service operations, and minimum-width shoulders. Field reviews were conducted of shoulder widths and conditions. Atlanta—In Atlanta, the Georgia 400 corridor was selected for BOS implementation to address severe congestion, high volumes of bus service, and available shoulder width. Shoulder features were reviewed, along with accident history and a CORSIM based weaving analysis. 5. Develop Project Definition During the project development definition phase of implementation, the following four important issues typically are addressed: 1. Benefits of restructuring/modifying corridor bus service to fully exploit the BOS opportuni- ties and strengthen the arguments for the project (focus more buses along the BOS corridor); 2. The physical improvements to the shoulders in terms of width, strength and cross slope; 3. The protocols for BOS operations; and 4. The legal basis for operating buses on the shoulder. A basic strength of the BOS concept is that it is low in cost and easy to implement. There are trade-offs regarding width, cross slope and pavement strength improvements. A number of BOS projects have been implemented with minimal physical improvements. In fact, some BOS proj- ects result from the difficulty of sufficiently widening the highway to accommodate a full width additional traffic lane. The key for transit operators is to minimize the cost and implementation time for the BOS improvements so that they remain attractive options. In Miami, Columbus, San Diego, and Minneapolis, acceptance of suboptimal shoulder widths for some segments helped to get the projects on the ground. This is particularly true for pilot BOS projects. The pilot

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-9 BOS projects in San Diego, Miami, Columbus, and Cincinnati decided it was not necessary to strengthen shoulder pavements or improve drainage inlets and utilities. Defining operating protocols for speed, eligibility, speed differentials, times of use, and use of four-way flashers seem straightforward to transit operators. These issues, however, need to be worked out with highway engineers. The Minneapolis experience has been used as a template for successful cooperation. The maximum speed definition is critical only to long-distance BOS application. Except in Canada, most communities have adopted the Min- neapolis 35-mph maximum speed (Atlanta and Miami are 25 mph). The Minneapolis maxi- mum speed was defined with input from its bus operators. The most cautious approach for shoulder-use eligibility is to limit use only to trained drivers. This is how most BOS projects start. Most communities have also adopted the Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities maximum speed differential with general traffic (15 mph). From a bus operator’s viewpoint, the most critical aspect of the legal issue is the change required to legally operate on the shoulder. This varies by state. In San Diego, Miami, and the Twin Cities start-ups, the DOTs were able to authorize the demonstration projects without the need for special legislation. Once potential BOS corridors have been identified, key physical improvements, transit oper- ating protocols for buses, maintenance and enforcement needs, traffic engineering, and legal authority must be defined. These efforts are done in team meetings with respective staffs lead- ing certain issue definition. Sign placement for BOS projects has typically occurred in the field, rather than via formal engineering signage and striping plans. Recent planning for BOS projects in Illinois and Kansas City have included demo BOS runs with DOT and other stakeholder staffs to provide a real on-the-road appreciation for the physical and operational features of the BOS. These trial runs included special escort vehicles and both allayed many concerns as well as helped to define implementation needs. Minneapolis-St. Paul Twin Cities area—In the Twin Cities area, Team Transit’s expansion of the BOS network builds upon its proven history with respect to operating protocols, main- tenance and enforcement, traffic engineering, and its legal basis. Key needs in this phase are engineering determinations of shoulder improvements and bus service planning coordination. As most new highways are built with full strength shoulders, the engineering tends to be mod- est. In the early days of developing the network, Team Transit used inputs from bus drivers to help define operating protocols. Physical improvement needs were developed based on field experience. Ottawa, Ontario—Signage, striping, and other traffic engineering features are defined in Canadian manuals. As the shoulder operates as a full-time transit lane, normal shoulder func- tions are provided on an adjacent graveled shoulder. The operating protocols are also well estab- lished. To accommodate buses stopping at off-line stations, some refinements were made to interchanges along the BOS segments to facilitate through bus movements. Design of some of the bus on-ramp movements have attempted to place the buses on the right side of the on-ramp traffic to eliminate the need for weaving. The Transit Priority Task Force coordinates these decisions. Miami, Florida—Miami-Dade reviewed the Twin Cities template for BOS facilities and oper- ations and adapted them to the local area. For the pilot project, minimal physical improvements were implemented and the transit operating protocols were generally copied. The key exception was the adoption of a 25-mph threshold for buses to use the shoulder versus the 35-mph thresh- old that is used in the Twin Cities area. Signage also was modified to reflect the Florida DOT’s desire to emphasize the normal functions of shoulders as the primary use (with authorized buses allowed to use the shoulders).

