findings and recommendations - valley metro stop warrants program ... provide the transit agency...

RPTA Bus Stop Program and Standards

Final Report

Findings and Recommendations

Prepared for

REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Prepared by

March 2008

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and Need.........................................................................................1 1.2 Relationship to the Transit Life Cycle Program .............................................2 1.3 Project Process .............................................................................................2

2. Major Findings and Recommendations.................... 3 2.1 Existing Bus Stop Guidelines ........................................................................3 2.2 Valley Bus Stop Inventories...........................................................................5 2.3 Allocating Funding.........................................................................................7

3. Bus Stop Warrants Program.................................... 16 4. Application Process ................................................. 17

4.2 Timeline.......................................................................................................18 4.3 Program Auditing.........................................................................................18

5. Follow-on Work ......................................................... 18 5.1 Creation of Model Transit-friendly Development Ordinance........................18 5.2 Data Collection from Automated Passenger Counters................................18 5.3 Periodic Evaluation of Program...................................................................19 5.4 Valley-specific Bus Stop Demand Forecasting............................................19 5.5 Automated Tracking/Inventory Update Process ..........................................19 5.6 Regional Bus Stop Database Maintenance.................................................19 5.7 Full Utilization of Passenger Information Capabilities .................................19

6. Conclusion................................................................. 20

Final Report RPTA: Bus Stop Program and Standards

1. Introduction Bus stops in many instances serve as the front door to the transit system. As such, they play an important role in the perception that transit patrons and the community have towards their transit system. Given that travelers consider time spent waiting for and transferring between buses two to three times harder to tolerate than time spent on moving vehicles1, bus stop amenities provide the transit agency with an opportunity to create a favorable impression of the transit system. Additionally, passenger and operator safety is a high priority, and transit agencies can enhance safety through improved amenities and design. This report details the major findings and recommendations produced during the course of the Bus Stop Program and Standards project. The project produced recommendations for data management, established guidelines for design and implementation, and developed a system of prioritization and warrants to qualify sites for regional funding.

1.1 Purpose and Need The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Proposition 400 allocated $26.4 million2 for bus stop improvements over the 20-year program. This funding allocation has raised public expectations regarding the provision of bus stop amenities. At the same time, the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) cannot afford to fund a “top-of-the-line” bus shelter at every stop in the region. RPTA and member agencies need to distribute amenities throughout the system to ensure that all user groups and jurisdictions are treated equitably, and that capital investments enhance planned operational investments.

1.1.a Project Goals The goals of the Bus Stop Program and Standards project are as follows:

1. Understand the data maintenance and management practices of RPTA member agencies;

2. Understand the needs and objectives of member agencies in providing amenities at bus stops;

3. Develop reasonable levels of investment (funding) for bus stop amenities; 4. Design a program of objective criteria to prioritize RTP funding for bus stops across the

region; 5. Provide best practices and design standard construction requirements to RPTA member

cities to meet RPTA’s goals as well as newer requirements from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and

6. Prepare a coordinated implementation program for bus stop investments.

1.1.b Limits of the Funding The Bus Stop Pullouts/Improvements funding provides capital funding only; right-of-way acquisition, ongoing maintenance and operation of bus stops are not included and remain a local responsibility. Local jurisdictions are responsible for the ongoing operational costs for any capital improvements. The funding provided through Proposition 400 was designed to address bus stops associated with regional transit investments, such as Supergrid service. However, the prioritization system allows consideration of local stops in any given year once regional priorities are satisfied. 1 See Ben-Akiva, M., and Lerman, SR. Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, 1985. 2 Funding allocation is in FY 2005/06 dollars.

1


In addition, local jurisdictions may apply to use funding to upgrade an existing bus stop to a higher level of amenities; however, funding will not be used simply to replace existing amenities except when amenities must be replaced for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

1.2 Relationship to the Transit Life Cycle Program The Transit Life Cycle Program provides a means of tracking the ebb and flow of Public Transportation Fund (PTF) funding. The Finance Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC) reviews the Transit Life Cycle financial model at least annually and makes recommendations to improve financial management and maintain jurisdictional equity over the 20-year life of the RTP. Ultimately, the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) dictates the share of funding that member agencies receive from Prop. 400. The process ensures that jurisdictional equity is monitored over the 20 year life of the program. (Jurisdictional equity refers to the overall share of funding received from revenues generated by Proposition 400.) While jurisdictional equity will be monitored in terms of overall capital and operations allocations, the share of funding that any given local jurisdiction receives may differ from sub-program to sub-program and from year to year. Jurisdictional equity ensures an equitable distribution of funding from PTF as a whole, but a means of rating individual bus stops for funding was still needed and was developed as part of the Bus Stops Study. It is anticipated that some localities will have more urgent needs in some years than others, and the bus stop warrants program will provide guidance to RPTA and the VMOCC to prioritize projects annually based on an objective rating process. For a more complete understanding of the TLCP, contact RPTA’s Life Cycle Manager. Updated TLCP information, including projects and dollar amounts, is included in the 2007 RTP annual update. The associated policies and procedures are available for distribution through the Life Cycle Manager.

1.3 Project Process The process for the Bus Stop Study was designed to promote information gathering, information sharing, group discussion, and consensus building. The project was led by RPTA under the oversight of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which met periodically throughout the study to discuss project findings and consider project recommendations.

1.3.a Formation and Composition of TAG The TAG was designed to be inclusive with a broad-based membership. Representatives from the following groups regularly attended meetings and workshops: City of Avondale City of Chandler Town of Gilbert City of Glendale City of Mesa City of Phoenix City of Scottsdale City of Tempe

Workshop participants discuss bus stop amenities

2

RPTA: Bus Stop Program an

In order to provide guidance to Valley cities about legal requirements and other considerations in bus stop construction, a stand-alone document, Bus Stop Design Guidelines, was created to provide a common set of information in a helpful and concise manner. The guidelines detail requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – where applicable – and also suggest best practices gleaned from the experience of Valley cities.

2.1.a Bus Stop Design Guidelines

Arizona Bridge to Independent Living Arizona Bridge to Independent Living Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa Association of Governments Maricopa Association of Governments RPTA RPTA

1.3.b TAG meetings and Workshops 1.3.b TAG meetings and Workshops Over the eight-month span of the project, TAG members attended four meetings to review working papers and to make further recommendations. Over the eight-month span of the project, TAG members attended four meetings to review working papers and to make further recommendations. In addition, TAG members participated in two four-hour workshops: a Design Workshop, at which participants determined the levels of bus stops and associated amenities to use in generating a level of investment; and an Investment Criteria Workshop, where participants created a list of important factors to consider in allocating funding. Representatives from transit operations, including bus operators, contracting companies, and transit shelter advertising companies were also invited to participate in project workshops. Notes were recorded and distributed after each of the meetings and workshops.

In addition, TAG members participated in two four-hour workshops: a Design Workshop, at which participants determined the levels of bus stops and associated amenities to use in generating a level of investment; and an Investment Criteria Workshop, where participants created a list of important factors to consider in allocating funding. Representatives from transit operations, including bus operators, contracting companies, and transit shelter advertising companies were also invited to participate in project workshops. Notes were recorded and distributed after each of the meetings and workshops.

2. Major Findings and Recommendations 2. Major Findings and Recommendations

2.1 Existing Bus Stop Guidelines

Final Report d Standards

3

Regional bus stop design guidelines were established in 1993 and are included in the RPTA Bus Stop Handbook. The Handbook is intended to be used by planners, designers, developers, and agency officials. It includes guidelines on the location of bus stops, signage, street geometrics, passenger needs, bus priority treatments, and bus vehicle characteristics. Agencies within the RPTA region may choose to use only this handbook in bus stop design, but they are not required to do so. Many cities have included additional guidelines, policies, and standards in various plans they have developed. Consequently, bus stop standards and designs vary across the region. Table 1 (on the next page) presents information that is included in various bus stop policies throughout Maricopa County.

A figure from the new guidelines.

4


Municipality SOURCE YEAR Non

e

Bus

Dim

ensi

ons

Stre

et G

eom

etric

s

Loca

tion

Bus

Sto

ps

Gen

eral

Loc

atio

n

Spec

ial

Circ

umst

ance

s-

Loca

tion

Stan

dard

Bus

Sto

p Si

gnag

e B

us B

ay

Loca

tion/

Des

ign

Una

ccep

tabl

e B

us

Stop

Loc

atio

n B

icyc

le/P

edes

tria

n A

cces

s

Pad

Des

ign

AD

A R

equi

rem

ents

Gen

eric

am

eniti

es

Land

scap

ing

Furn

iture

Shel

ter

Ligh

ting

Publ

ic A

rt

Cle

aran

ces

Que

ue J

umpe

rs

Con

stru

ctio

n C

ondi

tions

B

us S

top

Mai

nten

ance

TOD

Req

uire

men

t

No

Adv

ertis

ing

City of Avondale General Plan 2001 - - X - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -City of Chandler General Plan 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -City of El Mirage General Plan 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2002 - - - - X - - - - X - - X - - - - X - - - - - -

Town of Gilbert

General Plan (approved by 2001; amended in 2006); Gilbert/East Valley Long-Range Transit Plan (published in Summer 2003)

2001; 2006; 2003 - X X X X - X X X X X X X X X X X - X X X X - -

City of Glendale General Plan; Design Standards 2002 - - - - X - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City of Goodyear General Plan; Design Guidelines

2003; 1997 - - X X X X X X X X - X X X X X - - X - - X X X

Town of Guadalupe X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -City of Litchfield Park General Plan 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - -City of Mesa Transportation Plan 2002 - - X - - - - X - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - -Town of Paradise Valley X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City of Peoria General Plan; Long Range Transit Plan

2004, 2000 - - - X - - - - - X - - X - - - - - - - - - X -

City of Phoenix General Plan 2001 - X X X - X X X X X X X - X X X - - X X X - - -City of Scottsdale Design Standards 2004 - - - X - - X X X X - X - X X X - - - - - X - -Sun City X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City of Surprise

Planning and Design Guidelines; Long Range Transit Plan

2002, 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - X X - - - X - - - - - X -

City of Tempe Zoning and Development Code 2005 - - X X - X - - - X X X - X X - - - X - - - - -

City of Tolleson X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RPTA Bus Stop Handbook 1993 - X X X - X X X X X X X - X X X - - X X X - - -

Table 1: Bus Design Standards per City


As mentioned, the best practices in the Guidelines go beyond ADA requirements in some cases. One such example is a recommendation that cities provide an eight-foot by eight-foot clear area (concrete pad) instead of the eight-by-five area required under ADA. Some Valley cities have learned through experience that an eight-by-eight clear area provides additional space for bus operators to locate the rear door at the clear area when the bus comes to a stop, especially once additional amenities are provided. Guidelines such as this are not legal requirements; but, by adopting best practices, towns and cities may be able to avoid costly retrofits that result from pursuing only required minimums. The funding levels are set up to allow cities the flexibility to follow best practices, not just legal minimums.

2.2 Valley Bus Stop Inventories Another objective of the Bus Stop Study was to understand whether and how Valley cities maintain information about their bus stops. The project team found that only 6 of the 18 Valley cities interviewed maintain their own database of bus stop information. Table 2: lists Valley cities in which transit service is provided and whether or not they have a locally maintained bus stop database. (The information in the table is current as of May 2006.) Table 2: City-Maintained Bus Stop Databases

Jurisdictions with Transit Service Locally

Maintained Database?

City of Avondale No City of Chandler Yes City of El Mirage No Town of Fountain Hills No Town of Gilbert Yes City of Glendale Yes City of Goodyear No Town of Guadalupe No City of Litchfield Park No City of Mesa Yes Town of Paradise Valley No City of Peoria No City of Phoenix Yes City of Scottsdale Yes City of Surprise No City of Tempe Yes City of Tolleson No

2.2.a Valley-wide Database The City of Phoenix Public Transit Department (PTD) manages the region-wide database. (Originally, the intent of this database was to maintain an inventory of bus stops for bus route scheduling and vehicle management.) The City of Phoenix PTD provides an inventory form cities should use to log bus stop data when there are additions or changes in the system (see Figure 1 on the next page), but this form is seldom used. As a result, the information maintained in the various databases is not always consistent. For example, each city maintains

5


different information about their bus stops - together, the cities’ databases included more than 35 informational categories, while the region-wide database contained only 27 categories. (The number and type of categories also differed from city to city.) In some cases, bus stops listed in individual cities’ databases did not appear in the region-wide database, and vice versa. Figure 1: Region-wide Database

2.2.b Recommendations After reviewing the findings regarding bus stop inventories in the Valley, the TAG made the following recommendations:

• Local agencies should maintain a database containing - at minimum - the same information as found in the region-wide database3 and provide updates when changes are made or stops are added.

3 Cities can add as many additional fields as they need to tailor the database for their individual needs.

6


• Local inventories should cross-reference all local stop ID numbers with the regional stop ID number.

• Local jurisdictions should aim to use computer-based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to reference bus stops, and thereby obtain more accurate boarding information.

• Valley cities should develop a standard naming convention for bus stop locations, including a naming convention that can be sorted by street name. The following naming convention is suggested:

1) Direction of travel: NB, SB, EB, WB 2) “Bus street”: The street the stop is located on (example: “Priest Dr” not “S

Priest Dr”) 3) Cross street: If it is a midblock stop, name both cross streets, in order by

direction of travel (example: “Southern Ave/Broadway Rd”). 4) Position of stop (NS-near side, FS- far side, MB- mid block)

• Local databases should include contact information and submittal instructions to promote use of the regional Bus Stop Inventory Form.

• The following items should be added to the regional bus stop inventory: o Routes served o Power access o Bus pullouts o Landmark and/or bus stop photograph

Future work will include establishing a system of correspondence between local jurisdictions and the agency maintaining the regional database to ensure information is coordinated and above recommendations can be incorporated without creating undue burden at local or regional levels. Utilization of on-line e-forms using a secure site should also be considered for acquiring and maintaining bus stop inventory data.

2.3 Allocating Funding This section addresses prioritization of bus stops for funding, and the level of investment to be provided to a given bus stop.

2.3.a Annual Funding Allocation The RTP allocated $24.4 million for bus stop improvements over twenty years. As part of its annual review of the Transit Life Cycle financial program, the FOAC will recommend the funding cap for bus stop improvements each year. Among the criteria the FOAC will consider in determining the annual cap is the need to ensure that bus stop funding will be available to support new routes in later years of the RTP.4

2.3.b Prioritization of Bus Stops The RTP provides for expansion of the regional transit system through the addition of new bus miles to the system or the conversion of existing bus miles from local funding to regional funding. Any bus stop in the system is eligible for RTP bus stop funding, but in order to ensure that an adequate level of funding is preserved for new bus stops throughout the lifecycle of the

4 See Appendix II for a minimum budgetary amount required each year to support new bus stops.

7


RTP, a prioritization system was developed. In any given year, bus stop funding requests will be funded in the following order, up the funding limit determined by the FOAC:

1. New, regional stops serving one or more regionally funded routes 2. Other new regional bus stops5 3. Existing regional stops to bring up to ADA standards6 4. Any regional bus stop, to upgrade amenities 5. Any stop (regional or local), to bring up to ADA standards 6. Any stop (regional or local), to upgrade amenities 7. Bus pullouts

Note: A regionally funded route is one that is identified in the RTP as a regional bus route and is also funded through the Public Transportation Fund (PTF). A “regional” bus stop is one that is served by one or more RTP-identified, regional bus routes, such a supergrid or rural connector route, but that is not necessarily funded by the PTF. A regional route may have portions that are regionally funded, and portions that are not. An existing local stop will qualify as a regional bus stop if RTP-identified, regional bus service will begin to serve the stop within five (5) years. In addition to prioritizing the order in which bus stops are funded, the project team developed standard levels of bus stop investment and qualification criteria for each level. Two workshops were conducted to promote discussion and decision-making about the key bus stop amenities and how to qualify stops for funding. The resulting recommendations are discussed in the next sections.

