Bus Stop Optimization Study

Similar documents
Update on Bus Stop Enhancements

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

What We Heard Report - Metro Line NW LRT

Sean P. McBride, Executive Director Kalamazoo Metro Transit. Presentation to Michigan Transportation Planning Association July 13, 2016

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

PAG Environmental Planning Advisory Committee Sun Link Streetcar Update May 1, 2015

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

Statewide Park & Ride Inventory and Usage Study, March 13, 2013 Liz McAdory, VDOT, Transportation & Mobility Planning Division

I-405 and SR 522/NE 145th Bus Rapid Transit. Elected Leadership Groups Meeting November 30, 2018

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Background Information about the Metrobus 29 Lines Study

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

SamTrans Business Plan Update May 2018

Columbia Pike Transit Stations

BUS STOP DESIGN & PLANNING GUIDE

St. Catharines Transit Commission Accessibility Plan. St. Catharines Transit Commission Accessibility Plan

DART Priorities Overview

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

April 2010 April 2010 Presented by Alan Eirls

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

2019 New Transit Service Plan

Continued coordination and facilitation with City of Austin staff on documentation of processes to permit construction activities at the site.

10/4/2016. October 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Location Tool and Visualization Map. July 17, 2018

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

E) That the General Manager be authorized to execute and deliver such documentation on behalf of the Park Board.

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a

JARED CHOC, MANAGER OF PLANNING AND TECHNOLOGY STEVE DICKEY, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT

Draft Results and Open House

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

3.15 SAFETY AND SECURITY

Public Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

Central City Line Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Amendment Public Hearing. July 24, 2014

Arterial Bus Rapid Transit. System Policy Oversight Committee April 7, 2014

METRO CNG Program Phase I Update. Customer Service Committee April 2014

Click to edit Master title style

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Paid Parking Pilot Program Parking Management

Dallas Integrated Corridor Management System Lessons Learned. June 2, 2014

April 2011 April 2011 Presented by Robert Spaulding & Alan Eirls

Draft Results and Recommendations

Transportation Demand Management Element

GODURHAM PROGRESS REPORT

Electric Multiple Unit Procurement Update

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

HDR Engineering. HART North / South. Tampa Bay Applications Group Meeting May 14, 2009

ANDERSON PROPERTY SITE ANALYSIS

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Location Tool and Visualization Map

Rocky Mountain. Corridor Input Team. Alternatives Overview. TEMS, Inc. / Quandel Consultants, LLC TEMS, Inc. / Quandel Consultants, LLC

Parking Management Element

San Rafael Transit Center. Update. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Transportation Committee of the Board of Directors

CTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

SOUTHERN GATEWAY. Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee 11 May 2015

National Household Travel Survey Add-On Use in the Des Moines, Iowa, Metropolitan Area

Marketing Research Update Paratransit/Trolley Customer Surveys

MBTA Key Bus Route. Community Meeting Route 1 - Boston

State Avenue Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Regional Transit Extension Studies. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Meeting December 17, 2013

May '18 June '18 July '18 August '18 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

Scarborough Transit Planning

Automated Bus Announcement Update Transportation Accessibility Advisory Committee January 6, 2016

Broward County Intermodal Center And People Mover. AASHTO Value Engineering Conference Presentation. September 1, 2009 San Diego, CA

MOTION NO. M Purchase of Thirty-one Articulated Hybrid Diesel Expansion and Replacement Buses

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

Key Project Elements Status Report

West Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Low-Speed Autonomous Shuttle Project Summary

Welcome. Highway 23 Gap New London to Paynesville. Open House. - Please Sign In -

Too Good to Throw Away Implementation Strategy

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 301 E. Huron St., P.O. Box 8647 Ann Arbor, Michigan

FasTracks News. RTD s Eagle P3 Transit Project Nears Halfway Mark to Opening Day EP3 will add three commuter rail lines to metro area in 2016

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)

Planning for Sustainability: Electric Vehicles

COMMUNITY REPORT FISCAL YEAR We are making progress, are you on board? GOLD COAST TRANSIT DISTRICT

