Transcript
Page 1: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

1

FROM BUSSHELTERS TO

TRANSITORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT

Florida Planning andDevelopment Lab

Florida State University

A LITERATURE REVIEWOF BUS PASSENGERFACILITY PLANNING,SITING, AND DESIGN

Page 2: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

2

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 3: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

3

From Bus Shelters toTransit-Oriented Development:

A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

Report Prepared for:

Florida Department of TransporationPublic Transit Office

By:

Florida Planning and Development LabDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning

Florida State University

March 2004

Page 4: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

4

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 5: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

5

From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development:A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility

Planning, Siting, and Design

Budget No: 362656539

Prepared by:Ivonne Audirac, Ph.D.

Harrison Higgins, AICP

Florida Planning and Development LabDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning

Florida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida 32306-2280

(850) 644-8513http://www.fsu.edu/~durp

Program Manager:

Amy Datz, FDOTContract Number BC137-18

Florida Department of Transportation605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450(850) 414-4500

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those ofthe authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation.This document was prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida Departmentof Transportation.

Page 6: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

6

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 7: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

7

Acknowledgements

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has requested that Florida StateUniversity (FSU) provide small Florida transit agencies design guidelines for buspassenger transit facilities. Beyond identifying the minimum standards, the purpose of thisstudy is to provide transportation agencies with feasible alternatives when developing buspassenger facilities that focus on the interaction of transit facilities with transit operationsand the built environment.

The following FSU staff and students participated in conducting the research, analysis,design, and preparation of this report:

Principal Investigators:

Ivonne Audirac, Ph.D and Harrison Higgins, AICP.

Research Assistance:

Poorna Bhattacharya, Catherine Hartley, Tanya Kunkel, David Sheern and Sue Trone

With Participation From:

Raniera Barbisan, Paul Flavien, Michelle Freeman, John Patrick John-Peter, RobertoMiquel, Santanu Roy, Tang Lei, and Jeff Thelen.

The Principal Investigators would also like to acknowledge assistance provided by the staffof several Florida transit agencies, including: James Liesenfelt of Brevard County Transit;Jennifer Stults of the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority; Ramona Cavasos,Richard Deibler, and Julia Pearsall of Escambia County Area Transit; Shenley Neely andJesus M. Gomez of the Gainesville Regional Transit System; Les Weakland and EdCrawford of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority; Karen Wood and Liz Waltonof Indian River County Transit; Steve Githens of Lakeland Citrus Connection; Steve Meyerof Lee County Transit; Peter Gajdis and Ralph Hesler of Manatee County Area Transit;Mike Carroll and Thelma Williams of Pasco County Public Transit; Roger Sweeny andMike Sibalt of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority; Marsha A. Danielson and Paul A.Simmons, III of Polk County Transit Services Division; Sarah Blanchard and PhilLieberman of Sarasota County Area Transit; DeWayne Carver of TALTRAN; and JimDorsten of Votran.

Page 8: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

8

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 9: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

9

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 1: Accessing Bus Transit Facilities...................................................................... 17

1.1 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.............. 191.2 Bicycle-Oriented Considerations.................................................................................................. 251.3 Pedestrian-Oriented Considerations............................................................................................ 291.4 Security and Crime Prevention.................................................................................................... 35

Chapter 2: Building Bus Transit Facilities.......................................................................... 41

2.1 Transit Facility Design Guidelines................................................................................................ 43National and Transit Cooperative Research Program-Report-Based Guidelines........................ 43State, Regional, and Local Guidelines......................................................................................... 51Books and Articles on Transit Facility Design.............................................................................. 62

2.2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)...................................................................................... 692.3 Bus Passenger Facilities.............................................................................................................. 832.4 Green Design Considerations...................................................................................................... 89

Chapter 3: Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD)............................................................... 97

3.1 TOD Planning and Strategies...................................................................................................... 101National Studies and Guidelines..................................................................................................101State and Regional Studies and Guidelines................................................................................ 109County, City, and Transit Agency Studies and Guidelines........................................................... 116Journal Articles on TOD and Transit-Friendly Development....................................................... 120

3.2 Parking and Auto Relationship to Transit.................................................................................... 127

Chapter 4: Funding and Marketing Transit.........................................................................139

4.1 Funding....................................................................................................................................... 1414.2 Transit Image Marketing and Community Visibility...................................................................... 149

Page 10: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

10

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 11: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

11

Introduction

The recent California Supreme Court decision inBonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30Cal. 4th 139 (2003) ruled in favor of a pedestrian whowas tragically hit by a car while crossing a dangerousintersection to reach a bus stop. Although the $1.6million verdict undoubtedly sent a chilling message tohundreds of public transit agencies that now they canbe held liable for the location of their property, itreaffirms the importance of good planning, siting anddesign of bus passenger facilities—often a low levelpriority vis-à-vis other transit operation concerns. Thejudges’ decision underscored the significance ofeffective interagency coordination in enhancing safebus service provision. The car driver was sued andbore the bulk of total liability. However, the lack ofcoordination between the county owning the right ofway along the busy street and the public transitagency which neglected to relocate its bus stop to asafer location was what ultimately resulted inavoidable physical trauma and injury to bus patrons.

This court case brings attention to the bus stop,an often overlooked, yet fundamental component ofoverall safe quality transit service which provides aviable alternative to the automobile. As the Bonannocase demonstrates, bus stops and other buspassenger facilities have been treated as residualelements in a transportation system biased towardrapid automobile flow and characterized by poorspeed limit enforcement. Regarding safe pedestrianaccess to transit facilities, the transportation system’sdecision-making structure is typically balkanizedamong state departments, transit agencies, and localgovernments regarding the design, maintenance, and

safety conditions of the right of way where bus stopsmust be located. Transit-oriented development andbus stops will remain marginal planning and urbandesign considerations as long as the focus remainsset on rail and as long as local land-use planning andtransit planning continue to be out of sync.

The current planning and design philosophytoward more livable, equitable and environmentallyfriendly cities expressed in several Smart Growth andNew Urbanist manifestos is strongly reliant onpractical transit mobility solutions. In some instancesthese solutions are offered as alternatives to theautomobile, while in others they are complementary.Although Curitiba-inspired bus rapid transit (BRT)(Cervero 2003) is at the center of new regional designand mobility schemes like Peter Calthorpe’s “urbannetwork” (Calthorpe 2001) as well as a nationwideflurry of light-rail based transit-oriented development(TOD) initiatives (Cura 2003), we must not forget thatthese transit mobility schemes are dependent onsubsidiary bus feeder and pedestrian mobilitynetworks and as well as on the “buying-in” of a largenumber of transit agencies and county and citydepartments. As of late, some progressive transitagencies have assertively advocated for transitreview in local site plans and development reviewprocesses, but this is more the exception than therule; the vast majority of bus passenger facility designand siting decisions take place divorced fromthe development review process. Although aliterature review may be no direct remedy tothis problem, a comprehensive compilation ofwork regarding effective bus passenger facility

Introduction

Page 12: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

12

planning, siting, and design, that can help transit andtransportation planners assess the state of the art inthese rubrics is a step in this direction.

CONCEPTUALIZING BUS PASSENGERFACILITIES

Bus passenger facilities from the bus stop and shelterto the intermodal station are vital elements ofmultimodal environments that contribute to people’saccessibility to places. The design and location ofthese facilities with respect to surrounding land usesand the modes of travel they interconnect (particularlyfor pedestrians and automobiles) are critical toenhancing people’s overall accessibility to the busnetwork, people’s transferability within the busnetwork and, ultimately, people’s ability to reach theirdesired destination.

Although traditionally the bus stop is concept-ualized as “an area where passengers wait for, board,alight, and transfer between transit units” (TCRP1999, page 6-35), they are seldom thought of as keynodes connecting the bus service network to othermobility networks. For instance, a bus stop on aservice arterial or street is a connecting nodebetween the pedestrian network of sidewalks and thebus-service network. The bus patron must use thepedestrian network of sidewalks and paths before heor she can get to the bus stop to await bus service.Likewise, a park and ride bus transfer stop is a nodalfacility connecting several mobility networks,connecting pedestrian networks (sidewalks andcrossings), bicycle networks (lanes), automobilenetworks (roads), and the bus route network. Onecan think of bus stops at airports or train stations asmore complex bus passenger facilities linking all ofthe previously mentioned networks to air and railroadmobility networks. The bus stop acting as theinterface between the other mobility networks mustbe pedestrian accessible, ADA compliant, and mustmaximize the safety of riders transferring from one

mode to another. As is well known and illustrated bythe Bonanno case,1 public pedestrian infrastructure,chiefly built by local governments, continues to bedisregarded or relegated to a low priority even inmetropolitan planning organization’s (MPO)transportation enhancement programs in manyAmerican cities. At the same time, transit agenciesare increasingly called to task over becoming moreactively involved in the development review processand over strengthening interagency coordination topromote the provision of pedestrian, bicycle, andtransit-friendly development.

ORGANIZATION OF THE LITERATURE

This annotated bibliography assembles a large bodyof literature related to the planning, design and sitingof bus passenger facilities. Its organizing themeswere conceptualized using brainstorming and nominalgroup techniques. The techniques were appliedduring an advisory group session held in Fall 2002.Session participants represented an array ofspecialties from the Florida Department ofTransportation, such as pedestrian and bicycletransportation and livable communities planning,transit design and demand analysis, and roadwaydesign. Other advisers in the session included thecity’s transit agency planner, transportationconsultants and academics, and landscapearchitects. The aim of this compilation is to offer toplanners and transit planners, and most particularly tothose planning bus transit facilities, a variety ofsources to the relevant literature concerning good buspassenger facility planning, siting and design. It isorganized along the following themes.

I. Accessing BusTransit Facilities

1. ADA Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Federally regulated design for:

Introduction

Page 13: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

13

(1) accessibility for people withdisabilities and (2) traffic controldevices on highways, streets, bikeand pedestrian ways

2. Bicycle-oriented considerationsIntegration of bicycles and transit

3. Pedestrian-oriented considerationsGuidelines and research forpedestrian-oriented design that istransit-supportive

4. Security and crime preventionCrime prevention at bus stopsthrough design and other strategies

II. Building Bus Transit Facilities

1. Transit facility design guidelinesGuidelines and standards for transitfacilities design and planning

2. Intelligent transportation systemsTechnological solutions that canincrease the attractiveness andcompetitiveness of transit

3. Bus passenger facilitiesBus passenger facilities profiled inresearch or in the media

4. Green design considerationsSolar design and other green buildingtechniques applicable to transitfacilities.

III. TOD Transit-Oriented Development Siting andLand Use Issues

1. TOD planning and strategiesPlanning and design guidelines fortransit-oriented development (TOD)and research assessing TODeffectiveness

2. Parking and auto relationship to transit demand

Strategies for curbing automobile andparking demand that work withtransit

IV. Funding and Marketing Transit

1. FundingStrategies that transit agencies arepursuing to identify new sources offunding

2. Transit image marketing and community visibility

Transit image and ways to strengthenit

Each chapter presents an introduction to theannotated literature highlighting the most salientsources. In these introductions, reports which providethe most up-to-date research findings or that offerstate-of-the-art reportage of current transit practiceare weighted more heavily than academic articlesdevoted to transportation modeling techniques or stillexperimental approaches. A special effort was madeto locate the internet address of each document andas of the date of this writing, more than fifty percent ofthe bibliographic entries have an accompanyingactive web link.

Chapter I looks at design concerns associatedwith non automobile access to bus passengerfacilities. Chapter II focuses on transit facilityguidelines breaking them down by whether theyoriginate at the national level or at the regional orlocal transit agency level. It also compiles the mostrecent reports regarding transit agency adoption ofintelligent transportation systems (ITS) and providesInternet links to website of large transfer andintermodal terminals that have been recentlybuilt or are in the process of being built. Thelast section in this chapter provides greendesign techniques that have been applied topassenger transit facilities. Chapter III

Introduction

Page 14: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

14

presents literature concerned with strategies for therealization of transit-oriented development (TOD)through the application of transit-joint developmentmechanisms (TJD). This section’s annotated TODstudies and guidelines are grouped by type of authorand scope into (1) national (e.g., TCRP reports), (2)state and regional (e.g., California Statewide TODStudy), (3) county, city or transit agency (e.g., SanDiego’s TOD design guidelines), and (4) academicand professional studies. The last section in thischapter looks at parking management measures thatwork with transit. Chapter IV looks at strategies forfunding transit systems, with special attention payedto small and mid-size transit agencies. It thendiscusses how to increase community visability andvisability relationship with funding.

LITERATURE SEARCH METHOD

A search was conducted in the TransportationResearch Board’s (TRB) thesaurus (TRT 2002) inorder to select families of words related to bus transitfacilities. Each of the family of words was scrutinizedto distill only those words that relate to bus and bustransit facilities. This yielded a final list of bus-relatedTRB key words to which a few other key words wereadded. These key words2 became the basis forsearching the following sources and databases:

1. Transportation Research Board (TRB)2. Transportation Cooperative Research

Program (TCRP)3. National Transportation Library (NTA)

a. NTA & Federal Transit Administration(FTA)b. FTA National Transit Libraryc. Federal Transit Administration (FTA)d. NTA & Bureau of TransportationStatistics

4. USDOT Library On-Line: UniversityTransportation Centers (UTC)

Introduction

References

Calthorpe, P. (2002). The urban network: A radicalproposal. Planning, 68 (4), 11-15.

Cervero, R. (2003). Green connectors: Off-shoreexamples. Planning, 69 (5), 25-29.

Cura, F. (2003). Transit agencies seeing increasedinterest in transit-oriented and joint development.Passenger Transport, 1, 4-5.

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program(1999). Part 6 Glossary in Transit Capacity andQuality of Service Manual. (TCRP WebDocument 6). Washington, DC: TCRP. Retrievedon Nov. 23, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf

5. Council of University Transportation Centers6. Northwestern Transportation Library7. American Public Transportation Association: Bus

Organizations8. The Bus Stop: All About Buses9. The Library of Congress10. The FDOT Library11. Geobase12. First Search.

The literature on bus transit facilities culled fromthe above search was obtained from a variety ofdocuments comprised of research projects, transitagency reports and guidelines, TRB and TCRPreports, funded research grant reports, books,electronic journals and published journals. In thelatter category, fifty-four journals in planning,transportation, architecture, urban design and civilengineering were carefully examined for relevantliterature.

Page 15: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

15

TRT Transportation Research Thesaurus. (2002).Transportation Research Board, TransportationResearch Information Services. Retrieved onNov. 23, 2003, from http://www4.trb.org/trb/tris.nsf/web/trt

Notes

1 National Public Radio’s Richard Gonzalez reportingon the case states: “to the casual observer, there isnothing remarkable about the intersection of PachecoBoulevard and Normandy Way. This intersection sitsin an industrial section of ContraCosta County, about25 miles east of San Francisco. There’s a conve-nience store at the corner, a hardware store, and atattoo shop nearby. But a pedestrian crossing to thenorth side of Pacheco Boulevard to catch a bus isclearly taking a risk. There are no traffic lights here,and of the approximately 20,000 cars that passthrough here every day, many don’t appear to paymuch attention to the speed limit” (NPR, MorningEdition, April 24, 2003).

2 See the glossary in Appendix A for list of key words.

Introduction

Page 16: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

16

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 17: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

17

Bus is the prevalent mode of transit mobility in urbanAmerica and with the exception of bus riders onwheelchairs or on bicycles, every bus trip begins andends in a pedestrian trip including those made bypark-&-ride patrons. Accessible bus networks mustsupport pedestrian, bicycle, and disabled bus riderswhose needs extend beyond the bus stop. For thisreason wheelchair ramps, and bicycle racks areindispensable in making all bus facilities accessible toriders. Compliance with the 1990 Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) and building complete sidewalknetworks with safe and convenient crossings arecrucial to bus accessibility. However, since theresponsibility for building pedestrian and bicyclefacilities often falls outside the purview of transitagencies, many bus stops are physically inaccessible(e.g., across from ditches or swales) or unsafely sited(e.g., across from dangerous and fast moving trafficor busy driveways or parking lots).

In addition to works referring to ADA standardsand recommendations the literature in this sectionconsists of pedestrian and bicycle facilities designmanuals and handbooks commissioned by local,state and federal transportation departments. Transitagencies along with developers, residential communi-ties, and local traffic engineers are part of theirintended audiences. These publications exhort transitagencies to coordinate and cooperate with local trafficengineers to improve pedestrian access to transitfacilities. Often this literature aims to provide agen-cies with jurisdiction over the public right-of-way witha common design vocabulary and a design philoso-phy emphasizing that the street rights-of-way must beshared among many users beyond car drivers.

Balancing the needs of the pedestrian with bicyclistsand motorized traffic is part of this philosophy.

A design vocabulary of the pedestrian realmidentifies appropriate dimensions, amenities, andsiting and design recommendations for buildingsfronting the pedestrian path and strategies for safestreet crossings. Likewise, a design language of thebicycle realm identifies appropriate dimensions forshared-use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, andbicycle and transit links that support the travel needsof bicyclists. These are ideas that transit agenciescan adopt to guide the placing of bus stops andshelters. Moreover, these are ideas that transitagencies in cooperation with local planning depart-ments could adapt and develop into local land devel-opment requirements for bus service provision.

This section starts with federal standards andrecommendations regarding: (1) accessibility designfor persons with disabilities under ADA 1990, and (2)the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) which regulates the design and location ofall signage, signals, markings and other devises usedto control traffic. It then presents pedestrian andbicycle-oriented design literature and ends withresearch and recommendations regarding securityand crime prevention through design. Each one ofthese subsections presents a summary of the mostsalient points culled from the set of anno-tated entries.

1:Accessing BusTransit Facilities

Accessing B

usTransit Facilities

Page 18: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

18

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 19: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

19

1.1: Americans withDisabilities Act(1990) and theManual on UniformTraffic ControlDevices (MUTCD)

Handbooks on transit accessibility stress that thedesign of transit facilities needs to consider allpossible disabled users, including: wheelchair-aided;cane-, crutch-, and walker-aided; and visually-,hearing-, and cognitively-impaired people. Accessiblefeatures in a facility must take into account the reachranges of a person in a wheelchair, the sight andhearing abilities, and they should be easily operable.In addition, all signage, signals, markings or trafficcontrol devices installed on, over, or adjacent to astreet, highway, pedestrian facility, or bikeway by apublic agency having jurisdiction, must comply withfederal MUTCD regulations revised and adopted byevery state. These two pieces of federal legislationmust be observed at every step in the design of buspassenger facilities.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)

Designing with ADA in mind means that all keyinternal areas of a bus stop and a transit station suchas platform areas, ticketing areas, bathrooms, andcommercial areas, as well as the pathways linkingthese areas need to be ADA accessible. Also keyoutdoor facility areas such as the approach to thetransit facility from the street, parking areas, andother modes of transit must be accessible to patronswith disabilities.

The sources in this section including Balog et al.(1992) Accessibility Handbook for Transit Facilities

and the Department of Justice’s (1994) ADAStandards for Accessible Design provide specific ADAstandards and guidelines derived directly from theU.S. Code of Federal Regulations, generally referredto as American with Disabilities Act AccessibilityGuidelines (ADAAG). These guidelines offer detailedinformation to help transit managers and plannersdesign, build and renovate transit facilities to beaccessible to individuals with disabilities of all types.They offer technical specifications, definitions,graphic conventions and dimensional tolerances. TheTransit Cooperative Research Program’s TCRPReport 12 by KRW Inc. (1996) specifically providestransit operators with guidelines for the design ofappropriate signage that is friendly to new users,infrequent riders, and individuals with disabilities.Applying principles of way-finding design, theguidelines assist transit operators in the design,fabrication and placement of signs in transit facilities.Clear public address systems and simple, easy tocomprehend symbols and signs, along with simpleand consistent floor plans all make a transit facilitymore user-friendly for both the disabled transit riderand for the fully functional transit passenger.

Although much public accommodation forthe disabled deals with physical impairment,little research and guidance exists for transitoperators to accommodate sensory andcognitively impaired individuals. Sifferman andKoppa (1996) analyze barriers to

ADA & M

UTC

D

Page 20: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

20 ADA & MUTCD

American City and County. (1998). Signage helpsmake facility more user-friendly. AmericanCity and County, 113 (13), 18-19. RetrievedOct. 6, 2003, from http://www.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_signage_helps_facility/.

The Lane County Transit District in Oregon has triedto make its transit stations attractive to disabledpassengers. The new Lane Transit District CentralStation continues this policy by using graphics toenhance communication and improve the facility’saesthetics. The new transit center also has aninformation board with route maps and a wheelchair-accessible telephone to enable passengers to call forinformation. Abstract by the author.

Figure 1 - Wheel chair inaccessabilitiy.Image from: www.sacdot.com/services/ Handicap_Access.asp

Balog, J., Chia, D., Schwartz, A., & Gribbon, B.(1992). Accessibility handbook for transitfacilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Transportation. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003,from http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Publications/accessability/AccessibilityHandbookJuly1992.pdf

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 wasdesigned to ensure the rights of individuals withdisabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportationpublished regulations in September 1991 to establishspecific requirements of the legislation regardingtransit and paratransit services. This handbookprovides expanded information about accessibility offacilities and the activities that transit systems willneed to undertake in order for transit facilities to beaccessible as defined in the law. The Handbookprovides detailed information to help transit designersand planners to construct and renovate transitfacilities so that they are accessible to individuals withdisabilities of all types, including mobility impairmentsrequiring the use of a wheelchair. The handbookincludes all the accessibility requirements containedin the regulations, as well as additional informationand suggestions. The handbook can be used duringthe planning process to ensure that any changes orconstruction will result in increased accessibility forthe users of the transit facility. The use of thehandbook in existing facilities will help plannersidentify how they can improve the accessibility of thefacilities without renovation. Abstract by the authors.

KRW Inc. (1996). Guidelines for transit facilitysigning and graphics (TCRP Report 12).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_12-a.pdf

This report documents and presents the results of aresearch project to develop a graphics design manualdescribing the use of signs and symbols which

accommodation of the sensory impaired and providerecommendations for making facilities accessible tothe hearing and visually impaired. Although theseimprovements may also assist the mentally impaired,a dearth of research in this area leads the authors torecommend that transit operators engage inemployee training in how to interact andcommunicate effectively and appropriately with thecognitively impaired

Page 21: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

21

more general question of access to information inpublic accommodations for those with sensory ormental disabilities has been addressed. Regulationsunder the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of1990, together with standards and designconsiderations are summarized in this report.Elimination of structural barriers to communicationsfor hearing impaired persons includes modificationssuch as visual alarms and signals. Visual impairmentaccommodation includes eliminating physical hazardssuch as protruding objects and uneven walkingsurfaces. Braille, raised lettering, environmental audiocues and assisted listening devices can also beemployed. There is little specific guidance forassisting information transfer for cognitively impairedindividuals. Even with federal standards as a guide,choosing the proper methods and tools to insuresatisfactory communication is a challenging task.Designing accessible facilities for the physically andmentally impaired has many benefits beyond that ofmerely adhering to federal guidelines,including ease-of-use and safety effectivenessof facilities for the general public. Abstract bythe authors.

provide for the safe, secure, and efficient movementof passengers to and through transit facilities. Overthe course of this 18-month project, existing signsand symbols are reviewed worldwide; compliancewith ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities ActAccessibility Guidelines) is determined for existingsigns; new signs and symbols were developed in fivefunctional categories, namely Identification,Directional, Processing, Regulatory, and Warning; thekey signs are tested by focus groups representingmajor types of disabilities as well as transit users andnon-users; a standard design manual of signs andsymbols is developed that could be used by transitagencies nationwide; and a plan is developed toachieve maximum dissemination of the guidelinesnationwide to transit entities. The project isperformed in two phases, with Phase I structured toreview and document the state-of-the-practice ofsignage in the transit industry. More than thirtyproperties nationwide, representing a broad crosssection of the industry are surveyed and their signagepractices documented. Signage information from bothinternational and domestic transit providers arereviewed, and the information needs of transit usersthat could be satisfied by signs and symbols areidentified. Phase II efforts involved the design ofcandidate symbols and signs and their evaluation bya broad cross section of transit riders and non- riders,graphics designers, and transit personnel. Theevaluation results are factored into the developmentof these graphics design guidelines incorporating thebest of those signs, symbols and graphics designstandards. Abstract by the author.

Sifferman, J. J., & Koppa, R. J. (1996). Americanswith Disabilities Act: Considerations forsensory and mentally impaired individuals inpublic accommodations. College Station, TX:Texas A&M University.

In this aspect of the study, “Incorporation of ADARequirements into Transit Guidance Information,” the

Figure 2 - Wheelchair ramp access to the bus.Image from: http://www.ican.com/news/fullpage.cfm/articleid/31AB30A2-2605-430F-91F1A248642137AD/cx/self_discovery.role_models/

ADA & M

UTC

D

Page 22: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

22 ADA & MUTCD

U.S. Department of Justice. (1994). ADAstandards for accessible design (28 CFR Part36). Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice.Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, fromhttp://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/stdspdf.htm

As published in the Title III of the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) issued by the Department ofJustice, these standards are contained in Appendix A.The document sets guidelines for complying with theAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990 regardingaccessibility to public and commercial facilities.These standards are to be applied to the design,construction, and modification of such facilities. Itoffers technical specifications, definitions, graphicconventions and dimensional tolerances. It alsoprovides the scope and technical requirements for avariety of facilities in new construction, additions,alterations and historic preservation. Chapter 10deals specifically with transportation facilities with thefollowing sections focusing on bus facilities: 10.2 BusStops and Terminals, 10.2.2 Bus Stop Siting andAlterations, and 10.3 Fixed Facilities and Stations.

Figure 3 - A wheelchair secured by provided straps.Image from: www.mobil-handicap-tours.de

Page 23: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

23

MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES (MUTCD) 2000

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) is approved by the Federal HighwayAdministrator as the National Standard in accordancewith Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217,315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). In the Millen-nium Edition (2000) the manual offers standards,guidance, optional and support material concerningall signage, markings and traffic control devices. Forinstance, section 2C.37 adds a new design andapplication for advance crossing and crossing signs.Because people rarely noticed the difference betweena crossing sign (with crosswalk lines on the sign) andan advance crossing sign, the FHWA now mandatesthat these devices be redesigned. The crosswalklines in the sign should be deleted and one signshould be used for both the advance and the crossinglocation. “The crossing sign when used to provideadvance notice to road users is supplemented withthe legend ``AHEAD’’ or with an appropriate distanceplaque. The crossing sign is used adjacent to cross-ings and must be supplemented with a diagonaldownward pointing arrow when the crossing does nothave pavement markings. If pavement markings areused to mark the crosswalk, then only the crossingsign is needed and the diagonal downward pointingarrow is optional” (see Internet link to FDOT’sMUTCD webpage included in the correspondingannotation).

Already a new MUTCD 2003 edition has beenpublished and the Florida Department ofTransportation’s (FDOT) Traffic Operations Office willupdate its Traffic Engineering Manual to reflect thenew changes. However these will not take effect inFlorida until the state adopts the new mandatedchanges some time in 2005.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2000).Manual of uniform traffic control devices(MUTCD): Millennium edition. Washington DC:U.S. Department of Transportation. RetrievedNov. 30, 2003, from http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.28.01.htm.

This Manual, which was first published in 1935 andsince then undergone 21 revisions, sets a hierarchyof compliance regarding the use of traffic controlsdevices on streets and highways. This hierarchyconsists of: standards (that must be satisfied),guidance (that should be followed), options (that maybe applicable) and support. Traffic control devices aredefined in the manual as “all signs, signals, markings,and other devices used to regulate, warn, or guidetraffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street,highway, pedestrian facility, or bikeway by authority ofa public agency having jurisdiction.” The adoptedMUTDC 2000 changes adopted by the FloridaDepartment of Transportation can be electronicallyobtained from: http://www11.myflorida.com/trafficoperations/mutcd.htm.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2003).Manual of uniform traffic control devices(MUTCD): 2003 edition. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Transportation. Retrieved Nov.30, 2003, from http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-2003.htm.

MUTCD’s 2003 Edition was published in November2003 and becomes effective on December 22, 2003.However, states like Florida have until 2005 as agrace period for establishing compliance. A list ofchanges between the 2000 and 2003 MUTCDeditions is provided by FHWA at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/mutcd2003cl.htm.

AD

A &

MU

TCD

Page 24: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

24

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 25: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

25

This section presents a variety of sources associatedwith bicycle accommodation on transit and inmultimodal environments. They range from a policystatement by the United States Department ofTransportation recommending the integration ofbicycling and walking into all mobility programs, toTCRP Synthesis 4 by Doolittle (1994) reporting onbest practices among transit agencies thatsuccessfully integrate bicycles to their operations.This section also includes research articlesdiscussing the lessons—applicable to the U.S.—drawn from foreign experience with transit serving thebicycling community and often-cited bicycle designmanuals issued by state transportation departments.

Overall the information in this section should beof interest to both transit agencies and bicyclists and

1.2: Bicycle-OrientedConsiderations

should be useful to a diverse planning staff seeking tointegrate bicycles and transit regarding: (1) bicycleson bus and/or rail, (2) bicycle parking, and (3) bicycleaccess design. The latter of the three includes suchthings as bicycle lanes on station and access roads,bicycle paths through park-and-ride lots, and bicycle-supportive station design and siting. Since many ofthese bicycle access design considerations occur onproperty not belonging to the transit agency and aregenerally part of larger bicycle programs, they areoften based on administrative arrangements requiringinteragency cooperation and developmentagreements. One such initiative (referenced in thissection) is illustrated by the Regional BikestationsProject spearheaded by the Puget Sound RegionalCouncil (2003) in collaboration with the local transitagencies and area jurisdictions.

Bicycle-Oriented

Considerations

Page 26: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

26

City of Portland. (n.d.). Portland bicycle designand engineering guidelines. Retrieved Oct. 22,2003, from http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/designreferences/bicycle/appenda.htm.

The design practices and standards outlined in thismanual are based on the American Association ofState and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)manual “Guide for the Development of BicycleFacilities 1991,” with supplementary material from the1996 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)“Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.” Guidelinesrelated to Portland’s specific practices have beenwritten by staff from the Portland Office ofTransportation (PDOT). Abstract by the author.

Doolittle, J. (1994). Integration of bicycles andtransit (TCRP Synthesis 4). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 25, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn04.pdf

This report addresses the wide range of policy andoperational decisions needed in order to providebicycle-transit services. (Chapter 3 specifically deals

with bikes on buses.) It identifies those programcharacteristics which are least disruptive to normaltransit operations while extending transit services tobicyclists who are also transit riders. Designconsiderations focus on four performancecharacteristics: safety for the bicycle-transit rider,fellow passengers, bicycles, and buses; ease of useto encourage travel and allow for scheduleadherence; capacity of the rack; and compatibilitywith existing equipment and servicing procedures.Operating procedures include issues such as feesand permitting, hours of permitted use, bicycle sizeand condition, loading and unloading procedures,storage instructions, and safety precautions.Abstract by the author.

FDOT. (1999). Florida bicycle facilities planningand design handbook. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2003,from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safetyped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhtoc.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt1.pdfhttp://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt2.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt3.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt4.pdf http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt5.pdfhttp://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and_research/bhchpt6.pdf.

The purpose of this handbook is to provide guidelinesand criteria for planning, design, construction,operation and maintenance of safe on-road bicyclefacilities and shared use paths. This handbook isintended to serve as an aid to engineers, designers,planners, architects, landscape architects, citizensand others interested in improving Florida’s bicyclingenvironment. Information found in this handbook canbe useful for private, local, state or federal projects.

Section 2 focuses on planning and “provides anFigure 4 - Bicycle rack.Image from: Authors.

