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.

27   Case Examples This chapter summarizes the development of the project’s case examples. It discusses how the case example agencies were selected, the topics explored in each case example, and how the case examples were conducted. Chapter 5 includes the results of the case examples. Purpose The purpose of the case example discussions was to go through selected agencies’ answers to the survey to get more details, ask follow-up questions, and confirm that the study team has an accurate understanding of the agencies’ experience with BRT routes/facilities. Methodology After analyzing the survey responses and assessing the findings of the literature review, the study team identified six case examples from the survey responses using the following criteria: • Responsiveness • Relevant strategies (focused on operations and maintenance) • Availability of relevant data (e.g., for costs and impacts) • Diversity of agencies – Location – Operating environment – Type(s) of BRT route/facility operated – Scale of operation • Extent to which the agency can provide insight on specific topics of interest, including the following: – Getting priority and keeping it – Long-term BRT considerations (maintaining, expanding, and updating) – Less common approaches to operating BRT (e.g., contraflow and part-time operation) – Running way compliance/enforcement decision making – Approaches to managing dwell time (e.g., variable and/or unique stop patterns and methods of loading/securing wheelchairs and bikes) The study team interviewed the selected agencies via web conference. After each case example was complete, the study team sent each agency its individual case example report for review and comment. As comments were received, the study team revised the case example reports to respond to the agencies’ comments. C H A P T E R 4

28 Bus Rapid Transit: Current State of Practice The following topics guided the interviews: 1. Confirmation of details about the BRT routes/facilities operated. This may include the following: – Number of routes – Implementation dates – Operator – Owner of facilities and ROW – Route and service characteristics – Running way types used and extent – Other running way features (e.g., pavement treatments) – Priority features – Selected station features – Selected vehicle features – Service changes made to accommodate or support BRT 2. Discussion of the previously listed features in more detail. For example: How were the running way type and priority features selected for a specific segment of the BRT route? Was BRT routing influenced by factors such as the amount of ROW available for desired BRT features? What trade-offs were considered in making decisions about running way type and priority features? 3. Discussion of the operating strategies described in the survey. For example: How was it determined to what extent BRT ROW would be shared with other non-BRT modes? What trade-offs were considered? 4. Discussion of the maintenance strategies described in the survey. For example: How were BRT design and implementation influenced by maintenance concerns? What trade-offs were considered? 5. Discussion of travel time and speed impacts described in the survey. For example: How were travel time impacts measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address travel time concerns? 6. Discussion of reliability impacts described in the survey. For example: How was reliability measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address reliability concerns? 7. Discussion of ridership and productivity impacts described in the survey. For example: How was productivity measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address productivity concerns? 8. Discussion of operating cost impacts described in the survey. For example: How were oper- ating costs measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address operating cost concerns? 9. Discussion of customer satisfaction impacts described in the survey. For example: How was customer satisfaction with BRT measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address customer satisfaction concerns? 10. Discussion of other impacts described in the survey. For example: How were safety and security measured? How have BRT operations been modified over time (if applicable) to address safety and security concerns? 11. Discussion of lessons learned described in the survey. This may include discussion of factors identified as contributing to or hindering the success of BRT. It may also include discussion of how the approach to implementing, operating, and maintaining BRT changed over time. The study team also requested reports or other documents that provide information about the previously listed topics, as available. Specific reports of interest include before-and-after studies and documents that link specific impacts to specific BRT investments.

Case Examples 29   Selected Case Examples The study team conducted the following case examples: 1. Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) 2. King County Metro Transit (King County Metro) 3. Lane Transit District (LTD) 4. New York City Department of Transportation/New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYCDOT/MTA) 5. Transit Authority of the City of Omaha (Omaha Metro) 6. Pace Suburban Bus (Pace) These case examples are summarized in Table 3. Agency Location Case Example Number Capital Metro Austin, TX 1 King County Metro King County, WA 2 LTD Eugene, OR 3 NYCDOT/MTA New York City, NY 4 Omaha Metro Omaha, NE 5 Pace Chicago, IL 6 Table 3. Case example summary.