Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice (2022)

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.

14 Transportation Agency Survey This chapter describes the purpose, methodology, and results of the survey of U.S. and Canadian transportation agencies that operate and/or own BRT services and facilities. Purpose The purposes of the survey were the following: • Obtain updated information about the impacts and costs of investments in specific BRT components. • Identify “lessons learned” by transportation agencies that operate/own BRT services and facilities. • Identify transportation agencies for more detailed discussions in the form of case examples. The remainder of this chapter reports survey results pertinent to the first two goals. With respect to the third goal, the process for identifying case examples is described in Chapter 4. Methodology The study team developed a set of survey questions intended to obtain the aforementioned survey outcomes. This survey questionnaire was reviewed by the synthesis panel and is pro- vided in Appendix A. For the purposes of the survey, the study team sought information about BRT services (i.e., prioritized bus services with a distinctive brand) as well as information about branded bus facilities (such as busways) that support BRT or other prioritized bus services. The focus of the surveys was obtaining information about “mature” BRT routes/facilities (i.e., BRT routes/ facilities that are fully implemented and have operated for at least 1 year). Accordingly, the study team generated a list of 68 transportation agencies to receive invita- tions to participate in the survey. These invitees included transit agencies and local govern- ment transportation departments. The invitees reflected BRT routes/facilities located in all FTA regions and five Canadian provinces. The study team created an online survey from the survey questionnaire. The online survey was developed in Qualtrics, an online survey tool, and pilot-tested by the panel. The revised survey was launched on March 10, 2021, and remained live until May 31, 2021. While the online survey was live, the study team sent follow-up e-mails and made follow-up calls as needed to encourage agencies to participate in the survey. C H A P T E R 3

Transportation Agency Survey 15   Results The study team received 41 responses and achieved a 60% response rate. Of the 41 responses, 33 were deemed to have resulted in “complete” surveys, or surveys with enough data to meaning- fully inform the study. The eight other respondents either declined to participate or indicated that they did not feel their BRT services were mature enough to provide representative data. The information provided in the remainder of this chapter reflects the 33 complete surveys. The agencies that provided complete surveys are listed in Appendix B. Survey Responses Characteristics of Responding Agencies Collectively, the 33 agencies that provided complete surveys operate and/or own 117 mature BRT routes and facilities. They provided data for 86 BRT routes and facilities. Figure 2 shows the geographic locations of the 33 agencies. The figure shows that the geo- graphic distribution of these agencies represents all of the FTA regions in the United States and five provinces in Canada. Figure 2. Location of survey respondents.

16 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice Figure 3 shows the distribution of responding agencies based on systemwide annual unlinked passenger trips provided (i.e., size). The smallest responding transit agency provides approxi- mately 3.3 million annual trips. The largest provides more than 3 billion annual trips (APTA 2019; FTA 2019). BRT Route/Facility Infrastructure Figure 4 shows the BRT running way types used by the responding agencies. Approximately 60% of the routes/facilities described by the responding agencies use more than one running way type. Figure 5 shows the transit priority features used by the responding agencies to support BRT route/facility operations. Approximately 72% of the BRT routes/facilities were implemented in conjunction with multiple types of priority features. It should be noted that not all transit priority features are applicable to all running way types. For example, TSP is not relevant on a grade-separated busway. Source: APTA 2019; FTA 2019. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 <10 million 10 million to 100 million 100 million to 1 billion >1 billion N um be r o f R es po nd en ts Systemwide Annual Trips Figure 3. Size of responding agencies. 13 23 10 6 47 2 30 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 At-grade or median busway Exclusive bus lane Grade-separated busway HOV lane Mixed-traffic lane Other Semi-exclusive bus lane Shared bus/bike lane Shoulder lane Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one type of running way. Figure 4. Running way types operated by responding agencies.

