https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Amiller&feedformat=atomTransitWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:32:17ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.1https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=1239Public health and transit2012-09-11T21:29:23Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> [[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. 'Travel training' can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [http://www.gonctd.com/tt North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training as one of its [[programs for seniors]] and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system.<br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for getting physical activity in daily activities. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://makinghealthyplaces.com/ “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and public health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=1238Public health and transit2012-09-11T21:26:59Z<p>Amiller: /* Mental Health */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> [[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. 'Travel training' can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [http://www.gonctd.com/tt North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training as one of its [[programs for seniors]] and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system.<br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for reaching the recommended amount of physical activity that people get. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://makinghealthyplaces.com/ “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=1237Public health and transit2012-09-11T21:25:01Z<p>Amiller: /* Noise */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> [[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. Travel training can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [http://www.gonctd.com/tt North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training for older adults and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system, as well. <br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for reaching the recommended amount of physical activity that people get. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://makinghealthyplaces.com/ “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Public_health_and_transit&diff=1236Public health and transit2012-09-11T21:23:31Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In many ways, public health and public transit are complementary. Many municipal agencies rely on public transit as a part of their air quality improvement plans and to reduce emissions from travel. In fact, many planning agencies specifically describe transit as an essential part of building healthy communities because of its role in facilitating incidental physical activity and giving people another option for obtaining medical care and healthy food. The City of South Gate, California’s recently approved health element includes several provisions that highlight the necessity of transit for accomplishing its health goals. The element names [[bicycle connections]], [[pedestrian connections]], and [[transit-oriented development]] as some of these provisions.<ref>Raimi + Associates. [http://www.raimiassociates.com/projects-general.php "City of South Gate General Plan.”] 2009.</ref> [[Image:Bike_on_BART.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A passenger takes a bicycle through the turnstile to use BART. Bicycle connections are important for promoting physical activity for transit riders. Photo by Flickr user sfbike.]]<br />
<br />
==Air Quality==<br />
[[Air quality]] and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Noise==<br />
Long-term exposure to noise has been linked to stress and anxiety, as well as behavioral problems in children. This includes exposure to ambient noise from automobiles of any kind and is a problem that should be taken into account when considering locating housing near freeways. One recent study examined the noise at light rail platforms in Los Angeles that are located in the middle of freeways. The author focuses primarily on the unpleasantness of the noise associated with waiting for trains in the middle of a freeway. Most of the research on noise has focused on long-term exposure, over periods of years and several hours per day, which does not translate easily to wait times for transit. However, the unpleasantness of waiting in a noisy environment can be stressful and could deter people from using those stops.<ref>Schaffer, Alexander. [[media:Noise_Transit_Platforms.pdf| "Passenger Exposure To Noise At Transit Platforms In Los Angeles."]] 2012.</ref> It is also important to note that the report focused on transit passengers, not employees, and drivers may be exposed to high levels of noise over long periods of time and may be susceptible to the common effects of noise exposure.<br />
<br />
==Injuries and Deaths==<br />
Another way that public transit may affect public health is in [[prevention of injuries and deaths]] caused by traffic accidents. This component of public transit also especially affects the health and safety of transit workers, in addition to the public. Bus drivers and maintenance workers can be put at risk by different attributes of the systems where they work. However, Caltrans and many other transportation agencies have occupational health and safety experts to prevent on-the-job accidents and to monitor ongoing safety risks.<ref>Raptis, Maria. California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=421 “The District’s Health and Safety Team Is Watching Your Back.”] 2012.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Mental Health==<br />
Public transit and [[cost-effective ADA service]] can provide an important lifeline for people who do not drive. Travel training can be an important component to helping people with disabilities or older adults to navigate and feel comfortable on the public transit system. For example, the [http://www.gonctd.com/tt North County Transit District] of San Diego provides travel training for older adults and people who use mental health services in the county. Peer trainers assist trainees one-on-one with planning trips and navigating the transit system. This program also includes a ‘Travel Buddy’ program specifically to help active seniors with these same tasks to help them independently navigate the system, as well. <br />
<br />
==Physical activity==<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] can greatly influence whether people choose to walk or bike to public transit, rather than driving to a stop or to a destination. If stops are in locations that are convenient and safe to walk to, reaching transit can contribute to daily physical activity. Many people do not get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity per day, but public transit can help people reach that goal. People who use transit walk a median of 19 minutes per day to and from transit.<ref>Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.</ref><br />
Public<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Besser, Lilah M. and Andrew L. Dannenberg. [[media:Walking_to_Transit.pdf|"Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations."]] 2005.<br />
: This article, which was posted on the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Places program, examines how public transit and physical activity are connected. The authors used the National Household Transportation Survey and interviews of public transit users to conduct their analysis. They found that public transit is an important tool for reaching the recommended amount of physical activity that people get. <br />
<br />
<br />
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, editors. [http://makinghealthyplaces.com/ “Making Healthy Places - Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and Sustainability.”] 2012.<br />
: Although this book is available to order, and not online, it is a comprehensive guide to how the built environment and health interact. The editors used contributions from public health professionals, urban planners, and other advocates to create a resource that examines the broad topics of urban health and sustainability. The book also devotes several chapters to exploring the variety of solutions being pursued to ‘cure’ our built environment. Dr. Richard Jackson also hosted a complementary PBS series on the topic, [http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ “Designing Healthy Communities.”]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Air_quality&diff=1235Air quality2012-09-11T21:20:26Z<p>Amiller: /* Increasing Ridership */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Public transit can have an effect on human health by reducing air pollution created by trips taken by private automobiles. The emissions from cars contribute to asthma, cancer, and other diseases. This pollution also has serious implications for equity, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates that low-income people, more likely to live near heavily traveled highways, are disproportionately impacted by these diseases. Emissions from vehicles of all types also have implications for climate change, which ultimately has an effect on human health by raising temperatures and causing or exacerbating extreme weather events.<br />
[[File:ZEBusRibbonCutting.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This is the ribbon-cutting ceremony for San Jose's newest zero-emissions bus. Photo by Flickr user congressman_honda.]] <br />
<br />
==Strategies for Improving Air Quality==<br />
===Increasing Ridership===<br />
Transit agencies have an interest in increasing ridership for cost-effectiveness reasons - serving more passengers per vehicle mile, for example. But environmental agencies and regional governments rely on public transit as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle as a strategy for reaching air quality goals. However, studies conducted by transit agencies on their work’s effect on air quality were not readily available, possibly because those agencies are charged with many other responsibilities and do not have resources to produce independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though, recommend expanding public transportation as one of its eight transportation policies that could drastically improve public health. The CDC also offers a toolkit to aid planners and decisionmakers in conducting health impact assessments to measure the benefits and costs for health of transportation projects.<ref>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm "CDC Transportation Recommendations."] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Modernizing Vehicles===<br />
Most California transit agencies have had to modernize their buses for some degree because of the California Air Resources Board’s Fleet Rule. For example, transit agencies in California are required to replace vehicles early beginning in 2015 and as of January 2012, must add particulate matter filters to buses.<ref>California Air Resources Board.[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> But many transit agencies have exceeded these expectations because they see modernizing their vehicle fleets as a part of their mission to improve air quality and reduce their dependence on volatile and expensive traditional gasoline and diesel fuel. Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority switched many of its buses to compressed natural gas (CNG) in 2005, and retired its last diesel bus in 2011.<ref> Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/ “Metro Retires Last Diesel Bus, Becomes World’s First Major Transit Agency to Operate Only Clean Fuel buses.”] 2011.</ref> An alternative to retiring buses is retrofitting them. Because diesel fuel is also a major contributor to particulate matter in the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) worked together to support Bay Area transit agencies in retrofitting buses with filters that capture 85 percent of diesel exhaust particulate matter.<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [[media:MTC_Retrofits.pdf|"Bus Filters Remove Tons of Soot from Bay Area Air."]] 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Important Policies==<br />
===Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ)===<br />
Air quality and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
===Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)===<br />
In the interest of attaining federal air quality standards, every four years, or when a regionally significant project is approved, regions across the country must prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be approved first by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) where the non-attainment area is located, then by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).<ref>Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm "The Transportation Planning Process; A Briefing Book for Transportaiton Planning Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff.”] 2007.</ref> When a planning agency develops a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), they must prepare a conformity analysis to demonstrate that the transportation plans meet air quality standards and do not exceed the ‘budget’ of emissions allocated to the area by the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_TIP_Conformity_Report.pdf|”Transportation-Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Transportation 2035 Plan and 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.”]] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Proposition 1B (California)===<br />
Approved in 2006, Proposition 1B, The Highway, Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act, set aside billions of dollars of bond money to establish accounts to accomplish a variety of transportation goals, including modernizing transit systems, improving air quality, and improving intercity rail systems. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) disburses these funds to local transit agencies for different projects.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm “Transportation Programming - Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond Program.”] 2011.</ref> In 2012, about 80 projects were awarded a total of about $350 million in grants through this program.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr070.htm “Caltrans Awards $350 Million in Grants to Improve Public Transit and Air Quality.”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [[media:OrangeLine_GHGs.pdf|“Metro Orange Line Mode Shift Study and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis.”]] 2011.<br />
: When Los Angeles Metro built its Orange Line [[bus rapid transit]] line, it included a bikeway and other facilities for bicyclists alongside the dedicated lane. The purpose of this study was to establish the benefits of that bikeway in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided. The bikeway was created in order to complement the busway and both have exceeded expectations in terms of use. Bicycle facilities are an important tool that transit agencies have for pursuing sustainability and promoting public health and this study offers one example of quantifying these benefits. <br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/generalinfo.htm “Transportation Conformity: General Information.”]<br />
: This guide from the EPA provides links to a guide for understanding the transportation conformity process, along with resources for technical assistance, and a guide for state and local officials. It also includes a report with case studies of cities implementing the conformity requirements through the 1990s, including San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm “Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices.”] 2000.<br />
: This report from the California Air Resources Board outlines some strategies for reducing the particulate matter in the state’s air. It describes the risks and strategies from a variety of diesel engine types (stationary, and mobile engines in school buses, transit buses, and trucks). However, transit providers may be interested in the report because it includes a summary of existing policies governing diesel engines, methodology for measuring particulate matter, and reviews of technologies for reducing particulate matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_Guide.pdf|“Transportation, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gases: A Bay Area Resource Guide.”]] 2009.<br />
: This guide reviews a wide range of strategies for meeting California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the next couple decades. The guide evaluates strategies based on how well they will be able to reduce emissions, as well as how cost-effective they are. Increasing ridership on public transit, facilitating biking and walking, and changing travel behavior are all included as components of the overall plan to reduce California’s emissions.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Air_quality&diff=1234Air quality2012-09-11T21:19:44Z<p>Amiller: /* Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Public transit can have an effect on human health by reducing air pollution created by trips taken by private automobiles. The emissions from cars contribute to asthma, cancer, and other diseases. This pollution also has serious implications for equity, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates that low-income people, more likely to live near heavily traveled highways, are disproportionately impacted by these diseases. Emissions from vehicles of all types also have implications for climate change, which ultimately has an effect on human health by raising temperatures and causing or exacerbating extreme weather events.<br />
[[File:ZEBusRibbonCutting.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This is the ribbon-cutting ceremony for San Jose's newest zero-emissions bus. Photo by Flickr user congressman_honda.]] <br />
<br />
==Strategies for Improving Air Quality==<br />
===Increasing Ridership===<br />
Transit agencies have an interest in increasing ridership for cost-effectiveness reasons - serving more passengers per vehicle mile, for example. But environmental agencies and regional governments rely on public transit as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle as a strategy for reaching air quality goals. However, studies conducted by transit agencies on their work’s effect on air quality were not readily available, possibly because those agencies are charged with many other responsibilities and do not have resources to produce independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though, recommend expanding public transportation as one of its eight transportation policies that could drastically improve public health. The CDC also offers a toolkit to aid planners and decisionmakers in conducting health impact assessments to measure the benefits and costs for health of transportation projects.<ref>Centers for Disease Control. [http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm CDC Transportation Recommendations.] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Modernizing Vehicles===<br />