2.3.c Bus Stop Levels, Amenities, & Investment In the Design Criteria workshop, the TAG and workshop members created five levels of investment. The levels of amenities were designed to provide a basis for setting funding levels, but are not meant to create onerous requirements regarding the amenities that cities must provide at bus stops. While cities are encouraged to provide the amenities associated with the funding level for which their stop qualifies, the final Project Agreement will detail the exact requirements developed through negotiation between RPTA and the city; requirements will be tailored to each site’s unique needs. Table 3 (on the next page) shows each level, its key feature, associated amenities, and funding allocation.

5 Regional routes are Supergrid, BRT and Freeway Express/Connector routes, or portions of said routes, identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that are not funded through the Public Transportation (PTF) fund. Regionally funded routes are Supergrid, BRT and Freeway Express/Connector routes, or portions of said routes, identified in the RTP that are funded through PTF. 6 Although the Bus Stop Funding program is geared toward upgrading bus stops rather than providing rehabilitation, an exception will be made in the case of existing bus stops whose existing amenities are not compliant with the ADA. In such a case, a city may apply to provide the same level of amenities at a bus stop, rather than an upgraded level of amenities.

8


Design criteria workshop participants

Besides the bus stop amenities and funding levels, the workshop also produced some general comments and suggestions, summarized below:

• Signage should include o Route identification o Direction of travel o Valley Metro branding elements

• Information displays can be a problem because information currently is not updated on a consistent, regional basis (rather, it is according to each city’s update schedule). A

Table 3: Levels of Bus Stops

Amenity Base Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Key Feature Sign Shade Seating Shelter Enhanced Shelter

Funding Allocation* $150 $3,000 $6,000 $15,200 $23,200

Bus stop sign

8’ x 8’ clear area (pad)

8’ x 24’ clear area (pad)

Information display

Shade

Trash bin

Lighting

Seating

Standard bus shelter

Landscaping/planting

Safety bollards

Bike rack

9


Larger shelter, or other specialized features

Ash collector

Emergency call button *Funding is shown in FY2005/2006 dollars.

• regional system of coordination for updates may improve the quality of customer information.

• Information displays can be simplified to provide maps and timetables pertaining to one direction of travel, and timetables can be eliminated where headways are very short, e.g. “M-F, every 15 minutes.”

ADA guidelines do not specify what amenities are required at any given bus stop. However, amenities provided at a bus stop must meet applicable ADA guidelines.7

Best Practices The levels of investment were designed to be fair and to promote practices that go above and beyond those required under the ADA. A key example of this practice is that, while the ADA requires an eight-foot by five-foot clear area, funding provides for larger clear areas, depending on the level, to ensure that spacing requirements can be maintained when additional amenities are provided at the stop.

Reinvestment While the funding levels are meant to be adequate, RPTA wishes to encourage efficient use of RTP funding. Therefore, the Bus Stop Investment program allows any savings from the allocated funding to be spent on other transit stop investments (subject to approval by RPTA and consistent with the Project Agreement). For example, if a given bus stop qualifies as a level 3 bus stop and funding is available in the PTF, a city will be granted the $15,200 to provide the amenities specified. If the city is able to secure the amenities for a lower cost, such as by volume purchase or coordination with other Valley cities, any realized savings can be used to fund other bus stop investments.

Bus Pullouts As identified in the RTP and Proposition 400, funding is made available for bus pullouts along with bus stop improvements. RPTA supports using RTP funding for bus pullouts only in limited situations, for two key reasons:

• First, by forcing transit vehicles into an area outside of the traffic lane, bus pullouts create the potential for a delay for passengers when the bus has difficulty reentering traffic, thus reducing efficiency of transit operations. In general, bus pullouts are viewed as a street improvement that benefits the automobile, not the transit system. In addition, studies show that for the Phoenix area, the average person-delay for motorists using the street can be greater when a bus pullout is constructed.

• Second, bus pullouts are expensive to construct, meaning that RTP funding would quickly be exhausted on the construction of relatively few bus pullouts. (Note: RTP funding applies to construction only, and does not include right-of-way acquisition costs.)

7 RPTA and Valley cities will need to be vigilant about keeping abreast of changing regulations regarding Americans with Disabilities.

10


Bus pullouts may be warranted where street traffic speeds are 40 mph or more and one of the following conditions exist: • Peak period boarding average exceeds five people per bus • Average peak period dwell time exceeds 30 seconds per bus • A high frequency of accidents involving buses occurred within past year • Two traffic lanes or less exist in one direction of travel RPTA will provide matching funding for bus pullouts when the above conditions are met, based on the prioritization system shown in Section 2.3.b. Funding for bus pullouts will be determined on a project-by-project basis, subject to annual funding caps.

Presenting recommendations

2.3.d Investment Criteria At the second workshop, the project team developed a list of criteria by which bus stops can qualify for a given level of funding. Participants individually rated the importance of each criterion, using a scale of 0 to 5 (with 0 being “unimportant” and 5 being “very important”). The ratings were then tallied across the group. The results are shown in the table below. Table 4: Criteria and Importance

Criteria Avg. Ranking

Sensitivity of use 4.4 Daily boardings 3.8 Degree of exposure to elements 3.7 Route intersection/transfers 3.5 Land use measures 3.5 Low frequency 2.8 Safety 2.5 Joint participation 2.5 Transit-friendly development standards in place 2.5 Vehicle characteristics 2.5 Siting 2.4 Current conditions vs. projected conditions 2.0 Type of service 1.8 Request for amenity upgrade 1.8

With the bus stop levels defined and a set of criteria established for rating bus stop needs, the group had produced the foundation for a warrants program.

11


2.3.e Passenger Boarding Figures As the group’s criteria ratings show, ridership is not the only consideration for level of amenities at a stop, but it is an important component of a set of ranking criteria. In order to develop reasonable thresholds of passenger boardings for each of the bus stop levels, the project team analyzed data from the travel demand model developed by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). Using land use, trip generation, and socioeconomic data supplied from a variety of sources, MAG generates estimates about trip making and mode choice across the Valley. Model outputs are then calibrated against actual transportation data. According to MAG, the latest calibration of the transportation modes was completed in 2005, using data from the 2001 household travel survey and the 2001 on-board bus survey. When passenger boarding data from the MAG model is divided into quintiles (corresponding to five levels of bus stop amenities), the brackets are the following: 1st quintile: 0 to 10 daily boardings 2nd quintile: 10 to 35 daily boardings 3rd quintile: 36 to 70 daily boardings 4th quintile: 71 to 145 daily boardings 5th quintile: more than 145 daily boardings. The maps on the following pages show the distribution of boardings across the Valley for three different years: 2004, 2015, and 2024.

12


13


14

15



3. Bus Stop Warrants Program By combining the criteria developed in the workshop with passenger boarding thresholds based on regional transit projections, the project team developed a warrants program to evaluate the need for amenities at a given bus stop. Under this warrants program, bus stop sites qualify for funding levels established in the design workshop either by having a minimum number of passenger boardings or by a combination of boardings and points. (Cities are encouraged to provide additional amenities using funding from other sources. See Appendix III for a list of potential transit amenities funding sources.) Linking funding levels with boarding figures is an attempt to provide amenities to the greatest number of users. At the same time, promoting the use of other criteria as well allows growing cities to provide a higher level of amenities than using current boarding figures alone would allow. Note: while jurisdictional equity is monitored and tracked throughout the lifetime of the RTP as per Transit Lifecycle Program Guiding Principle #6,8 it is not an explicit consideration in awarding bus stop funding. The table below shows the warrant requirement for each bus stop level.

BASE LEVEL LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4

Qualification Criteria

Daily Boardings None 11-35 36-70 71-145 146+

OR

Daily Boardings None 1-10 11-35 36-70 71+ Additional Points None 7 9 12 18+

In addition to these criteria, several cities expressed the need to provide a visible level of support to stops located at intersections of the Valley’s “mile streets” in the form of a Level 3 stop (that is, a stop with a shelter). This has been incorporated into the program. During the application process, a priority and warrants analysis questionnaire will provide the means of gathering information and assigning a corresponding priority and point value for each site. The questionnaire also provides a field for applicants to indicate additional comments about the site that may influence the level of funding the site will qualify for. A single questionnaire may be used for multiple stops.

3.1.a Estimating Passenger Boardings The TAG members agreed that it is in the best interest of a growing region that future projections of demand be permitted as part of warrant criteria. In order to provide an estimate of boarding projections, a methodology was developed to estimate demand quickly based on planned land use surrounding the site in question and using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This method will be included in the application packet, and can be used when other data are not available.

8 The Transit Lifecycle Program (TLCP) Guiding Principles, adopted by the RPTA Board on June 16, 2005. Guiding Principle #6 states that “Jurisdictional equity will be monitored annually over 20 years”.

16


4. Application Process RPTA has identified a process through which Valley cities and towns could apply for bus stop funding that will consider local needs, regional balance, and jurisdictional equity. An effort is being made to reduce paperwork and increase process efficiency. As part of the efficiency measure, it is assumed that a project agreement will not be required for every bus stop application; instead, a single agreement covering all proposed bus stop locations or the ability to modify an existing agreement to add locations will be offered. (A copy of a Project Agreement form is included in Appendix II.) A warrants form will be required for each bus stop for which funding is requested. RPTA encourages electronic submissions, so the form has been created in Excel. However, cities may also print out the form and apply using the paper application. The application and approval process for bus stop funding is as follows:

1. Workshop: About a month before applications are due, RPTA holds a workshop to review the application process, the required paperwork, and so on. At this time, RPTA informs cities of the amount of funding available for that year, allowing the cities to evaluate how to gain the best advantage from the program based on the strength of their application.

2. Applications due: Cities submit applications for bus stop funding, along with a warrant form for each bus stop under consideration.

3. Internal review: RPTA staff review the applications for completeness and clarity. 4. VMOCC review process: the VMOCC (Valley Metro Operating and Capital Committee)

forms a sub-committee to review the applications and make recommendations to the full committee based on the warrants and the overall strength of the application.

5. FOAC review process: FOAC reviews VMOCC’s recommendations for conformity with the Transit Life Cycle Program and adjusts recommendations accordingly.

a. RPTA Executive Director reviews recommendations of FOAC and VMOCC. 6. TMC review process: RPTA Executive Director’s recommendation is forwarded to the

TMC for review. The TMC then makes a recommendation to the RPTA Board. 7. Board review: The RPTA Board reviews and approves the recommended bus stop

investments. Lead agencies are notified of funding approvals. Once a project is approved, lead agencies will negotiate and sign a Project Agreement with RPTA that will cover the bus stop improvements. Lead agencies will then be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred up to the level defined within the Project Agreement. If a city funds bus stop improvements in advance of the programmed schedule (for example, a project may be advanced using city funds), RPTA will reimburse the city with programmed funds as originally scheduled.

4.1.a Qualifying Bus Stops Bus stops constructed any time after November 2003 are eligible for this funding program. New bus stops that serve RTP-identified, regional routes will be eligible to receive reimbursement from the funding program no earlier than six months before service starts.

17


4.2 Timeline The bus stop program will be in effect upon approval by the RPTA Board, which is anticipated to be October 2007. The application process to allocate funding for fiscal year 2008 will begin after the program is approved. RPTA has established the following timeline for the bus stop funding process: Beginning of June: Workshop End of June: Applications due July: Internal review August - September: VMOCC/FOAC/TMC review process Mid-October: Board makes final recommendation/cities notified of funding amounts RPTA has established this timeline to coincide with cities’ budgeting processes so that cities will know the amount of funding that they will receive when they develop their annual budgets. Note: Cities will be notified of funding amounts shortly after the mid-October Board meeting, but arrangements remain non-binding until a Project Agreement is in place.

4.3 Program Auditing An audit process will ensure that funds are being spent on the types and quality of bus stops that the RTP intended. The audit will ensure that Public Transportation Funds (PTF) have been used to support transit and that the investments are “bus stop compatible.” To support the auditing process, each site under consideration for funding will require a warrants analysis and be included in the project assessment report (PAR).

5. Follow-on Work Throughout the progress of the Bus Stop Study, issues arose that were outside the scope of the study but complementary to the intent of supporting good bus stop practices. These are detailed below.

5.1 Creation of Model Transit-friendly Development Ordinance Some Valley cities have amended their governing code with a transit-friendly development ordinance in order to codify support for a transit-friendly community. This language is valuable in signaling to the development community that transit-friendly practices are encouraged by the community and the City Council. For cities that do not yet have a transit-friendly development ordinance, a model ordinance would be a helpful way to encourage consideration of an amendment.

5.2 Data Collection from Automated Passenger Counters The Bus Stop Study used MAG’s travel demand model to set daily boarding thresholds because the model provides the only regional data on boardings currently available. Since the model outputs are calibrated against only a ten-percent sample of boardings, the numbers are reasonable but their accuracy is suspect. However, the region will deploy smart farebox technology in winter 2007, which will include automated passenger counting capability. This technology will permit the collection of actual boarding data for the regional bus system. The automated passenger counters will provide invaluable boarding data to all agencies involved in transit provision in the Valley, and an effort to gather the data regionally is a good investment.

18


5.2.a Evaluation of Passenger Boarding Thresholds Once data is collected from automated passenger counters, the thresholds of boardings established under the warrants program should be re-analyzed and adjusted if appropriate.

5.3 Periodic Evaluation of Program The Bus Stop Study introduces new procedures, new requirements, and a new manner of working together regionally. The warrants program and application process should be evaluated after the first round of applications and approvals to assess whether the warrants program and the application procedure meet the needs of Valley cities, and whether RPTA is able to process applications and create recommendations efficiently.

5.4 Valley-specific Bus Stop Demand Forecasting The TAG members agreed that it is in the best interest of a growing region that future projections of demand be permitted as part of warrant criteria. While guidelines on estimating future demand at bus stops were provided as part of the warrants program, these guidelines are based on generally accepted national trends in trip generation and transit use. A forecasting method that reflects Valley tendencies and trends should be developed to provide greater accuracy.

5.5 Automated Tracking/Inventory Update Process The application process for bus stop funding will collect a great deal of information about area bus stops and the type of amenities provided at those bus stops. An automated method to import this information into the regional bus stop inventory would provide a valuable means of keeping track of bus stop amenities around the Valley.

5.6 Regional Bus Stop Database Maintenance The responsibility of maintaining the bus stop inventory database is currently held by the City of Phoenix. Given the growing regional nature of transit in the Valley, this responsibility should be transitioned to the RPTA. The bus stop inventory database is currently maintained in Microsoft Access, but can also use similar programs such as Oracle. The time required to maintain this database would be equivalent to approximately ¼ to ½ of a full-time position and would require database knowledge. Transition of regional bus stop database management to RPTA would not preclude local jurisdictions from maintaining their own databases. It is not the intent of RPTA to assume direct responsibility for bus stops, assets, databases, and inventories that the cities may need to control for internal and federal funding purposes.

5.7 Full Utilization of Passenger Information Capabilities The information collected about bus stop amenities, location, and routes serving a particular bus stop can be used to provide a greater level of information to the traveling public. For example, using NextBus technology at busy bus stop can inform transit passengers about their potential wait time, thereby creating a more comfortable traveling experience. In addition, this information can be integrated into Valley Metro trip planning capabilities and conveyed to passengers through online trip planners or the customer service department. Establishing a cooperative, inter-governmental working group to implement the full utilization of passenger information capabilities should be a priority task.

19


6. Conclusion Using a collaborative process involving member agencies, transit patrons, and transit operators, the Bus Stop Study gathered a great deal of information about current bus stop practices in the Valley. Although there is inconsistency between communities and between agencies, there is also a strong willingness to work together to create a cohesive system. The Bus Stop Study puts forth recommendations for bus stop data management, established guidelines for bus stop design and implementation, and developed a system of warrants to qualify bus stop sites for regional funding. The follow-on work recommended will further enhance the Valley’s bus stop program. By implementing the recommendations of this report, RPTA aims to provide an objective and equitable means of distributing bus stop funding and a common set of guidelines that will help Valley communities provide excellent bus stop amenities for their transit patrons.

