From Buses to BRT:
Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America
MTI Report 09- 13
MTI
The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies ( MTI) was established by Congress as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U. S. Department of Transportation through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “ Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Con­gress
through the United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Califor­nia
Legislature through the Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), and by private grants and donations.
The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs and led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. The Board provides policy direction, assists with needs assessment, and connects the Institute and its programs with the international transportation community.
MTI’s transportation policy work is centered on three primary responsibilities:
MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Research
MTI works to provide policy- oriented research for all levels of government and the private sector to foster the development of optimum surface transportation systems. Research areas include: transportation security; planning and policy develop­ment;
interrelationships among transportation, land use, and the environment; transportation finance; and collaborative labor- management relations. Certified Research Associates conduct the research. Certification requires an advanced degree, gener­ally
a Ph. D., a record of academic publications, and professional references. Research projects culminate in a peer- reviewed publication, available both in hardcopy and on TransWeb, the MTI website ( http:// transweb. sjsu. edu).
Education
The educational goal of the Institute is to provide graduate- level education to students seeking a career in the development and operation of surface transportation programs. MTI, through San José State University, offers an AACSB- accredited Master of Sci­ence
in Transportation Management and a graduate Certificate in Transportation Management that serve to prepare the nation’s transportation managers for the 21st century. The master’s de­gree
is the highest conferred by the California State University system. With the active assistance of the California Department of Transportation, MTI delivers its classes over a state- of- the- art videoconference network throughout the state of California and via webcasting beyond, allowing working transportation professionals to pursue an advanced degree regardless of their location. To meet the needs of employ­ers
seeking a diverse workforce, MTI’s education program promotes enrollment to under- represented groups.
Information and Technology Transfer
MTI promotes the availability of completed research to professional organizations and journals and works to integrate the research findings into the graduate education program. In addition to publishing the studies, the Institute also sponsors symposia to disseminate research results to transportation professionals and encourages Research As­sociates
to present their findings at conferences. The World in Motion, MTI’s quarterly newsletter, covers innovation in the Institute’s research and education programs. MTI’s extensive collection of transportation- related publications is integrated into San José State University’s world- class Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented here­in.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the California Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. This report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U. S. government, State of California, or the Mineta Transportation Institute, who assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard specification, design standard, or regulation.
DISCLAIMER
MTI Report 09- 13
FROM BUSES TO BRT:
CASE STUDIES OF
INCREMENTAL BRT PROJECTS IN NORTH AMERICA
June 2010
John Niles
Lisa Callaghan Jerram
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Created by Congress in 1991 Technical Report Documentationocumentationocumentation Page
Report No. 1.
CA- MTI- 10- 2704
G
overnment Accession No. 2.
Recipients Catalog No. 3.
Title and Subtitle4.
From Buses to BRT: Case Studies of Incremental BRT Projects in North America
Report Date5.
June 2010
Performing Organization Code6.
Authors 7.
John Niles
Lisa Callaghan Jerram
Performing Organization Report No. 8.
MTI Report 09- 13
Performing Organization Name and Address9.
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192- 0219
Work Unit No. 10.
Contract or Grant No. 11.
2008- ST- 061- TS0004
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
12.
Type of Report and Period Covered13.
Final Report
Sponsoring Agency Code14.
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 94273- 0001
U. S. Department of Transportation
Office of Research— MS42 Research & Special Programs Administration
P. O. Box 942873 400 7th Street, SW
Washington DC 20590- 0001
Supplementary Notes15.
Abstract16.
Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) uses different combinations of techniques to improve service, such as bus- only lanes and roads, pre- boarding fare collection, transit priority at traffic signals, stylish vehicles with extra doors, bus stops that are more like light rail stations, and high frequency service. This study examines five approaches to BRT systems as implemented by public transit agencies in California, Oregon, and Ontario.
The case studies as a group show that BRT can be thought of as a discretionary combination of elements that can be assembled in many different combinations over time. Every element incrementally adds to the quality or attractiveness of the service. This latitude provides transit agencies with many benefits, including the ability to match infrastructure with operating requirements. For example, a BRT service can combine operations serving free flowing arterial roads in the fringes of the downtown with dedicated lanes in areas closer to city center where congestion is greatest. Buses can operate both on and off the guide way, extending the corridors in which passengers are offered a one- seat ride with no transfer required. Transit agencies also can select specific BRT components and strategies, such as traffic signal priority and increased stop spacing, and apply them to existing local bus operations as a way to increase bus speeds and reduce operating costs.
The specific elements selected for a BRT route can be implemented all at once, or in incremental stages— either or both geographical extensions or additions of features. All of the case studies showed ridership improvements, but the Los Angeles Metro Rapid bus system illustrates the wide geographic coverage, improved ridership, and moderate cost per new rider that is possible with an approach that includes fewer BRT features spread over more miles of route. Quantitative results from the case studies suggest that incremental improvements, applied widely to regional bus networks, may be able to achieve significant benefits at a lower cost than substantial infrastructure investments focused upon just one or a few corridors.
Key Words17.
Bus rapid transit; Case studies; Cost effectiveness; Public transit; System design
Distribution Statement18.
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
Security Classif. ( of this report) 19.
Unclassified
Security Classifi. ( of 20. this page)
Unclassified
No. of 21. Pages
96
Price22.
$ 15.00
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72)
Copyright © 2010
by Mineta Transportation Institute
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2009943712
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Tel ( 408) 924- 7560
Fax ( 408) 924- 7565
email: mti@ mti. sjsu. edu
http:// transweb. sjsu. edu Acknowledgments
The project team for this study consisted of John Niles, research associate and principal investigator; Lisa Callaghan Jerram, research associate; Bill Vincent, research associate; Professor Richard Lee, research associate; Professor Charles Rivasplata, research associate; and San José State University student assistants Eric Ganther and Ramses Madou.
Valuable data and insight were provided to report authors Niles and Jerram by all other team members. Particularly noteworthy, Ganther and Madou provided field observation reports on bus transit operations in California that were important supplements to the documented information the authors primarily relied upon.
Encouragement to pursue the team’s chosen topic was provided by Venkat Pindiprolu and Rick Krochalis of Federal Transit Administration, Charles Prestrud of Washington State Department of Transportation, and an audience of transit professionals at the APTA Bus Conference in Austin, Texas on May 7, 2008. Earlier, transit officials in the case study cities were very helpful in briefings to team members Vincent and Jerram over several years just prior to the time period when the work on this project took place.
The report integrates data from many sources and makes numerous critical interpretations. Any opinions and conclusions expressed are those of the lead author Niles, but also were significantly influenced by discussions with all the team members.
We also wish to thank the MTI staff for the research management and support work needed to transform the team’s research findings and conclusions into a published report for the public transportation profession. This staff support came from Research Directors Trixie Johnson ( retired) and Dr. Karen Philbrick, Director of Communications and Special Projects Donna Maurillo, Research Support Manager Meg Fitts, Student Research Support Assistant Chris O’Dell, Student Graphic Artists JP Flores and Vince Alindogan, Student Publications Assistant Sahil Rahimi and Student Webmaster and Technical Assistant Ruchi Arya. Additional editorial support was provided by Editorial Associates Robyn Whitlock and Catherine Frazier.
Mineta Transportation Institute
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
introduction 5
Whathat is BRT? 7
A Short History of BRT 7
Problems and Issues that BRT Addresses 8
Existing Paradigm for BRT Development 9
Research Hypotheses 10
Case studies of North American BRT implementationimplementationimplementation 11
York Region Viva BRT: Systemwide BRT, Between Light and Heavy 11
EmX Green Line BRT: Single Corridor Heavy BRT 20
Los Angeles County: Metro Rapid Light BRT and Orange Line Heavy BRT 30
Santa Clara VTA 522 Rapid: Single Corridor Light BRT 43
FIndings and Conclusions from Case Studies 51
BRT in Relationshipelationship toto Transit Networks 63
Evolving Toward a Better Network 67
Network improvement through incrementalism incrementalism 69
Recommendations ecommendations 73
Conclusion: A Pathath toto Better Transit 75
Endnotes 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY Y 89
About the authors 95
Peer Review 97 Mineta Transportation Institute
Table of Contents
ii Mineta Transportation Institute
iii
List of Figures
1. Partial York Transit System Service Map 13
2. Queue Jump Lanes for Viva 14
3. Station Stop Shelters for Viva 15
4. Viva Ticket Dispensers 15
5. Viva Articulated Bus 16
6. Viva’s Low- Floor Boarding 16
7. Viva Year- Over- Year Boarding Growth Rate 18
8. Planned Eugene EmX System Map 21
9. Lane County Transit Bus Network 22
10. EmX Green Line Route 24
11. EmX Guideway and Station 24
12. EmX Median Station Illustrating Left Side Bus Doors 26
13. EmX Bus in Dedicated Curb Lane 26
14. Ridership Growth Following EmX Service Initiation 29
15. Wheelchair Customer Using Ramp to Board EmX 30
16. Orange Line Station 34
17. Orange Line Station Shelter 34
18. Metro Rapid Station 35
19. Metro Rapid Station Loading Passengers 35
20. Orange Line Articulated Bus 36
21. Orange Line Station Sign 37
22. VTA Rapid 522 Route Map 46
23. BRT Branding Signs at Stops 47
24. Palo Alto Transit Station 47 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Figures
iv
25. Two VTA Articulated Buses, One with the VTA Rapid Livery 48
26. Standard Size Route 522 Bus with VTA Rapid Livery 48
27. Bicycle Rack on 522 Bus 49
28. Dimensions of BRT Incrementalism 60
29. Bus Planning Process 66 Mineta Transportation Institute
v
List of Tables
1. Performance of Five BRT Development Experiences 3
2. Breakdown of Viva Phase I Costs ( Canadian Dollars) 16
3. Comparison of BRT Elements from FTA Characteristics of BRT to Viva Elements 17
4. Ridership in the Corridors 17
5. Travel Time Changes for VIVA Blue Line: Finch to Bernard Stops 18
6. 2007 York Transit Operating Costs, Per Mile 19
7. Costs for EmX Green Line 25
8. Comparison of BRT Elements from FTA Characteristics of BRT to EmX Elements 28
9. Metro Rapid Incremental Strategy 31
Orange Line Costs 310. 2
Metro Rapid Costs 311. 6
Comparison of BRT Elements from FTA 12. Characteristics of BRT to Metro Rapid
and Orange Line 38
End- to- End Travel Time and Average Speed Comparison Between the Ventura 13. Metro Rapid Line and the Orange Line 41
Comparison of Operating Efficiencies 414. 1
Categories of VTA 522 Route Costs 415. 8
End- to- End Travel Time Changes for VTA 522 416. 9
Elements to Create High Ridership Transit Systems 517. 5
Performance of Hypothetical BRT Development Scenarios 518. 7
Performance of Five BRT Development Experiences 519. 9
Examples of BRT ElementsThat Can be Applied on Multiple Routes Without 20. Necessarily Being Integrated with Other Elements 61
Bus Network Design Standard 621. 4 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Tables
vi Mineta Transportation Institute
1
Executive Summary
Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT), as illustrated in implementations around North America, comes in many shapes and sizes. The term has been applied to rubber- tire transit lines that use many different combinations of techniques to improve bus service, such as bus- only lanes and roads, pre- boarding fare collection, transit priority at traffic signals, stylish vehicles with extra doors, bus stops that are more like light rail stations, and high frequency service.
This study examines five approaches to BRT systems as implemented by public transit agencies in California, Oregon, and Ontario. The resulting lines and network of lines vary widely, ranging from small changes in a local bus route, to a completely new line in a new mode. On one end of the spectrum, the San José area has frequent arterial bus services with traffic signal priority. On the other end, we describe the case of a transit- only, grade- separated busway in Los Angeles County with full- featured stations and special buses that look like no others in the agency. The authors also describe three variations more in the middle of the range of BRT possibility.
The case studies as a group show that BRT, as applied in North America, is a discretionary combination of elements that can be assembled in many different combinations over time. Transit agencies have wide latitude to determine which combination of elements best serves their needs, given their specific circumstances. Every element incrementally adds to the quality or attractiveness of the service.