Bicycle-Oriented Considerations

Page 27: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

27

overview of planning considerations for bicycles, adiscussion of the types of facility improvements,performance measures to the year 2005, and adescription of factors to consider when locating afacility. Section 3, on safety, describes the customer’sneeds, behavior and problems. It providesbackground on crash causation, human performance,the design bicyclist and the design bicycle. Section 4[looks] at on-road design and provides guidelines tofollow when constructing or improving highways andstreets. Section 5, on shared use paths, incorporatesthe needs of bicyclists to the maximum extentpracticable. Section 6 on supplemental topics“provides information on parking, transit links,maintenance, traffic operations, and law.” Abstracttaken from author’s introduction (p. 1-1 - 1-6).

Federal Highway Administration. (2003). Designguidance accommodating bicycle andpedestrian travel: A recommended approach.Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm.

This guide contains a policy statement adopted by theUnited States Department of Transportation. USDOThopes that public agencies, professionalassociations, advocacy groups, and others adopt thisapproach as a way of committing themselves tointegrating bicycling and walking into thetransportation mainstream.

The Design Guidance incorporates three keyprinciples: (1) a policy statement that bicycling andwalking facilities will be incorporated into alltransportation projects unless exceptionalcircumstances exist; (2) an approach to achieving thispolicy that has already worked in State and localagencies; and (3) a series of action items that apublic agency, professional association, or advocacygroup can take to achieve the overriding goal ofimproving conditions for bicycling and walking.

The Policy Statement was drafted by the U.S.Department of Transportation in response to Section

1202 (b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21) with the input and assistance ofpublic agencies, professional associations andadvocacy groups. Abstract by the author

Puget Sound Regional Council. (2003). Regionalbikestations project. Retrieved Oct. 11, 2003,from http://www.psrc.org/projects/nonmotorized/stationsproject.htm

A bikestation is a facility designed to promote bicycle/transit commuting to work, as well as toencourage biking as a form of local mobility.Inspired by bikestations in Western Europeand California, the Puget Sound RegionalCouncil, local transit agencies andjurisdictions in the region developed theRegional Bikestations Project. This project

Figure 5 - Front bicycle carrier.Image from: http://www.bikestation.org/seattle/location.asp

Bicycle-Oriented

Considerations

Page 28: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

28

offers “local transit agencies the tools they need tobetter accommodate bicycles at their bus and railstations, ferry terminals and park-and-ride lots. Itsfindings will help them plan, design and buildregionally coordinated bike-parking facilities,appropriately scaled for potential levels of use. Theproject also examines the feasibility of constructingcommuter Bikestations, similar to those in California,at key transit stations in King, Pierce and Snohomishcounties. Abstract taken from author’s introduction (p.1).

Replogle, M. (1981). Role of bicycles in publictransportation access. TransportationResearch Record, 959, 55-61.

Bicycles play a vital role in access to rail and expressbus services in Japan and northwestern Europe aswell as in a growing number of communities in theUnited States. Suburbanization has been a drivingforce for the growth of bicycle -transit linkage. Inmany suburban towns in Japan, West Germany,Denmark, and the Netherlands, 25 to 50 percent ofrail station access trips and up to 20 percent ofegress trips are made by bicycle. The number of tripsinvolving a combination of bicycles and publictransportation has quadrupled since the early 1970’s.In the United States, high bicycle theft rates haverestrained similar growth except for transit systemsthat have made special provisions for bicycle access.Significant use of bicycles for transit access is foundonly where bicycle theft rates are relatively low orwhere secure bicycle parking has been provided attransit stops. The evolution of transit access systemsis discussed and park and ride versus bike and ridetransit access re-compared with regard to capital andoperating costs, air pollution, and energy use, impactson transit ridership, implications for transit stop siting,and other factors. The article concludes thatAmerican transit agencies should substantiallyincrease suburban transit use without increasedoperating costs by improving bicycle-transit

integration. Bike and ride development is far morecost effective than park and ride development.Abstract by the author.

Replogle, M. (1993). Bicycle access to publictransportation: Learning from abroad.Transportation Research Record, 1396, 75-80.Retrieved Nov. 11, 2003, from http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2294_BikesJournal.pdf

In the face of traffic congestion, air pollution, andinadequate fiscal resources, American communitiesneed to consider new, more cost-effective strategiesto expand transit use and reduce automobiledependence. Worldwide experience suggests thatimproving bicycle access to transit in the UnitedStates may be the most promising but neglected low-cost strategy to enhance air quality while increasingthe freedom of travelers to alternatives to theautomobile. Bicycles are the fastest-growing andpredominant mode of access to public transportationservices in many European communities and Japan.Provision of secure bicycle storage at rail stations,development of bicycle friendly street networks, andthe creation of a climate of community opinionsupportive of bicycling are all important factors behindthe success of bike and ride systems in thesecountries. U.S. transit access systems haveincreasingly relied on the automobile. However, parkand ride systems have served only suburb to centralcity travel markets, which are of declining importance,while weakening transit system competitiveness inthe growing suburb to suburb travel market. U.S.communities can learn valuable lessons from theforeign experience in creating balanced multimodaltransit access systems that include the bicycle.Abstract by the author.

Bicycle-Oriented Considerations

Page 29: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

29

This compilation of sources encompassespedestrian-oriented design principles, designguidelines, standards and recommendations. Theyfocus on designing for transit accessibility to and fromthe pedestrian realm—the indispensable foundationof transit-friendly community planning and design. AsEwing (1999) remarks:

Pedestrian-friendly features are also inherentlytransit-friendly. They set the context in whichtransit operates and, as transit operators arediscovering, have as much to do with ridership asdo service headways, fare levels, and othertransit operating characteristics. (p. 2)

Three types of works are offered in this section:1) model pedestrian guidelines from regionalagencies (e.g., San Diego Association ofGovernments), state transportation agencies (e.g.,Florida Department of Transportation), and city

1.3: Pedestrian-Oriented Considerations

agencies (e.g., City of Portland, OR); 2) walkableenvironments and transit research-basedrecommendations; and 3) transit-supportivepedestrian retrofitting approaches for suburbs andcentral cities. Pedestrian design guidelines offer “bestpractice” strategies for integrating transit to thepedestrian realm and other off-street mobilitynetworks. They identify key land-use pedestrianaccessibility issues, differentiate between newdevelopment and infill or retrofit development, areresponsive to the needs of riders of variousdisabilities and ages, and promote safe streetcrossing. As with planning and designing the bicyclerealm, jurisdiction over the pedestrian realm oftenfalls outside the transit agency’s scope ofresponsibilities. Thus, successfully integrating transitwith adequate pedestrian facilities and pedestrianmobility networks is not a simple task. It is acoordination-intensive activity requiring strong levelsof both intra- and inter-agency cooperation.

Pedestrian-Oriented

Considerations

Page 30: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

30 Pedestrian-Oriented Considerations

Cervero, R. (2001). Walk-and-ride: Factorsinfluencing pedestrian access to transit.Journal of Public Transportation, 3 (4), 1-21.

The predominant means of reaching suburban railstations in the United States is by private car. Transitvillages strive, among other things, to convert largershares of rail access trips to walk-and-ride, bike-and-ride, and bus-and-ride. Empirical evidence on howbuilt environments influence walk-access to railtransit remains sketchy. In this article, analyses arecarried out at two resolutions to address thisquestion. Aggregate data from the San Francisco BayArea reveal compact, mixed-use settings withminimal obstructions are conducive to walk-and-riderail patronage. A disaggregate-level analysis ofaccess trips to Washington Metrorail services byresidents of Montgomery County, Maryland, showsthat urban design, and particularly sidewalkprovisions and street dimensions, significantlyinfluence whether someone reaches a rail stop byfoot or not. Elasticities are presented that summarizefindings. The article concludes that conversion ofpark-and-ride lots to transit-oriented developmentsholds considerable promise for promoting walk-and-ride transit usage in years to come. Abstract by theauthor.

Chu, X., & Baltes, M. R. (2001). Pedestrian mid-block crossing difficulty (NCTR-392-09).Tampa, FL: National Center for TransitResearch (NCTR). Retrieved Sept. 14, 2003,from http://www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/Pedestrian.pdf

This report documents a research project thatdeveloped a model of mid-block crossing difficulty asperceived by pedestrians. Four aspects of theresearch are reported: research design issues,selection of potential determinants, data collection,and statistical analysis. This model was done througha statistical calibration and validation processinvolving collecting actual site characteristics and

Figure 6 - Easy pedestrian access to a bus shelter.Image from: Authors.

stated level of crossing difficulty by a sample ofpersons at a sample of sites from Hillsborough andPinellas Counties in Florida.

For traffic operations applications, this model maybe used as a screening tool to determine whetherpedestrian mid-block crossing difficulties, such ascrosswalks or pedestrian signals, may be needed atparticular locations. For planning purposes, thismodel has a number of applications: 1) It can be usedas a measure of effectiveness for determiningpedestrian level of service for mid-block crossing; 2)It could potentially be combined with those forpedestrian level of service for walking along aroadway segment and for crossing at intersections todetermine the overall pedestrian level of service foran entire roadway segment; and 3) This overall level

Page 31: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

31

of service at the segment-level could then be used asa direct input into transit level of servicemethodologies that take into account pedestrianstreet-crossing difficulty. Abstract by the authors.

City of Portland. (1998). Portland pedestriandesign guidelines. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2003,from http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/DesignReferences/Pedestrian/.

The public right-of-way houses many transportationactivities, including walking, bicycling, transit, freightmovement, and automobile travel. It harbors thehardware, such as traffic signals and street lights, thatsupports those activities. In many cases the right-of-way also contains public utilities. Each of thesefunctions has specific design needs and constraints. .. The purpose of Portland’s Pedestrian Design Guideis to integrate the wide range of design criteria andpractices into a coherent set of new standards andguidelines that, over time, will promote anenvironment conducive to walking. Abstract takenfrom author’s introduction ( p.1).

Ewing, R. (1999). Pedestrian and transit friendlydesign: A primer for smart growth.Washington, D.C.: Smart Growth Network.Retrieved Oct. 30, 2003, fromhttp://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf

This primer is based on Pedestrian and Transitfriendly Design, a manual prepared for the FloridaDepartment of transportation and the AmericanPlanning Association. From the longer list of the 23pedestrian and transit friendly features in the FDOT/APA manual, this primer highlights 12. [Of these thetop ten are the following essential features: 1)medium to high densities, 2) mix of land uses, 3)short to medium length blocks, 4) transit routes everyhalf-mile, 5) two- or four-land streets, 6) continuoussidewalks, 7) safe crossing, 8) appropriate bufferingfrom traffic, 9) street-oriented buildings, 10)

comfortable and safe places to wait wide enough forcouples]. They are described in detail, and illustratedwith photos from walkable places and with graphicsreproduced from award-winning design manuals. Theother 11 features are simply acknowledged by name.The 12 highlighted features seem to relate more topedestrians than transit users. But since virtually alltransit users are pedestrians at one or both ends oftheir trips, the distinction is illusory. Pedestrian-friendly features are also inherently transit-friendly.They set the context in which transit operates and, astransit operators are discovering, have as much to dowith ridership as do service headways, fare levels,and other transit operating characteristics.Abstract taken from author’s introduction (p.2).

FDOT. (1999). Florida pedestrian planning anddesign handbook. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2003,from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/ped_bike_standards.htm#Florida%20Ped%20Handbook.

This manual provides guidelines, standards, andcriteria for the planning, design, construction,operation, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Itis a reference publication intended for engineers,transit planners, landscape architects, businessleaders, politicians, citizens, and others interested inimproving Florida’s walking environment. Itsupplements the 1988 version of the Florida Manualof Uniform Minimum Standards for Design,Construction, and Maintenance for Streets andHighways with which design of projects for theFlorida State Highway System must comply. Thispedestrian planning and design manual contains 20chapters that deal with principles andguidelines for planning and designing for: (1)pedestrian safety by taking intoconsideration pedestrian and motoristbehavior and characteristics of pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes; (2) accommodatingpedestrians with disabilities; (3) installing

Pedestrian-Oriented

Considerations

Page 32: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

32

sidewalks (i.e., width, setback distance, grades, andpavement surfaces); (4) regulatory signs, warningsigns, and pavement markings; (5) pedestriansignalization (e.g., signal timing and phasing, push-button signals, and audible signals); (6) streetcrossing facilities (e.g., crosswalks, stop lines, curbramps, and refuge islands); (7) one-way streets,intersections and mid-block crossings; (8) parkingand safe access to buildings and schools; (9) trafficcalming; (10) work-zone pedestrian safety and onstreet parking and a variety of other topics such asstreet lighting, grade-separated crossings, andboulevards.

Fruin, J. (1987). Pedestrian planning and design.Mobile, AL: Elevator World.

The intent of this book is to help fill the broad gap thatexists in the planning and design of building andstreet spaces for comfortable and convenient humanuse. The beginning of the book establishes theimportance of walking in urban design, and theproblems of pedestrians in today’s cities. There is abrief insight into some of the human physiological andpsychological factors that affect the planning anddesign of pedestrian spaces. The traffic and spacecharacteristics of pedestrians are developed insufficient detail for an understanding of pedestriantraffic relationships. Supplementary written andpictorial descriptions of pedestrian traffic interactionsat various human space occupancies provide a usefulsupplement for evaluating the environmental designquality of pedestrian building and street spaces. Thebook closes with a short review of some of theprograms that are in progress for the improvement ofthe pedestrian environment. Abstract by the author.

Hodgson, G. D., Hunter-Zaworski, K., & Layton, R.D. (1999). A preliminary assessment of theeffects of access management onpedestrian, bicycles and transit (No. WA-RD_._TNW 99-03). Seattle, WA: UniversityTransportation Center (UTC), University ofWashington. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2003,from http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/research/CompleteReports/TNW99-03AccessMgtImpact.pdf

The project investigates the impacts of accessmanagement treatments on pedestrians andbicyclists, primarily on arterial streets, and identifiesconflicts, accident and safety issues involvingpedestrians and bicycles, associated with accessmanagement treatments, impacted groups ofpedestrians and bicyclists. The project is anextension of a major access management project thatis currently being conducted by Oregon Departmentof Transportation and the Transportation ResearchInstitute at Oregon State University. The ODOTproject is developing statues, policies and guidelinesfor Access Management for the state of Oregon, andsuggests recommendations for solution strategies toresolve or mitigate for these conflicts.

Randall, T., & Baetz, B. (2001). Evaluatingpedestrian connectivity for suburbansustainability. Journal of Planning andDevelopment. 127 (1), 1-15.

A crucial ingredient for achieving urban sustainabilityis reducing society’s dependence on the automobile.Residents of suburban developments are oftendependent on their cars for trips to destinations withinthe neighborhood because of circuitous streetlayouts, lack of sidewalks, and long travel distances.The term “pedestrian connectivity” is introduced as ameasure of both the directness of route and the routedistance for the pedestrian for each home-destinationtrip. The developed methodology for retrofittingpedestrian enhancements to an existing suburbanneighborhood is coded as an ArcView GIS extension.

Pedestrian-Oriented Considerations

Page 33: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

33

Improvements include the addition of sidewalks andaccess pathways to isolated cul-de-sacs to make forshorter and more direct routes. Reduced energyconsumption, and therefore greater sustainability,may be achieved by having suburban neighborhoodsretrofitted in such a way as to allow people to walk forsome of their needs and to be well connected to aregional transit system. Modeled results from aneighborhood in Hamilton. Ont., Canada, show howthe retrofitted improvements could lead to measurablyimproved conditions for pedestrians. Abstract by theauthors.

SANDAG. (2002). Planning and design forpedestrians. Model guidelines for theSan Diego region. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003,from http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/oublicationid_713_1271.pdf.

This manual is intended to assist local governmentsand other interested entities in the creation andredevelopment of pedestrian areas and corridorsthroughout the San Diego region. It is also intendedfor transit agencies, specifically to be used “as abasis for planning access improvements to transitfacilities and working with local jurisdictions toestablish overlay districts around existing andproposed station areas” (p. 6). Pedestrian-orienteddesign principles, design guidelines, standards andrecommendations are provided with direct referenceto transit accessibility and as a the indispensablefoundation for transit supportive environments.

Walk-Boston. (1999). Improving pedestrianaccess to transit: An advocacy handbook.Retrieved Oct. 16, 2003, fromhttp://policy.rutgers.edu:16080/tpi/pedbike/infoclearing/infocollection/library/electronicdocuments/pedtransit.pdf.

This report funded by the by the Federal TransitAdministration as a Livable Communities Project wasdesigned for those who advocate for public transitand walking. It illustrates key steps that activists can

take to ensure that mass transit supports communityneeds and creates livable communities throughimproved pedestrian access. The authors presenttheir personal experiences in case studies that detailadvocacy techniques and strategies. They alsoidentify some failures or setbacks. The reportdiscusses several public transit modes (e.g., bus,light rail, and subway) used in different kinds ofcommunities (low-income urban neighborhoods,upper- and middle-income inner suburb). The authorsare members of WalkBoston, a nonprofit organizationthat promotes walking and transit as means oftransportation. Abstract by the author.

Zacharias, J. (1994). Planning for pedestriannetworks in North American downtowns.Journal of Advanced Transportation, 28 (2).

While North American urban regions are served bymechanical modes of transportation, downtowns arelargely pedestrian environments. The growth andconsolidation of office districts over the last twentyyears have revived interest in developing coherentand efficient pedestrian networks, which can becoordinated with other transportation needs within thedowntown. Ambitious plans for expansion of thedowntown for offices, the retail and service industriesas well as for housing and entertainment have beenadopted in many North American cities during the1980s. The successful integration of these largecentral areas depends to a considerable extent on theimplementation of expanded pedestrian networks.This paper discusses certain spatial characteristics ofNorth American cities which call for specific networkdesigns and research into the walking environmentsof central areas. More knowledge is neededof the relative contributions to pedestrianregeneration of land use combination, thedesign of networks and of walking paths.Abstract by the author.

Pedestrian-Oriented

Considerations

Page 34: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

34

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 35: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

35

Perceived “lack of safety” has been identified as themost important deterrent to using public buses,1 andalthough the problem is more prevalent in large citiesthan in small ones, there is a large body of literaturethat focuses on design aspects of bus stops that canhelp prevent crime in and around these facilities.These studies generally invoke CPTED (crimeprevention through environmental design) principlespioneered by Oscar Newman and his “defensiblespace” ideas. 2 These principles are utilized to guidecrime research in transit facilities—from bus stops tolarger stations—and are also applied by transit facilitydesigners in collaboration with transit managers andsecurity personnel in the planning and design of newor retrofitted bus stop facilities. Another body ofliterature focuses on security and crime preventionthrough all types of preventive measures. Based on anational survey of transit agencies, TCRP Synthesis21 by Needle and Cobb (1997) finds that sevenstrategies are the most effective and most widelypracticed among transit operators. Listed in order ofimportance these strategies include: (1)technological, such as video and TV facilitymonitoring, automatic ticketing, and security lighting;(2) uniformed officers on foot and bicycle; (3)employee involvement in conflict resolution and crimereporting; (4) education and information; (5) CPTED;(6) community outreach; and (7) nonuniformedofficers. Lastly, since 2001, the threat of terrorism hasspawned renewed interest in assessing securityconditions of transportation facilities and systems,

and TCRP Report 86 by Rowshan and Simonetta(2003) provides the latest update regarding whattransit systems are doing to implement post-September 11, 2001 security review protocols.

The sources assembled in this section can beclassified in three groups: (1) architectural or CPTED-inspired research—with field research concentrated inthe West Coast, particularly in Los Angeles,California; (2) transit-agency-based research thatidentifies best practices; and (3) post-nine-elevenassessment of security conditions. Improving securityand safety perceptions at transit stops and facilitiesrequires a combination of policing, increasedsurveillance and supervision, and the application ofdefensible space design to new and existing busstations and other facilities. After September 11, 2001transit agencies carried out important modification totheir intrusion detection systems (IDS) and accesscontrol systems (ACS) involving additional fencing,gates, lighting, barriers, video surveillance anddeployment of security personnel. However, researchfindings also point to transit agencies’ cautiousadoption of new IDS and ACS since the mostsophisticated video surveillance technologies alsorequire large investments in labor to interpret andmonitor the information provided by these systems.Budget constraints, and rapid technologicalchange stand in the way as obstacles to theadoption of the more costly securityinnovations.

1.4: Security andCrime Prevention

Security and C

rime

Prevention

Page 36: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

36

Caylor, P. (1998). Translucent wind screens helpreduce crime. American City and County,113 (5), 16. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, from http://www.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_translucent_wind_screens/

In order to give a sense of security to users of park-and-ride and transit centers in Houston, Texas,translucent wind screens that discourage crime bymaximizing visibility were included in the design.Edward Fanning, manager of architecture for theMetropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, basedhis structural model for the transit centers on theprinciples of Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design. The translucent walls transmit80 percent of available light, and the knowledge thatpeople can see what’s going on deters criminals andmakes users feel safer. Abstract by the author.

Deka, D. (2002). An assessment of therelationship between crime, security, andtransit use in Florida using GIS and economicapproaches. Tallahassee, FL: FloridaDepartment of Transportation.

This report tests whether there is a significantrelationship between crime and transit use throughstatistical models with regard to both actual crime andperception of crime. The report also providesrecommendations for improvement of transit serviceson the basis of the observed relationship betweencrime and transit use. Finally, the report gauges thethreat of terrorism against transit and examines thepreparedness of transit agencies to deal with suchthreats.

Jenkins, B. M., & Gersten, L. N. (2001). Protectingpublic surface transportation againstterrorism and serious crime:Continuing research on best securitypractices (01-07). San Jose, CA: MinetaTransportation Institute, San Jose StateUniversity. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, fromhttp://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/terrorism_final.htm

Security and Crime Prevention

Figure 7 - Security camera within a bus.Image from: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/news/thisweekarch/tw020415_d igitalvideo.htm

Terrorist activity was the initiator of this study. Whileair transport has increased its security measuresagainst terrorism, public surface transportation stillexperiences terrorism without increased safetymeasures. The United Kingdom, France, Japan, andareas in the United States were assessed for theapparent terrorist threat that is posed for each station.

Page 37: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

37

Security and crisis management that each station iscurrently taking were also assessed. Specific areas ofassessment include design criteria and managementcriteria. Under design criteria are good lighting, up-to-date information, clear signs and clear lines of vision.Under management criteria are security staffpresence, closed-circuit television surveillance, rapidresponse in emergencies, inspection andmaintenance, and special training for staff. It wasconcluded that there are differences between thesecurity measures that each station takes. Historicalreferences, cultural values, and governmentarrangements all appear to be elements that differ foreach place. They begin to suggest why some surfacetransportation terrorist efforts succeed and why somefail. Abstract by the authors.

Liggett, R. (2001). Bus stop environmentconnection: Do characteristics of the builtenvironment correlate with bus stop crime?(Transportation Research Record 1760).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard.

Can we understand why some bus stops are safe andothers are crime-ridden? Can we predict whichfeatures of the bus stop environment are likely toencourage or discourage crime? Can we design saferbus stops? These questions are addressed byexploring the relationship between environmentalvariables and bus stop crime. An earlier study usedcrime data, along with environmental indicators, for asample of 60 bus stops in downtown Los Angeles.Crime rates were higher for bus stops near alleys,multifamily housing, liquor stores and check-cashingestablishments, vacant buildings, and graffiti andlitter. In contrast, good visibility of the bus stop fromits surroundings and the existence of bus shelterscontributed to lower crime rates. This earlier studywas indicative but not predictive of the elements thatcontribute to bus stop crime. With the geographic andtemporal expansion of the data (covering a larger citypart over a longer time span), a series of regression

models was generated that identify environmentalpredictors of bus stop crime. These models show thatthe most important predictor of crime is location. Ifthe environment is controlled, undesirable facilitiesand litter result in higher crime rates, whereasvisibility and many pedestrians lead to lower crimerates. The presence or absence of certaincharacteristics in the bus stop microenvironment canaffect crime. Also, the appropriate design and layoutof the physical environment can reduce opportunitiesfor criminal actions. Abstract by the author.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1999). Hot spots of busstop crime: The importance of environmentalattributes. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 65 (4), 395-411. Retrieved Oct. 15,2003, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000045717861&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=3&Sid=2&RQT=309

This study focused on bus stop crime andsought to identify the environmentalattributes that can affect the bus rider’ssecurity while at the bus stop. Following theargument of criminologists that certainplace characteristics can affect theincidence of crime, the study used direct

Security and C

rime

Prevention

Figure 8 - Installing security camera within a bus.Image from: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/aboutus/intransit/2001/it6-0 1p2.htm

Page 38: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

38

observation, mapping, interviews, and surveys toexamine the physical and social environment aroundthe 10 most crime-ridden bus stops in Los Angelesduring 1994 and 1995. It found an abundance of‘negative’ environmental attributes and a general lackof ‘defensible space’ elements. It also found thatdifferent types of crime tend to occur under differentenvironmental conditions. The use of four controlcases of low-crime bus stops in matched pairs withfour high-crime bus stops in close proximity showedthat the low-crime bus stops typically lacked ‘negative’environmental attributes, while offering bettersurveillance opportunities from surroundingestablishments. The article discusses designresponses as an approach to crime prevention at busstops. Abstract by the author.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2001). The environment -transit crime connection: Continuing study ofthe Metro Green Line and its vicinity. LosAngeles, CA: University of California, LosAngeles.

This study is an in-depth examination of case studystations along a light rail line in Los Angeles. Thestudy explores how environmental and socialcharacteristics of the neighborhood affect crime at thestation, and how, in turn, the existence of the stationaffects crime at the neighborhood. The study utilizescrime statistics, census and ridership data, andenvironmental data and uses a mix of qualitative andquantitative methodologies, including the compilationof environmental inventories, GIS and spatial analysistechniques, and block-group level correlation andregression analyses. Abstract by the author.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Liggett, R., & Hiroyuki, I.(2001). Measuring the effects of the builtenvironment on bus stop crime. Environmentand Planning: Planning and Design, 28 (1),255-280. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, from http://www.uctc.net/papers/419.pdf

There has been considerable interest in recentdecades in the identification of the physical correlatesof crime in different urban settings. This studyfocuses on bus stop crime and seeks to understandhow different environmental attributes in the vicinity ofa bus stop can affect the incidence of crime. Theauthors review evidence from the relevant literature tounderstand the impacts of the built environment oncrime. This is followed by the presentation ofempirical research. The study uses a stratifiedrandom sample of sixty bus stops in downtown LosAngeles to examine the effects of environmental andland-use attributes on crime rates. Using descriptivestatistics, correlations, regression and discriminant

Security and Crime Prevention

Figure 9 - Security camera.Image from: TCRP 86

Page 39: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

39

the synthesis, and the methodology employed.Chapter 2 discusses the dimensions of transit crimeand violence. Chapter 3 presents strategies thattransit professionals use to address crime andviolence, singles out those that are most effective,and examines how strategies are evaluated. Chapter4 outlines the combination of responses selected byfour agencies to combat disorder and violence in theirsystems. Chapter 5 highlights current research andliterature. Chapter 6 summarizes salient findings ofthe synthesis and suggests next steps that can helptransit agencies cope with crime, violence, and fear.Abstract by the authors.

Rowshan, S., & Simonetta, R. J. (2003). Publictransportation security: Volume 4 intrusiondetection for public transportation facilitieshandbook (TCRP Report 86). Washington DC:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 6, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_86v4.pdf

The Intrusion Detection for Public TransportationFacilities Handbook (“Handbook”) addresses transitagencies’ needs for evaluating and upgrading theintrusion detection systems applicable to the spec-trum of their facilities including tunnels, bridges,buildings, power stations, transfer stations, rail yards,bus yards, and parking lots, as well as transit vehiclessuch as buses, trains, support vehicles, and specialpurpose vehicles. The Handbook provides guidanceon assessing system needs; developing systemdesigns; and estimating system costs, benefits, andrisks. The systems discussed in the Handbook rangefrom low-technology to more complex high technol-ogy systems, and directly support the deterrence anddetection of intrusion into secure areas.The Handbook distinguishes IntrusionDetection Systems (IDS) and AccessControl Systems (ACS). IDS are a set oftechnologies and systems that define,observe, control, and sense entry into adefined controlled or secure area. ACS

analyses, and matched-pair analysis, the authors findsome relations between the existence or absence ofcertain environmental attributes and the incidence ofcrime.

Lusk, A. (2002). The bus and bus stop designsrelated to perceptions of crime (FTA-MI-26-7004-2002.1 and FTA-TRI-12-02.1). Ann Arbor,MI: FTA.

The author reviews research conducted to determinebus and bus stop designs that might lessen theperception of crime and increase personal security.The case study research is conducted in a small city(Ann Arbor, MI) and a large metropolis (Detroit, MI)with additional research for external validityconducted in Burlington, Vermont and Washington,D.C. The research methodology includes interviews,site visits, observations, literature review, surveys ofriders on buses, picture preference surveys and focusgroup discussions. The research is conducted fromSeptember 1998 until December 2001 and is carriedout in two phases. Phase I involves surveysdistributed on buses in Detroit and Ann Arbor. Thesurveys ask the participants for their perceptionsabout the bus design features in relation to crimeincluding windows, seating, and color. Phase I helpsframe the methodology for Phase II which involvespicture preference surveys. The results suggest thatthe appearance of the bus and bus stop could bealtered to increase the perception of personal securityfor riders and potential riders.

Needle, J., & Cobb, R. (1997). Improving transitsecurity (TCRP Synthesis 21). Washington,D.C.: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn21.pdf

The principle objective of this synthesis is to identifyviolence prevention and control practices deemedsuccessful by transit agency professionals. Chapter 1addresses the costs of transit violence, objectives of

Security and C

rime

Prevention

Page 40: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

40

manage various combinations of entry, exit and/ormovement through secure and controlled areas bythe use of an identifiable token. In this Handbook,ACS are a subsystem that support IDS by enablingaccess by authorized personnel, preventing accessby intruders, and interfacing with IDS to annunciateentry into controlled or secure areas. ACS over thespectrum from simple keys to highly integratedbiometrics controls.

The information in the Handbook was compiledbased on a comprehensive literature search ofcommercial intrusion-detection system specificationsand costs; a survey of major U.S. and internationaltransit agencies; and on-site visits and interviews withgeneral managers, senior staff, and security chiefs ofselected major metropolitan transit facilities. Theinformation received from surveys and interviewsfound that IDS and ACS presently used in transitsystems are generally functioning as intended andare viewed as having satisfied their originally de-signed purposes. Several transit systems reportedthat intrusion detection applications also producedpurposes. Several transit systems reported thatintrusion detection applications also produced sec-ondary benefits in addition to their initial purpose.Cameras in facilities and vehicles have provided lawenforcement agencies with evidence related togeneral criminal activity not necessarily related to thetransit system. Transit employees have also becomemore aware of the role they can play to supplementand enhance intrusion detection and access controlapplications. Abstract by the authors.

Smith, M., & Clarke, R. (2000). Crime and publictransport, Crime and Justice, 27 (1), 169-233.

The writers discuss crime and public transport, notingthat such crime covers a vast array of offensescommitted in various forms of transport. The targetsof crime in public transport can be the system itself,employees, or passengers. A distinction needs to bedrawn between crimes facilitated by overcrowding

and those made possible by lack of supervision; bothof which are the result of financial constraints facedby all forms of public transport. Although somemeasures have been successful in dealing withspecific crimes in public transport, much crime couldbe “designed out” of new subway systems andexisting train and bus stations; and ordermaintenance might be an effective transit policingstrategy. The issue of whether transit systems spreadcrime from high- to lower-crime areas and whethersome forms of transport are safer than others has notbeen successfully determined. Abstract by theauthors.

References

Ewing, R. (1999). Pedestrian and transit friendlydesign: A primer for smart growth.Washington, D.C.: Smart Growth Network.Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf

Notes

1 Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1994). Reviving transitcorridors and transit riding. Access, 4, 27-32.

2 Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crimeprevention through urban design. New York:MacMillan.