20

Appendix I RPTA: Bus Stop Program and Standards

APPENDIX I: Abbreviations used FOAC: Finance Oversight Advisory Committee MAG: Maricopa Association of Governments RPTA: Regional Public Transportation Authority RTP: Regional Transportation Plan Prop. 400: Proposition 400 (transportation sales tax initiative) PTF: Public Transportation Fund TAG: Technical Advisory Group VMOCC: Valley Metro Operating and Capital Committee

21

Appendix II RPTA: Bus Stop Program and Standards

APPENDIX II: Minimum Funding Amount Needed for New Stops

Bus stop requirements for new bus miles, by year

Start Date # New bus miles # bus stops* Funding Needed**2007 1 9 58,364$ 2008 1 6 38,741$ 2009 15 118 829,532$ 2010 7 55 400,428$

2011 2 18 132,094$ 2012 15 121 923,742$ 2013 11 91 714,641$

*As

**evne

2014 13 106 864,508$ 2015 5 40 335,058$

2016 17 135 1,164,319$ 2017 0 0 -$ 2018 0 0 -$ 2019 19 152 1,428,050$ 2020 14 114 1,103,584$

2021 29 236 2,356,944$ 2022 14 116 1,190,567$ 2023 10 82 865,008$ 2024 18 142 1,554,735$ 2025 0 0 -$ 2026 0 0 -$

TOTAL 192 1539 13,960,316$

sumes placement of bus stops at every 1/4 mile on both sides of street.

Amount shown is adjusted for inflation. Assumes a Level 3 stop is provided at ery intersection of arterial streets and a Level 1 stop is provided at all other w stops

22

23


APPENDIX III: Transit Facilities Funding Sources

May be used for

Funding typeAvailable to local

jurisdictionsBus Stop Amenities

Bus Pullouts Notes

CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality) Federal Currently, no - -Used to match RTP funding; bus stop facilities may not qualify for funding even if it were available.

Transportation Enhancements Federal No - -Although permitted in some states, does not meet AZ's list of uses

5307 (Urbanized Areas) Federal Currently, noUsed to match RTP funding; very little allocated to bus stops in current 5-year TIP

5309 (Transit facilities) Federal Currently, no

Currently, 5309 (Transit Facilities) funding is earmarked for rural locations only. Would need to change earmark for urban areas.

Surface Transportation Program Federal Currently, no

Used to match RTPf funding; historically, has been used for vehicles and park-and-rides, not for bus stops

Highways Users Revenue Fund (HURF) State Potential (bus pullouts only) - x

Depends on local interpretation. Some cities have interpreted HURF to include bus pullouts, sidewalk work, bike/ped path road crossing improvements. Bus stop amenities are not a likely use.

LTAF I State Yes x x Varies from year to yearLTAF II State Yes x x Varies from year to year

Safety & Enforcement TI State No - - Not permitted with funding typeSafe Routes 2 School State No - - Not permitted with funding type

RARF (Regional Area Road Fund) County n/a - - (This is the RTP sales tax)Local transit sales taxes Local Yes x x

Local general fund Local Yes x x (Depends on local jurisdiction.)

Development Private Yes x xStipulations that new development provide transit amenities must be enacted at the local level.

Advertising partnership Private Yes x -Use of advertising for bus stop amenities is a local decision


APPENDIX IV: Forms

24


[PLACEHOLDER FOR PROJECT AGREEMENT FORM]

25


PTF Expenditure Reimbursement Request

26

RPTA Bus Stop Program and Standards

Bus Stop Design Guidelines

Prepared for


Prepared by

November 2007

Bus Stop Design Guidelines .............................................................................................1 1. Site Selection ........................................................................................................1

1.1 Best Practices................................................................................................1 1.2 Additional Considerations..............................................................................2

2. Accessibility...........................................................................................................4 2.1 Minimum Requirements.................................................................................4 2.2 Best Practices and Additional Considerations...............................................5

3. Bus Stop Pad ........................................................................................................5 3.1 Minimum Requirements.................................................................................5 3.2 Best Practices and Additional Considerations...............................................5

4. Seating ..................................................................................................................6 4.1 Minimum Requirements.................................................................................6 4.2 Best Practices................................................................................................6 4.3 Additional Considerations..............................................................................7

5. Shelter and Shade.................................................................................................8 5.1 Minimum Requirements.................................................................................8 5.2 Best Practices................................................................................................8

6. Lighting..................................................................................................................9 6.1 Best Practices................................................................................................9

7. Information and Signage .......................................................................................9 7.1 Best Practices..............................................................................................10

8. Trash Receptacle ................................................................................................12 8.1 Best Practices..............................................................................................13

9. Landscaping ........................................................................................................13 9.1 Best Practices..............................................................................................13

10. Bicycle Accommodation ..................................................................................14 10.1 Best Practices..............................................................................................14 10.2 Additional Considerations............................................................................16

11. Call boxes........................................................................................................16 11.1 Best Practices..............................................................................................16 11.2 Additional Considerations............................................................................16

12. Advertising.......................................................................................................16 13. Artistic Elements..............................................................................................16 14. Maintenance....................................................................................................17 15. Adopt-a-Stop ...................................................................................................17 16. Integrating Bus Stop Facilities and Development............................................17 17. Bus Pullout ......................................................................................................19

Appendix I: Minimum Requirements Checklist...............................................................21 Site Selection (Section 1) ............................................................................................21 Accessibility (Section 2)...............................................................................................21 Bus Stop Pad (Section 3) ............................................................................................21 Furniture (Section 4)....................................................................................................21 Shelter and Shade (Section 5) ....................................................................................21

Appendix II: Developer Guidelines.................................................................................22

Design Guidelines RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

BUS STOP DESIGN GUIDELINES The ideal bus stop design meets the transit users’ needs for safe, efficient access to the transit system while acknowledging the context of the adjacent neighborhood. This set of guidelines provides standards for bus stop implementation throughout the Valley Metro/RPTA1 network to encourage consistency in bus stop study, design, and implementation. The guidelines address site selection, accessibility requirements, bus stop amenities, information and signage, and other considerations that go into designing a bus stop. The guidelines were produced as part of RPTA’s Bus Stop Program and Standards study, which concluded in November 2007. To ensure that basic needs and requirements are met, while allowing individual communities to exercise judgment about what works best for a given location, these guidelines detail requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)2 and/or suggest best practices gleaned from the experience of Valley cities. Best practices are not legal requirements; but, by adopting best practices, towns and cities may be able to avoid costly retrofits that result from pursuing only required minimums. In other words, the guidelines are designed to be flexible and should be tailored to the conditions at a particular stop, yet they detail the non-negotiable aspects of bus stop design. The guidelines also provide information for the development community about basic bus stop design and connectivity considerations. Appendix I is a simplified checklist of all minimum requirements associated with bus stop site selection and design. The Bus Stop Design Guidelines may also be incorporated into Project Agreements between a lead agency and the RPTA for projects seeking Public Transportation Fund (PTF) funding. All plans submitted for review should show existing bus bays, bus stops, shelters, furniture, bicycle and pedestrian paths, easements, and facilities within 250 feet of the site, as well as adjacent property lines. They should also include a pedestrian and bicycle plan indicating proposed circulation within the site as well as access from the streets and neighborhoods abutting the site, which must also conform to ADA requirements.

1. Site Selection A bus stop should be located to minimize walking distances to the activity center(s) that is (are) expected to generate the most ridership. To provide the greatest convenience and safety for passengers, bus stops are generally located as close to intersections as possible. This minimizes walking distance for transferring passengers and encourages the use of sidewalks for bus stop access.

1.1 Best Practices Transit stops are generally located 85 feet, plus or minus 25 feet, from the curb of an unsignalized intersection, measured from the tangent point of the intersection curve, and 120 feet, plus or minus 25 feet, from a signalized intersection. Exceptions may be made

1 Referred to in this document as RPTA 2 The RPTA and Valley cities will be vigilant about monitoring rule changes that may affect the Bus Stop Program.

1


for a given location based on right-of-way availability and traffic conditions. The paved passenger loading area should be clear of any obstructions. Bus stops should be located such that:

• The bus driver can clearly see passengers waiting at the stop.

• Waiting passengers have a clear view of the oncoming bus.

• Driveways are located away from a transit pad. If that is not possible, the pad should be located at least eight feet behind the face of curb to allow better site visibility for automobiles using nearby driveways and to enhance comfort and safety of waiting bus passengers. Figure 1 shows examples of acceptable driveway arrangements.

Figure 1: Acceptable Driveway Arrangements

1.2 Additional Considerations Where possible, transit stops should be located on the far side of a signalized intersection, as shown in Figure 2 (on the next page). Benefits to a far-side stop include:

• A stopped bus does not conflict with vehicles turning right from the direction of the bus route.

• The stopped bus does not obscure sight distance to the left for vehicles entering or crossing from the side street.

• At signalized intersections, buses can easily re-enter traffic.

• The stopped bus does not obscure traffic control devices or pedestrian movements at the intersection.

2


Figure 2: Location of Far Side Bus Stop

While far-side stops are the preferred location for transit stops, mid-block stops, located as shown in Figure 3, may be used as necessary to accommodate high demand locations. Figure 3: Location of Mid-Block Bus Stop

At intersections where far-side stops are not ideal, near-side stops (Figure 4) may be considered if site conditions indicate it to be the preferable option. Near-side stops for alighting only (no seating or shade) should be considered at transfer locations. Frequency of bus stops is dictated by the distance bus patrons are willing to walk to board a bus, which can vary based on local conditions and land uses. The standard for bus stop locations is at quarter-mile intervals for residential areas and one-eighth-mile intervals for major activity centers. More frequent stops can be located as needed.

3


Bus stops with heavy transfer activity between routes should be located to minimize the need for passengers to cross a street to transfer to another route. Where this is not possible, the lead agency should work with public works officials on associated pedestrian improvements that will increase accessibility and safety for transit riders transferring from one route to another. Figure 4: Location of Near-Side Bus Stop

2. Accessibility All transit facilities constructed after June 1992 must comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Improvements to existing bus stops are not required to meet ADA standards, but are recommended by RPTA. Fully ADA-compliant stops meet the minimum requirements detailed in these guidelines. Non-accessible stops are those that breech major components of the accessibility criteria, especially with regard to the roadside condition or the waiting pad. A city may place a basic sign/post until ADA requirements can be met. In addition to meeting ADA requirements, good accessibility includes consideration of connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods and the transit stop. Pedestrian access paths should link developments directly to the bus stop. Walled developments should provide convenient and direct pedestrian access to adjacent bus stops.

2.1 Minimum Requirements ADA requirements dictate a minimum sidewalk width of five (5) feet for any location. A minimum horizontal clearance of 36 inches is to be maintained between bus stop components to allow wheelchairs to maneuver. A minimum clear length of 96 inches (measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided at transit locations where a lift or ramp is to be deployed. Figure 5 shows these minimum requirements and the circulation within the stop.

4


Figure 5: Minimum Requirements at Transit Stop

2.2 Best Practices and Additional Considerations Although ADA requirements dictate a minimum sidewalk width of 5-feet, an 8-ft wide sidewalk is desirable. Bus stops should ideally be located near existing crosswalks to encourage safe pedestrian crossings and also located so that a stopped bus will neither block a crosswalk nor obstruct pedestrian visibility of oncoming traffic and vice-versa.

3. Bus Stop Pad Transit passengers should have a continuous, unobstructed area contiguous to the curb for boarding and alighting from a bus. This area is called the “landing area” or “pad.” The dimensions of a bus stop pad are critical in providing proper ADA accessibility.

3.1 Minimum Requirements The minimum clear area per ADA requirements is eight feet (measured from the curb) by five feet (measured parallel to the curb). Abrupt changes in grade should be avoided. Any drop greater than 1/2 inch or surface grade steeper than 1:20 requires an ADA compliant ramp.

3.2 Best Practices and Additional Considerations While ADA requirements stipulate an eight-foot by five-foot pad, RPTA recommends that the pad be eight-by-eight to allow a bus operator to more easily position a wheelchair ramp. It is recommended, although not required, that bus stops in areas with sidewalks

5


less than eight feet wide or with sidewalks separated from the curb be upgraded to meet the minimum clear area per city standard where possible. Since different bus designs have doors that open to different places on the pad, the size of the pad can vary depending on the type of bus that serves the stop. Vehicle size and configuration of both existing buses in fleet as well as accommodations for future buses must be taken into consideration to ensure safe and efficient access for passengers. To provide for rear-door alighting from larger buses, the landing area should be at least 30 feet long for stops served by 40-foot buses and at least 40 feet long for stops served by 60-foot, articulated buses. Surfaces should be stable, firm, and slip-resistant. Such provisions are beneficial for all transit users, but especially for those who have disabilities. Tactile surface treatments are suggested as needed to help visually impaired riders navigate the bus stop.

4. Seating Seating provided at a transit stop should be commensurate with the level of use at a stop (as determined by the local jurisdiction), be located in such a way to meet all ADA requirements, and be made from durable, climate-appropriate materials.

4.1 Minimum Requirements There must be 36 inches of clearance between bus stop amenities and switch boxes, mailboxes, utility boxes, light poles, and other obstructions to allow access and maintenance.

4.2 Best Practices If possible, bus stop furniture must be placed outside the standard 5-foot sidewalk or clear area. An eight-foot clear area, free from other site furnishings, is preferred. Benches should have a depth between 20 and 24 inches, be at least 42 inches in length, and have back support of at least 42 inches beginning at a height between 2 inches and 18 inches above the seat. Back support may be achieved through locating benches adjacent to walls or by other designs that will meet the minimum dimensions specified. Bench seats should be between 17 and 19 inches above the ground. For ease of cleaning and to prevent debris from collecting, it is recommended that all furniture be 36 inches or greater from the face of a building or wall. Arm rests on benches are recommended. The structural strength of the benches should be such that they can support at a minimum a vertical or horizontal point load at any given point on the surface, fastener, or mounting device. Transit stop furniture over 2½ feet high should be located to provide clear visibility of the street for automobile drivers in nearby driveways. Figures 6 and 7 show general site layouts with minimum and desirable clearances.

6


Figure 6: General Site Layout with Minimum and Suggested Clearances

Figure 7: Shelter Placement

4.3 Additional Considerations Each City may use its own bench and furniture design, but factors that should be considered include the following:

• Materials and structure should be chosen for strength, durability, ease of maintenance and resistance to weather conditions, graffiti, cutting, fire, and other forms of vandalism.

• Materials should allow air circulation and avoid retention of hot air. Materials should be finished to prevent overheating. (Possibilities include the use of perforated metal and special coating/paint finishes to prevent surfaces from becoming hot.)

• Design and colors should respond to architectural character of transit furniture in the area and adjacent development.

7


• Furniture should be readily replaceable and constructed for easy relocation to allow for bus route changes, street improvement projects, etc. Furniture should be anchored to prevent theft or other unauthorized movement.

5. Shelter and Shade Protection from the summer sun is a high priority in designing transit furniture and its associated landscaping. Transit shelters that provide weather protection and benches work best in conjunction with landscaping or vertical panels for shade. East- and west-facing shelters benefit when seating can be located on both sides of a shade element. The shelter provides overhead protection from weather conditions. Shelters should be oriented to allow the bus driver to view waiting riders and so that waiting passengers can see oncoming transit vehicles. In addition, waiting passengers feel safer when they can clearly see their surrounding environment, including other pedestrians. Ideally, the final location of a bus stop shelter should enhance the circulation patterns of patrons, reduce the amount of pedestrian congestion at a bus stop, and reduce conflict with nearby pedestrian activities.

5.1 Minimum Requirements ADA regulations require a clear space of 30 inches by 48 inches within the shelter for people in wheelchairs.

5.2 Best Practices Shelter materials and design should:

• Be waterproof with provisions for drainage away from transit passengers and bus loading area.

• Be insulated so as not to collect and radiate heat.

• Allow maximum security for passengers.

• Keep a minimum 6-inch vertical clearance from the sidewalk to avoid collection of trash and debris.

• Display a 24-hour telephone number for emergency repairs. The location of the curb and sidewalk and the amount of available right-of-way can be determining factors for locating a bus stop shelter.

• Bus stop shelters should not be placed in the wheelchair landing pad (see BUS STOP PAD).

• General ADA mobility clearance guidelines (see ACCESSIBILITY) should be followed throughout the shelter and between the shelter and other street furniture.