Transportation Agency Survey 17   Figure 6 shows selected running way features used by the responding agencies to provide BRT service. The features included in the figure are relevant to operations, enforcement, and maintenance. Specific types of barriers and separators cited by the responding agencies include striping, raised pavement markers, curbs, walls, flex posts, Jersey barriers, and gates. Specific types of pavement treatments cited by the responding agencies include painted asphalt or concrete, tinted asphalt or concrete, stamped or textured concrete, thermoplastic, methyl methacrylate, and colored aggregate coat. Examples of barriers, separators, and pavement treat- ments can be viewed in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Transit Street Design Guide (2015). It should be noted that different terminology for specific running way features was used across the responding agencies. At least half of the BRT routes/facilities described by responding agencies share stations or stops with other transit operators or other transit services. BRT Vehicles Figure 7 shows selected features of the vehicles used by the responding agencies to provide BRT service. The features included in the figure are those that are likely to impact capacity, speed, 12 53 8 25 1 22 7 31 41 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Bus bulbs/curb extensions Bus lanes Fare-free service Level boarding None Off-board fare collection Other Queue jumps/bypass lanes TSP Unknown Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one type of transit priority feature. Figure 5. Transit priority features used by responding agencies to support BRT operations. 25 24 9 39 23 15 10 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Barriers/separators Colored pavement Concrete pavement – full route/facility Concrete pavement – stops/stations only Dynamic signs Median or offset bus lanes Other Unknown Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one type of running way feature. Figure 6. Running way features used by responding agencies to support BRT operations.

18 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice and/or travel time. Approximately 39% of the responding agencies reported using vehicles with more than one of the listed features on at least one BRT route/facility. Other pertinent vehicle features identified by the responding agencies are interior bike racks, extra wheelchair-accessible seats, rear-facing self-securement for wheelchairs, and passive wheelchair restraint systems; these features were typically implemented to reduce dwell times. BRT Route/Facility Planning Figure 8 lists the network changes that the responding agencies implemented in conjunction with implementation of the BRT route/facility. More than half of the BRT routes/facilities represented in the complete surveys were implemented in conjunction with multiple types of network changes. (In the figure, “Redesigned underlying local route(s)” means that the agency changed alignments, headways, spans, and/or stop locations but did not discontinue local routes.) At least half of the BRT routes and facilities represented in the complete surveys replaced an existing transit service. BRT Route/Facility Operations Responding agencies described 17% of the BRT routes/facilities included in the survey as part-time routes/facilities. They reported that 11% of the BRT routes/facilities included in the 41 39 12 1 6 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Larger-capacity buses Multi-door boarding None Not applicable Other Right- and left-side doors Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one vehicle feature. Figure 7. Selected vehicle features used by responding agencies to provide BRT service. 19 25 4 1 4 36 8 13 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Discontinued underlying local route(s) Modified or added local routes to provide… None Not applicable Other Redesigned underlying local route(s) Rerouted limited-stop express and/or commuter… Shortened or discontinued limited-stop express… Unknown Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one type of network change. Figure 8. Network changes made by survey respondents in conjunction with BRT implementation.

Transportation Agency Survey 19   survey operated in some degree of contraflow. For approximately 50% of the BRT routes/facilities described in the survey, BRT vehicles operate in local service beyond the trunk portion of the BRT route/facility. At least 88% of the BRT routes/facilities described by responding agencies do not use vari- able stop patterns or routing. Agencies that reported using variable stop patterns or routing do so to reduce dwell times in certain segments or to manage capacity. Figure 9 lists the methods used by the responding agencies to enforce restrictions on usage of BRT running ways by non-transit modes. Most of the responding agencies rely on local police or transit police for enforcement. Other enforcement methods identified by survey respondents are station cameras, parking division staff, and road supervisors. BRT Route/Facility Maintenance Strategies used by the responding agencies to maintain BRT routes/facilities include the following: • Testing to identify the need for more robust materials • Establishing responsibilities via cooperative agreements • Contracting out specific maintenance functions • Prioritizing repairs to concrete pavement in queue jumps and at stations • Refreshing painted pavements and markings periodically • Inspecting running ways and stations Seven respondents reported having data to quantify impacts of running way features on maintenance costs. Other Survey Findings The study team reviewed the responding agencies’ reports about the impacts of BRT imple- mentation and developed the summaries that follow. It should be noted that these summaries might be based on inconsistent information, as the responding agencies used varying defini- tions of performance measures and some did not have data available for all types of impacts. Some of the reported impacts vary widely; subsequent sections of this chapter provide more information about the BRT strategies and features that the responding agencies found to be effective. 51 5 2 13 9 5 1 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Local or transit police No enforcement Not applicable On-bus cameras On-street cameras Other Unknown Vehicle operator reports Number of Responses Note: Respondents could select more than one type of enforcement method. Figure 9. Methods used by survey respondents to enforce restrictions on usage of BRT running ways.