Security and Crime Prevention

Page 41: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

41

2: Building Bus Transit Facilities

The most basic passenger facility for all transitagencies, great and small, is the bus stop. It is thepoint where the passenger and bus service meet. Thebus stop acts as portal and node, connecting busservice with all other mobility networks in the city andregion. As mentioned in chapter I, bus stops—fromsigns on the road to sophisticated intermodal stations—depend on good and safe handicapped, pedestrian,bicycle, and automobile accessibility in order toprovide quality bus service that enhances non-automobility. Hence the location, design, spacing, andoperation of bus stops are critical in transit systemperformance and customer satisfaction.

Two major overriding considerations affectcustomer satisfaction. First, facility sitingconsiderations stress safe and convenientaccessibility to the bus stop for the bus patron (i.e.,facilities must be adequately incorporated into theexisting fabric of roads, pedestrian infrastructure, andpublic rights of way) while balancing the need forefficient bus operation and service schedule (i.e.,facility placement should facilitate efficient serviceprovision). Second, facility design considerationsunderscore amenitizing patrons’ waiting time at thebus stop. Facility waiting time—a function of busheadways—and passenger volume strongly influencesuccess in designing for passenger convenience,comfort and security.

Since the 1980s a heightened interest inintegrating transit with development—often originatingfrom outside transit agencies—has ushered a flurry oftrendy transit-community design concepts including

transit-oriented development (TOD), transit-focusedcommunity design, transit-village planning, transit-friendly communities, and transit-supportivedevelopment, etc. These ideas have coalesced underthe umbrella of the TOD movement. This movementemphasizes the planning and design of transitfacilities as core components of new developmentand redevelopment projects. Some TOD proposalsurge for growth management policies that placetransit at the forefront of guiding new development(see Chapter III in this review for more details).

BUS TRANSIT FACILITY DESIGNGUIDELINES

In this section, the literature on designing and sitingbus passenger facilities comes from three mainsources: (1) transit facility design guidelines andstudies commissioned by federal agencies such asthe Federal Transit Administration—the sponsor ofthe Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)—and the Transit Development Corporation. These aregenerally publications of the Transportation ResearchBoard (TRB) published as TCRP reports; (2) statetransit facility guidelines developed by statetransportation departments; and (3) regional and citytransit facility guidelines elaborated for in-house useby city and regional transit agencies as well as by citydepartments.

Building B

us TransitFacilities

Page 42: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

42

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 43: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

43

2.1: Transit Facility Design Guidelines

NATIONAL AND TCRP-REPORT-BASEDGUIDELINES

Inspired by the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and its sequel theTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21(1998), post-1990 transit design guidelinesunderscore the principle of designing for intermodalityat every stage of bus passenger facility planning anddesign. In fact, the Transit Cooperative ResearchProgram (TCRP), proposed by the U.S. Department

Table 1. Location and Design of Bus Stops(From TCRP Report 19, 1999)

Street-Side Factors Curb-Side Factors

• Stop spacing• Bus stop placement• Bus stop types & dimensions

o Curb-sideo Bus bayo Open bus bayo Queue jumper bus

bayo Nub

• Vehicle characteristic types &dimensions

o Turning radiio Wheelchair lifto Bikes on buses

• Roadway intersection design• Safety

• Pedestrian accesso Patron accesso Bus stops & sidewalk

connectionso Access to commercial

and businessdevelopment

o Access to residentialdevelopment

o ADA Accessability• Waiting & accessory pads• Shelters

o Inclusion & sizingo Configuration &

orientationo Advertisingo Artistic & thematic

design• Amenities

of Transportation and authorized in 1991 in theISTEA, has compiled and made available a largebody of information of special concern to the transitcommunity. In the area of locating and designing busstops, TCRP Report 19 by Kittelson and Associates(1996), TCRP Web Document 6, Part 4 by the TexasTransportation Institue (1999), and on evaluation ofbus bulbs TCRP Report 65 by Fitzpatrick et al. (2001)collectively stand out as very useful comprehensivereference publications representative of this influentialnational transportation initiative.

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 44: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

44 Transit Facility Design Guidelines

TCRP Report 19, drawing substantively from aselection of four city and transit agency facility designhandbooks and field visits to transit agencies acrossthe nation, contributes an important bus passengerfacility design concept: The separation betweenstreet-side and curb-side factors which affect both on-street bus operations and off-the-roadway buspatrons’ comfort and safety (see Table 1).

Bus Capacity and Quality of Service. Part 4 of theTransit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual(TCRP Web Document 6, 1999) focuses on buscapacity conceived as a function of the flow of bothbus passengers and buses. The manual’s sizing anddesign procedures of passenger facilities closelyfollow the Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM)methodology based on pedestrian levels of serviceanalysis. Based on this methodology it providesprocedures for sizing passenger waiting areas at busstops and the provision of passenger amenities atthese venues. For bus stations and terminals itprovides sizing calculations for both inside andoutside terminal components. The former include

walkways, stairways, escalators, elevators, turnstiles,ticket machines, and platforms; while the latter referto transfer facilities, such as bus transfer, park-and-ride, and kiss-and-ride areas.

Inspired by the HCM, this manual offers acomprehensive facility design approach related tosmooth and swift bus and passenger flows. It takesinto account not only the size of the buses andservice schedules, but also the interaction betweenpassenger traffic and vehicle flow. This “swift flow”philosophy to passenger facility design stresses sitingand design principles that optimize the overall levelsof service of bus routes, bus lanes, and busterminals. It identifies bus vehicle and personcapacity factors and suggests how each one can beimproved to attain additional capacity (see Table 2)and how in certain instances, this may also require atrade-off with quality of service. Complete applicabilityof all procedures contained in this manual may belimited by data availability—particularly among bustransit systems—operating in small- and medium-sized urban areas.

Page 45: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

45

Figure 1 - Relationship between passenger and vehicle capacity.Image from: TCRP Web Document 6 (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf)

Crowded VehiclesFew Vehicles

Domain of PeakPeriod

Operations

Many VehiclesFew

Passengers

Level of Service - Bus (vehicles/hour)

Leve

l of S

ervi

ce -

Pass

enge

r (a

rea/

pass

enge

r)

A B C D E F

A

B

C

D

E

FCrush Load (Maximum People per Vehicle)

Maximum Design Load (Peak)

Maxim

um Vehicles P

er Channel P

er Hour

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 46: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

46

Table 2. Factors Influencing Bus Capacity(From TCRP Web Document 6, 1999, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual)

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf

Item Ways to Improve Each Item

CAPACITY FACTORS

Dwell Time • Greater use of pre-paid fares• Use low-floor vehicles• Encourage one-way door flows on two-

door buses• Provide multiple-stream doors for

boarding and alighting• Increase bus frequency to reduce the

number of standees• Implement proof-of-payment fare

collection

Clearance Time • Use on-line stops*• Enact and enforce laws that require cars to

yield to buses re-entering a street• Implement queue jumps at traffic

signals

Coefficient of Variation • Generally constant for a given area

Failure Rate • Increase the number of loading areas at a stop• Schedule fewer buses per hour using the stop**

CALCULATED RESULTS• Reduce dwell time• Implement transit priority treatments• Increase the accepted failure rate*

• Increase loading area capacity• Use off-line loading areas*• Use sawtooth or pull-through loading areas• Increase the number of loading areas

• Increase the capacity of the critical stop• Reserve lanes for buses• Platoon buses• Implement skip-stop operation• Prohibit right turns by automobiles

• Reduce dwell time• Implement transit preferential treatments• Balance number of stops with passenger

convenience and demand• Implement skip-stop operation

Loading Area Capacity

Bus Stop Capacity

Bus Lane Capacity

Bus Speeds

*Measure that may negatively affect other items in the list if implemented.**Measure that improves the failure rate, but decreases capacity.

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 47: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

47

Bus bulbs are perhaps the greatest examples ofhow the bus stop is a portal and connection to busmobility in the city. They facilitate smooth busmovement and alighting and boarding operations onthe street-side as well as off-roadway pedestrianaccessibility and bus passenger comfort and security.The additional space that they bring to the bus stoppermits the inclusion of bus patron amenities,particularly in areas with tight public right-of-way,where installing bus shelters would be prohibitive.Reducing congestion on sidewalks, eliminating bus-weaving maneuvers into bus-bay stops, and reducingtraffic blockage caused by stopping buses are amajor rationale for providing these facilities.

According to TCRP Report 65 Evaluation of BusBulbs by Fitzpatrick et al. (2001), the mostappropriate locations for bus bulbs are downtownsand high pedestrian activity areas with curb-sideparking on arterials conveying two-lane travel on bothdirections. Based on research carried out in SanFrancisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, Canada,the report provides a useful review of supportive andlimiting conditions to bus bulb construction includingcommunity attitudes, pedestrian infrastructureconditions, and on-street bus movementconsideration (see Table 3).

Figure 2 - Nearside bus bulb on Portland’s north Sandy Boulevardat northeast 67th Avenue (eastbound).Image from: TCRP 65.

Figure 3 - The 16th Street bus mall in Denver, CO.Image from: TRCP Web Document 6 (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf)

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 48: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

48

Table 3. Opportunities and Barriers to Bus Bulbs Construction(Adapted from TCRP Report 65, 2001)

Opportunities Barriers

Community Conditions• Communities that give high

priority to transit• Local business owners

interested in the bulbs

Off-the-Roadway Pedestrian Conditions• High pedestrian activity on

sidewalk• High levels of bus patronage at

bus stop or within the corridor

Community Conditions• Citizen and business concerned

about changes in traffic patterns.

Off-the-Roadway Pedestrian Conditions• Sites with low pedestrian activity• Sites with low transit ridership

On-Street and Bus MovementConditions• Facilities with high operating speeds

(e.g., 40 to 45 mph)• Two-lane streets (i.e., traffic cannot

pass a stopped bus)• High bicycle traffic on roadway• Sites where 24-hr curbside parking

is not available• Facilities that are served by vans

that deploy wheelchair lifts or wherethe majority of buses are lift-equipped (e.g., where wheelchair liftoperation can take up to 10 min)

• Layover locations• Complex drainage patterns

On-Street and Bus MovementConditions

• Lower operating speeds onthe roadway

• Two travel lanes per direction(to allow passing of stoppedbuses)

• Difficulties for buses in re-entering the traffic streamusually because of high trafficvolumes

• Facilities with very high trafficvolumes

• Presence of on-street parking

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 49: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

49

Fitzpatrick, K., Hall, K., Farnsworth, S., & Finley,M. (2001). Evaluation of bus bulbs (TCRPReport 65). Washington, D.C.: TransportationResearch Board. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003, fromhttp://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_65-a.pdf

This report will be of interest to individuals and groupswith a stake in the location and design of bus stops.These groups include public transportationorganizations, public works departments, localdepartments of transportation, developers, and publicand private organizations along or near bus routes.The research evaluated bus bulbs, an innovation inthe design of bus stops found in several major NorthAmerican cities. A bus bulb is a section of sidewalkthat extends from the curb of a parking lane to theedge of a through lane. They are also known as curbextensions, nubs, and bus bulges. Chapter 1introduces the research objectives, scope, andapproach. Chapter 2 presents the findings from thesite visits, the curbside and roadway before-and-afterstudies, and the traffic simulation program. Chapter 3presents the conditions that support the Constructionof bus bulbs and the conditions that would notsupport the use of bus bulbs. Chapter 4 summarizesthe findings from the research and suggests furtherresearch. The report’s Appendix A is a review ofselected cities’ practices. Abstract by the authors.

Kittelson & Associates Inc. (1999). Transitcapacity and quality of service manual (TCRPWeb Document 6). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Oct. 21, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-a.pdf http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/\tcrp_webdoc_6-b.pdf

The Transit Capacity and Quality Service Manual[TCQSM], intended to be the transit companion forthe Highway Capacity Manual, is “a fundamentalreference document for public transit practitioners

and policy makers. The manual contains background,statistics, and graphics providing orientation to thevarious types of public transportation and itintroduces a new framework for measuring transitavailability and quality of service from the passengerpoint of view. The manual contains qualitativetechniques for calculating the capacity of bus and railtransit services, terminals, and platforms” (p. ix). Part2 of this manual focuses on bus transit capacitydetermination including: bus capacity guidelines andcalculations related to operations, busways’ andfreeways’ high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus lanes inexclusive arterials and mixed traffic conditions anddemand response services. Part 4 is devoted toterminal capacity design including bus stops, transferfacilities, and park-and-ride and kiss-and-ridefacilities. Each transit facility and amenity discussedincludes subsections on design factors, capacitystandards and evaluation procedures.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1997).Federal Safety Commission highway accidentsummary report. Bus collision withpedestrians Normandy, Missouri June 11,1997. Washington, DC: NationalTransportation Safety Board. RetrievedDec. 3, 2003, from http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1998/har9801s.pdf.

On June 11, 1997, a transit bus collided with sevenpedestrians at a “park and ride” transitfacility in Normandy, Missouri. The bus was beingoperated by a driver trainee who had just completed aroutine stop at the station. After allowing thepassengers to debark from the bus, the driver traineebegan to move the bus forward to provide clearancefor another bus to pass. The driver trainee, who wasreportedly unable to stop the bus, allowed itto surmount the curb and continue onto thestation platform. The resultingencroachment onto the platform resulted inthe deaths of four pedestrians and injuriesto three others. The safety issues discussed

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 50: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

50

in this report are the sufficiency of pedestrianprotection provided by the saw-tooth parking baydesign and the need for positive separation betweenthe roadway and pedestrian areas of parking bayfacilities. Abstract by the author.

Rabinowitz, H. Z., Beimborn, E. A., Lindquist, P.S., & Opper, D. (1989). Market based transitfacility design (DOT-T-89-12). Washington,D.C.: U. S. Department of Transportation,Office of Technical Assistance and Safety.

The purpose of this report is to provide guidelines forthe planning and design of transit stations, stops andterminals. These guidelines have been prepared froma market-based point of view. Design elements aresuggested that directly relate promoting the successof development activities and transit services. Thereport discusses general development policies andprovides design guidelines for six transit station typesthrough a range of design phases.

Guidelines are given for the planning and designof six station types—CBD rail stations, neighborhoodrail, park and ride stations, transit malls, transfercenters and local stops. These station types areexplored through four phases of planning and design—systems planning, site planning, station design andoperations/management. Among the topics discussedfor each station type are location, market,connections, access, information, image, usercomfort, safety and security, operations andmanagement. Abstract by the authors.

Texas Transportation Institute, & Texas A&MResearch Foundation. (1996). Guidelines forthe location and design of bus stops (TCRPReport 19). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 8, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-a.pdf

This report will be of interest to individuals and groupswith a stake in the location and design of bus stops.This includes those associated with public

transportation organizations, public worksdepartments, local departments of transportation,developers, and public and private organizationsalong or near bus routes. The primary objective ofthis research was to develop guidelines for locatingand designing bus stops in various operatingenvironments. These guidelines will assist transitagencies, local governments, and other public bodiesin locating and designing bus stops that consider buspatrons’ convenience, safety, and access to sites aswell as safe transit operations and traffic flow.The guidelines include information about locating anddesigning bus stops and checklists of factors thatshould be considered. The research began with aliterature review and the identification of stakeholders’concerns through mail-out and telephone surveys andface-to-face interviews. A review of 28 transit agencymanuals on bus stop design and location providedthe basis for an appraisal of current practice.Observations made at more than 270 bus stopsduring regional visits to Arizona, Michigan, andCalifornia were supplemented with traffic field studiesconducted at 14 bus stops and pedestrian fieldstudies conducted at 10 bus stops. Computersimulation of bus stops on suburban highways wasalso used to develop the findings. The guidelinesinclude three sections: the big picture, street-sidedesign, and curb-side design. The guidelines alsoinclude two appendixes that present the results of thestreet-side and curb-side studies. Abstract by theauthors.

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 51: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

51

STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GUIDELINES

The many manuals and handbooks produced by stateand local transportation departments and regionaland city transit agencies can be broadly divided intobefore and after ISTEA (1991) and before and afterADA (1990). During the 1980s a strong interest inincluding public transit in land use planning emergedas transportation professionals acknowledged, thatAmerican cities had rapidly decentralized over the lasttwenty years; activities traditionally concentrated incentral business districts (CBDs) had followedsuburban populations to the periphery of cities. Thenew polycentric urban form comprised of manysuburban subcenters was accompanied by suburb-to-suburb regional travel patterns, which were morediverse and less focused on the CBD. Calls toreorient transit to serve the new suburban centersand to capture a share of the already largelysuburban travel market emphasized the design oftransfer centers in timed-transfer bus servicenetworks. In these transit center-based systems,major regional activity centers, such as shoppingmalls, airports, medical centers, universities, etc.,were—and still are—strategic locations for transitmalls and transfer centers. These transit regionalnodes would connect three route types: radial routesstretching to the CBD with rapid bus service,circumferential routes linking the transfer center toother suburban centers, and local routes conveyingbus patrons from their home to the transit center.1 Inthe 1980s, so called “market-based approaches” topassenger facility design focused on three types offacilities: transit malls, transfer centers, and localstops and provided planning and design guidelinescomprehensively on five topics:2

1. Joint development opportunities–integratingtransit to surrounding commercial development

2. Systems planning–locating transit to serveexisting activity centers or to redirect urbandevelopment to new activity areas

3. Site planning–site designing in context withsurrounding neighborhood and/or withdevelopment of retail on site, plus proper siting ofbus shelters and amenities.

4. Station design–design for safe bus patron accessand movement

5. Operations management–combination andcoordination of retail management (push cartregulations, leasing of private space for publicuse) with transportation management (parkingregulations, maintenance of transit schedules,information booths, etc.).

Also in the 1980s, some transit facility designguidelines played an important marketing role inexposing local governments and developers to thebenefits of integrating transit and development.Proactive regional transit agencies in the West Coastdeveloped transit guidelines to acquaint localgovernments with the transit agency’s policiesregarding land use planning and transit, and toencourage local governments to include transit intheir general or comprehensive plans. Additionally,these guidelines encouraged cities and developers tocoordinate with the transit agency in designating andlocating bus stops, and to build transit-compatibleprojects with adequate pedestrian access through theexisting permitting process. They also encouragedcities to impose transit amenity requirements ortransit fees whenever development adverselyimpacted the transit system or service.3

Post-ISTEA (1991) and post-ADA (1990) buspassenger facility design guidelines incorporate manyof the former concerns but add further detail aboutADA accessibility specifications. With the advent ofdigital and desk-top publishing technology,these guidelines offer richer graphicdepiction of design principles withillustrations of best practices in designingfor intermodality. Moreover, these guidelinesreflect the changes in metropolitan planning

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 52: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

52

brought about by the ISTEA, which the U.S.Department of Transportation in a guide to MPOplanning explains as consisting of:

a more integrated planning process to bettermeet the needs of all constituencies. . . . [TheAct] places significant emphasis on broadeningparticipation in transportation planning to includekey stakeholders who have not traditionally beeninvolved, including the business community,members of the public, community groups, andother governmental agencies.4

The ISTEA’s intent to make transportationplanning more responsive to local needs bybroadening public participation has challengedtransportation professionals to engage nontraditionalstakeholders in metropolitan transportation planning.In response to this challenge transit facility guidelineshave evolved to serve both technical audiences andnew diverse, nontechnical audiences, providing twotypes of information. The first relates to bus facilitydesign standards and technical specifications such asbus vertical and horizontal clearances, turning radii,berthing and bus stop dimensions, bus stop spacing

and placement, and bus shelter standards, etc. Thesecond offers recommendations for land usedecisions and urban design principles supportive oftransit-friendly development. Typically, these aredirectives such as “give priority to pedestrianfacilities,” “encourage a mixture of land uses,” “orientbuilding frontage to the pedestrian,” and“interconnect street network,” that encourage the userto adopt a transit-friendly community designphilosophy.

The first set of “hard” standards and guidelinesgenerally prescribe metrics related to street-sidefactors that affect safe bus operations and traffic flow(e.g., bus stop spacing, placement, bus bays, bulbs,etc.), as well as off-street or curb-side factors thataffect accessibility, safety and convenience of busriders (e.g., ADA accessibility, shelter design andplacement, and amenities that enhance bus patrons’comfort). These norms, typically under theadministrative purview of transit agencies, arecontained in the majority of transit facility designguidelines (see Tables 4 and 5). They are also themost widely used and routinely consulted by transitoperators and planners. On the other hand, thesecond set of “soft” guidelines normally requireseveral layers of interagency coordination and urgetransit agencies to join efforts with elected officials,city administrators, engineers and planners,developers, and neighborhood groups inincorporating transit-supportive policies into the landdevelopment review process. These guidelines areadvisory and illustrative of best developmentpractices that other agencies and stakeholders canemulate or adapt. More recently however, county-based transit regional authorities such as PinellasSuncoast in Florida are starting to include in theirmanuals suggestive regulatory language that localjurisdictions may incorporate in their landdevelopment regulations in order to implementtransit-friendly development. Other regional transitagencies like Lynx in Central Florida provide

Figure 4 - A public charrette for the Leon County Florida Bicycleand Pedestrian Master Plan.Image from: http://talgov.com/citytlh/planning/trans/bikeped/masterplan/bppdf/tally_news.pdf

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 53: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

53

schematics of the land development review processand the stages in the process to which the designguidelines apply.

With the exception of a few handbooks, onesignificant gap in the literature is the scant attentionthat the biking community receives. Fortunately, thelatest handbooks make an effort to incorporate bikingdesign considerations both on the street and at thecurb-side. As already mentioned, more recentlyproduced guidelines give more importance topedestrian access, sidewalk connectivity, and land-use aspects than their predecessors. However, thereis a substantial shortage of case studies documenting

Figure 5 - Bus shelter from Tampa, FL.Image from: Authors.

lessons learned regarding successful andunsuccessful attempts at integrating bus transit andland use planning from the point of view of the socialcapital and institution-building deemed necessary tobring transit-friendly development to fruition.1 Despitethis shortcoming, many transit planners welcome“soft” guidelines for integrating transit and land-useas public relations and communication tools useful inpost-ISTEA metropolitan transportation planningcontext and for negotiating and advocating for bustransit in the local development review process.2

Tables 4 and 5 provide a selection of frequentlycited transit facility design guidelines from Florida andoutside Florida.

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 54: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

54

Dis

trict

Offi

ce o

f Mod

al D

evel

opm

ent.

(200

2).

Dis

trict

4 tr

ansi

t fac

ilitie

s gu

idel

ines

. For

tLa

uder

dale

, FL:

Dis

trict

4, F

lorid

a D

epar

tmen

t of

Tran

spor

tatio

n.

Hill

sbor

ough

Are

a R

egio

nal T

rans

it. (1

995)

.Tr

ansi

t-frie

ndly

pla

nnin

g an

d de

sign

han

dboo

kan

d te

chni

cal m

anua

l. Ta

mpa

, FL:

Hill

sbor

ough

Are

a R

egio

nal T

rans

it (H

AR

Tlin

e).

Jack

son,

G. (

1994

). C

entra

l Flo

rida

mob

ility

desi

gn m

anua

l. O

rland

o, F

L: C

entra

l Flo

rida

Reg

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtatio

n A

utho

rity,

LY

NX

.R

etrie

ved

Oct

ober

6, 2

003,

from

http

://w

ww

.gol

ynx.

com

/pdf

s/pu

bs_m

dm.p

df

Hal

back

, H. (

2000

). C

usto

mer

am

eniti

es m

anua

l.O

rland

o, F

L: C

entra

l Flo

rida

Reg

iona

l Tra

nsit

Aut

horit

y - L

ynx.

Ret

rieve

d O

ctob

er 6

, 200

3, fr

omht

tp://

ww

w.g

olyn

x.co

m/p

dfs/

pubs

_Am

eniti

es_M

anua

l.pdf

Tabl

e 4.

Flo

rida-

Bas

ed G

uide

lines

Bus

Sto

p V

ehic

le

Roa

dway

Ped

estri

an

Spacing

Location

Types &Dimensions

Bicycle

Types &Dimensions

Intersection &Street

Geometrics

Bicycle

PedCrossings

ADA& Access

Shelters

Transfer & OtherFacility Types

Amenities

Land Use orTOD

CPTED

ITS

Quality of Illustration

Stre

et-S

ide

Cur

b-S

ide

Oth

er

Cur

sory

Goo

d

Fair

Very

good

Very

good

Jack

sonv

ille T

rans

porta

tion

Aut

horit

y. (2

003)

. JTA

mob

ility

acc

ess

prog

ram

wor

kboo

k. J

acks

onvi

lle,

FL Sci

ence

App

licat

ions

Inte

rnat

iona

l Cor

pora

tion.

(199

9). T

rans

it fri

endl

y de

sign

gui

delin

es. S

t.P

eter

sbur

g, F

L: P

inel

las

Sun

coas

t Tra

nsit

Aut

horit

y.

Very

good

Goo

d

Page 55: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

55

Tabl

e 5.

Sel

ecte

d O

ut-o

f-Sta

te G

uide

lines

(in h

isto

rical

ord

er)

Bus

Sto

p V

ehic

le

Roa

dway

Ped

estri

an

Spacing

Location

Types &Dimensions

Bicycle

Types &Dimensions

Intersection& Street

Geo-metrics

Bicycle

PedCrossings

ADA &Access

Shelters

Transfer & OtherFacility Types

Amenities

Land Use or TOD

CPTED

ITS

Quality ofIllustration

Stre

et-S

ide

Cur

b-S

ide

Oth

er

Goo

d

Fair

Very

Very

Tri-C

ount

y M

etro

polit

an T

rans

porta

tion

Dis

trict

of O

rego

n. (1

996)

. Pla

nnin

g an

dde

sign

for

trans

it ha

ndbo

ok: G

uide

lines

for

impl

emen

ting

trans

it su

ppor

tive

deve

lop-

men

t. P

ortla

nd, O

rego

n.

Met

ropo

litan

Tra

nsit

Dev

elop

men

t Boa

rd.

(199

3). D

esig

ning

for t

rans

it. S

an D

iego

, CA

.

Valle

y M

etro

. 199

3. B

us s

top

hand

book

.P

hoen

ix, A

Z: R

egio

nal P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rtatio

nA

utho

rity.

Sea

ttle

Met

ro. (

1991

). M

etro

tran

spor

tatio

nfa

cilit

y de

sign

gui

delin

es. S

eattl

e, W

A:

Mun

icip

ality

of M

etro

polit

an S

eattl

e. h

ttp://

dnr.m

etro

kc.g

ov/W

TD/li

brar

y/m

r435

8-01

.htm

Den

ver R

egio

nal T

rans

porta

tion

Dis

trict

. (19

87).

Tran

sit f

acili

ty d

esig

n gu

idel

ines

. Den

ver,

CO

:R

egio

nal T

rans

porta

tion

Dis

trict

.

Mas

s Tr

ansi

t Adm

inis

tratio

n 19

88. A

cces

sby

des

ign:

tran

sit’s

role

in la

nd d

evel

opm

ent.

A de

velo

per’s

man

ual.

Bal

timor

e, M

D:

Mar

ylan

d D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion.

Yazh

ari,

Dav

id H

. (19

83).

Tran

sit F

acili

ties

Stan

dard

s M

anua

l. A

lam

eda-

Con

tra C

osta

Tran

sit D

istri

ct. O

akla

nd, C

A.

Maintenance

Very

Very

Fair

BP

S*

Acc

ess

Cur

sory

Cur

sory

Cur

sory

*BP

S B

us P

riorit

y S

igna

l

Page 56: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

56

City of Eugene Public Works TransportationDepartment. (1999). Design of transit facilitiesin arterial collectors street plans. RetrievedOct. 29, 2003, from http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/PW/trans/ACSP/77_94.pdf.

These guidelines are part of the City of Eugene’sArterial Collector Street Plans. They were developedby the local transit authority Lane Transit District. Thespecific aim of this chapter is to: facilitate theplanning and design phase of development in whichthe inclusion of transit facilities is either mandated orencouraged; avoid costly and time consuming delaysfrom adding transit amenities to developments;ensure that transit facilities are safely accessible tobus riders and pedestrians; ensure safe andconvenient transit operation; and promote use oftransit by providing highly visible, convenient areasfor riders. Abstract taken from author’s introduction(p. 79).

Denver Regional Transportation District. (1987).Transit facility design guidelines. Denver, CO:Regional Transportation District.

Metropolitan Denver depends upon public transit toensure its citizens uninterrupted mobility. Thisdocument is intended to provide guidance to localofficials, developers, planners, and engineers so theymay plan adequate collector streets, accesswalkways and bus stops for new developments andsubdivisions. The guidelines provide a framework forsite selection and site planning. The guidelines coverthe following: bus stops, bus passenger shelters,transfer stations and park-and-ride.

District Office of Modal Development. (2002).District 4 transit facilities guidelines. Ft.Lauderdale, FL: District 4, Florida Departmentof Transportation.

This manual, designed by FDOT District IV, is in-tended for engineers to use during the construction of

bus stop facilities. It includes detailed drawings ofvarious treatments of bus stops, bus bays, busshelters, and pedestrian crossings. It also includes atransit design review checklist intended for develop-ers and designers of new developments.

Florida Department of Transportation DesignOffice. (1989). Green book: Manual of uniformminimum standards for design, construction& maintenance for streets & highways.Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department ofTransportation. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2003, from http://www11.myflorida.com/rddesign/Florida%20Greenbook/2002%20FLORIDA%20GREENBOOK.pdf.

The purpose of this manual is to provide uniformminimum standards and criteria for the design,construction and maintenance of all public streets,roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks, curbs, curbramps, crosswalks (where feasible), bicycle facilities,underpasses, and overpasses used by the public forvehicular and pedestrian traffic as directed bySections 334.044(10)(a) and 336.045, FloridaStatutes. Specific policies governing the activities ofplanning, design, construction, reconstruction,maintenance and operation of streets and highwaysare listed throughout the manual. The manualpresents land development principles and guidelinesand geometric design principles which are verycritical for an efficient transit service planning bytransit agencies. The second section of the manualpresents engineering details on roadside design,pavement design and construction, roadway lighting,rail highway design grade crossings, pedestrian andbicycle facilities. The final section presents guidanceon maintenance of the facilities, work zone safety,construction of facilities, transit components, designexceptions, traffic calming measures and residentialstreet design principles.

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 57: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

57

Fuhs, C. (2002). Geometric design guide fortransit facilities on highways and streets—Phase I interim guide. Houston, TX: AmericanAssociation of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO).

Many agencies are required to plan, design, and/ormodify highways and streets to accommodate publictransportation vehicles or facilities. Currently, there isno single publication to which an agency can refer forguidance on the design of highways and streets toaccommodate transit services and facilities(AASHTO). This interim document is intended tofunction as a comprehensive reference of currentpractice in geometric design applications for transitfacilities on urban highways and streets. The firstsection of the report presents general guidelineswhich are common to all transit facilities likefunctional planning, bus transit capacity and designcontrols and criteria. The second section providesdesign guidelines for transit facilities on highways,which include transit vehicle facilities and highwaytransit passenger facilities. The third section providesdesign guidelines for off-street and on-street transitfacilities and recommended amenities associatedwith it.

Grand Junction Mesa County MetropolitanPlanning Organization. (2003). Transit designstandards and guidelines. Grand Junction,CO: Grand Junction/Mesa CountyMetropolitan Planning Organization. RetrievedOct. 8, 2003, from http://www.gjcity.org/CityDeptWebPages/PublicWorksAndUtilities/TransportationEngineering/TEFilesThatLINKintoDWStoreHere/TEDS/TRANSITREGS.pdf.

This is a small guidebook that consists of twochapters. The first chapter provides information onbus stop spacing and location. The second chapterincludes design guidelines on off street turnouts, onstreet stops, facility access and transit stopamenities.

Halback, H. (2000). Customer amenities manual.Orlando, FL: Central Florida Regional TransitAuthority—LYNX. Retrieved Oct. 8,2003, from http://www.golynx.com/pdfs/pubs_Amenities_Manual.pdf.