• Shelters located directly on the sidewalk or overhanging a sidewalk should be avoided because they may block or restrict general pedestrian traffic.

• To permit clear passage of the bus and its side mirror, a minimum distance of two feet should be maintained between the back-of-curb and the roof or panels of the shelter. Greater distances are preferred to separate waiting passengers from nearby vehicular traffic.

8


• The shelter should be located as close as possible to the far end of the bus stop zone so it is highly visible to approaching buses and passing traffic, and to minimize walking distance from the shelter to the bus.

• Locating bus stop shelters in front of store windows should be avoided when possible so as not to interfere with advertisements and displays.

• When shelters are directly adjacent to a building, a 12-inch clear space should be preserved to permit trash removal or cleaning of the shelter.

6. Lighting Lighting affects bus patrons' perception of safety and security at a bus stop, as well as the use of the site by non-bus patrons. Good lighting can enhance a waiting passenger's sense of comfort and security; poor lighting may encourage unintended use of the facility by non-bus patrons, especially after hours. Lighting should provide illumination of pedestrian walkways and eliminate shadow areas to increase the transit user’s sense of safety. To address security concerns directly, call boxes may be installed (see Section 11).

6.1 Best Practices For passenger comfort and convenience, a minimum lighting level of two foot-candles is desired throughout the bus stop area, including the shelter. Where feasible, bus stops should be located so they will be illuminated by existing street lights. Where there are no existing streetlights, stops can be lit by backlighting from advertising installed at bus shelters as well as “stop call” lighting, which is activated by a waiting passenger and serves as a signal to approaching buses that a passenger is waiting. Interior lighting is recommended for shelters. When new lighting is to be installed, solar technology should be explored as an alternative to hardwiring.

7. Information and Signage The placement of bus stop signs is an important tool for transit systems to enhance passenger convenience, operations, and marketing. Bus stop signs are positioned to notify passengers that the bus will stop at that specific location. They serve as a reference for bus operators and as a point of identity for the transit system. Valley Metro branding elements should be included at all stops and will be identified in project agreement forms. A regional bus stop sign, shown in Figure 8, is currently in use throughout the Valley. The standard regional sign identifies a location as a bus stop and includes the name and number of the bus route(s) being served and the most current transit information telephone number. The sign is 18 inches wide by 24 inches high, reflectorized for night time visibility, and is double-faced so that it can be seen from both directions. The upstream side of the sign may contain “No Parking” information for motorists approaching the bus stop. Figure 8: Regional Sign Format

9


Guidelines for bus route identification sticker placement are as follows:

• Up to three routes: center the stickers under the word “bus” with ¼ inch spacing between the stickers.

• Between three and seven routes: center the stickers on the blue field of the custom bus stop sign with approximately ¼ inch spacing between the stickers.

• More than seven routes: work with RPTA to design custom stickers that show more than one route per sticker.

7.1 Best Practices Bus Stop Sign Placement Bus stop signs must be placed near where passengers board at the front of the bus. The header sign is the point at which the front of the bus should be aligned when the bus is servicing passengers and thus should be placed approximately one foot beyond the far side of the landing area for stops served by front-lift buses. A sign should be installed with its own sign post, at an angle perpendicular to the street. A non-wood light pole may be used if it is at the proper stop location and if the sign face is visible from both sides. Signs are not to be placed on wooden utility poles as they pose a hazard to linemen who climb the poles. Bus stop signs should be placed independently of all other signs to maintain the importance and uniformity of the bus stop identity. The sign must be easily visible to the approaching bus driver, ideally within four feet of the edge of the street. The bus stop sign should neither block nor be blocked by other jurisdictional signs.

10


To prevent the sign from being struck with the bus mirrors, it must be positioned no closer than two feet from the back-of-curb, as shown in Figure 9. The bottom edge of the sign should be positioned at a height of at least seven feet from the ground. A signed no parking zone of 105 feet from the intersection should be maintained, and no parking is permitted at the bus stop itself. The no parking zone may be extended from the stop at the discretion of the jurisdiction. Figure 9: Sign Pole Location

Design A sign pole should include standard regional bus stop graphics visible from two directions. The sign pole may also include a transit information holder. (A standardized size will allow information sheets to be produced economically.) An information holder is not required, but if one is placed it must meet ADA placement standards. Figure 10 (on the next page) shows possible sign and pole configurations to place an ADA compliant information holder. Information display Interior panels of shelters also can be used for posting route and schedule information. Side panels may be large enough to display the entire system map and can include backlighting for display at night. Shelters that lack side panels can display route and schedule information on the interior roof of the shelter. Some recommendations for route or patron information display are as follows:

• Provide updated information when changes are made to routes and schedules.

• Consider the quality and appearance of information displays. A visually poor route map conveys a negative impression of the system.

• Make information displays permanent. Temporary methods for displaying information (such as tape-mounting) create a cluttered, unsophisticated appearance at the bus stop.

• Follow ADA clearance, mobility, and visual guidelines for access of information by individuals with impairments.

11


Figure 10: Sign Pole with Information Holder

8. Trash Receptacle Trash receptacles can improve the appearance of a bus stop by providing a place to dispose of trash. Low user volumes may not justify the inclusion of this amenity at a bus stop; however, an ongoing litter problem at a bus stop may warrant the provision of a trash receptacle at an otherwise low-volume location. Trash cans should be positioned to encourage use by waiting passengers without blocking wheelchair or pedestrian access to the landing pad, bus, shelter, sidewalk, or information case. It is recommended that the trash receptacle be placed near the boarding area of the bus to encourage patrons to dispose of trash as they board. At bus stops where shelters are installed, the trash receptacle should ideally be positioned to the immediate right or left of the shelter (although sidewalk conditions and right-of-way limitations may prevent this). Due to heightened security concerns, some municipalities may consider adding ballistic blankets to the insides of trash receptacles at stops with increased security needs. This is intended to absorb blast forces from a bomb placed in the bin.

12


8.1 Best Practices The trash receptacle should have:

• A minimum capacity of 30 gallons

• Fixed components to prevent unauthorized removal

• Materials that allow for air circulation and avoid containment of hot air

• Materials that are finished to prevent overheating When installing a trash receptacle:

• Anchor the receptacle securely to the ground to reduce unauthorized movement.

• Locate the receptacle away from wheelchair landing pad areas and allow for at least a 3-foot separation from other street furniture. If recycling is also placed adjacent to the trash receptacle, the same circulation requirements apply.

• Locate the receptacle at least two feet from the back of the curb.

• Ensure that the receptacle, when adjacent to the roadway, does not visually obstruct nearby driveways or land uses.

• Avoid installing receptacles that have ledges or other design features that permit liquids to pool or remain near the receptacle—this may attract insects.

• Avoid locating the receptacle in direct sunlight.

9. Landscaping Landscaping can enhance the level of passenger comfort and attractiveness of transit, but should be positioned and maintained such that safety, visibility, and accessibility are not compromised by encroaching bushes, uneven grass surfaces, etc. A landscape plan should incorporate shade trees for bus stops, maximizing shading for summer morning and afternoon hours. Any landscaping provided should be located so as not to obstruct the shelter canopy or visibility of the bus stop.

9.1 Best Practices Shade trees and other protective landscaping should be provided wherever possible within the bus stop easement, in addition to incentives recommended to adjacent developments. This landscaping could be considered part of the development’s frontage landscape and could count towards any landscaping requirements that may apply. Considerations for selection and location of landscaping include:

• Mature trees with adequate canopy to shade the seating area

• Low-water consumption trees and shrubs

• Tree location should consider the solar orientation of the transit stop. (Priority should be given to shading afternoon summer sun.)

• Transit landscaping should be compatible with other frontage landscaping.

13


Tree branches that extend into the roadway below 11 feet should be trimmed back at least two feet from the curb otherwise they become an obstacle that the bus driver may not be able to avoid. Grass should not be planted between the sidewalk and the curb at bus boarding and alighting areas (to meet ADA requirements, at least eight feet parallel to the street and five feet perpendicular to the street must be hard surface).

10. Bicycle Accommodation Bicycle storage facilities, such as bike racks, may be provided at bus stops for the convenience of bicyclists using transit. Designated storage facilities discourage bicycle riders from locking bikes to bus facilities or on an adjacent property. Proper storage of bicycles can reduce the amount of visual clutter at a stop by confining bikes to one area. The provision of bicycle facilities is discretionary. Cities must evaluate bicycle usage at each location, as well as user requests.

10.1 Best Practices Bicycle riders need security, damage prevention, and convenience. Bicycle racks and lockers at bus stops must also have a compact design and ease of maintenance. Types of bicycle storage facilities Good bicycle storage facilities will do the following: • Provide the ability to lock frame and at least one wheel. Devices that lock front

wheel only cause security problems for bicycles with “quick release” wheels. • Support the bicycle without pinching or bending the wheel. • Avoid scratching the paint on the bicycle frame. • Provide a place to lean a bicycle while locking it. • Provide a quick, easy-to-identify locking procedure. Inverted “U” rack elements mounted in a row should be placed on 30” centers. This allows enough room for two bicycles to be secured to each rack element. Normally, the handlebar and seat heights will allow two bicycles to line up side-by-side if one of them is reversed. When there is a conflict, the bikes can be placed slightly offset from one another as shown. If the elements are placed too close together, it becomes difficult to attach two bikes to the same element. Wave style racks are not recommended. Bicyclists commonly use a “wave” rack as if it were a single inverted “U.” This limits the actual capacity of the rack to two bikes regardless of the potential or stated capacity. Bicycles parked perpendicular to a wave rack (as intended by the manufacturer) are not supported in two places and are more likely to fall over in the rack. The advertised capacity of a wave rack is usually much higher than the practical capacity. Recommended types of bicycle racks are shown in Figure 11. Placement and Site Layout Placement of bicycle facilities is important to meet ADA requirements and to provide a facility that bicyclists will use. If it is too inconvenient and time consuming to squeeze a bike into the space and attach a lock, a cyclist will look for an alternative place to park or use one rack element per bike and reduce the projected parking capacity. If the space is

14


Figure 11: Recommended Bicycle Racks

too narrow, a mountain bicycle will not fit. At the same time, minimal space usage can be critical in the limited right of way available at bus stops. The following should be kept in mind when integrating bicycle facilities at bus stops: • Bicycle racks may not block pedestrian access to the bus boarding and alighting

area. • Maintain minimum 36 inch clearance between rack and other stop furniture per ADA

standards. • Provide at least 30-inch spacing between bicycle parking spaces. • Allow at least 72 inches perpendicular to bike rack for the bike, and at least 48

inches around the bike for access and circulation, as shown in Figure 12. • Coordinate the location of the storage area with existing on-site lighting. • Do not locate the storage area where views into the area are restricted by the

shelter, landscaping, or existing site elements, such as walls. Figure 12 shows proper bicycle parking facility spacing. Figure 12: Bicycle Rack Clearances

15


10.2 Additional Considerations Other considerations regarding bicycle facilities include the following: • Bicycle rack design should not trap debris. • Design and placement should complement other transit furniture at bus stop. • Finishes should be graffiti resistant. Where applicable, the device should be coated

to eliminate scratching of bicycle frame. • Bicycle rack should be easy to install but difficult to steal. • Artistic bike racks can be used if they meet all minimum requirements. • To the extent feasible, bus stops should be located so they do not block bicycle

travel lanes.

11. Call boxes Call boxes link the transit user to emergency personnel and increase the user’s sense of safety at an isolated stop.

11.1 Best Practices Call boxes should be provided at stops where safety concerns have been raised, or where there is high nighttime usage. They must be kept in working order, even if they are rarely used, and must be accessible to persons with disabilities.

11.2 Additional Considerations Potential partnering opportunities exist where stops are located on college and office campuses where the college or firm may have a call box/panic button system in place. The bus stop location could be tied into the existing system.

12. Advertising An advertising shelter program is neither prohibited nor promoted by RPTA, although some cities have ordinances prohibiting advertising. Typically, if a city chooses to rely on an advertising program, a private company would purchase, install, light, clean, and maintain shelters. The company would lease advertising space in these shelters. Some shelter advertising programs also return a portion of the advertising revenue to the local community.

13. Artistic Elements Artistic and aesthetic elements may be incorporated into transit furniture design as part of a streetscape effort to enhance the urban environment. Customized or artistically designed bus stops can make waiting for a bus more pleasant. Innovative designs may also help provide a covered shelter or seating (e.g., flip-seats or awnings) for passengers at locations that do not have sufficient space. However, custom-designed passenger waiting areas should not obscure identification of the bus stop. Transit agency bus stop signs and schedule displays should be available at these types of bus stops. The functionality of the stop should not be compromised in the name of art—the stop should provide as much patron comfort, safety, and security as possible. Artist-designed stops must meet all applicable standards. RPTA does not provide funding for the additional cost of artistic stops.

16


Neighborhood or business interests may also want the shelters and bus stop signs to reflect the character of the district. One method is to develop a distinct color or logo for each neighborhood or route group. This can be implemented by the transit agency with appropriate coordination and participation from the neighborhoods.

14. Maintenance Though RPTA does not fund maintenance, well-maintained bus stops are crucial to the image of the transit system. Damaged furniture should be repaired and trash build-up tended to immediately to maintain a positive impression for transit patrons and the general public. A routine maintenance schedule is to be determined by each city and can include: • Full wash-down of shelter and accessories • Removal of all dirt, graffiti, and pasted material • Squeegee wipe-down of glass surface • Removing and replacing trash bag • Litter pick up around stop or shelter/accessories to a distance of ten feet • Manual or chemical weeding • Pruning obstructed tree growth • Touching up paint scratches (may require a City permit). Items that pose a safety problem should be repaired promptly or at least within 24 business hours of being reported. Repairs that do not pose safety problems should be completed within three days. Occasional night illumination checks are recommended to verify lighting levels and replace bulbs and ballasts.

15. Adopt-a-Stop Individual cities may consider a program by which bus stops may be “adopted” by individuals or organizations, much in the same way highways are adopted. The adoptive entity is then publicly recognized through an identification name plate or signage affixed to the shelter or bus stop sign pole. An example of suggested wording for this plate or sign is “City of Avondale Bus Stop #154, Adopted by John Doe Associates.” “Adopted” bus stops are cleaned by the adoptive entity or funded by adoptive entity while still cleaned by the city. An agreement or memo of understanding should be developed by the city for each adopted stop so that the adoptive entity is aware of their responsibilities. Stops with or without shelters may be adopted.

16. Integrating Bus Stop Facilities and Development Land development and re-development provides an opportunity for enhancing transit infrastructure. Good development practices include providing bus stop right-of-way and/or amenities and creating good pedestrian to and from bus stops. Having discussions about bus stop access early in the development approval process will ensure that bus stop infrastructure and connectivity are considered at a time when changes can still be incorporated into site plans. To ensure optimum bus stop placement, coordination between RPTA, the local agency, and the developer should occur during the planning and development phase.

17


Bus Stop Infrastructure When a development is constructed adjacent to an existing or planned bus stop location, if provided for in local zoning regulations, the developer should be responsible for providing all or part of RPTA-designated passenger amenities conforming to these Design Guidelines. Generally speaking, if the value of a development is $500,000 or more, the developer should provide a shelter in addition to the general site design requirement. Developers are encouraged to place shelters that conform to local standards for passenger recognition and ease of maintenance. Pedestrian Access Sidewalk placement that is coordinated with land use and bus stop locations is critical to encouraging transit use, enhancing safety, and reducing walking time. Ideally, transit patrons should not have to travel more than ¼-mile to reach a bus stop. This ideal distance, which equates to a walk of roughly ten minutes, can be achieved by connecting destinations with well-constructed walkways and/or by designing site layouts with pedestrian access in mind. As with any pedestrian improvement, strict adherence to mobility clearances, widths, and slopes should be followed to improve access for persons with disabilities. Pathway Design Pedestrian improvements include defined or designated walkways through parking lots and openings or gates through walls. Access ways can be as elaborate as a landscaped sidewalk through the parking lot or as simple as painted walkways that caution drivers and orient pedestrians. New residential developments should consider constructing breaks in walls between properties to allow pedestrian passageway to bus stops. Alternatively, in place of open breaks, a development may have locked pedestrian gates for which every resident has a key. Site Layout Another strategy to improve pedestrian access at or to bus stops is to orient the site layout with the explicit goal of minimizing distances to bus stops. Pedestrian and transit user access to buildings is encouraged by locating buildings at the minimum setback at arterial-to-arterial intersections and arterial-to-collector intersections, or where transit service is provided or planned (all arterial and collector streets). Main entrances to commercial buildings should face the street, with pedestrian bus stop access pathways protected from automobile traffic. Ideally, pedestrians should be able to access the street without crossing a large parking lot. Another solution is to “flip” the traditional commercial layout, so that buildings are closer to sidewalks and parking is placed in the rear and sides. Driveways should not be located within a bus stop and/or pullout area. When a bus stop is located adjacent to a shopping center, collaboration with RPTA is encouraged to locate shopping cart storage near the bus stop, thus providing a convenient place for customers using transit to return their carts. (The storage location would be installed and maintained by the shopping center.) Figure 13 shows an example of desirable access to an adjacent development.

