May-June 2016: The Bus Rennaissance - Intercity Travel, Bus Rapid Transit, Technology Advances, Rural Services (2016)

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.

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 16 The author is Senior Research Associate, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa. In less than two decades, bus rapid transit (BRT)has progressed from a little-known innovationto one of the fastest-growing transit modes in the country. Industry awareness of the mode spread rapidly after its adoption in the United States in the late 1990s. Swift and inexpensive implementation makes BRT an attractive option for cities contending with traffic congestion and constrained budgets for pub- lic transportation. Today, BRT is operating or in development in most major cities and is a modal alternative in nearly every transit planning study. In comparison with advances on the international scene, however, BRT is a relatively recent develop- ment in the United States, and the full scope of its cost, performance, and impacts remains to be seen. Key BRT Features BRT is an umbrella term encompassing an array of features that can be applied in a single corridor or across an entire bus system. The BRT mode is often viewed as bridging the quality gap between the local bus system and light rail transit (LRT), but this gap is significant and covers a range of applications. At one end of the spectrum are the systems that run in mixed traffic, often referred to as BRT-lite. To improve speed, reliability, and convenience, these systems typically use relatively low-cost techniques, such as giving transit buses priority at traffic signals and positioning bus stops at the far side of intersec- tions. To maximize speed and reliability, BRT systems usually feature some form of dedicated runningway. Bus Rapid Transit in the United States Making Inroads J E N N I F E R M . F LY N N The Bus Renaissance P H O TO : LA M ETR O In a successful 2015 pilot, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transpor - tation Authority tested all-doors boarding on its Wilshire line to facilitate quicker BRT service. TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 16

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 17 The most basic form is a shoulder bus lane, which often can be provided at minimal expense by restrip- ing a lane or by repurposing a lane previously desig- nated for parking or deliveries. The bus lane approach can be applied to a specific route segment or can be limited to certain times, such as the morn- ing and evening travel peaks. Median bus lanes and median busways represent the next level in performance and investment. Locat- ing the bus lane in a median reduces the number of conflicts with side-street access, parked cars, and other obstacles, allowing for faster travel speeds. Median busways usually are more costly than median bus lanes but provide the benefit of physical separa- tion from traffic. At the high end of the investment spectrum are exclusive busways, also known as full-service or high-level BRT. These implementations require obtaining the right-of-way, sometimes by making use of older transit alignments such as abandoned rail lines. Although complete grade separation is seldom possible, full-service busways minimize the number of at-grade intersections. These systems usually fea- ture other amenities more commonly associated with rail systems, such as stylized vehicles, permanent stations, level boarding, and off-board fare collec- tion (1). BRT systems come in many shapes and sizes, but all aim to combine the quality of rail-based tran- sit with the flexibility and affordability of a bus system. Different BRT features can be bundled into a range of flexible, scalable configurations, and can be im plemented all at once or added incrementally. This versatility allows agencies to tailor projects to local operating environments, travel markets, and resources, and to adapt as conditions change. Further more, BRT’s ability to travel on pavement enables a higher level of operational flexibility than rail-based systems. Origins of BRT Many of the concepts of BRT have been in use for decades. The earliest attempt to give buses priority in urban traffic dates to 1939, when the world’s first bus lane was built in Chicago, Illinois (2). Never- theless, busway and bus lane experiments did not begin to proliferate in North America until the early 1970s, with a renewed federal focus on improving public transport. Examples of early busways include the Shirley Highway in Northern Virginia; the Lincoln Tunnel between New Jersey and New York City; the El Monte Freeway in Los Angeles, California; and High- way 101 in the San Francisco, California, area. Dur- ing this period, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, introduced PH O TO : O R A N V IR IY IN C Y, F LI C K R Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line was one of the first full- service BRT lines in the United States. Passengers board a Shirley Highway bus from downtown Washington, D.C., to suburban Virginia in the late 1970s. This early route took advantage of a dedicated busway. P H O TO : P LA NITM ETR O TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 17