This manual intends to provide the reader with a clearmeans of identifying, analyzing and proposingsolutions to LYNX transit facilities’ design questions.The manual has been organized into sections fromthe broad to the specific. The first section describesthe specific planning and physical properties of eachof the five mobility stations within the LYNX system:the Local Transit Stop, the Primary Local Stop, theSuperstop, the Transit Center and the Park and Ride.The second section deals with design standardsinfluenced by the Americans with Disabilites Act,crime prevention through environmental design,green building materials, advertising, wayfindingdevices, and public art. The third section describesother passenger amenities and site furnishings suchas shelters, benches, lighting, bike storage, specialtypaving, drinking fountains, restrooms, and newspaperstands.

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. (1995).Transit friendly planning and designhandbook and technical manual.Tampa, FL: Hillsborough Area RegionalTransit (Hartline).

This handbook is intended to be used by planners,designers, developers, local city, county and stateagencies as a guideline to the standards promoted byHillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART)within Hillsborough County. The handbook is a resultof research of local, regional and federalrequirements, as well as reviews of otherresearch and surveys. The first section ofthe report deals with land use regulationsand transit improvement measures that cansignificantly influence land use patterns andneighborhood revitalization. The second

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 58: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

58

section of the report addresses technical andengineering details of bus operations andmaintenance. It provides design standards for busfacilities ranging from smaller to large sized facilities.

INCA Engineers. (2002). MAG park-and-ride siteselection study, design criteria: Revised draftreport prepared for the Maricopa Associationof Governments. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003, fromhttp://www.mag.maricopa.gov/archive/PUB/Park-Ride/Report%20-%20Design%20Criteria%20Draft%205-%202-2000.pdf http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/archive/PUB/Park-Ride/design/Presentation%20-%20Design%20Criteria%20-%205-%202-2000_files/frame.htm.

The purpose of this document is to provide informa-tion concerning the guidelines and standards used bythe RPTA [Regional Public Transportation Authority],and other agencies in the design of transit andridesharing facilities. These guidelines are intendedfor use by state agencies, public works and planningdepartments, developers, and interested individuals.The study objective in providing this information istwofold. The primary objective is to encourage theinclusion of transit and ridesharing facilities in theinitial design stages of freeway, roadway and newdevelopment. A secondary objective is to informagency staffs how to site and design its facilities.Rather than presenting detailed engineering specifi-cations for a park-and-ride facility, this documentendeavors to provide an overview of the facility,including characteristics, basic dimensions, designcriteria, and accepted standards. The dimensionspresented in this document are intended as recom-mended standards. They may need to be modified inindividual cases to meet site constraints or applicablelocal, state, and federal land use and permit require-ments. Abstract taken from the author’s introduction(p. 1).

Jackson, G. (1994). Central Florida mobilitydesign manual. Orlando, FL: Central FloridaRegional Transportation Authority, LYNX.Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003, from http://www.golynx.com/pdfs/pubs_mdm.pdf.

The Central Florida Mobility Design Manual isintended to be a working document illustrating basicmobility design actions to be considered at the designand review level of individual projects. The mobilityactions present basic planning and design guidelineswhich are the foundation of a strategy that caninfluence the form of new growth and redevelopmentin Central Florida.

The design manual is divided into two sections.The first section introduces basic design guidelinesand functional requirements which illustrate how thephysical design features of a project can help balancethe overall transportation network. This includespedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, vehicularcirculation, transit circulation, transit stops andterminals, building location, and building design.

The final section of the design manualdemonstrates how specific guidelines for each designelement can be successfully integrated into acomprehensive development review process. Thissection also documents the importance of revisingtransportation elements and land developmentregulations, and additional revisions to concurrencyrequirements, design standards, impact fees, andincentive programs that will ensure effectiveimplementation of the mobility design guidelines.Abstract taken from author’s introduction (p. 14).

Jacksonville Transportation Authority. (2003). JTAmobility access program workbook.Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville TransportationAuthority.

The handbook provides design guidelines for transitstops throughout Jacksonville’s service area viaJacksonville’s Transportation Authority’s (JTA)Mobility Access Program (MAP). This program

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 59: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

59

contains two types of guidelines. The first standard-izes certain design criteria in accordance with transitstop functional classifications. The second are flexibleguidelines that permit adaptability of facility designcriteria to specific community “sense of place” andcontexts. The intended use for the guidelines are forlocal governments as part of their planning andzoning process, for developers needing to meetgrowth management requirements, and for commu-nities seeking better transit accessibility and mobility.As part of MAP, the guidelines form the basis forneighborhood and transit joint development programsand for JTA’s capital improvement process. Abstractby the author.

KFH Group Inc. (2001). Arlington county bus stopdesign standards. Arlington, VA: ArlingtonTransit. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003, from http://www.commuterpage.com/pdfdocs/designstandard.pdf.

This is a draft copy of the Arlington County Bus StopDesign Standards. It presents design guidelines forbus stop design, location and amenities. It addressesspecific details of designing bus stops like curbclearance, relationship to roadway, signage, right-of-way consideration, pedestrian connection, etc.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (1988).Access by design: Transit’s role inland development: Mass TransitAdministration.

This document has been published under the Accessby Design program of Maryland DOT, which wasinitiated to promote better understanding of the transitindustry. The manual explains the significant benefitsof transit accessibility. It also reviews the goals andstandards used by MTA (Mass Transit Administration)to make new service decisions. Finally, the manualprovides important operational and design standardsfor specific transit facilities. It is intended for use bydevelopers, planners, and engineers who recognize

that designing for transit from project inception leadsto better transit service in the future.

Metropolitan Transit Development Board. (1993).Designing for transit. San Diego, CA:Metropolitan Transit Development Board(MTDB).

Transit-oriented land development policies have ledto a focus on integrating land development withproper transit planning. This handbook presents waysto design transit-oriented communities like changingthe land mixes, integrating transit to community,proper design of street system, providing betterpedestrian facilities, etc. It also outlays transit-oriented land development policies, which could beimplemented by the local government to create bettercommunities that provide a wide range oftransportation options to its residents. It also providesengineering details and design standards for bus andlight rail facilities. The handbook concludes that urbanform is the primary determinate of whether transit is adesirable alternative to the automobile. For thisreason the planning process must include thecomprehensive consideration of transit, from policythrough implementation.

North San Diego County Transit District PlanningDepartment. (n.d.). Design outlines for busfacilities. Ocean Side, California: North SanDiego County Transit District.

The purpose of this document is to provide a uniformguide for the design and placement of various busrelated facilities and amenities. The guidelines areintended to provide individual design considerationsfor certain transit facilities rather than specify thecomplete engineering design of eachelement. The guidelines provide the criteria,dimensions, requirements, typical layoutsand designs for the following types of transitimprovements: bus stops, bus turnouts, buslayover areas, benches, shelters, park-and-

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 60: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

60

ride lots, transit centers, transfer terminals, busturning radii and road grades.

Regional Public Transportation Authority. (1993).Bus stop handbook–Street improvements fortransit. Phoenix, AZ: Regional PublicTransportation Authority.

The intent of this manual is to provide the reader withaccurate, authoritative and general guidelines asopposed to site-specific engineering, architectural,construction, legal or other information. The readermust adjust the information contained in thehandbook to site-specific needs, constraints andapplicable law, regulations and codes. The manualhas been organized into sections from broad tospecific issues. The first two sections describe thespecific engineering details regarding the bus and theallowance to be provided in the sites and routes thatwill be catered by transit with land userecommendations. The next section deals withelaborate suggestions for passenger amenities andfacilities essential to bringing about successful transitthat complies with design standards influenced by theAmericans with Disabilities Act, crime preventionthrough environmental design, advertising, way-finding devices, and public art. The last sectiondescribes other street priority treatments and theimpacts of construction on bus operations. The reportconcludes with specific city requirements for bustransit.

Regional Transportation Commission of ClarkCounty. (1999). Citizens area transit bus stopguidelines. Nevada: Regional TransportationCommission of Clark County.

This guidebook was adopted by the RegionalTransportation Commission of Clark County on July8, 1999. It presents approaches that might beundertaken by transit agencies to mitigate theimpacts of construction or street closure during

special events on bus stops. It also providesengineering details on bus stop and pad design, busbenches and bus shelters. The guidebook alsopresents cost details for bus stop and shelterconstruction and relocation.

Sacramento Regional Transit District. (1988).Design guidelines for bus and light railfacilities. Sacramento, CA: Regional Transit.

This guidebook provides placement and designguidelines for all of the following: bus stops, busturnouts, bus shelters, bus benches, bus layoverareas, bus berths, bus turnarounds, bus turning radii,roadway grades, exclusive bus lanes, bus prioritytraffic signals, park-and-ride facilities, transit centers,light rail track right-of-way, light rail stations, bicyclestorage facilities, and information signs. It also givesproject guidelines for placement of the transit facilityin terms of access, location and density.

Seattle Metro. (1991). Metro transportation facilitydesign guidelines. Seattle, WA: Municipality ofMetropolitan Seattle. Retrieved Oct. 19,2003, from http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/library/mr4358-01.htm.

This document provides information concerning theguidelines and standards used by the Municipality ofMetropolitan Seattle in the design of transit andridesharing facilities. The guidelines intended usersare state agencies, public works and planningdepartments, developers, and interested individuals.The document provides an overview of each facility,including a definition of facilities, methods ofoperation, basic dimensions, design criteria andaccepted standards.

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 61: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

61

Sound Transit. (2003). Sound transit online.Retrieved Oct. 19, 2003, from http://www.soundtransit.org/stbusiness/facts/staccess/facilityDesign/stacsFacilityDsgn.htm.

Sound Transit is a public transit agency delivering amix of rail and regional bus routes, as well as newtransit facilities to the citizens of urban King, Pierceand Snohomish counties. The website providesguidelines on bus stop design, bus shelters, bus padsand bus berths along with illustrations of current andpast transit projects within the agency’s service area.

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District ofOregon. (1996). Planning and design fortransit handbook: Guidelines forimplementing transit supportive development.Portland, OR: Tri-County MetropolitanTransportation District of Oregon.

This handbook provides guidelines for implementingtransit supportive land use and transportation plans,development projects, and street improvementprojects in the Portland region. The handbook ispresented in three sections.

The first section contains guidelines for land useand transportation plans that are more transitsupportive. The second section contains guidelinesfor site and building design and provides guidance forthe planning and design of development projects tomaximize the effectiveness of pedestrian relatedproject investments. The third section has guidelinesfor the design of bus related facilities on multimodalstreets. It offers design standards for bus facilities onstreets that accommodate the needs of pedestrians,bicycles, automobiles, trucks and transit vehicles.

Figure 6 - An outside waiting area at Central Plaza in St.Petersburg, FL.Image from: Authors

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 62: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

62

BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON TRANSITFACILITY DESIGN

The books and articles in this section provide twokinds of information: (1) fundamentals of transitplanning and design from engineering and urbantransportation perspectives, including facility designconsiderations, and (2) journal articles accounting forresearch and modeling results of the effects ofspecific design features (e.g., bus stop spacing,passenger waiting time, busways, etc.) on overallsystem performance.

Books by V. R. Vuchic (1981) and G. A.Giannopoulos (1989) are excellent sources ofdefinitions, description and technical and engineeringanalyses of transit systems. Vuchic treats the subjectwith detailed descriptions of different transit modeswhile Giannopoulos devotes his entire book to urbanbus planning and operations. Although Edwards’(1997) book on architectural design of modernstations focuses on rail, many aspects covered inthis book are applicable to large bus station design,especially those related to site choice, station coreand peripheral areas, security and public safety, routeand timetable information, customer facilities, lighting,and environmental standards.

Books

DeChiara, J. (1975). Urban planning and designcriteria (2nd ed.). New York: Van NostrandReinhold Company.

Intended as a working guide, this volume is primarilygraphical and pictorial, and supplements theoreticaland critical writings on design through graphic refer-ence of current standards, design details, analyticalmethods, and design procedures. This secondedition volume adds material on urban design andenvironmental planning primarily to give basic orgeneral standards of particular aspects of the urban

scene. The standards are presented to assist inestablishing general concepts or direction and tofurnish a basis for further analysis and developmentin the complex planning process.

Edwards, B. (1997). The modern station: Newapproaches to railway architecture. London: E& FN SPON.

This book is a guide for the design, commission andmanagement of railway stations. It attempts to setout the principles of good station architecture drawingupon recently built stations, others still on the drawingboard, and those that have become classic modelsfrom the past. Although the book focuses on railstations, many aspects of station design presentedare applicable to bus stations, especially thoserelated to site choice, station core and peripheralareas, security and public safety, route and timetableinformation, customer facilities, lighting, and environ-mental standards. The book balances technical andfunctional components with aesthetic aspects throughample drawings and diagrams complemented withconcise text. The text ranges from siting a stationwithin the urban context to the role of the smalleststructural detail.

Giannopoulos, G. A. (1989). Bus planning andoperation in urban areas: A practical guide.Vermont: Gower Publishing Company.

This volume is intended as “an easy-to-use guide” forbus transport planning and operations in urban areas,and examines major areas of bus operation bypresenting main characteristics and current practicesfor such operation. The material is derived from twomain resources: the author’s own field of experienceand an eighteen-month study dealing with the charac-teristics and proposed standards for bus operationsin urban areas in Greece. Special emphasis is givento operations in developing countries where physicaland human resources are limited. The volume

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 63: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

63

Mass Transit Administration. (1988). Access bydesign: Transit’s role in land development. Adeveloper’s manual. Baltimore, MD: MassTransit Administration, Maryland Departmentof Transportation.

This manual is intended to impart a transit perspec-tive to land development. It’s intended audience islocal governments, developers, engineers andplanners. It explains the significance of transit acces-sibility, reviews the goals and standards that theagency uses to make new service decisions, andprovides operations and design standards for specifictransit facilities.

Science Applications International Corporation.(1999). Transit friendly design guidelines. St.Petersburg, FL: Pinellas Suncoast TransitAuthority.

This manual’s objective is to assist the local metro-politan organization and local governments in imple-menting transportation decisions regarding transit,pedestrian, and bicycle mobility and accessibility. Thedesign guidelines in this document intend to providelocal design guidance to better integrate these modesof travel into the built environment. Section 2 providesroadway design standards for bus transit. Section 3offers guidelines for auto, pedestrian, and bicycleaccess to transit stops. Section 4 includes a discus-sion of policies related to better land use and transitintegration. Finally, Section 5 devotes attention toways on how the manual guidelines can be imple-mented with suggestive regulatory language that localjurisdictions can adopt in their comprehensive plans

and land development regulations.

Valley Metro. (1993). Bus stop handbook.Phoenix, AZ: Regional Public TransportationAuthority.

The handbook was designed to respond to nineproblem areas obtained from field observations andsurveys of cities served by the Regional PublicTransportation Authority. They are intended to beused by planners, designers, developers and agencyofficials and citizens. The purpose of the handbook isto promote convenient, comfortable and safe busstops for bus patrons. “It is not intended to providedetailed engineering solutions. Rather, it serves as ageneral guideline or goal for redevelopment. Designsolutions may need to be adjusted to fit site specificconstraints and applicable codes. Abstract from theauthor’s introduciton (p. 2).

Vuchic, V. (1981). Urban public transportation.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall.

This book places a major emphasis on systematicdescription of the basic concepts, terms, andrelationships, illustrated through the use of practicalexamples and applied models. The book is intendedto serve transportation professionals working inacademia, government or the transit industry.

Chapter 1 presents the historical development oftransit and its impact on urban development. Chapter2 offers the definitions and the theory of urbanpassenger transport modes. Chapter 3 covers theoryof traction, characteristics of diesel and electricpropulsion, analyses of vehicle motion, travel times,and energy efficiencies of different modes. Severalchapters present detailed description andanalyses of different transit modes focusingon their technical/ operational complexitiesand their roles in urban transportation. Ofparticular interest for this bibliography isChapter 4 which covers bus and trolleybus

includes chapters on (1) organizational structure, (2)guidelines for service and operation planning pro-cesses, (3) service standards and evaluation pro-cesses, (5) networks and rolling stock specifications,(6) measuring demand and necessity, and (7) market-ing and public information.

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 64: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

64

modes.Yazhari, D. H. (1983). Transit facilities standards

manual: Alameda-Contra Costa TransitDistrict. Oakland, CA: Research and PlanningDepartment, Alameda-Contra Costa TransitDistrict.

The intended users of this manual are “local electedofficials, civic and traffic engineers, city and transpor-tation planners, developers and other citizens con-cerned with good transit services” (p. 1). The manualoffers guidance in the design of facilities rather thantechnical engineering specifications with the expecta-tion that the guidelines will encourage states, coun-ties, cities and developers to include transit relatedfacilities in their projects. The Transit District expectsthat the manual will assist in the incorporation oftransit services in roadway and development plans.Thus, it includes criteria, dimensions, requirementsand drawings with typical layouts for transit vehiclestandards, geometric standards, operational andstructural standards.

Figure 7 - Ottawa Transitway Station.Image from: http://www.cutr.usf.edu/research/nuti/busway/Busway.htm

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 65: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

65

Journal Articles and Reports

Fitzpatrick, K. (2002). Alternative bus stopconfiguration: An analysis of the effects ofbus bulbs. Journal of Public Transportation,5 (1), 19-37.

Bus bulbs are sections of sidewalk that extend from acurb of a parking lane to the edge of a through lane. Amajor advantage of using bus bulbs is the creation ofadditional space at a bus stop for shelters, benches,and other bus patron improvements when the inclu-sion of these amenities would otherwise be limitedwithout the additional space. Several large cities onthe West Coast have begun to explore bus bulbs asone of the many strategies used in developing atransit preferential program. Researchers visited fourtransit agencies that use bus bulbs (San Francisco,Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver) to observe anddocument existing and planned bus bulbs. Before andafter studies were conducted to determine if therewas a change in pedestrian traffic operations after theinstallation of the bus bulbs. The bus bulb design wasclearly an improvement in pedestrian space ascompared to the bus bay design. The averageamount of available space for pedestrians and transitpatrons alike, improved form 19 to 44 square feet perpedestrian after the bulb was constructed. Thereplacement of a bus bay with a bus bulb improvedvehicle and bus speeds on the block. The block withthe far side stop saw a statistically significant in-crease in vehicle travel speed during both non-peakand peak periods. Abstract by the author.

Fitzpatrick, K., & Nowlin, R. L. (1997). Effects ofbus stop design on suburban arterialoperations. Transportation Research Record,1571, 31-41.

When choosing the location and design for a particu-lar bus stop, several alternatives are available. Thesealternatives include nearside, farside, or mid-blocklocations, and curbside or bus bay designs. Several

studies have focused on choosing the optimal loca-tion of a bus stop for given situations; however, fewhave investigated the effects of bus stop design. Theobjective is to use computer simulation to determinehow bus stop design influences traffic operationsaround a bus stop. Bus stop designs analyzedincluded curbside, bus bay, open bus bay, and queuejumper. The results can be used to aid in the selec-tion of a preferred bus stop design for a given loca-tion and traffic volume. The analysis was divided intotwo separate studies: curbside versus bus bay/openbus bay, and queue jumper versus non-queuejumper. The analysis consisted of investigating therelationships between variables such as travel time,speed and traffic volume for given bus stop designsand locations. The bus stop locations investigated inthe curbside-bus bay/open bus bay study includedmid-block and farside. Results indicated that the busbay design provided the greatest benefit at trafficvolumes of approximately 350 vehicles per hour perlane and above; however, notable advantages invehicle speeds were also observed at 250 vehiclesper hour per lane. Results from the queue jumperdesign provided significant benefits at volumes above250 vehicles per hour per lane. Abstract by theauthors.

Martinelli, D. R. (1996). A systematic review ofbusways. Journal of TransportationEngineering, 122 (3), 192-199.

Busways are controlled-access facilities dedicated forbus service separated from general traffic. Theconcept of busways was first given serious consider-ation in the 1960s; however, only a few of them havebeen constructed in North America. This paperexamines the potential of busway transit inproviding urban environments with cost-effective mobility. The review makes thecase that there are some misconceptionsconcerning the cost and level-of-servicecharacteristics of busways. In the final

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 66: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

66

Salek, M.D., & Machemehl, R. B. (1999).Characterizing bus transit passenger waittimes (SWUTC/99/167211-1). Austin, TX:University of Texas.

Mathematical models are developed to predict buspassenger waiting time components. A statisticallysignificant quantity of waiting time data, includingrelated passenger attributes, transit system charac-teristics and bus frequency, were collected by directobservation and video taping. The experimental datawere collected a six-month period at several bustransfer centers and bus stations in the city of Austin,Texas. Measured wait time was decomposed into twocomponents: “wait time before scheduled departuretime” and “wait time after scheduled departure time”.The effects of bus frequency and reliability, as well asother potential predictors on wait time components,were examined by performing Analysis of Variance(ANOVA) and regression. Traditional and conceptualwaiting time models were evaluated using this dataset and compared to the new developed models.Abstract by authors.

Shen, D. L., Elbadrawi, H., Zhao, F., & Ospina, D.(1998). At-grade busway planning guide(NUTI95FIU1.2). Miami, FL: FloridaInternational University. Retrieved Oct. 19,2003, from http://www.cutr.usf.edu/research/nuti/busway/Busway.htm.

At-grade busways can be a major component ofstrategies designed to make better use of existingtransit facilities with relatively low capital expendi-tures. The objective of at-grade busways is to attractauto drivers or other transit users from major trafficcorridors by improving comfort, economy, travel time,and quality of transit services and providing expressservices that collect transit riders from residentialneighborhoods and parking facilities. The mainadvantages of an at-grade busway transit systeminclude flexibility, self-enforcement, incrementaldevelopment, low construction costs, and implemen-

section, a comparison is made between busways andtheir most prominent competitor, light rail. Thecomparison is done in the framework of the four mostcited advantages of light rail, and concludes thatbusways, in most cases, are likely to be a superiormode of transit to light rail. Abstract by the author.

Saka, A. (2001). Model for determining optimumbus stop spacing in urban areas. Journal ofTransportation Engineering, 127 (3), 195-199.

This paper proposes a model that can be used todetermine effectively a sub-optimal policy for bus-stopspacing in urban areas. Transit users are usuallyinterested in minimizing their out-of-vehicle traveltime. Conversely, transit operators are interested inminimizing their fixed operating cost. Often, transitoperators are required to make transit highly acces-sible to their patrons, because they operate understringent budgets. This paper demonstrates, from asensitivity analysis, that proper spacing of stops cansignificantly improve the quality of transit service, anddecrease travel time, headway, and fleet size (i.e.,number of buses). The Highway Capacity Manual,which contains a library of formulas for analyzingvarious transit performance measures, does notadequately address transit-stop spacing as a primaryoperational parameter. It is postulated in this reportthat optimal spacing of bus stops can reduce operat-ing costs by minimizing the required number of busesin service. The proposed model is derived from thefundamental relationships that exist among velocity,uniform acceleration /deceleration, and displacement,and among the average bus operating speed, head-way, required fleet size, and potential system capac-ity. The model can serve as a valuable decisionsupport tool for transit planners in determiningsuitable spacing of bus stops for prevailing networkand traffic conditions. Abstract by the author.

Transit Facility Design Guidelines

Page 67: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

67

tation speed.While it is important that the general public

understands the technical aspects of at-gradebusways, it is even more important that the potentialusers become aware of the enhanced quality ofservices provided by a busway system and its attrac-tiveness in terms of shorter commuting time andminimal environmental impact. This report presents totransportation officials a guideline for planning anddesign consideration for at-grade busway systems.The report reviews planning procedure for selectedbusway systems in North and South America, Eu-rope, and other developing countries. Design issuesto assure a safer operation of at-grade buswaysystems are also presented in this report. Theinformation presented in this report in general and itcan be modified according to the needs of eachtransit agency. Abstract by the authors.

Figure 8 - A median, at-grade busway in Curitiba, BrazilImage from: http://www.cutr.usf.edu/research/nuti/busway/Busway.htm

Transit FacilityD

esign Guidelines

Page 68: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

68

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 69: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

69

2.2: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Because the transportation system of many US citiesis nearing capacity limitations, the National ITSProgram expects intelligent transportation systems(ITS) to play a key role in improving congestion,transit ridership, mitigate the environmental impactsof transportation systems, and help save energy. Thisis a tall order indeed, and the U.S. Department ofTransportation has commissioned many studies tomonitor progress in the adoption and diffusion of ITSand to document the benefits and costs to transitagencies associated with the adoption of thesetechnologies.

Two major publications in the 1990s, TCRPSynthesis 24 by Board (1997) and USDOT-FTA’sAdvanced Public Transportation the State of the ArtUpdate ’98 by Casey et al. (1998) described theextent of adoption of intelligent transportation (ITS)and advanced public transportation (APTS) systemsby transit agencies. These systems have beenincorporated into a variety of applications including(1) fleet management, (2) traveler informationsystems, (3) electronic fare payment, and (4)transportation demand management applications.However, as technological change is rapid andunpredictable, continuous updating and accounting ofAPTS evolution and their adoption by transit agenciesseems to be constantly underway. A number of TCRPreports, TCRP syntheses, U.S.DOT publications, andjournal articles have been produced since 2000.These generally focus on a specific APTS application(e.g., real-time bus arrival information systems,traveler information and way-finding systems, andbus signal priority systems.) and on documenting the

experience of the transit industry regardingdeployment, operational and organizational obstaclesand costs and benefits associated with the specificapplication.

The summary below highlights general aspects ofthe most widely used ITS applications in transitsystems.1

• Fleet Management—for more effectivevehicle and fleet planning, scheduling andoperations.

• Geographical information systems (GIS)applications in special request and specialneeds transportation.

• Automatic vehicle location systems (AVLS)—vehicle tracking systems that use computersand satellite-based global positioningsystems (GPS) technology to measures thereal-time position of each vehicle and to relaythe information to a central location.

• Automatic passenger counters (APC) collectdata on passenger boardings and alightingsby time and location. In the 1990s transitagencies were installing new APCs integratedto AVL systems.

• Transit operations software includea variety of applications such asdispatching and service monitoringintegrated into fleet managementsoftware. These computerprograms are designed to processthe data provided by the APTS and

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 70: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

70 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

some of the most salient applications include:enhancing the effectiveness of operations,dispatching, scheduling, planning, andcustomer services.

• Traffic signal priority treatment (TSP). Thistechnology holds green at anintersection so as to give priority to a buspassing through the intersection. AlthoughTSP treatment has been in use for quitesome time, it has run against trafficengineers’ concerns with the delaying effecton overall traffic. New TSP treatmentcombined with AVL technology gives priorityto only buses running behind schedule andhave met with more acceptance from trafficengineers.

• Traveler Information Systems—provide buspatrons with information before andduring their trip. This information may beprovided through the internet, in transitterminals, wayside stops on buses.Real time information about arrival anddeparture times and delays is typically theinformation more often offered by transitagencies.

• Pre-trip information supports itineraryplanning via the internet, hand-held-devices,and kiosks in terminals.

• In-terminal and wayside transit information forbus patrons already en-route, includes real-time arrival and departure as well as thetraditional static signs.

• In-vehicle transit information, via automatedannunciators and in-vehicle displays, hasbeen provided to disabled passengers and tocomply with the ADA. These systems provideaudible and visual next-stop, majorintersection, and transfer-point information.These innovations have been made possibleby the use of AVL technology.

• Electronic Fare Payment—transit authoritiesare using three types of fare payment media:magnetic stripe cards, credit cards, andsmart cards. Consumers will embrace these technologies as e-commerce becomes moreprevalent. However the lack ofstandardization resulting from the variety inelectronic payment media, still poses anobstacle to regional transit fare coordination.

• Transportation Demand Management—technologies aim to maximize the abilityof transit and road networks toaccommodate increased transportationdemand. This is accomplished through variousmeans as noted below.

• Organized dynamic or real-timeridesharing (in which individuals requesta ride to a ride-matchingorganization, with unsuccessful results)and casual car-pooling (in whichinformal carpooling networks have beenmore successful).

• Automated service coordination utilizesAPTS technologies to coordinate theservice of multiple transportationproviders in a region. Many transitagencies have added this technology toenhance their coordinating efforts .Thanks to this technology small transitagencies have been able to network withother transit providers in the region.

• Transportation managementcenters (TMC) are (often virtual) facilitiesthat function as communication andcontrol centers of transit and trafficoperations. These may includemonitoring of traffic signal prioritysystems. In general most successfulTMCs are found in the same building.

Page 71: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

71

Technology Deployment Level Limiting Factors Comments Technology Deployment Level Limiting Factors Comments

Automatic vehicle location Moderate Deployment Cost, fleet size, servicetype, staff technologicalcompetence

Successful–usecontinues to grow, newsystems principally useGPS technology butusually augmented bydead reckoning

Operations software Widespread Deployment N/A Successful

Fully automated dispatch-ing for demand response

Research &Development*

Still in research anddevelopment stage

Jury is still out

Mobile data terminals Moderate Deployment* Most frequently deployedwith automatic vehiclelocation systems

Successful–reducesradio frequency require-ments

Silent alarm/covertmicrophone

Moderate Deployment* Most frequently deployedwith automatic vehiclelocation systems

Successful–improvessecurity of transitoperations

Surveillance cameras Limited Deployment* Cost Holds promise–enhances on-boardsecurity, deters vandalism

Automated passengercounters

Limited Deployment Cost Holds promise–providesbetter data for operations,scheduling, planning, andrecruiting at lower cost

Pre-trip passengerinformation

Widespread Deployment N/A Successful–improvescustomer satisfaction

En-route and in-vehiclepassenger information

Limited Deployment Cost, lack of evidence ofridership increases

Jury is still out

Vehicle diagnostics Limited Deployment Cost, lack of data onbenefits

Jury is still out

Traffic signal priority Limited Deployment Institutional issues,concerns about impactson traffic flows

Holds promise–reducestransit trip times. Mayreduce required fleet size

Electronic fare payment Limited Deployment Cost Holds promise–increasescustomer convenience

*Quantitative deployment tracking data not available. Deployment level determined by expert judgment

Figure 9 - Advanced Public Transportation Technologies EvaluatedFrom: Casey, R. A. What have we learned about advanced public transportation systems?(Chapter 5) Washington DC : U.S. Department of Transportation

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 72: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

72 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

GENERAL STUDIES OF ITS ADOPTION BYTRANSIT AGENCIES

Blythe, P., Rackliff, T., Holland, R., & Mageean, J.(2000). ITS applications in public transport:Improving the service to the transport systemuser. Journal of Advanced Transportation,34 (3), 325-345.

This paper examines all the disparate technologiesand techniques capable of smoothing the integrationof public transport modes and services at both theurban and interurban scale. The paper focuses on theapplication of information technology and telematicssolutions which have been designed to create asseamless a journey as possible from the point of viewof the transport system user. The scope of the paperis therefore deliberately wide-ranging and includes anexamination of measures as apparently unconnectedas smartcard ticketing, bus priority systems,automatic vehicle locationing, trip planning and on-board information systems as well as new publictransport services offering demand responsive traveland integration with taxi services. The paper intendsto show how such technological solutions can beused to increase the attractiveness andcompetitiveness of fixed public transport networks incomparison to the door-to-door flexibility of the privatecar. Abstract by the authors.

Board, T. R. (1997). AVL systems for bus transit(TCRP Synthesis 24). Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 6, 2003, from http://www.fta.dot.gov/research/pdf/s24.pdf.

This synthesis focuses on AVL [automated vehiclelocation] issues related to the workhorse of the transitfleet, the bus, and examines the range ofimplementations, benefits, and institutional issuesassociated with planning, designing, implementing,operating, and maintaining AVL systems for fixed-route bus transit. Since 1969, more than 20 U.S.

• High occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilitymonitoring.