This latitude provides transit agencies with many benefits, including the ability to match physical infrastructure with operating requirements. For example, a BRT service can combine operations serving free flowing arterial roads in the fringes of the downtown with dedicated lanes in areas closer to city center where congestion is greatest. Moreover, unlike rail transit, bus transit vehicles can operate both on and off the guide way, extending the corridors in which passengers are offered a one- seat ride with no transfer required. Transit agencies also can select specific BRT components and strategies, such as traffic signal priority and increased stop spacing, and apply them to existing local bus operations as a way to increase bus speeds and reduce operating costs. Indeed, this strategy was used by one of the case study locations— the Los Angeles Metro Rapid system.
This latitude also creates challenges. For example, as shown by the case studies overall, a wide range of systems are labeled as BRT in North America, creating confusion among policymakers and the public regarding the definition of BRT. By contrast, in other parts of the world, such as Latin America and Asia, the term BRT is more frequently understood to be a rail- like rapid transit system with fully dedicated lanes and trunk and feeder operations. Thus, a basic bisection of BRT implementations into heavy and light is useful, depending on the degree of exclusivity of the guide way. Heavy BRT means the buses are mostly running on lanes separated from other traffic, and light BRT means the buses are mostly operating in mixed traffic.
The wide range of options creates planning challenges. When does the expense and construction time of a dedicated lane or guide way pay off in higher performance and, if so, over what portions of the route should such infrastructure be implemented? If a dedicated Mineta Transportation Institute
Executive Summary
2
guide way is used, will it be used by special buses as a trunk line with stations reached by other modes, or will the guide way be an HOV lane open to other vehicles that can operate off- guide way, including local buses, van pools, taxis, and car pools? Can the overall travel time benefits of a dedicated lane be achieved at substantially lower cost by other means, such as increased station spacing and traffic signal priority, especially if these are applied widely across a bus system, rather than in just a single corridor?
Across the various BRT elements falling into the categories of guideway, stations, vehicles, technology, and operations pattern, the specific elements selected for a BRT route can be implemented all at once, or in incremental stages. Increments can be either or both geographical extensions or additions of features.
This flexibility has substantial policy implications in the expanded choices for transit investment that are available. The transportation sector accounts for nearly one- third of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Achieving President Obama’s goal of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 will require fundamental changes in transportation planning and delivery, including ensuring that many more urban travelers have viable public transit options.
Bus performance improvement offers quick results at a reasonable public cost. For example, as shown by the case studies, the 26 bus lines of the Los Angeles Metro Rapid network were implemented far more quickly and for billions of dollars less than the four L. A. rail lines, yet these enhanced buses are serving 78 percent as many passenger trips as the entire rail system. All of the Metro Rapid lines even cost less to put in place than the single Orange Line BRT line in the same city, and yet the Metro Rapid is providing over three times the gain in daily boardings. These examples suggest that incremental improvements, applied widely to regional bus networks, may be able to achieve significant benefits at a lower cost than substantial infrastructure investments focused upon just one or a few corridors.
The following table— the same as Table 19 in the main text— summarizes several performance characteristics of the case studies described in this report. All of the case studies showed ridership improvements, but the figures in the far right hand column for the L. A. Metro Rapid system illustrate the wide geographic coverage, improved ridership, and moderate cost per new rider that is possible with an approach that includes fewer BRT features spread over more miles of route. Mineta Transportation Institute
Executive Summary 3
Performance of Five BRT Development ExperiencesTable 1
L. A. Metro Orange Line
Lane County EMX Green Line
Y
ork Viva
V
TA Route 522 Rapid
L. A. Metro Rapid
Median busway with TSP
Median busway with TSP
On- street running with TSP
On- street running with TSP
On- street running with TSP
Travel time reduction, percent
16%
6%
11%
20%
25%
Baseline corridor ridership pre- BRT
41,580
( 2005)
2,700
19,400
18,023
388,400 ( 2000)
Cited corridor ridership after BRT implementation
62,597
( 2007)
5,400
45,000
21,300
464,400 ( 2007)
Corridor ridership increase
21,017
2,700
25,600
3,277
76,000
Ridership percentage increase
51%
100%
132%
18%
20%
Capital investment cost ( millions)
$ 350
$ 24.5
CA$ 172
$ 3.5
$ 110
Route miles
13.5
4
50
26
450
Cost per mile ( millions)
$ 26
$ 6.1
CA$ 3.4
$ 0.13
$ 0.24
Cost per new daily rider
$ 16,700
$ 9,100
CA$ 6,600
$ 1,100
$ 620
Source: Case study data in this report. TSP means transit signal priority
As reflected in federal law, the Federal Transit Administration’s capital grants program— New Starts— requires corridor- level development, as opposed to system- wide improvements. There is no provision for a jurisdiction to consider, as part of the alternatives analysis process, whether the level of funding for a major corridor- level project could achieve even greater benefits if applied to more modest system- wide improvements.
The case studies in this report show that BRT is not a one- size- fits- all solution, but rather a wide range of strategies that can be deployed in specific corridors or across entire bus systems. The availability of BRT elements in many incremental combinations suggests that an expanded policy framework is warranted: one that enables objective comparison across these options and the allocation of funding to projects that achieve the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. Mineta Transportation Institute
4 Executive Summary
Mineta Transportation Institute
5
introduction
Concerns about traffic congestion, high fuel prices, national energy security, climate change, air pollution, urban competitiveness, and quality of life underpin a strong interest in new public transportation investments. The American Public Transportation Association ( APTA) reports that 72 percent of transit tax issues passed in the election of November 4, 2008.1 In recent years, the U. S. Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) has been inundated with applications for projects seeking grant funding, causing the New Starts program to become extremely competitive. This environment is forcing many cities to look for innovative, cost- effective options to enhance public transportation services.
In recent years, bus rapid transit ( BRT) has become a popular option. BRT encompasses a wide range of meaning. The term has been applied to many combinations of elements that yield better bus service, ranging from frequent arterial bus services with signal priority to fully dedicated, grade- separated busways. This broad menu offers flexibility in planning and implementation, but also has created confusion about exactly how BRT should be defined. Under federal rules for the New Starts program ( Section 5309), a BRT project must encompass a dedicated right- of- way to be eligible for funding, which can mean bus- only lanes on an arterial that are shared intermittently with private vehicles making an immediate turn off the arterial.
Beginning in 2007, because of the addition of Small Starts and Very Small Starts to the FTA’s funding pipeline, there have been more BRT projects in development than light rail or commuter rail projects. 2
The growing recognition of BRT as an option for transit improvement is a paradigm- shifting development. But given the flexibility and cost- effectiveness of BRT, what are the best strategies to maximize the benefit of a BRT investment, with or without a federal contribution? For example, should a community make modest improvements to several high- demand bus routes, or is it better to focus a larger investment on a single corridor, such as by building a dedicated busway?
The aim of this project has been to uncover and analyze existing agency BRT implementation steps and strategies in order to identify innovations that could incrementally upgrade bus service throughout a network toward better performance and attracting more riders. Mineta Transportation Institute
Introduction
6 Mineta Transportation Institute
7
Whathat is BRT?
Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) has been comprehensively characterized and described in recent reports from the Transit Cooperative Research Program ( TCRP). 3 BRT comes across in these reports— and in actual practice as well— as an urban bus service at a higher than usual quality level.
BRT is typically deployed one route at a time after several years of development. A BRT route is characterized by a set of features meant to increase the reliable point- to- point speed of bus travel in urban settings throughout the day. At the same time, a BRT route and its coaches usually present an attractive, distinctive visual image to customers.
As pointed out in TCRP 90, the main feature set of BRT includes “ dedicated running ways, attractive stations and bus stops, distinctive easy- to- board vehicles, off- vehicle fare collection, use of ITS technologies, and frequent all- day service.” ITS stands for “ intelligent transportation systems” and refers to applications of computers and wireless communications. The most common ITS applications are transit signal priority ( TSP), automatic vehicle location ( AVL), automated scheduling and dispatch, and electronic displays of real- time information about bus locations at stations and aboard the coaches.
In this study, the authors have sought to challenge presumptions and add value to the
In this study, the authors have sought to challenge presumptions and add value to the BRT Practitioners Guide ( TCRP 118), especially Chapter 5: System Packaging, Integration, and Assessment. As the Guide notes: “ All BRT systems will have running ways, stations, and vehicles. The types of these features, as well as the types of various ITS- related components, will depend upon local needs, conditions, attitudes, and resources.” The authors provide case studies that illustrate the truth of this statement, but we have also sought to bring out the local needs, conditions, attitudes, and resources that lead to variations in BRT around North America.
As will be illustrated in the case studies, some jurisdictions approach BRT as a high- quality, fixed- route transit mode to attract transit- oriented development around station stops for compact growth and economic development. Private vehicle parking is typically somewhat restricted in such development and the availability of transit as an access alternative is seen as a form of congestion mitigation. While the heavy BRT investments among the case studies below have been associated with commercial and multi- family residential development, 4 the lower cost investments in other case studies are not focused on this outcome. Overall, the researchers’ hypothesis is that bus service can be made better for urban mobility at both high and low levels of investment, with the implicit understanding that land use changes may not be evident from the light BRT systems that result.
A Short Historistory of BRT
The term “ bus rapid transit” first appeared in a 1937 public transit plan for Chicago, a time just prior to World War II when buses were rapidly replacing street railways across urban America. 5 City- specific BRT plans and conceptual overview studies appeared sporadically in the 1950- through- 1980 period as the Interstate highway system was being built, including many freeways in urban areas. Several pre- 1980 BRT systems had buses running on Mineta Transportation Institute
What is BRT?
8
freeways. Many present- day concepts of BRT were laid out in study documents produced by 1970.6
A few exclusive busways were built in some U. S. cities in the 1970s, and some of these guideways were made more productive for intermodal movement of people subsequently by allowing private HOVs to intermix with buses. 7 The start of heavy rail subway construction in the Washington DC, Atlanta, and San Francisco Bay Area urban regions in the early 1970s, plus the surge of light rail interest and construction funded by the U. S. DOT starting in the late 1970s, established a rail- centric trend on modal choice through the 1980s and 90s. 8
But in the last decade of the 20th century, the successful performance of prominent BRT systems in Curitiba, Brazil and Ottawa, Canada, combined with the rising cost of rail systems in America, led to a Federal Transit Administration BRT demonstration program. South American BRT was initially a reaction to the high cost of subways. Curitiba’s system was characterized as an “ above ground subway” or “ train on rubber tires” built instead of a rail system, with station and exclusive guideway concepts later elaborated in another system begun a decade later in Bogota, Colombia.
The BRT concept as developed just before and after the beginning of the 21st century was motivated by federal interest in a lower priced alternative to light rail that worked approximately as well. As Alan Hoffman points out, BRT has become to be understood in North America as “ light rail lite.” 9
First- generation BRT in the United States has tended to be corridor- focused, seeking in initial conception to be a nearly train- like implementation of high- capacity trunk lines as a substitute for urban mass transit railways. However, this ideal did not always materialize and variations quickly developed.
A distinction that has lately developed in practice is the division of BRT routes into heavy BRT, or “ real BRT,” vs. light BRT or Rapid Bus. The distinction depends mostly on the degree of exclusivity of the running way. Heavy BRT means the route has a busway that does not allow other kinds of traffic, although in some cases there are at- grade crossings for other types of vehicles. The separation of transit from automobile traffic is considered the gold standard in bus transit network design.
Light BRT implies bus routes that are subject to speed as permitted in a mixture of vehicle traffic. If that other traffic is moving smoothly at posted speeds, so too the buses in the mixture also move well, but at a pace determined by how often and for how long they need to dwell at bus stops for passengers to board or exit. Available techniques for buses to gain an advantage in traffic congestion include bus- only queue jump lanes at intersections and authorization to operate on a breakdown shoulder. Mineta Transportation Institute
What is BRT? 9
Problems and Issues thatthat BRT Addresses
Consideration of the fundamental design characteristics of BRT suggests several areas where it offers the prospect of a better ratio of resources consumed to results achieved— the productivity ratio.
Bus Rapid Transit is designed to provide faster, more reliable, and more comfortable bus service in urban settings. As shall be seen in the case studies described below, these performance characteristics, along with more visually appealing vehicles, tend to attract more passengers than the traditional bus services that are replaced or supplemented by BRT.