20 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice Impacts on Travel Time and Speed The responding agencies reported impacts ranging from 3% to 72% improvement in travel times and speeds after implementation of BRT, with an average improvement of 23%. Half of the responding agencies that provided data reported travel time and speed savings within the range of 10% to 25%. The degree of impact generally depends on the features and maturity of the BRT route/facility; responding agencies operating BRT in dedicated running ways tended to report the largest improvements in travel time and speed. The degree of impact may vary with time of day and level of traffic congestion. (Some responding agencies that reported minimal travel time and speed improvements noted that service reliability improved significantly.) It should be noted that riders’ perspectives on travel time and speed impacts may differ from the agency’s measurements. Most of the responding agencies used travel time or speed as the relevant measure but differed in how they calculated it. For example, some based the measure on one-way trips instead of two-way trips, and some reported values as averages or 90th percentile values. Some of the responding agencies used different standards for BRT than for other types of transit services. Some compared BRT travel time or speed to that of general traffic. Some measured variability in travel time. Some measured delay at intersections instead of one-way or round-trip travel time. Impacts on Reliability The responding agencies reported impacts ranging from 2% to 68% improvement in reliability after implementation of BRT, with an average improvement of 29%. Half of the responding agencies that provided data reported reliability improvements within the range of 20% to 31%. Many responding agencies that provided data indicated that their BRT services were consistently 85% to 95% reliable, with most reporting that their BRT services were more than 90% reliable. Agencies reported that BRT reliability varied due to external factors, such as weather and traffic congestion exacerbated by crashes. The responding agencies reported using different reliability measures, including on-time performance, schedule adherence, measures of variance (e.g., between mixed-traffic route segments and dedicated-ROW route segments), and bus bunching. Respondents did not neces- sarily explain how these measures were calculated. Some of the responding agencies set a higher reliability standard for BRT than for other transit modes. Impacts on Productivity and Ridership The responding agencies reported ridership impacts ranging from a 47% decrease to a 600% increase after implementation of BRT. The responding agency that reported the 47% ridership decrease noted that the decrease occurred because BRT service was implemented in conjunc- tion with implementation of a premium (i.e., higher) fare for BRT, changes in transfer policies, and changes to local routes in or connecting to the corridor. Riders responded negatively to these changes. After the premium fare was eliminated and the frequency of the underlying local route was increased, BRT ridership grew and exceeded the previous level of ridership in the corridor. The responding agency that reported the 600% increase in ridership linked it to the implementation of bus-on-shoulder (BOS) operation in a high-volume freeway corridor. Most of the responding agencies that quantified ridership impacts of BRT reported increases of 10% to 50%. Others provided qualitative statements indicating that BRT routes had higher ridership

Transportation Agency Survey 21   than other bus routes in the system or that ridership in the corridor increased when BRT was implemented. Most of the responding agencies did not quantify productivity impacts of BRT (i.e., the impact of BRT on metrics such as passengers per hour and passengers per mile). The responding agencies that provided quantitative comparative data reported that BRT productivity was lower than that of the service(s) it replaced or lower than systemwide productivity; these decreases ranged from 10% to 82% and were attributed to increased route lengths and increased levels of midday service in the corridor. The agencies that provided qualitative statements about the productivity impacts of BRT reported that BRT routes were among the most productive in the system. Some responding agencies noted that BRT components may have had positive impacts on the ridership of other transit modes. For example, local bus services might have been able to benefit from TSP, queue jumps, or bus lanes implemented for BRT. The productivity and ridership metrics used by the responding agencies included ridership (e.g., boardings), passengers per mile, passengers per hour, and miles per passenger. Some responding agencies compared BRT ridership to ridership on other transit modes. One agency compared its BRT ridership to that of a peer group. Impacts on Operating Costs Most of the responding agencies reported that no operating cost impact data are available due to the manner in which they operate service (e.g., all of their services are contracted out at the same rate or they cannot separate BRT operating costs from operating costs for other transit modes). The responding agencies that provided quantitative impact data reported per-hour operating cost impacts ranging from a 0% to 30% increase in operating cost per hour, a 54% to 136% decrease in operating cost per mile, and a “slight” to 103% increase in total operating costs. Many of the responding agencies indicated that their BRT routes have the same per-hour operating cost as other routes in the system but total operating costs are higher for BRT because higher levels of BRT service are provided. Some responding agencies reported incurring addi- tional costs for BRT maintenance, enforcement of BRT running way restrictions, and modifying other transit services to support BRT. Some responding agencies noted that even though operating costs increased as a result of BRT implementation, they felt that they received more value from each hour operated as a result of increased bus speeds. The operating cost measures used by the responding agencies included total operating cost, operating cost per hour, and operating cost per mile. Some responding agencies compared BRT operating costs to those of other transit modes. Some reported having detailed breakdowns of operating and maintenance costs. Impacts on Customer Satisfaction The responding agencies reported impacts ranging from “initial dissatisfaction” to an 87% increase in customer satisfaction. Dissatisfaction was linked to higher fares, introduction of transfers, a reduction in levels of local bus service, increased walking distances, and the reduced chance of getting a seat on the vehicle. Many responding agencies do not have customer satisfaction data for BRT (or do not regularly measure it) and relied on anecdotal reports in completing the survey. The anecdotal reports typically suggested an increased level of customer satisfaction after BRT implementation.

