https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Crubin 2026-04-23T01:35:38Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.1 https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=557 2012-04-11T19:29:41Z

<p>Crubin: /* Additional Reading */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|500px]|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line caries over 20,000 trips every day, traversing the San Fernando Valley. Photo via the Metro Transportation Library and Archive.]]<br /> <br /> In corridors with high existing or potential transit ridership, transit agencies may want to consider investing in a segregated busway. This is particularly relevant where the agency owns an existing right-of-way or if there is excess road space.<br /> <br /> Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway may intersect streets (although this can be alleviated with transit signal priority). Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations, thanks to stations that allow for more level boarding.<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf<br /> <br /> http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=556 2012-04-11T19:28:58Z

<p>Crubin: /* Busways */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|500px]|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line caries over 20,000 trips every day, traversing the San Fernando Valley. Photo via the Metro Transportation Library and Archive.]]<br /> <br /> In corridors with high existing or potential transit ridership, transit agencies may want to consider investing in a segregated busway. This is particularly relevant where the agency owns an existing right-of-way or if there is excess road space.<br /> <br /> Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway may intersect streets (although this can be alleviated with transit signal priority). Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations, thanks to stations that allow for more level boarding.<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=555 2012-04-11T19:28:35Z

<p>Crubin: /* Busways */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|500px]|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line caries over 20,000 trips every day, traversing the San Fernando Valley. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> In corridors with high existing or potential transit ridership, transit agencies may want to consider investing in a segregated busway. This is particularly relevant where the agency owns an existing right-of-way or if there is excess road space.<br /> <br /> Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway may intersect streets (although this can be alleviated with transit signal priority). Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations, thanks to stations that allow for more level boarding.<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=554 2012-04-11T19:28:16Z

<p>Crubin: /* Busways */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|300px]|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line caries over 20,000 trips every day, traversing the San Fernando Valley. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> In corridors with high existing or potential transit ridership, transit agencies may want to consider investing in a segregated busway. This is particularly relevant where the agency owns an existing right-of-way or if there is excess road space.<br /> <br /> Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway may intersect streets (although this can be alleviated with transit signal priority). Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations, thanks to stations that allow for more level boarding.<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:Orange_Line_BRT.jpg&diff=553 2012-04-11T19:16:30Z

<p>Crubin: A Los Angeles Metro articulated bus travels along the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley. It connects the North Hollywood Red Line Station to Warner Center. An extension to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station will be opening in summer 2012. Photo from th</p> <hr /> <div>A Los Angeles Metro articulated bus travels along the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley. It connects the North Hollywood Red Line Station to Warner Center. An extension to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station will be opening in summer 2012. Photo from the Metro Transportation Library and Archive.</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=552 2012-04-11T19:04:06Z

<p>Crubin: /* Busways */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> In corridors with high existing or potential transit ridership, transit agencies may want to consider investing in a segregated busway. This is particularly relevant where the agency owns an existing right-of-way or if there is excess road space.<br /> <br /> Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway may intersect streets (although this can be alleviated with transit signal priority). Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations, thanks to stations that allow for more level boarding.<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=551 2012-04-11T18:47:09Z

<p>Crubin: /* Bus lanes */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. <br /> <br /> Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=550 2012-04-11T18:43:43Z

<p>Crubin: /* Bus lanes */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with a minimum of capital expense -- just what is needed to re-stripe a street. Thus, bus lanes can be deployed in corridors that might not otherwise warrant a more extensive capital investment in service quality.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=549 2012-04-11T18:40:04Z

<p>Crubin: /* Bus lanes */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase transit vehicle reliability by reducing conflicts with other vehicles in mixed traffic that might otherwise delay transit vehicles. Reducing conflicts with other vehicles should increase schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. Furthermore, bus-only lanes can allow buses to pass uninhibited by traffic through congested areas, improving overall speeds. When buses can make their runs in less time, agencies can maintain the same level of capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=548 2012-04-11T18:29:00Z