18


Figure 13: Desirable Pedestrian Access from Developments

17. Bus Pullout Bus pullouts provide an area for buses to stop outside of the traffic lane. Although they may be helpful for overall roadway operations, bus pullouts can cause delays for transit passengers because the bus must exit and re-enter the traffic stream. They may also increase the average person-delay for motorists using the street. Bus pullouts are desirable where street traffic speeds are 40 mph or more and one of the following conditions exist: • Peak period boarding average exceeds five people per bus • Average peak period dwell time exceeds 30 seconds per bus • A high frequency of accidents involving buses occurred within past year • Two traffic lanes or less exist in one direction of travel OR Bus pullouts may be desirable where buses are expected to layover at the end of a trip. Note: Installing a bus pullout for a layover/recovery point may or may not be a good choice. Layover/recovery locations often change as funding becomes available for more frequent service and/or routes are extended. Guidelines for bus pullouts are the following:

19


• Pullout should be placed at signal-controlled intersections where the signal can create gaps in traffic.

• Far side intersection placement is desirable (may vary based on site conditions). • 11-foot width is desirable to reduce sideswipe accidents. A severe physical obstruction may require a mid-block bus pullout, but this design should only be used when the standard far-side bus pullout is infeasible. A far-side pullout design is superior to the mid-block design because it reduces walking distances for bus transfers, encourages patrons to use the intersection crosswalk, and reduces right-of-way acquisition. Bus pullout designs are shown in Figures 14 and 15. Figure 14: Far-Side Bus Pullout

Figure 15: Mid-Block Bus Pullout

20


APPENDIX I: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Site Selection (Section 1) Distance from unsignalized intersection: 85 feet (±25 feet) from the curb point of

tangency Distance from signalized intersection: 120 feet (±25 feet) from the curb point of

tangency Paved loading area clear of any obstructions Driveways located away from transit pad or pad located at least eight feet behind the

face of curb

Accessibility (Section 2) 36-inch clearance between bus stop components 96-inch clear length parallel to roadway where wheelchair lift/ramp is to be deployed 8-foot sidewalk in vicinity of transit accessory pad on arterial streets 5-foot sidewalk minimum at all other locations

Bus Stop Pad (Section 3) 8-foot by 5-foot clear area on concrete pad Stops serving 40 foot buses: 30-foot long landing area Stops serving 60 foot buses: 40-foot long landing area All surfaces are stable, firm, and slip-resistant No abrupt changes in grade If sidewalk is separated from curb, a concrete clear area connects sidewalk to

boarding/alighting area

Furniture (Section 4) All transit stop furniture placed outside the standard five foot sidewalk 36-inch horizontal clearance between all amenities and switchboxes, mailboxes,

utility boxes, and light poles Furniture should be 36 inches or greater from the face of a building or wall

Shelter and Shade (Section 5) Overhead canopy of 65 square feet with a minimum width of 5.5 feet 7-foot clearance between underside of roof and sidewalk surface Minimum 2-foot clearance between shelter and curb Minimum of 10 linear feet of seating with 5 feet located under shelter Minimum 36-inches by 48-inches clear space within shelter Shelters should not be placed within the 8-foot by 5-foot wheelchair landing pad A minimum of 3 feet should be maintained around the shelter

21


APPENDIX II: DEVELOPER GUIDELINES Land development and re-development provides an opportunity for enhancing transit infrastructure. Good development practices include providing bus stop right-of-way and/or amenities and creating good pedestrian to and from bus stops. Having discussions about bus stop access early in the development approval process will ensure that bus stop infrastructure and connectivity are considered at a time when changes can still be incorporated into site plans. To ensure optimum bus stop placement, coordination between RPTA, the local agency, and the developer should occur during the planning and development phase. Bus Stop Infrastructure When a development is constructed adjacent to an existing or planned bus stop location, if provided for in local zoning regulations, the developer should be responsible for providing all or part of RPTA-designated passenger amenities conforming to these Design Guidelines. Generally speaking, if the value of a development is $500,000 or more, the developer should provide a shelter in addition to the general site design requirement. Developers are encouraged to place shelters that conform to local standards for passenger recognition and ease of maintenance. Pedestrian Access Sidewalk placement that is coordinated with land use and bus stop locations is critical to encouraging transit use, enhancing safety, and reducing walking time. Ideally, transit patrons should not have to walk more than ¼-mile to reach a bus stop. This ideal distance, which equates to a walk of roughly ten minutes, can be achieved by connecting destinations with well-constructed walkways and/or by designing site layouts with pedestrian access in mind. As with any pedestrian improvement, strict adherence to mobility clearances, widths, and slopes should be followed to improve access for persons with disabilities. Pathway Design Pedestrian improvements include defined or designated walkways through parking lots and openings or gates through walls. Access ways can be as elaborate as a landscaped sidewalk through the parking lot or as simple as painted walkways that caution drivers and orient pedestrians. New residential developments should consider constructing breaks in walls between properties to allow pedestrian passageway to bus stops. Alternatively, in place of open breaks, a development may have locked pedestrian gates for which every resident has a key. An example of desirable access to an adjacent development is shown on the next page. Site Layout Another strategy to improve pedestrian access at or to bus stops is to orient the site layout with the explicit goal of minimizing distances to bus stops. Pedestrian and transit user access to buildings is encouraged by locating buildings at the minimum setback at arterial-to-arterial intersections and arterial-to-collector intersections, or where transit service is provided or planned (all arterial and collector streets). Main entrances to commercial buildings should face the street, with pedestrian bus stop access pathways

22


Desirable Pedestrian Access from Developments

protected from automobile traffic. Ideally, pedestrians should be able to access the street without crossing a large parking lot. Another solution is to “flip” the traditional commercial layout, so that buildings are closer to sidewalks and parking is placed in the rear and sides. Driveways should not be located within a bus stop and/or pullout area. When a bus stop is located adjacent to a shopping center, collaboration with RPTA is encouraged to locate shopping cart storage near the bus stop, thus providing a convenient place for customers using transit to return their carts. (The storage location would be installed and maintained by the shopping center.)

23

Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program

for

RPTA Bus Stop Inventory and Standards

Prepared for


Prepared by

November 9, 2005

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction......................................................................1

2.0 Purpose of the Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program......................................................1

3.0 Goals and Objectives of the Program..............................2

4.0 Structure of the Program .................................................3

5.0 Program Activities ...........................................................5

Table 1: Activities/Goals Matrix ........................................................................5

5.1 Phase 1: Tasks 1, 2, 3..............................................................................6

5.2 Phase 2: Tasks 4, 5, 6..............................................................................6

5.3 Phase 3: Tasks 7, 8..................................................................................7

5.4 Consideration of Special Needs..............................................................8

5.5 Documenting and Incorporating Information from Stakeholders and the Public ...................................................................8

Figure 1: Overall Study Schedule .....................................................................9

i

Public Involvement / Agency Coordination Program

1.0 Introduction The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) has initiated a study to conduct an inventory of existing regional bus stop facilities, develop standards for development of future bus stop facilities, and prepare a coordinated implementation program. The study stems from the plan for transit improvements prescribed by Proposition 400, passed by voters in November 2004. Proposition 400 describes bus stop improvements for the Phoenix Metropolitan region that comprises numerous local jurisdictions. This document describes the Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program (the Program) designed to involve and coordinate with RPTA member agencies, members of the public, transit riders, and other affected or interested parties.

2.0 Purpose of the Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program

The benefits of involving stakeholders in a participatory process are multifold. First, it increases the prospects for agreement, or at a minimum, informed consent on a solution and the chances for ultimate implementation of a project. It enables identification of issues early in the process so that those issues may be adequately addressed. A program sincerely committed to involving stakeholders and taking action on their input yields a significantly more popular and sustainable result. In addition, federal requirements require meaningful citizen participation as a significant element in studies like this one. The target audiences of public involvement, consultation, or outreach programs are referred to by many different terms with varying definitions. For this study, the term “stakeholder” will be used, referring to any interested individual or agency, including, but not limited to, members of the bus rider community, RPTA member cities affected by this study, interested federal or regional agencies, and members of the community at large.

1

Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program RPTA Bus Stop Inventory and Standards

2

The purpose of this program is to inform stakeholders about the study and to actively seek and incorporate their input into the decision-making process to assure that the project meets the needs of the community. This Program is built on the following guiding principles:

• Activities are directly linked to project milestones, technical activities, and decision-making.

• Adequate opportunities for involvement and time for public review and comment are provided.

• Reasonable access to technical and policy information is provided.

• Explicit consideration and response to input obtained is demonstrated.

• The needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems is solicited and considered to ensure their involvement in decision-making, help prevent disproportionately high and adverse impacts upon these stakeholders, and assure they receive a proportionate share of benefits. Traditionally underserved populations include, but are not limited to, low income and minority households, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) populations, and Native American tribal members.

• Information is made accessible and/or provided in a timely manner.

3.0 Goals and Objectives of the Program The first step is to define goals with objectives that produce meaningful, applicable information that, when incorporated into the study work products, appropriately implements the relevant elements of Proposition 400 and ensures efficient and equitable distribution of resources. The next step is to build the Program to meet those goals and objectives. Based on identified issues and experience from public involvement and agency coordination on previous studies, the goals for this program and the objectives for meeting those goals are as follows: 1. Inform, educate, and engage stakeholders early and continuously throughout

the study.

Objectives: - Provide information about the study and project issues through meetings,

workshops, web site, exhibits, and other techniques.

- Use outside reviewers (e.g., RPTA staff, city public information officers) to evaluate public information materials for effectiveness and ease of understanding prior to release to the public.


3

- Create meaningful agendas for meetings and workshops in order to respect participants’ time and produce valuable results.

- Assist the RPTA’s public information officer by providing information for press releases and/or other media distribution.

2. Provide a variety of opportunities for participation in the decision-making process to encourage participation.

Objectives: - Develop comprehensive list of stakeholders with RPTA. Categorize and

determine best method(s) of communication for each category.

- Provide timely and regular notice of program activities and study progress.

3. Respond to participant issues and concerns clearly and understandably and integrate them into the study as appropriate.

Objectives:

- Respond to comments and inquiries in a timely, helpful manner.

- Provide clear documentation (e.g., minutes, summaries) of milestone activities (e.g., public meetings, workshops), including a record of discussion, issues raised, and resolution reached.

4.0 Structure of the Program Although the scope of this study will not require a detailed breakdown of stakeholder types, it will be important to structure the activities to solicit participation from those directly affected by the study. A Technical Advisory Group will be formed and will meet periodically throughout the course of the study. The Technical Advisory Group will consist of representatives from: • RPTA • City of Phoenix • City of Mesa • City of Tempe • City of Glendale • City of Peoria • City of Scottsdale • City of Avondale

• City of Gilbert • City of Chandler • Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG) • Maricopa County Department of

Transportation (MCDOT) • Arizona Department of

Transportation (ADOT)


5

Two workshops will be held during the study to develop investment evaluation criteria and to develop bus stop facility design standards. Participation will be by invitation and invitations will be broadly-inclusive, with special effort made to include representation from the disabled community, bus transit facility maintenance and operations staff, and transit riders, in addition to other stakeholders as described earlier.

5.0 Program Activities So that stakeholder and community input is meaningful and contributes to the project‘s objectives, consultation activities will be closely linked and integrated with study milestones. The overall study schedule, showing how key public involvement/agency coordination activities correspond with study milestones, is provided as Figure 1 on page 8. Each activity is specifically designed to meet one or more of the Program objectives (See Table 1).

Table 1: Activities/Goals Matrix Public Involvement Program Goals

Consultation Activities Goal 1: Inform, Educate, Engage

Goal 2: Provide Opportunities for

Participation

Goal 3: Consider and Incorporate

Comments

ProjectSolve2 Site

Technical Advisory Group Meetings

Investment Criteria Workshop

Design Standards Workshop

Workshop Summary Reports

Public Open House Meeting

Stakeholder Meetings

Website

Program Summary Report

Activities have been tied to key study milestones and arranged into three phases so as to be appropriately matched to the chronology of the study and the work tasks listed below: Task 1: Refine Scope of Services Task 2: Implement Public/Agency Involvement Plan


6

Task 3: Review Prior & Ongoing Studies Task 4: Assess Transit networks Task 5: Conduct Peer City Review Task 6: Develop Investment Criteria Task 7: Produce Recommendations & Design Standards Task 8: Produce Implementation & Action Plan

5.1 Phase 1: Tasks 1, 2, 3 During this phase, stakeholders will be identified and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) will be formed. Outreach and participation are extremely important during this phase because requesting input early in the process ensures that the planned implementation of the study considers all alternatives and sources of information. A secure website dedicated to the project will be developed using PB’s ProjectSolve2 software during this phase. The ProjectSolve2 site will provide TAG members, project team members, and other stakeholders continual access to project information including project scope, schedule, working papers, summary reports, and meeting schedules. Phase 1 Activities: • Create Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and conduct TAG Meeting #1. The

meeting agenda will include: o Introduction to Study o Review Project Schedule o Review Draft Peer City list o Review PI/Agency Coordination Plan

• Design structure and set up ProjectSolve2 site to facilitate information sharing among project team, TAG members, and other stakeholders.

• Support RPTA in media relations, i.e., provide information and graphics as requested.

• Website: provide information and graphics as needed to include on RPTA’s Valley Metro website.

5.2 Phase 2: Tasks 4, 5, 6 During this phase of the project, the study team will review existing transit networks, determine service volumes, develop criteria for identifying the appropriate facility type and level of investment, and conduct a peer city review of bus stop facilities and objective funding criteria in peer cities across the country. During this phase, TAG meeting #2 and a Criteria Workshop will be conducted to develop the ranking criteria that will be included in the final report.


7

Phase 2 Activities • Conduct TAG Meeting #2. The meeting agenda will include:

o Review of Task 3 Working Paper (Prior and Ongoing Documents/Studies) o Review of Task 5 Working Paper (Peer City Review)

• Conduct a Criteria Workshop to develop investment criteria. Because of the technical nature of this workshop, the invitees will primarily be the Technical Advisory Group. The newly formed Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee (VMOCC) may also be involved.

• Prepare a summary report of the Criteria Workshop.

• Maintain ProjectSolve 2 site.


• Provide information and graphics as needed to include on RPTA’s Valley Metro website.

5.3 Phase 3: Tasks 7, 8 In Phase 3, recommendations and design standards for bus stop facilities will be developed and incorporated into an implementation and action plan document. During this phase, a design standards workshop will be conducted to solicit input into the development of the standards. Phase 3 Activities • Conduct TAG Meeting #3. The meeting agenda will include:

o Review of Task 4 Working Paper (Current and Planned Transit Network) o Review of Task 6 Working Paper (Investment Criteria) o Review of Task 7 Working Paper (Recommendations and Design Standards)

• Conduct a Design Standards Workshop to develop bus stop facility design standards. Invitees will be the same as for the Criteria Workshop.

• Prepare a summary report of the Design Standards Workshop.

• Provide coordination, information, graphics and other support as needed to conduct a public meeting as appropriate through the RPTA standard process.

• Maintain ProjectSolve2 site.