6-10 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Columbus, Ohio—The Columbus Transit Advantage Group largely adopted the Twin Cities signage and markings template and did not make physical improvements to the shoulders for their demonstration project. They used a diamond shaped warning sign rather than a horizontal shaped warning sign for the on-ramps. They adopted the Twin Cities BOS operating protocol based on its proven history. San Diego, California—The BOS pilot project in San Diego is largely patterned after the Twin Cities system. Its principal difference is that it is technically a transit lane and not a shoulder. This definition reflects restrictions in the California Vehicle Code. Atlanta, Georgia—The Atlanta BOS project is also patterned after the Twin Cities success. Bus operating protocols and most other features were borrowed from the Minneapolis-St. Paul system. The Georgia DOT, however, wanted to use a regulatory sign for the on-ramps rather than a warning sign and felt that adding raised buttons on the BOS shoulders would help to discourage copycat motorists using the shoulders. They also favored adding accident investigation–site paved pockets periodically along the shoulder. 6. Plan Implementation This phase of project development usually involves environmental clearance, FHWA approv- als, and the like. Environmentally, the BOS projects are generally exempt since they involve little if any new construction and whatever construction is needed is within current rights-of-way and therefore basically an operating and maintenance improvement. FHWA is usually involved in approvals. These approvals are sometimes coordinated by DOTs (Florida and California). Atlanta, Columbus, and Cincinnati involved the FHWA offices in the early planning process. San Diego field tested running buses on shoulders several months before operations began. The test bus was escorted by a police vehicle. Training BOS bus drivers occurs during this phase of implementation once environmental and FHWA approvals have been obtained. Metro Transit in the Twin Cities area has recently developed an excellent video training tool for drivers. Most classroom training tends to use popular presentation software. San Diego, Columbus, the Twin Cities, and Cincinnati employed both classroom and on-the-road training. FHWA Approvals—All of the recent BOS projects have been implemented with input and approvals by FHWA. In Florida and California, this was coordinated through the DOTs, but elsewhere the FHWA has been involved in the team project development meetings. Environmental Clearances—San Diego, Columbus, Cincinnati, Atlanta, the Twin Cities, and Miami all cleared their projects through NEPA with categorical exclusions. San Diego also cleared their project through the state environmental process—the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—with a categorical exemption. Caltrans led the NEPA effort and SANDAG led the CEQA efforts. Funding—The Minnesota DOT provides for BOS development and maintenance funding in its normal budget. Some maintenance funds are also provided using FTA 5307 fixed guideway funds. FHWA requirements for eligibility need to be addressed. For example, formal signage and striping plans are typically required. Constructability—Most of the BOS projects involve minor signing improvements to the highway right-of-way. Restriping, pavement strengthening, and drainage inlet improvements all require coordination to minimize impacts on traffic flow. The pilot programs have avoided these improvements for constructability as well as cost reasons.

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-11 Legal—Vehicle codes in most states do not allow vehicles to use shoulders for congestion bypass purposes and, without enforcement, abuses are inevitable. The Minnesota State Patrol indicates that the incidents of abuses are no higher on BOS segments than on other shoulder segments. Florida drafted legislation but ultimately approved their pilot BOS project using an Interlocal Agreement rather than special legislation. Discussion of nomenclature regarding bus lane or BOS should also occur in this phase of project development. The California Vehicle Code does not allow part-time use of shoulders by buses. To address this restriction for the pilot project, the shoulders along the BOS segments of SR-52 and I-805 were redefined to be transit lanes. This nomenclature distinction preserves restrictions for travel on shoulders in California but does allow buses to use the “transit-lane shoulder.” As a demonstration project, the district office of Caltrans had the authority to approve the BOS project via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)-type of agreement (Decision Document). Texas has drafted legislation that would permit BOS operations. Driver Training—As noted, Metro Transit in the Twin Cities area developed a new video in 2010 for their driver training program. Most BOS sites use a combination of classroom and on-the-road training. Marketing and Public Information—For the start-up of the Cincinnati BOS project, a media ride was planned one week in advance of passenger service. Metro Transit in the Twin Cities area has staged races between their BOS bus and a sports car in general traffic. 