<p>Crubin: /* Features */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with considerable operation benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. In particular, bus-only lanes increase reliability of <br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=547 2012-04-05T21:46:56Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.<br /> <br /> ==Features==<br /> <br /> ===Bus lanes===<br /> <br /> ===Busways===<br /> <br /> ===Fare collection===<br /> <br /> ===Automatic vehicle location===<br /> <br /> ===Land use===<br /> <br /> ===Signal priority===<br /> <br /> ===Stops &amp; shelters===<br /> <br /> ===Vehicles design===<br /> <br /> ===Expressways===<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Examples==<br /> <br /> The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, &quot;Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making.&quot; Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.<br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=546 2012-04-05T21:27:55Z

<p>Crubin: /* Additional Reading */</p> <hr /> <div><br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.<br /> <br /> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded traditional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Or in major urban areas, the transportation needs may make appropriate to invest in heavy rail, light rail or various types of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).<br /> <br /> For instance, while the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is embarking on construction of over 70 miles of rail (per voter mandate), the more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).<br /> <br /> While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.<br /> <br /> When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Additional Reading==<br /> http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=503 2012-03-08T00:56:27Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Low-floor buses have proliferated over the last several decades do the benefits they confer to the transit operator and customer.<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> * [http://www.schallerconsult.com/pub/lowfloor.htm|&quot;MTA New York City Transit Research Shows What Customers Want in Low Floor Buses.&quot; 1998.]<br /> <br /> * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus Wikipedia page &quot;Low-floor bus&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=502 2012-03-08T00:56:02Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Low-floor buses have proliferated over the last several decades do the benefits they confer to the transit operator and customer.<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> <br /> [http://www.schallerconsult.com/pub/lowfloor.htm|&quot;MTA New York City Transit Research Shows What Customers Want in Low Floor Buses.&quot; 1998.]<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus Wikipedia page &quot;Low-floor bus&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=501 2012-03-08T00:54:24Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Low-floor buses have proliferated over the last several decades do the benefits they confer to the transit operator and customer.<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus Wikipedia page &quot;Low-floor bus&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=496 2012-03-08T00:44:53Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus Wikipedia page &quot;Low-floor bus&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=495 2012-03-08T00:44:20Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus|Wikipedia page &quot;Low-floor bus&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=494 2012-03-08T00:43:17Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus|Wikpedia -- Low-floor bus]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=493 2012-03-08T00:43:01Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus|Wikpedia: Low-floor bus]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=492 2012-03-08T00:42:43Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further Reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [[Wikpedia: Low-floor bus|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=491 2012-03-08T00:41:40Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Reduce dwell time]]<br /> [[Category:Coordination between agencies]]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> Transit agencies traditionally used cash fare systems, but some agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards. A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.<br /> <br /> == Interagency coordination ==<br /> Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers.<br /> <br /> ==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br /> <br /> An automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br /> <br /> Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=490 2012-03-08T00:35:54Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px|A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [Wikpedia: Low-floor bus|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Low-floor_buses&diff=489 2012-03-08T00:35:26Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Reduces time required to board, especially for those with limited mobility (the elderly, the disabled, and those in wheelchairs.<br /> <br /> [[File:Low floor bus.jpg|thumb|300px]]<br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> <br /> == Further Reading ==<br /> [Wikpedia: Low-floor bus|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-floor_bus]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:Low_floor_bus.jpg&diff=487 2012-03-08T00:34:47Z