Perhaps the most useful ITS deployment studiesfor the small transit agency are those reportsgenerally by large transit agencies that synthesizetransit practices such as TCRP syntheses, and thosethat review lessons learned, about APTSimplementation. Table 6 summarizes what has beenlearned about advanced public transportationsystems for twelve technology applications.2 Theseare evaluated according to deployment level, limitingfactors and attained level of success. Of these,operations software and pre-trip passengerinformation technologies have been widely deployed,while surveillance cameras, automated passengercounters, en-route and in-vehicle passengerinformation, traffic signal priority and electronic farepayment have encountered limited adoption for avariety of reasons. Common among these are highcost, absence of clear benefits (e.g., no evidence ofincreased ridership), and institutional issues.

In this section we grouped the annotatedliterature in three general areas: (1) reports andarticles devoted to the assessment of various ITStechnologies adopted by transit agencies; (2) reportsand articles dedicated to the evaluation of travelerinformation systems—including real-time bus arrivaland web-based itinerary planning; and (3) articles andreports on transit accessibility and operationsapplications such as ITS related to pedestrian andADA applications and bus signal priority systems.

Page 73: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

73

transit agencies have implemented AVL systems forfixed-route bus transit, and many more agencies areinvestigating the possibility of bringing in AVL to assistin managing their fleets. Interest in AVL for fixed-routebus transit is not limited by transit agency size orcommunity type, although a majority of respondentsto a survey of transit agencies in the United Statesand Canada conducted for this project operate in anurban environment. . . . As costs for GPS receiversdeclined, GPS has become the most populartechnology for AVL applications. . . .Respondentsindicated that the primary objective for procuring AVLwas to improve customer service. Through increasedservice reliability, improved safety and security, anduse of bus status information, agencies are using AVLto attract new riders, disseminate real-timeinformation to their customers, improve theiroperations, and maximize use of performance datathroughout their organizations. Abstract taken fromauthor’s introduction (p-1-2).

Casey, R. F., Labell, L. N., Carpenter, E. J.,LoVecchio, J. A., Moniz, L., Ow, R. S., et al.(1998). Advanced transportation systems. Thestate of the art, update ‘98. Cambridge, MA:Volpe National Transportation SystemsCenter. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, from http://www.fta.dot.gov/research/pdf/aptssoa98.pdf.

This report describes the extent of adoption of newtechnologies in the public transportation industry. It isthe latest in a series of State-of-the-Art reports, thelast of which was published in January 1996. Itcontains the results of an investigation of the extent ofadoption of advanced technology in the provision ofpublic transportation service in North America. Itfocused on some of the most innovative orcomprehensive implementations, categorized underfour types of services/technologies: FleetManagement, Traveler Information, Electronic FarePayment, and Transportation Demand Management.The objective of this effort was to increase the

industry’s knowledge of successful applications ofadvanced technologies with the expectation that thiswill lead to their widespread adoption. Abstract by theauthors.

Casey, R. F. (2000). What have we learned aboutadvanced public transportation systems?What have we learned about ITS? (pp. 88-105),Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, from http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/EDLBrow/@@101!.pdf.

This paper discusses advanced public transportationsystems (APTS) technologies, assesses the extent oftheir deployment, and judges their degree of success.It covers advanced APTS technologies in use by busand demand-response service operations. Theprimary source of deployment-level information is a1998 survey by the John A. Volpe NationalTransportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) thatencompassed 525 transit agencies operating fixed-route bus and/or demand-response services.

In spite of the lack of quantified benefits, transitagencies that have deployed or will soon deployAPTS technologies have concluded that potentialbenefits of the added functions and services thatthese technologies provide outweigh the capital andoperating expenses. Several transit agencies havestated that a principal reason for installing APTStechnologies is to help them provide better service forcustomers and safer service for both customers andvehicle operators.

Despite measured benefits and other benefitsrealized but not measured, many agencies are notconsidering APTS technologies. Possible reasonsinclude cost (although some lesssophisticated, low-cost APTS systems areavailable), a lack of awareness of benefits,small fleet size, type of service provided,resistance to change, and absence ofpersonnel knowledgeable about APTS.Nevertheless, APTS technologydeployments increased substantially

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 74: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

74 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

between 1995 and 1998. Deployments are expectedto continue to increase faster for those making up themore basic elements of APTS deployments (e.g.,automatic vehicle location, operations software,mobile data terminals, silent alarms, and covertmicrophones). Also, greater use of AVL data isexpected in the areas of real-time serviceadjustments, scheduling changes, route planning,and customer information. Abstract by the author.

Hickman, M., & Jeong, R. (2001). Economicevaluation of transit bus design standards(SWUTC/01/167407-1). College Station, TX:Texas A&M University System. RetrievedOct. 10, 2003, from http://swutc.tamu.edu/Reports/167407-1.pdf.

The research in this report investigates theperceptions of ITS standards for the public transitindustry. The public transit industry has a rathercolorful past in standardization, and this experience isreviewed with an eye toward lessons that might beapplied to transit ITS standards today. Particularexamples of standardization include the PCC carfrom the 1930’s, the Transbus program of the 1970’s,and the subsequent White Book. To complement thishistorical review, a survey of transit agenciesregarding recent transit standards was conducted. Inparticular, transit agency experience with the J1708/J1587 standard for on-board electronics, and with therecent Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines, wasinvestigated. Both the historical review and the surveyresults suggest that there are some primary factorsthat affect whether transit design standards aresuccessful; i.e., whether they improve technicalcompatibility and reduce costs. Based on thesefactors, recommendations for the current transit ITSstandards efforts are suggested. Abstract by theauthors.

Khattak, A. J., Noeimi, H., & Al-Deek, H.M. (1996).A taxonomy for advanced publictransportation systems. Journal of PublicTransportation, 1 (1), 39-64.

This study explores the development and availabilityof APTS (Advanced Public Transportation Systems)technologies. APTS technologies can revitalize transitby directly improving service, increasing transitefficiency and reducing operating costs, as well as byproducing direct benefits for travelers such asreduced travel times, increased safety and security,and reduced stress in dealing with transit unreliability.To understand APTS impacts, this study develops ataxonomy of transit technologies and uses it toexplore the availability of new technologies and theirimpacts. The taxonomy is based on defining thefeatures, functions, and performance characteristicsof transit technologies. Further, the implementation ofnew technologies can be described by their spatial,temporal, and user dimensions, i.e., where, when,and for whom is the technology implemented. Thesedimensions, along with the implementation context,determine the impacts of APTS technologies. Toexplore the availability of APTS technologies,technology suppliers were surveyed. They wereasked about the features, functions, and performanceof transit technologies, their testing and deploymentin transit agencies, and their potential impacts ontravelers and transit operators. The survey resultssuggest a trend toward transfer of data in real-timethrough electronic media and increased automation. Itwas found that about a dozen APTS technologiesqueried in the survey were commercially available forfield testing. From a policy perspective, there is aneed to develop a strategy that considers theindividual and joint testing of two or more APTStechnologies and facilitates synthesis of the resultinginformation. Individually, the benefits of APTStechnologies may be limited, but, collectively, APTStechnologies may have significant benefits. Cases ofjoint APTS technology implementations need to be

Page 75: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

75

updated repository of such information, available onthe Internet at http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/. Thereport presents material from the database thatdescribes the impacts and costs of the intelligenttransportation infrastructure as well as intelligentvehicle applications. Abstract by the authors.

Sussman, J. M. (2000). What have we learnedabout ITS? A synthesis. What have welearned about ITS (pp. 1-20)? Washington DC:U.S. Department of Transportation. RetrievedOct. 21, 2003, from http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/@9w01!.pdf

This study is concerned with what we have learnedabout ITS. But ITS is composed of manytechnologies and applications, some of which aremore successful than others. So, in a disaggregatemanner, this study examines which ITS technologiesand applications have been successful, which havenot, and for which more information is needed tomake a judgment. Of further interest are thecharacteristics that distinguish successful fromunsuccessful applications in the ITS world. If they canbe identified, then we can more effectively plan thefuture of the National ITS Program, building on thatknowledge.

The areas included within the scope of this studyare as follows:• Freeway, Incident, Emergency

Management, and Electronic Toll Collection(ETC)

• Arterial Management• Traveler Information Systems• Advanced Public Transportation Systems• Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO)• Cross-Cutting Technical Issues• Cross-Cutting Institutional Issues.Abstract by the author.

designed, implemented and synthesized. Abstract bythe authors.

Krouk, D. (2002). Don’t stop that bus. Planning,68, 12-17.

GPS technology is increasingly being used forAutomatic Vehicle Location (AVL) in public transit. Itspositional information provides a foundation for awide range of technologies benefiting both transitsystems and the traveling public. This articledescribes some of the exciting applications of GPStechnology in public transit and what it means asmore and more agencies adopt these systems. Wewill look in particular at transit systems in Denver;Portland, Oregon; Chicago; and Rehoboth, Delaware.Abstract by the author.

Maccubbin, R. P., Staples, B. L., & Mercer., M. R.(2003). Intelligent transportation systemsbenefits and costs: 2003 update (FHWA-OP-03-075). Washington DC: Federal HighwaysAdministration, U.S. Department ofTransportation. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, fromhttp://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13772.html

The increasing demand for travel by highway andpublic transit in the United States is causing thetransportation system to reach the limits of its existingcapacity. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) canhelp ease this strain through the application ofmodern information technology and communications.This report is a continuation of a series of reportsproviding a synthesis of the information collected bythe United States Department of Transportation’s ITSJoint Program Office on the impact that ITS projectshave on the operation of the surface transportationnetwork. New in this 2003 report is the inclusion ofcost information for representative ITS deployments;previous reports contained only benefits information.Information in this report is drawn from the ITSBenefits and Unit Costs Database, a regularly

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 76: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

76 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMSElectronic payment systems employvarious communication and electronictechnologies to facilitate commerce

between travelers and transportation agencies, typically forthe purpose of paying tolls and transit fares.

From: Maccubbin et al. (2003). Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs: 2003 Update.http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13772.html

Benefits

Evaluation of the smart card electronic payment system in Ventura,California, indicated potential savings of $9.5 million per year inreduced fare evasion, $5 million in reduced data collection costs, and$990,000 in transfer slip elimination.

Costs

The Ventura County TransportationCommission, in California, imple-mented an electronic fare paymentsystem on its buses. The “Go Ventura”card allows transit riders to use a smartcard for fare payment. The card can beused on buses run by the county’s sixtransit systems.

SystemCosts

Project cost:$1.7 million(2001)

Figure 10

Page 77: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

77

Benefits

Costs

SystemCosts

From: Maccubbin et al. (2003). Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs: 2003 Update. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13772.html

TRANSIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSTransit ITS services include surveillance and communications,(such as automated vehicle location (AVL) systems), computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, and remote vehicle and facility

surveillance cameras, (which enable transit agencies to improve theoperational efficiency), safety, and security of the nation’s publictransportation systems.

The GPS-based AVL system in Denver, Colorado rated very well with RegionalTransportation District (RTD) dispatchers. Operators and dispatchers wereable to communicate more quickly and efficiently. Approximately 80% ofdispatchers found the system “easy” or “very easy” to use, and about 50% ofoperators and street supervisors felt likewise. The system succeeded inimproving bus service by decreasing the number of passenger late arrivals by21%.

The Denver RTD installed the AVL systemon its 1,355-vehicle fleet. Capital costsinclude system software, dispatch centerhardware, in-vehicle hardware, fieldcommunication equipment, initial training,and planning and implementation.

Capital cost:$10.4 million(approx.) AnnualOperations &Maintenance(O&M) cost: $1.9million (approx.)(1997)

Figure 11

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 78: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

78 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

TRAVELER INFORMATION SERVICES

Real-time Bus Arrival

Schweiger, C. L. (2003). Real-time bus arrivalinformation systems: A synthesis of transitpractice (TCRP Synthesis 48). WashingtonDC: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_syn_48.pdf.

This synthesis describes the state of the practice inreal-time bus arrival information systems, includingboth U.S. and international experience. The panel forthis project chose to focus on bus systems, ratherthan all transit modes, and on the following six keyelements of these systems:• Bus system characteristics;• Real-time bus arrival information system characteristics, including information about the underlying technology and dissemination media;• System prediction, accuracy, and reliability;• System costs;• Customer and media reactions; and• Institutional and organizational issues associated with the system.

This report includes a review of the relevantliterature, in addition to the results of a survey thatwas conducted as part of this project. The surveycovered items from the six key elements listedpreviously, including the technical capabilities of thesystems, agency experience, cost, and bus riderreactions to these information systems. Thissynthesis also contains the results of interviews withkey personnel at agencies that have implemented orare in the process of implementing these systems. . . .The survey covered the following mostfundamental elements of deploying a real-time busarrival information system: characteristics of theunderlying AVL system, type of media distributing thereal-time information, how real-time information ispredicted, relative costs of the system, customer and

media reaction to the system, and institutional andorganizational issues associated with the system.Surveys were received from 18 transit agencies fromaround the world, including 9 from the United States.The U.S. responses represented agencies that carrya total of more than 428 million fixed-route buspassengers annually. Abstract by the author.

Strathman, J., Callas, S., Kimpel, T., Dueker, K., &Gerhart, R. (2002). Dynamic bus arrival timeprediction with artificial neural networks.Journal of Transportation Engineering, 128(5), 429-438.

Transit operations are interrupted frequently bystochastic variations in traffic and ridership conditionsthat deteriorate schedule or headway adherence andthus lengthen passenger wait times. Providingpassengers with accurate vehicle arrival informationthrough advanced traveler information systems is vitalto reducing wait time. Two artificial neural networks(ANNs), trained by link-based and stop-based data,are applied to predict transit arrival times. To improveprediction accuracy, both are integrated with anadaptive algorithm to adapt to the prediction error inreal time. The bus arrival times predicted by theANNs are assessed with the microscopic simulationmodel CORSIM, which has been calibrated andvalidated with real-world data collected from routenumber 39 of the New Jersey Transit Corporation.Results show that the enhanced ANNs outperform theones without integration of the adaptive algorithm.Abstract by the authors.

Page 79: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

79

Internet-based Itenerary Planning

Multisystems Inc., & Coogan, M. E. (2003). E-transit: Electronic business strategies forpublic transportation volume 4: Advancedfeatures of transit websites (TCRP Report 84).Washington DC: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Oct. 23, 2003, from http://www4.trb.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf/web/tcrp_report_84v4toc.

The objective of this report was to identify anddocument lessons learned regarding the potential ofincorporating advanced web features into the transitindustry. The focus is on automated itinerary planningsystems, real-time transit information, e-mailnotification, and the application of customerrelationship management concepts to thesesservices. The web features were reviewed in thecontext of customer relationship management. Thereport provides an overview of the implementation,technology, value creation, lessons learned, and bestpractices associated with web-based advancedfeatures. The study findings reveal that an investmentin advanced website features offers the potential toprovide significant benefits to the customer and thetransit industry. Abstract by the authors.

Multisystems Inc. (2003). Strategies for improvedtraveler information (TCRP Report 92).Washington DC: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_92.pdf.

The objective of this research was to identifystrategies for using information technology to improveindividual mobility related decision making. Theproject’s focus was on how public transportationproviders can most effectively provide [travelertransportation information] (TTI), specifically, on howpublic transportation agencies can take maximumadvantage of new and emerging technologiesto better inform travelers about mobility choices. The

research identified traveler information needs,assessed the state of the art in TTI systems, anddeveloped a number of case studies in the area ofimproved traveler information.

To fulfill the primary objective of this research,this report presents a summary of existing practice inthe area of improved traveler information. Examplesare given of how public transportation providers canbecome part of region based and/or community-based information dissemination systems thatinclude-but are not limited to-hand-held, vehicle-mounted, kiosk-based, and web-basedcommunications.The [report] provides information on the following:

• The demand for TTI,• The state of the art in providing TTI,• Examples of providing customer information in

related industries,• TTI as part of community information systems,

and• New directions for transit in providing traveler

information. Abstract by the author.

Smith, B. L. (2000). Using geographic informationsystems and the world wide web forinteractive transit-trip itinerary planning.Journal of Public Transportation,3 (2), 37-50.

Providing high-quality service information is importantin attracting and retaining public transportationpassengers. Currently, information provided tosupport transit-trip itinerary planning is either difficultto use or to access. Furthermore, afterobtaining the information, passengers arerequired to perform a fairly complexsearch process to extract an itinerary. Twotechnologies that are becoming commonlyused in public transportation, GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), and the WorldWide Web (WWW), offer capabilities to

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 80: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

80 Intelligent Trasportation Systems (ITS)

provide an easily accessible, highly functional tool fortrip itinerary planning. This research effortinvestigated the feasibility of integrating theseemerging technologies to produce a transit-tripitinerary planning tool. Abstract by the author.

TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY AND OPERATIONS

Pedestrian and ADA ITS Application

Bentzen, B. L. (1999). Wayfinding system fortransportation services: Remote infraredaudible signage for transit stations, surfacetransit, and intersections. TransportationResearch Record, 1671.

Results show that remote infrared audible signageprovides effective way-finding information for usingtransit stations, surface transit, and intersections,thereby enhancing independent use of public transitby people who have visual impairments or cognitivedisabilities.

Boyce, P., & Derlofske, J. V. (2002). Pedestriancrosswalk safety: Evaluating in-pavement,flashing warning lights. New Jersey:Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. RetrievedOct. 9, 2003, from http://tid1s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu/utrc/CrosswalkSafety.pdf

This study...demonstrates that both crosswalk stripingand flashing lights enhance the noticeability of acrosswalk and both reduce the conflict of pedestriansand vehicles. The difference between the twomethods lies in the mean speed at which vehiclesapproach the crosswalk. The lights reduced thisspeed, but there was no reduction of speed whenapproaching a conventionally striped crosswalk. Thestudy concludes with recommendations for the use ofin-pavement, flashing warning light signals atcrosswalks. Abstract by the authors.

Sarasua, W., Awuah-Baffour, R., Fawley, M.,Byars, C., & Orton, J. (1997). Design anddevelopment of a bus stop inventory tosupport an intelligent transportation system:The MARTA experience. Journal of PublicTransportation, 1 (4), 61-80.

Bus stops are a critical element in any transit system.The advent of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)technologies in the area of transit has developed aneed for transit agencies to keep an up-to-dateinventory of bus stop data. Unfortunately, most transitagencies do not have a bus stop inventory that canadequately support Advanced Public TransportationSystem (APTS) applications, and many other transitagencies do not have an inventory at all. The design,development, and maintenance of a bus stopinventory that will support an array of available APTSapplications is described in this paper. Proceduresused in the development of the Metropolitan AtlantaRapid Transit Authority bus stop inventory arehighlighted. The lessons learned from MARTA’sexperience should be valuable to other transitagencies that are planning to or are in the process ofimplementing an APTS. Abstract by the authors.

Page 81: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

81

Bus Signal Priority

Chada, S., & Newland, R. (2002). Effectiveness ofbus signal priority final report (NCTR-416-04).Tampa, FL: National Center for TransportationResearch, University of South Florida.Retrieved Oct. 9, 2003, from http://131.247.19.1/bus%20signal%20priority/css/bus%20signal%20priority%5F3.htm

Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority (BSP) studyevaluates BSP’s impact on traffic operations. Thegoal was to examine how different situations, such asthe level of congestion, placement of bus stops,presence of express bus service, and number oftransit vehicles on route, require different techniquesof BSP such as real-time or fixed-time based control.Those techniques also utilize a variety of differentcontrol strategies such as phase suppression,synchronization, compensation, and green recall. Inorder to guide transportation agencies in thisdecision-making process, a framework for an idealbus priority system was developed. Based upon thatinformation, the “Pre-Implementation Checklist” wasdesigned. The checklist focuses on the most criticalfactors in BSP and recommends pursuing BSP if anarea has enough characteristics in place to makeBSP effective. A set of “Operational and DesignGuidelines” for BSP were developed to assist anagency in choosing the most appropiate BSP methodthat complements the area characteristics. Toestablish how BSP can be most effective, ten transitprofessionals (planners and engineers) involved ininstalling BSP projects were interviewed. Fiveagencies utilizing BSP around the country werestudied to determine which types of priority are usedin certain conditions and what technology is beingimplemented. Abstract by the authors.

Garrow, M., & Machemehl, R. (1999). Developmentand evaluation of transit signal prioritystrategies. Journal of Public Transportation,2 (2).

Research describing the effectiveness of providingsignal priority to transit vehicles is presented. Resultsfrom previous studies indicate that the effectivenessof transit signal priority depends on a number offactors, including the type of transit route, the transitusage level, and the time of day. This researchdescribes and evaluates several transit signal priorityprovision methods during both peak and off-peaktimes. Results indicate that providing signal priorityduring off-peak times is often justified, due to excesscapacity available within the transportation network.However, during peak times, transit signal priority useis justified only when the transit usage level is high.

Vuchic, V. R., & Stanger, R. M. (2001). Urbantransit at the beginning of the 21st century.Journal of Advanced Transportation, 35 (1).Retrieved Oct.12, 2003, from http://www.advanced-transport.com/Millennium_Vuchic_Stanger.htm

The paper reviews the development of urban publictransit over the 20th century. The trends from the lastdecades are used to forecast the direction of transitand its likely role in the new century.

IntelligentTtransportaionS

ystems (ITS

)

Page 82: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

82

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 83: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

83

2.3: Bus Passenger Facilities

This section offers brief information about busterminal and station facilities that have beenhighlighted in the media or that have been recentlyfeatured in the Internet. Thy are illustrative of the sizeand type of discrete facility projects that generally falloutside the scope of most transit facility designguidelines and for which the literature generallycombines rail and bus station design considerations.The purpose of this selection is to be illustrative and

Bus Transfer Facilities

offers no specific evaluation or endorsement of thequality of design represented by the facilities. In thisrespect, the reader is referred to the publication(included in this section) Neighborhood IntermodalTransfer Facilities by Land and Foreman andpublished by the National Center for Transit Research(CUTR). This study offers a six-case-study evaluationof neighborhood-scale intermodal facilities and theirrequirements for effectiveness.

Page 84: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

84

Henrikson, A. (2002, September 24). Bus servicecreates transfer hub. Topeka Capital Journal.Retrieved Dec. 15, 2003, from http://www.cjonline.com/stories/092402/inv_bustransfer.shtml

The new terminal for the Topeka Metropolitan TransitAuthority is under construction at S.E. 9th andQuincy. With a stone structure and columns, theQuincy Street Station could be seen as just a bustransfer station. But Topeka Metropolitan TransitAuthority General Manager Ron D. Butts sees thenew bus transfer station as a stabilizer for the busservice. The station should open sometime in lateFebruary or early March. Construction on the bustransfer station began Dec. 18, 2002.

Cost of the project is about $3.7 million. Eightypercent of the cost has been covered by a grant fromthe Federal Transit Administration. Topeka Transit,which is a taxing entity, has been able to do the 20

Figure 12 - Frenchgate Interchange, Doncaster, England.Image from: http://www.frenchgateinterchange.co.uk/enhanced/plan.htm

Bus Transfer Facilities

Figure 13 - Quincy Street Station, Topeka, KS.Image from: http://www.cjnetworks.com/~toptrans/

City of Montpelier. (2003). Carr lot redevelopmentproject: Multi-modal transit center andconfluence park. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://www.montpelier-vt.org/wip/carrlot/vision.htm.

The new multi-modal transit center will include manycomforts for the transit user including bicycle storageracks, lockers, visual access to the Winooski river,and protected platform areas. Also included will beoffice space and access to van pools and taxis. Thebuilding design fits with the current style of downtownMontpelier, and half of the building site is reserved forpark space with walking paths, benches, and tables.

City of Sacramento Downtown DevelopmentDepartment. (2001). Preliminary concept.Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://www.racestudio.com/sdepot.html.

The Preliminary Concept for the 37.5 acre IntermodalStation Area balances the community’spreservation, economic development andtransportation objectives. The Concept usesthe historic depot as its centerpiece; provides for along range and phased solution fortransit; and creates a new accessible address thatcomplements downtown. Abstract by the author.

Doncaster City Government. (2003). FrenchgateInterchange Doncaster. Retrieved Oct. 6,2003, from http://www.frenchgateinterchange.co.uk/enhanced/main.htm.

This website includes detailed, computer-generatedwalkthroughs of the development of the FrenchgateInterchange and information on its benefits topassengers, specifically disabled passengers. TheInterchange will be the main bus terminal for the city.

Page 85: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

85

construction or a parade is scheduled, the location ofthe transfers has to change slightly. That can beinconvenient for riders and delay buses, Butts says.Another benefit of the station is that buses will takeup less room in the intersection of S.W. 8th andKansas. The space used for buses along KansasAvenue has been a complaint of downtownmerchants because they take up areas that could beused for parking.

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. (2003).Customer amenities at the Marion TransitCenter. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, fromhttp://www.hartline.org/.

The Marion Transit Center offers many amenities.For transit users, there are trellis-covered walkwaysto the bus bays, garden areas outside of the building,and customer service amenities including informationkiosks and customer service representatives. Thedesign of the building incoporates historicalarchitectural details and displays of public art.

Land, L., & Foreman, C. (2001). Neighborhoodintermodal transfer facilities (NCTR-392-16).Tampa, FL: National Center for TransitResearch. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, fromhttp://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/Intermodal%20Facility.pdf.

This report contains specific examples of intermodaltransfer facilities of various types and scales. Thefacilities were evaluated on how well each wasdeveloped with regard to coordination of modes,physical location, design, and safety. Other factorsthat were considered were service reliability, usersatisfaction, physical attractiveness,community acceptance, and costs. Thefacilities’ attributes are described andadvantages and disadvantages of each arediscussed. The facility types that are relevantto the bus study are:1) Local stops: Margate Terminal in

percent local match primarily from property taxes.Bus stops for Topeka Transit’s routes have beenlocated at several spots around 8th and KansasAvenues. Passengers transferring from one bus toanother sometimes have to walk two blocks betweenbuses. Butts considers the journeys people have tomake from bus to bus unfriendly and unsafe for riders.The transfer facility will put all connecting routes inone place.

Bus transfers currently occur at the intersection ofS.W. 8th and Kansas. If the area is under

Bus Transfer Facilities

Figure 14 - Marion Transit Center, Tampa, FL.Image from: http://www.hartline.org/

Figure 15 - Fisher’s Landing, Clark County, FL.Image from: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/Intermodal%20Facility.pdf

Page 86: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

86

Figure 17 - Staples Street Bus Station, Corpus Christi, TX.Image from: http://www.pps.org/gps/one?public_place_id=113#

Margate, Fl and the Washington ShoresSuperstop in Orlando, FL.

2) Park-and-Ride Facilities: GI Joe Tri-MetPark-and-Ride Facility in Portland, Oregon

3) Transit Centers: Fisher’s Landing in Vancouverand Columbia Station in Wenatchee, Washington.

LYNX. (2003). LYNX central station. RetrievedOct. 6, 2003, from http://golynx.com/whatshappening/central_station.htm.

A new facility being built to function as the DowntownOrlando Bus Station will incorporate manyimprovements from the former building. Included inthe plans are walkways to increase safety forpassengers accessing the bus bays and over 2,400square feet of retatil space for restaurants and shops.The design will also include an increased number ofbus bays to increase on-time departures andeliminate inefficiency.

Project for Public Spaces. (2003). Staples StreetBus Station. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003,from http://www.pps.org/gps/one?public_place_id=113.

Corpus Christi’s Regional Transportation Authority(RTA) found that by making people-friendlyimprovements to such transit centers, it is able toreach beyond the boundaries of building typical busstops to the larger goal of helping to reshapecommunities. The Staples Street station brings morepassengers to the area, thereby encouragingeconomic activity. Inside, it provides enhancedpassenger services, greater comfort, and a sense ofsafety and community among users and staff, as wellas further opportunities for retail development. TheStaples Street Bus Station was well-receivedthroughout the city, and acclaimed around the U.S. asthe embodiment of a groundbreaking approach to thedesign of transit facilities. Abstract by the author.

Bus Transfer Facilities

Figure 16 - LYNX Central Station, Orlando, FL.Image from: http://www.downtownorlando.com/pdf/new_dev/lynx.pdf

Rochester-Genesee Regional TransportationAuthority. (2003). Rochester Central Station.Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://www.rochestercentralstation.com

The Rochester Central Station seeks to provide acomfortable environment for teh transit user byoffering a climate-controlled indoor area that is safe.The building includes retail space, underground busbays, and free direct shuttle service to the airport,Amtrak, and the Fast Ferry.

Page 87: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

87

Rosenberg, E., & Araki, G. (2003). The bus stopshere. Why the bus stop? Retrieved Nov.3, 2003, from http://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/why.htmlhttp://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/index.html.

The authors of this website have worked or arecurrently working for public transit agencies. Thiswebsite features a great variety and number of transitagencies, located primarily in the West Coast, withphotos of their bus stop facilities.

One of the objectives “of this page is to show thevariety of amenities chosen by different districts sothat people can use it as a reference when looking fornew shelters, benches, etc. It is hard to find picturesof what they look like in the field. Most of the salesbrochures show them in perfect condition in ideallighting. We are attempting to show them as theylook after they have been installed. We are also tryingto show how each district chooses to represent itselfto the riders. This will include the type of bench theyuse, what trash cans they choose, the shelters, infosigns, and what their buses look like.”

Saunders, M. (2003). Reading the road signs.Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.pointssouth.net/the_woods/000216.htm.

This journal article published by Points South, of thethe Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, FL describesPinellas Suncoast Transity Authority’s Central Plazanew bus transfer facility and the experience of busriders from the nearby neighborhood of The Woods.For bus riders, the author declares, “bad weather andtraffic jams translate into slow buses and missedtransfers that create a complicated commute.”

Wisconsin Department of TransportationResearch Board. (2003). Milwaukee intermodalstation. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2003, from http://www.pmainc.com/pdf/pma_intermodal.pdf.

The new intermodal station will serve as a “one stop

shop” for all area public transportation needsincluding rail, inter-city bus, public transit, taxi andshuttle vans; and will additionally feature an extensiverange of top national brands of retail products andservices. Interactive ad displays, kiosks and touristinformation on local venues and attractionswill also be incorporated into the facility.Abstract by the author.

Figure 18 - Rochester Central Station, Rochester, NY.Image from: http://www.rochestercentralstation.com/

Figure 19 - Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Central Plaza,St. Petersburg, FL.Image from: http://www.pointssouth.net/the_woods/000216.htm.

Bus Transfer Facilities

Page 88: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

88

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 89: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

89

2.4: Green DesignConsiderations

Environmentally friendly construction, or “green”building and design considerations, aim to conservenatural resources and improve environmental qualitythroughout a building’s life-cycle via the application ofprinciples, techniques and materials.

Many green building techniques and concepts likeenergy and material efficiency, air quality, ecosystemprotection, solar and wind power, and designing withclimate have become part of our common vocabularyand are no longer perceived as experimental. Thus,as the building and design professions and buildingindustry have slowly adopted and applied greenbuilding concepts. Communities across the nation,with the aid of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), the U.S. Green Building Council, and the U.S.Department of Energy, have developed sustainable orgreen building regional action plans aimed at makinggreen building and design a more mainstreampractice.

Transit agencies, which have generally laggedbehind, are just starting to join these efforts. Forinstance, Sustainable Transit Leadership (EPA 2002)notes that although transit construction projectsreceive federal funding, transit officials are often“unaware of existing federal requirements under theResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)section 6002 for the procurement of construction andlandscaping materials used on these projects.”9 Forthis reason, the pilot project featured in SustainableTransit Leadership (EPA 2002) , a joint effort betweena large transit authority in California and the U.S. EPARegion 9, with assistance from the U.S. GreenBuilding Council, is implementing green technologies

and building practices to reduce waste and topromote sustainable building among public transitagencies.

THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL(USGBC) AND LEED

The U.S. Green Building Council (http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp) is a national coalition ofleaders from across the building industry working topromote buildings that are environmentallyresponsible, profitable, and healthy. The council hasdeveloped the Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) Green Building RatingSystem. This is a market-driven rating system fordesigning and constructing environmentally friendlyfacilities. The LEED-NC program for rating new andexisting commercial and institutional buildings waslaunched in 2000 and the council expects to developcriteria for evaluating other project types.

As consumer awareness of green buildingbenefits spreads, the demand for environmentallysensitive design of bus passenger facilities is likely toincrease. Transit agencies contemplating newconstruction or renovation of bus passenger facilitiesshould “[emphasize] state of the art strategies for:

• sustainable site development• water savings• energy efficiency• materials selection, and• indoor environmental quality.” 10

Green D

esignC

onsiderations

Page 90: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

90

LEED 2.1’s check list11 provides a good synopsis ofthe areas and states that a project can score forobtaining different levels of “green” certification.

Solar Powered Bus Shelters and Amenities

Examples of green building techniques applied to buspassenger transit facilities in the U.S. are not as rareas it is generally believed. To date, solar-power andsolar photovoltaic devices (PVs) has been thetechnology receiving the most attention from publictransit agencies. A few large transit authorities suchas Pace in Chicago have bought off-the-shelf solarpowered bus stop lights known as i-Stop,manufactured by Carmanah Technologies of Canada.The equipment “attaches to bus stop poles andincludes built-in solar panels to charge batteries thatpower the lights, which can run for about 200 hourson a 90-minute charge of daylight.” 12 Each devicecosts $1,000 and addresses the concerns of riderspassed by by bus drivers that were unable to seethem. They can now activate a flashing light thatalerts bus drivers to their presence. Other U.S. transitagencies that have adopted this technology arePinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, FL and City ofFlagstaff, AZ. There are a substantial number of solarpowered lighted bus shelters and stops commerciallyavailable (see Commercially Available Solar-PoweredBus Stops and Shelters on next pages)

Figure 20 - i-Stop by Carmanah Technologies, Inc. A fully self-contained, solar-powered transit stop offering TranSignalTM busflagging capability, security lighting and on-demand scheduleillumination.Image from: http://www.carmanah.com/

Green Design Considerations

Page 91: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

91

Some agencies and cities such as SunTran inTucson, AZ have organized design competitions forbus shelters that incorporate green design consider-ations.

Figure 21 - Bus shelter design concept.Image from: http://www.theacaciagroupinc.com/PDFs/bus%20shelter%20c_s.pdf

Solar and Wind Powered Bus Shelters

European public transit authorities and localgovernments have been very active in adopting greendesign ideas and in applying them to bus shelterdesign. Advertising companies have also joined inand partnered with bus shelter manufacturers usinggreen techniques. This is the case of ClearChanneland Adshel, who have developed a new bus shelterthat uses the latest solar and wind technology topower the shelter’s interior light and advertising panel.In addition to the green source of energy andassociated reduced energy costs, other claimedbenefits by the North Lanarkshire Council in the UK—the first place where they are being installed—includemore safety in generally unlit areas and happiercustomers that should hopefully encourage more useof bus transit.13

Figure 22 - The Adshel wind and solar powered bus shelter.Image from: http://www.clearchannel.co.uk/adshel/news/Adshelwindsolarshelternorthlanarkshire/index.cfm?view=print&

Transit Agencies that have Adopted SolarPowered Bus Stops and Shelters

Clear Channel International. (2003). Adshel andNorth Lanarkshire Council launch the UK’sfirst wind and solar powered bus shelter.Retrieved Dec. 5, 2003, from http://www.oaa.org.uk/News%5Cadshel2.pdf.

The new bus shelter uses the latest solar and windtechnology to power the interior courtesy light in theshelter and to illuminate the advertising panelrequiring a power supply of 200 watts. The solarpanel is located on the roof of the shelter while the5m high wind turbine pole is discretely positioned infoliage two metres from the shelter. The wind andsolar technology was developed at Adshel’s Researchand Development Centre in London. Abstract by theauthor.

Green D

esignC

onsiderations

Page 92: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

92

Groark, V. (November 27, 2003). Pace installssolar-powered bus stops. Chicago TribuneOnline Edition. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2003,from http://www.carmanah.com/index.asp?cartNum=32139_21127&a=iv&m=media&s=nov27_03

Pace introduced new solar-powered illuminated busstops at 13 locations. The hi-tech equipment, whichattaches to existing bus stop poles, provides on-demand lighting for the passenger waiting area, and aflashing beacon to notify bus drivers that a rider iswaiting at the stop. Abstract by the author.

Resources and Protection Technology. (n.d.).KMB’s innovative solar powered bus shelter:PV case study in Hong Kong. Retrieved Dec.5, 2003, from http://www.rpt.com.hk/kmb_pve.htm.

To best utilize limited natural resources and protectthe environment, Kowloon Motor Bus has decided toconstruct Hong Kong’s first solar powered busshelter. Apart from providing protection againstultraviolet radiation through a special material on itsroof, the solar powered bus shelter will be equippedwith adjustable Photovoltaic Panels, which willgenerate sufficient electrical power for the shelter’selectronic information system and advertising panels.Abstract by the author.

Solarcentury. (2003). World’s largest solarpowered bus shelter network reaches 100mark. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2003, from http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/news/newsitem.jsp?newsid=347.

The ongoing installation of the world’s largest networkof solar-powered bus shelters, in Plymouth, reacheda key landmark today with the unveiling of the 100thin the network. The installation programme is set toreach completion, with 300 shelters, by end of 2003.Abstract by the author.

Figure 23 - Exterior lighting improves security, enhances safety,and directs pedestrians and vehicles. A wide selection of newlamps, ballasts, fixtures, and controls are available to lightingdesigners to replace traditional inefficient exterior lightingsystems. With any exterior lighting design, it should be a highpriority to avoid light pollution (upward transmission of light) andlight trespass (glare obnoxious to neighbors)—careful luminaireand lamp selection minimize these problems. Photo by WarrenGretz.Image and caption from: http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/searchpix.cgi?getrec=1413141&display_type=verbose&search_reverse=1

Figure 24 - Solar powered bus shelter in Hong Kong.Image from: http://www.rpt.com.hk/kmb_pve.htm.

Green Design Considerations

Page 93: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

93

Figure 26 - At a bus stop in West Palm Beach, Florida, this solar-powered safety light offers riders an illuminated area as they sitin comfort waiting for their transportation. The light is adequatefor reading, and allows drivers to spot riders in areas where theyare often not seen. Solar Outdoor Lighting has installed similarsystems throughout the United States. Photo by Solar OutdoorLighting.Image and caption from: http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/searchpix.cgi?getrec=2727445&display_type=verbose& search_reverse=1

Figure 25 - Photovoltaics provide power to this comfort station atHillsdale Lake, a popular recreation area south of Kansas City,Kansas. This comfort station is a small part of a nationwide effortto design public buildings that reduce consumption of non-renewable energy resources by taking advantage of alternativessuch as solar energy. Photo by Solar Electric Systems of KansasCity.Image and caption from: http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/searchpix.cgi?getrec=2710107&display_type=verbose&search_reverse=1

Page 94: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

94 Green Design Considerations

Commercially Available Solar-Powered BusStops and Shelters

Note: The list of manufacturers of solar-powered busshelters and other amenities is provided below solelyas a source of information. No warranties orendorsement of any of these products is intended oroffered.

National Solar Technologies - EN-R-LIGHTTM

parking lot lighting system.

The EN-R-LIGHT Parking Lot Lighting System wasdesigned to provide free-standing lighting for parkingareas such as commuter parking lots, commercialparking lots and public parking areas. NST’s EN-R-LIGHT Parking Lot Lighting System is the idealchoice for locations where connection to the electricalgrid is difficult, unavailable, unreliable or expensive.Image and information from: http://www.nationalsolaronline.com/lighting/parking_lot.html

OkSolar - Solar bus stop lighting

Each system includes a charge regulator with built-in,adjustable timers. The lighting load attached to thissystem is operated for six hours per night, starting atdusk. Image and information from: http://www.oksolar.com/stl/bus_shelters.htm

Solar Electric Power Company (SEPCO) -Miscellaneous lighting systems for bus shelters(No picture available)

SEPCOTM systems have proven their long-termreliability in nearly all areas of the world; and theirproducts meet or exceed all applicable codes andstandards including utility requirements for perfor-mance, reliability and safety. Information from: http://www.sepconet.com/main.htm

Page 95: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

95

Solar Outdoor Lighting, Inc. - OmniLightTM

The OmniLight™ is a stand-alone, solar-poweredlight designed specifically to enhance bus stop safetyby providing light where electricity is not available orwould be prohibitively expensive. Waiting passengersactivate the light with a simple push of an illuminated,highly visible button. The solar-powered light stays onfor 15 minutes, providing a safe environment for thewaiting bus rider. When light is needed for more than15 minutes, riders can push the button again. TheOmniLight™ is vandal resistant, easy to install andrequires virtually no maintenance. Image andinformation from: http://www.solarlighting.com/htmlsite/busstop.ihtml

Tolar Manufacturing Company - Model 13NALD-WG

This model is a 13 foot, dome roof, non-advertisingbus shelter with decorative wire grid facia at theroofline perimeter. It includes a solar security lightingsystem in the roof. Image and information from: http://www.tolarmfg.com/pro02.htm

Green D

esignC

onsiderations

Page 96: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

96

Notes

1 Schneider, J.B. (1980) Planning and designing atransit center based transit system: Guidelinesand examples from case studies in twenty-twocities. Washington, D.C.: Urban MassTransportation Administration, U.S. Departmentof Transportation.

2 Rabinowitz, H.Z., Beimborn, E.A., Lindquist, P.S.& Opper, D. (1989). Market based transitfacility design (DOT-T-89-12). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, Office ofTechnical Assistance and Safety.

3 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. (1983).Guide for including public transit in land useplanning. Oakland, CA: AC Transit.

4 U.S.Department of Transportation (U.S.D.O.T.)(1991). A guide to metropolitan transportationplanning under ISTEA-—How the pieces fittogether. Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.O.T. RetrievedDec. 18, 2003, from: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/424MTP.html

5 The National Center for Transportation Researchhas started to devote some attention to this issue.See Volinski, J. (2001). Conditions that promotecreativity at transit agencies (NUTI-USF-02).Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

6 Higgins, H & Audirac, I. (2003). Bus passengerfacility design guidelines for small Floridatransit agencies: Needs assessment, TechnicalMemorandum to the Florida Department ofTransportation, Public Transit Office. Tallahassee,FL: Department of Urban and Regional Planning,Florida State University.

7 The summary is drawn from Casey, R.F.,Labell, L.N., Carpenter, E.J. LoVecchio, J.A.

Moniz, L., Ow, R.S., Royal, J.W., & Schwenk,J.C. (1998). Advanced transportation systems.The state of the art, update ’98. Cambridge,MA: Volpe National Transportation SystemsCenter.

8 This table was obtained from Casey, R.A.(2000). What have we learned about advancedpublic transportation systems? What have welearned about advanced public transportationsystems? (pp. 88-105) Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation. Retrieved Dec. 15,2003, from http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/@9w01!.pdf

9 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002). EPAOSWER innovations pilot. Sustainable transitleadership. Washington, D.C.: EPA. RetrievedDec. 01, 2003 from http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/iwg/SustainableTransit.pdf, (p.1).

10 Leadership in energy and environmental design(LEED). Retrieved Dec. 03, 2003: http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp

11 This checklist can be found online at http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/LEED-NC%20checklist-v2.1.xls

12 Groark,Virginia. (2003). Pace installs solar-powered bus stops. Chicago Tribune, On-LineEdition. November, 27, 2003. RetrievedDec. 3, 2003 from http://www.carmanah.com/index.asp?cartNum=32139_21127&a=iv&m=media&s=nov27_03

13 Clear Channel (2003). Adshel launch the UK’s 1stwind and solar powered bus shelter. NewsRelease 04/09/2003. Retrieved Dec. 01,2003 from http://www.clearchannel.co.uk/adshel/news/Adshelwindsolarshelternorthlanarkshire/index.cfm?view=print&

Green Design Considerations

Page 97: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

97

3: Transit-OrientedDevelopment (TOD)

INTRODUCTION

Transit-oriented development is an umbrella term fora variety of urban, suburban and redevelopmentprojects built around or along transit stops. They goby a variety of names such as “transit villages,”transit-friendly” and “transit-focused” development or“transit-supportive development.” These projectsgenerally involve improvements to the walking andbicycling infrastructure connecting development to thetransit stop, a mixing and densification of commercial,office and residential land uses, and provision ofsubstantially amenitized public space (e.g.,landscaping, street furniture, and ample street andstation lighting). Peter Calthorpe and Robert Cerveroare well known for their work in this area (seeannotations in the “Influential Books” section).

Calthorpe, a New Urbanist architect from theWest Coast, is credited for being the originator of theTOD concept and for developing the planningprinciples and detailed physical design guidelinescontained in his book The Next American Metropolis(abstracted in this section).These ideas can also befound in various TOD design guidelines and studiesthat his consulting group, Calthorpe Associates, hasdeveloped for various cities and transit authoritiesacross the nation, including studies for San Diegoand Sacramento, California and for Tri-Met inPortland, Oregon. Robert Cervero, coauthor of TransitVillages in the 21st Century, is another influentialauthor, who has championed the “transit village”version of TOD. Along with Michael Bernick hedefines a transit village as:

A compact, mixed-use community, centeredaround a transit station that, by design, invitesresidents, workers, and shoppers to drive theircars less and ride mass transit more. The transitvillage extends roughly a quarter mile from atransit station, a distance that can be covered in 5minutes by foot. The centerpiece of the transitvillage is the transit station itself and the civic andpublic spaces that surround it. The transit stationis what connects village residents to the rest ofthe region . . . . the surrounding public spaceserves the important function of being acommunity gathering spot, a site for specialevents, and a place for celebration—a modern-day version of the Greek agora.1

This definition is emblematic of the physicallycompact, highly walkable, and intensely civicorientation associated with TOD imagery.Development that deviates from this vision in thesense that it is only physically near a transit stop, butmisses all the other TOD elements (i.e., walkable,dense and mixed-land-uses with civic spaces) hasbeen labeled transit adjacent development (TAD). Alarge portion of the literature devoted to station-arearedevelopment projects outlines the experience andlessons learned regarding the transformation of TADsinto TODs through the application of transit-jointdevelopment (TJD) strategies.

Transit-joint development refers to theset of land-use zoning strategies, real-estate and financial transactions, andpublic-private agreements between transitagencies and the private sector regarding

TOD

Page 98: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

98

development associated with transit stations or othertransit facilities. In its broadest sense, TJD isconsidered to be the mechanism for implementingTOD projects of any type—urban, suburban, newdevelopment or redevelopment. In terms of TJDpublic-private partnership arrangements Cervero andAssociates2 differentiate TJD on the basis of revenue-sharing and cost-sharing arrangements. On therevenue side they include land leases, air rightsdevelopment, station connection-fee programs,concession leases, and benefit assessment districts,which generate revenues for the transit agency. Onthe other hand, cost-sharing TJD—geared toreducing the transit agencies’ share of facilityconstruction, maintenance, or redevelopment costs—include such practices as sharing facility constructionor maintenance expenses and incentive-basedprograms, whereby the developer trades off a greatershare of construction costs for density bonuses or airrights acquisition. Of the two TJD agreements, cost-sharing was found to be the most prevalent form ofTOD implementation in the U.S.3

A very comprehensive study of 19 rail-based TODcases by Porter (1997) entitled Transit FocusedDevelopment (TCRP Synthesis 20) stresses theinstitutional barriers that impede TOD and TJDsuccess. These include lack of cross-jurisdictionalcooperation, particularly between local governmentsand transit agencies, and the priority that auto-oriented development receives even from transitagencies. However, a variety of governmental policiesand actions supporting TOD often coexist at all levelsof government, including state departments oftransportation, regional planning councils andmetropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), localgovernments, and transit agencies. Although statedepartments of transportation rarely have policystatements in support of TOD, there is a great deal ofvariation at the regional and local level concerning thetypes of instruments used to implement TOD andTJD. The most successful TOD and TJD

implementation occurs where strong support for TODat all levels of government results in strong TJDaction frameworks. This has been the case amongpublic agencies in MPOs that had adopted TODpolicies and whose constituent cities and/or counties,where transit is provided, have also adopted policyand enacted regulations in support of station-areadevelopment. Additionally, in these cases transitagencies were also actively involved in implementingJTD and TOD. Some of the most salient activities thattransit agencies undertake include:

• Design Guidelines—TOD design guidelinesincorporating standards and illustrations formeshing development with transit service. In1993 about 38 agencies throughout the UnitedStates and Canada had published or were in theprocess of publishing guidelines for rail and bustransit.

• Joint Development—Adoption of procedural anddesign guidelines for joint development aroundtransit stations. For instance, “those used byMiami’s transit agency indicate[d] the range ofdevelopment opportunities being pursued asfollows:

• long-term lease of air rights above andaround stations;

• private sector dedication of property andothercontributions to construction of transitimprovements;

• integration of stations into planned andexisting developments; and

• creation of direct access links betweenstations and adjoining developments.”4

• Other joint development transit agency activitiesincluded:

• the leveraging of ownership of land used forparking facilities at stations to promoteprivate development opportunities;

TOD

Page 99: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

99

• marketing of agency’s excess properties fortransit-oriented development;

• marketing campaigns for specific stationsites; and

• scouting for development interest in stationsites.

• Educational Activities—organizing of communitymeetings to build support and understanding ofTOD.5

The literature documenting the TOD and TJDexperience in the U.S. has been reviewed by Cerveroet al. (2002) in Transit-Oriented Development andJoint Development in the United States (TCRP-Research Results Digest 52). To date the results ofthis experience remains very mixed with a seeminglyunimpressive record. TOD via TJD implementation inmany cities has remained embryonic or has failed in

TOD

large part due to a variety of reasons including:sluggish real estate markets, lack of public sectorchampions with a stead-fast commitment to stationarea development, and novice knowledge from bothpublic and private partners about TJD complexities.

A few well known TOD examples like the HazardCenter in San Diego’s Mission Valley trolley line,Orenco Station in Portland’s light rail, and the highlyprofitable Metrorail’s Bethesda Metro Center indowntown Bethesda, Maryland have set a trend thathas been difficult to replicate elsewhere. However,some transit agencies in association with veryproactive communities have leveraged developers’funding in hot real estate markets. In these instances,commuter rail TOD station projects and park-and-ridelots conversion into TOD stations has been abettedby Smart Growth policy and redevelopment grants.

Page 100: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

100

BUS-BASED TRANIST-ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENT

It must be pointed out that rail takes the lion’s shareof TOD implementation in the U.S. and that incontrast with other countries, bus-based TOD is stillin its infancy. Cervero et al. (2002) list Denver’s RTD-Transitway Mall, the Santa Ana Transportation Centerin Orange County, California and the Corpus Christi,Texas, Staple Street Transit Center as recentlyimplemented bus-based TODs and San Diego’sUptown District and Charlotte’s BRT corridors as bus-based TODs that are currently on the drawing board.However, it seems that these efforts are primarilyconcentrated on and around downtown central busterminals and that air right leasing has been theprimary source of revenue sharing for TJDagreements. For example, the Ground TransportationCenter in Cedar Rapids, designed as the centralterminal for intercity and city bus service, has strongpedestrian connectivity to nearby office towers andretail, and a new residential apartment building wasadded by leasing the air rights over the terminal.Similarly, the Santa Ana Transportation Center hadoffice buildings erected over the station throughleased air rights, and Tucson’s downtown busterminal TJD consists of public building and a child-care center. As small and medium sized transitagencies continue to promote downtown multimodalbus transfer facilities, it seems that these locationswill be prime sites for bus-based TOD.6

LITERATURE ORGANIZATION

The literature compiled in this chapter is organizedinto four groups. The first consists of nationallyinfluential books on TOD and research studies andreports related to best practices on TOD adoption andimplementation commissioned by nationalorganizations such as the Federal TransitAdministration, the U.S. Department ofTransportation, and the Transportation Research

TOD

Figure 1 - The Charlotte/Mecklenburg, NC area has focusedtransit-oriented-development along five major corridors.Image from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_TOD_rpt.pdf

Board. The second section collects works related toTOD studies and design guidelines carried out bystate and regional agencies. The third section gathersstudies, design guidelines and land use policiesdeveloped by county and city governments and localtransit agencies in support of transit-orienteddevelopment. Lastly, the fourth section is made ofarticles appearing in planning and transportationprofessional and academic journals and magazines.

Page 101: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

101

catalyst for overall neighborhood improvement.“Service-oriented strategies include transit shuttlesand connectors, which link residential neighborhoodswith commuter rail and rapid transit stations andcirculators and trolleys, which enable shoppers,visitors and office workers to move more freely aboutdowntown areas” (p. 36). Six livability themes areused to examine eleven transit-oriented developmentcases located across the nation and each case isprofiled in terms of the planning process, TODstrategy, funding and issues associated withovercoming implementation obstacles.

In terms of bus-based TOD, the implementationexperience is scarce and the number of exemplarycases are relatively small. The literature oftenmentions Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi,Texas which was designed to accommodate futuresmall-scale retail, and the Rondstadt Downtown BusTransit Center in Tucson, Arizona, which has becomea popular twice-a-month stage for a community wide“Downtown Saturday Night” event.

While many of the TCRP publications in thissection provide relatively optimistic assessments ofTOD opportunities and planning processes, somestudies have raised a cautionary note about themarket and real-estate viability of the TODprototype—a compact, mixed-use station areaconsisting of small-scale retail, office andresidential land uses, where pedestrianaccessibility is emphasized withconcomitant reduction in automobileparking. A New Planning Template ForTransit-Oriented Development by Nelson

3.1: TOD PlanningStrategies

NATIONAL STUDIES AND GUIDELINES

As mentioned in the introduction, two influentialbooks, The Next American Metropolis by PeterCalthorpe and Transit Villages in the 21st Century byMichael Bernick and Robert Cervero have had strongsway in the way transportation planners and urbandesigners think of transit-area-station development.The Transit Cooperative Research Program’s reportsand research digests collectively have added to thebody of knowledge regarding transit-orienteddevelopment. Among these, The Role of Transit inCreating Livable Metropolitan Communities, (TCRPReport 22) by the Project for Public Spaces (1997)proclaims a new era for transit. Community groupsare recognizing the importance of transit in enhancingthe livability of downtowns and neighborhoods. At thesame time, public officials view transit as a vehicle foreconomic development and for building a broaderconstituency of support. Although TOD can accruedirect economic benefits to the transit agency, spaceleases and commercial concessions like post offices,stores and cafes, routine among rail serviceproviders, are “often overlooked by the nation’s busoperators who handle most of today’s transit riders”(p. 8).

The report divides TOD approaches into design-oriented and service-oriented strategies. Design-oriented strategies emphasize the bus or transit stopas the centerpiece of the development orredevelopment project. With the proper physicaldesign and economic incentives, bus station areadevelopment can attract a combination of uses likeretail, office, special events, etc., and become the

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 102: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

102

(2001) suggests that the rise in nonwork travel is adirect consequence of technological change andrising incomes which have greatly expanded thescope of business opportunities and consumerchoice. This in turn questions the assumptions thatgiven that TOD residents will be closer to work andnon work activities, TOD will induce more pedestrianand transit trips in lieu of auto trips. According to thisstudy, the success of TOD measured as lessautomobility cannot be taken for granted, particularlywhen transit cannot effectively serve the regionaldistribution of retail and other non work activitieswhich are rapidly changing location and scope. Forthese reasons, some academic research suggeststhat albeit desirable, the neotraditional TOD prototypewill not have a significant impact on personal travelhabits.

TOD Planning Strategies

From a legal perspective, the authors of TCRPLegal Research Digest 12, The Zoning and Real-Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Developmentargue that given their recent history, there has beenno reported litigation associated with TOD and TJD.However, even though “the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed that theuse of traditional neighborhood developmentprinciples is a legitimate use of the police powers” (p.16), mixed-land uses, flexible zoning, and the use ofeminent domain and financial incentives toencourage joint development have been litigated incourt. Hence, policy tools applied to theimplementation of TOD strategies, such as thoseincluded in Table 1, may present potential legalissues that require well crafted comprehensiveplanning policies and careful drafting of new TODordinances in order to avoid court challenges.

Table 1. Techniques Used by Transit Agencies to Encourage TODFrom TCRP Legal Research Digest 22 (2001), p. 43

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn20.pdf

Mixed Use Density Density Density TDR Streets Uses Impact Con- Bonus Increase Transfer Standards Fee currency

Culver CityBroward Co.Mass TransitWashingtonWAMETASnohomish Co.Public Transp.Santa Clara Co.Champaign,Urbana, MassTransitCity Utilities ofSpringfield, MOSacramentoRegional TransitDistrictTri-CountyMetro Transp.King Co. DOTTriangle TransitAuthority

Page 103: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

103

Books

Bernick, M., & Cervero, R. (1997). Transit villagesin the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

This book presents a vision of transit villages ascompact urban communities centered around railtransit stops. Using examples from the San FranciscoBay area, Washington D.C. and other cities, the bookoffers ideas and lessons learned about: (1)integrating issues of land use and transportationplanning with community development andredevelopment; (2) reinvigorating rail transit as aresponse to traffic gridlock, urban sprawl andenvironmental pollution; (3) best practices for creatingpedestrian access to mixed-used communities thatenjoy a sense of place, diversity of housingopportunities, and community safety.

Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next Americanmetropolis. New York: Princeton ArchitecturalPress.

In this book Peter Calthorpe, a leading New Urbanistarchitect and urban designer, sets forth the planningand design principles for building communities thatare more suited to the new realities of post-industrialsociety. The notion of transit-oriented development(TOD) based on public transit is at the center ofCalthorpe’s regional vision which is also partly amanifesto against urban sprawl and conventionalsuburban development. There are three parts to thisbook. The first presents the author’s guidingprinciples and philosophy. The second providesdetailed design guidelines, and the third offers anumber of TOD case studies from various U.S. cities.

Publications by National or RegionalTransportation Centers

American Public Transit Association. (1987).Building better communities.Washington, D.C.: American Public TransitAssociation.

The authors favor integration of land use and transitplanning which requires changes to local ordinances,regulations, building codes and procedures. Theyexplain efficient strategies for developers likesubdivision and activity design strategies, traveldemand strategies, and transportation managementassociations. They also suggest a host of land usestrategies that allow public agencies and developersto integrate the impact of mass transit investmentsand private sector financial participation. They includedesigning policies, working with the investmentcommunity, ordinances and regulations, urban designconsiderations, master planning, developer-furnishedimprovements, adequate public facilities, etc. Thusthey conclude that if the land use planning is transitsupportive then it can bring about an increase intransit ridership.

American Public Transportation Association(APTA). (2003). Transit-oriented developmentresource guide, revised November 8, 2003.Retrieved Nov. 30, from http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/briefing_8.cfm.

This is a printable web-based guide to sourcesrelated to transit oriented development produced byAPTA. In its introduction APTA states that: “transit-oriented development (TOD) is compact, mixed usedevelopment near new or existing publictransportation infrastructure that serveshousing, transportation and neighborhoodgoals. Its pedestrian-oriented designencourages residents and workers to drivetheir cars less and ride mass transit more.Some TOD projects are a significant source

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 104: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

104

of non-farebox revenue for the participating transitagency. This Resource Guide comprises a collectionof internet-based documents that provide backgroundresources and tools on TOD as well as examples ofsuccessful TOD in U.S. urban communities.”

Beimborn, E. (1991). Guidelines for transitsensitive suburban land use design.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation.

Transit agencies have witnessed a decline inridership and have been very unsuccessful incapturing riders in the suburbs. The most significantdeterrent of successful transit operations in suburbsis the land use pattern that exists there. Thisguidebook introduces elements of successful transitand criteria for transit-sensitive suburban land usedesign. It presents a list of transit-oriented andtransit-compatible land uses to be included in an areaserved by transit and which should be locatedelsewhere. It presents guidelines for land usepolicies, access policies and transit policies under twomajor frameworks, namely system planning anddistrict planning. It further outlines administrative andpolicy guidelines for transit agencies and localgovernment. It also presents implementation methodsas well as a case study wherein the guidelines wereapplied to develop a successful transit-orienteddevelopment in an emerging suburban area in theCity of Milwaukee.

Beimborn, E., & Rabinowitz, H. (1991). The newsuburb: Guidelines for transit sensitivesuburban land use design. Center for UrbanTransportation Studies and the School ofArchitecture and Urban Planning, theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. RetrievedOct. 22, 2003, from http://ntl.bts.gov/data/1370.pdf.

This report provides guidelines for the planning anddesign of land use patterns that are sensitive to the

needs of public transit. These guidelines are meant tocreate an efficient environment for future growth insuburban areas, and were prepared from a market-based point of view. Design elements are proposedthat directly address the success of developmentactivities and transit services. The report discussesrequirements for successful transit and providesdesign guidelines for land use, access systems andtransit service types through a range of scales.

Transit-sensitive land use design can bedeveloped through the designation of Transit CorridorDistricts (TCDS) which would separate transit- andauto-oriented land uses. Such areas would have amix of land uses with higher densities located near atransit route. A high quality access system forpedestrians and bicyclists would be provided topermit easy connections between buildings andtransit vehicles. Guidelines are offered for the overalladministrative and policy issues, systems planningconsiderations and specific designs of individualdistricts where transit service is provided. Steps toimplement the guidelines are also included. Abstractby the authors.

Goodwill, J., & Hendricks, S. (2002). Buildingtransit oriented development in establishedcommunities (473-135). Tampa, FL: Center ofUrban Transportation Research, University ofSouth Florida. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2003,from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_TOD_rpt.pdf.

This report provides a synthesis of the steps thatestablished car oriented communities have taken totransform into transit oriented communities. Thereport identifies several approaches, such as the useof transit oriented design, focusing transit orienteddevelopment (TOD) around park-and-ride lots,making changes to land development regulations,parking management, offering developmentincentives, coordinating stakeholders, incorporatingtransit into future development/redevelopment,

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 105: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

105

crafting TOD design guidelines, predesignating transitcorridors, ensuring pedestrian and bicycle access,adapting transit services to the needs of suburbanstyle communities, offering location efficientmortgages and ideas for dealing with communityresistance toward applying transit friendly measuresto car oriented communities. This report presents aliterature review with conclusions, an annotatedbibliography and five case studies of communitiesthat have taken steps to become transit oriented.These communities include Atlanta, Charlotte,Orlando, the Central Puget Sound Region inWashington and Denver. Abstract by the authors.

Morris, M. (1996). Creating transit-supportiveland-use regulations (PAS 468). Chicago:American Planning Association.

This guidebook illustrates how transit supportivepolicies and land use regulations can bring about acompact, pedestrian friendly community that offers awide choice of transportation for its residents andreduces the negative externalities associated with theuse of the automobile. It offers guidelines andadvantages for transit and pedestrian friendly sitedesign like providing continuous, direct andconvenient linkages, improving the pedestrianenvironment, and providing public spaces. Itillustrates the effect of reduction of parking spaces orof limiting parking according to transit patronagevolumes. It also presents the effect of mixed-usedevelopment on the promotion of publictransportation in cities and suburban communities. Itencourages planners and local government to adoptpolicies that increase urban densities that supporttransit. It concludes that if transit supportive policiesand regulations are included in the local governmentplanning process then it can greatly benefit transitagencies and also encourage people to use transit asan alternative to the automobile.

Nelson, R. (2001). A new planning template fortransit-oriented development. San José, CA:Mineta Transportation Institute, San JoséState University. RetrievedOct. 22, 2003,from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/TODHTML/TOD_v2.htm.