MBTA Key Bus Route Improvement Program. Community Meeting Route 66 Allston/Brighton

REMOVE II VANPOOL VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Blue Ribbon Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Introduction

Findings from a Survey on Bus Stop Design

Improving Accessibility of Regional Bus Stops and Pathways

Exhibit A Sound Transit Board Resolution R Selecting the bicycle, pedestrian, and parking access improvements to be built for the Puyallup

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Final Compendium Report. Connecting the San Fernando Valley and the Westside

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

Internal Audit Report. Fuel Consumption Oversight and Coordination TxDOT Internal Audit Division

Transit on the New NY Bridge

SUPPORTING TOD IN METRO CHICAGO

Shuttle Bug: Linking Workers to Public Transportation in Northern Cook and Southern Lake Counties University of Illinois- Chicago Urban

MARTA s blueprint for the future. COFFEE AND CONVERSATION Kyle Keahey, More MARTA Atlanta Dec. 5, 2018

Transcription:

Bus Stop Optimization Study Executive Summary February 2015 Prepared by: Passero Associates 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14614 Office: 585 325 1000 Fax: 585 325 1691 In association with: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The purpose of this Bus Stop Optimization Study was to evaluate approximately 3,400 bus stops in the RTS Monroe County service area and to provide recommendations to improve the placement of bus stops, resulting in a pattern of stops that is more effective and efficient for bus patrons and bus operations. Placing of bus stops requires a balance between convenience for the walker and the rider. A little more walking (2 minutes or so more) could reduce the overall travel time by 10 to 20%.1 Goal is to optimize the stop placement to reduce travel times lower emission and operating costs and improve the overall customer experience encourage new customers Bus stop placements in RTS system grew over time, with no clear guidelines for bus stop spacing, quantity or density. It became clear to RTS officials that a bus stop optimization study was needed. RTS retained the services of Passero Associates, who teamed with Kimley Horn, to conduct the study. 1. Eliminating Bus Stops: Shrestha & Sohik, George Mason University, 2013

STUDY METHODOLOGY The study consisted of five parts: Data Collection on approximately 3,400 bus stops; Research of Industry Standards; Development of a Bus Stop Analysis Tool, Public Input and Recommendations. The data collection was conducted from January to March of 2014. The first public meeting was held on March 25, 2014. The analysis was performed during April to July with draft recommendations issued in June of 2014. Several meetings were held between RTS staff and the consultants to refine the analysis and the recommendations. The final recommendations were issued in August 2014. A second public workshop meeting was held on September 18, 2014. The five study steps are explained in further detail following. Data Collection Bus Stop Inventory The bus stop inventory of approximately 3,400 stops over 40 bus routes was conducted to ascertain the condition of the bus stop, the bus stop sign, and the access around the bus stop. The information on the bus stop sign was collected because with the opening of the new downtown transit center on 11/28/14 and the rebranding effort, all of the bus stop signs are being replaced. The consultants used several methods to collect the inventory data. The consultants used RTS s Bus Stop Manager database which included information on each bus stop, including type of stop, location of stop by coordinates, any amenities such as shelters or pads and photos. This information was supplemented with the use of Google Street Maps and Pictometry to view the condition and visibility of each stop and, where necessary, site visits were conducted. The consultants entered all of this data into an inventory data spreadsheet which broke down the data into the following categories: Bus stop location; bus stop type; bus stop amenities; bus stop sign mounting details, bus stop deficiencies, nearby generators, and proximity to features (i.e. trees, driveways, overhead wires).