<p>Crubin: A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.</p> <hr /> <div>A North County (San Diego) Transit District bus pulls up to a curb, demonstrating the ease of boarding a low floor bus. Photo by Flickr user LA Wad.</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=483 2012-03-08T00:15:30Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other low-cost measures can cost-effectively increase ridership by improving the transit experience.<br /> <br /> The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br /> <br /> ==Strategies==<br /> ===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br /> * Reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br /> * Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br /> <br /> ===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br /> * Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time; however, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, i.e. good lighting, protection from the elements and a comfortable place to sit.<br /> <br /> ===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br /> * ''See [[Pedestrian connections]] for further discussion.'' Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and then their willingness to use transit. Factors include the very existence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them.<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf| Victoria Transport Policy Institute. &quot;Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.&quot; 2008.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br /> * [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf| Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. &quot;The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior.&quot; 2006.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf| Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. &quot;Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership.&quot; 2009.]<br /> * [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf| Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=482 2012-03-08T00:15:03Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other low-cost measures can cost-effectively increase ridership by improving the transit experience.<br /> <br /> The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br /> <br /> ==Strategies==<br /> ===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br /> * Reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br /> * Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br /> <br /> ===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br /> * Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time; however, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, i.e. good lighting, protection from the elements and a comfortable place to sit.<br /> <br /> ===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br /> * See [[Pedestrian connections]] Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and then their willingness to use transit. Factors include the very existence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them.<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf| Victoria Transport Policy Institute. &quot;Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.&quot; 2008.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br /> * [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf| Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. &quot;The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior.&quot; 2006.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf| Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. &quot;Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership.&quot; 2009.]<br /> * [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf| Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=481 2012-03-08T00:13:55Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other low-cost measures can cost-effectively increase ridership by improving the transit experience.<br /> <br /> The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br /> <br /> ==Strategies==<br /> ===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br /> * Reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br /> * Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br /> <br /> ===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br /> * Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time; however, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, i.e. good lighting, protection from the elements and a comfortable place to sit.<br /> <br /> ===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br /> * Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and then their willingness to use transit. Factors include the very existence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf| Victoria Transport Policy Institute. &quot;Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.&quot; 2008.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br /> * [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf| Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. &quot;The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior.&quot; 2006.]<br /> * [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf| Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. &quot;Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership.&quot; 2009.]<br /> * [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf| Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=480 2012-03-08T00:12:21Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like seating and shelter from the elements. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other low-cost measures can cost-effectively increase ridership by improving the transit experience.<br /> <br /> The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br /> <br /> * Further reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf| Victoria Transport Policy Institute. &quot;Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.&quot; 2008.]<br /> <br /> ==Strategies==<br /> ===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br /> * Reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br /> * Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br /> <br /> ===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br /> * Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time; however, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, i.e. good lighting, protection from the elements and a comfortable place to sit.<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf| Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. &quot;The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior.&quot; 2006.]<br /> <br /> ===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br /> * Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and then their willingness to use transit. Factors include the very existence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them.<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf| Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. &quot;Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership.&quot; 2009.]<br /> * Further Reading: [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf| Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Out-of-vehicle_experience&diff=479 2012-03-08T00:11:43Z

<p>Crubin: /* Background */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Portland Bus Stop.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This bus stop in Portland, Ore., provides amenities like shelter. Photo by Flickr user Jason McHuff.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Certain low cost strategies, such as real-time arrival and routing information, attractive waiting areas, universal fare media, marketing/perception influence, and other low-cost measures can cost-effectively increase ridership by improving the transit experience.<br /> <br /> The out-of-vehicle waiting experience plays a critical role in an individual’s willingness to use transit for their traveling needs. A pleasant walk to and wait at a transit stop can add value to the transit experience, while time spent in a dirty, loud or unsafe environment is perceived to be much more costly that time spent in-vehicle.<br /> <br /> * Further reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf| Victoria Transport Policy Institute. &quot;Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements.&quot; 2008.]<br /> <br /> ==Strategies==<br /> ===Real-time arrival and routing information===<br /> * Reduces anxiety about when the next bus will come<br /> * Allows more accurate trip planning, so less time has to be spent at the actual stop<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-15.pdf| National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.” 2005.]<br /> <br /> ===Attractive and more secure waiting areas===<br /> * Studies suggest that time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered more costly by the patron than in-vehicle time; however, this can be mitigated by improvements to the waiting area, i.e. good lighting, protection from the elements and a comfortable place to sit.<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/EPIC/Appendix%20A.pdf| Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Berkeley. &quot;The Effects of Out-of-Vehicle Time on Travel Behavior.&quot; 2006.]<br /> <br /> ===Improvement to the quality of pedestrian network===<br /> * Virtually all transit riders are pedestrians at some point in their trip. So the quality of the pedestrian network -- principally sidewalks and safe road crossings -- strongly influences the ability of travelers to access transit stops and then their willingness to use transit. Factors include the very existence of sidewalks, their connectivity in a useful network, and whether or not residents feel safe using them.<br /> * Further Reading: [http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-1Ryan.pdf| Sherry Ryan and Lawrence Frank. &quot;Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership.&quot; 2009.]<br /> * Further Reading: [http://pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.cus/files/PR119.pdf| Portland State University Center for Urban Studies. “Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements: Effects on Transit Use and Perceptions of the Pedestrian Environment In Portland’s Roseway Neighborhood.“ 1999.]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bicycle_connections&diff=472 2012-03-08T00:03:02Z