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 18 several busways, now considered the country’s first large-scale implementation of a BRT-like system. Sev- eral other high-quality bus facilities were imple- mented during the 1980s and 1990s, including OC Transpo’s Transitway in Ottawa, Canada; reversible- lane transitways in Houston, Texas; the Metro Bus Tunnel in Seattle, Washington; and the South Dade Busway in Miami, Florida. Although these projects helped open the way for BRT in the United States, much of the initial knowl- edge transfer came from Latin America. The opening of the world’s first comprehensive BRT system in Curitiba, Brazil, in 1974 marked the birth of the modern era of BRT. Curitiba’s Rede Integrada de Transporte, a network of dedicated median busways traversed by articulated buses serving tube-shaped stations, yielded impressive results in terms of rider- ship and mode split. For many years, Curitiba was a mecca for BRT fact-finding missions from across the globe. Curitiba inspired adoption throughout Latin America, which now hosts more than one-quarter of the world’s BRT systems. Perhaps the most notable of the Latin American systems inspired by Curitiba is Transmilenio in Bogotá, Colombia, which has expe- rienced ridership volumes comparable to those of subways (3). Federal BRT Initiative In 1998, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Gordon Linton led a delegation of local and state officials on a scanning tour of Curitiba’s system. Impressed by the findings, FTA sponsored a BRT Demonstration Program, partnering with several competitively selected transit properties for the implementation, operation, and evaluation of BRT projects. In 2001, FTA sponsored the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, a national program of research, innovation, training, and technical assis- tance. FTA’s early BRT initiatives fostered working rela- tionships with the American Public Transportation Association, domestic bus manufacturers, and the Transportation Research Board, leading to the design of BRT vehicle prototypes and to the development of consensus-based BRT standards. These efforts also assembled a foundational body of knowledge through research studies, evaluations, and decision tools produced by the National BRT Institute and other FTA research partners. By the early 2000s, projects were under way in Los Angeles; Boston, Massachusetts; Oakland, Cali- fornia; Las Vegas, Nevada; Kansas City, Missouri; Cleveland, Ohio; and Eugene, Oregon—BRT was beginning to take off in the United States. Examples of Successes Metro Rapid: BRT-Lite Service in Los Angeles After finding that its buses had been spending nearly half of their service hours stopped at red lights or loading passengers, the Los Angeles County Metro- politan Transportation Authority (Metro) partnered with the City of Los Angeles to improve bus speed and reliability by minimizing the delay at traffic sig- nals and bus stops. This effort gained momentum when Metro staff and City officials joined FTA for the 1998 scanning tour of the Curitiba system. Impressed by Curitiba’s success, Metro launched two pilot lines in June 2000, under the Metro Rapid Demonstration Program. The BRT demonstration projects on the 26-mile Wilshire–Whittier Boulevard and the 16-mile Ven- tura Boulevard corridors added other features to improve bus speeds, reliability, and convenience. Bus frequencies were increased, stops were spaced farther The world’s first BRT system began in Curitiba, Brazil, featuring tube- shaped stations, and has served as a model for other systems worldwide. The SDX BRT line in Las Vegas travels on a dedicated lane and receives priority at traffic lights. P H O TO : M A R IO R O B ER TO D U R A N O R TIZ P H O TO : N IC K C H R ISTEN SEN, M ETR O N EW S TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 18

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 19 apart and placed at the far side of intersections, traf- fic signals were adjusted to give priority to buses, and low-floor buses were introduced to speed passenger loading. Amenities included lighting, canopies, and real-time arrival information. The innovations reduced passenger travel times along the two corridors by as much as 29 percent, and ridership increased by 40 percent; one-third of the increase was from new patrons who had not pre- viously used public transit (4). The total capital cost for the 42.4 miles of BRT service was $8.3 million, or approximately $196,000 per mile (5). Branded as Metro Rapid, the system has grown into a network of more than 20 arterial routes pro- viding nearly 400 miles of service in some of the highest-demand transit corridors of Los Angeles County. The San Pablo Rapid in Oakland is one of several transit systems that have applied the Metro Rapid model. Metro Orange Line: Full-Service BRT in Los Angeles The Metro Orange Line debuted in Los Angeles in 2005 as one of the first full-service BRT lines in the United States. At the time of its opening, the line spanned 14.5 miles through the San Fernando Val- ley, almost entirely along an at-grade, dedicated busway within an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Orange Line features high-capacity articu- lated vehicles, permanent stations, near-level board- ing, off-board fare payment, headway-based schedules, and traffic signal priority. Stations are spaced at approximately 1-mile intervals and outfit- ted with canopied platforms, real-time arrival infor- mation, bicycle parking, and automated fare collection machines. The project also included extensive native land- scaping, a multiuse recreational path, and public art. The capital costs were $305 million, approximately $21.0 million per mile (6). A four-mile extension was added in 2012 at a cost of approximately $154 million (7). A 2011 evaluation found reduced travel times and improved levels of service reliability in the Orange Line corridor. The BRT reduced the average peak- hour travel time in the corridor by 22 percent, with little difference between peak and nonpeak running times (6). Los Angeles County Metro developed its Metro Rapid service after a scanning tour to Curitiba, Brazil. Ridership on Los Angeles County Metro’s full- service BRT, the Orange Line, greatly exceeded expectations almost immediately after opening in 2005. PH O TO : C A R R EN JA O , ZO C A LO PU B LI C SQ U A R E PH O TO : M ET R O © 2 00 9 TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 19