While light rail is frequently more politically attractive than improved bus service, BRT can be more quickly implemented and at lower cost than rail alternatives. BRT is sometimes held out as an intermediate step in the conversion of a bus- served transit corridor to a light rail alignment. Sound Transit in Seattle, Washington, has advanced the concept of “ rail- convertible BRT,” 10 which includes building an exclusive guideway for buses on which tracks can be laid down later. In one of the case study jurisdictions described in this report, York, Ontario, street- running light rail where the BRT now runs is officially discussed as a future option.
With soaring energy costs and rising transit demand, transit agencies need to find ways of increasing the productivity of service delivery, in other words, improving the ratio of results to resources. This means more service and ridership for existing resource levels, or reducing the resources required for a present level of service so that service can be increased elsewhere. Since every rider on urban public transit is subsidized, achieving improved productivity is critical in a time of rising transit demand. Better productivity allows a transit agency to gain ridership at a decreasing cost per rider, which would allow transit ridership to grow without a proportional rise in costs.
Larger, multi- door BRT buses coming more often can be a source of productivity gain. An example comes from the new Euclid BRT Line in Cleveland, Ohio. The transit management there forecast that the upgrade of the Number 6 line to a BRT service called HealthLine, which opened in late 2008. This upgrade will allows a shift of 16 drivers to carry more passengers than was achieved in the pre- BRT service configuration with 28 drivers. 11
Even using the same buses and simply moving them along a route faster can mean reduced bus service hour for the same or greater number of passenger miles of service delivery. BRT routes carrying many passengers with faster end- to- end run times than traditional buses are a method for providing transit service with a lower cost per passenger mile and per boarding than non- BRT transit services.
At the same time, the faster speed and visual attractiveness of BRT potentially generates more political support for the taxpayer- funded subsidies that are necessary to operate public transit in North America. Mineta Transportation Institute
10 What is BRT?
Existing Paradigm for BRT Development
To date, best practice authorities have invariably recommended that development of BRT be focused on high- density, high- volume corridors. As the Bus Rapid Practitioner’s Guide explains in Chapter 5, the first activity in the “ general guidelines” is “ identifying the appropriate corridors.” This step, according to the Guide, is followed by evaluating alternatives for specific alignments within the chosen corridors, selecting alignments, and choosing the BRT components.
The Guide notes too that “ BRT can be developed incrementally, with each stage keyed to demand characteristics and the availability of resources.” The stages cover adding to or upgrading the elements of the starter system, or extending the geographic reach.
The case studies below conform to this developmental paradigm.
Research Hypotheses
The authors began this research project with intent to understand the full potential of BRT elements and strategies to improve transit agency performance when applied incrementally. They were aware that in Latin America and Asia, BRT is typically defined as a rail- like rapid transit system with fully dedicated trunk lanes, very long buses including double- articulated buses, enclosed stations that require payment to enter, and coordination with feeder operations using more traditional local buses. 12 The authors hypothesized that emphasizing BRT only as an integrated package of performance- enhancing elements was too narrow for the urban transit improvement opportunities on hand in North America. Pre- conceived notions that BRT needs all or most of the available elements to be successful may constrain consideration of the lower- cost performance improvement opportunities from implementing individual BRT elements.
The project has not been focused on mode choice between road and rail transit in a corridor, a choice that is sometimes invoked in discussions about BRT. Rather, the authors have tried to develop new findings, conclusions, and recommendations about how to use BRT characteristics to make bus service better across an entire service territory.
At the outset of the research, researchers were intrigued by what Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger and Rutherford noted in the Journal of Public Transportation in 2002:
Even where implementation of a comprehensive, integrated BRT system is not possible, many of its components can be adapted for use in conventional bus systems with attendant benefits in speed, reliability, and transit image/ attractiveness. 13
How can BRT components be applied widely to conventional bus systems? Mineta Transportation Institute
11
Case studies of North American BRT implementationimplementationimplementation
The experience of four North American case study transit agencies in developing and deploying BRT illustrates that a range of approaches are possible.
The authors were motivated in the selection of case studies to illustrate a diversity of approaches that perhaps would open up an even wider viewpoint on strategies for improving bus service.
This study screened 13 transit agencies with BRT implementations in North America to identify four agencies with diverse, illustrative experiences and a commitment to ongoing bus service improvement. The four case study agencies ultimately selected illustrate five different approaches.
York Region Transit ( Toronto Region), Ontario, and Viva: Total system approach; • complete revamp of regional system around light BRT corridors on key arterials, with conversion to rail possible later.
Lane County Transit ( Eugene), Oregon, EmX: Single- corridor light BRT; light rail • emulation on a single route, with additional routes planned.
Los Angeles County Metro, California, Metro Rapid: System- wide upgrade of multiple • high- volume arterial routes with light BRT overlay routes
Los Angeles County Metro, California, Orange Line: Single corridor heavy BRT based • on a new right- of- way available.
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority ( San José), California, VTA Rapid • 522: Single- corridor light BRT overlay; further BRT routes possible.
York
Region Viva BRT: SystemWide BRT, Between Light and Heavy
The York region is in southern Ontario, directly north of Canada’s biggest city, Toronto. The region is a collection of suburban and rural communities, with the majority of its population clustered in the south near the Toronto border. The York region has about one million residents as of 200914 and is characterized by low- density development and high automobile dependence. 15
York’s BRT service, the Viva, opened in 2005. The Viva is a 50- mile BRT network along four corridors that connect the region’s four main population centers. The network is overlaid onto the system of local bus routes, some of which were altered to feed riders to the Viva. York is implementing the Viva service in three phases. Phase I, known as Quick Start, instituted a high- capacity dedicated bus fleet, priority treatments, more widely spaced bus stops than the local routes have, enhanced stations, off- coach fare collection, schedule improvements, and extensive branding and marketing— all the elements of heavy BRT save one: the dedicated running way. By operating the BRT in existing roadways, York was able to build the system in just three years at a cost of $ 171 million ( Canadian), or CA$ 3.42 million per mile. Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
12
Phase II, for which planning is underway as of 2009, will introduce dedicated on- street transitways and other service and infrastructure improvement. This second phase, known as vivaNext, also incorporates a planned extension of the subway from Toronto. Based upon results of a major system review, Phase III could include bus service extensions and conversion of some of the BRT lines to light rail. 16
Project History and Goals
Both the incremental build- out strategy and the corridor- based transit network are central to the region’s long- term land use management plan. Since 1971, York has experienced rapid population and employment growth. This growth has made York’s sprawling, car- oriented land use pattern unsustainable in the eyes of regional officials, who are concerned about worsening traffic congestion and loss of green space. 17 To address these problems, York’s Official Plan calls for a shift to a more urban style of development featuring high- density, mixed- use communities connected by rapid transit.
Prior to the Viva, York’s primary transit option was an extensive network of local arterial bus routes, as well as peak- hour express buses and shuttles buses, owned and operated by York Region Transit ( YRT). As of 2004, the year before Viva opened, YRT operated 81 routes and carried around 5.3 million passengers annually, according to the agency. York reports that ridership has increased more than 10 percent each year since 2001. York is also served by the provincial transit agency, GO Transit, which provides commuter rail and coach service into Toronto, as well as bus service to other parts of Southern Ontario. The Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC) provides bus service connection to the TTC subway.
The Region’s official land use strategy designates the region’s four biggest municipalities— Markham, Richmond Hill, Newmarket and Vaughan— for high- density, mixed- use development. These cities are linked by York’s two main transportation corridors: Highway 7, the main east- west artery that runs adjacent to Toronto, and Yonge Street, which runs north- south from the border of Toronto to York’s northernmost edge. To support concentrated development, the land use strategy and the Transportation Master Plan based upon it call for the creation of a network of dedicated transitways along these two main transportation corridors, connecting the four cities to each other, to the surrounding local bus service, and to rail service into Toronto. In addition to dedicated transitways, the plan calls for use of modern vehicles, ITS features, greater spacing between stations, extended service and pedestrian- friendly streetscapes. The Plan envisions creating a virtuous feedback loop whereby the new transit service encourages transit- oriented development ( TOD) along the designated corridors, and, in turn, this TOD supports increased transit investment, which can attract more choice riders. York’s goal is to increase peak hour transit travel from an 8 percent market share, where it stood in 1996, to 17 percent by 2031.18
When planning for this new transit network began, officials were faced with the challenge of building an entirely new system while meeting immediate transportation needs. Their solution was to build the system in stages, starting with all major BRT features except the most expensive and complex one— the dedicated transitway. An incremental build— out allows planners to improve service and address congestion problems in the near- term while establishing rights- of- way for, and building ridership to support, dedicated transitways in Phase II. This strategy has the added advantage of immediately establishing the Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 13
desired transit use patterns that could attract compact, mixed- use development, as well as improving the image of transit for potential developers and new riders. York’s incremental strategy also incorporates the option of converting the dedicated BRT lanes to light rail should future ridership demand warrant it.
Building Phase I of the Viva BRT
In this section, researchers examine the elements implemented in the Viva system and the cost for each.
Running Way Priority and Routing
The incremental build- out strategy saved time and money in building the system. Constructing a dedicated transitway requires acquiring rights- of- way, a costly and time- consuming process, and any land takings trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, introducing a significant delay into the service deployment schedule. 19 Moreover, construction of dedicated running ways is very costly. The Federal Transit Administration’s 2004 publication, Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit ( CBRT) report estimated that a median transitway— which YRT plans to build during Phase II— costs from U. S.$ 5 to $ 10 million per lane mile. Indeed, estimated cost for the Phase II rapidways is CA$ 2.8 billion, about ten times the cost of Phase I. YRT also projects that it will take around seven years to implement, much longer than Phase I. 20
Partial York Transit System Service MapFigure 1
( Source: York Region Transit) Mineta Transportation Institute
14 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
To create the rapid transit network, YRT mapped out five Viva routes along 50 miles of arterial roadways. The five routes serve approximately sixty stops; eight are major transit centers connecting to rail service into Toronto or the outer suburbs of York. Station spacing ranges from 0.7 to 1.1 miles, complying with the design for a minimum distance requirement to reduce segment travel times. The streets with Viva lines in most locations are also served by local bus routes running YRT’s conventional 40- foot coaches that serve other stops between the Viva stops. 21
Queue Jump Lanes for VivaFigure 2
( Source: York Region Transit)
YRT implemented two priority treatments to allow Viva buses to travel faster than local traffic. First, the buses are equipped with automatic vehicle location ( AVL) equipment that communicates with a control center monitoring the buses. If buses are running late, the control center has the ability to extend a green light or shorten the red cycle. Second, YRT converted right- turn lanes at some intersections into bus- only queue jump lanes. The ITS and running way treatments cost approximately CA$ 36 million. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Board’s BRT Practitioners’ Guide, travel time improvements from these relatively modest investments vary widely depending on the level of congestion in the corridor, but are typically in the range of 8 percent to 12 percent for TSP treatments, with a 5 to 15 percent reduction in intersection delays due to queue jumps. 22
Service Changes
YRT restructured some existing bus routes to feed the service by going from four to ten minute headways. These changes are a reflection of the corridor- based transit strategy, which seeks to create a few high- ridership corridors that can attract TOD. This is the strategy with trunk- oriented rail systems, where feeder buses deliver customers to rail stations, but it is not necessarily done on BRT systems. This strategy can lead to an increase in customer transfer rates and in some cases overall trip travel times rise for Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 15
some customers. In fact, transfer rates increased significantly after the Viva was launched,
although this may also be due to fare policies, as noted later. 23
Stations and Fare Collection
The system is primarily served by on- street enhanced bus shelters, with major transfer points
and termini equipped with more substantial stations. The on- street shelters are a single
bus length only, with bus bays to accommodate boarding and alighting without impeding
adjacent traffic. There is no level boarding, but, typically, passengers may board through all
doors, since fare collection occurs before
boarding. Viva uses proof- of- payment
and random on- board inspections for
fare enforcement. All stations have
a ticket vending machine, electronic
ticket validation, and a real- time display
of when the next vehicle will arrive.