<p>Crubin: /* Further reading */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line station.jpg|thumb|right|300px| A Metro Los Angeles Orange Line BRT features convenient connections for cyclists, including an adjacent bike path and bike lockers at the stations.]]<br /> <br /> Bicycling offers the potential to serve as a first- and last-mile connector to and from transit, and offers many benefits: riders occupy less road space than private autos, emit no harmful pollutants, confer health benefits to the user, and require significantly less storage space (parking) than a car. Bicycles and can extend the geographic reach of transit services, thus enhancing the usefulness of the transit network. Similarly, high quality pedestrian connections provide safe, secure and comfortable access to the transit network. Yet, despite these benefits, transit agencies often have little control over the networks of infrastructure leading to stations and stops.<br /> <br /> Today, transit agencies can directly influence bicycle access to transit by providing bicycle parking at stations and allowing passengers to transport their bicycles on train cars or bus-mounted bike racks. Indirectly, transportation agencies can provide funding to municipalities for building bicycle infrastructure (such as bike lanes and other street treatments). Despite the ability to allocate funding, however, transit agencies often lack direct control over the design, engineering, placement, and prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that connect to stations and stops. Although local governments control rights-of-way, transportation agencies could support coordinated municipal planning through financial and technical assistance in creating bicycle and pedestrian master plans.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to bicycle connections==<br /> Bicycles extend the range of transit riders from their point of origin to the transit station and then from the transit station to their destination.<br /> * Lanes, parking and other infrastructure -- can encourage more individuals to use their bikes for last-mile connections to station and put more citizens within reach of transit stations.<br /> * On-road treatments<br /> * Parking at station<br /> * Bike racks on buses<br /> * Policies -- i.e. allowing carrying bikes on trains, designated train cars<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> [http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2825.html San José State University. &quot;Bicycling Access and Egress to Transit: Informing the Possibilities.&quot; 2011.]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=470 2012-03-08T00:02:05Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Reduce dwell time]]<br /> [[Category:Coordination between agencies]]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> Transit agencies traditionally used cash fare systems, but some agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards. A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.<br /> <br /> == Interagency coordination ==<br /> Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers.<br /> <br /> ==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br /> <br /> An automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br /> <br /> Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bicycle_connections&diff=469 2012-03-08T00:00:07Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Orange Line station.jpg|thumb|right|300px| A Metro Los Angeles Orange Line BRT features convenient connections for cyclists, including an adjacent bike path and bike lockers at the stations.]]<br /> <br /> Bicycling offers the potential to serve as a first- and last-mile connector to and from transit, and offers many benefits: riders occupy less road space than private autos, emit no harmful pollutants, confer health benefits to the user, and require significantly less storage space (parking) than a car. Bicycles and can extend the geographic reach of transit services, thus enhancing the usefulness of the transit network. Similarly, high quality pedestrian connections provide safe, secure and comfortable access to the transit network. Yet, despite these benefits, transit agencies often have little control over the networks of infrastructure leading to stations and stops.<br /> <br /> Today, transit agencies can directly influence bicycle access to transit by providing bicycle parking at stations and allowing passengers to transport their bicycles on train cars or bus-mounted bike racks. Indirectly, transportation agencies can provide funding to municipalities for building bicycle infrastructure (such as bike lanes and other street treatments). Despite the ability to allocate funding, however, transit agencies often lack direct control over the design, engineering, placement, and prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that connect to stations and stops. Although local governments control rights-of-way, transportation agencies could support coordinated municipal planning through financial and technical assistance in creating bicycle and pedestrian master plans.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to bicycle connections==<br /> Bicycles extend the range of transit riders from their point of origin to the transit station and then from the transit station to their destination.<br /> * Lanes, parking and other infrastructure -- can encourage more individuals to use their bikes for last-mile connections to station and put more citizens within reach of transit stations.<br /> * On-road treatments<br /> * Parking at station<br /> * Bike racks on buses<br /> * Policies -- i.e. allowing carrying bikes on trains, designated train cars<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> [http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2825.html San José State University. &quot;Bicycling Access and Egress to Transit: Informing the Possibilities.&quot; 2011.]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bicycle_connections&diff=468 2012-03-07T23:59:13Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to bicycle connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Bicycling offers the potential to serve as a first- and last-mile connector to and from transit, and offers many benefits: riders occupy less road space than private autos, emit no harmful pollutants, confer health benefits to the user, and require significantly less storage space (parking) than a car. Bicycles and can extend the geographic reach of transit services, thus enhancing the usefulness of the transit network. Similarly, high quality pedestrian connections provide safe, secure and comfortable access to the transit network. Yet, despite these benefits, transit agencies often have little control over the networks of infrastructure leading to stations and stops.