Most California transit agencies have had to modernize their buses for some degree because of the California Air Resources Board’s Fleet Rule. For example, transit agencies in California are required to replace vehicles early beginning in 2015 and as of January 2012, must add particulate matter filters to buses.<ref>California Air Resources Board.[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> But many transit agencies have exceeded these expectations because they see modernizing their vehicle fleets as a part of their mission to improve air quality and reduce their dependence on volatile and expensive traditional gasoline and diesel fuel. Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority switched many of its buses to compressed natural gas (CNG) in 2005, and retired its last diesel bus in 2011.<ref> Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/ “Metro Retires Last Diesel Bus, Becomes World’s First Major Transit Agency to Operate Only Clean Fuel buses.”] 2011.</ref> An alternative to retiring buses is retrofitting them. Because diesel fuel is also a major contributor to particulate matter in the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) worked together to support Bay Area transit agencies in retrofitting buses with filters that capture 85 percent of diesel exhaust particulate matter.<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [[media:MTC_Retrofits.pdf|"Bus Filters Remove Tons of Soot from Bay Area Air."]] 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Important Policies==<br />
===Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ)===<br />
Air quality and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
===Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)===<br />
In the interest of attaining federal air quality standards, every four years, or when a regionally significant project is approved, regions across the country must prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be approved first by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) where the non-attainment area is located, then by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).<ref>Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm "The Transportation Planning Process; A Briefing Book for Transportaiton Planning Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff.”] 2007.</ref> When a planning agency develops a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), they must prepare a conformity analysis to demonstrate that the transportation plans meet air quality standards and do not exceed the ‘budget’ of emissions allocated to the area by the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_TIP_Conformity_Report.pdf|”Transportation-Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Transportation 2035 Plan and 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.”]] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Proposition 1B (California)===<br />
Approved in 2006, Proposition 1B, The Highway, Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act, set aside billions of dollars of bond money to establish accounts to accomplish a variety of transportation goals, including modernizing transit systems, improving air quality, and improving intercity rail systems. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) disburses these funds to local transit agencies for different projects.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm “Transportation Programming - Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond Program.”] 2011.</ref> In 2012, about 80 projects were awarded a total of about $350 million in grants through this program.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr070.htm “Caltrans Awards $350 Million in Grants to Improve Public Transit and Air Quality.”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [[media:OrangeLine_GHGs.pdf|“Metro Orange Line Mode Shift Study and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis.”]] 2011.<br />
: When Los Angeles Metro built its Orange Line [[bus rapid transit]] line, it included a bikeway and other facilities for bicyclists alongside the dedicated lane. The purpose of this study was to establish the benefits of that bikeway in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided. The bikeway was created in order to complement the busway and both have exceeded expectations in terms of use. Bicycle facilities are an important tool that transit agencies have for pursuing sustainability and promoting public health and this study offers one example of quantifying these benefits. <br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/generalinfo.htm “Transportation Conformity: General Information.”]<br />
: This guide from the EPA provides links to a guide for understanding the transportation conformity process, along with resources for technical assistance, and a guide for state and local officials. It also includes a report with case studies of cities implementing the conformity requirements through the 1990s, including San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm “Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices.”] 2000.<br />
: This report from the California Air Resources Board outlines some strategies for reducing the particulate matter in the state’s air. It describes the risks and strategies from a variety of diesel engine types (stationary, and mobile engines in school buses, transit buses, and trucks). However, transit providers may be interested in the report because it includes a summary of existing policies governing diesel engines, methodology for measuring particulate matter, and reviews of technologies for reducing particulate matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_Guide.pdf|“Transportation, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gases: A Bay Area Resource Guide.”]] 2009.<br />
: This guide reviews a wide range of strategies for meeting California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the next couple decades. The guide evaluates strategies based on how well they will be able to reduce emissions, as well as how cost-effective they are. Increasing ridership on public transit, facilitating biking and walking, and changing travel behavior are all included as components of the overall plan to reduce California’s emissions.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Air_quality&diff=1233Air quality2012-09-11T21:19:16Z<p>Amiller: /* Important Policies */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Public transit can have an effect on human health by reducing air pollution created by trips taken by private automobiles. The emissions from cars contribute to asthma, cancer, and other diseases. This pollution also has serious implications for equity, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates that low-income people, more likely to live near heavily traveled highways, are disproportionately impacted by these diseases. Emissions from vehicles of all types also have implications for climate change, which ultimately has an effect on human health by raising temperatures and causing or exacerbating extreme weather events.<br />
[[File:ZEBusRibbonCutting.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This is the ribbon-cutting ceremony for San Jose's newest zero-emissions bus. Photo by Flickr user congressman_honda.]] <br />
<br />
==Strategies for Improving Air Quality==<br />
===Increasing Ridership===<br />
Transit agencies have an interest in increasing ridership for cost-effectiveness reasons - serving more passengers per vehicle mile, for example. But environmental agencies and regional governments rely on public transit as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle as a strategy for reaching air quality goals. However, studies conducted by transit agencies on their work’s effect on air quality were not readily available, possibly because those agencies are charged with many other responsibilities and do not have resources to produce independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though, recommend expanding public transportation as one of its eight transportation policies that could drastically improve public health. The CDC also offers a toolkit to aid planners and decisionmakers in conducting health impact assessments to measure the benefits and costs for health of transportation projects.<ref>Centers for Disease Control. [http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm CDC Transportation Recommendations.] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Modernizing Vehicles===<br />
Most California transit agencies have had to modernize their buses for some degree because of the California Air Resources Board’s Fleet Rule. For example, transit agencies in California are required to replace vehicles early beginning in 2015 and as of January 2012, must add particulate matter filters to buses.<ref>California Air Resources Board.[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> But many transit agencies have exceeded these expectations because they see modernizing their vehicle fleets as a part of their mission to improve air quality and reduce their dependence on volatile and expensive traditional gasoline and diesel fuel. Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority switched many of its buses to compressed natural gas (CNG) in 2005, and retired its last diesel bus in 2011.<ref> Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/ “Metro Retires Last Diesel Bus, Becomes World’s First Major Transit Agency to Operate Only Clean Fuel buses.”] 2011.</ref> An alternative to retiring buses is retrofitting them. Because diesel fuel is also a major contributor to particulate matter in the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) worked together to support Bay Area transit agencies in retrofitting buses with filters that capture 85 percent of diesel exhaust particulate matter.<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [[media:MTC_Retrofits.pdf|"Bus Filters Remove Tons of Soot from Bay Area Air."]] 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Important Policies==<br />
===Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ)===<br />
Air quality and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
===Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)===<br />
In the interest of attaining federal air quality standards, every four years, or when a regionally significant project is approved, regions across the country must prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be approved first by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) where the non-attainment area is located, then by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).<ref>Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm The Transportation Planning Process; A Briefing Book for Transportaiton Planning Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff.”] 2007.</ref> When a planning agency develops a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), they must prepare a conformity analysis to demonstrate that the transportation plans meet air quality standards and do not exceed the ‘budget’ of emissions allocated to the area by the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_TIP_Conformity_Report.pdf|”Transportation-Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Transportation 2035 Plan and 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.”]] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Proposition 1B (California)===<br />
Approved in 2006, Proposition 1B, The Highway, Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act, set aside billions of dollars of bond money to establish accounts to accomplish a variety of transportation goals, including modernizing transit systems, improving air quality, and improving intercity rail systems. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) disburses these funds to local transit agencies for different projects.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm “Transportation Programming - Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond Program.”] 2011.</ref> In 2012, about 80 projects were awarded a total of about $350 million in grants through this program.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr070.htm “Caltrans Awards $350 Million in Grants to Improve Public Transit and Air Quality.”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [[media:OrangeLine_GHGs.pdf|“Metro Orange Line Mode Shift Study and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis.”]] 2011.<br />
: When Los Angeles Metro built its Orange Line [[bus rapid transit]] line, it included a bikeway and other facilities for bicyclists alongside the dedicated lane. The purpose of this study was to establish the benefits of that bikeway in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided. The bikeway was created in order to complement the busway and both have exceeded expectations in terms of use. Bicycle facilities are an important tool that transit agencies have for pursuing sustainability and promoting public health and this study offers one example of quantifying these benefits. <br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/generalinfo.htm “Transportation Conformity: General Information.”]<br />
: This guide from the EPA provides links to a guide for understanding the transportation conformity process, along with resources for technical assistance, and a guide for state and local officials. It also includes a report with case studies of cities implementing the conformity requirements through the 1990s, including San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm “Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices.”] 2000.<br />
: This report from the California Air Resources Board outlines some strategies for reducing the particulate matter in the state’s air. It describes the risks and strategies from a variety of diesel engine types (stationary, and mobile engines in school buses, transit buses, and trucks). However, transit providers may be interested in the report because it includes a summary of existing policies governing diesel engines, methodology for measuring particulate matter, and reviews of technologies for reducing particulate matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_Guide.pdf|“Transportation, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gases: A Bay Area Resource Guide.”]] 2009.<br />
: This guide reviews a wide range of strategies for meeting California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the next couple decades. The guide evaluates strategies based on how well they will be able to reduce emissions, as well as how cost-effective they are. Increasing ridership on public transit, facilitating biking and walking, and changing travel behavior are all included as components of the overall plan to reduce California’s emissions.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Air_quality&diff=1232Air quality2012-09-11T21:17:37Z<p>Amiller: /* Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ) */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Public transit can have an effect on human health by reducing air pollution created by trips taken by private automobiles. The emissions from cars contribute to asthma, cancer, and other diseases. This pollution also has serious implications for equity, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates that low-income people, more likely to live near heavily traveled highways, are disproportionately impacted by these diseases. Emissions from vehicles of all types also have implications for climate change, which ultimately has an effect on human health by raising temperatures and causing or exacerbating extreme weather events.<br />
[[File:ZEBusRibbonCutting.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This is the ribbon-cutting ceremony for San Jose's newest zero-emissions bus. Photo by Flickr user congressman_honda.]] <br />
<br />
==Strategies for Improving Air Quality==<br />
===Increasing Ridership===<br />
Transit agencies have an interest in increasing ridership for cost-effectiveness reasons - serving more passengers per vehicle mile, for example. But environmental agencies and regional governments rely on public transit as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle as a strategy for reaching air quality goals. However, studies conducted by transit agencies on their work’s effect on air quality were not readily available, possibly because those agencies are charged with many other responsibilities and do not have resources to produce independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though, recommend expanding public transportation as one of its eight transportation policies that could drastically improve public health. The CDC also offers a toolkit to aid planners and decisionmakers in conducting health impact assessments to measure the benefits and costs for health of transportation projects.<ref>Centers for Disease Control. [http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm CDC Transportation Recommendations.] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Modernizing Vehicles===<br />
Most California transit agencies have had to modernize their buses for some degree because of the California Air Resources Board’s Fleet Rule. For example, transit agencies in California are required to replace vehicles early beginning in 2015 and as of January 2012, must add particulate matter filters to buses.<ref>California Air Resources Board.[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> But many transit agencies have exceeded these expectations because they see modernizing their vehicle fleets as a part of their mission to improve air quality and reduce their dependence on volatile and expensive traditional gasoline and diesel fuel. Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority switched many of its buses to compressed natural gas (CNG) in 2005, and retired its last diesel bus in 2011.<ref> Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/ “Metro Retires Last Diesel Bus, Becomes World’s First Major Transit Agency to Operate Only Clean Fuel buses.”] 2011.</ref> An alternative to retiring buses is retrofitting them. Because diesel fuel is also a major contributor to particulate matter in the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) worked together to support Bay Area transit agencies in retrofitting buses with filters that capture 85 percent of diesel exhaust particulate matter.<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [[media:MTC_Retrofits.pdf|"Bus Filters Remove Tons of Soot from Bay Area Air."]] 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Important Policies==<br />
===Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ)===<br />