22 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice The customer satisfaction measures used by the responding agencies included “quality of service,” “satisfaction,” and number of complaints. Respondents did not necessarily explain how these measures were calculated. Some responding agencies compared BRT customer satisfaction with that of other transit modes and/or with the system average. Other Measures of Impacts Figure 10 shows other measures used by the responding agencies. Some responding agencies reported measuring new development applications and pedestrian safety as well. Based on the figure, access-related measures are relatively commonly used among the responding agencies. Monitoring BRT Figure 11 shows the extent to which the responding agencies use impact measures for regular service monitoring. Measures of travel time and speed, productivity and ridership, and reliability are the most commonly used. Customer satisfaction measures are the least commonly used. Factors That Impact Successful BRT Operations and Maintenance The responding agencies identified several factors that support successful BRT operations and maintenance as well as several factors that hinder successful BRT operations and maintenance. Table 2 summarizes those factors. Figure 10. Other metrics used by survey respondents to measure impacts of BRT. 26 27 27 22 15 2 1 1 3 11 5 5 5 8 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Travel Time & Speed Reliability Productivity & Ridership Operating Costs Customer Satisfaction N um be r o f R es po nd in g A ge nc ie s Yes No Unknown/Not Applicable Figure 11. Types of impacts monitored on an ongoing basis.

Transportation Agency Survey 23   Factor Category Factors That Support Successful BRT Factors That Hinder Successful BRT Planning and design - Making decisions based on service effectiveness (e.g., maximizing service productivity), not on saving money during construction or shortening implementation time - Taking the time to do things right during planning, design, and implementation - Investing in service connections - Using pilot projects - Involving operations and maintenance staff in planning and design - Funding that requires BRT service levels that are higher than necessary - Insufficient funding/budget to implement BRT as needed - Inadequate commitment to making sure BRT is supported with enough vehicles, operators, mechanics, etc. - Lack of involvement of operations and maintenance staff in planning and design Infrastructure - Obtaining a high level of running way exclusivity - Maximizing transit priority opportunities - Implementing level boarding - Lack of priority treatments for the entire corridor (e.g., dedicated bus lanes and TSP) - Higher rate of crashes associated with semi-exclusive transit lanes (in comparison to exclusive transit lanes) - Limited ROW for stations and priority treatments - Dedicated facilities that do not extend into the city center - Not being able to refresh or upgrade service, resulting in stagnation Operations - Having the flexibility to alter schedules to meet demand fluctuations - Having the flexibility to add larger-capacity buses when needed - Hiring great operators - Providing high-quality training for staff - Dedicating a team to operating the service - Impact of intersection delays resulting in BRT not being competitive with walking - Inadequate staff training - Responding to severe weather - Impacts of drawbridges - Demands from other modes for access to dedicated lanes - Lack of a dedicated team for managing BRT operations Maintenance - Choosing materials with long- term maintenance costs in mind - Using station and fare inspectors to relay maintenance issues to maintenance staff - Dedicating a team to maintaining the service - Defining maintenance responsibilities clearly (e.g., by establishing agreements) - Specialized vehicles complicating maintenance and training Table 2. Factors that impact successful BRT operations and maintenance. (continued on next page)