<br /> <br /> Today, transit agencies can directly influence bicycle access to transit by providing bicycle parking at stations and allowing passengers to transport their bicycles on train cars or bus-mounted bike racks. Indirectly, transportation agencies can provide funding to municipalities for building bicycle infrastructure (such as bike lanes and other street treatments). Despite the ability to allocate funding, however, transit agencies often lack direct control over the design, engineering, placement, and prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that connect to stations and stops. Although local governments control rights-of-way, transportation agencies could support coordinated municipal planning through financial and technical assistance in creating bicycle and pedestrian master plans. <br /> <br /> ==Improvements to bicycle connections==<br /> Bicycles extend the range of transit riders from their point of origin to the transit station and then from the transit station to their destination.<br /> * Lanes, parking and other infrastructure -- can encourage more individuals to use their bikes for last-mile connections to station and put more citizens within reach of transit stations.<br /> * On-road treatments<br /> * Parking at station<br /> * Bike racks on buses<br /> * Policies -- i.e. allowing carrying bikes on trains, designated train cars<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> <br /> [http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2825.html San José State University. &quot;Bicycling Access and Egress to Transit: Informing the Possibilities.&quot; 2011.]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=463 2012-03-07T23:23:54Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to pedestrian access and connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br /> The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements that &quot;promote walking as a viable form of utilitarian travel, pedestrian safety, and an integral link within the overall transportation system.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/|&quot;Call for Projects.&quot; Metro.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Agencies may want to give careful attention to ensuring:<br /> * An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings, because virtually every transit trip involves crossing the street at the departure or return.<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees along sidewalks.<br /> <br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=462 2012-03-07T23:23:42Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br /> The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements that &quot;promote walking as a viable form of utilitarian travel, pedestrian safety, and an integral link within the overall transportation system.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/|&quot;Call for Projects.&quot; Metro.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Agencies may want to give careful attention to ensuring:<br /> * An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings, because virtually every transit trip involves crossing the street at the departure or return.<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees along sidewalks.<br /> <br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=461 2012-03-07T23:21:01Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to pedestrian access and connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br /> The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements that &quot;promote walking as a viable form of utilitarian travel, pedestrian safety, and an integral link within the overall transportation system.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Agencies may want to give careful attention to ensuring:<br /> * An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings, because virtually every transit trip involves crossing the street at the departure or return.<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees along sidewalks.<br /> <br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=459 2012-03-07T23:19:52Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to pedestrian access and connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br /> The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.<br /> <br /> Agencies may want to give careful attention to ensuring:<br /> * An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings, because virtually every transit trip involves crossing the street at the departure or return.<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees along sidewalks.<br /> <br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=457 2012-03-07T23:11:56Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to pedestrian connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian access and connections==<br /> The provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians is ultimately the responsibility of the municipalities served by transit agencies. However the transit agency can play a supportive role in this regard. Los Angeles County Metro disperses funds through its Call for Projects, which includes dedicated funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.<br /> <br /> Agencies may want to give careful attention to:<br /> * An extensive sidewalk network connects transit stations to origins and destinations.<br /> * Virtually every bus trip involves crossing the Sufficient safe street crossings allow transit riders to cross the street to reach <br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees<br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=452 2012-03-07T23:01:29Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.]]<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian connections==<br /> Provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians<br /> * The sidewalk network<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees<br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Pedestrian_connections&diff=442 2012-03-07T22:47:36Z