Air quality and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation. These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
===Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)===<br />
In the interest of attaining federal air quality standards, every four years, or when a regionally significant project is approved, regions across the country must prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be approved first by the metropolitan planning organization where the non-attainment area is located, then by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).<ref>Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm The Transportation Planning Process; A Briefing Book for Transportaiton Planning Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff.”] 2007.</ref> When a planning agency develops a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), they must also prepare a conformity analysis to demonstrate that the transportation plans meet air quality standards and do not exceed the ‘budget’ of emissions allocated to the area by the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_TIP_Conformity_Report.pdf|”Transportation-Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Transportation 2035 Plan and 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.”]] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Proposition 1B (California)===<br />
Approved in 2006, Proposition 1B, The Highway, Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act, set aside billions of dollars of bond money to establish accounts to accomplish a variety of transportation goals, including modernizing transit systems, improving air quality, and improving intercity rail systems. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) disburses these funds to local transit agencies for different projects.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm “Transportation Programming - Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond Program.”] 2011.</ref> In 2012, about 80 projects were awarded a total of about $350 million in grants through this program.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr070.htm “Caltrans Awards $350 Million in Grants to Improve Public Transit and Air Quality.”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [[media:OrangeLine_GHGs.pdf|“Metro Orange Line Mode Shift Study and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis.”]] 2011.<br />
: When Los Angeles Metro built its Orange Line [[bus rapid transit]] line, it included a bikeway and other facilities for bicyclists alongside the dedicated lane. The purpose of this study was to establish the benefits of that bikeway in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided. The bikeway was created in order to complement the busway and both have exceeded expectations in terms of use. Bicycle facilities are an important tool that transit agencies have for pursuing sustainability and promoting public health and this study offers one example of quantifying these benefits. <br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/generalinfo.htm “Transportation Conformity: General Information.”]<br />
: This guide from the EPA provides links to a guide for understanding the transportation conformity process, along with resources for technical assistance, and a guide for state and local officials. It also includes a report with case studies of cities implementing the conformity requirements through the 1990s, including San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm “Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices.”] 2000.<br />
: This report from the California Air Resources Board outlines some strategies for reducing the particulate matter in the state’s air. It describes the risks and strategies from a variety of diesel engine types (stationary, and mobile engines in school buses, transit buses, and trucks). However, transit providers may be interested in the report because it includes a summary of existing policies governing diesel engines, methodology for measuring particulate matter, and reviews of technologies for reducing particulate matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_Guide.pdf|“Transportation, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gases: A Bay Area Resource Guide.”]] 2009.<br />
: This guide reviews a wide range of strategies for meeting California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the next couple decades. The guide evaluates strategies based on how well they will be able to reduce emissions, as well as how cost-effective they are. Increasing ridership on public transit, facilitating biking and walking, and changing travel behavior are all included as components of the overall plan to reduce California’s emissions.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Air_quality&diff=1231Air quality2012-09-11T21:15:42Z<p>Amiller: /* Increasing Ridership */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Public transit can have an effect on human health by reducing air pollution created by trips taken by private automobiles. The emissions from cars contribute to asthma, cancer, and other diseases. This pollution also has serious implications for equity, as a growing body of evidence demonstrates that low-income people, more likely to live near heavily traveled highways, are disproportionately impacted by these diseases. Emissions from vehicles of all types also have implications for climate change, which ultimately has an effect on human health by raising temperatures and causing or exacerbating extreme weather events.<br />
[[File:ZEBusRibbonCutting.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This is the ribbon-cutting ceremony for San Jose's newest zero-emissions bus. Photo by Flickr user congressman_honda.]] <br />
<br />
==Strategies for Improving Air Quality==<br />
===Increasing Ridership===<br />
Transit agencies have an interest in increasing ridership for cost-effectiveness reasons - serving more passengers per vehicle mile, for example. But environmental agencies and regional governments rely on public transit as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle as a strategy for reaching air quality goals. However, studies conducted by transit agencies on their work’s effect on air quality were not readily available, possibly because those agencies are charged with many other responsibilities and do not have resources to produce independent studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though, recommend expanding public transportation as one of its eight transportation policies that could drastically improve public health. The CDC also offers a toolkit to aid planners and decisionmakers in conducting health impact assessments to measure the benefits and costs for health of transportation projects.<ref>Centers for Disease Control. [http://www.cdc.gov/transportation/recommendation.htm CDC Transportation Recommendations.] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
===Modernizing Vehicles===<br />
Most California transit agencies have had to modernize their buses for some degree because of the California Air Resources Board’s Fleet Rule. For example, transit agencies in California are required to replace vehicles early beginning in 2015 and as of January 2012, must add particulate matter filters to buses.<ref>California Air Resources Board.[http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/bus.htm “Public Transit Agencies.”] 2011.</ref> But many transit agencies have exceeded these expectations because they see modernizing their vehicle fleets as a part of their mission to improve air quality and reduce their dependence on volatile and expensive traditional gasoline and diesel fuel. Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority switched many of its buses to compressed natural gas (CNG) in 2005, and retired its last diesel bus in 2011.<ref> Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/ “Metro Retires Last Diesel Bus, Becomes World’s First Major Transit Agency to Operate Only Clean Fuel buses.”] 2011.</ref> An alternative to retiring buses is retrofitting them. Because diesel fuel is also a major contributor to particulate matter in the air, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) worked together to support Bay Area transit agencies in retrofitting buses with filters that capture 85 percent of diesel exhaust particulate matter.<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [[media:MTC_Retrofits.pdf|"Bus Filters Remove Tons of Soot from Bay Area Air."]] 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Important Policies==<br />
===Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality standards (CMAQ)===<br />
Air quality and public transit are linked in many ways, but one of the most direct connections made by any agency is through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) standards. CMAQ provides a source of funding to states with air quality that does not meet the Clean Air Act’s air quality standards - this funding can be used for public transit projects and is distributed through the state’s department of transportation.These funds may be used by transit agencies to provide new service, to expand public transit service, and/or to provide incentives to use existing services.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/reference/public_transportation/ “Air Quality.”] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)===<br />
In the interest of attaining federal air quality standards, every four years, or when a regionally significant project is approved, regions across the country must prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be approved first by the metropolitan planning organization where the non-attainment area is located, then by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).<ref>Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. [http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm The Transportation Planning Process; A Briefing Book for Transportaiton Planning Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff.”] 2007.</ref> When a planning agency develops a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), they must also prepare a conformity analysis to demonstrate that the transportation plans meet air quality standards and do not exceed the ‘budget’ of emissions allocated to the area by the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).<ref>Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_TIP_Conformity_Report.pdf|”Transportation-Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the Transportation 2035 Plan and 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.”]] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
===Proposition 1B (California)===<br />
Approved in 2006, Proposition 1B, The Highway, Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act, set aside billions of dollars of bond money to establish accounts to accomplish a variety of transportation goals, including modernizing transit systems, improving air quality, and improving intercity rail systems. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) disburses these funds to local transit agencies for different projects.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond.htm “Transportation Programming - Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond Program.”] 2011.</ref> In 2012, about 80 projects were awarded a total of about $350 million in grants through this program.<ref>California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/12pr070.htm “Caltrans Awards $350 Million in Grants to Improve Public Transit and Air Quality.”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [[media:OrangeLine_GHGs.pdf|“Metro Orange Line Mode Shift Study and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis.”]] 2011.<br />
: When Los Angeles Metro built its Orange Line [[bus rapid transit]] line, it included a bikeway and other facilities for bicyclists alongside the dedicated lane. The purpose of this study was to establish the benefits of that bikeway in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided. The bikeway was created in order to complement the busway and both have exceeded expectations in terms of use. Bicycle facilities are an important tool that transit agencies have for pursuing sustainability and promoting public health and this study offers one example of quantifying these benefits. <br />
<br />
<br />
Environmental Protection Agency. [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/generalinfo.htm “Transportation Conformity: General Information.”]<br />
: This guide from the EPA provides links to a guide for understanding the transportation conformity process, along with resources for technical assistance, and a guide for state and local officials. It also includes a report with case studies of cities implementing the conformity requirements through the 1990s, including San Francisco. <br />
<br />
<br />
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. [http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm “Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices.”] 2000.<br />
: This report from the California Air Resources Board outlines some strategies for reducing the particulate matter in the state’s air. It describes the risks and strategies from a variety of diesel engine types (stationary, and mobile engines in school buses, transit buses, and trucks). However, transit providers may be interested in the report because it includes a summary of existing policies governing diesel engines, methodology for measuring particulate matter, and reviews of technologies for reducing particulate matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. [[media:MTC_Guide.pdf|“Transportation, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gases: A Bay Area Resource Guide.”]] 2009.<br />
: This guide reviews a wide range of strategies for meeting California’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the next couple decades. The guide evaluates strategies based on how well they will be able to reduce emissions, as well as how cost-effective they are. Increasing ridership on public transit, facilitating biking and walking, and changing travel behavior are all included as components of the overall plan to reduce California’s emissions.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Public Health]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Real-time_information&diff=1230Real-time information2012-09-11T21:11:17Z<p>Amiller: /* Benefits and Costs to Agencies */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Real-time information, broadly defined, means any information available to transit providers or customers about the current status of vehicles. Most real-time information relies on [[Automatic vehicle location]] and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in order to estimate approximate arrival times for passengers and transit system operators. Passengers access real-time arrival and departure information through dynamic signs at stops and stations, or through the Internet at home or on smartphones. As smartphones become more prevalent, they have made access to third-party scheduling information and apps highly accessible for passengers.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf|“Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref> [[Image:SFMTA_RealTime.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) offers real time arrival information on its train platforms. Photo by Flickr user AgentAkit.]]<br />
<br />
==Features==<br />
===Mobile technology=== <br />
Because cellular phones and smartphones are so prevalent today, they can be very useful for disseminating real-time transit information. Mobile phones allow passengers to use SMS (or Short Message Service) to access schedule and real-time information via text message. This is a two-way method of communicating wherein the passenger can send a text message to an agency, usually with a code for the stop they want information about. The agency then automatically sends a response with the next bus’ arrival times. These services do not necessarily always use real-time information, instead responding with the next scheduled bus arrival time. However, real time information makes texting more useful to customers.<br />
<br />
===Dynamic messaging signs===<br />
These signs at stops and stations tell passengers when the next transit vehicle will arrive and can warn them if a bus or train is delayed. They are also the most common method for agencies to communicate real-time information to passengers. These can be expensive to implement because of the costs of installation, maintenance, and electricity for operation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
===On-board Annunciators===<br />
Real-time information on-board buses and trains can include automated announcements of next stops and upcoming transfer points. This feature also adds to ADA compliance and relieves drivers from this obligation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153753.aspx "TCRP Research Results Digest 5: Electronic On-Vehicle Passenger Information Displays (Visual and Audible)."] 1995.</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
==Benefits and Costs to Agencies==<br />
Using real-time technology can benefit agencies by improving safety and security, and has been demonstrated to increase customer satisfaction and perceptions of the transit agency. Agencies also benefit from these systems because they reduce the staff time needed to monitor for schedule adherence. <br />
<br />
The costs of implementing these systems varies widely by the size of the agency, type of system, and which amenities the agency chooses to use. However, there is not a clear link between these systems and an increase in ridership.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems."] 2003.</ref> Implementing a real-time system also has costs. There are financial costs, which can vary widely depending on the technology, as well as time and staff costs associated with training and maintaining real-time technologies. Sometimes the existing information technology infrastructure and staff are not sufficient, so they must be bolstered. Finally, as mobile technology is constantly changing, it is difficult for transit agencies and even technology developers to keep abreast of changes and to create mobile applications that will work for all versions of the wide variety of platforms available for passengers’ mobile devices.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits to Riders==<br />
Having access to real-time information reduces passengers’ anxiety during wait time. It also reduces time spent waiting when passengers can learn about a delayed bus or other problem prior to arriving at a stop or station. This way, if buses are delayed passengers can make informed decisions about taking alternative routes or modes. After implementing AVL systems, combined with improving real-time information for customers, several agencies saw steep declines in customer complaints.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Popular services==<br />