The station and fare collection facilities
are the second biggest infrastructure
expense for the Viva, costing CA$ 37.38
million for the roughly 125 shelters and
stations. Both features are key to the
image of
the Viva as a premium service; in addition, off- coach fare
collection improves travel times by reducing station dwell
times. 24
YRT extended the time that a single- ride ticket is valid from
90 minutes to two hours, allowing riders to board as many
times as desired during this period. Riders may also transfer
free- of- charge from a regular YRT bus to the Viva, and YRT
adopted a common fare medium across all services to ease
transfers. These policies have contributed to the higher
transfer rates.
Vehicles
At a total cost of CA$ 57 million, the vehicles are the
biggest single expense for Phase I. YRT has 90 standard
and articulated low- floor, clean diesel buses to serve the
Viva. The vehicles are central to the Viva branding strategy that strives to promote Viva as
a cool, fun, and environmentally friendly transportation option. The buses have the stylized
exterior that is becoming more common in North American BRT systems. The interiors are
spacious and attractive, with improved interior lighting and specialized fabrics. The vehicle
livery is coordinated with the overall system brand, featuring the Viva logo and a distinct
blue and white color scheme. Although there are mostly 40- ft. buses in the Viva fleet, the
articulated 60- ft. vehicles tend to be the face of the system and are featured extensively in
Viva advertising and marketing. Determining the differential impact that the stylish buses
Figure 3 Station Stop Shelters for Viva
( Source: York Region Transit)
Figure 4 Viva Ticket Dispenser
( Source: York Region Transit) Mineta Transportation Institute
16 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
have on ridership is difficult, but YRT does report that some riders will let a regular bus pass by in order to ride the Viva bus. 25
Branding and Marketing
YRT focused significant resources on branding and marketing, developing a comprehensive branding strategy for Viva to distinguish it as a premium service. The marketing campaign promotes the Viva as a fun, hip and environmentally- friendly transportation choice. The Viva name was developed following extensive marketing research, and the service has its own website and glossy promotional materials. This push for a distinctive identity even extends to the line level. The five lines are color- coded to distinguish them from conventional bus service, and the blue and white color scheme is used across all Viva elements.
After the Viva began operating, the transit agency re- designed its logo to complement the Viva logo as well as creating a new joint YRT/ Viva logo. YRT wanted to ensure that customers understood the connection between YRT and Viva.
The total cost for the branding and marketing program was CA $ 4 million, a relatively small portion of the overall budget, which is detailed in Table 2 below.
Breakdown of Viva Phase I Costs ( Canadian Dollars) Table 2
Running ways
$ 18.2 million
Vehicles
$ 57.75 million
Facilities
$ 37.38 million
Intelligent Transportation Systems
$ 18.85 million
Branding & Marketing
$ 3.99 million
Other ( planning, property acquisition, fare policy etc.)
$ 35.45 million
TOTAL
$ 171.63 million
Source: York Region Transit
Figure 5 Viva Articulated Bus
( Source: York Region Transit)
Figure 6 ( right) Viva’s Low- Floor Boarding
( Source: York Region Transit) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 17
The following chart provides a summary of the BRT elements listed in the standard FTA BRT reference document, “ Characteristics of BRT,” that have been included in York Transit District’s Viva service.
Comparison of BRT Elements from FTATable 3 Characteristics of BRT
to Viva Elements
BRT Element
V
iva: Phase I
V
iva Phase II Additions
Running Way
On- street mixed- flow lanes.
Limited bus- only lanes at intersections.
Dedicated median busway
Stations and Land Use
Enhanced on- street stations.
Some off- street multi- modal transit centers.
Regional strategy to encourage TOD around four Viva’s four urban anchors.
Stations with enhanced passenger amenities.
Continued TOD promotion.
Vehicles
High- capacity, low- floor stylized buses.
No level boarding.
More articulated vehicles.
Service and Operation Plan
18 hours per day, 3– 15 minute headways.
Two peak- hour only lines.
Fare Collection
Prior to boarding the coach
ITS
TSP at all intersections to help late buses return to schedule
Marketing and Branding
Strong branding and marketing program to differentiate Viva from other services and brand as premium rapid transit
Source: Data assembled by Lisa Callaghan Jerram
Assessing the Viva
York District Transit has had great success increasing transit ridership in the Viva corridors, as the chart below indicates. The biggest surge occurred in the first full year of service, with total corridor ridership increasing by 56.57 % from 2005 to 2006.
Ridership in the CorridorsTable 4
Y
ear
Conventional
V
iva
Total ( Year)
2004
5,300,035
Not in Service
5,300,035
2005
5,832,559
1,423,066
7,255,625
2006
4,225,187
7,134,982
11,360,169
2007
4,074,346
8,296,397
12,370,743
Source: York Region Transit Mineta Transportation Institute
18 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
As the next chart shows, ridership continued to grow in 2007, but at a slower pace. However, the corridor continues to attract transit riders, with a 9 percent increase from 2006 to 2007. The ridership numbers also show that ridership on conventional bus service has decreased. Some riders, given a choice, opt to travel on the Viva instead of local buses. The relative weighting of impacts on ridership from shorter travel times, more direct routes, and consumer preference for the Viva’s new vehicles and higher service quality has not been assessed.
 
Figure 7 Viva Year- Over- Year Boarding Growth Rate
( Source: York Region Transit)
It is difficult to evaluate the travel time impacts of the Viva’s priority treatments and service design improvements because the Viva corridors do not exactly map local bus routes. YRT has provided data on travel time changes relating to the Blue Line, the Viva’s most heavily- used route. The data indicates modest improvements on travel time from before the Viva was launched.
Travel Time changes for VIVA Blue Line: Finch to Bernard StopsTable 5
Pre- BRT
Post- BRT
% Change
Maximum Peak Hour Running Time
44 min.
39 min.
- 11.4
Uncongested End- to- End Running Time
35 min.
32 min.
- 8.6
Source: York Region Transit, 2008
In addition, June 2008 data on end- to- end travel times for the five Viva lines indicate a high degree of variability in travel times in the afternoon. For example, the northbound Blue Line takes 57 to 60 minutes on weekday mornings and evenings, a three- minute range, but 64 to 74 minutes on weekday afternoons, a ten minute range. Similar variance exists with the other lines, showing that Viva is vulnerable to afternoon traffic congestion.
YRT also reports a significant increase in the transfer rates for customers— from 10 to Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 19
12 percent before the Viva to 25 to 30 percent as of late 2007. This change can also be seen in the ridership graphic, which shows a significantly higher increase in total boardings than in revenue boardings. According to the agency, this is due to both the local route restructurings and the fare policy change allowing unlimited transfers for up to two hours on a single ticket. The corridor- based transit model does require local bus routes to act as feeders to the central rapid transit corridors, thus reducing the proportion of single- seat rides.
2007 York Transit Operating Costs, Per MileTable 6
Viva
$ 3.91
YRT System
$ 4.86
Source: York Region Transit
In terms of implementation and operation, the incremental BRT strategy is producing good results. According to YRT, the Viva’s per- mile operating costs are lower than the systemwide average.
As already noted, the Viva was implemented in an extremely short time frame for a major transit project— just three years from planning to service launch. This is largely the result of the strategic decision to run the service on public roads, thus eliminating the most difficult full BRT feature to implement, the dedicated running way. By contrast, YRT estimates that the full build in Phase II will take seven years to complete. This is a clear benefit of the incremental strategy, as transportation improvements are realized much more quickly. The new service is able to build transit ridership and attract transit- oriented development while the full build- out occurs.
In addition to the phased implementation, YRT also credits an innovative public- private transit partnership ( PPP) scheme for speeding implementation and keeping costs down. The agency reports that such a scheme can be successful for BRT, but putting the PPP team together is harder than for rail projects. The partnership was launched early in the planning process, to involve contractors and operators throughout the process. The York PPP members jointly developed the environmental assessment, a network configuration master plan and a financing plan for the Viva. The public partners provided the primary funding source; set the service levels, fare policies and fares; and retain control over all assets and revenues. The private partners supply staff and other resources; provide a financing and procurement mechanism to reduce net costs and leverage public funds; and incur the risk on the budget and schedule. YRT has indicated that as long as there is a mechanism to protect the public interest, the PPP can provide significant cost and time benefits. 26
Finally, while it is too early to tell how much impact the Viva will have on meeting the region’s long- term land use goals, there is already one significant transit- oriented development project underway along the Viva. Downtown Markham is a 243- acre mixed- use community which the developer says will include 4,000 new condominiums and townhouses and more than 4.2 million square feet of office space. The heart of the project will be a promenade Mineta Transportation Institute
20 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
open only to pedestrians and the VIVA. The developer is working closely with YRT as the agency plans the dedicated transitway for the Viva. Plans call for re- routing a portion of the Viva service directly down the center of the pedestrian and transit promenade. The developer has secured the necessary right- of- way and is working with YRT to integrate the future stations with the development properties. The developer says the Viva is vital to the success of this new “ urban- style” community in an otherwise suburban environment because it is important to offer an extensive, convenient and attractive transit network for prospective residents and commercial tenants. 27
It is also worth noting that the Viva has been widely praised by the transit industry, the design and architecture organizations, and environmental groups. YRT reports that the Viva has 19 awards for advertising, brand and web design, infrastructure planning, and sustainable development, including the American Public Transportation Association’s Innovation award. The project has also received favorable media attention. While this has no practical impact on the transit service, it does suggest that YRT’s incremental BRT strategy has successfully improved the image and raised the profile of its transit system.
Future Plans
YRT is currently implementing Phase II of the Viva. As already discussed, Phase 2 involves the construction of dedicated median running ways, to be called " rapidways," along the Viva corridors. The rapidways will be designed to allow conversion to light rail if ridership increases sufficiently. YRT also envisions building more elaborate station structures to serve the rapidways. YRT has branded this effort “ vivaNext.” YRT is also coordinating the vivaNext design with a proposed Toronto subway extension that will travel along the Yonge Street corridor and connect with the Richmond transit center.
Since 2007, the agency has held open houses across the region to collect feedback on proposed alignments and conceptual design for vivaNext. The agency has also been working to secure the necessary federal and provincial funding, and construction is scheduled to begin in autumn 2009.
EmX Green Line BRT: Single Corridor Heavy BRT
The EmX Green Line in Eugene, Oregon is one of several BRT systems in the U. S. that was strongly influenced by Curitiba’s iconic BRT. Launched in early 2007, the EmX operates in a four- mile corridor connecting Eugene and Springfield, the two largest cities in Oregon’s Lane County. The EmX features all of the elements outlined in the FTA’s Characteristics of BRT document: dedicated running ways, specialized vehicles with capability for off- board fare collection, new stations with near- level boarding, longer station spacing and short headways, signal priority, and strong branding.
The Green Line is the first segment of what is intended to be a network of rapid bus corridors serving Lane County. The Lane Transit District ( LTD) plans call for building the network corridor- by- corridor over the next 20 years, replacing the existing bus service, based upon funding availability. 28 This represents the traditional approach to providing rapid transit service: heavy investment in high- level infrastructure improvements in Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 21
a single corridor, with additional transit lines added over time as funding and demand permits. This approach derived more from the agency’s long- term strategy for meeting increased transit demand and significantly improving the customer experience through implementation of premium rapid transit than from a pressing need to address near- term service or capacity issues. It also reflects the will of the public: BRT was proposed as a cost- effective alternative to the public’s preferred mode, light rail. During the EmX design and planning process, LTD conducted extensive outreach and found that there was a strong preference for full implementation of BRT features to create a system that resembled light rail and could best compete with automobile travel. 29
Figure 8 Planned Eugene EmX System Map
( Source: Lane Transit District)
The EmX does illustrate incremental BRT through its staggered deployment of some BRT features. Since opening, the system has been operating without any fares, as LTD had decided to wait to institute off- coach fare collection with the introduction of the second EmX Line in 2010. LTD subsequently decided to install ticket machines at stations in 2009; fare collection is set to begin in September 2009,30 LTD is also planning to install real time passenger information displays at stations, but has been delayed due to difficulty finding an affordable product. 31 The running way design does reflect the inherent flexibility of BRT, combining dedicated transitways with arterial bus lane operations to comply with right- of- way restrictions along the route. Overall, however, the EmX is exemplary of the traditional single- corridor, high investment approach to transit and reflects the strengths and weaknesses of applying this model to BRT. 32
Project History and Goals
The EmX is a major departure in transit service for the Lane Transit District, which until the EmX had exclusively operated traditional local bus services. LTD serves the roughly Mineta Transportation Institute
22 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
220,000 metro area population of Eugene and Springfield, which are located about 60 miles from the Oregon coast. Lane County has a high transit ridership rate for a metropolitan area of its size, with over nine million annual boardings in 2006. LTD reports that ridership has doubled over the last 15 years. 33
The decision to implement BRT was made in the mid- 1990s in response to several events. First, in 1992 Oregon mandated that all large cities implement transportation plans that could reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled by 10 percent in 20 years. Around the same time, concurrent with the Regional Transportation Plan update, the LTD Board instructed the agency to create a 20- year vision for increasing transit capacity and improving service, especially travel times. The agency was concerned that traffic congestion was beginning to cause delays in bus service and would worsen over the long- term, seriously degrading bus service.