<p>Crubin: /* Improvements to pedestrian connections */</p> <hr /> <div>==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A VTA light rail train station in San Jose illustrates an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.<br /> <br /> All commuters begin and end their trips as pedestrians, so a safe, secure and pleasant pedestrian experience is an important component of any public transportation system. Agencies can work with local governments to identify and improve the quality of pedestrian connections surrounding transit stations and ensure that there are abundant sidewalks and safe street crossings that connect commuters to the transit station.<br /> <br /> Agencies have begun to take a more active role in improving the out-of-vehicle waiting experience at transit stops by supporting the provision station amenities that provide information and protect riders from the elements. Studies show that out-of-vehicle transit rider experience can be even more important than in-vehicle experience.<br /> <br /> ==Improvements to pedestrian connections==<br /> Provision of a comprehensive network of safe, comfortable and secure paths for pedestrians<br /> * The sidewalk network<br /> * Sufficient safe street crossings<br /> * Protection from the elements, i.e. shade trees<br /> For discussion of pedestrian environment at station, see section on how to [[improve out-of-vehicle experience for transit users]].<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Coordination with other modes]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:San_Jose_light_rail_train.jpg&diff=441 2012-03-07T22:44:33Z

<p>Crubin: A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light rail train plies the streets of downtown San Jose. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.</p> <hr /> <div>A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light rail train plies the streets of downtown San Jose. Photo by Flickr user Albert's Images.</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Category:Reduce_dwell_time&diff=434 2012-03-07T22:27:20Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Operations planning]]<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[File:Metro bus dwelling.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A Los Angeles County Metro bus pulls away after picking up passengers. Photo by Flickr user waltarrrrr.]]<br /> <br /> A suite of strategies address vehicle dwell times. These include multi-door boarding, off-vehicle fare payment, automated fare media and low-floor buses. Dwells increase Vehicle Revenue Hours, which increase costs. Dwells also reduce average vehicle speeds, which makes trips longer. Reductions in vehicle dwell times can also attract ridership by making transit more attractive relative to automobile use. <br /> <br /> Transit buses can spend upwards of a quarter of its travel time dwelling at stops to allow passengers to board and pay their fares&lt;ref&gt;[http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=202380 Transportation Research Board. &quot;Analyzing Transit Travel Time Performance.&quot; 1983.]&lt;/ref&gt;. Thus, changes to bus design, fare media and boarding procedures that reduce dwell time have the potential to reap significant time savings -- and thus money savings -- for transit agencies. Furthermore, reduced travel times improve the experience for existing transit patrons and can attract new patrons by making transit more time competitive with driving and other modes.<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Category:Reduce_dwell_time&diff=432 2012-03-07T22:26:53Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Operations planning]]<br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> [[Metro bus dwelling.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A Los Angeles County Metro bus pulls away after picking up passengers. Photo by Flickr user waltarrrrr.]]<br /> <br /> A suite of strategies address vehicle dwell times. These include multi-door boarding, off-vehicle fare payment, automated fare media and low-floor buses. Dwells increase Vehicle Revenue Hours, which increase costs. Dwells also reduce average vehicle speeds, which makes trips longer. Reductions in vehicle dwell times can also attract ridership by making transit more attractive relative to automobile use. <br /> <br /> Transit buses can spend upwards of a quarter of its travel time dwelling at stops to allow passengers to board and pay their fares&lt;ref&gt;[http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=202380 Transportation Research Board. &quot;Analyzing Transit Travel Time Performance.&quot; 1983.]&lt;/ref&gt;. Thus, changes to bus design, fare media and boarding procedures that reduce dwell time have the potential to reap significant time savings -- and thus money savings -- for transit agencies. Furthermore, reduced travel times improve the experience for existing transit patrons and can attract new patrons by making transit more time competitive with driving and other modes.<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:Metro_bus_dwelling.jpg&diff=431 2012-03-07T22:23:33Z