Transit agencies that want to avoid the expense and risk of building a proprietary system to convey real-time information may work with vendors or produce data using established standards.<br />
<br />
*'''NextBus.com''' is a product offered by WebTech Wireless, a Canadian company with years of fleet-tracking experience. NextBus offers a full-service solution, from GPS installation on vehicles, to communications with users via a desktop and mobile web site. NextBus is the market leader, with more than a dozen transit agencies as customers. [http://news.nextbus.com/how-nextbus-works-2/detailed-product-information/ More information] about their products is available from the company. ''This section is provided for informational purposes only and is not an endorsement to purchase the Nextbus product. See [[TransitWiki:General_disclaimer#Commercial Products and Services Appearing on Transit Wiki]].''<br />
<br />
*'''GTFS-Realtime''' is a structured data format for real-time arrival and service alert information. The General Transit Feed Specification was developed by Google and powers the transit routing information available on Google Maps and from third-parties. Agencies do not pay Google to use the format display the data on Google Products. The GTFS-realtime specification is a free alternative to NextBus.com for agencies that currently produce or plan to produce real-time arrival data and route or stop specific service alerts. [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/ More information] is available from Google.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011. <br />
: This recent synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes a literature review and survey of transit providers, with a specific focus on the underlying technology necessary for delivering real-time information to passengers using mobile phones. Survey respondents reported that automatic vehicle location is the most commonly used technology for delivering real-time information and many agencies use third-party developers to develop applications for delivering this information to passengers. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems."] 2003. <br />
: This report, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the basics of how real-time information systems work and uses several case studies to demonstrate common agency experiences when using them on bus systems. It is a comprehensive document outlining broad system benefits and costs, customer reactions to the changes, and a literature review. This synthesis evaluates several case studies, including San Luis Obispo’s transit system, which uses a real-time information system that utilizes dynamic messaging signs. The system was developed by the California State Polytechnic University and was fully deployed in 2001.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152927.aspx “TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information.”] 2003.<br />
: This report updates previous reports on traveler information and includes a literature review of a variety of other reports on the same topic. It also examines the possibiliies for transit to take lessons from other industries, such as the airline or parcel delivery industries, in providing information to customers through the internet. The report was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Real-time_information&diff=1229Real-time information2012-09-11T21:09:11Z<p>Amiller: /* Dynamic messaging signs */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Real-time information, broadly defined, means any information available to transit providers or customers about the current status of vehicles. Most real-time information relies on [[Automatic vehicle location]] and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in order to estimate approximate arrival times for passengers and transit system operators. Passengers access real-time arrival and departure information through dynamic signs at stops and stations, or through the Internet at home or on smartphones. As smartphones become more prevalent, they have made access to third-party scheduling information and apps highly accessible for passengers.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf|“Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref> [[Image:SFMTA_RealTime.jpg|right|thumb|350px|The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) offers real time arrival information on its train platforms. Photo by Flickr user AgentAkit.]]<br />
<br />
==Features==<br />
===Mobile technology=== <br />
Because cellular phones and smartphones are so prevalent today, they can be very useful for disseminating real-time transit information. Mobile phones allow passengers to use SMS (or Short Message Service) to access schedule and real-time information via text message. This is a two-way method of communicating wherein the passenger can send a text message to an agency, usually with a code for the stop they want information about. The agency then automatically sends a response with the next bus’ arrival times. These services do not necessarily always use real-time information, instead responding with the next scheduled bus arrival time. However, real time information makes texting more useful to customers.<br />
<br />
===Dynamic messaging signs===<br />
These signs at stops and stations tell passengers when the next transit vehicle will arrive and can warn them if a bus or train is delayed. They are also the most common method for agencies to communicate real-time information to passengers. These can be expensive to implement because of the costs of installation, maintenance, and electricity for operation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref><br />
<br />
===On-board Annunciators===<br />
Real-time information on-board buses and trains can include automated announcements of next stops and upcoming transfer points. This feature also adds to ADA compliance and relieves drivers from this obligation.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153753.aspx "TCRP Research Results Digest 5: Electronic On-Vehicle Passenger Information Displays (Visual and Audible)."] 1995.</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
==Benefits and Costs to Agencies==<br />
Using real-time technology can benefit agencies by improving safety and security, and has been demonstrated to increase customer satisfaction and perceptions of the transit agency. Agencies also benefit from these systems because they reduce the staff time needed to monitor for schedule adherence. <br />
<br />
The costs of implementing these systems varies widely by the size of the agency, type of system, and which amenities the agency chooses to use. However, there is not a clear link between these systems and an increase in ridership.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems."] 2003.</ref> Implementing a real-time system also has costs. There are financial costs, which can vary widely depending on the technology. There are also time and staff costs associated with training and maintaining real-time technologies. Sometimes the existing information technology infrastructure and staff are not sufficient, so they must be bolstered. Finally, as mobile technology is constantly changing, it is difficult for transit agencies and even technology developers to keep abreast of changes and to create mobile applications that will work for all versions of the wide variety of platforms available for passengers’ mobile devices.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Benefits to Riders==<br />
Having access to real-time information reduces passengers’ anxiety during wait time. It also reduces time spent waiting when passengers can learn about a delayed bus or other problem prior to arriving at a stop or station. This way, if buses are delayed passengers can make informed decisions about taking alternative routes or modes. After implementing AVL systems, combined with improving real-time information for customers, several agencies saw steep declines in customer complaints.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Popular services==<br />
Transit agencies that want to avoid the expense and risk of building a proprietary system to convey real-time information may work with vendors or produce data using established standards.<br />
<br />
*'''NextBus.com''' is a product offered by WebTech Wireless, a Canadian company with years of fleet-tracking experience. NextBus offers a full-service solution, from GPS installation on vehicles, to communications with users via a desktop and mobile web site. NextBus is the market leader, with more than a dozen transit agencies as customers. [http://news.nextbus.com/how-nextbus-works-2/detailed-product-information/ More information] about their products is available from the company. ''This section is provided for informational purposes only and is not an endorsement to purchase the Nextbus product. See [[TransitWiki:General_disclaimer#Commercial Products and Services Appearing on Transit Wiki]].''<br />
<br />
*'''GTFS-Realtime''' is a structured data format for real-time arrival and service alert information. The General Transit Feed Specification was developed by Google and powers the transit routing information available on Google Maps and from third-parties. Agencies do not pay Google to use the format display the data on Google Products. The GTFS-realtime specification is a free alternative to NextBus.com for agencies that currently produce or plan to produce real-time arrival data and route or stop specific service alerts. [https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs-realtime/ More information] is available from Google.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/166249.aspx “Synthesis 91: Use and Deployment of Mobile Device Technology for Real-Time Transit Information.”] 2011. <br />
: This recent synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes a literature review and survey of transit providers, with a specific focus on the underlying technology necessary for delivering real-time information to passengers using mobile phones. Survey respondents reported that automatic vehicle location is the most commonly used technology for delivering real-time information and many agencies use third-party developers to develop applications for delivering this information to passengers. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems."] 2003. <br />
: This report, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the basics of how real-time information systems work and uses several case studies to demonstrate common agency experiences when using them on bus systems. It is a comprehensive document outlining broad system benefits and costs, customer reactions to the changes, and a literature review. This synthesis evaluates several case studies, including San Luis Obispo’s transit system, which uses a real-time information system that utilizes dynamic messaging signs. The system was developed by the California State Polytechnic University and was fully deployed in 2001.<br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152927.aspx “TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information.”] 2003.<br />
: This report updates previous reports on traveler information and includes a literature review of a variety of other reports on the same topic. It also examines the possibiliies for transit to take lessons from other industries, such as the airline or parcel delivery industries, in providing information to customers through the internet. The report was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Radio_frequency_identification_(RFID)&diff=1228Radio frequency identification (RFID)2012-09-11T21:07:01Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
[[image:octopus-card.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Hong Kong's RFID-enabled Octopus Card with NFC reader in background]] Like [[near field communications]], radio frequency identification (RFID) is a type of [[automated fare media]] used for contactless fare payment. RFID operates in smart cards through a silicon chip that contains memory and communicates with a transponder for payment. RFID offers all the general advantages of automated fare media - reduced dwell time, convenience for passengers - with the added benefit of being applied through open payment systems as credit card and cell phone companies adopt the technology. For example, the Octopus smart card, in use since 1997, in Hong Kong is accepted by a variety of transportation providers, as well as other service providers. About 25 percent of purchases using the Octopus card are used for purchases other than transportation.<ref>RFID Journal. [http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/374|“RFID Smart Cards Gain Ground.”] 2003.</ref> Along with being used for fare payment, RFID can be used to track transit vehicles and provide accurate real-time arrival information. The technology can also help with tracking maintenance of vehicles through electronic record-keeping.<ref>RFID Journal. [http://www.rfidjournal.com/expert/entry/9603/| “Is RFID Being Used on Public Buses?”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Dempsey, Paul Stephen and James B. McDaniel. Transit Cooperative Research Program. [[media:SmartCardLRD.pdf|”TCRP Legal Research Digest 25.”]] 2008. <br />
: This legal research digest offers a discussion of the origins of smart cards and RFID technology, with a focus on the privacy concerns that accompany them and their legal implications. This report was produced through the Transit Cooperative Research Program and sponsored by the Transportation Research Board. This report illuminates some best practices for addressing privacy concerns with privacy policies, along with other recommendations from the Smart Card Alliance.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Radio_frequency_identification_(RFID)&diff=1227Radio frequency identification (RFID)2012-09-11T21:05:15Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
[[image:octopus-card.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Hong Kong's RFID-enabled Octopus Card with NFC reader in background]] Like [[near field communications]], radio frequency identification (RFID) is a type of [[automated fare media]] used for contactless fare payment. RFID operates in smart cards through a silicon chip that contains memory and communicates with a transponder for payment. RFID offers all the general advantages of automated fare media - reduced dwell time, convenience for passengers - with the added benefit of being applied through open payment systems as credit card and cell phone companies adopt the technology. For example, the Octopus smart card, in use since 1997, in Hong Kong is accepted by a variety of transportation providers, as well as other service providers. About 25 percent of purchases using the Octopus card are used for purchases other than transportation.<ref>RFID Journal. [http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/374|“RFID Smart Cards Gain Ground.”] 2003.</ref> Along with being used for fare payment, RFID can be used to track transit vehicles and provide accurate real-time arrival information. The technology can also help with tracking maintenance of vehicles through electronic record-keeping.<ref>RFID Journal. [http://www.rfidjournal.com/expert/entry/9603/|“Is RFID Being Used on Public Buses?”] 2012.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Dempsey, Paul Stephen and James B. McDaniel. Transit Cooperative Research Program. [[media:SmartCardLRD.pdf|”TCRP Legal Research Digest 25.”]] 2008. <br />
: This legal research digest offers a discussion of the origins of smart cards and RFID technology, with a focus on the privacy concerns that accompany them and their legal implications. This report was produced through the Transit Cooperative Research Program and sponsored by the Transportation Research Board. This report illuminates some best practices for addressing privacy concerns with privacy policies, along with other recommendations from the Smart Card Alliance.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Near_field_communications&diff=1226Near field communications2012-09-11T20:57:10Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Near field communication (NFC) is the technology that enables smart cards to be ‘contactless.’ They use an unpowered chip that communicates with the on-board or in-station fare collection system and deducts value when used. Smart cards or cell phones using NFC only need to be waved over the fare payment machine aboard the transit vehicle or before going through the turnstile leading to the vehicles. This is in contrast to ‘contact’ smart cards, which need to be inserted into the machine. NFC is a specific type of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that limits the communication distance to four inches or less.<br />
<br />
NFC technology is already in use in mobile phones for other applications, such as transferring files between phones or computers, but it has only been applied for transit payments in a few places (there is a pilot project in New Jersey using Google Wallet).<br />
<br />
[[Image:TapFarebox.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This Los Angeles Metro TAP farebox uses NFC to read users' fare cards. Photo by Flickr user fredcamino]]<br />
<br />
==Advantages of NFC==<br />
<br />
Contactless smart cards with NFC technology may be easier to use than contact cards for people who have difficulties with fine motor skills. Contactless smart cards also speed the boarding process and are convenient for passengers who prefer to pre-pay for transit service. They also reduce some of the problems associated with cash systems, such as the cost of transporting and guarding cash. However, because of the popularity of cash payment with customers it will likely need to remain a payment option. For this reason, a study in Los Angeles showed that a financial incentive for using a smart card helped to boost its use.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
Because the financial services industry offers NFC-enabled contact-less bank cards, an NFC reader may be configured to accept cash payment in addition to accepting automated fare media.<br />
<br />
==Challenges in Application==<br />
Smart cards and NFC technology face some challenges to being applied to transit fare payment. Choosing an open or closed system will determine how much partnership or collaboration will be needed for managing the system. More information on open and closed systems can be found in the article on [[automated fare media]]. Open systems will require more collaboration, but the burden of managing the system can be shared with other merchants or transit providers. Open systems in NFC technology also offer the advantage of giving riders the choice of using their cards for a variety of purchases and uses. For example, in Japan, smart cards are used to pay for transit, as well as public telephones and parking.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref> In general, though, benefits and costs can vary widely and, according to one recent study, the costs of deployment and implementation are primarily borne by the system provider, while the benefits are enjoyed by passengers and individual operators.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this report outlines the benefits of and challenges of implementing a wide variety of fare media, including near field communications and other smart card technologies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Smart Card Alliance. [http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-near-field-communication-and-transit “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.”] 2012.<br />