24 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice Evolution of BRT The responding agencies identified the following changes in their approach to designing, operating, and maintaining BRT over time (e.g., as they improved existing BRT services and facilities and/or implemented new services and facilities): • Planning and design – Recognized the need for more first-mile/last-mile solutions to support BRT. – Increased the BRT service span. – Adapted to resource/funding constraints. – Reduced the number of BRT routes due to funding and service consolidation. • Infrastructure – Switched from hybrid to electric buses. – Addressed issues that became apparent after construction (e.g., a need to revise landscaping strategies). – Leveraged all opportunities to get priority treatments. – Added priority treatments. – Lowered curb heights in the busway due to a vehicle overhang issue discovered after implementation. – Replaced seats with luggage racks on an airport BRT route. – Replaced fare payment technology. – Changed the capital project delivery process. – Modified station design to respond to issues identified after implementation (e.g., relocating knee walls). – Installed more signage and pavement markings. Factor Category Factors That Support Successful BRT Factors That Hinder Successful BRT Partnerships - Having a dedicated funding partner with a vested interest in BRT success - Obtaining the support of the community, law enforcement, and regional agencies early - Involving the local traffic department in the project - Having decision makers who understand long-term implications - Maintaining relationships with partners after implementation - Lack of data-sharing agreements (e.g., with TSP) - DOT- and local government– imposed limits on signal timing - Lack of community and law enforcement support - Complicated or unclear partner agreements Other - Focusing on service quality and making commitments to improve it - Continuing to invest in the service (e.g., in capital improvements, adjustments, training, and monitoring) - Branding and marketing consistently - Supporting density and mix of uses near stations to balance directional flows - Low-density land uses and urban sprawl - Heavy congestion Table 2. (Continued).

Transportation Agency Survey 25   • Operations – Implemented a new approach to headway management. – Implemented an alternate stops plan in case of station closures (e.g., due to snow). – Increased reliance on information technology and real-time passenger load data. – Allowed for more recovery time. – Adjusted run times. – Adjusted operations to reduce crowding. • Maintenance – Included snow clearing and general maintenance in a public-private partnership contract. – Transitioned maintenance of running way from the city to in-house. • Other: Started introducing new service concepts and new technology on BRT first to maintain BRT’s brand as “the best” service in the system. Lessons Learned The responding agencies identified the following lessons learned from their experiences designing, operating, and maintaining BRT services and facilities: • Planning and design – Think about how to provide adequate resources and systems at the beginning of the development process. – Think about implementing BRT as if implementing light rail transit (LRT) (e.g., as if BRT is independent of regular bus service). – Implement BRT in conjunction with transportation demand management strategies (e.g., reduced parking). – Make sure the budget is adequate for BRT development and long-term operations, as successful BRT is expensive. – Make technology decisions early. – Recognize that BRT is unique in every city. – Provide a network of feeder routes to support BRT. – Focus on investments that improve service, not just investments that make stations look nicer. – Make sure “BRT” is BRT (e.g., frequent and reliable). – Find a dedicated source of funding for operations and maintenance. – Recognize that long routes with high frequencies are high-cost routes. – Do not overdesign the BRT service/facility before obtaining construction funding, and complete final design when the approximate construction date is known. – During the design phase, consider how snowfall will be managed. – Plan early and plan often; no detail is too small. – Ensure that the planning and design team has transit operations and maintenance experience. – Plan the service first and then the infrastructure; including features you do not need might not be an effective use of funding. – Plan and design to allow for growth and flexibility. • Infrastructure – Do not underinvest in BRT infrastructure, as underinvestment can adversely impact effectiveness and branding. – Obtain written agreements from property owners for stop and amenity placement. – Brand BRT stations and vehicles. – Minimize, if possible, the number of vehicles dedicated to BRT, as a transit fleet can be deployed more efficiently if buses can operate on any route and fewer spare vehicles will be required.

26 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice – Take advantage of opportunities to implement priority treatments. – Develop an operations and infrastructure monitoring system. – Pay attention to station siting and spacing. – Own the ROW if possible. – Make sure station lighting is adequate. • Operations – Hold operations discussions early in project development. – Provide adequate staff; more staff and resources will be needed than expected. – Develop an operations and infrastructure monitoring system. – Keep dedicated lanes dedicated; to lessen the need for enforcement, avoid sharing dedicated lanes with other modes and avoid time-of-day restrictions. – Be ready to make quick adjustments to schedules, especially right after the service/facility is launched. – Focus more on reliability than speed. • Maintenance – Hold maintenance discussions early in development; consider how stations will be accessed for maintenance. – Delineate clearly maintenance roles and responsibilities, and sign agreements. – Recognize that BRT vehicles and stations might have different maintenance needs and schedules than other vehicles and stations in the system. – Design stations that reflect the character of the city but are not too complicated to readily maintain. – Use concrete pads in the running way at stations. • Partnerships – Obtain funding contributions early. – Conduct extensive public engagement. – Do not compete with stakeholders when you can reach out to them. – Address signal timing changes in an agreement with the local jurisdiction. – Include multiple owners in project ownership, not just the transit agency. • Other: Use proven technology instead of inventing new approaches and systems.