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San JoséState University assigned a project team to design aplanning template for transit-oriented development(TOD) that incorporates an understanding of nonworktravel, that is, trips for shopping, eating out, andengaging in recreational and cultural activities.Nonwork trips are growing in significance and nowaccount for four of every five trips. At the same time,TOD has become a popular planning response to theimpacts of metropolitan growth. Some plannersbelieve that TOD will induce more pedestrian andtransit trips and will reduce the average length andfrequency of household auto travel. This effect isassumed to result from improved accessibility toemployment and nonwork venues located in compact,mixed-use centers. Planning professionals in manyMPOs also suggest that if multiple centers are linkedby high quality transit, such as light or heavy rail,access is enabled to the broad range of nonworkactivities.

The project arrived at these essential findings: (1)Venues for nonwork activities are very numerous andgeographically dispersed. (2) The spatial environmentfor nonwork activities is the result of growingprosperity, technical innovation, and a dynamic,competitive marketplace. (3) The consumermarketplace will provide many more places to go thanmass transit can cost-effectively serve. (4) Currentmetropolitan planning methods and modeling toolsfocus on the work trip and do notadequately account for the complexity ofnonwork trips and their linkage to worktrips.

These findings support the need for anew regional planning process tocomplement current methods. One

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 106: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

106

recommended approach is that metropolitancommunities establish a Nonwork TravelImprovement Planning Process using amultidisciplinary expert advisory group interacting witha core, Internet-enabled, professional transportationplanning staff. An iterative interaction across variedbut relevant skill sets could be achieved through aBackcasting Delphi process. The focus of theinteraction would be on understanding theramifications of consumer and retail industry behaviorfor TOD and other new transportation strategies, andthen assessing the available strategies for cost-effectiveness in reducing the impacts of growth andautomobility in a complex and uncertain metropolitanmarket. Abstract by the author.

Reconnecting America. (2003). Retrieved Nov. 30,from http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD/index.htm

This website is produced by Reconnecting America anational transit-oriented development advocacycenter whose mission and programs include:“Removing the barriers that prevent our differenttransportation modes—planes, trains, autos andbuses, as well as walking and bicycling—fromfunctioning as one convenient interconnectednetwork. We will also focus on reinventing theplanning and delivery system for building regions andcommunities around transit and walking rather thansolely around the automobile. Toward this end,Reconnecting America has undertaken threeprograms:

Reconnecting America’s TransportationNetworks, which seeks to integrate our separateaviation, rail and intercity bus systems into anintegrated network in order to improve economicproductivity, enhance consumer choice and value,and improve environmental performance and energyefficiency. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/RATN/index.htm

The Center for Transit-Oriented Development,

which seeks to use transit investments to spur a newwave of development that improves housingaffordability and choice, revitalizes downtowns andurban and suburban neighborhoods, and providesvalue capture and recapture for individuals,communities and transportation agencies. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD/index.htm “

National TCRP Reports

Cervero, R., Ferrell, C., & Murphy, S. (2002).Transit-oriented development and jointdevelopment in the United States: A literaturereview (TCRP Research Results Digest 52).Washington, DC: Federal TransitAdministration. Retrieved Oct. 12, 2003,from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf.

This digest summarizes the literature review of TCRPProject H-27, Transit-Oriented Development: State ofthe Practice and Future Benefits. This digest providesdefinitions of transit-oriented development (TOD) andtransit joint development (TJD), describes the institu-tional issues related to TOD and TJD, and providesexamples of the impacts and benefits of TOD andTJD.

Kuzmyak, J. R., Pratt, R. H., & Douglas, G. B.(2003). Traveler response to transportationsystem changes: Chapter 15—land use andsitedesign (TCRP Report 95). Washington,DC:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 9, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c15.pdf.

Rather than focusing on the impact of transportationdecisions on land use and on the developmentpotential of specific areas, the focus of this report ison the impact that land use decisions have ontransportation outcomes. It examines land use andsite design options as “transportation strategies.” Thereport assesses what is known or “surmised aboutthe relationships between land use/site design and

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 107: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

107

travel behavior . . . [through an examination of]: (1)objectives of land use and site design strategies,summarizing key reasons why planners and decisionmakers view the land use-transportation connectionas important; (2) types of land use and site designstrategies characterizing the types of strategies ofconcern to transportation analysts, and relating themto the elements of land use and site design aroundwhich this chapter is structured; (3) analyticalconsiderations, identifying analytic approaches thathave been used to examine the transportation-landuse link, and offering guidance as to their reliability;and (4) traveler response summary, providing acondensation of key travel behavior findings. In thisstudy, transit-oriented development (TOD) is oneamong eight land use and site design strategies. Itapplies the TOD designation to “growth focused orintensified in the immediate vicinity of a transit route,station or other service node,” and differentiates itfrom traditional neighborhood and pedestrian friendlydevelopment strategies in that the latter, unlike theformer, does not necessarily require high densities.(p. 15-1). The chapter also presents case studiesillustrating these strategies and the assessment oftraveler response associated with them.

Porter, D. (1997). Transit-focused development(TCRP Synthesis 20). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 12, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn20.pdf.

This synthesis describes planning andimplementation processes leading to development atand near transit stations. It is based on a summary ofresearch and on nineteen agency profiles which arefound in Appendix A. Much of the research is basedon rail stations, but the policies and planning toolscould be applied to bus and multi-modal stations aswell. (See table 3 pp. 14-19.) Aspects covered in thissynthesis include: 1) the extent and character ofdevelopment around rail transit stations, with some

examples of similar developments at bus transferstations or other multi-modal centers; 2) the benefitsof transit-focused development, potential obstacles toovercome and recommended procedures forachieving them; 3) policies and planning toolsadopted by transit agencies, MPOs and localgovernments to encourage transit focuseddevelopment are identified and evaluated; and 4)findings and conclusions concerning the conditionsconducive to transit focused development and thetools that public agencies can use to encourage it.

Project for Public Spaces. (1997). The role oftransit in creating livable metropolitancommunities (TCRP Report 22). Washington,D.C.: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Oct. 7, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_22-a.pdf.

This report combines guidelines and case studies toprovide a comprehensive approach for improvingcommunity livability and transit ridership in the UnitedStates. It is directed toward a broad range ofindividuals and groups in the public and privatesectors associated with community, business, andcivic organizations, including public transportationproviders, local and metropolitan governments,community groups, and private businesses. Thereport’s twelve chapters are divided into three majorparts. Part I, Overview and Context, defines theconcept of livability and the impact of transportationon livability. It also describes federal support fortransit and livable community initiatives, the place-making approach to livability, and transportationstrategies that impact livability. Part II, Roles ofTransit in Creating Livable Communities,contains Chapters 3 through 9, whichdocument and present diverse examples ofhow public transportation supports andenhances community livability. Theexamples which briefly summarize theexperience of the individual communities

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 108: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

108

and the more lengthy case studies are organized bythe following topics: creating places for communitylife; using transit as a catalyst for downtown andneighborhood renewal; creating opportunities forentrepreneurship and local economic development;improving safety and amenity; making communitiesaccessible and convenient; and shaping communitygrowth. Part III, Implementation, contains Chapters10 through 12, which provide a guide toimplementation. These chapters describe theimportance of community-based process for creatinglivable communities, then describe specific planning,design, and management strategies for livableplaces.

Project for Public Spaces. (1998). Transit-friendlystreets: Design and traffic managementstrategies to support livable communities(TCRP Report 33). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_33.pdf.

This report will be of interest to individuals seeking toimprove the livability of their communities and tothose concerned with the role that local streets andpublic transportation can play in pursuing this goal.The report presents 10 strategies used in both theUnited States and Europe to create transit-friendlystreets. The strategies are followed by case studies offive communities that have pursued differentinitiatives to improve their livability by making theirstreets more transit-friendly. The report culminateswith lessons learned from the case studies. Thereport is very practical and will be useful to transitprofessionals, transportation planners, engineers, cityofficials, and local communities.

TOD Planning Strategies

White, M. (1999). The zoning and real estateimplications of transit oriented development(TCRP LRD 12). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedOct. 18, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_12.pdf.

Local government officials, including attorneys,planners, and urban design professionals, areseeking new approaches to land use anddevelopment that will address environmental impactsof increased automobile traffic and loss of openspace around cities and towns, and that will alleviatefinancial pressures on governments and theirconstituents. Among these approaches is the urbandesign concept of transit oriented development, whichemphasizes that where transit facilities are in place,or planned to be put in place, there should be a mix ofcommercial, retail, residential, and civic uses withinclose proximity to the facilities designed for the bestpossible interface. The highest density would beclosest to these fixed gateways or other transitfacilities. This research produced information on legaland other issues associated with transit-orienteddevelopment. The report should be useful to transitand development attorneys, financial officials,planners, development officials, and anyoneinterested in transit-oriented development.

Page 109: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

109

STATE AND REGIONAL STUDIES ANDGUIDELINES

This selection of studies and guidelinesencompasses several states: Oregon, California,Florida, and Washington State. Not surprisingly, TODstudies in California out number all other states.Among the various TOD studies commissioned by theCalifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans),the Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study:Factors for Success in California by ParsonsBrinkerhoff (2002), provides the most comprehensivestate-wide analysis of the state of the art TODpractice in California and the U.S. In terms of bus-based TOD, the experience in California as well as inthe rest of the country is somewhat mixed. With theaforementioned exceptions of successful bus-basedTOD in San Diego, Corpus Christi, and Tucson, bus-based TOD is more difficult to build because bus hasseveral disadvantages when compared to rail,particularly in terms of attracting real estateinvestment. For instance, factors that favor rail overbus include the more permanent nature of rail; thehigher status that rail has as a travel mode for choiceriders; the different transit markets that each oneserves (i.e., rail serving the more affluent downtown-suburban markets); and the larger number of stopsthat are typically found along bus transit corridors(see Table 2).

The conventional wisdom related to bus-basedTOD is that in order to capitalize on its costadvantages it should be built around bus rapid transit(BRT) service. Los Angeles MetropolitanTransportation Authority (LA MTA) has a successfulBRT demonstration project with state-of-the-art buspriority signal, low-floor buses, and intelligent travelerinformation signals. Bus-based TODs in Californiawhich are not served by BRT include a variety ofexamples with varying levels of inter-agencycoordination. For instance, at the lowest level ofcoordination, there is a sheltered bus stop in West

Davis’ Aspen Neighborhood that was not originallyconceived as a suburban TOD by the transit agencyYoloBus, but that evolved into one serving the localuniversity residential market. In contrast, at thehighest level of inter-agency coordination we find theNoHo bus-based TOD in the North Hollywood ArtsDistrict. This project was the result of a communitypartnership with the Los Angeles NeighborhoodInitiative (LANI), the L.A. Community RedevelopmentAgency (CRA) and the L.A. Metropolitan TransitAuthority (LA MTA), “which has promoted economicdevelopment, increased pedestrian activity, andimproved the general attractiveness of the area.”7

Similarly, a well known example of city-initiated TODand TJD is San Diego’s Uptown District bus-basedTOD located in the site of a former Sears storenested within a 14-acre mixed-use development. Theredevelopment project, spearheaded by the city, wascompleted in 1989 with an average density of 43 unitsper net acre and 145,000 square feet of retail andcommercial space. The Uptown project has beenshowcased as a “good example of how toaccommodate the needs of the automobile andcreate a well designed, pedestrian-friendly mixed usetransit-oriented development,”8 since the developerchose to provide more parking than thatrecommended by the city, and the project does notprovide parking for transit patrons. Nonetheless,transit ridership, which was substantial before theTOD project, increased significantly after the project’scompletion.

According to the Caltrans’ report and otherstudies in this literature review, where localgovernments or transit agencies have been reluctantpartners TOD initiatives have failed; butwhen cities and transit agencies have jointlyembraced the idea and worked togetherimplementing it, TOD has flourished.

Other studies and guidelines in thiscollection include Caltrans’ TOD searchable

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 110: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

110

Table 2. Examples of Bus-Based TOD ImplementationAdapted from: Parsons Brinckerhoff (2002). Statewide transit oriented development study:

Factors for success in California. Chapters 4 and 5http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/TO D%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20Section%202.pdf

Uptown District, San DiegoDeveloper: Oliver McMillan / Oldmark & ThelanJurisdiction: City of San DiegoTransit Agency: Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)Transit Service: 5 bus routes, 15-minute frequency

Aspen Neighborhood, West DavisDeveloper: West Davis AssociatesJurisdiction: City of DavisTransit Agencies: Unitrans, Yolo County Transit AuthorityTransit Service: 5 bus routes, 5 to 25-minute frequency

‘NoHo’ (North Hollywood) Arts District, Los AngelesDeveloper: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI) North Hollywood Community ForumJurisdiction: Los AngelesUrban Renewal Agency: L.A. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)Transit Agency: L.A. County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)Transit Service: 4 bus lines, 20- to 40-minute frequency

database and the Mineta Transportation Institute’s(2001) website containing the EnvisioningNeighborhoods with Transit Oriented DevelopmentPotential. This study offers transit planners,developers, and designers tools for the analysis ofthe area surrounding transit stops within pedestrian,bicycle and automobile catchment areas. It alsoprovides detailed examples that apply the envisioningtools to several rail TOD station areas in the SanFrancisco Bay Area.

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 111: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

111

Figure 3 - A pedestrian arcade connects a bus stop on UniversityAvenue to the core of the neighborhood (San Diego, CA).Image from: Parsons Brinckerhoff and the CA Deptartment ofTransportation.

Figure 4 - Metro Rapid Bus demonstration project in Los Angeles.Image from: Los Angeles MTA.

Figure 5 - The NoHo (North Hollywood) bus TOD has promotedeconomic development, increased pedestrian activity, andimproved the general attractiveness of the area.Image from: Parsons Brinckerhoff and the CA Deptartment ofTransportation.

Figure 2 - Bus stops serve students & commuters in the AspenNeighborhood of West Davis, CA.Image from: CA Department of Transportation.

Page 112: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

112 TOD Planning Strategies

Can increase ridership Can increase ridership

More efficient service provision More efficient service provision

More ubiquitous and flexible than rail Fixed and more expensive than bus

Lack of fixity increases investment Permanent stops provide lessattraction risks for investment

Larger number of bus stops along a Fewer bus stops along a transittransit corridor corridor

Stigmatized as second-rate More culturally accepted than bustransportation

Low-income riders Higher income and choice riders

Urban service market Urban & suburban service markets

Less influential constituencies More influential constituencies

Construction process provides Construction process provides morefewer opportunities for opportunities for joint developmentjoint development

Requires more leadership than rail Requires less leadership than bus

Few successful examples Proven track record

Table 3. Bus and Rail TODAdapted from: Parsons Brinkerhoff. (2002).

Statewide Transit-Oriented Development: Factors for Success in California.http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/

TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20Section%202.pdf

Rail TODBus TOD

Page 113: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

113

1000 Friends of Oregon. (1997). Making theconnections–a summary of the LUTRAQproject, volume 7. Portland, OR: 1000 Friendsof Oregon. Retrieved Oct. 22, 2003, fromhttp://www.friends.org/resources/lut_vol7.html.

The report presents illustrations of high prices ofsuburban sprawl with a case study of Portland, andexplains how the LUTRAQ alternative can overcomeall the problems and lead to efficient transit service. Itexplains in detail the LUTRAQ alternative, whichfocuses on three general types of transit-orienteddevelopment: mixed-use centers, urban TODs andneighborhood TODs. It explains the transportation linkestablished between the different modes oftransportation thus offering a wide modal choice tocitizens. It recommends design guidelines and zoningregulations to the local government to encourage, orat least make possible, transit-oriented development.Then it provides a comparison of the LUTRAQalternative with other traditional approaches toaddressing transportation needs. Finally it presentscase studies from different states that have adoptedother transportation alternatives, pricing road use,new forms of land development, regional planning,and grassroots involvement. It concludes with theadvantages offered by transit supportive LUTRAQalternative.

Bossard, E. G. (2002). Envisioning neighborhoodswith transit-oriented development potential(FHWA/CA/OR-2001-25). San Jose, CA:Norman Y. Mineta International Institute forSurface Transportation Policy Studies, SanJose State University. Retrieved Oct. 5,2003, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/envisioning/Envisioning.pdf.

The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San JoséState University conducted this study to review theissues and implications involved when seeking toEnvision Neighborhoods with Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD) Potential. The Envisioning

Neighborhoods with Transit Oriented Development(TOD) Potential project seeks to introduce planners,developers, and urban analysts to information designtechniques and digital computer tools that can beused to undertake and study TOD. A basic premise isthat effective TOD requires thoughtful planning to besuccessfully integrated into the metropolitan fabric.The primary focus of this project is intra-regionalcomparisons, focusing on information pertaining tothe relative desirability of places within a region.Context matters, so data is best understood in acomparative context. Small multiple replicate maps,charts, and digital images can be used to understandmany aspects of places with TOD potential. Placecomparisons can be made across space, time, andscale. The study focus is on understanding theneighborhoods surrounding transit centers and theircontext in terms of the character of areas withinwalking distance (< 1/2 mile), bicycling distance (< 2miles) and five-mile driving or transit distance. Theseranges of analysis include the areas where residentsof possible TODs might work, shop, or prefer to go forservices. This project includes a comprehensive casestudy application envisioning the Hayward BARTStation area. Other case studies cover the FruitvaleBART in Oakland, Redwood City and Mountain ViewCalTrain, Campbell LRT site, and Sacramento’s 65thSt. Station areas. Abstract by the author.

CALTRANS. (2003). California transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) searchable database.Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003, fromhttp://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/miscellaneous/NewHome.jsp.

California’s urban and commuter rail systems havetremendous potential to develop transit-oriented land use around their urban andsuburban rail stations. This web-baseddatabase provides convenient access to thebody of literature regarding TOD experiencethroughout California, and incorporates

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 114: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

114

analytical tools that enable a user to search the dataand perform analysis. Abstract by the author.

Ewing, R. (1996). Best development practices:Doing the right thing and making money atthe same time. Tallahassee, FL: FloridaDepartment of Community Affairs.

Florida is expected to grow by five million people overthe next 20 years. Without changes in developmentpolicy and practice, this growth will take the form ofurban sprawl, sprawl being Florida’s now-dominantdevelopment pattern. The economic and social costswill be enormous. In Best Development Practices, wedefine good community development, as distinct fromsprawl, in operational terms. Our recommendationscover four aspects of development–land use,transportation, environment, and housing. Theemphasis is on the physical environment. Abstract bythe author.

Lefaver, S. (2001). Construction of transit-baseddevelopment (FHWA/CA/OR-2001/2002). SanJose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute,San Jose State University. Retrieved Oct.8, 2003, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/ConstructionTBD.htmhttp://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/ConstructionTBD.pdf.

From this study, new policy initiatives for local, state,and national governments are recommended in orderto encourage transit-based development. Therecommendations include potential actions in landuse, legislation, and fiscal powers. Six cities (five inCalifornia and one in Oregon) are examined as casestudies. Each city has taken a different approach totransit-based development. Existing incentives fortransit-based development, their success, andpossible improvements were reviewed. The results tofurther encourage transit-based developmentincluded such recommendations as: adopting localland use policies and implementing them; using tax

credit and tax-exempt private development toencourage affordable housing within transit-baseddevelopment; and expanding legislation, such as theTransportation Enhancement Fund to encouragetransit-based development.

Mineta Transportation Institute. (2001).Envisioning neighborhoods with transitoriented development (TOD) potential. SanJose, CA: San Jose State University, MinetaTransportation Institute. Retrieved Oct. 26,2003, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/envisioning2/MTI2001_Etodp_website/.

This is an interactive website that presents theEnvisioning Neighborhoods with Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD) Potential Project, which “seeksto introduce planners, developers, and urban analyststo information design techniques and digital computertools which can be used to undertake and study TOD”(see also Bossard 2002 in this selection). Thewebsite offers case studies of six San Francisco BayArea rail station areas and links to TOD-relatedsources in the Internet. However, at the time of thewriting of this review, the site seemed to be still underconstruction and only partially implemented.

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 115: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

115

Parsons Brinkerhoff. (2002). Statewide transitoriented development study: Factors forsuccess in California. Sacramento, CA:Caltrans. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2003, fromhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/HQ/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20cover%20and%20TOC.%2002.pdfhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20Section%202.pdfhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Statewide%20TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20Sept.%2002.pdfhttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-%20Section%204%20and%20Endnotes.pdf.

This study has taken a comprehensive look at thestate of the art practice of transit orienteddevelopment in California and the United States. This14-month study began in September 2000 and wascompleted by early 2002. The major objectives of thisstudy were to: Define transit-oriented developmentand its successful components; describe the potentialbenefits of TOD; examine the status ofimplementation of TOD in the U.S. and California;identify the major barriers and impediments to thewider implementation of TOD; identify what is workingwell, as well as the need fro additional resources toovercome barriers; and finally, develop a set ofpotential strategies and activities that the state ofCalifornia may implement to facilitate the broaderimplementation of TOD in this state. Abstract by theauthor.

Puget Sound Regional Council. (1999). Creatingtransit station communities in the CentralPuget Sound region. Seattle, WA: PugetSound Regional Council. Retrieved Oct.8, 2003, from http://www.psrc.org/projects/tod/workbook.htm.

At its core, a transit station community is a compact,mixed use activity area centered around a transitstation that by design encourages residents, workers,and shoppers to drive their cars less and ride masstransit more. The centerpiece of a transit communityis the transit station—connecting the residents andworkers to the rest of the region—and the civic andpublic spaces that surround it. The design,configuration, and mix of buildings and activitiesemphasize pedestrian-oriented environments andencourage the use of public transportation. The landuses within a transit station community are linked withconvenient pedestrian walkways, and parking ismanaged to discourage dependence on theautomobile. Creating Transit Station Communities canhelp transit agencies achieve transit-oriented landuse development. The workbook focuses on the rolethat high capacity transit stations can play instimulating and supporting local land use changes.The overall purpose for promoting transit-orientedland use development at transit stations is to increaseregion wide transit use and support local growthmanagement objectives. Abstract by the author.

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 116: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

116

COUNTY, CITY, AND TRANSIT AGENCYSTUDIES AND GUIDELINES

TOD experience across the nation varies a great dealin terms of location, size and type, challenges,strategies and rates of success. However, onecommon trait of the success stories profiled in theliterature is that the leader agency (either the localgovernment or the transit agency or both) producedand adopted TOD guidance systems and policies thatserved as action frameworks or roadmaps for TODimplementation. Depending on the specific localgovernment and transit agency’s urban or suburbancontext, these guidelines serve to direct a variety ofTOD undertakings that can range from an urban infillor redevelopment project to a brownfieldredevelopment or suburban greenfield developmentinitiative, as well as from the very specific re-adaptiveconversion of park-and-ride lots into TODs to themore broadly speaking conversion of TAD (transitadjacent development) to TOD.

This section contains two types of works: landuse studies and TOD-related policy analyses andTOD land-guidance systems. Documents in the lattergroup take the form of standards and criteria intendedto assist communities and transit agencies in workingwith the development industry. The first group ofpublications includes TOD studies such as thosecommissioned by the Akron Metropolitan AreaTransportation District, the City of Forth Worth, TX,and the Forth Worth Transportation Authority, as wellas the City of Houston, TX. The second groupconsists of “how to” handbooks and manuals withspecific recommendations on how to implement JTDand how to apply urban design principles to station-area development. The Snohomish CountyTransportation Authority’s (1993) A Guide to LandUse and Public Transportation and San Diego’sTransit Oriented-Development Design Guidelines byCalthorpe Associates (1992) are now classicreference pieces repeatedly reproduced and

emulated in local governments and transit agencies’TOD design guidelines and handbooks.

Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study.(2001). Transportation access todevelopment: A guide for local officials anddevelopers. Akron, OH: Akron MetropolitanArea Transportation Study. Retrieved Oct.8, 2003, from http://ci.akron.oh.us/AMATS/whatsnew/forms/DevelopmentGuide-WebVersion.pdf.

A great deal of new commercial, residential, andindustrial development has occurred inthe AMATS area in recent years. From atransportation planning standpoint, there aretwo common problems associated with newdevelopments:1) Many are planned in a manner that does not take

other modes of transportation into account. As aresult, nearly all trips destined for thedevelopment are forced to use the automobile.

2) Many are designed in such a way that traffic flowon the adjoining arterial roadway is severelyimpeded.The purpose of this Guide is to address these

problems by reporting on strategies that encouragedevelopment patterns that are more pedestrian,bicycle, and transit-friendly, and that maintain trafficflow on adjoining roadways through accessmanagement techniques. Abstract by the author.

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. (1983).Guide for including public transit in land useplanning. Oakland, CA: AC Transit.

This land use planning guide describes policies andapproaches to integrate land use and public transit inorder to bring about an increase in ridership. It liststhe policies adopted by AC Transit to encouragegreater use of the scarce public resource, namelypublic transit. It illustrates how to bring aboutdevelopment or redevelopment, that encourages

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 117: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

117

public transit use and is supportive of public transitand explains major considerations for transit planninglike population densities, traffic generators andparking policies. It also illustrates locationconsiderations for transit facilities that include transitorientation, transit corridors, and reverse commutetrips. Factors to be considered while developing thedesign are street design and circulation, pedestrianaccess to public transit, and bus stops. It concludesthat proper integration of transit and land useplanning can bring about an increase in ridership.

Calthorpe Associates. (1992). Transit-orienteddevelopment design guidelines. San Diego:City of San Diego. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2003,from http://www.sandiego.gov/cityofvillages/pdf/todguide.pdf.

The aim of the Land Guidance Section of City of SanDiego’s Mobility Program is to reduce transportationdemand through new and revised land developmentpolicies. This report intends to create an awarenessof transit-oriented land development practices. Itexplains the applicability of transit-orienteddevelopment on redevelopable and urbanizing sites,new growth areas, core commercial areas, residentialareas, secondary areas and open spaces. It offersdesign solutions that support transit by way of streetdesign and circulation, transit stops and parkingrequirements.

Carter & Burgess. (2001). Fort Worth transitalternatives analysis: Transit supportive landuse policies. Fort Worth, TX: The City of FortWorth and The Fort Worth TransportationAuthority. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2003,from http://www.fwtaa.org/PDF/report_r06.pdf.

As the ability to try to address congestion throughcontinued expansion of roadways has becomeconstrained by funding limitations, lack of right-of-way, federal mandates and growing opposition from

citizens’ groups, new policy approaches have beenconsidered, and in some case actually implemented.These policy approaches include:• Improving the quantity of and quality of

infrastructure that serves pedestrians, bicyclistsand high occupancy vehicles

• Increasing the price of auto travel relative to othermodes of travel

• Regulating more directly the design of newdevelopment

• Restricting the spread of urban expansion• Encouraging or requiring suburban development

at higher densities• Creating nodes of new high intensity

development.The City of Fort Worth’s 2000 Comprehensive

Plan and recently adopted Mixed Use zoningaddress, to some degree, five of the six policy typeslisted above. The purpose of this report is to presentan overview of land use and transportation policies,present examples where such policies have beenimplemented and identify additional policies that couldbe implemented by the City of Fort Worth to meetgoals and objectives presented in the 2000Comprehensive Plan. Abstract taken from author’sintroduction (p.1).

Center for Urban Transportation Research. (1994).Land development and subdivisionregulations that support access managementfor Florida cities and counties. RetrievedOct. 14, 2003, from http://www.cutr.usf.edu/research/access_m/pdf/Land_Regs.pdf.

This report presents strategies for local accessmanagement programs framed under localcomprehensive and subarea plans. Itdiscusses access management approachesthat address issues related to the divisionand subdivision of land associated withcommercial development alongthoroughfares, flag lots, residential strips,

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 118: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

118

etc. It presents model land development andsubdivision regulations that cities and counties canuse with transportation departments to: foster welldesigned circulation systems that improve the safetyand character of commercial corridors; discouragesubdivision practices that destroy the rural characterof the landscape or essential natural resources;advance economic development goals by promotingmore efficient use of land and transportation systems;and help control public service costs and thesubstantial public investment in infrastructure andservices. Abstract taken from author’s introduction(p. 1-10).

Denver Regional Transportation District. (1996).Creating livable communities: A transitfriendly approach. Denver, CO:Regional Transportation District.

The purpose of this document is to provide a processwith guidelines, standards and criteria, forcommunities who wish to encourage transit-orienteddevelopment in their jurisdiction. The manual consistsof five chapters. Chapter 1 provides background ontransit-oriented development, dicusses the benefits ofTOD and explains role of government in achievingTOD. Chapter 2 addresses provision of transit in theDenver region and the types of transit planning areasin the region. Chapter 3 describes a process andidentifies policies, strategies and regulatory tools thatcan be utilized to accomplish TOD. Chapter 4provides guidelines for transit-oriented development.Chapter 5 discusses ways in which each localcommunity, working with RTD and the developmentindustry, can begin implementing these strategies andtechniques.

Goodwin, R. E. (1997). Land value assessmentnear bus transit facilities: A case study ofselected transit centers in Houston, Texas(SWUTC/98/721924-1). Houston, TX: TexasSouthern University. Retrieved Oct. 17,2003, from http://utc.dot.gov/cgi-bin/displayDocument.cgi?doc_group_id=1.

This is a study designed to measure the potentialimpacts of transportation facilities upon land values ofcontiguous properties compared to non-contiguousproperties, within a quarter-mile “zone of influence”.A survey was designed and randomly administered toresidents within each stated zone of influence, andprovided information about the neighborhood andland values. The results of the survey were comparedto data from the Harris County appraisal District.Census data were obtained to measure demographicchanges from 1980 to 1990 and determine therelationship between socioeconomic variables andthe transit facility. The existence of the transit facilitywas welcomed by a majority of the residents,although adjacent land values did decrease nearthree of the four facilities. The areas where the transitsites are located experienced decreases in populationover the period 1980 to 1990, and coincide with thegeneral population decline that occurred withinHouston’s inner freeway loop. Overall the findingsindicate that the transit facility was not the overridingvariable causing changes in land values. Abstract byauthor.

Lincks & Associates Inc. (1994). Transit-friendlydevelopment. Tampa, FL: Hillsborough AreaRegional Transit (HARTline).

There is an emerging trend of basing developmentand land use performance standards on the specificcharacteristics and needs of a community. Thereforethis study includes a major research effort thatprovided a factual foundation upon which to build therecommended local program. The purpose of thereport is to establish workable transit-friendly

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 119: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

119

development principles that could be implemented bythe different governmental units in HillsboroughCounty. The process followed in this report beginswith the consideration of general principles andprogresses towards specific solutions ofcommonplace development problems. The reportpresents conclusions and recommendations of theresearch process after the introduction of what isknown as a transit-friendly development. This sectionof the report describes the principles of transit-friendlydesign and also presents issues that need to beovercome in achieving it. The final section presentscase studies of transit-friendly designs and providesimplementation procedures.

Lincks & Associates Inc. (1993). Transit-friendlydevelopment: Task 2 principles. Tampa, FL:Hillsborough Area Regional Transit(HARTline).

This working paper is an overview of land useplanning, traffic engineering and urban designprinciples that can be utilized to encourage transitusage. Based on findings from previous literature andtelephone interviews with transit agencies, the paperpresents discussion on land use planning principles,operational criteria, building and urban designstandards, and integration of transit into thecommunity. The paper concludes withrecommendations of preferred developmentincentives that would support increased transit usage.

Seattle Metro. (1987). Encouraging publictransportation through effective land useactions. Seattle, WA: Seattle Metro. RetrievedOct. 24, 2003, from http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/library/mr6090.htm.

This is a companion document to Metro’sTransportation Service Guidelines and the MetroTransportation Facility Design Guidelines. It providesinformation for local planning staffs on the effects ofland use decisions on public transportation service

and provides guidelines for the private sector on howto design new projects to be compatible with publictransportation.

Snohomish County Transporation Authority.(1989). A guide to land use and publictransportation. Lynnwood, WA: Unites StatesDepartment of Transportation.