: This white paper, published by an industry group, discusses the potential to expand NFC technology in transit fare payment. In includes the possibility of using NFC-enabled smart cards for open bank payment, as well as the more common smart cards, as well as a detailed description of the full NFC ecosystem necessary. The appendix provides a comprehensive list of transit systems that currently use NFC technology.<br />
<br />
<br />
Keitel, Philip. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.[http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2011/D-2011-April-Chase-Transit.pdf "The Electronification of Transit Fare Payments: Examining the Case for Partnerships Between Payments Firms and Transit Agencies."] 2011.<br />
: This Federal Reserve Bank Payment Cards Center discussion paper examines alternatives for accepting cash fare payment from contact-less bank cards. The report discusses fees levied by financial institutions, avoided ticket vending machine infrastructure and maintenance, and consumer experiences with contact-less bank cards.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Near_field_communications&diff=1225Near field communications2012-09-11T20:56:39Z<p>Amiller: /* Challenges in Application */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Near field communication (NFC) is the technology that enables smart cards to be ‘contactless.’ They use an unpowered chip that communicates with the on-board or in-station fare collection system and deducts value when used. Smart cards or cell phones using NFC only need to be waved over the fare payment machine aboard the transit vehicle or before going through the turnstile leading to the vehicles. This is in contrast to ‘contact’ smart cards, which need to be inserted into the machine. NFC is a specific type of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that limits the communication distance to four inches or less.<br />
<br />
NFC technology is already in use in mobile phones for other applications, such as transferring files between phones or computers, but it has only been applied for transit payments in a few places (there is a pilot project in New Jersey using Google Wallet).<br />
<br />
[[Image:TapFarebox.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This Los Angeles Metro TAP farebox uses NFC to read users' fare cards. Photo by Flickr user fredcamino]]<br />
<br />
==Advantages of NFC==<br />
<br />
Contactless smart cards with NFC technology may be easier to use than contact cards for people who have difficulties with fine motor skills. Contactless smart cards also speed the boarding process and are convenient for passengers who prefer to pre-pay for transit service. They also reduce some of the problems associated with cash systems, such as the cost of transporting and guarding cash. However, because of the popularity of cash payment with customers it will likely need to remain a payment option. For this reason, a study in Los Angeles showed that a financial incentive for using a smart card helped to boost its use.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
Because the financial services industry offers NFC-enabled contact-less bank cards, an NFC reader may be configured to accept cash payment in addition to accepting automated fare media.<br />
<br />
==Challenges in Application==<br />
Smart cards and NFC technology face some challenges to being applied to transit fare payment. Choosing an open or closed system will determine how much partnership or collaboration will be needed for managing the system. More information on open and closed systems can be found in the article on [[automated fare media]]. Open systems will require more collaboration, but the burden of managing the system can be shared with other merchants or transit providers. Open systems in NFC technology also offer the advantage of giving riders the choice of using their cards for a variety of purchases and uses. For example, in Japan, smart cards are used to pay for transit, as well as public telephones and parking.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref> In general, though, benefits and costs can vary widely and, according to one recent study, the costs of deployment and implementation are primarily borne by the system provider, while the benefits are enjoyed by passengers and individual operators.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this report outlines the benefits of and challenges of implementing a wide variety of fare media, including near field communications and other smart card technologies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Smart Card Alliance. [http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-near-field-communication-and-transit “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.”] 2012.<br />
: This white paper, published by an industry group, discusses the potential to expand NFC technology in transit fare payment. In includes the possibility of using NFC-enabled smart cards for open bank payment, as well as the more common smart cards, as well as a detailed description of the full NFC ecosystem necessary. The appendix provides a comprehensive list of transit systems that currently use NFC technology.<br />
<br />
<br />
Philip Keitel. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.[http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2011/D-2011-April-Chase-Transit.pdf "The Electronification of Transit Fare Payments: Examining the Case for Partnerships Between Payments Firms and Transit Agencies."] 2011.<br />
: This Federal Reserve Bank Payment Cards Center discussion paper examines alternatives for accepting cash fare payment from contact-less bank cards. The report discusses fees levied by financial institutions, avoided ticket vending machine infrastructure and maintenance, and consumer experiences with contact-less bank cards.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Near_field_communications&diff=1224Near field communications2012-09-11T20:55:55Z<p>Amiller: /* Advantages of NFC */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Near field communication (NFC) is the technology that enables smart cards to be ‘contactless.’ They use an unpowered chip that communicates with the on-board or in-station fare collection system and deducts value when used. Smart cards or cell phones using NFC only need to be waved over the fare payment machine aboard the transit vehicle or before going through the turnstile leading to the vehicles. This is in contrast to ‘contact’ smart cards, which need to be inserted into the machine. NFC is a specific type of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that limits the communication distance to four inches or less.<br />
<br />
NFC technology is already in use in mobile phones for other applications, such as transferring files between phones or computers, but it has only been applied for transit payments in a few places (there is a pilot project in New Jersey using Google Wallet).<br />
<br />
[[Image:TapFarebox.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This Los Angeles Metro TAP farebox uses NFC to read users' fare cards. Photo by Flickr user fredcamino]]<br />
<br />
==Advantages of NFC==<br />
<br />
Contactless smart cards with NFC technology may be easier to use than contact cards for people who have difficulties with fine motor skills. Contactless smart cards also speed the boarding process and are convenient for passengers who prefer to pre-pay for transit service. They also reduce some of the problems associated with cash systems, such as the cost of transporting and guarding cash. However, because of the popularity of cash payment with customers it will likely need to remain a payment option. For this reason, a study in Los Angeles showed that a financial incentive for using a smart card helped to boost its use.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
Because the financial services industry offers NFC-enabled contact-less bank cards, an NFC reader may be configured to accept cash payment in addition to accepting automated fare media.<br />
<br />
==Challenges in Application==<br />
Smart cards and NFC technology face some challenges to being applied to transit fare payment. Choosing an open or closed system will determine how much partnership or collaboration will be needed for managing the system. More information on open and closed systems can be found in the article on [[automated fare media]]. Open systems will require more collaboration, but the burden of managing the system can be shared with other merchants or transit providers. Open systems in NFC technology also offer the advantage of giving riders the choice of using their cards for a variety of purchases and uses. For example, in Japan, smart cards are used to pay for transit, as well as public telephones and parking.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref> In general, though, benefits and costs can vary widely and, according to one recent study, the costs of deployment and implementation are primarily borne by the system provider, while the benefits are enjoyed by passengers and individual operators.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this report outlines the benefits of and challenges of implementing a wide variety of fare media, including near field communications and other smart card technologies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Smart Card Alliance. [http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-near-field-communication-and-transit “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.”] 2012.<br />
: This white paper, published by an industry group, discusses the potential to expand NFC technology in transit fare payment. In includes the possibility of using NFC-enabled smart cards for open bank payment, as well as the more common smart cards, as well as a detailed description of the full NFC ecosystem necessary. The appendix provides a comprehensive list of transit systems that currently use NFC technology.<br />
<br />
<br />
Philip Keitel. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.[http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2011/D-2011-April-Chase-Transit.pdf "The Electronification of Transit Fare Payments: Examining the Case for Partnerships Between Payments Firms and Transit Agencies."] 2011.<br />
: This Federal Reserve Bank Payment Cards Center discussion paper examines alternatives for accepting cash fare payment from contact-less bank cards. The report discusses fees levied by financial institutions, avoided ticket vending machine infrastructure and maintenance, and consumer experiences with contact-less bank cards.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Near_field_communications&diff=1223Near field communications2012-09-11T20:55:34Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Near field communication (NFC) is the technology that enables smart cards to be ‘contactless.’ They use an unpowered chip that communicates with the on-board or in-station fare collection system and deducts value when used. Smart cards or cell phones using NFC only need to be waved over the fare payment machine aboard the transit vehicle or before going through the turnstile leading to the vehicles. This is in contrast to ‘contact’ smart cards, which need to be inserted into the machine. NFC is a specific type of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that limits the communication distance to four inches or less.<br />
<br />
NFC technology is already in use in mobile phones for other applications, such as transferring files between phones or computers, but it has only been applied for transit payments in a few places (there is a pilot project in New Jersey using Google Wallet).<br />
<br />
[[Image:TapFarebox.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This Los Angeles Metro TAP farebox uses NFC to read users' fare cards. Photo by Flickr user fredcamino]]<br />
<br />
==Advantages of NFC==<br />
<br />
Contactless smart cards with NFC technology may be easier to use than contact cards for people who have difficulties with fine motor skills. Contactless smart cards also speed the boarding process and are convenient for passengers who prefer to pre-pay for transit service. They also reduce some of the problems associated with cash systems, such as the cost of transporting and guarding cash. However, because of the popularity of cash payment with customers it will likely need to remain a payment option. For this reason, a study in Los Angeles showed that a financial incentive for using a smart card helped to boost its use.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
Because the financial services industry offers NFC-enabled contact-less bank cards, an NFC reader may be configured to accept cash payment in addition to accepting automated fare media.<br />
<br />
==Challenges in Application==<br />
Smart cards and NFC technology face some challenges to being applied to transit fare payment. Choosing an open or closed system will determine how much partnership or collaboration will be needed for managing the system. More information on open and closed systems can be found in the article on [[automated fare media]]. Open systems will require more collaboration, but the burden of managing the system can be shared with other merchants or transit providers. Open systems in NFC technology also offer the advantage of giving riders the choice of using their cards for a variety of purchases and uses. For example, in Japan, smart cards are used to pay for transit, as well as public telephones and parking.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref> In general, though, benefits and costs can vary widely and, according to one recent study, the costs of deployment and implementation are primarily borne by the system provider, while the benefits are enjoyed by passengers and individual operators.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “TCRP Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this report outlines the benefits of and challenges of implementing a wide variety of fare media, including near field communications and other smart card technologies. <br />
<br />
<br />
Smart Card Alliance. [http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-near-field-communication-and-transit “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.”] 2012.<br />
: This white paper, published by an industry group, discusses the potential to expand NFC technology in transit fare payment. In includes the possibility of using NFC-enabled smart cards for open bank payment, as well as the more common smart cards, as well as a detailed description of the full NFC ecosystem necessary. The appendix provides a comprehensive list of transit systems that currently use NFC technology.<br />
<br />
<br />
Philip Keitel. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.[http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2011/D-2011-April-Chase-Transit.pdf "The Electronification of Transit Fare Payments: Examining the Case for Partnerships Between Payments Firms and Transit Agencies."] 2011.<br />
: This Federal Reserve Bank Payment Cards Center discussion paper examines alternatives for accepting cash fare payment from contact-less bank cards. The report discusses fees levied by financial institutions, avoided ticket vending machine infrastructure and maintenance, and consumer experiences with contact-less bank cards.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Near_field_communications&diff=1222Near field communications2012-09-11T20:54:52Z<p>Amiller: /* Challenges in Application */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Technology]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
<br />
Near field communication (NFC) is the technology that enables smart cards to be ‘contactless.’ They use an unpowered chip that communicates with the on-board or in-station fare collection system and deducts value when used. Smart cards or cell phones using NFC only need to be waved over the fare payment machine aboard the transit vehicle or before going through the turnstile leading to the vehicles. This is in contrast to ‘contact’ smart cards, which need to be inserted into the machine. NFC is a specific type of radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that limits the communication distance to four inches or less.<br />
<br />
NFC technology is already in use in mobile phones for other applications, such as transferring files between phones or computers, but it has only been applied for transit payments in a few places (there is a pilot project in New Jersey using Google Wallet).<br />
<br />
[[Image:TapFarebox.jpg|right|thumb|350px|This Los Angeles Metro TAP farebox uses NFC to read users' fare cards. Photo by Flickr user fredcamino]]<br />
<br />
==Advantages of NFC==<br />
<br />
Contactless smart cards with NFC technology may be easier to use than contact cards for people who have difficulties with fine motor skills. Contactless smart cards also speed the boarding process and are convenient for passengers who prefer to pre-pay for transit service. They also reduce some of the problems associated with cash systems, such as the cost of transporting and guarding cash. However, because of the popularity of cash payment with customers it will likely need to remain a payment option. For this reason, a study in Los Angeles showed that a financial incentive for using a smart card helped to boost its use.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.</ref><br />
<br />
Because the financial services industry offers NFC-enabled contact-less bank cards, an NFC reader may be configured to accept cash payment in addition to accepting automated fare media.<br />
<br />
==Challenges in Application==<br />
Smart cards and NFC technology face some challenges to being applied to transit fare payment. Choosing an open or closed system will determine how much partnership or collaboration will be needed for managing the system. More information on open and closed systems can be found in the article on [[automated fare media]]. Open systems will require more collaboration, but the burden of managing the system can be shared with other merchants or transit providers. Open systems in NFC technology also offer the advantage of giving riders the choice of using their cards for a variety of purchases and uses. For example, in Japan, smart cards are used to pay for transit, as well as public telephones and parking.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref> In general, though, benefits and costs can vary widely and, according to one recent study, the costs of deployment and implementation are primarily borne by the system provider, while the benefits are enjoyed by passengers and individual operators.<ref>Iseki, Hiroyuki, Alexander Demisch, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison C. Yoh. [[media:Evaluating_Smart_Cards.pdf|“Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”]] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx “Report 32: Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.”] 1998.<br />