STUDY METHODOLOGY Industry Standards RTS does not have a standard for bus stop spacing so they looked to their consultants to seek out what practices other transit agencies used. These standards are intended to ensure there are not more than the specified number of stops per mile because if the stops are too closely spaced, bus operating speeds drop and the overall level of service for riders is reduced. There is an inevitable trade-off of convenience for riders to access the transit system and the level of service possible given the number of times the buses are required to stop. The consultants found that there was no uniform practice in terms of bus stop spacing but found the most common practice used 6 8 stops per mile. (Note: Some existing RTS routes have portions of the route with stop spacings of up to 14 stops per mile). The consultants recommended the following spacing standards for two types of service environments. In urban areas the typical stop spacing would be 750 with a goal of 7 stops per mile. In suburban areas the typical stop spacing is 1000 with a goal of 5 stops per mile. A similar research of industry standards 2 on the location of shelters suggests that a common practice is to place shelters at bus stops that have the following boarding levels: Location Rural Suburban Urban Boardings 10 boardings per day 25 boardings per day 50-100 boardings per day Other criteria must also be evaluated for the potential inclusion of a shelter: Site specific limitations, such as available space, land use compatibility, accessibility, visibility Number of transfers at stop Proximity to major activity centers 2. TCRP Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops: Transportation Research Board, 1996

Bus Stop Evaluation Tool STUDY METHODOLOGY With the inventory complete and the bus stop spacing standards set, the consultants preceded to analyze the bus stop data. To conduct this analysis the consultants prepared an interactive spreadsheet that allowed for the rapid analysis of the vast database using multiple scenarios in order to arrive at the optimum bus stop spacings and locations for each bus route. A number of stops were identified as critical stops (Tier 1) which were protected from elimination due to their status as being a transfer point, having a shelter, being an annunciated stop or stops associated with private partner support. There were 618 stops identified as critical and coded to remain in the evaluation tool. The analysis then used two factors; the primary factor was the spacing standards and the secondary factor was ridership. Several iterations were run until optimal bus stop spacing was achieved. The results were then displayed using GIS mapping tools. Maps were prepared for urban and suburban routes and bus stop dispositions were color coded to identify stops being removed, saved or relocated. The GIS mapping allowed for easy visual interpretation of the bus stop placements and identified clusters of stops along a route or long gaps in coverage. These areas were then scrutinized further to see if there were local conditions that caused these anomalies. RTS staff also assisted in analyzing these anomalies and suggested different search factors to use to better optimize the bus stop placements. The evaluation tool easily allowed for these refinements and updated mapping was prepared.

Bus Stop Placements Keep 618 critical stops (Tier 1) Eliminate 472 stops along urban routes (27% reduction) Eliminate 437 stops along suburban routes (27% reduction) Use new recommended bus stop spacing guidelines of 7 stops per mile within City of Rochester and 5 stops per mile in Monroe County suburbs for locating future bus stops Bus Stop Amenities The Bus Stop Inventory provides a listing of amenities (e.g., shelters, concrete pads, benches) at each stop. The industry standards for shelters provide RTS with sufficient information to plan future improvements. RTS does not provide funding for benches at bus stops. RTS will consider assisting neighborhood and private organizations, which will purchase and install the benches, with the planning and logistics involved in the effort. Bus Stop Signs RECOMMENDATIONS RTS is undergoing a rebranding effort in which new signs will be installed at all bus stops. The new signs will clearly display which route numbers are served at each stop. The inventory provides information on sign post condition, height and type, which will facilitate the proper installation.

PUBLIC INPUT RTS recognized that changes to bus stop locations could negatively impact some of their customers for a variety of reasons (mobility, accessibility, safety, convenience, weather) and approached this study with their needs in mind. RTS conducted an extensive public information campaign to be sure that their customers were well informed and had opportunity to provide input. The public participation campaign consisted of the following: Initial Public Informational Meeting on 3/25/14 to explain the study s objectives and provide a forum for questions and input. Press releases Information on RTS website Public Workshop on 9/18/14 Public comments were accepted up to October 17, 2014. RTS received 53 requests for a change to a bus stop recommendation and after further analysis 39 were granted. RTS will continue modifications of the recommendation as public input is received.

IMPLEMENTATION Bus Stop Sign replacements and Bus Stop removals will begin Spring 2015 and be completed in approximately a year. Bus Stops to be removed will be marked at least two weeks prior to removal. RTS will work with the City of Rochester and MCDOT to identify and implement any changes to parking restrictions caused by bus stop removals.