Figure 9 Lane County Transit Bus Network
( Source: Lane Transit District)
The agency first looked to light rail, which had recently been built in Portland, but quickly determined that the $ 30 to 50 million- per- mile investment could not be supported by Lane County’s population base or funding availability. 34 The agency also concluded that minor enhancements to bus service would not provide sufficient improvement to satisfy the public, which had strongly favored light rail. Inspired by Curitiba’s BRT, LTD decided that BRT could provide the light- rail experience desired by the community at an affordable cost. LTD also believed that BRT’s flexibility would allow it to grow with the community. LTD adopted a strategy to upgrade all of its major bus corridors with BRT over 20 years. They mapped out a comprehensive system of BRT lines that would travel along existing routes, replacing local service. They called the system “ the Emerald Express” or EmX, and decided to build the first EmX line in their highest ridership corridor, replacing the Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 23
existing bus service along this corridor.
According to LTD, the primary goal of the EmX is to increase ridership by offering a competitive alternative to single occupancy car travel. 35 To achieve this, they expect the EmX to reduce travel time, increase reliability and offer convenient neighborhood connections. The agency also expects to reduce operating costs and support land use patterns. Finally, the EmX was designed to include non- transit enhancements such as landscaping, new sidewalks, and bike travel improvements.
This first EmX line was funded primarily through earmarks in the New Starts program, the main federal funding mechanism for major transit infrastructure projects. While New Starts makes building expensive projects viable, it also triggers an intensive federal oversight process, which can introduce significant delays into a project’s implementation timeframe. In the case of the EmX, it took around a decade to plan and build the system, although other factors, such as the bus procurement, were responsible for significant delays. The New Starts program historically has been directed toward rail projects, and the funding process tends to reinforce the traditional single- corridor, high infrastructure investment approach to transit taken by Eugene.
The project’s total costs were $ 24.6 million, or $ 6.15 million per mile. This is significantly lower than a comparable rail line would have cost; a light rail system laid down along the same right- of- way traveled by EmX would likely cost $ 30 to $ 50 million per mile, based on recent costs to build light rail in Sacramento, Portland, and Salt Lake City. 36 However, the EmX is more costly than a BRT project that relies on service upgrades like priority treatments and increased stop spacing, such as the Los Angeles Metro Rapid network, or even one like the York Ontario Viva that applies all BRT features excluding the dedicated running way. LTD’s decision to implement the most expensive BRT option was influenced by the perceived public demand for the most “ light rail- like” experience.
Building the EmX Green Line
In this section, the elements implemented on the EmX Green Line and the cost for each will be examined.
Running Way Priority and Routing
The EmX Green Line operates on a four- mile stretch between Eugene and Springfield. The line serves the two cities’ downtown districts, the University of Oregon, and a major hospital. The Green Line replaced one of LTD’s most popular bus routes, which served about 2,700 daily boardings. The Green Line has ten stops including the two termini; the prior bus service had 18. EmX stations are spaced an average of .44 miles apart. Mineta Transportation Institute
24 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
Figure 10 EmX Green Line Route
( Source: Lane Transit District)
A dedicated guideway was central to the agency’s rationale for building the EmX, as LTD considered this critical to improving travel times and maintaining service reliability. However, the agency faced several problems in securing rights- of- way along this corridor. LTD was required to minimize disruption to auto traffic along the route, limiting their ability to remove parking or travel lanes. In addition, LTD could not relocate properties along the corridor, much of which is built out. As a result of these constraints, the agency has to make several compromises that have an impact on system capacity and vehicle travel time. First, about 60% of the corridor is a dedicated transitway in the road median, with signal priority at intersections. The remainder of the route is on curbside bus lanes with signal priority and queue jump lanes. The bus lanes are strictly enforced. More importantly in terms of system performance, portions of the median busway are single- tracked, with buses passing each other at two- lane stations. LTD uses block signaling at intersections and stations to control entry into the single bus lane. Portions of the busway are also extremely narrow: about ten feet wide at along the driving route and 9 to14 feet at stations. Finally, local environmental controls prevented LTD from removing trees along the running way, requiring planners to design the route around the trees. As a result, drivers must slow down when driving the articulated buses around the most narrow or curving portions of the running way.
Another impact of using both curbside and median lanes is the need for right and left side doors on the BRT vehicles. This and other advanced features like a hybrid drive train made the EmX vehicles very expensive. LTD justified the high price tag because these features would clearly identify the EmX as a premium service and differentiate it from regular buses.
Figure 11 EmX Guideway and Station ( Source: Lane Transit District) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 25
Costs for EmX Green LineTable 7
Design/ Consulting Costs
$ 2,619,500
Property Acquisition Costs
$ 1,006,450
Construction Costs
$ 12,469,480
Miscellaneous Costs/ Utilities
$ 517,170
Plan Review/ Permits/ Inspections
$ 545,610
Construction Support Costs
$ 1,463,840
Vehicles
$ 5,932,070
Total
$ 24,554,120
Source: The EmX Franklin Corridor— BRT Project Evaluation, FTA report, April 2009.
LTD does not provide a break- down of EmX capital costs by BRT element. However, as Table 7 shows, property acquisition, construction and utility costs related to the running way and the stations constituted the biggest project expense, at around $ 16 million for the entire project. The expense of a dedicated guideway may be justified when improved travel times are the primary performance goal, as with the EmX. Moreover, the LTD’s decision to build a dedicated transitway appears to have been based as much on a desire to create a light rail type service as to improve travel time. However, this option has major trade- offs, as it limits the geographic reach of the transportation improvements and adds significant time and costs to the project’s implementation.
Stations and Fare Collection
The Green Line's eight intermediate stops are served by enhanced stations of varying designs. They are not fully enclosed, but are attractive, distinctive, and comfortable. Some have waist- high screens separating the station from the running way to enhance passenger safety. 37 The median stations feature raised platforms that enable almost level boarding. EmX reduced costs by employing a low- tech guidance mechanism: yellow “ plastic” strips along the platform edge to prevent vehicle damage if the drivers pull in too close. The system is not perfect, but does generally allow for near- level boarding.
LTD did not charge fares for the first two- and- a- half- years of service, opting to wait to implement an off- board, pre- paid fare collection until autumn 2009. This decision both saved money in the Green Line’s budget and likely helped attract more riders. The agency reports that little revenue was lost because most riders hold a system wide transit pass or have paid the feeder bus fare.
Level boarding and pre- paid fare collection are important in reducing end- to- end travel times. Along with the multi- door vehicle boarding, these can significantly reduce station dwell times. Substantial stations also contribute to the sense that the system is a “ premium” service and make it easier for passengers to identify the station stops along the curbside lanes where the station competes with existing sidewalk infrastructure.
The stations are not yet equipped with real- time passenger information because LTD has been unable to find a vendor that will suit their needs and budget. This can be an important Mineta Transportation Institute
26 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
factor in travel time perceptions: according to the CBRT, research indicates that passengers believe their wait time to be less than it is when they have real- time information available.
Vehicles
The EmX uses a fleet of six 63- ft articulated low floor buses with a modern, sleek silhouette and a hybrid- electric drive. They have a green and silver livery with the EmX logo. The buses seat 44 ( the dual- side doors and bicycle racks limit seating capacity) and provide standing room for 50 to 60 more riders.
Although the stations have near- level boarding, passengers in wheelchairs must enter the buses through the middle doors, where a ramp can be deployed to bridge the gap between the bus and the curb.
The vehicles were the project’s second biggest capital cost and are a key branding element.
Finding the right buses posed a major challenge and was a significant factor in the project’s lengthy development time. When LTD began planning the EmX, no North American bus company was making the kind of stylized vehicle that LTD wanted. After exploring European bus options, LTD decided to partner on a procurement with Cleveland’s transit agency, which also wanted articulated stylized buses with dual side doors and hybrid propulsion for its planned BRT. New Flyer was the chosen vendor. The two agencies and New Flyer worked together to develop the vehicles, which cost $ 960,000 apiece, a reflection of the buses’ novelty at the time. Now, several North American manufacturers are promoting BRT- stylized bus models, giving agencies greater choice at lower cost.
The buses are considered critical by LTD to the EmX identity as a premium rapid transit service. The modern look, the distinctive livery, the multi- door boarding and the hybrid drive system all help to distinguish the vehicle from the rest of LTD’s fleet and present a high- quality image. They are also critical to maximizing capacity on the service.
Service Changes
As already noted, the Green line replaces one of LTD’s most popular local bus lines in this
Figure 12 EmX Median Station Illustrating Left Side Bus Doors ( Source: Lane Transit District) Figure 13 EmX Bus in Dedicated Curb Lane ( Source: Lane Transit District) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 27
corridor. It was not necessary to alter other local lines to feed the route. The line connects the transit hubs for both Eugene and Springfield, and several existing lines cross its path.
The EmX operates with 10- minute headways on weekdays, while the former local service ran every 15 to 30 minutes. The EmX also operates on a headway basis and seeks to minimize travel time with strict dwell time limits. Although the EmX has signal priority at intersections, its travel times are affected by the need to yield right of way to left- turning motorists or pedestrians activating crosswalk signals. 38
Branding and Marketing
Image was an important consideration throughout the system development. LTD saw the investment in high- cost elements such as specialized vehicles and stations with level boarding as not only serving performance outcomes, but also as creating a premium image that can attract riders out of their cars.
LTD also decided to promote the image of a “ green” service, in keeping with the area’s environmentally conscious community. This image is reinforced throughout the system— the green livery, the hybrid drive system, native landscaping along the transitway, and one unusual feature: a grass strip down the center of the guideways. The grass not only looks attractive, but also helps absorb fluid leaks from the buses. LTD also commissioned construction of a new bus station designed to meet national “ green building” standards for the Green Line’s eastern terminus in Springfield.
Assessing the EmX
Since opening in January 2007, the EmX has succeeded in meeting LTD’s primary goal of increased ridership. The previous local bus service had around 2,700 average weekday boardings. Daily corridor ridership increased by 100 percent in the first 17 months since the service began, reaching 5,400 weekday boardings as of April 2008. As the chart below shows, corridor ridership has surpassed the 20- year projection. By comparison, LTD’s total bus ridership increased by 4.8 percent from 2006 to 2007.
Based on an early ridership survey, the agency estimates that as many as 25 percent of EmX users are new riders, with 16 percent of riders previously traveling by car. The agency has also reported that they had to add buses on some of their local routes to meet increased passenger demand. Some of this increase may be because the EmX is free, although LTD reports that most riders own system wide passes or have paid the fare on the local feeder bus. Mineta Transportation Institute
28 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
Comparison of BRT Elements from FTA Table 8Characteristics of BRT
to EmX Elements
BRT Element
EmX Green Line
Planned Additions
Running Way
Dedicated median running way for 60%
Curbside bus lanes for 40%
Stations and Land Use
Enhanced stations with near- level boarding.
Two transit centers, with joint development at one.
Vehicles
High- capacity, low- floor stylized hybrid buses.
Multi- door boarding on both sides.
Service and Operation Plan
10 minute headways.
All- stop service only.
Longer station spacing than local service.
Fare Collection
None for 2.5 years.
Off- coach, pre- paid fare collection as of Sept. 09
Station ticket machines
ITS
TSP at all intersections, queue jump
Real- Time Passenger information.
Marketing and Branding
Strong branding and marketing program to identify EmX as premium rapid transit.