<br />
: Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, this report outlines the benefits of and challenges of implementing a wide variety of fare media, including near field communications and other smart card technologies. <br />
:: Note: Download may require free registration.<br />
<br />
Smart Card Alliance. [http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-near-field-communication-and-transit “Near Field Communication (NFC) and Transit: Applications, Technology and Implementation Considerations.”] 2012.<br />
<br />
: This white paper, published by an industry group, discusses the potential to expand NFC technology in transit fare payment. In includes the possibility of using NFC-enabled smart cards for open bank payment, as well as the more common smart cards, as well as a detailed description of the full NFC ecosystem necessary. The appendix provides a comprehensive list of transit systems that currently use NFC technology.<br />
<br />
Philip Keitel. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia [http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2011/D-2011-April-Chase-Transit.pdf "The Electronification of Transit Fare Payments: Examining the Case for Partnerships Between Payments Firms and Transit Agencies"]. 2011.<br />
<br />
: This Federal Reserve Bank Payment Cards Center discussion paper examines alternatives for accepting cash fare payment from contact-less bank cards. The report discusses fees levied by financial institutions, avoided ticket vending machine infrastructure and maintenance, and consumer experiences with contact-less bank cards.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Internet_communications&diff=1221Internet communications2012-09-11T20:52:31Z<p>Amiller: /* Benefits */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
The internet is an increasingly important point of communication with regular and potential passengers. An [[agency website]] that is current, clear, and user-friendly can convey information about the transit system that makes the system easier to understand and navigate. Web sites and internet communications that are not clear to users or contain incorrect information could frustrate passengers and reduce trial by potential passengers.<br />
<br />
Over the past few years, internet communications have expanded from one-way communication through agency Web sites to dynamic, interactive communication through internet-based applications and social media like Facebook and Twitter. This interactive communication is often referred to as social media or ‘Web 2.0.’ Social media is also commonly used as a quick method for receiving and responding to feedback from passengers.<br />
<br />
Additionally, cell phones with internet access, or smartphones, have proliferated in recent years. These devices allow passengers to access the internet while they are mobile, and can be an important means of delivering [[real-time information]] to passengers.<br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Web 2.0 technologies allow transit agencies to communicate directly with their audiences, rather than going through an intermediary, such as a news outlet, which was necessary in the past. Technologies that enable direct communication between agencies and users also encourage citizen participation and help agencies to be more transparent.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref> Because websites can house large documents and links to other sites, this allows agencies to provide highly detailed information to stakeholders. This is another proactive way to encourage public involvement and to encourage people to learn more about projects on which agencies are seeking comments. <br />
<br />
Internet-based applications like [http://www.nextbus.com/homepage/ Nextbus] can alert customers to delayed vehicles, reducing unexpected wait time and perceptions of unreliability. Twitter and Facebook have also been used by transportation agencies to alert users to emergencies or other unexpected situations. These applications and communications with passengers improve reliability and enhance the overall experience of using transit. Employing Web 2.0 technologies can also improve the image of the agency as modern and user-friendly.<br />
<br />
==Costs==<br />
Technology changes quickly and there is upfront staff time and investment required to ensure that applications remain compatible with users’ platforms and software, as well as making sure that websites are user-friendly and have a modern appearance. As one report by FHWA points out, it is most cost-effective to use existing applications, rather than to develop new ones. Timely responses to public comments can also demand substantial staff time, so it is important for agencies to have a standard protocol for responding to questions and complaints that both meets public expectations and the agency’s goals. In fact, in one survey, agencies reported that staff time was the greatest cost to employing social media in its communications.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.</ref> Developing appropriate measures can also require substantial time and energy. Some agencies use easily quantified statistics, such as re-tweets or Facebook comments, to measure performance, but these are somewhat blunt measures of effectiveness.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
==Equity Concerns==<br />
While social media and Web 2.0 tools can improve communication between agencies and transit users, it is also important to maintain some traditional methods of communication. Op-eds, in-person presentations, and clear wayfinding are all necessary tools for communicating with passengers. Newer technologies should complement traditional communications tools rather than replace them. <br />
<br />
Transit agencies also must recognize that there remains a digital divide between people of different incomes and ages - or differential rates of access to and use of internet-based technologies. <ref>National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America.”] 1995.</ref> Agencies must strike a balance between using resources to improve their more advanced technology communication and serving passengers who may not have access to or an understanding of those technologies. By keeping in mind the needs and tools available to different audiences, transit agencies will be successful in providing clear information to all passengers.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.<br />
: This recent report, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the wide variety of uses for social media in the provision of public transit. It includes lessons learned, policies for managing social media, common challenges and benefits, and case studies of several transit agencies using social media, with one example from California’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/doc-distr.cgi/tsyn43.pdf "TCRP Synthesis 43: Effective Use of Transit Websites."] 2003.<br />
: Though now somewhat outdated, this synthesis report contains key considerations about website development and content that any transit agency might face. Though technology has progressed in the past decade, many transit agencies continue to face issues in displaying large amounts of data in graphics or text tables. This report contains guidance on the formatting and display of transit information.<br />
<br />
Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010. <br />
: This recent report from FHWA focuses on interactive web applications, or Web 2.0, and examines how they are being used by transportation agencies. The report describes the wide array of Web 2.0 tools and their uses, including social media, blogging services, and media-sharing sites. This report also offers case studies of several state Departments of Transportation. <br />
<br />
Transportation Research Board. [http://www.trb.org/conferences/socialmediaonlineworkshop2011.aspx “Keeping up with Communication Technology: An Online Workshop on the Practical Use of Social Media.”] 2011.<br />
: This online resource, which was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board’s Communications Coordinators Council and the Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation, offers powerpoint and video presentations from experts in using social media to engage community members. The presentations include case studies and some very in-depth examples of success in using web-based technology for transit and regional planning. Presentations include using Facebook ads to boost interest in an agency, using social media to improve transparency, and other best practices. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Internet_communications&diff=1220Internet communications2012-09-11T20:47:11Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
The internet is an increasingly important point of communication with regular and potential passengers. An [[agency website]] that is current, clear, and user-friendly can convey information about the transit system that makes the system easier to understand and navigate. Web sites and internet communications that are not clear to users or contain incorrect information could frustrate passengers and reduce trial by potential passengers.<br />
<br />
Over the past few years, internet communications have expanded from one-way communication through agency Web sites to dynamic, interactive communication through internet-based applications and social media like Facebook and Twitter. This interactive communication is often referred to as social media or ‘Web 2.0.’ Social media is also commonly used as a quick method for receiving and responding to feedback from passengers.<br />
<br />
Additionally, cell phones with internet access, or smartphones, have proliferated in recent years. These devices allow passengers to access the internet while they are mobile, and can be an important means of delivering [[real-time information]] to passengers.<br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Web 2.0 technologies allow transit agencies to communicate directly with their audiences, rather than going through an intermediary, such as a news outlet, which was necessary in the past. Technologies that enable direct communication between agencies and users also encourage citizen participation and help agencies to be more transparent.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref> Because websites can house large documents and links to other sites, this allows agencies to provide highly detailed information to stakeholders. This is another proactive way to encourage public involvement and to encourage people to learn more about projects on which agencies are seeking comments. <br />
<br />
Internet-based applications like Nextbus can alert customers to delayed vehicles and reduce unexpected wait time and perceptions of unreliability. Twitter and Facebook have also been used by transportation agencies to alert users to emergencies or other unexpected situations. These applications and communications with passengers improve reliability and enhance the overall experience of using transit. Employing Web 2.0 technologies can also improve the image of the agency as modern and user-friendly.<br />
<br />
==Costs==<br />
Technology changes quickly and there is upfront staff time and investment required to ensure that applications remain compatible with users’ platforms and software, as well as making sure that websites are user-friendly and have a modern appearance. As one report by FHWA points out, it is most cost-effective to use existing applications, rather than to develop new ones. Timely responses to public comments can also demand substantial staff time, so it is important for agencies to have a standard protocol for responding to questions and complaints that both meets public expectations and the agency’s goals. In fact, in one survey, agencies reported that staff time was the greatest cost to employing social media in its communications.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.</ref> Developing appropriate measures can also require substantial time and energy. Some agencies use easily quantified statistics, such as re-tweets or Facebook comments, to measure performance, but these are somewhat blunt measures of effectiveness.<ref>Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010.</ref><br />
<br />
==Equity Concerns==<br />
While social media and Web 2.0 tools can improve communication between agencies and transit users, it is also important to maintain some traditional methods of communication. Op-eds, in-person presentations, and clear wayfinding are all necessary tools for communicating with passengers. Newer technologies should complement traditional communications tools rather than replace them. <br />
<br />
Transit agencies also must recognize that there remains a digital divide between people of different incomes and ages - or differential rates of access to and use of internet-based technologies. <ref>National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America.”] 1995.</ref> Agencies must strike a balance between using resources to improve their more advanced technology communication and serving passengers who may not have access to or an understanding of those technologies. By keeping in mind the needs and tools available to different audiences, transit agencies will be successful in providing clear information to all passengers.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf “TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation.”] 2012.<br />
: This recent report, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the wide variety of uses for social media in the provision of public transit. It includes lessons learned, policies for managing social media, common challenges and benefits, and case studies of several transit agencies using social media, with one example from California’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.tcrponline.org/bin/doc-distr.cgi/tsyn43.pdf "TCRP Synthesis 43: Effective Use of Transit Websites."] 2003.<br />
: Though now somewhat outdated, this synthesis report contains key considerations about website development and content that any transit agency might face. Though technology has progressed in the past decade, many transit agencies continue to face issues in displaying large amounts of data in graphics or text tables. This report contains guidance on the formatting and display of transit information.<br />
<br />
Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. [http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/web20report/web20report.htm “Current Uses of Web 2.0 Applications in Transportation.”] 2010. <br />
: This recent report from FHWA focuses on interactive web applications, or Web 2.0, and examines how they are being used by transportation agencies. The report describes the wide array of Web 2.0 tools and their uses, including social media, blogging services, and media-sharing sites. This report also offers case studies of several state Departments of Transportation. <br />
<br />
Transportation Research Board. [http://www.trb.org/conferences/socialmediaonlineworkshop2011.aspx “Keeping up with Communication Technology: An Online Workshop on the Practical Use of Social Media.”] 2011.<br />
: This online resource, which was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board’s Communications Coordinators Council and the Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation, offers powerpoint and video presentations from experts in using social media to engage community members. The presentations include case studies and some very in-depth examples of success in using web-based technology for transit and regional planning. Presentations include using Facebook ads to boost interest in an agency, using social media to improve transparency, and other best practices. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1219Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T20:45:04Z<p>Amiller: /* Benefits */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used.<ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence and enabling agencies to easily monitor bus driver performance. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1218Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:19:29Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used.<ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1217Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:19:05Z<p>Amiller: /* Benefits */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles.<ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]] 2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1216Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:18:39Z<p>Amiller: /* Challenges */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1215Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:17:51Z<p>Amiller: /* Expected Benefits */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies also reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1214Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:17:16Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx "TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Expected Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies also reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1213Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:16:49Z<p>Amiller: /* Expected Benefits */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Expected Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence. AVL also helps to reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication with and monitoring of a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems to be more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD), has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles because many systems include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies also reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1212Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:13:17Z<p>Amiller: /* Types of Systems */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders that are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors on buses measure its distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. AVL systems that use dead-reckoning sensors can be made up of all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref><br />
<br />