<p>Crubin: A Los Angeles County Metro bus pulls away after picking up passengers. Photo by Flickr user waltarrrrr.</p> <hr /> <div>A Los Angeles County Metro bus pulls away after picking up passengers. Photo by Flickr user waltarrrrr.</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=426 2012-03-07T22:06:18Z

<p>Crubin: /* Introduction */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Reduce dwell time]]<br /> [[Category:Coordination between agencies]]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Transit agencies traditionally used cash fare systems, but some agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic stripe contact cards and more recently to smart cards. A smart card is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Transit agencies view smart cards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.<br /> <br /> == Interagency coordination ==<br /> Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers.<br /> <br /> [[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> ==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br /> <br /> An automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br /> <br /> Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=425 2012-03-07T22:05:58Z

<p>Crubin: /* Interagency coordination */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Reduce dwell time]]<br /> [[Category:Coordination between agencies]]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Automated fare media refers to any number of electronic fare media systems designed to improve convenience and speed of fare payment. A &quot;smart card fare payment system&quot; often features magnetic strips or RFID chips to transmit fare payment from the fare media to the card reader.<br /> <br /> == Interagency coordination ==<br /> Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers.<br /> <br /> [[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> ==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br /> <br /> An automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br /> <br /> Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automated_fare_media&diff=424 2012-03-07T22:03:28Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:Reduce dwell time]]<br /> [[Category:Coordination between agencies]]<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> Automated fare media refers to any number of electronic fare media systems designed to improve convenience and speed of fare payment. A &quot;smart card fare payment system&quot; often features magnetic strips or RFID chips to transmit fare payment from the fare media to the card reader.<br /> <br /> == Interagency coordination ==<br /> Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Reducing vehicle dwell time==<br /> <br /> An automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.<br /> <br /> The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.<br /> <br /> Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=File:Clipper_card.jpg&diff=423 2012-03-07T22:02:33Z

<p>Crubin: The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.</p> <hr /> <div>The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used by in the San Francisco Bay Area seven of the region's transit agencies. Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Off-vehicle_fare_payment&diff=420 2012-03-07T21:50:46Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>==Benefits==<br /> <br /> [[File:New York Select Bus fare payment.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This photo illustrates an off-board fare payment system utilized by the New York MTA's Select Bus BRT system. Photo by Flickr user Phil Davis NY.]]<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment dramatically speeds up boarding, by eliminating time-intensive payment process and allowing for boarding at all doors. The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Moving all fare collection off the bus offers the greatest potential for reducing dwell time. Not only is fare payment time reduced to zero, but all doors of the bus can be used for both loading and unloading.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment is one of many strategies relating to boarding and alighting that can decrease end-to-end run time, and thus save money on operations.<br /> <br /> ==Costs==<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment may require additional vending machines at transit station stops. Thus, such a system may only be practical on corridors with very high numbers of boardings.<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Off-vehicle_fare_payment&diff=419 2012-03-07T21:50:24Z

<p>Crubin: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:New York Select Bus fare payment.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This photo illustrates an off-board fare payment system utilized by the New York MTA's Select Bus BRT system. Photo by Flickr user Phil Davis NY.]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Benefits==<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment dramatically speeds up boarding, by eliminating time-intensive payment process and allowing for boarding at all doors. The Federal Transit Administration notes:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;Moving all fare collection off the bus offers the greatest potential for reducing dwell time. Not only is fare payment time reduced to zero, but all doors of the bus can be used for both loading and unloading.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html|&quot;Fare Collection.&quot; FTA.]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment is one of many strategies relating to boarding and alighting that can decrease end-to-end run time, and thus save money on operations.<br /> <br /> ==Costs==<br /> <br /> Off-vehicle fare payment may require additional vending machines at transit station stops. Thus, such a system may only be practical on corridors with very high numbers of boardings.<br /> <br /> ==Notes==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Reduce dwell time]]</div>

Crubin