Source: Data assembled by Lisa Callaghan Jerram
The Green Line’s success has raised concerns about system capacity. The agency reports that ridership now reaches 500 passengers an hour at peak times. 39 The buses have a total standing capacity of 100 passengers. At current 10- minute headways, the system can accommodate 540 passengers an hour. 40 Unfortunately, the single- lane portions of the transitway limit the number of buses that can operate at one time. Currently, LTD planners think they can achieve no better than seven- minute headways. Over time, this issue could limit the system’s ability to meet rising ridership demand. 41
Compared to the former Route 11 bus, the EmX has reduced the average end- to- end travel time in the corridor by one minute from 16 minutes to 15 minutes. Most of the time saving has come from transit signal priority. Reliability of running time has been improved notably, as measured by the standard deviation from the observed mean travel time: 116 seconds for Route 11 compared to 79 for the EmX. 42
LTD reports that operating costs per rider are intended to be lower for the EmX than for regular bus service. Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 29
Shortly after opening, the EmX experienced several collisions between the buses and other vehicles at guideway intersections. This has been a problem for other BRTs with at- grade intersections, such as the Los Angeles Orange Line. However, the accident rate declined once area drivers became accustomed to the busway.
Figure 14 Ridership Growth Following EmX Service Initiation
( Source: Lane Transit District)
Interestingly, some customers do not like the new emphasis on speed and efficiency. Early news reports quoted passengers who complained that the EmX drivers are not allowed to wait for passengers approaching the bus station since they must keep to a strict timetable, and are discouraged from talking with passengers. LTD notes that some passengers prefer the more “ laid- back” style of the regular bus service.
Overall, the EmX has performed well, increasing ridership and improving travel times. The agency’s approach has made the EmX a model for other US cities interested in using high- level BRT to provide a “ light rail- like” experience in a small city that cannot justify rail investment. This approach did result in an extremely long implementation period, likely caused by several factors. First, building an on- street transitway requires extensive community outreach to secure buy- in, as well as a long period of construction. Second, LTD needed to procure an entirely new type of transit vehicle in order to have a coach with the attributes the agency desired. It is now common for American bus companies to offer BRT- styled vehicles, so this is less a problem for agencies today. Finally, the use of the New Starts funding mechanism entails a lengthy federal oversight process.
Finally, while it is too early to determine whether the EmX is helping the region meet its land use goals, there has been some promising activity. For example, proposals for mixed use development around the Walnut Station are being considered. This area has been designated in regional plans for mixed- use development due to its location on the EmX. Mineta Transportation Institute
30 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
This may be a benefit of a system with major infrastructure investments, as early research on BRT’s land development impact indicates that local planners and developers respond favorably when there is clear evidence of a long- term commitment to transit in a particular corridor, demonstrated especially by major infrastructure improvements. 43
Future Plans
Construction is underway as of 2009 for the second EmX corridor, the Pioneer Parkway line. Planned to open in 2010, this will be a 7.8 mile route running north from the Springfield station. The route will take advantage of new roadways and an abandoned rail right- of- way to build the dedicated busway. The estimated cost is $ 41 million or $ 5.2 million per mile, lower than the Green Line. LTD has been awarded funding for the project under the new “ Small Starts” program, which Congress carved out from the broader New Starts program to support low- cost projects that operate substantially on a fixed guideway or are corridor- based bus projects. This project will take significantly less time to implement than the Green Line. Planning is underway for the third proposed EmX line.
Los Angeles County: Metro Rapid Light BRT and Orange Line Heavy BRT
Los Angeles offers a chance to compare BRT strategies at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Los Angeles Metro Rapid program exemplifies an incremental BRT approach that builds on existing, conventional arterial bus service, applying relatively easy and inexpensive upgrades while retaining the option to deploy higher order elements later. The program relies upon transit signal priority and longer station spacing to improve travel times in mixed traffic. By using existing roadways, on- board fare collection and fleet vehicles with a distinct livery, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( Metro) has kept program costs quite low: Metro estimates that it costs $ 50,000 per station and $ 100,000 per mile for the ITS treatments. This low investment level has enabled the agency to implement these features on almost 450 miles of BRT routes.
By contrast, with the Orange Line, Metro made a significant investment in deploying a full- featured BRT in a single 14- mile corridor in the San Fernando Valley. The decision was driven in part by the availability of right- of- way in the corridor and a long- standing commitment to build a premium rapid transit system to serve the Valley. This heavy BRT strategy resulted in high investments for all BRT components, including a dedicated running way; substantial stations; high- capacity vehicles; off- coach fare collection; and landscaping, bike and pedestrian paths and park- and- ride lots. Total cost of the Orange Line was around $ 350 million, or $ 25 million per mile, higher than the Metro Rapid, but much lower than other Los Angeles rail projects like the Gold Line, a 13- mile light rail that cost $ 66 million per mile.
Figure 15 Wheelchair Customer Using Ramp to Board EmX
( Source: Lane Transit District) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 31
The concept for each system was inspired by a 1998 site visit by transit agency officials and local policymakers to the BRT system in Curitiba, Brazil. However, the design approach chosen for each investment was driven by the differing performance and cost goals, alignment availability and political considerations. Each has proven successful in increasing ridership and decreasing travel times. Both also were launched in a relatively short timeframe, with Metro Rapid service especially quick to implement. These two LA systems demonstrate that there is no “ one size fits all” approach to designing an effective transit service. 44
Projects’ History and Goals
As of 2007, Los Angeles Metro was the third largest transit agency in the U. S. with approximately 495 million annual boardings. The agency serves a 1,688 square mile area with a population of 11.8 million as of the 2000 census. Metro operates heavy rail subway, light rail, and bus service, in addition to other specialty transit services such as vanpools. The bus system is the service workhorse, with almost 413 million boardings in 2007, compared to 40.9 million on the Red Line subway and 41.35 million on the three light rail lines.
Metro Rapid Incremental StrategyTable 9
1. Frequent Service
2. Bus Signal Priority
3. Headway- based Schedules
4. Simple Route Layout
5. Less Frequent Stops
6. Integrated with Local Bus Service
7. Level Boarding and Alighting
8. Color- coded Buses and Stations
Phase I
9. High Capacity Buses
10. Exclusive Lanes
11. Off- vehicle Fare Payment
12. Feeder Network
Phase II
Source: Los Angeles CountyMetro
The Metro Rapid program was instituted primarily to address concerns over bus service quality. The agency goals were to improve operating speeds and reduce bus bunching, passenger waiting times and passenger standing loads. Following the 1998 trip to Curitiba, the agency developed a strategy to improve bus service using BRT elements. Based on the Curitiba model, Metro developed a list of 12 key BRT attributes ( Table 9) and crafted an incremental strategy to deploy these features. Under this strategy, Metro would conduct an initial demonstration along two high- ridership arterials. This pilot program would implement eight BRT features that could be deployed on an expedited build schedule. Metro’s stated goals for the program were to reduce passenger travel times, increase ridership, attract new transit riders, increase service reliability, improve fleet and facility appearance, improve service effectiveness, and build positive relations with communities. Mineta Transportation Institute
32 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
If the demonstration proved successful, Metro would expand the pilot program to add more bus lines with the same BRT features, and begin planning for Phase II, which would see the addition of the other four, more costly BRT features.
The agency adopted the Metro Rapid Demonstration Program in March 1999, and the first two lines opened just 15 months later in the summer of 2000. The pilot project proved successful in reducing travel time and attracting new riders, so in 2002, Metro began implementing the same elements— tweaked slightly based on findings from the initial demonstration— on major bus corridors throughout LA.
.
Launched in October 2005, the Orange Line BRT evolved in a very different context. In this case, bus rapid transit was seen as an opportunity to provide a premium, high- capacity rapid transit service in the under- served San Fernando Valley north of downtown Los Angeles. The Orange Line corridor lies in an abandoned railroad right- of- way purchased by Los Angeles Metro in the early 1990s. The corridor is mainly a residential zone with little commercial activity except at the Warner Center, a large mall and office complex at the western end of the Orange Line, and the North Hollywood neighborhood at the eastern end of the corridor. Until the Orange Line was built, the Valley was served exclusively by local bus routes, with the Red Line subway terminating in North Hollywood.
Orange Line CostsTable 10
Running Way
$ 180 million
Stations ( including park & ride lots)
$ 72 million
28 vehicle initial fleet
$ 16 million
ITS
$ 10 million
Fare Collection
$ 6 million
Other
$ 66 million
Total
$ 350 million
Source: Los Angeles County Metro
The transit agency originally purchased the right- of- way to build the community’s first rail line, which would connect to the Red Line subway, providing a rapid transit ride from the Valley into downtown LA. Political opposition to rail funding prevented the agency from pursuing either heavy or light rail. BRT became the solution to this problem, allowing the agency to build the type of service that it wanted for the corridor and at lower cost than a light rail or subway line.
Agency and local officials appear to have been committed to a high- investment full BRT from the beginning of the planning process, in part because of the existing interest in utilizing this rail corridor as a dedicated transitway. There was opposition from a local activist group that challenged the transit agency’s selection of full BRT, arguing that Metro Rapid would be a better choice for the San Fernando Valley. The group, Citizens Organized for Smart Transit ( COST), disputed the projected travel time savings used to Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 33
justify the project. COST predicted that actual time savings would be much lower because the buses, while separated from traffic, would still have to cross traffic at the busway’s multiple at- grade intersections. COST asserted that Metro could achieve comparable travel time savings at much lower cost by implementing additional Metro Rapid service in the Valley.
Ultimately, Metro prevailed and built the full BRT option. The agency concluded that the proposed full BRT with a dedicated busway would offer several benefits:
End- to- end travel time that would be in the range of 28.8 to 40 minutes, faster than • proposed Metro Rapid alternatives;
More consistent travel time savings;•
Ability to attract more riders and more new transit customers; and•
Better support for local land use policies by placing high- capacity service near activity • centers targeted by the city for TOD.
Building the Metro Rapid and Orange Line BRTs
In this section, the researchers examine the elements implemented for both the Orange Line and Metro Rapid, and the cost for each system.
Running Way Priority and Routing
The 14- mile Orange Line busway runs along an east- west axis through the San Fernando Valley and roughly parallel to US 101, a congested Los Angeles highway. The eastern terminus is the North Hollywood Station, which provides a connection to the Red Line subway. However, there is no direct access; riders must cross Lankershim Boulevard between the Orange Line and the underground rail station. The Orange Line schedule is timed to optimize transfers. The western terminus is the Warner Center, a large shopping, residential, and office complex surrounded by parking lots. For the last half- mile of its route, the Orange Line leaves the busway and travels in mixed- traffic arterial streets to the Warner Center. Several bus lines stop here, making it an important transit hub.
The Orange Line is not grade separated, and it crosses approximately 36 intersections and has five mid- block pedestrian crossings. The decision to operate at- grade without crossing gates or other barriers has had safety and performance implications as will be described later. The Orange Line intersections have synchronized signals that give the buses up to 10% more signal time. The busway does not offer full signal priority as planners determined this would cause significant delays to auto traffic crossing the busway. 45
The 14 stations are spaced roughly one mile apart. Only the Orange Line operates on the busway; no other transit or high- occupancy vehicles are permitted to use the busway. Because this was an abandoned rail line, there was no local service on the corridor before the BRT. Orange Line stations connect to more than 20 local and Metro Rapid bus lines, as well as the Red Line subway at North Hollywood.
The dedicated busway accounts for a little over half the Orange Line’s $ 350 million budget. Mineta Transportation Institute
34 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
These costs do not include the original purchase price for the right- of- way. The 20- mile railway alignment was purchased for $ 122 million in the early 1990s, and the Orange Line utilizes roughly 13.5 miles of it. 46
Figure 16 Orange Line Station
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro)
As of mid- 2009, the Metro Rapid system has a total of 26 lines. The network runs in 450 miles of mixed- traffic arterials along some of the city’s busiest transit corridors. The service is overlaid onto local routes, using increased stop spacing and transit signal priority ( TSP) to reduce travel times. Metro Rapid station spacing averages 0.7 miles, with some lines even higher, in contrast to local bus spacing of 0.2 and limited stop service spacing of 0.3 miles.