==Expected Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence and reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication and monitoring a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems as more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD) has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles. Many systems also include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies also reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Automatic_vehicle_location&diff=1211Automatic vehicle location2012-09-11T19:10:44Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) describes the use of computers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in dispatching and tracking transit vehicles. AVL is accompanied by added costs of operating and maintaining additional computer equipment, but transit agencies benefit from improvements to customer service through [[real-time information]]. Operating costs, however, are not generally reduced by these improvements. Because AVL is becoming so common, it is increasingly becoming expected as standard for fixed-route systems. AVL is very common on [[bus rapid transit]] systems.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> AVL systems can vary widely in cost - from $100 to $7,000 per bus, depending on the type of technology being used. <ref>Transportation Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/152932.aspx TCRP Synthesis 48: Real-Time Bus Arrival Information Systems, Transportation Cooperative Research Program."] 2003.</ref> [[Image:CulverCityBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Culver City's CityBus uses Automatic Vehicle Location on its buses. Photo by Flickr user DPRegionalTransport.]]<br />
<br />
==Types of Systems==<br />
There are two commonly used types of tracking technologies: Radio navigation and dead-reckoning technologies. Radio navigation was used in the earliest AVL systems, which use radio transponders that communicate with passing buses and a central dispatch center. These include ‘signpost’ transponders are mounted on posts above the height of the bus, to allow communication at level with antennas on top of the vehicles. Dead-reckoning sensors measure a distance from a fixed point. Some of these systems use a wheel odometer to count the number of wheel revolutions between stops as a way to measure distance. Dead-reckoning sensors can use all on-board equipment, while radio navigation systems require communication with off-board technology. Both types of system require maintenance and calibration that can add to the costs of managing them. Some systems use a hybrid of the two technologies, using one to aid the other, or as a backup in case of problems with one.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Expected Benefits==<br />
Many operators have found that AVL has helped to improve service by increasing schedule adherence and reduce response time to operational problems by improving communication between bus drivers and dispatchers. AVL also can help agencies monitor bus driver performance. Dispatchers can handle communication and monitoring a greater volume of vehicles. Passengers also perceive their transit systems as more modern and reliable because they can access real-time bus arrival information. AVL also aids in planning by collecting better historical data.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref> Automatic vehicle location, combined with computer aided dispatch (CAD) has also been proven to improve safety and security on transit vehicles. Many systems also include a silent alarm and video monitoring capabilities. Denver's Regional Transportation District saw a 20 percent drop in assaults after adding an AVL/CAD system to its vehicles. <ref>National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.[[media:CUTR_RealTime.pdf| “Enhancing the Rider Experience: The Impact of Real-Time Information On Transit Ridership.”]]2005.</ref><br />
<br />
==Challenges==<br />
The challenges associated with AVL are primarily found in managing expectations for the system within the agency, training staff, and ensuring that the interfaces for software and hardware work together throughout the agency, including with any paratransit service. Some agencies also reported that after they implemented AVL, they had much greater information technology needs and had to hire staff specifically for IT.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Project. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/159906.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 73: AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update.”] 2008.<br />
: This update to the 1997 Synthesis, also sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, includes detailed information about the state of the practice and how AVL has been used over the past few decades. It offers more specific information on the operational benefits of AVL and actual costs of several recent contracts awarded by transit agencies. This synthesis also provides an update of the wide variety of functions that AVL can provide, such as updated headsigns at the end of trips, that previously were not available. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158961.aspx “TCRP Synthesis 24: AVL Systems for Bus Transit.”] 1997.<br />
: This synthesis, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, describes the challenges of developing and deploying automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. This report describes state of the practice at the time of its publication and the 2008 update examines how the industry and practice has changed since 1997.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Agency_website&diff=1210Agency website2012-09-11T19:09:00Z<p>Amiller: /* Basic Elements */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
A transit agency's website is an important point of communication with passengers. The agency's website can be the first place that passengers seek out important information, such as route maps and fare prices. Websites should be clear and easy to navigate. The agency website can be a place to give detailed information to passengers, while [[internet communications]], such as Facebook and Twitter, can offer a more personal component for addressing passenger concerns and giving timely updates. It is also important for websites to offer the option to increase text size and access translations in languages other than English.<br />
<br />
==Basic Elements==<br />
There are several basic elements that will help passengers to feel more informed and prepared to use the transit system:<br />
<br />
* '''Trip planning''' - Route maps and schedules are useful for trip planning, and embedded forms that plug into an online maps application are becoming ubiquitous. These applications can allow users to print directions for each step of their trip alongside maps of points of transfer.<br />
* '''Fare information''' - Fare information should explain general fare costs and should outline whether the agency offers discounted fares for seniors, students, and other groups. The website should also explain whether fares differentiate by time of day and direction. This section of the website should also explain the methods of payment available, such as [[off-vehicle fare payment]], [[automated fare media]], and seasonal passes.<br />
* '''Special programs''' - This section should include information about how people can access its ADA services and other special programs. For example, it should explain ways to access Travel Training, paratransit, or other [[programs for seniors]]. <br />
* '''News Alerts''' - The agency website is also a great way to alert passengers to upcoming service changes or major delays. This feature is especially important for a mobile version of the website.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Agency_website&diff=1209Agency website2012-09-11T19:03:28Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
A transit agency's website is an important point of communication with passengers. The agency's website can be the first place that passengers seek out important information, such as route maps and fare prices. Websites should be clear and easy to navigate. The agency website can be a place to give detailed information to passengers, while [[internet communications]], such as Facebook and Twitter, can offer a more personal component for addressing passenger concerns and giving timely updates. It is also important for websites to offer the option to increase text size and access translations in languages other than English.<br />
<br />
==Basic Elements==<br />
There are several basic elements that will help passengers to feel more informed and prepared to use the transit system:<br />
<br />
* '''Trip planning''' - Route maps and schedules are useful for trip planning, but embedded forms that plug into an online maps application are becoming more common and even expected. These applications can allow users to print directions for each step of their trip alongside a small map of points of transfer.<br />
* '''Fare information''' - Does the agency offer discounted fares for seniors? Do prices differentiate by time of day and direction?<br />
* '''Special programs''' - Does the agency offer Travel Training, paratransit, or other [[programs for seniors]]. This section should include information about how people can access its ADA services.<br />
* '''News Alerts''' - The agency website is also a great way to alert passengers to upcoming service changes or up-to-the minute delays. This feature is especially important for a mobile version of the website.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Technology]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1208Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:50:02Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 "TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type. <br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”] 2005.<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, California, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1207Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:48:44Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 "TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, California, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1206Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:48:28Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 "TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "TCRP Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, California, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1205Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:43:29Z<p>Amiller: /* Other Improvements to Stops */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 "TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1204Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:42:00Z<p>Amiller: /* Far-side Location */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program.[http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1203Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:41:39Z<p>Amiller: /* Far-side Location */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.<ref>[http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref><br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program.[http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1202Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:40:34Z<p>Amiller: /* Bus Stop Spacing */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage and higher average speeds. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.[http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program.[http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_stop_spacing_and_location&diff=1201Bus stop spacing and location2012-09-11T18:39:18Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]<br />
==Introduction==<br />
Decisions about the spacing and location of bus stops can have a major effect on average speeds, and thereby impact travel times and reliability of bus transit. Stop spacing is also important for determining the possibility for [[bicycle connections]] and [[pedestrian connections]].<br />
[[image:RiversideBus.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A Riverside Transit Authority stops to pick up passengers. Photo by Flickr user plattypus1.]]<br />
<br />
==Bus Stop Spacing==<br />
As Jarrett Walker points out, the way that transit stops are spaced will depend on the goals of the provider and the type of service. A service that seeks to serve all people along a line with few coverage gaps will locate stops closely together. This results in duplicate coverage, which means that multiple stops are in walking distance for many destinations along the line. Duplicate coverage results in slower average vehicle speeds because of frequent stops. On the other hand, for a service that demands higher speeds, like a [[Bus rapid transit]] service, stops should be spaced further apart. This means that fewer people and destinations will be in walking distance from each stop, but it results in less duplicate coverage. Additionally, the more frequent and fast the service is, the greater distance people may be willing to walk to get to bus stops.<ref>Walker, Jarrett. [http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-stop-spacing-is-2-miles-too-far.html “Bus rapid transit stop spacing: is 2 miles too far?”] 2009.</ref> In the United States, local bus stops are often located about 1/4 mile apart or less, with rapid stops 1/2 to 1 mile apart.<ref> Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012. pages 59-64.</ref><br />
<br />
==Location Options==<br />
When on-street, bus stops may be located at a variety of points on a block. Each possible location has its benefits and drawbacks for different types of service.<br />
<br />
===Near-side Location===<br />
Near-side bus stops are located at the side of the block prior to crossing an intersection. The advantage of this location is that red-light dwell time can overlap with passenger boarding and alighting dwell time. However, it increases the risk of conflicts with vehicles making right turns.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Far-side Location===<br />
Far-side location bus stops are advantageous because traffic signals create gaps in traffic flow for buses to re-enter traffic. This location works best with [[Transit signal priority (TSP)]]. However, queuing buses may block intersections.[http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Mid-block Location===<br />
Mid-block stops experience less pedestrian congestion than the other two stop locations. They do, however, encourage mid-block crossing for pedestrians and increase walking distance for people crossing from intersections.<ref>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Other Improvements to Stops==<br />
Bus bulbs have been found to be effective for high-volume stops. A bus bulb is "a section of sidewalk that extends from the curb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Bus bulbs are also known as curb extensions, nubs, and bus bulges." They are like other curbside bus stops, but can save time pulling into and out of traffic to make stops. They also create space for passenger queues, street furniture, and shelters.<ref>Transit Cooperative Research Program.[http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/show_resource.php?id=2995 TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (Bus Stop Sidewalk)."] 2001.</ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==Additional Reading== <br />
Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html “Stops, Spacing, Location and Design.”] <br />
: This Federal Transit Administration website outlines the advantages and disadvantages of locating bus stops at the near-side, far-side, or mid-block specifically for Bus Rapid Transit systems. <br />
<br />
<br />
Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153827.aspx "Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops."] 1996. <br />
: This guide from TCRP is a guide for practitioners on the design and spacing of bus stops.<br />
<br />
<br />
Walker, Jarrett. "Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives." 2012.<br />
: This easy-to-read book by the transportation blogger and consultant is a great resource for transit planners looking for clear, concise explanations of best practices. The book covers bus stop spacing along with explanations of service design, route design, fares, and other critical components of provision of transit service. See his blog at [http://www.humantransit.org humantransit.org], for timely and interesting articles about transit.<br />
<br />
<br />
Furth, Peter G. and Maaza C. Mekuria. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/transit/Transit31_Final_Report.pdf “NEU Bus Stop Spacing Analysis: Tools for Evaluating and Optimizing Bus Stop Location Decisions.”]<br />
: This report describes the development of a GIS-based tool that incorporates parcel-level land use data for optimizing stop spacing. The model has been used to determine stop placement in Albany, NY and Boston, MA. In many cases, when walking time was increased, the stop spacing resulted in a substantial improvement in travel time that made up for that increase. The development of this tool and report were sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration through the Transit IDEA program, as well as the Transportation Research Board, and the Transit Development Corporation.<br />
<br />
<br />
American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf “Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops.”] 2010.<br />
: This chapter on standards developed by APTA describes the design and spacing of Bus Rapid Transit stops. It also discusses the variety of different stop types available to transit providers and the maintenance and cost considerations of each type.<br />
<br />
<br />
El Dorado Transit Authority. [[media:EDCTATransitDesignManual.pdf| "El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Design Manual."]] 2007.<br />