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 20 Ridership dramatically exceeded the forecasts. Metro had estimated an average of 5,000 to 7,000 weekday boardings in the first year of service and projected an average of 22,000 weekday boardings by 2020. By May 2006, the line already had attracted nearly 22,000 average weekday boardings, achieving the 15-year ridership target in seven months. Since the 2012 extension, ridership has increased (6), with roughly 27,000 weekday boardings in 2015 (8) and a projected average of 45,000 weekday boardings by 2030 (9). EmX: Small-Scale BRT in Eugene, Oregon The Emerald Express, or EmX, operated by Lane Transit District (LTD) in Eugene, Oregon, is the first application of BRT in a small city. Opened in 2007, the 4-mile Franklin Corridor forms the backbone of the EmX, linking LTD’s two major hubs, the neigh- boring downtowns of Eugene and Springfield. Service is provided with 60-foot articulated buses that have multiple doors on both sides. Most of the station platforms are located in the median and pro- vide level boarding, enhanced lighting, information displays, bike racks, and real-time arrival informa- tion. Buses operate on a combination of single and dual exclusive lanes with special paving, as well as in general-purpose travel lanes. EmX vehicles receive traffic signal priority. Public opinion about travel time savings has been favorable—more than 60 percent of respondents to a 2007 on-board survey indicated that their travel time had decreased. Among those who drove before changing to the EmX, nearly 60 percent stated that the EmX was faster (10). Like the Orange Line, the EmX has surpassed rid- ership expectations. LTD estimated that ridership over the 20-year design period would increase by approximately 40 percent compared with conven- tional bus service; this would approximate 3,780 average weekday boardings. The Franklin EmX exceeded that projection in its first month of ser- vice, with approximately 4,000 average weekday boardings. By the end of the first year of service, rid- ership grew to nearly 6,000 average weekly board- ings, a more than twofold increase over the previous bus service (10). After the opening of the 5.5-mile Gateway Exten- sion in January 2011, average weekday ridership on the two corridors grew to approximately 9,500 boardings; by October 2013, the figure had reached 11,017 (11). The Franklin EmX required $25 million in capital costs, or $6.25 million per mile (10). The Gateway Extension cost about $41.3 million, or $5.3 million per mile (12). LTD is developing a third EmX project to extend the service to West Eugene, with completion expected in late 2017. LTD plans to provide EmX ser- vice along a 61-mile network that includes most of the main transportation corridors in the area. Emerald Express (EmX) buses in Eugene, Oregon, use a combination of dedicated lanes with special paving and general-purpose lanes. Level boarding at the EmX Walnut Station in Eugene. P H O TO : W IK IM ED IA C O M M O N S P H O TO : C H R IS P H A N, F LIC K R TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 20

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 21 Addressing Challenges Despite BRT’s successes, some challenges have arisen and some implementations have fallen short of expectations. The EmX, for example, experienced several bus–automobile collisions in its early months of operation. The accident rate declined once local drivers became accustomed to the busway (12). Metro responded to a series of collisions in its early Orange Line operations by requiring buses to slow to 10 mph through intersections, but this con- cession reduced the travel time benefit expected from the segregated busway (6). To increase speeds, Metro recently withdrew the order for intersection slow- downs, and to add capacity, the agency is consider- ing replacement of its 60-foot buses with 80-foot buses that carry 40 percent more passengers. Metro also is studying the option of adding overpasses at the busway’s busiest intersections. Another challenge for BRT is sustaining service quality. BRT’s key competitive advantage of flexibil- ity can lead to erosions in service features. In some cases, features that were used to build public support for ambitious projects have been gradually elimi- nated to save money on capital costs, until all that is left are some basic upgrades to bus service. Of course, this is not a problem with the BRT concept itself, but an issue of planning and implementation. Next Advances Decision makers must recognize that BRT works best as an integrated system of operational, vehicle, and infrastructure features. The BRT boom shows no signs of letting up. It has made inroads in cities large and small, from Seattle to Austin, Texas, to Jack- sonville, Florida. Aspen, Colorado, has built the nation’s first rural BRT system, covering nearly 40 miles and connecting the ski resort city to several small communities. Many of the systems in plan- ning or under construction are smaller, corridor- based projects. BRT clearly has become a permanent fixture in the urban landscape of the United States—a revolu- tion has occurred. The next decade will witness an evolution, as BRT fine-tunes into a fully mature mode. Features of BRT increasingly are spreading to non- BRT corridors—BRT-lite may become the regular bus system of the future. Because buses account for almost half of the nation’s transit trips, improvements in services could have a significant impact on tran- sit’s mode share. To realize the improvements in mobility, conges- tion, and economic growth that BRT can produce, the transition from individual BRT lines to integrated BRT route networks would constitute a major advance. As research on U.S. BRT progresses beyond case studies to focus on the life-cycle costs of matur- ing systems and on the experiences of newer systems, more advances will emerge. References 1. Cain, A., and J. Flynn. Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit. Federal Transit Admin- istration, Washington, D.C., March 2009. 2. Transit Fact Book 2007. American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. www.apta.com/resources/ statistics/Documents/FactBook/APTA_2007_Fact_Book. pdf. 3. Wright, L. Latin American Busways: Moving People Rather Than Cars. Natural Resource Forum, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 121–134. 4. Metro Rapid. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- portation Authority, California. https://www.metro.net/ projects/rapid/. 5. Transportation Management and Design, Inc. Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program: Final Report. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2002. 6. National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011. 7. Orange Line Bus Extension Goes Deeper into San Fer- nando Valley. L.A. Now, June 2012. http://latimesblogs. latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/orange-line-bus-extension- goes-deeper-into-san-fernando-valley.html. 8. Metro Ridership Interactive Tool. Los Angeles County Met- ropolitan Transportation Authority, California. http://isotp. metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexAllBus.aspx. 9. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canoga Trans- portation Corridor. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, California, 2009. 10. National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. The EmX Franklin Corridor BRT Project Evaluation. Federal Transit Adminis- tration, Washington, D.C., 2009. 11. Lane Transit District website. https://www.ltd.org/. 12. Center for Urban Transportation Research. Bus Rapid Tran- sit Applications Phase II. Florida Department of Trans- portation District IV, Fort Lauderdale. 2011. VelociRFTA in Aspen, Colorado, is the nation’s first rural BRT. P H O TO : JU D Y LC R O O K, F LIC K R TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 21