8

• Provide information and graphics as needed to include on RPTA’s Valley Metro website.

• Prepare Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program Summary report.

5.4 Consideration of Special Needs Advertisements for public meetings will indicate that reasonable accommodations are available for all persons with disabilities or those persons needing language assistance and will request a 72-hour notification to accommodate specialized needs. Accommodation will be made in accordance with RPTA policies. All meetings will be conducted in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines.

5.5 Documenting and Incorporating Information from Stakeholders and the Public

The Program will include consistent procedures for recording and responding to public comment and for relaying public comment to key project team members and decision-makers. Summaries of meetings will be distributed to study staff for consideration and incorporation of public/agency comments as appropriate. Follow-up action (e.g., response to questions) to comments or questions will be taken when appropriate. All comments resulting from the Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Program will be summarized, analyzed, and included in the Public Involvement/Agency Coordination Summary Report prepared at the end of the study.


Figure 1: Overall Study Schedule

9


Working Paper

Task 3: Review of Inventories, Prior and Ongoing Studies

Prepared for


Prepared by

January 2006

Review of Inventories and Prior and Ongoing Studies

RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

1

REVIEW PRIOR AND ONGOING STUDIES This section serves to review the existing framework established for bus stop design and as an overview of bus stop inventory practices throughout Maricopa County. Information on current guidelines, policies, and standards, as well as a summary of city bus stop inventories and deficiencies is presented for bus stops.

1. Local Design Standards Regional bus stop design guidelines were established in 1993 and are included in the Valley Metro Bus Stop Handbook. The Handbook is intended to be used by planners, designers, developers, and agency officials. It includes guidelines on the location of bus stops, signage, street geometrics, passenger needs, bus priority treatments, and bus vehicle characteristics. Cities within Valley Metro’s jurisdiction may choose to use only this handbook in bus stop design; however the use of the handbook is not required. Many cities have included additional guidelines, policies, and standards in various plans they have developed. Consequently, bus stop standards and designs vary across the region. Table 1 presents information that is included in various bus stop policies throughout Maricopa County.

Rev

iew

of I

nven

tori

es a

nd P

rior

and

Ong

oing

Stu

dies

RPTA

/Val

ley

Met

ro:

Bus S

top

Prog

ram

and

Sta

ndar

ds 2

Tabl

e 1:

B

us D

esig

n St

anda

rds

per C

ity

Mun

icip

ality

SO

UR

CE

YEA

R

None

Bus Dimensions

Street Geometrics

Location Bus Stops

General Location

Special Circumstances- Location

Standard Bus Stop Signage

Bus Bay Location/Design

Unacceptable Bus Stop Location

Bicycle/Pedestrian Access

Pad Design

ADA Requirements

Generic amenities

Landscaping

Furniture

Shelter

Lighting

Public Art

Clearances

Queue Jumpers

Construction Conditions

Bus Stop Maintenance

TOD Requirement

No Advertising

City

of A

vond

ale

Gen

eral

Pla

n 20

01

- -

X

- X

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of C

hand

ler

Gen

eral

Pla

n 20

01

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of E

l Mira

ge

Gen

eral

Pla

n 20

03

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

Tow

n of

Fou

ntai

n H

ills

Gen

eral

Pla

n 20

02

- -

- -

X

- -

- -

X

- -

X

- -

- -

X

- -

- -

- -

Tow

n of

Gilb

ert

Gen

eral

Pla

n; C

omm

erci

al/

Indu

stria

l/Em

ploy

men

t Des

ign

Gui

delin

es

2004

;200

5 -

- -

X

- -

- -

- X

-

- X

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of G

lend

ale

Gen

eral

Pla

n; D

esig

n S

tand

ards

20

02

- -

- -

X

- -

X

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of G

oody

ear

Gen

eral

Pla

n; D

esig

n G

uide

lines

20

03; 1

997

- -

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

- X

X

X

X

X

-

- X

-

- X

X

X

Tow

n of

Gua

dalu

pe

X -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of L

itchf

ield

Par

k G

ener

al P

lan

2001

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- X

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of M

esa

Tran

spor

tatio

n P

lan

2002

-

- X

-

- -

- X

-

- -

- X

-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

Tow

n of

Par

adis

e Va

lley

X -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

City

of P

eoria

G

ener

al P

lan;

Lon

g R

ange

Tra

nsit

Pla

n 20

04, 2

000

- -

- X

-

- -

- -

X

- -

X

- -

- -

- -

- -

- X

-

City

of P

hoen

ix

Gen

eral

Pla

n 20

01

- X

X

X

-

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

- X

X

X

-

- X

X

X

-

- -

City

of S

cotts

dale

D

esig

n S

tand

ards

20

04

- -

- X

-

- X

X

X

X

-

X

- X

X

X

-

- -

- -

X

- -

Sun

City

X

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

City

of S

urpr

ise

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

esig

n G

uide

lines

; Lo

ng R

ange

Tra

nsit

Pla

n 20

02, 2

001

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- X

X

-

- -

X

- -

- -

- X

-

City

of T

empe

Zo

ning

and

Dev

elop

men

t Cod

e 20

05

- -

X

X

- X

-

- -

X

X

X

- X

X

-

- -

X

- -

- -

-

City

of T

olle

son

X -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

Valle

y M

etro

B

us S

top

Han

dboo

k 19

93

- X

X

X

-

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

- X

X

X

-

- X

X

X

-

- -



3

2. Local Bus Stop Inventories Throughout the region, the type of city-maintained bus stop inventory varies greatly. Some cities rely solely on Valley Metro’s database for tracking bus stop locations and amenities, while other cities keep detailed records of their bus stop locations, amenities, and maintenance records. Types of databases, data tracked, and reporting methods are very diverse, and these differences are detailed in this section.

2.1 Who Has a Database? Valley Metro’s member cities are listed in Table 2: which indicates whether or not they have a city-maintained database of bus stop information. Cities that do not have their own database either do not have bus stops at this time or rely on Valley Metro’s master database for information. Details of city-maintained databases are in subsequent sections. Table 2: City-Maintained Bus Stop Databases

City City

Maintained Database?

City of Avondale No City of Chandler Yes City of El Mirage No Town of Fountain Hills No Town of Gilbert Yes City of Glendale No City of Goodyear No Town of Guadalupe No City of Litchfield Park No City of Mesa Yes Town of Paradise Valley No City of Peoria No City of Phoenix Yes City of Scottsdale Yes Town of Sun City No City of Surprise No City of Tempe Yes City of Tolleson No

2.2 What is Included in the Databases? The type of information maintained in the city databases varies greatly. Table 3: shows which Valley Metro classification fields are tracked by the cities, and Table 4: shows additional fields that are monitored per city.



4

Table 3: Valley Metro Classification Fields

Dis

tric

t

Stop

Des

crip

tion

Dir

ecti

on

Stre

et

Pos

itio

n

Inte

rsec

tion

Tang

ency

Poi

nt

Tran

sfer

Shel

ter T

ype

Tras

h

Ben

ch T

ype

Ben

ch Q

uant

ity

Pad

Bay

Typ

e

Rig

ht T

urn

Bay

Side

wal

k

Sign

Phon

e

Ligh

t

Bik

e R

ack

AD

A A

cces

sibl

e

Part

ial A

DA

Man

mad

e Sh

ade

Nat

ural

Sha

de

Blo

ck N

umbe

r

Stop

ID

Zone

City of Chandler X X X X X X - - X X X - X X - X X - - - X - - - X X -

Town of Gilbert - X - - - - - - X X X - - - - - - X X - - - X X - X -

City of Mesa X X X X X X - - X X X X X X - X X - - X X - - - X X X

City of Phoenix X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

City of Scottsdale - - X X X X - - X X X - - - - - X - X X X - - - - X -

City of Tempe - - X X X - - - X X X X - - - - - - - X X - - - - - -

Table 4: Additional City Classification Fields

City

ID

Valle

y M

etro

ID

Allo

w B

oard

ing

Allo

w D

ebar

king

Bus

Pul

lout

Info

Boo

th

Rou

tes

Serv

ed

Bra

nch

Sign

Typ

e

Pow

er

Land

mar

k

Coo

rdin

ates

Publ

ic P

arki

ng

Offs

et

Ow

ner

Shel

ter C

ount

Shel

ter C

olor

Ben

ch C

olor

City of Chandler X X X X X X X X X - X - - - - - - - Town of Gilbert X - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - City of Mesa X - - - - - - - - - - X - - X X X X City of Phoenix X X - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - City of Scottsdale X X X X X X X - - - X X X X - - - -

City of Tempe X - - - X - X - - X - - - - - - - -



5

2.2.a Valley Metro Valley Metro uses an Access database, providing an inventory form, as shown in Figure 1, for logging bus stop data. The form includes location information and amenity characteristics. Valley Metro’s amenities focus on quantity and size as a location, not specifics such as color. Figure 1: Valley Metro Database



6

2.2.b City of Chandler The City of Chandler maintains a bus stop inventory in an Excel spreadsheet. Data collection fields primarily consist of Valley Metro fields, using yes/no in the database. Also included are city identification numbers and a local landmark for location reference. The database is maintained and updated by the City as changes are made; but there is no standard or regular method of reporting these changes to Valley Metro. Consequently, the current Valley Metro database is not up-to-date with all of Chandler’s bus stops.



7

Figure 2: City of Chandler Bus Stop Inventory Spreadsheet



8

2.2.c Town of Gilbert The Town of Gilbert is in the beginning stages of establishing a bus stop inventory system. Currently, the Town uses a basic Excel spreadsheet which includes a brief location description and uses non-descriptive, yes/no fields to track basic amenities, as shown in Figure 3. The Town includes its identification number but not Valley Metro’s stop identification number. In 2005, the Town added 21 new bus stops, and consequently these stops have yet to be added to Valley Metro’s database. The town has no standard reporting method to notify Valley Metro of changes in the bus stop inventory. Figure 3: Town of Gilbert Bus Stop Inventory Database

2.2.d City of Mesa The City of Mesa has a very data intensive Access database where bus stop location, detailed amenities, and maintenance records are tracked. Photos of each stop are also included in the database. Figure 4 shows a sample of the input form which is used for each bus stop. This database is extremely detailed but does not coordinate well with Valley Metro’s database due to the inclusion of numerous amenity details and comprehensive maintenance records. Bus stop improvement and maintenance records are tracked by various divisions within the City. As a result, the City’s database is not maintained regularly and the Valley Metro database is not up to date with Mesa’s bus stop records.



9

The City of Mesa has no standard reporting method for communicating bus stop improvements to Valley Metro. Figure 4: City of Mesa Bus Stop Form



10

2.2.e City of Scottsdale The City of Scottsdale uses an Access database, which includes photos of each stop. The inventory is not regularly maintained or regularly updated with Valley Metro, but underwent a year long inventory update in 2005. Upon completion the inventory was updated with Valley Metro. Scottsdale tracks all Valley Metro data fields and also includes additional fields for their own

use. These additional fields are more detailed amenity and landscaping descriptions.



11

Figure 5: City of Scottsdale Bus Stop Inventory Database



12

2.2.f City of Tempe The City of Tempe maintains a detailed bus stop database with which they track amenity characteristics in addition to basic Valley Metro database information. Such characteristics include type, color, and style of amenities, type of power at stop, and routes served, and maintenance schedule. The inventory is updated daily as changes are made, with Valley Metro being informed immediately of all database updates.



13

Figure 6: City of Tempe Bus Stop Inventory Spreadsheet


Working Paper

Task 4: Analysis of Boarding Trends

Prepared for


Prepared by

April 2006

Task 4: Analysis of Boarding Trends RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

1

1. Introduction This paper provides analysis of the growth and use of the regional transit network based on daily boarding projections. The goal of this task is to understand the current daily boarding rates at Valley bus stops, and how those rates are expected to grow and change temporally and geographically. By examining changes in boardings and in the network, the project team will be able to recommend how to use transit volume information to help distribute regional transit funding fairly.

2. Background When considering how to fairly allocate funding for bus stops on a regional scale over a twenty-year program, a logical place to start is in an analysis of how the bus network will grow and change over time. In addition, since bus stop funding ultimately serves people, it also makes sense to analyze the transit system based on its use. In that way, as the transit network and transit ridership grows in the metropolitan region, staging amenities in accordance with utilization will allow improvements to serve the greatest number of individuals, while recognizing the regional nature and growth of the transit network. While transit ridership is expected to expand throughout the metropolitan region, it will not necessarily increase in a uniform pattern. Ridership will not be the only consideration for level of amenities at a stop, but it is an important component of a set of ranking criteria.

3. Data Ideally, this analysis would consider the current ridership on each bus line, at each bus stop, and how the different lines interact to produce ridership levels. Unfortunately, data are limited, and no comprehensive set of existing bus stop amenities and actual usage exist for the Valley as a whole. Instead, data from modeling projections prepared by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) will be used to understand boarding patterns and distribution of bus riders. Using land use, trip generation, and socioeconomic data supplied from a variety of sources, MAG generates estimates about trip making and mode choice across the Valley. Model outputs are then calibrated against actual transportation data. According to MAG, the latest calibration of the transportation modes was completed in 2005, using data from the 2001 household travel survey and the 2001 on-board bus survey. The MAG modeling data provide information on boardings in the existing and planned network. They include peak and off-peak boardings. Since the network is expected to evolve as funding becomes available and demography shifts in the Valley, data for three horizon years were available to be used in the evaluation: years 2004, 2015, 2025. These dates provide a rough relationship to the phasing of the Regional Transportation Plan. It must be emphasized that these data provide the best means of understanding the Valley’s transit network on a comprehensive basis, but the data are limited. They provide a broad-brush view of the transit network in order to determine how boarding data can be used to allocate funding. The data are simply modeling results and do not necessarily reflect actual conditions.1 Given the absence of precise data, the goal is to capture trends across time and across the 1 The MAG model refers to each data point as a “node” used to model travel behavior. For the purposes of this analysis, nodes will be referred to as “bus stops.”


2

Valley. While these data from the MAG model will provide a means of starting the allocation process, it should be re-calibrated periodically once better means of collecting boarding data – such as the systematic use of automated passenger counting systems – has been established.

4. Findings Findings are grouped into three periods that span the four phases of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The base year is 2004; future projected scenarios are years 2015 and 2025. In the following graphs, the bars indicate the number of bus stops that experience a given number of boardings; the curved line represents the cumulative proportion of boardings at a given level of boardings.

4.1 Base Year: 2004 Figure 1 illustrates the system at base year 2004. The number of stops with low daily boardings is high and the number with high daily boardings is low. Roughly 20% of all bus stops have fewer than 10 daily users, 40% have fewer than 35, 60% have fewer than 70, and 80% have fewer than 145. Half the stops have more than 50 boardings, half have fewer. Average daily boardings per stop is 90. This illustrates an immature bus network in which the majority of stops server fewer than 50 individuals a day. Figure 1 Total Daily Boardings in 2004

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Total Passenger Boardings

# of

Bus

Sto

ps

Median: 50

Mean: 90

Looking at the boarding distribution on a map (see next page), the greatest number of stops in the highest quintile of boardings is concentrated in Valley downtown areas.2 However, the

2 Some areas on the map are anticipated to experience rapid growth in the coming years, but do not show any boarding figures because they are currently completely undeveloped. This would not prevent participation in the bus stop program by these areas.


3

distribution is not as simple as “high boardings downtown; low boardings on the periphery” – on the contrary, some stops with the highest daily boarding figures (i.e., those that appear as red dots on the map) show up well outside of core downtown areas. Conversely, downtown areas also show stops with low boardings. However, there are no stops with more than 145 daily boardings beyond the Loop 101 in the north and west Valley.


4

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.