The decision to implement TSP was made after agency surveys found that bus riders’ biggest complaint was that service was too slow and unreliable. A study conducted by the Los Angeles DOT indicated Metro buses were stopped 50 percent of the time they were in service. As a result, Metro determined it could quickly and cost effectively improve travel times and reliability by reducing the length of time the buses were stopped at stations and signalized intersections. The system grants signal priority to buses behind the scheduled headway by extending the green light up to ten seconds or activating a green light ten seconds early. This is intended not only to reduce time stuck at intersections but also to reduce bus bunching. 47
The ITS system also feeds into the real- time passenger information system described below. ITS is one of Metro Rapid’s two major cost elements. It is installed at around
Figure 17 Orange Line Station Shelter
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 35
1,000 intersections in the Metro Rapid network at a cost of just $ 100,000 per mile.
Stations and Fare Policy
Metro constructed enhanced stations to serve the Orange Line busway. They feature an open design with protective shelter, seating, lighting and other passenger amenities. Stations feature real- time passenger information displays and are clearly posted with the station name. They are decorated with public art and landscaping, and are kept clean and well- maintained.
In an effort to limit dwell times, Metro built eight- inch station platforms— two inches higher than standard sidewalks— to minimize the step that passengers take up into the buses. The Orange Line also has off- coach fare collection so passengers can board through multiple doors. Stations have automated fare machines, and fares are enforced through a proof- of- payment system based on random inspection.
Some stations have multiple canopies to allow more than one bus to board and alight at one time; some, but not all, have passing lanes. The Orange Line also features seven park- and- ride lots with over 4,000 free spaces to attract transit customers who wish to access the system stops via automobile. In all, the stations and parking lots constitute the second largest cost, at $ 72 million.
Because Metro Rapid stations are located on sidewalks in urbanized corridors, they are designed to minimize the station footprint. Most of the over 600 Metro Rapid stations are simple sidewalk bus stops, designated by distinct signage and service maps; a few major stations have real- time passenger information. About one- fifth of the stops are served by enhanced stations, with a translucent canopy overhang and rail bar; these feature the same passenger amenities as well as seating and lighting. Metro uses conventional on- board fare collection. Metro Rapid stops are not co- located with local stops and are typically placed directly after the intersections, in contrast to local stops, which are stationed before intersections. Facilities are Metro Rapid’s second major cost item; the agency estimates that it spends about $ 50,000 per station.
Vehicles
Vehicles are an important element for both systems. Metro ordered 60- ft. specialty vehicles for the Orange Line fleet. The agency refers to them as “ Metroliners,” and the vehicle design and livery are intended to resemble rail vehicles. The buses have the sleek, curving lines
Figure 18 Metro Rapid Station
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro)
Figure 19 Metro Rapid Station Loading Passengers
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro) Mineta Transportation Institute
36 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
that are becoming more common in contemporary bus design; they are silver, to match Metro’s rail cars, and have wheel skirts to enhance the rail- like appearance. With the stations’ raised platforms, the low- floor buses achieve close to level boarding, but passengers must still step up into the buses. The buses have three right- side doors for boarding and alighting. Total cost of the 28- bus fleet was $ 16 million.
Metro Rapid uses conventional 40- ft buses, as well as some 45- ft and 60- ft buses on high demand routes. While these were not a special procurement, Metro does primarily use recent model year buses, which have a sleeker look than older models. The buses have a distinctive red and silver livery to distinguish them from local buses. Metro Rapid materials frequently note “ level boarding” as one of the BRT attributes implemented in Phase I. In reality, Metro has simply deployed low- floor buses; since the stations are sidewalk- based; this means passenger must still take a step up into the bus.
Metro Rapid CostsTable 11
Stations
$ 50,000 per station
ITS
$ 100,000 per mile
Projected Total For Complete Network ( as of April 2008)
$ 110 million
Vehicles
$ 350,000 for 40- ft. CNG bus
$ 630,000 for 60- ft. CNG bus
Source: Los Angeles County Metro48
Metro does not include vehicle costs in its Metro Rapid budget, since the vehicles are acquired through the agency’s overall fleet procurement process, rather than as a specialty fleet like the Orange Line buses. The bus prices are typical for recent model year buses powered by compressed natural gas.
Branding and Marketing
Branding and marketing are also key components of Metro’s two BRT systems. Each has a unifying design and color scheme that serves both to help customers distinguish the BRT from other bus lines and promote it as a premium service. The Orange Line branding scheme, as already evinced in the discussion of the livery, is intended to link it to the rail system by giving it a color name, like rail lines, instead of a number; integrating it into the rail network map; and selecting a vehicle design that resembles rail cars.
Metro Rapid lines are identified by route numbers, as are other bus lines. However, the
Figure 20 Orange Line Articulated Bus
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro) Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 37
buses and stations share a color and design look to ensure that customers can identify the service easily. The Metro website also has a separate section outlining the Metro Rapid routes and describing the program.
Service Design
The Orange Line runs at four- minute headways during peak hours. Metro increased service from the original five- minute peak hour headways in response to high ridership demand. The service operates 22 hours per day, seven days a week, with evening and weekday headways reduced to 15 to 20 minutes. Service is all- stop only, as there are no passing lanes along the busway and only some stations with passing capability. Schedules are coordinated with the Red Line subway to ease transfers from the North Hollywood terminus; however, it is an inconvenient connection since passengers must cross the street to enter the subway station. Orange Line stations also connect to approximately 20 local and Metro Rapid bus lines. Drivers are allowed to minimize trip times by skipping stops if there are no passengers requesting the stop.
Metro Rapid runs on a headway- based schedule, meaning buses do not idle at stops when ahead of schedule but instead travel the route as fast as traffic and signals will allow. Schedules vary for each line, but most have peak hour headways between five and fifteen minutes. A few of the high- demand lines have service frequencies of two to five minutes. Off- peak headways are between 10 to 20 minutes for most lines. The service is all- stop, since the routes have already been designed to maximize efficiency by serving each corridor’s highest- demand stops. There are some peak- service only lines. As the agency introduces new Metro Rapid lines, it will also reconfigure local routes if needed to maximize overall system efficiency.
Table 12 provides an overview of the BRT elements found on the two kinds of BRT operating in Los Angeles County.
Figure 21 Orange Line Station Sign
( Source: Los Angeles County Metro) Mineta Transportation Institute
38 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
Comparison of BRT Elements from FTA Table 12Characteristics of BRT
to Metro Rapid and Orange Line
BRT Element
Orange Line
Metro Rapid
Phase I
Phase II
Running Way
Dedicated at- grade running way
On- street mixed traffic lanes
Peak period exclusive lanes on Wilshire Blvd.
Stations
Enhanced stations with raised platforms.
Basic stops and shelters with Rapid branding.
Vehicles
High- capacity, low- floor stylized buses.
Multi- door right- side boarding.
40- ft, 45- ft and 60- ft low- floor fleet vehicles with Metro Rapid livery.
More high- capacity vehicles.
Service and Operation Plan
4- minute headways at peak; 15– 20 at off- peak. Some headway- based operation.
All- stop service only.
One- mile station spacing.
Varies for each line. From 2– 15 minutes peak, 10– 20 minutes off- peak..
Headway- based schedules.
Fare Collection
Off- coach, proof- of- payment
On- coach.
Plans for off- coach have been shelved due to insufficient room at stops for ticket vending machines.
ITS
Synchronized signals at all intersections
Real- time passenger info
Transit signal priority at all intersections.
Real- time passenger info
Marketing and Branding
Strong branding and marketing to identify Orange Line as premium rapid transit and as “ rail- like”
Branding and marketing to identify stations and vehicles and promote premium service image.
Source: Data assembled by Lisa Callaghan Jerram
Assessing the Orange Line and Metro Rapid
This section will review how Metro Rapid has performed since the first lines were launched in 2000; this study will report performance metrics averaged across the total system, not Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 39
disaggregated by line. This section also reviews the performance of the Orange Line since it opened in late 2005. Each system has shown it can attract riders and improve service. Each also was created to serve different goals, which will be taken into account when judging performance, and each has different limitations or challenges relating to the BRT strategy selected.
Ridership: Los Angeles implemented BRT primarily to improve service quality for existing transit customers, with increased ridership as a secondary goal. Nevertheless, both BRTs have indeed increased ridership in their respective corridors. In 2007, Metro reported the changes in ridership for Metro Rapid corridors opened since 2000. Total corridor ridership, for both the Metro Rapid lines and the local lines, went from 388,400 average weekday boardings to 464,400, a 19.6 percent increase. Orange Line ridership figures indicate an even bigger increase. Prior to the Orange Line service’s launch in autumn 2005, the corridor averaged 41,580 average weekday transit boardings; as of 2007, average weekday boarding reached 62,597, a 51 percent increase. The Orange Line itself has averaged over 26,000 weekday boardings in 2008, surpassing the agency’s stated ridership goal for 2020 in just two years. By comparison, total system bus ridership increased by 9.4 percent from 2005 to 2007 ( note that this figure includes the Orange Line and Metro Rapid ridership); heavy rail ridership increased by 12.7 percent; and light rail ridership increased by 8.9 percent. 49
As of April 2009, the four L. A. Metro rail lines are experiencing 293,000 daily weekday boardings, while the 26 Metro Rapid bus lines have 228, 000 and the Orange Line has 21,000.50
Neither system has undergone a major ridership evaluation that would indicate how many new transit customers they are attracting. There were some very early evaluations that found good results. A September 2000 rider survey on the two pilot Metro Rapid corridors found that one- third of the passengers said they were new to transit. An Orange Line rider survey conducted in January 2006, just three months after the BRT opened, found that 17 percent of the riders were new to Metro, and one- third had a car available for the surveyed trip.
Travel Times, Speed and Reliability: Reducing travel time in the Orange Line corridor was presented as a key rationale for investing in full BRT instead of lower level bus service improvements. Metro originally projected that end- to- end travel times would be between 28.8 and 40 minutes. As of 2008, actual travel times have averaged around 42 minutes at peak hours, a 16 percent improvement over the pre- BRT time of 50 minutes, but short of the agency’s goal. Non- peak travel times improved from 45 minutes to 37 minutes, an 18 percent improvement. Note that the differential between peak and non- peak performance did not change with dedicated busway, with non- peak travel five minutes faster both before and after.
The primary reason for not meeting travel time projections relates to safety issues when buses cross the at- grade intersections. Shortly after the Orange Line opened, it experienced a number of accidents from vehicles or pedestrians crossing the transitway intersections illegally. Metro addressed this issue by installing more signs and signals to increase Mineta Transportation Institute
40 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
awareness of the busway, as well as launching an educational campaign on busway safety. Most significantly, Metro has reduced bus speeds through intersections from 25 mph to 10 mph. Since the busway crosses more than 20 signalized intersections, this has a significant travel time impact. Even though safety rates have improved dramatically since the busway opened in 2005, the agency has not announced any plans to increase the permitted intersection speed, thus limiting the Orange Line’s ability to meet its original travel time targets.
Metro has not implemented true signalized priority along the Orange Line busway. Signals are synchronized in an effort to give buses a “ constant green” along the running way, but in reality, buses often stop at red lights. As discussed in the Project History section, one reason for not deploying TSP was traffic engineers’ concern that, because of the short headways, there would be a significant negative impact on north- south traffic crossing the busway. 51
As of 2008, reported travel time improvements in Metro Rapid corridors range from 21 percent to 37 percent over the local bus service. Overall, Metro reports that Metro Rapid travel times are 25 percent better than the local service. This is a significant improvement given that Metro Rapid operates in mixed traffic. A 2002 evaluation on the two pilot corridors attempted to determine which of the deployed BRT attributes contributed most to travel time savings on the two lines. The evaluation found that the signal priority accounted for approximately one- third of the improvement, while the other system features— fewer stops, far- side stations, low- floor buses, headway- based schedules, and active service management by field supervisors and a control center— accounted for the remaining two- thirds. 52
While the higher investment in a dedicated busway has not resulted in better travel time improvements, the Orange Line does appear to offer greater travel time consistency than Metro Rapid. An April 2006 presentation by a Metro representative compared travel times for the Orange Line and the Metro Rapid Ventura Line, which runs roughly parallel and is two miles longer. Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 41
End- to- End Travel Time and Average Speed Comparison Between the Table 13Ventura Metro Rapid Line and the Orange Line
V
entura Metro Rapid ( 16.4 miles)
Metro Orange Line ( 14 miles)
Total Time
Average Speed
Total Time
Average Speed
a. m. Westbound
44 minutes
22.4 mph
50 minutes
16.8 mph
a. m. Eastbound
45 minutes
21.9 mph
41 minutes
20.5 mph
p. m. Westbound
50 minutes
19.7 mph
51 minutes
16.5 mph
p. m. Eastbound
59 minutes
16.7 mph
41 minutes
20.5 mph
Source: Rex Gephart, Metro Rapid program manager, presentation dated April 2006
This chart shows that the Ventura Metro Rapid moves along its route at higher speeds than the Orange line except for eastbound afternoons. However, Metro Rapid shows higher variability in travel time in both directions depending on the time of day; average speed for the Orange Line is almost constant for each direction, while it varies significantly for the Metro Rapid service. This indicates that the dedicated busway reduces customer uncertainty about travel times on any given day and time.