: In sections 4 and 5, this design manual addresses stop spacing and location in El Dorado County, but the information is applicable in other jurisdictions. It includes helpful diagrams and thorough comparisons between the types and possible locations of bus stops.</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1200Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:35:42Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html "Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design."] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html "New Starts Project Planning & Development."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of Los Angeles Metro's Orange Line in cooperation with the agency. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."] 2010.<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits of adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost-effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. The organization publishes a quarterly newsletter and maintains a database of currently operating BRT systems, a listserve, and has published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1199Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:29:29Z<p>Amiller: /* Additional Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html "Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design."] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html "New Starts Project Planning & Development."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1198Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:29:12Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html "Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design."] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html "New Starts Project Planning & Development."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1197Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:28:24Z<p>Amiller: /* Service Characteristics */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html "Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design."] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html "New Starts Project Planning & Development."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1196Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:27:42Z<p>Amiller: /* Service Characteristics */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html "Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design."] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design."] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1195Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:26:55Z<p>Amiller: /* Fare Collection */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1194Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:26:13Z<p>Amiller: /* Fare Collection */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. "Bus Rapid Transit Service Design." 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1193Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:17:54Z<p>Amiller: /* Stops and Stations */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo, at right, of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1192Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:08:13Z<p>Amiller: /* Bus lanes */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Bus lanes can reduce the occurrence of conflicts with other vehicles and allow transit vehicles to circumvent congestion. These effects can confer several operational benefits: they improve overall speeds, increase schedule reliability, and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. These benefits allow agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, thus saving on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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.<br />
<br />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1191Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T18:02:23Z<p>Amiller: /* Busways */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Separated busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at bus stations because they can often provide added space for platforms and can offer more space for high volumes of pedestrians than crowded sidewalks.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Reducing conflicts with other vehicles and allowing transit vehicles to circumvent congestion improves overall speeds and increases schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. When overall speeds are improved, buses can make their runs in less time. This allows agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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 />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amillerhttps://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/index.php?title=Bus_rapid_transit&diff=1190Bus rapid transit2012-09-11T17:58:09Z<p>Amiller: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
In corridors with high travel demand, Bus Rapid Transit lines (BRT) 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. BRT service also offers many advantages of light rail, such as high speeds and a strong identity, for lower implementation and construction costs. The Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines Bus Rapid Transit as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements into an integrated system with a strong image and identity.<ref name=TCRP2006>The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.</ref> Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service could take the form of 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 wide 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 that it takes 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. 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 also 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 />
===Running Ways===<br />
BRT systems may use a wide variety of running ways, which have a major impact on the overall system performance. Bus-only lanes on congested corridors or at choke-points in the road network provide buses with operational benefits and a potential competitive advantage vis-à-vis private automobiles. Running ways may be complemented by other treatments that improve travel time listed below, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, and bypass lanes.<br />
<br />
====Busways====<br />
<br />
[[Image:Orange Line BRT.jpg|thumb|right|350px|The Los Angeles County Metro Orange Line carries 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. Busways grant exclusive use of the right-of-way to buses. They may be grade-separated, at-grade, or median lanes. Busways that are separate from general traffic flow improve reliability and travel time, but are generally more expensive to implement. Busways provide even greater operational advantages over bus-only lanes by reducing interactions with other vehicles entirely, except in instances where the busway intersects with streets. Busways also increase driver productivity, increase fuel efficiency, and improve safety.<ref name=TCRP2006/> Furthermore, busways may allow for easier boarding and alighting at the bus stations because they allow for the space to provide raised platforms.<br />
<br />
====Bus lanes====<br />
Bus lanes also provide advantages for operating BRT service. If contraflow lanes are used, they should operate at all hours, while concurrent flow lanes may be used during peak hours only. Bus lanes are useful for enhancing the identity of the service. Several criteria determine the success of bus lanes: they should carry a high frequency of buses in a congested area, the street right-of-way should be able to accommodate them, and the community should be supportive. <br />
<br />
Reducing conflicts with other vehicles and allowing transit vehicles to circumvent congestion improves overall speeds and increases schedule reliability and help transit agencies adhere to scheduled headways. When overall speeds are improved, buses can make their runs in less time. This allows agencies to maintain capacity and service using fewer buses, allowing them to save on operating and capital costs.<br />
<br />
Bus lanes have the advantage of being easy to implement quickly and generally do not require the higher costs of property acquisition and construction that are associated with busways. In many instances, bus lanes can be installed with minimal 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 />
===Transit Signal Priority (TSP)===<br />
[[Transit signal priority (TSP)]] alters signal timing to better accommodate transit vehicles, but does not necessarily preempt regular signal timing. Rather, it may extend a green light or shorten a red light to minimize dwell time. TSP is a flexible and common tool for BRT systems and can be applied along an entire arterial system or at individual intersections.<br />
<br />
===Queue Jumps and Bypass Lanes===<br />
Alternatives to TSP include queue jumps and bypass lanes, which both require a right-turn or additional right lane. Queue jumps utilize a special bus signal, separate from the signal phases for general traffic, that gives buses an early green light to allow it to merge into the adjacent through lane. This early signal is typically only a few seconds long. Bypass lanes make it possible for buses to cross an intersection to a stop on the far side before merging back into general traffic. <br />
<br />
===Service Characteristics===<br />
Regardless of the type of running way used, BRT service also benefits from spacing stops a greater distance apart than typical local stops or allowing express bus service to skip some stops. This allows BRT buses to achieve higher average speeds than local bus service. In fact, the Federal Transit Administration recommends spacing BRT stops similar to how a light rail system might space its stops. In the Los Angeles region, for example, average stop spacing of the two BRT lines is nearly one mile. Ultimately, though, stops must be spaced so that they serve trip generators and the service is able to maintain high overall speeds where appropriate.<ref name=FTAstops>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12351_4361.html Stops, Spacing, Location, and Design.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
Frequent service is a keystone of Bus Rapid Transit service. Typically, BRT service should run more frequently than adjacent local service because it is considered to be a higher order of service. The American Public Transportation Association recommends that BRT serve enough destinations to justify running buses at headways of at least every ten minutes. Frequent service, paired with service that lasts the full day, has traditionally proven to be convenient for passengers and a successful strategy for introducing new BRT service.<ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/004_RP_BRT_Service_Design.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Service Design.] 2010. </ref> The federal New Starts and Small Starts grant programs have certain requirements for the frequency and hours per day that corridor bus projects must run in order to qualify for funding, as well. <ref name=NewStarts>Federal Transit Administration. [http://fta.dot.gov/12347_5221.html New Starts Project Planning & Development.] 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Fare Collection===<br />
Some BRT systems use [[off-vehicle fare payment]] because of the time savings it can offer, which translates into greater reliability for passengers. However, the cost effectiveness of this strategy may be limited if many passengers use [[Automated fare media|pre-paid smart cards]] or if the cost of installing ticket machines and hiring staff to inspect for proof of fare payment outweigh the benefits. <ref name=APTAservice>American Public Transportation Association. Bus Rapid Transit Service Design. 2010. </ref><br />
<br />
===Stops and Stations===<br />
[[Image:OrangeLineStop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A Los Angeles Metro Orange Line bus picks passengers up at one of its shaded stops. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of Los Angeles Metro. Originally published on The Source, thesource.metro.net/]]<br />
[[Bus stop spacing and location]] contribute a good deal of the travel time advantages of BRT lines because they are typically much further apart than the stops of local lines. BRT stations contribute to the identity and image of the line while providing valuable amenities and services. BRT stations have been estimated to account for up to 15 percent of ridership increases.<ref name=TCRP2006/> However, the stations’ size, design, and amenities offered are all largely based on the needs of the service provider and BRT stations may range from basic platforms to large intermodal transit stations. A BRT line may count a variety of station and stop types along its route, depending on the needs and volume of passengers expected to board at each stop. The American Public Transportation Association does not recommend using basic bus stops for BRT lines, though, because they do not distinguish the line from local bus service. For an example of an upgraded stop design, see the photo of the Los Angeles Metro Orange Line’s BRT stop.<ref name=FTAstops/><br />
<br />
==California Experiences==<br />
Rather than an exhaustive list of BRT systems in California, this is a small sample of the different forms the mode has taken in the state. <br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rapid system===<br />
Los Angeles County Metro maintains a network of BRT buses that operate in mixed traffic (without dedicated busways or bus lanes). Their routes serve key corridors with stops spaced about ¾ mile apart. Metro Rapid buses are also equipped with a transit signal priority system and many stops offer real-time arrival information. Finally, buses and stops are branded to stand out from local service.<ref name=MetroRapid>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/ “Metro Rapid.”] 2011. </ref><br />
<br />
===Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange Line===<br />
Opened in 2006, the Metro Orange Line connects the North Hollywood subway station to the western San Fernando Valley via a dedicated busway. The line is ‘full BRT’ because it includes off-vehicle fare payment, uses a dedicated running way for its almost 17-mile length, and runs at headways of ten minutes or less (and as short as three minutes at some parts of peak hour service). In May 2012, it carried over 26,000 average weekday boardings. The Orange Line also expanded coverage four miles north to Chatsworth beginning in July 2012. <ref name=MetroOrange>Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. [http://www.metro.net/around/rail/orange-line/ “Metro Orange Line.”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
===Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Service===<br />
AC Transit operates two rapid bus lines, the 1R and 72R, that utilize many of the strategies of Bus Rapid Transit. Bus stops are spaced further apart than local stops and are placed at the far-side of intersections. They run at 12-minute headways throughout the day. Like the Metro Rapid lines, these two lines also take advantage of transit signal priority technology and offer real-time arrival information at bus stops. <ref name=ACRapid>Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District. [http://www.actransit.org/rider-info/rapid/what-makes-the-rapid-rapid/ “What Makes the Rapid Rapid?”] 2012. </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Additional Reading==<br />
California Department of Transportation. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/BRT/BRT-Handbook-030706.pdf "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."] 2007.<br />
<br />
: This guide, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), describes the agency's support for Bus Rapid Transit and is intended to aid the agency's staff and local agencies in working together to implement BRT systems. The guide also offers lessons learned from around the state and includes appendices of case studies of BRT systems in operation around the world at the time of publication in 2007.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/158960.aspx "Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide."] 2006.<br />
<br />
: This guide was created in order to guide practitioners in planning and implementing BRT service and includes methods for estimating ridership, costs and benefits, and assessing land development effects of BRT service. It offers descriptions of existing BRT services in North America and around the world.<br />
:: May require free registration.<br />
<br />
<br />
Federal Transit Administration. [[media:FTA_OrangeLine_Evaluation.pdf|"Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation."]] 2011.<br />
<br />
: In 2011, the Federal Transit Administration conducted a full evaluation of the line in cooperation with Los Angeles Metro. The report contains a full accounting of projected and actual costs, as well as detailed information on improvements to travel time and other goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
Niles, John and Lisa Callaghan Jerram. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. [http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2704.html "From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America."]<br />
<br />
: Caltrans commissioned this report, which discusses the benefits to adding incremental service improvements to BRT systems, rather than large infrastructure improvements. The authors analyzed several BRT systems, including those in Los Angeles, to determine that in some cases incremental improvements may be able to deliver substantial benefits in terms of ridership and service. Because BRT is a suite of strategies, decision-makers have many options for making their bus system cost effective. The case studies chosen in this report offer insight into the wide array of options and results that BRT systems can produce.<br />
<br />
<br />
The American Public Transportation Association Standards Development Program. [http://www.aptastandards.com/Documents/PublishedStandards/Bus/tabid/321/language/en-US/Default.aspx "APTA Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for Bus Transit Systems."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: The American Public Transportation Association has developed a comprehensive set of recommended practices for operators of bus transit service. This includes guides on the branding, operation, and design of BRT systems and facilities. This link also includes recommendations for using intelligent transportation systems for BRT service. <br />
<br />
<br />
The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. [http://www.nbrti.org/index.html NBRTI.org.]<br />
<br />
: The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute offers a wealth of resources for advocates of BRT. They publish a quarterly newsletter and maintain a database of currently operating BRT systems, maintain a listserve, and have published evaluations of several BRT systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
Miller, Mark and Aaron Golub. California PATH Program at University of California, Berkeley. [http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PRR/2010/PRR-2010-37.pdf "Development of Bus Rapid Transit Performance Assessment Guide Tool."] 2010.<br />
<br />
: This technical report describes the Caltrans-sponsored development of a tool to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing Bus Rapid Transit. Developed in order to assist decision-makers, the tool offers a complex level of analysis and can be found [http://gateway.path.berkeley.edu/BRT-Performance-Assessment-Guidebook-Tool/ at this link]. The tool allows decision-makers to understand how implementing BRT will affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including community members, bicyclists, and bus drivers. The report linked above also includes a guide to using the web-based tool.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]</div>Amiller