5


6


7

4.2 Projected Year: 2015 Figure 2 illustrates projected changes in the network from 2004 to 2015. Average bus stop boarding in the network increases from 90 to 94 per day; median users per stop increases from 50 to 54. The number of bus stops with fewer than 10 riders per day represents only 17% of the network, down from 20% in 2004. This represents a shift from the first quintile (0 to 10 daily boardings), to the second quintile (11 to 35 daily boardings). This is indicative of a maturing system where ridership grows at a faster rate than the network itself. Figure 2 Total Daily Boardings in 2015

100%

80%

58%

38%

17%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20 40 60 8010

012

014

016

018

020

022

024

026

028

030

0


# of

Bus

Sto

ps

Median: 54

Mean: 95

The 2015 geographic distribution of boardings shows a network that extends farther across the Valley, reflecting the additional service operating in at the beginning of the second half of the RTP. (The map has been reduced in size to show service extending to the northwest & southwest portions of the Valley.) The highest concentration of bus stops overall remains in the cores of the Valley’s central inner cities – Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa – reflecting that ridership that was already strong has continued to increase. However, bus stop boardings towards the Valley’s peripheral cities also have increased, especially in the southern areas. There is notable densification of boardings along Southern Avenue in the southeast Valley. Whereas in 2004, there were no bus stops with more than 145 boardings beyond the 101 in the north and west Valley, in 2015, stops with more than 145 persons show up as far north as Pinnacle Peak Road, and as far west as 107th Avenue. This trend predicts growing transit ridership in the Valley’s outer cities, with the caveat that while service extends to far-flung locations such as Buckeye and Wickenburg, boardings at stops along those routes is predicted to be below ten per day.


8

4.3 Projected Year: 2025 Figure 3 illustrates the projections for year 2025. Average bus stop boardings in the network increases to 105 per day; median users per stop increases to 60. From year 2015, the distribution shifts most substantially in the higher quintiles. Stops with fewer than 35 daily boardings represent 36% of all boardings; those with more than 70 daily boardings now make up 45% of the system, an increase of 5 points from the base year. As the network continues to mature, it is expected that ridership rates will continue to outpace that of the network. Figure 3 Total Boardings in 2025

100%

77%

55%

36%

16%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 20 40 60 8010

0120 14

016

0180 20

022

024

026

028

030

0


# of

Bus

Sto

ps

Median: 60

Mean: 105

At the same time, even in a more mature network, the projections show a sizeable number of bus stops that have a very small number of daily boardings.

On a map, the 2025 daily boardings scenario shows an extension and deepening of the transit network. The Valley’s core downtown areas remain densely packed with stops that have high boarding numbers, and a few show increased boardings. The notable changes between 2004 and 2025 boarding patterns is the grown in the southeast and northwest valley. At this time, the southeast Valley shows a good percentage of bus stops in the top two quintiles (i.e., stops that show as blue or red dots). Stops along routes to Buckeye and Wickenburg are projected to remain at fewer than 10 boardings per day. Stops with the highest boardings per day now extend as far north as Deer Valley Road, and as far west as Kimball Road.


9


10

5. Discussion Throughout all three modeling phases, the distribution of daily boardings is fairly consistent, but with a steady shift toward high-volume stops. By 2025, there is a discernible shift toward higher volume bus stops. In fact, the number of stops with 10 or fewer boardings drops around 20 percent from 2015 to 2025. At the high end, the number of stops featuring more than 146 boardings grows by over 41 percent from 2004 to 2025. Despite this shift overall, a notable trend across all three phases is the high number of bus stops that have very low daily boardings (fewer than 2). It is important to note that such a bus stop may still provide valuable service on a weekly basis, but does not have high daily ridership. This trend suggests that a bus stop level that provides a very basic set of amenities may be required. In order to examine whether there was a pattern to the data, or whether any recommendation could be made about boardings and bus stop levels, the project team divided the boarding data into quintiles, based on year 2004 data. Figure 4 below shows the result. (The scale on the right side of the figure shows the proportion of stops within each bracket. Because stops with extremely high boarding figures (i.e., greater than 300 daily boardings) have been excluded from the analysis, the percentages in a given year may not total 100%.) Figure 4 Projected boardings between 2004 and 2025

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 to 10 11 to 35 36 to 70 71 to 145 146+

Total Daily Boardings

# of

Bus

Sto

ps

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%200420152025

When the data is divided into quintiles, the brackets are the following: 1st quintile: 0 to 10 daily boardings 2nd quintile: 10 to 35 daily boardings 3rd quintile: 36 to 70 daily boardings 4th quintile: 71 to 145 daily boardings 5th quintile: more than 145 daily boardings.


11

The project team and the TAG will need to decide together how to use these daily boardings data as one of the criteria to rank bus stops for qualification for RTP funding.

6. Conclusion The MAG model provides some valuable insight into the current and predicted trends in bus stop boardings across the Valley. Based on modeling projections, many stops in the system may require a lower level of amenities than had previously been established in workshops. While the concentration of boardings is by no means even across the Valley, the model predicts that all communities in the Valley will experience growth in transit ridership. Over time, many communities will have boardings in the higher quintiles. It is important to keep in mind that the model represents the only set of comprehensive data that currently exists, but it is far from perfect. Establishing boarding trends in the Valley will be an iterative process, and will benefit from the introduction of new passenger-counting technology. These boarding trends should be reexamined once more accurate data, which reflects actual conditions, becomes available.


Working Paper

Task 5: Peer City Review

Prepared for


Prepared by

January 2006

Review of Practices in Peer Cities RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

PEER CITY REVIEW – PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

1. Introduction Bus stop amenities play an important role in the perception that transit patrons and the community have towards their transit system. Given that travelers consider time spent waiting for and transferring between buses two to three times more onerous than time spent on moving vehicles, bus stop amenities provide the transit agency with an opportunity to create a favorable impression of the transit system. Transit providers also have an obligation to provide a safe waiting environment for their passengers. At the same time, transit agencies face resource constraints that limit the amount of amenities that can be provided. Although they might wish to, most agencies cannot afford to provide a top-of-the-line bus shelter at every stop. While Proposition 400 specifically earmarked revenues for bus stop amenities and puts the Valley of the Sun in the enviable position of anticipating additional funding for transit, RPTA and member agencies need to distribute amenities throughout the system to ensure that all user groups and jurisdictions are treated equitably. In this peer city review, the goal is to understand the criteria by which transit agencies in comparable regions evaluate the need for bus stop amenities in order to inform the development of an objective set of criteria for the Valley bus stop program. It would be difficult to find a set of cities and transit agencies that are similar to the Valley area and RPTA in every respect. Instead, the project team selected a set of cities that have similar characteristics to the Valley in general, and/or those that have transit systems with similar service characteristics, or those areas using innovative solutions to distribute bus stop amenities. Most of these cities are served by multiple transit providers, but only the primary regional transit provider is profiled in this report. The final list of peer cities (and primary transit providers) includes:

• Atlanta, Georgia (MARTA); • Austin, Texas (Capital Metro); • Dallas, Texas (DART); • Denver, Colorado (RTD); and • San Diego, California (MTS).

Findings specific to the agencies’ bus stop programs are detailed in the body of this report. Additional background information on each agency is presented in the Appendix.

2. Peer City Bus Stop Classification Programs All transit agencies in the peer cities recognize the need to provide the best possible bus stop amenities for their patrons and the community in which they operate, but all face the constraint of limited fiscal resources with which to do so. As a result, all agencies have developed

1


2

guidelines for determining what types of amenities should be placed at bus stops. Table 1 (on page 3) shows a comparison of the different programs in Phoenix and the peer cities. The agencies’ guidelines share elements, but they also differ in interesting ways. Some programs are more formal than others. All agencies use ridership to some extent when evaluating whether a bus stop warrants a given set of amenities. However, they also balance this strictly quantitative evaluative approach with site-specific considerations such as set-back requirements. Further, some agencies explicitly consider qualitative data when determining the types of amenities that a bus stop should have. Some programs are more formalized, consisting of documented guidelines; others are not formally documented but simply known to the planners involved. Finally, every agency noted that the guidelines are just that, and site- specific conditions must always be considered. In other words, even with guidelines, every bus stop is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that all agencies interviewed follow guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In this sense, the ADA guidelines might be considered the most basic level of bus stop amenities. Agencies differ as to how they retrofit stops constructed before the Act was established in 1990. In the next sections, details on each agency’s program are presented.

2.1 MARTA (Atlanta) MARTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, provides bus stop amenities through a combination of programs. The majority of the system’s over 11,000 bus stops are either flag stops, which are provided by MARTA but maintained by local jurisdictions, or have bus and shelter amenities provided through an advertising revenue program. However, MARTA has recently created a program specific to residential areas, where advertising shelters and benches are not permitted. It is this program that is detailed in this section. MARTA implemented its “Supplemental Bus Shelter/Bench/I-Stop Program” in March 2005 to provide non-advertising shelters, benches and I-Stops amenities within MARTA’s service area. The objective of the program is to provide customers with protection from the elements, enhance their comfort and safety, and improve MARTA’s customer service. The program includes the purchase, installation, cleaning and maintenance of these amenities. MARTA’s criteria for selecting shelter/bench locations includes (but is not limited to)

• The average number of customers that wait at the bus stop per day, including the average daily boarding by route and presence of multiple routes.

• The average number of daily boardings for shelters must be over 10; for benches; the daily average must be 5 to 9 boardings. Special consideration is given to medical/hospital facilities, senior centers and other similar public facilities.

• Potential sites must accommodate a concrete pad; provide a 10-foot set-back from the roadway; and not hinder vehicle visibility. The site must be flat, and not next to a guardrail or barrier or block fire hydrants, etc. Zoning and established local or state government setback requirements must also be met.

I-Stops (or Solar Stops) are solar-powered, user-activated bus stops lighting devices that provide a bus signaling beacon, security lighting, and illumination for posted bus


3

Table 1: Bus Stop Amenities Distribution Programs in Peer Cities Bus Stop Amenities Distribution Programs in Peer Cities

Phoenix Atlanta Austin Dallas Denver San Diego

Primary regional transit providerRPTA MARTA S

National guidelines? ADA ADA AAgency guidelines? Yes Ye Yes

Last updated 1994 2000

Type of classification system and basis for decision

Levels of bus stops, based on points system

Supplemental Bus Stop/Stop program

Bench & shelter advertising program

Criteria used Quantitative criteria Number of dail

Capital Metro DART RTD MT

ADA ADA ADA ADs Yes Yes No

2005 1996 1998 n/a

Bench/ I- Levels of bus stops, based on points system

Levels of bus stops, based primarily on ridership

Shelters only, based primarily on ridership

y boardings Number of daily boardings Number of daily boardings Number of daily boardings Number of daily boardings Number of daily boardingsHeadway Headway

Size of nearby apartment bldgs

Qualitative criteria Special needs (senior centers, medical offices, libraries, social services, etc.)

Special consideration formedical/hospital facilitiescenters, etc.

Advertising vendor criteria

Activity location (apartments, high rise buildings, schools, hospitals)

Type of stop (Express vs

Degree of exposure to elements Zoning (program appliesresidential areas only)

Citizen request for improvements

Equity of distribution of improvements

, senior

Hospitals & social services Sensitivity of use (hospitals, schools, social services)

Type of audience (senior center, hospital, etc.)

. local) Major activity/employment centers Goodwill to / joint participation by adjacent land owners

to Elected official request

Patron request

Minor activity centers

Route intersections

Schools

Joint participation


schedules. (I-Stop is a brand name.) I-Stops are used exclusively at stops on MARTA’s special “express” and “limited stop” routes.

2.2 Capital Metro (Austin) To distribute bus stop amenities throughout its system, Austin’s Capital Metro uses a points system based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria. In this system, no one criterion would be considered “most important” in determining the type of bus stop. Joint participation (that is, financial support from outside the agency) is included in the point system. Table 2 shows the details of the Capital Metro system.

Table 2: Capital Metro Bus Stop Amenities Point System

Criteria for qualification Total of 40 points Total of 60 points

Qualification categories Boardings 1 point each Boardings 1 point each

Major activity/employment centers 13 points Major activity/employment

centers 25 points

Hospitals and social service agencies 13 points Hospitals and social service

agencies 25 points

Apartment: 500+ units 13 points Apartment: 500+ units 25 points

Apartment: 250-499 unites 10 points Apartment: 250-499 unites 20 points

Headway (midday greater than 55 minutes) 10 points Headway (midday greater than

55 minutes) 20 points

Special request (area elected officials) 10 points Special request (area elected

officials) 20 points

Patron requests8 points for first request; 0.5 points for each additional request

Patron requests15 points for first request; 1 point for each additional request

Schools 10 points Minor activity centers 15 points

Joint participation participation level + points Route intersections 15 points

Schools 10 points

Joint participation participation level + points

*Only 3 qualification categories may be used. *Only 3 qualification categories may be used.

Source: Capital Metro "Bus Stop Placement and Amenities Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures"

Type of bus stop

Stop with bench Stop with shelter

The Capital Metro bus stop amenities point program states that “benches should be considered for all sites that qualified for shelters but were rejected for site specific and/or other reasons." Capital Metro guidelines apply throughout the Capital Metro system, regardless of the municipality or jurisdiction in which a bus stop is located. At the same time, Capital Metro has made some changes to corridors or areas based on specific needs or requests. For example, the area near the University of Texas has Capital Metro-designed shelters, but with a different roof color and a “Longhorn” logo affixed to the shelter. Another example pertains to a corridor in Austin that is part of a Livable Communities grant. Transit shelters in this area have decorative masonry support posts.

4


2.3 DART (Dallas) The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus shelter amenities policies have evolved from ADA requirements and guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).1 In the DART program, there are four levels of Bus Stop: • Level I: Bus stop sign • Level II: Bus stop sign with bench • Level III: Standard shelter • Level IV: Enhanced shelter The primary criterion for establishing the type of bus stop is the daily number of boardings. Table 3 provides the details of the program.

Table 3: DART’s Levels of Bus Stops

Level I: Bus stop sign Level II: Bus stop sign with bench Level III: Standard shelter Level IV: Enhanced shelterCriteria for qualification

Required # boardings < 25 boardings/day 25 - 49 boardings/day 50 -99 boardings/day 100+ boardings/dayOther criteria shall be placed every 750 feet sensitivity of use sensitivity of use route transfers occur

sensitivity of use

Area types Residential Residential Residential ResidentialNon-residential Non-residential Non-residential Non-residentialCentral Business District Central Business District

Key amenities Standard bus stop sign Standard bus stop sign Guide-a-ride units Guide-a-ride unitsConcrete bench Shelter with benches Shelter with benches

Trash receptacle Trash receptacleConcrete pad Concrete pad

Bus stop lightingPublic telephone (non-residential only)

Beneficial amenities Route listing sign (CBD only) Route listing sign (CBD only) Bus stop lighting Ash urnAmbient lighting Ambient lighting Ash urn Concrete pad

Trash receptacle Ambient lighting Ambient lightingNewspaper rack Newspaper racks Landscaping (installed by DART)

Public telephones Newspaper racksPublic telephone (residential only)

Amenities beneficial under special circumstances Route listing sign (non-residential only) Route listing sign (non-residential only) Maxi pylon (non-residential only) Maxi pylon (non-residential only)

Mini pylon (CBD only) Mini pylon (CBD only) Concrete bench Leaning railAsh urn Ash urn Leaning rail Landscaping (installed by others)Concrete pad Concrete pad Concrete padExtended concrete pad Extended concrete pad Extended concrete pad

Metal bench with armrest Landscaping (installed by others)Public telephones

Source: DART Bus Stop Planning Manual

Type of bus stop

A second consideration used to determine the level of stop is “sensitivity of use,” which refers to the type of land use adjacent to the stop; hospitals or senior centers, for example, would be considered highly sensitive uses. Private support and goodwill toward adjacent land owners also plays a part in determining what type of bus stop may be permitted, especially when another party is willing to fund the cost of a more expensive shelter than would otherwise be allowed. For example, an auto sales business may be willing to fund the cost of a shelter to encourage transit patrons to use the bus stop

1 A DART bus stop planner specifically mentioned that DART does not find it politically wise to apply separate criteria for rural / urban / suburban designations as suggested in a 1996 report by the Transportation Research Board. Instead, in the DART system, the same criteria are applied at all stops, regardless of whether the area is considered urban, suburban, or rural.

5


rather than resting on cars on display. If the auto sales business were to fund the shelter entirely, DART may agree to disregard the ridership requirement.