Transfers: The Orange Line was designed in part to feed customers from the San Fernando Valley into downtown Los Angeles, via the Red Line Subway. The January 2006 rider survey confirmed that a large percentage of riders used the BRT as a commuter feeder to the subway, with 73 percent of morning passengers and 57 percent of midday passengers alighting at North Hollywood. The survey also found that almost 50 percent of all surveyed riders arrived via another transit mode, while 57 percent said they would connect to transit after leaving the Orange Line. This indicates that the Orange Line serves primarily as a feeder to other transit, rather than as a single- seat transit trip along the corridor.
Comparison of Operating EfficienciesTable 14
Operating Cost Efficiencies
Orange Line
BRT
Blue Line Light Rail
G
old Line
Light Rail
G
reen Line Light Rail
San Fernando Valley Busa
Cost Per Revenue Service Hour
$ 243.18
$ 282.71
$ 552.54
$ 440.80
$ 117.12
Cost Per Revenue Service Mile
$ 14.53
$ 12.90
$ 24.56
$ 14.37
$ 9.57
Cost Per Passenger Mile
$ 0.54
$ 0.35
$ 1.08
$ 0.54
$ 0.61
Cost Per Boarding
$ 3.79
$ 2.45
$ 7.54
$ 3.72
$ 2.26
Source: Los Angeles Metro FY’ 07 Proposed Budget
a Represents Metro Rapid operating costs Mineta Transportation Institute
42 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
Implementation: The simplicity of the Metro Rapid service has allowed almost 450
route- miles to be implemented since the program debuted in 2000. The first two Metro Rapid pilot corridors were launched in just six months. Since the conclusion of the pilot program in 2002, Metro has opened three to six lines per year from 2002 to 2008. Twenty- six lines are in place as of early 2009, with a few more planned. The low investment required also helped speed deployment, since it was easier to secure funding for the new lines. For most of the network, Metro used federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality ( CMAQ) funds matched by local sales taxes. Use of CMAQ funding does not impose the significant oversight burden associated with the usual federal transit funding mechanisms like New Starts. Metro did pursue Small Starts funding for the final few lines, a process less cumbersome than New Starts.
While the Orange Line corridor had a long history of debate and indecision over what to build, once BRT was selected as the preferred mode, the line was built quickly. Planning and engineering took place from 2000 to 2003, and construction occurred from 2003 to late 2005. Metro did not seek New Starts funding, instead relying mainly on state and local funding sources. The agency found it relatively easy to secure funding since because of the high level of enthusiasm from local politicians who participated in the Curitiba trip about implementing a Curitiba- style BRT in Los Angeles.
Capacity: Metro Rapid demonstrates a benefit of low cost incremental upgrades: since these upgrades can be implemented across a very extensive network of bus lines, they offer the opportunity to serve a very high number of passengers. However, both the Metro Rapid and the Orange Line are facing capacity limits with the existing fleets from interaction with general traffic at intersections. Metro reduced Orange Line headways to four minutes at peak hours, and agency officials have indicated that shorter headways are not possible due to concerns over creating back- ups on the north- south cross- streets. Metro had hoped to address this problem by deploying larger buses. In 2007, the agency ordered a prototype 65- ft bus that increases capacity by 20 percent. However, the agency has been unable to obtain the necessary regulatory waivers to operate this bus.
Metro is also looking to add more high- capacity vehicles to Metro Rapid in order to increase capacity without reducing headways. The agency is procuring both 60- ft and 45- ft buses for deployment on Metro Rapid lines over the next several years.
Operating Costs: A 2007 TRB article about the Orange Line documents cost estimates from the transit agency’s FY’ 07 budget. According to this report, operating costs for the Orange Line were comparable to or lower than those of Metro’s light rail lines, as detailed in Table 14. The agency does not track Metro Rapid operating costs separately; however, officials report that Metro Rapid’s operating costs per platform hour are essentially the same as the San Fernando Valley local bus service, which are much lower than the Orange Line and light rail costs.
Safety and Other Issues: Although the Orange Line has more visible safety issues, its current accident rate is much lower than the Metro Rapid rate. Metro Rapid averages 4.83 accidents per 100,000 miles, while the Orange line averages just 1.45 accidents per 100,000 miles. This is an indication of the greater opportunities for accidents with other Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 43
vehicles or pedestrians when operating in general traffic lanes.
Transit- Oriented Development: One rationale for implementing a dedicated busway instead of Metro Rapid lines to serve the San Fernando Valley was the desire to promote development along the segregated right- of- way. As of early 2009, it is too early to tell if the Orange Line will have a significant land use impact, but there are early indications of interest from developers. According to Metro officials, the agency is pursuing several potential joint development projects, and the owner of a new residential building is looking to build a direct connection to the Canoga Station.
Future Plans
The Orange Line’s expansion plans are typical of the heavy- investment, single- corridor transit approach. Metro is building a four- mile extension north from the Orange Line’s western end to the Chatsworth transit hub, offering a connection to the Metrolink commuter rail. Metro selected a busway built along Metro- controlled right- of- way, rather than on- street dedicated bus lanes, during the Alternative Analysis, continuing the agency commitment to a separated busway for Orange Line service.
Metro has completed Phase I of the Metro Rapid program, but has had to re- consider its plan to implement a higher level of BRT attributes. Agency officials are now indicating that it will be difficult to acquire the right- of- way needed to create on- street dedicated lanes, because such lanes are controversial, even among transit supporters. 53 Moreover, the agency has said that because Metro Rapid operates primarily in heavily built- up areas, it will not be feasible to secure sidewalk space needed to install substantial stations that can allow off- coach fare collection.
However, plans are underway for exclusive lane service along Wilshire Boulevard, Metro Rapid’s busiest corridor. From 2005 to 2007, Metro operated peak- hour bus- only lanes on a portion of the corridor, by eliminating peak period curbside street parking, as studies showed sufficient side or off- street parking. Metro is now planning to create roughly nine miles of dedicated curb lanes along Wilshire Boulevard, supported by a federal grant. 54 In addition, Los Angeles County is planning a bus speed improvement program; the county is evaluating corridors where it may be possible to insert short bus lanes or other treatments to improve bus speeds.
Santaanta Clara VTA 522 Rapid: Single Corridor Light BRT
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) serves a 326- square mile urbanized region in the San Francisco Bay Area. Often referred to as the “ South Bay,” the region is home to 1.77 million residents and encompasses a wide variety of land uses, including Silicon Valley industrial parks, universities, low- density commercial and residential areas, and downtown office districts. To serve this sprawling and diverse area, VTA operates 42 miles of light rail service and an extensive network of local bus routes. The South Bay also has regional commuter rail service. However, the region is strongly oriented toward private car travel, with only about 3.5 percent of regional trips taken on transit. 55
In July 2005, VTA launched its first rapid bus line, the 522. VTA employed a few simple, Mineta Transportation Institute
44 Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation
inexpensive BRT elements designed to provide faster and more frequent service along the South Bay’s most popular bus corridor, which runs for 26 miles through six cities in the Santa Clara Valley. The 522 is overlaid onto the local bus service, Rt. 22, but has fewer stops, shorter headways, transit signal priority, and uses VTA’s fleet buses marked with a distinct livery. Performance improvements from the 522’ s mild service and infrastructure upgrades are correspondingly modest, but the service has met its goals of reduced travel times and increased ridership, and at a cost of only $ 3.5 million or $ 135 thousand per mile.
The 522 represents the simplest form of incremental BRT in this report with its limited geographic coverage and low level of BRT element implementation. In its focus on a few, inexpensive bus service upgrades, the Rapid 522 most closely resembles the Los Angeles Metro Rapid service. However, Metro Rapid places greater emphasis on image and branding, while VTA invested only in functional service upgrades in a single bus corridor. While the implementation strategy means that even though the 522 is less of a high- profile project than Oregon’s EmX and LA’s Orange Line, it does demonstrate that a low level investment upgrading conventional bus service can provide benefits.
VTA’s recently completed its latest short- term transit plan, covering 2008 to 2017, which laid out the next step in VTA’s incremental BRT strategy. The agency plans to add a higher order of BRT features to the 522, including a dedicated busway along a short portion of the route; this level of service has been labeled BRT- 2. However, the agency’s overall strategy for future transit service is much more dependent on new rail investments than on incremental BRT. 56
Project History and Goals
For the last 25 years, VTA has had a largely rail- oriented transit strategy. Between 1982 and 2005, VTA built the region’s first light rail service, opening nine LRT segments along a 42- mile network. Total cost for the system and its 100 vehicles was $ 1.9 billion, or $ 45 million per mile. However, VTA’s extensive bus network, with roughly 70 bus lines serving 1,378 route miles, is the “ workhorse” of the system, with 31.6 million boardings in 2007 compared to 10.3 million on light rail. Light rail ridership has been increasing at a much higher rate than bus ridership, however: LRT ridership experienced a 22 percent increase in 2006 and 24 percent increase in 2007, compared to 2 percent each year for the bus system. As already noted, the South Valley’s transit mode share is relatively low and VTA’s customers tend to be heavily transit dependent. A 2006 passenger survey found that 65 percent did not have a car available for their transit trip, and 75 percent take the bus at least four times a week. 57
The 522 rapid bus line is one of VTA’s few major new bus initiatives in recent years. The agency’s primary goal was to improve service for existing customers on the Rt. 22 corridor, which is by far the agency’s most popular corridor, providing 20 percent of VTA’s bus ridership. By supplementing the local service with a rapid transit line, VTA hoped to alleviate crowding on Rt. 22 buses and provide faster, more frequent and more direct service along the corridor. VTA received $ 1.6 million from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air to pay for queue jump lanes and Mineta Transportation Institute
Case Studies of North American BRT Implementation 45
TSP; the remaining $ 1.9 million in capital costs was provided through local transit funds.
In addition to launching the 522, VTA recently completed a total overhaul of its bus system— the details are provided in the discussion of the 522 elements below — and is now planning to implement a higher order of BRT features in a few bus corridors. These changes are being driven by three major factors. First, VTA’s farebox recovery rate is under 15 percent, well below the national average of 36 percent for cities above 200,000 population. This low recovery rate threatens VTA’s financial stability and, the agency believes, indicates that transit resources are not being effectively allocated. To address this issue, the agency conducted an analysis of how to reform VTA’s bus system, based on market research, operational analysis and policy development. Second, a new transit sales tax was implemented in 2006, which the agency had to determine how best to spend. Finally, VTA was scheduled to develop a new ten- year transit plan, covering FY2008 to FY2017; as part of this effort, VTA conducted a review of all its transit services.
The resulting strategy continues to focus resources on expanding heavy rail service in the South Bay, including a proposed $ 6.4 billion mega project to extend the San Francisco subway to Santa Clara. By contrast, the short- term plan does not anticipate any significant expansion of bus or light rail in the next ten years. In lieu of major new investments, the plan called for revamping the existing bus service in order to attract more riders and increase the farebox recover rate, and implementing a higher order of BRT features in a few corridors. Upgrades will include all the features of the 522 plus segregated running ways, enhanced stops, bus- passing lanes at stops, and advanced transit signal priority.
Building the 522 Rapid
In this section, we examine the elements implemented on the Rapid 522 and their costs.
Running Way Priority and Routing
The VTA 522 line runs approximately 26 miles along arterial roadways. Its western terminus is the Palo Alto Transit Center, a multimodal transit hub that serves the Palo Alto and Stanford University populations.