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 22 C Tfastrak in Hartford County,Connecticut, is one of the newest bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in the United States. The system celebrated its first anniversary in March 2016. Dur- ing its first year in operation, passengers took more than 3 million trips on the bright green buses. System Profile The heart of the system is a 9.4- mile dedicated busway with 10 rider-friendly transit stations that incorporate off-bus ticket vending machines, level plat- form boarding, on-board Wi-Fi service, and stainless steel and glass shelters with teak seating. Customers receive real-time bus arrival information on electronic message boards at the stations, through automatic vehicle location systems combined with rout- ing, scheduling, and other data. These data also are made available to app developers free of charge; Google Transit and Transit App use the data to provide real-time travel information to customers. A 5-mile multiuse recreational trail extends along the western half of the busway, enabling residents to bike, run, or walk to local des- tinations in New Britain and Newington. The CTfastrak system operates 21 hours a day, Monday through Saturday, and 14 hours on Sunday. The system’s Route 101 uses 60-ft articulated buses to provide fre- quent, high-capacity service. The buses arrive at designated transit stops every 7.5 minutes during the weekday peak periods, every 12 minutes on middays and week- ends, and every 20 minutes at night. The system also has 40-ft buses, which can travel on and off the bus-only roadway. These buses link the Route 101 services to education, health care, entertainment, and popular shopping destinations, as well as to business districts and neighborhoods. CTfastrak’s 30-ft buses connect smaller communities and the region’s sec- ondary schools and colleges to the system. The CTfastrak ex- press services use 45-ft coach buses to provide access to Waterbury and the Metro- North Railroad station, as well as to Southington, Bristol, and Cheshire. The CTfastrak Express routes travel on the dedicated busway to avoid traffic into and out of Hartford, the state capital. Making Connections The CTfastrak transit stop at Hartford’s Union Station, a major transportation hub for Central Connecticut, allows BRT passengers to connect to Amtrak trains, intercity bus lines, and the Bradley International Airport shuttle bus, the Bradley Flyer. In 2018, this transportation center will add a new commuter rail service, the Hartford Line, with frequent trips between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, Massachusetts. The increased connectivity of rail, bus, and airline services greatly expands the inter- modal reach and effectiveness of Con- necticut’s transportation system. During the 20-month period before the opening of the CTfastrak transit system, the Connecticut Department of Trans- portation held more than a dozen com- munity open house events to gain public input about the planned bus services, including the scheduling and routing. The final operations plan for CTfastrak incor- porated the valuable information collected at these meetings. A strategic and inte- grated marketing, public relations, and social media campaign followed the out- reach, to educate the various audiences throughout the region about the benefits of the BRT service. In addition, CTfastrak offers passengers a consumer-friendly rewards program,a featuring discounts on dining, entertainment, shopping, and professional services from more than 60 businesses and other organizations accessible from the system and from other local transit stations and routes. a http://ctfastrak.com/rewards. The Bus Renaissance CTfastrak Bus Rapid Transit System Connecting Central Connecticut R A N D A L P. D A V I S The author is Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington. CTfastrak off-bus ticket vending machine. A CTfastrak 60-ft articulated bus. A CTfastrak 40-ft bus. TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 22