2.4 RTD (Denver) Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) provides only a limited number of bus stop amenities, and limits the amenities that it will install to shelters. Of the 10,400 stops in the RTD system, approximately 800 have shelters. RTD does not include a bench or trash can with the shelter. Governmental entities within the RTD boundaries may install additional amenities at their expense, but must coordinate the installation with RTD to ensure that installation meets ADA guidelines. The City of Denver, for example, has a bus bench advertising program. Bus Shelters RTD uses ridership as the primary criterion to determine whether or not a bus stop qualifies for a bus shelter. Currently, a stop must have at least 45 boardings per day to qualify for a shelter. Interestingly, the RTD sets the required number of boardings based on maintenance costs; that is, if a stop contributes 45 boardings or more per day, the RTD perceives that the stop has generated enough revenue to absorb maintenance costs. The RTD is considering raising that threshold to 60 daily boardings due to increased maintenance costs. Like DART, RTD also considers adjacent land uses, although RTD refers to this consideration as “type of audience” – for example, whether the bus stop serves seniors or visitors to hospitals or social/community services offices.

2.5 MTS (San Diego) Within San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System, bus benches and bus shelters are installed and paid for by a private vendor that uses these amenities for advertising. All shelter construction, maintenance, and improvement costs are paid for by an advertising vendor. In addition, MTS receives up to $150,000 per year from the vendor to pay for administrative, monitoring, and implementation costs.2

MTS design standards are specified in the contract with the advertising vendor, and are subject to local jurisdictional review and guidelines; for example, bus shelters are not permitted to display advertising on Broadway in San Diego. The advertising vendor applies for permits at chosen locations, and MTS reviews the location. Key points of the bus shelter advertising program include:

• The threshold for a shelter is 75 daily boardings.

• Three advertising shelters are permitted for every one non-advertising shelter.

• MTS may use any unsold advertising spaces on “space available” basis.

• Advertising shelters are not permitted in residential zones.

• The vendor is required to maintain the shelters with at least two maintenance calls per week, per shelter.

2 Many cities/agencies have bus stop advertising programs, but the MTS program is unique in that all revenues are directed specifically toward the transit agency or transit stop amenities, rather than going into a general fund.

6


Bus Benches The arrangement for the bus bench advertising program is similar to the shelter program, but requires only one maintenance call per week.

3. Costs of Amenities A goal of the peer city review was to glean information on bus stop amenities spending, and particularly on how spending has changed over time. Unfortunately, none of the agencies interviewed was able to provide year-over-year data on bus stop spending. There are several reasons for this:

1. Spending on bus stops is not a separate line item in agency budgets, and was therefore nearly impossible to isolate.

2. Bus stop spending is not constant cost, and may depend on whether and how the system is expanding.

3. Bus stop spending depends to some extent on availability of funding; in Austin, Capital Metro used a Livable Communities grant to upgrade transit stops in a certain area of the city that otherwise may not have been upgraded.

4. For agencies that use advertising vendors to provide shelters, such as San Diego’s MTS, maintenance and construction costs are external to the agency.

However, several peer city agencies were able to provide estimates for the costs of particular amenities and for the costs of maintenance. In addition, research on transit amenities costs in other cities can help give a range of potential costs.

3.1 Capital Costs Estimates for the cost of various types of bus stop amenities are presented in Table 4. These capital cost estimates include construction (or purchase) and installation.

Table 4: Capital Costs

Peer cities Other citiesAtlanta Austin Denver Las Vegas Athens, GA

Flag stop 100$ 75$

Concrete landing pad 500$

Trash can 500$

I-stop 2,500$

Bench 5,000$ 2,000$

Shelter 10,000$ 14,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$

3.2 Maintenance Costs Table 5 shows maintenance costs estimates from different cities.

7


Table 5: Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs

Peer cities Other citiesAtlanta Austin Denver Las Vegas

Shelter only $8 - 10 per visit $62.50 per month

All types of stops included$45 - 70 per stop, per month

$18 per stop, per month

Due to their size and the fact that they sometimes include a bench and a trash can, shelter stops are the most expensive type of bus stop to maintain. MARTA’s maintenance costs include daily trash pickup, landscaping or pressure wash (depending on season), and response to specific requests. (Note: Maintenance is done only for the 228 stops that MARTA is responsible for. The remaining stops are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction, or the advertising vendor.) At Capital Metro, maintenance includes emptying the trash, light landscaping (such as cutting the grass around a bus stop), power washing surfaces, and graffiti removal. The maintenance schedule at Capital Metro calls for trash removal 2-3 times/week, but that may be as often as nightly for stops with high ridership. Other stops have trash removal only once every two weeks. Similarly, landscaping, power washing, and graffiti removal are scheduled according to need. To help with maintenance costs and promote community involvement with the transit system, the RTD created an Adopt-a-Stop project, whereby the RTD provides a trash can and trash bags, and a citizen, group, or business maintains the stop. (The name of the citizen, group, or business is put on a placard at the stop.) Currently, there are 500 adopted stops; there are no plans to expand the program at this point due to coordination limitations. At DART, "maintenance" includes only the replacement of shelters that are damaged or destroyed. Five personnel and one supervisor are assigned to that task, along with four heavy-duty pieces of equipment (trucks and cranes). Cleaning of bus stops is contracted to a private company.

8


APPENDIX I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Portraits of peer cities

Population In terms of population, the Phoenix metropolitan statistical area falls in the middle of the list of peer cities. Dallas-Fort Worth is the largest area included in this research; and Austin is the smallest. All of the areas have experienced growth in the period from 1990-2000; Austin experienced the greatest rate of growth, with the growth rate in Phoenix just slightly behind. Table A-1: Population & Growth

Population & Population Growth

2000 Population of Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA)

Population growth, 1990-2000

Phoenix 3,251,876 45%Atlanta 4,112,198 39%Austin 1,249,763 47%Dallas-Fort Worth 5,221,801 29%Denver 2,581,506 30%San Diego 2,813,833 13%

Source: US Census - 2000 data

Phoenix again falls in the middle of list of peer cities in terms of median age of population, but nears the top in terms of income, just after San Diego. Table A-2: Age & Income

Population: Age and Income

2004 Median age (in principal city)

2004 median household income (in

principal city)Phoenix 32.9 46,111$ Atlanta 33.9 37,385$ Austin 29.6 42,689$ Dallas-Fort Worth 32.1 43,444$ Denver 34.8 43,777$ San Diego 34.0 50,012$

Source: US Census - 2004 data

Climate The peer cities exhibit a range of climates, from hot and dry to cold and snowy. Unsurprisingly, the Phoenix metro area is the hottest in the group; however, the two Texas cities also experience average August temperatures in the high nineties. The Denver area experiences extreme weather of a different kind, with almost five feet of snow per year and, on average, a high temperature of only 47 degrees in February. San Diego and Atlanta experience relatively temperate climates.

9


10

Table A-3: Climate

2. Transit in peer cities

Agencies in the peer cities exhibit different ways of providing transit service to multiple jurisdictions, from regional approaches to city-by-city approaches. Finding a transit provider set-up that exactly mimics that of the Phoenix region was not the goal; rather, information was sought on a range of providers and approaches within a reasonably similar environment. In this section, a brief summary of transit service in each region is provided, followed by detailed information on the primary regional transit provider in each region3 In the Phoenix area, Valley Metro/RPTA acts as coordinating/planning agency and operates or purchases some service for the 18 current member cities; cities within RPTA's jurisdiction also operate fixed-route and demand-response services. In the Atlanta area, MARTA operates bus & heavy rail transit in Fulton and Dekalb counties, while Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties operate their own buses, but no current rail transit. (The MARTA heavy rail system extends to the airport in Clayton county.) A single agency, Capital Metro, provides fixed-route bus service in the Austin metropolitan area. In Dallas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system provides light rail and fixed-route bus service. The DART service area includes 13 member cities and includes a commuter rail system. (Neighboring Fort Worth does not participate in DART.) The Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates bus and rail service in the Denver area. RTD’s service area includes 38 municipalities in seven counties. In San Diego County, transit service falls under the umbrella of the Metropolitan Transit System, which now includes San Diego Trolley (which provides light rail service). Other service providers include Chula Vista Transit, County Transit System, MTS Contract Services, National City Transit, and San Diego Transit. Table 4, on the next page, provides a summary of transit provision in each peer city, along with detailed information about the primary regional transit agency. To provide another means of comparison with the Valley, Table 5 shows operating and funding information for the primary regional transit agency.

Climate Averages

Annual rainfall (inches)

Annual snowfall (inches)

February temp. (high/low)

August temp. (high/low)

Days of sunshine/year

Phoenix 7.66 0 69/47 102/80 300Atlanta 54 2.1 57/37 88/70 219Austin 32 0 65/44 96/73 300Dallas-Fort Worth 33.3 2.7 61/41 96/76 269Denver 15 55 47/19 86/57 300+ San Diego 9.9 0 66/52 78/67 146

Source: www.weather.com

3 Information on transit service provision is from agency publications or discussions with local transit personnel.

11


Phoenix Atlanta Austin Dallas Denver San Diego

Transit service provider(s) Valley Metro/RPTA acts as coordinating and planning agency and operates some service for the 18 current member cities; some cities within RPTA's jurisdiction also operate fixed-route and demand-response services.

MARTA operates bus & heavy rail transit in Fulton and Dekalb counties, while Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties operate their own buses with no current rail transit.

Capital Metro operates fixed-route bus service in the Austin region.

DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transilight rail and bus service in 13cities. Dallas also has a commutesystem, operated by a separate enti(TRE). Note: Fort Worth is noof the DART system.

ce is unty

rvices, nsit.

ty,

Primar

t) operates member

r rail ty

t a member

The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is aoperates bus and rail service in the Denver area. The RTD's service area includes 38 municipalities in seven counties.

Under the umbrella of the MTS, serviprovided by Chula Vista Transit, CoTransit System, MTDB Contract SeNational City Transit, San Diego TraLight-rail service is provided by San DiegoTrolley, previously an independent entibut now part of MTS.

y Regional Agency Valley Metro/RPTA MARTA Capital Metro DART RTD MTS (including San Diego Trolley)Service area population 2,061,020 1,354,871 901,920 102,396Service area geographic size (square miles)

413 498 572 570 2,215,500 2,400,000 2,

689 2,406

Average weekday unlinked trips 14,207 461,145 129,959 179,249

Li

262,052 266,316

ght rail (construction phase) (none)Rail fleet n/a 332 n/a Rail stations n/a 38 n/a 9 Rail lines n/a 2 n/a 3 Miles of track n/a 48 n/a 8

BusFixed-route buses in o

95 49 123 35 24 4 2 3

45 16 4

peration 63 555 371 524 Fixed-route bus routes 83 125 89 Bus sto

691 1,074 130 176

ps 6,914 11,483 3,296 5,533 Bus shelters unknown 540 unknown 496 Transit centers unknown unknown unknown unknown Sources: 2003 National Transit Database (NTDB) agency profiles; Agency publications

11,961 10,352 469 unknown 15 unknown

Table A-4: Transit in Peer Cities & Characteristics of Primary Regional Agencies

Table A-5: Operating Funding at Primary Regional Agencies Phoenix Atlanta Austin Dallas Denver San Die

go

Agency Valley Metro/RPTA MARTA Capital Metro DART RTD MTS (including San Diego Trolley)2003 operating expenses* 52,573,757$ 315,313,031$ 107,644,936$ 320,008,327$ 260,070,997$ 107,824,810$

Sources of operating funds Fare revenues (16%) Fare revenues (25%) Fare revenues (3%) Fare revenues (10%) Fare revenues (18%) Fare revenues (34% / 57%)Local funds (75%) Local funds (57%) Local funds (83%) State funds (85%) Local funds (63%) Local funds (48% / 42%)State funds (1%) Federal assistance (10%) Federal assistance (4%) Federal assistance (1%) Federal assistance (13%) State funds (5% / 0%)

Federal assistance (9%) Other (7%) Other (11%) Other (5%) Other (6%) Federal assistance (11% / 0%)Other (2% / 1%)

*includes purchased transportation, if reported se aratelyp

Note: figure for MTS operating expenses considered "questionable" by NTD

Source: 2003 National Transit Database (NTDB) agency profiles


Budget-wise, the operating expenses of the primary regional transit agencies range from just over one hundred million dollars per year in San Diego and Austin to more than three hundred million in Dallas and Atlanta. Agencies receive their operating funding from a variety of public sources. San Diego Trolley enjoys the greatest farebox revenue, at 57% of operating expenses; Austin’s Capital Metro receives only 3% of its operating revenue from the farebox. Note: The figures from the National Transit Database indicate that 85% of DART’s funding comes from state sources, which is a surprising contrast to Austin, which receives 83% of funding from local sources. A transit manager at DART explained that, in fact, DART receives most of its funding from local sales taxes that are collected and distributed by the State of Texas. This is the explanation behind the seemingly contradictory data

12


Working Paper

Task 8: Investment Criteria & Recommendations,

Part II: Bus Stop Amenities Warrant System

Prepared for


Prepared by

April 2006

Investment Criteria & Recommendations RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

2

DEVELOPING A WARRANT PROGRAM

1. Introduction

2. Criteria

2.1 Criteria list and definitions At the March 2006 Investment Criteria Workshop, TAG members developed and refined a list of criteria relevant to warranting bus stops for amenities.

Criterion Definition or purpose Sensitivity of use Refers to the type of audience that uses the bus stop in a

specific location, or adjacent to a specific land use. A bus stop that caters to a high number of senior citizens, children, mentally or physically disabled, or low-income people would be considered sensitive. Adjacent land uses that cater to a “sensitive” audience would be social services agencies, medical facilities, senior centers, and schools. This criterion refers specifically to a more transit-dependent audience, and should NOT be confused with more general land use measures that promote transit use by being large or dense.

Daily boardings The number of boardings a bus stop experiences on a daily basis. This number specifically counts boardings, rather than boardings and alightings, with the assumption that people who board may spend time at the bus stop waiting for their bus, while people who simply alight will likely not.

Degree of exposure to elements Recognizes that passengers may be more exposed to sun or harsh weather in some locations than in others

Route intersection/transfers Sites with route intersections may lead to passengers waiting to transfer to another bus line

Land use measures Recognizes that the land uses around a stop may generate transit use by their size or their nature. Large trip generators or dense development may encourage transit use.

Low frequency Bus stops serving low-frequency bus lines may experience long passenger wait times

Safety/isolation of stop Addresses safety concerns for bus stops located in either high-crime or very isolated areas

Joint participation Recognizes the value of combining funding from other parties Transit-friendly development standards

in placeRecognizes the value of promoting transit use through codifying transit-friendly development, such as higher density development or good pedestrian connectivity

Vehicle characteristics Recognizes that larger vehicles may require greater space to pull up to, and therefore a larger pad and more amenities

Siting Recognizes the need to place a bus stop in a safe and convenient place for transit patrons, such as near a signalized intersection or in a place with good pedestrian connectivity, to

Investment Criteria & Recommendations RPTA/Valley Metro: Bus Stop Program and Standards

3

encourage them to walk to a stop legally and safely (i.e., to not encourage jaywalking)

Current conditions vs. projected conditions

Distinguishes between the existing conditions of bus stops and those that are projected to happen

Type of service Recognizes that different types of bus service (i.e., local vs. express vs. BRT) may require different amenities

Request for amenity upgrade Provides a means of accounting for citizen or elected official requests for bus stop amenities

2.2 Importance of Criteria Once the list of criteria was developed, each TAG member rated the individual criterion on a 1-to-5 scale – ‘1’ indicated that the criterion was “not at all important,” and ‘5’ indicated that the criterion was “very important.” The results were then tallied in order to develop the average importance of each criterion to the whole group. Table 1 shows the results of the group ranking. (The criteria are listed from most important to least important.)

Table 1 Group Ranking of Criteria Name Avg.

importance Sensitivity of use 4.4

Daily boardings 3.8 Degree of exposure to elements 3.7

Route intersection/transfers 3.5 Land use measures 3.5

Low frequency 2.8 Safety/isolation of stop 2.5

Joint participation 2.5 Transit-friendly development

standards in place2.5

Vehicle characteristics 2.5 Siting 2.4

Current conditions vs. projected conditions

2.0

Type of service 1.8 Request for amenity upgrade 1.8