7. Project Start-up Transit agency efforts for the start-up tend to focus on marketing. Buses running on the shoul- der, bypassing congestion, quickly becomes a self-marketing effort. These marketing efforts are aimed at promoting ridership of the new priority corridor service as well as to acquaint motorists using the general purpose lanes of the reasons that buses should be given priority. Other start- up activities generally include coordination with enforcement efforts and with traffic-advisory efforts that alert motorists to a change in operating use of the shoulder. In Miami, the start-up included a rehearsal. It also included use of variable message signs to alert motorists of the new operations on the shoulder. San Diego used radio spots, print media, web page, and on-the-bus “take-one brochures” to market their BOS. They also made a special outreach effort one month before BOS start-up with fire, police, and other emergency service agencies. Atlanta produced a video for its BOS project and posted it on their web page. The Ohio DOT used variable message signs 1 week in advance of BOS operations in Colum- bus to alert motorists of the new shoulder use. The Ohio DOT is planning the same 1 week advance messaging for the Cincinnati BOS project. Miami also employed variable message signs prior to BOS start-up. 8. Monitor Performance Once the BOS service is up and running, transit efforts should shift to supervision, enforce- ment, and monitoring ridership/schedule changes. In San Diego, a need was identified for more pavement markings. Debriefing bus drivers is very helpful. A recent modification for the Twin Cities BOS operating protocol was the addition of a guideline to exit the shoulder at least two light poles in advance of an obstruction on the shoulder. The light pole–based guideline is easier than a 300-foot guideline, which requires some estimation by bus drivers.

6-12 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems Performance and safety are major concerns related to BOS projects. The more established Twin Cities area and Ottawa BOS projects monitor schedule performance on an ongoing basis and they both track accident histories. The more recent pilot projects in San Diego, Columbus, and Miami are planning on performance analysis reports in the near future. The same is true for the new Cincinnati BOS project. Model Decision-Making Framework and Checklist The eight-step process that transit agencies, MPOs, DOTs, and other stakeholders have gener- ally used to implement BOS projects provides a sound framework and is a model for other agen- cies. This framework should be flexible as most BOS projects have been implemented using a loose structure. The relatively low-cost BOS projects also can be quickly implemented to address immediate needs. The low cost and ease of implementation along with their attractiveness to passengers are the key strengths of the BOS concept. As such, the amount of effort and the pro- cess for implementing BOS projects should be tailored to the needs of each community and the specific issues related to the project. Undue complexity should be avoided. A checklist for the eight steps is provided to facilitate comprehensive and efficient decision making for BOS projects. 1. Identify Problem/Need Typical problems include the following: ▫▫ Congestion-related delays to bus operations, ▫▫ Congestion impacts on bus operating schedule reliability, ▫▫ Congestion impacts on bus operating costs, and ▫▫ Congestion impacts on market competitiveness. These problems could be existing or projected. The latter might be related to planned capacity increases elsewhere on the highway network that would further congest critical bus segments of the network. 2. Develop Concept Plan Suggested steps are the following: ▫▫ Draft a BOS Purpose and Need Statement; ▫▫ Define BOS corridor(s) and termini; ▫▫ Describe bus operating plan for project; ▫▫ Make preliminary estimates of travel time, reliability, patronage, and bus operating benefits; ▫▫ Estimate person-trip capacity throughput benefits for the corridor; and ▫▫ Provide information on successful BOS operations elsewhere. This effort essentially outlines the desired project and provides a description of its poten- tial merits as a means of engaging non transit stakeholders and interest groups. It focuses on addressing the observed problems/needs. 3. Establish Multi-Agency BOS Team This team should include the following: ▫▫ DOT concerned departments and policy lead, ▫▫ Transit operator(s) key staff, ▫▫ MPO staff,

Recommended Decision-Making Framework 6-13 ▫▫ FHWA, ▫▫ State and local police, and ▫▫ Local jurisdiction(s) staff. Recognizing that departmental staffs often have specific missions, it is suggested that this step identify and engage a policy-level manager from the DOT to broaden the discussion to increase multimodal transportation objectives. It is important to address the BOS issue from both a why do it and a why can’t it be done perspective. Most departmental staffs will find a way to do proj- ects, if challenged to do so. If the problem highway segment is controlled by local governments or toll road/bridge authorities, these agencies should also be involved in the BOS team. 4. Perform Feasibility Study The feasibility study should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the potential BOS con- cept plan in terms of traffic operations and safety, ease of enforcement, physical features of the shoulders, likely cost and benefits, and opportunities to strengthen the concept for the corridor. This is a planning-level assessment, rather than an engineering-level analysis. Essentially it deter- mines if there are any “fatal flaws” or major constraints that would prohibit BOS implementa- tion or dictate direction for its design and implementation including legal authority for BOS operations. Typical subjects for a checklist of issues are as follows: ▫▫ Inventory shoulder widths including identification of pinch points, ▫▫ Assess pavement strength of the shoulders, ▫▫ Assess drainage inlet and other utility suitability for BOS operations, ▫▫ Assess interchange weave suitability for BOS, ▫▫ Identify other traffic sight distance or safety concerns, ▫▫ Identify any conflicting BOS near-term improvement/maintenance plans, ▫▫ Identify legal restrictions associated with BOS operations, and ▫▫ Determine the benefits of a pilot/demonstration approach. This step identifies potential difficulties in implementing BOS and suggests means to over- come these difficulties. 5. Develop Project Definition This step should provide a more detailed project description and design. Key steps include the following: ▫▫ Refine, as appropriate, the BOS project termini; ▫▫ Identify improvements to shoulder widths or lane restripings; ▫▫ Identify shoulder pavement and edge strengthenings; ▫▫ Identify need and opportunity for complementary paved pockets for disabled vehicles/ enforcement and accident investigation; ▫▫ Identify need for cross-slope improvements; ▫▫ Identify drainage inlet and other utility relocation/improvements; ▫▫ Identify, as appropriate, changes to shoulder rumble strips; ▫▫ Define BOS speed policies, including general traffic, maximum shoulder speed, and maxi- mum speed differences with general traffic; ▫▫ Define hours, direction, or driver-discretion policy regarding when shoulders can be used; ▫▫ Define eligible users of the BOS (e.g., transit only); ▫▫ Establish bus operating policies concerning use of four-way flashers; ▫▫ Define criteria for traversing interchanges—continuous BOS operation versus remerge into general traffic lane; ▫▫ Identify protocols at other critical entry/exit and weaving BOS locations; ▫▫ Define plan to minimize blockage of the BOS shoulder (disabled vehicles, debris, snow, etc.);

6-14 A Guide for implementing Bus on Shoulder (BoS) Systems ▫▫ Develop signage and striping plan; ▫▫ Identify complementary upgrades to ramps (e.g., ramp metering); ▫▫ Identify upgrades/policies regarding potential ponding; ▫▫ Identify required legal changes; ▫▫ Estimate BOS facility improvement costs; ▫▫ Refine estimates of project benefits; ▫▫ Determine need and develop (as appropriate) formal signage, striping, and shoulder design plans; and ▫▫ Define, as appropriate, possible changes to bus routes and services. Many details need to be refined in this work effort. They include physical improvements to the shoulders, operating protocols for buses, traffic engineering, maintenance and enforcement protocols, legal authority, refinements of project costs and estimated benefits, and project design (as appropriate). A field trial run with the BOS team on-board a bus often is useful. 6. Plan Implementation Implementation planning steps are as follows: ▫▫ Execute as appropriate an interagency MOU, ▫▫ Obtain required FHWA approvals, ▫▫ Establish required legal authority, ▫▫ Perform necessary environmental studies, ▫▫ Obtain funding for the project, ▫▫ Develop a construction strategy that minimizes traffic impacts, ▫▫ Develop and implement a bus driver training program, and ▫▫ Develop marketing and public information plans. These implementation items should be identified prior to start-up. They should be considered throughout the entire planning process and not left to the end. 7. Project Start-up Key efforts should include the following: ▫▫ Implement a motorist advisory program for motorists using the corridor, possibly using vari- able message signs; ▫▫ Outreach to the media—good potential for “photo op” for project champion(s); ▫▫ Coordinate with enforcement agencies; and ▫▫ Market benefits to bus riders. This step provides a good opportunity for photo opportunities for project “champions.” 8. Monitor Performance The performance of the project should be monitored in a continuing basis, as follows: ▫▫ Monitor with BOS driver and police input the adequacy of signs and markings; ▫▫ Monitor wear and ride quality of shoulders; ▫▫ Debrief drivers to identify improvement potentials; ▫▫ Assess the benefits—patronage, run time, reliability, and so forth of the project; and ▫▫ Identify desired changes. Typically, minor improvements are identified that will correct unforeseen problems or improve performance.