The authors offer suggestions to local jurisdictions,developers, community groups, and land ownersworking with their local transit operators to locate anddesign activities and facilities and change trip-makingbehaviors so that alternatives to autos can becomereality. They present the advantages of two commonforms of public transportation —buses andridesharing. They illustrate how developers andbusiness people can derive substantial benefits byintegrating public transportation into theirdevelopment projects and businesses. They presentmodel public transportation supportive goals andpolicies for community plans. They conclude with theidea that if a community’s plan contains publictransportation-friendly goals and policies, then zoningprovisions can put those goals and policies intoaction.

Snohomish County Transportation Authority.(1993). A guide to land use and publictransportation volume ii: Applying theconcepts. Lynnwood, WA: Unites StatesDepartment of Transportation.

The report points out the differences betweensuburban sprawl development and planneddevelopment in terms of design, compatibility of landuses and support for public transit. Itpresents the characteristics andadvantages of transit-compatible site plansover typical site plans and presentsguidelines on how to plan sites that aretransit compatible.

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 120: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

120

JOURNAL ARTICLES ON TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT

Thematically the articles contained in this sectionencompass a wide range of topics including: analysesof TOD implementation processes (Boarnet 1999);assessments of TOD prototypes (Atash 1994); TOD’ssuitability analyses (Banai 1998); studies of TODinfluence on mode choice and travel (Cervero 1996,2002; Crane 1998; Shinbein 1997); assessments ofTOD market potential and real estate impact (Cerveroand Bosselman 1998, Nelson 1999, Pulugurtha andNambisan 1999), and urban and suburban TODscomparisons (Filion 2001). Collectively these anno-tated sources provide a glimpse of academic andprofessional efforts to come to terms with the manyissues of TOD implementation as well as to assessand gauge the overall modal choice, quality of life,and urban development impact associated with TOD.

Atash, F. (1994). Redesigning suburbia forwalking and transit: Emerging concepts.Journal of Urban Planning and Development,ASCE 120 (1), 48-57.

Suburban sprawl has caused many problems in thelast several decades. Of particular concern is overreliance on the automobile and the lack of alternativeforms of transportation such as walking, bicycling,and transit. The advocates of neo-traditional townplanning have developed the traditional neighborhooddevelopment (TND) and pedestrian pocket (PP)concepts for redesigning American suburbia to solveits deficiencies. This paper describes these conceptsand then evaluates their potential usefulness to allowwalking and transit in suburbia. It is concluded thatthese concepts offer a unique opportunity to integrateland-use and suburban development policies withtransportation policy to stop sprawl and createcompact, mixed-use communities. The pedestrianpocket offers a better potential for developing a newsuburban growth pattern on a metropolitan scale that

is pedestrian- and transit-oriented. Its successfulimplementation depends on the existence of asupportive metropolitan-scale land-use andtransportation plan. Abstract by the author.

Banai, R. (1998). Transit-oriented developmentsuitability analysis by the analytic hierarchyprocess and a geographic informationsystem: A prototype procedure. Journal ofPublic Transportation, 2 (1), 43-64.

A prototype procedure is illustrated to assess thesuitability of land use around proposed light rail transitstations of a metropolitan area, with an example of afocus on one station area land use pattern. Transitoriented development (TOD) guidelines provide thecriteria for an assessment. The procedure forassessment is facilitated by a geographic informationsystem (GIS), and the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), a multicriteria methodology that is increasinglyemployed in conjunction with geographic informationsystems. The weights of the criteria are determinedthrough paired comparisons (relative measurement),and a ratings intensity scale is used to determine thescores of land units (absolute measurement). Thisflexibility in measurement is helpful in situationswhere land use criteria, such as TOD guidelines, assuitability factors and with certain desirable thresholdsof intensity are known, but must be consideredstrategically and adaptively, responsive to localpriorities and site-specific conditions. The scores ofland uses on a scale of zero to 100 percent aredetermined, which indicate the degrees of thesuitability of a transit station area as a potential TOD.As well, the proportions suggest changes that targetparticular parcels—individually and as a group—so asto bring about a desirable mix of the public, core/employment, and housing uses for an urban TOD.This prototype application highlights the versatileproperties of the AHP, particularly when used in thespecific context of a development paradigm (TOD) inconjunction with a geographic information system thathas not been previously addressed in the literature on

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 121: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

121

applications. Abstract by the author.

Boarnet, M. (1999). Transit oriented developmentin San Diego County: The incrementalimplementation of a planning idea. Journal ofthe American Planning Association, 65 (1), 80-95.

Although transit-oriented development (TOD) hasbecome an increasingly popular planning idea, veryfew studies have examined how localities plan for andimplement transit-oriented projects. This article helpsfill that gap by studying the TOD implementationprocess near stations on the oldest of the currentgeneration of light rail lines in the United States—theSan Diego Trolley. Some parts of the San DiegoTrolley have been in operation since 1981, but thereare still only a few projects that both incorporate TODconcepts and were built after planning for the nearbyrail line began. TOD projects were pursued mostaggressively in the City of La Mesa, largely becauseTOD was consistent with local goals that went beyondtransportation. Elsewhere in the San Diego region,several barriers have limited TOD implementation.Overall, the cities along trolley routes, thoughsympathetic to regional rail objectives, haveapproached TOD from a perspective of local goals,opportunities, and constraints. The result is thatregional TOD implementation resembles theincremental model of policy-making. One implicationof the San Diego experience is that incorporatingTOD concepts into station-area developments is likelyto be a slow process. Abstract by the author.

Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and modechoice: Toward a normative framework.Transportation Research Part D: Transportand Environment, 7 (4), 245-284.

Compact, mixed-use, and walk-friendly urbandevelopment, many contend, can significantlyinfluence the modes people choose to travel. Despitea voluminous empirical literature, most past studieshave failed to adequately specify relationships for

purposes of drawing inferences about the importanceof built-environment factors in shaping mode choice.This paper frames the study of mode choice inMontgomery County, Maryland around a normativemodel that weighs the influences of not only threecore dimensions of built environments—density,diversity, and design—but factors related togeneralized cost and socioeconomic attributes oftravelers as well. The marginal contributions of built-environment factors to a traditionally specified utility-based model of mode choice are measured. Theanalysis reveals intensities and mixtures of land usesignificantly influence decisions to drive-alone, sharea ride, or patronize transit, while the influences ofurban design tend to be more modest. Elasticitiesthat summarize relationships are also presented, andrecommendations are offered on how outputs fromconventional mode-choice models might be “post-process”; to better account for the impacts of builtenvironments when testing land-use scenarios.Abstract by the author.

Cervero, R. (2003). Green connectors: Off-shoreexamples. Planning, 69 (5), 25-29.

Cervero gives examples from Europe and Bogota,Colombia of ways that America can change frombeing park-and-ride centered to providing more car-free transit access.

Cervero, R. (1996). Traditional neighborhoods andcommuting in the San Francisco Bay Area.Transportation, 23 (4), 373-394.

Neo-traditional designs, proponents argue, reducedependency on the automobile and provideattractive environments for walking,bicycling, and transit riding. This paperexplores the extent to which this propositionholds for seven traditional neighborhoods inthe San Francisco Bay Area that evolved

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 122: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

122

around early streetcar services. Matched-paircomparisons of modal shares and trip generationrates for work trips are made between theseneighborhoods and newer auto-oriented suburbs,controlling for the effects of income and, to a lesserextent, existing bus service levels. Pedestrian/bicyclemodal shares and trip rates tended to be considerablyhigher in transit-oriented than in the paired auto-oriented neighborhood. Higher residential densitieswere also found to have a proportionately greaterimpact on transit commuting in transit-oriented than inauto-oriented neighborhoods. The paper concludesthat neo-traditional development must be coordinatedwith larger regional planning efforts and public policyinitiatives to reduce automobile dependency.Abstract by the author.

Cervero, R., & Bosselmann, P. (1998). Transitvillages: Assessing the market potentialthrough visual stimulation. Journal ofArchitecture and Planning and Research,15 (3), 181-196.

Transit villages could reduce automobile dependencyand improve urban environments; however, there arefew contemporary examples of such development, inpart because of uncertainty about the market demandfor transit-oriented living. This article assesses themarket potential of transit villages using visualsimulation techniques. Photoslide images werecreated to simulate a ‘walk’ through fourneighborhoods with different density and amenitymixes. Based on the survey responses of over 170Bay Area residents, the lowest density neighborhoodwas the most preferred. However, far morerespondents liked the simulated transit villagedesigned at 36 dwellings per acre with niceramenities than liked the village designed at 24dwellings per acre but with fewer community services.The research suggests Americans will trade-offhigher residential densities for more amenities intransit village settings. Visual simulations, we believe,provide a richer context for probing the market

potential for transit-oriented development than dotraditional market research approaches becausevisual simulations convey a wider array ofenvironmental choices. Abstract by the authors.

Crane, R. (1998). Does neighborhood designinfluence travel? A behavioral analysis oftravel diary and GIS data. TransportationResearch Part D: Transport and Environment,3D (4), 225-238.

Can urban design improve the environment? Ifcommunities could be designed to reduce automobileuse, then yes. But can urban design influence travel?Surprisingly perhaps, the effects of any specificneighborhood feature on travel behavior at the marginare all but unknown. The policy significance of thisissue is reflected in the swelling popularity of the “newurbanism” and other planning strategies employingland use tools to mitigate the environmental impactsof metropolitan development. In addition to assertingthat development patterns and densities affect howfar, how often, and by what means people travel,urban designers frequently argue that the legibilityand shape of the local street pattern play a key role.“Connected” residential blocks are thus associatedwith less driving by comparison with the circuitousroutes of the modern suburban cul-de-sac—chiefly byreducing trip lengths and facilitating pedestrian andtransit access. Remarkably, there is little empiricaland theoretical support for these claims. This paperprovides the first direct tests of these hypotheseswithin a consistent behavioral framework. An analysisof household travel diary and GIS data for San Diegofinds little role for land use in explaining travelbehavior, and no evidence that the street networkpattern affects either short or long non-work traveldecisions. While results may vary in other areas, theempirical argument for using land use as an elementof regional air quality or other environmental plansremains to be demonstrated. Abstract by the author.

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 123: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

123

Filion, P. (2001). Suburban mixed-use centers andurban dispersion: What difference do theymake? Environment and Planning A, 33 (1),141-160.

In a context of growing car dependency and suburbansprawl, planners search for ways of intensifying urbandevelopment and reducing reliance on theautomobile. The creation of planned mixed-usecenters intended to become hubs of transit andpedestrian movement within the dispersed suburbanenvironment represents one such intensificationstrategy. I investigate three suburban mixed-usecenters in the Greater Toronto Area, selected for theiradvanced level of development, and identify theplanning rationales and objectives that have led totheir creation. To verify the extent to which they meettheir intensification goal, I monitor the three selectedcenters’ level of development, modal split, land-usepattern, inner synergy, and inner movements.Findings are mixed. If the suburban centers havebeen successful in attracting development andattaining levels of transit use, pedestrian movementand inner synergy exceeding those of the typicalsuburban area, they are not as distinct from theremainder of the suburb as intended and thus fallshort from their planning objectives. I conclude that astrategy combining the creation of nodes (such assuburban mixed-use centers) with high-density,transit-oriented corridors within the suburbanenvironment would be more effective in bringingintensification to this portion of the metropolitanregion. Abstract by the author.

Frank, L. D. (1999). Assessing transit station arearedevelopment: A case study of the LindberghStation in Atlanta. Journal of PublicTransportation, 2 (3), 21-51.

This article assesses the land-use, demographic,circulation, and economic development attributes oftransit station area development. Findings from thisassessment are applied to the Lindbergh Metropolitan

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Station areain Atlanta, Georgia, for which a private-publicpartnership is currently being negotiated.Recommendations for the redevelopment of theLindbergh Station area are provided, including aschematic design that integrates thoserecommendations. The resulting recommendationsare intended to maximize the likelihood for transitridership and economic benefit while offsetting trafficcongestion and vehicle emissions—in keeping withthe objectives of the Federal Transit Administration’sLivable Communities Initiative. A safe and invitingwalking environment throughout a station area—extending well beyond the area of physicalredevelopment itself—is fundamental to achievingthese objectives. Existing barrier effects and lack ofpedestrian connectivity associated with majortransportation corridors within the Lindbergh Stationarea will significantly offset transportation andenvironmental benefits on which public investment inthe redevelopment is predicated. Solutions arerequired that provide not only safer street crossings,but a larger proportion of rights-of-way devoted topedestrian movement and the development of astreet life. Priority should be given to pedestrianimprovements that increase access to transit fortraditionally undeserved populations. Finally, openspace is required to effectively compete with othermore auto-dependent areas and to draw higherincome populations to transit station areas. Abstractby the author.

Kreyling, C. (2001). Hug that transit station.Planning, 67 (1), 4-9.

New transit agencies across the country-inNew Jersey, Atlanta, the San Francisco Bayregion, and elsewhere-are taking up thecause of a new approach to transit stationplanning. Their hope is that by locatinghousing and shops within walking distanceof stations, they can increase ridership and

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 124: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

124

rejuvenate surrounding communities. One ambitiousplanned community called Orenco Station is beingbuilt around a light rail station in Hillsboro, OR,located ten miles west Portland. When complete in2002, the development will include more than 1,800housing units plus offices and shops, on 200 acres ofwhat was originally zoned as industrial land.Extended cases are cited for the Bay Area RapidTransit (BART) system in the San Francisco BayArea, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area Rapid TransitAuthority (MARTA), and five so-called transit villagesin New Jersey. Strategies for building such complexesare discussed.9

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2000). Transit-orienteddevelopment in the inner city: A Delphisurvey. Journal of Public Transportation, 3 (2),75-97.

This study presents the results of a three-roundDelphi survey that focused on issues andopportunities related to transit-oriented development(TOD) in U.S. inner cities. The survey queried a panelof 25 experts about the various goals and objectivesof the practice of TOD, as well as the preconditionsand constraints surrounding such development ineconomically disadvantaged areas of the inner city.Starting from a wide range of responses, the panelwas eventually able, through the Delphi process, tofocus on specific issues and propose a concrete setof strategies for the implementation of TODs. Abstractby the author.

Nelson, A. C. (1999). Transit stations andcommercial property values: A case studywith policy and land-use implications. Journalof Public Transportation, 2 (3), 77-93.

There is little research about the association betweenrail transit station proximity and commercial propertyvalues. There is even less research on the role ofpublic policy in influencing commercial propertymarkets near transit stations without resorting to

supply-side constraints. The research reported in thisarticle helps close these gaps in research. This articledevelops a theory on commercial property value withrespect to both transit station proximity and the role ofpolicies that encourage commercial developmentaround transit stations without discouragingcommercial development elsewhere. The theory isapplied to the universe of commercial property salesin the area of Atlanta known as Midtown, which islocated about 1 kilometer north of the downtownedge. Midtown is served by three heavy rail transitstations operated by the Metropolitan Atlanta RapidTransit Authority (MARTA). To encouragedevelopment around MARTA stations, Atlanta waivesparking and floor area ratio requirements in SpecialPublic Interest Districts (SPIDs) located around railstations. Research shows that commercial propertyvalues are influenced positively by both access to railstations and policies that encourage more intensivedevelopment around those stations. This articleexplores both theoretical and policy implications.Abstract by the author.

Pulugurtha, S. S., & Nambisan, S. S. (1999).Evaluating transit market potential andselecting locations of transit service facilitiesusing GIS. Journal of Public Transportation,2 (4), 76-92.

Accessibility to transit service facility (TSF) locationsplays a significant role in the success of publictransportation systems. The ease with which the end-user can reach a TSF (e.g., bus stops, rail stations, ormultimodal centers) plays prominently in the decision-making process of the individual. This article presentsa working definition for transit market potential basedon accessibility in terms of walking distance andwalking time. Further, a measure is constructed toevaluate transit market potential for TSF locations fora transit system. The measure of transit potential isrepresented by an index value based on demographiccriteria such as employment, household size, vehicleownership, etc. This index can be used to identify

TOD Planning Strategies

Page 125: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

125

locations of TSFs that increase a route’s potential forridership. A methodology is proposed to estimate theIndex of Transit Potential for TSFs. This methodologyinvolves (1) identifying the accessible network ofstreets around each TSF that is within an acceptableaccess threshold for a transit rider and (2) estimatingthe transit market potential based on keydemographic characteristics. The analytical andvisualization capabilities of a Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) program are utilized to help attain theobjective. A case study is used to demonstrate theapplication of the methodology. In the case study, aportion of a route of the Las Vegas Citizens AreaTransit (CAT) system is analyzed and the Index ofTransit Potential is estimated. The index values arethen used to locate TSFs along the route. This iscompared with the existing stop locations for theroute. Abstract by the authors.

Shinbein, P. (1997). Multimodal approaches toland use planning. ITE Journal, 67 (3), 26-32.

In the US suburban land use patterns that exclusivelyaccommodate the automobile afford little choice inother travel mode options and in fact increaseautomobile trip-making. Walking, biking and masstransit are not encouraged options for most travel dueto segregated land uses and low densities resulting indispersed origins and destinations. In order to makealternative modes more viable, a more balancedapproach to planning that includes transportationmodes is warranted. Compact, mixed-use landdevelopment places employment and retail activitiesin closer proximity to living areas with designs thatfavor nonmotorized transportation and transit access.Benefits of these developments include automobiletrip reduction, decreased road congestion andlowering of urban area vehicle miles of travel. Thesenew developments do not exclude the automobile;rather they favor pedestrian and transit activity. Bus orrail transit service would be available, providing viabletransportation alternatives to shopping and

employment activities in other communities andareas. Abstract by the author.

Tumlin, J., & Millard-Ball, A. (2003). How to maketransit-oriented development work. Planning,69 (5), 14-19.

The authors discuss how to achieve true transit-oriented development as opposed to transit-adjacentdevelopment. They incorporate Robert Cervero’s“three D’s” of density, design, and diversity whilestressing the important role parking plays indeveloping and maintaining a TOD environment.Several real-world examples are given as well as aTOD check list.

TOD

Planning

Strategies

Page 126: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

126

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 127: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

127

3.2: Parking and Auto Relationship to Transit

Parking and A

uto

There are two fundamental approaches to parkingand transit. The first, in the form of park-and-ride andkiss-and-ride facilities, views parking as necessary toattract and serve transit patrons beyond a pedestriancatchment area. This type of parking is oftencontrolled and provided by the transit agency. Thesecond approach involves reduced parking ratios forresidential and non-residential land uses premised onthe assumption that commuters will substitute cartrips for transit trips. This type of parking is associatedwith transit-oriented development (TOD) and is oftencontrolled by the local jurisdiction through a variety ofplanning tools, land development regulations, andmunicipal codes that establish the permitted minimumand maximum parking ratios (see Table 1 forexamples from Florida). Permitted parking ratios,especially in TOD station areas, result from anintensive negotiated process between the localjurisdiction, the transit agency, the area’s businesscommunity (i.e., employers, merchants), developers,surrounding neighbors, and lending agencies. For adetailed case study analysis of TOD and parking seeParsons and Brinckerhoff’s (2002) special reportParking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities,annotated in this section.

As depicted in Figure 1, there are a variety ofparking management approaches devised toinfluence the demand and supply of parking.Controlling the parking supply is typically the methodendorsed by TOD design manuals and transportation

planners for shifting people’s mode of travel from carto transit. Parking supply mechanisms such aszoning, flexible parking requirements, and parkingcaps are applied and administered to developmentprojects through local codes. These mechanismsgenerally control the supply of privately built parking.On the other hand, local jurisdictions —in the case ofon-street and municipally owned parking garages—the transit agencies—station area park-and-ridefacilities—and other public agencies control thesupply of public parking. Examples of this includelocal jurisdictions’ use of on-street metered parkingand parking garages and transit agencies’ use ofkiss-and-ride facilities. How and whether transitconsiderations are incorporated in local codesstrongly depends on the nature and strength ofinteragency coordination between jurisdictions andtransit agencies and on the quality of the local transitservice. In contrast, a large number of factors suchas the price of parking, price of gasoline, state of theeconomy, attractiveness of on- versus off-streetparking, crime and safety issues—often beyond thecontrol of transit agencies and jurisdictions—influence parking demand. Therefore, shifting thecost of parking from the employer, retailer,municipality or transit agency to the driver throughparking charges is another frequently used methodfor reducing parking demand. The underlyingexpectation of this measure is that anincreasing number of drivers will shift totransit and alternative modes of travel.

Page 128: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

128 Parking and Auto

City

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Orl

ando

1 pe

r 2 p

atro

nsNo

ne

1-2

/uni

t [d

epen

ding

on

num

ber o

f be

droo

ms]

None

2 / 1

,000

sq

ft G

FA3

/ 1,0

00 s

q ft

GFA

None

2 / 1

,000

sq

ft G

FA

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Min

.M

ax.

Mia

mi

None

2 pe

r dw

ellin

gNo

neNo

ne1

/ 1,0

00 s

q ft2 G

FA1/

600

sq

ft G

FANo

ne1

/ 300

sq

ft G

FANo

ne1.

5 pe

r roo

mNo

ne1/

100

sq

ft G

FA

Ft. L

aude

rdal

e1

/ uni

tno

ne1.

2 / u

nit

None

1 / 4

00 s

q ft

of G

FA

[in e

xces

s of

2,5

00

sq ft

]No

ne1

/ 400

sq

ft of

G

FA [i

n ex

cess

of

2,5

00 s

q ft]

None

0.75

per

ro

omNo

ne

1 / 5

0 sq

ft

GFA

of

cust

omer

se

rvic

e

None

Ft. M

yers

2 pe

r dw

ellin

gNo

ne

1.5

per

1 B

ed

unit;

2 p

er 2

or

mor

e Be

d un

its

None

1 / 2

50 s

q ft

GFA

None

1 / 3

00 s

q ft

GFA

None

1.25

per

ro

omNo

ne1

per 3

sea

tsNo

ne

GFA

= G

ross

Flo

or A

rea

Hote

l Re

stau

rant

Sour

ce: C

ente

r for

Urb

an T

rans

porta

tion

Rese

arch

(199

3)

Tabl

e 1.

Par

king

Req

uire

men

ts in

Fou

r Flo

rida

Cen

tral

Bus

ines

s D

istr

icts

Off

ice

Reta

il

Resi

dent

ial

Non

Resi

dent

ial

Sing

le F

amily

Mul

tifam

ilyG

FA >

10,

000

sq ft

GFA

< 1

0,00

0 sq

ft

Page 129: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

129

ParkingManagement

Measures

Zoning

Flexible ParkingRequirements

Facility Operation

Parking Caps

Preferential Parking

Park-and-Ride

Fringe Parking

Pricing

Employer SubsidizedTransporation

Transportation Allowance

Parking Taxation

Ticketing

Towing/VehicleImmobilization

Adjudication

TMAs, CAPs

TransportationManagement Districts

Supply Measures

DemandMeasures

EnforcementMeasures

TDMMeasures

Source: Center for Urban Transportation Research (1993) Parking and TransitPolicy Study, p. 3TDM = Transportation Demand ManagementTMA = Transportation Management AssociationsCAP = Commuter Assistance Programs

Parking and A

uto

Page 130: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

130

PARKING MANAGEMENT ESSENTIAL IN TOD

The parking approach to TOD acknowledges thatcars will continue to be a major way to access transitstations and facilities, but also attempts to promotepedestrian and transit-supportive mixed land usesand densities in and around station areas. Thisrequires aggressive parking and access managementmeasures that can adequately balance the conflictingdemands for access and circulation of pedestrians,cyclists, and automobile drivers within a compactarea. Off-street parking requires about 350 squarefeet per space due to driveways, drive aisles,landscaping and pedestrian walkways. Thus, itconsumes 1.8 times more land area than on-streetparking, which requires about 190 to 200 square feetper space. According to the Puget Sound RegionalCouncil’s (1999) Creating Transit StationCommunities (abstracted in the previous section),applying typical suburban off-street parking standardsto a mixed-use station area would require two blocksof surface parking for every one block of two-storybuildings. In other words, two-thirds of the land wouldbe devoted to automobile circulation and parking andthe remaining third to all other activities. Clearly,typical surface parking standards are not appropriateto accomodate parking demand in compact stationarea development.

Solutions to this crucial issue in TODdevelopment range from reducing parking ratios andputting most parking on streets to buildingunderground and above-ground parking garages.Since spaces in structured parking can cost from$10,000 to $30,000 vis-à-vis $5,000 per space insurface lots, inevitably, structured parking is a costlysolution challenging TOD development due tounrelenting parking demand and the relatively lowrates of cars substituted for transit experienced todate. Also when parking ratios have been set on thetight side, parking tends to spill over to neighboringareas and to become a troubling issue that requires

strong parking management measures. Thesemeasures can vary from preferential parking (e.g., forshort-term parking and car pooling) and intenseenforcement to the establishment of parking andtransportation management districts. In fact, the Stateof Maryland’s Smart Growth TOD Task Force,acknowledges this barrier to TOD financing andconstruction by recommending in 2000 that the Statecreate a program to fund parking structures. Throughthe Maryland Transportation Authority the State willprovide financial support for structured parking inTODs. Such aggressive demand managementprograms should decrease the negative effects of theprogram where the supply of parking would havebeen squeezed out by reduced parking ratios or bythe redevelopment of surface lots (Parsons andBrinckerhoff 2002).

PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE PARKINGMANAGEMENT

The handbook Creating Transit Station Communitiesby the Puget Sound Regional Council (1999, pp. 34–40) makes the following 14 recommendations foreffective parking management in TOD.

1. Carefully control the total supply of parking byapplying reduced parking standards andavoiding large surface parking lots.

2. Use parking charges to control demand forparking by shifting the cost of parking fromemployer and retailer to the automobiledriver. Establish preferential parking ratesemphasizing short-term and car-pool parkingand discourage commuter parking.

3. Keep the size of surface small—below twoacres in size—and tuck them behindbuildings.

4. Design and plan surface lots to convert toother uses over time as a first phase of long-term development strategy.

5. Encourage the development of parkingstructures.

Parking and Auto

Page 131: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

131

6. Encourage development on street-side edgesof parking structures by providing ground andfirst-level retail or other activities in structuredparking such that parking stalls andstructures do not dominate the frontage of theproperty abutting the pedestrian realm.

7. Carefully plan and design park-and-ride lotsby giving special attention to the location andtype of park-and-ride lot in terms of the entiresystem’s goals and functions.

8. Locate parking lots behind buildings or in theinterior of a block to avoid conflict withpedestrians and encourage access viadriveways or alleys located in the rear.

9. Design parking lots and garages withpedestrians in mind by providing a wellinterconnected and well lit network ofpedestrian walkways linking the parking lot toall building entrances.

10. Provide adequate bicycle parking by placing itcloser to the building than any automobileparking and separate it from wheelchairaccess. Bike parking should not be hidden.It should be rather visible from the street orbuildings.

11. Encourage joint use of parking spaces foradjacent uses with staggered peak periods ofdemand such as retail, office andentertainment.

12. Support the creation of public communityparking lots for short-term parking, which canbe financed via assessment districts or othermechanisms.

13. Provide on-street parking on pedestrianstreets. This brings activity to the street andbuffers the pedestrian from vehicle traffic.

14. Ensure convenient access for transit vehiclesby avoiding conflicts between circulatingautomobiles and buses. This is accomplishedby locating parking lot entrances and exitsaway from heavy bus traffic and by providing

safe walkways and travel routes where buspatrons must cross parking lots.

Although the above recommendations areconsidered best practice for parking in TOD,particularly since strict adherence to conventionalparking standards developed by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) often results inoversupply of parking, the literature shows that theexperience implementing best practice TOD parkingprinciples is very mixed, and to date, “there are noclear conclusions regarding how much parking mayreasonably be reduced for any particular TOD.Therefore parking needs must be calculated on asite-by-site basis” (see also Higgins (1993) ParkingRequirements for Transit-Oriented Development inthis selection).10 Table 1 shows the parking standardsapplied in four Florida central business districts andTable 2 shows parking solutions and parking ratios aspracticed by a diverse number of TOD station areas.Some jurisdictions have adopted specific TODparking standards. In others, recognizing a project’sproximity to transit, developers have simplynegotiated variances from the application ofconventional parking standards with local jurisdictionsor transit agencies.

ORGANIZATION OF THE LITERATURE

The annotated literature included in this section isgrouped into general and specific studies andrecommendations regarding parking and transit. Inthe general category we have included reports,articles and studies whose recommendations arebased on data from a variety of cases. These includenational state, and regional studies. In thespecific category we have classifiedpublications on parking managementrelated to specific management practices(e.g., shared parking, district parking,transit pass programs, etc.) or parkingstudies commissioned by specific localities.

Parking and A

uto

Page 132: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

132 Parking and Auto

Tabl

e 2.

Par

king

Req

uire

men

ts a

t Tra

nsit-

Orie

nted

-Dev

elop

men

t Site

sS

ourc

e: P

arso

ns B

rinck

erho

ff (2

002)

Sta

tew

ide

Tran

sit-O

rient

ed D

evel

opm

ent:

Par

king

and

TO

D, C

halle

nges

and

Opp

ortu

nitie

s.R

etrie

ved

on D

ec. 1

0, 2

003,

from

http

://w

ww.

dot.c

a.go

v/hq

/Mas

sTra

ns/d

oc_p

df/T

OD

/Par

king

%20

and%

20TO

D%

20%

20R

epor

t.pdf

Pac

ific

Cou

rt,Lo

ng B

each

,C

ALR

T &

bus

2-ac

, mix

ed-u

se, i

nfill,

urba

n lo

catio

n, 1

42ap

artm

ents

, 96,

000

ft2

reta

il

Dev

elop

er b

uilt

400

unde

rgro

ud p

arki

ngsp

aces

; plu

s pu

blic

par

king

lots

in th

e ar

ea5

/ 1,0

00 ft

22

/ 1,0

00ft2

1 / s

tudi

o;2

/ 1 +

Bd

unit

Gue

st:

3 / 1

0un

its

1 / s

tudi

o;2

/ 1 +

Bd

unit

Non

e

T

OD

Site

Tra

nsit

T

OD

Cha

ract

eris

tics

P

arki

ngC

hara

cter

istic

s

R

etai

l

TOD

R

esid

entia

l

TO

D

H

otel

/

O

ffice

R

esid

entia

l

Park

ing

Rat

ios

2 / 1

,000

ft2 f

orof

fice/

reta

il in

rede

velo

pmen

tar

eas

Non

eN

one

Non

eN

one

2-4

/ 1,0

00ft2

Hol

lyw

ood/

Hig

hlan

d, L

osA

ngel

es, C

AH

eavy

rail

& bu

s

Maj

or e

nter

tain

men

t & re

tail

com

plex

on

8.7

ac, 6

40 ro

omho

tel,

6 sc

reen

mul

tiple

xth

eate

r, M

TA b

us tr

ansf

erst

atio

n, a

nd k

iss-

&-r

ide

zone

3,00

0-sp

ace

unde

rgro

und

park

ing

stru

ctur

e

2 / 1

,000

ft2 f

orof

fice/

reta

il in

rede

velo

pmen

tar

eas

Non

eN

one

Non

eN

one

2-4

/ 1,0

00ft2

85 s

pace

par

king

lot;

park

ing

spill

over

from

subw

ay s

tatio

n 3

bloc

ksaw

ay

“Art

park

” cre

ated

from

ava

cant

lot;

a no

npro

fit’s

rede

velo

pmen

t pro

ject

Bus

(25-

40m

in.)

No

Ho,

Arts

Dis

trict

, Los

Ang

eles

, CA

1,06

8 sp

aces

, und

er-

grou

nd. S

treet

-leve

lsp

aces

for r

etai

lsh

oppe

rs. N

o pa

rkin

g fo

rtra

nsit

rider

s. R

esid

ents

wal

k to

bus

sto

p.

14-a

c, m

ixed

-use

, inf

ill,ur

ban,

42,

500

sq ft

mar

ket,

66,0

00 ft

2 gro

und

leve

lre

tail,

28,

500

ft2 upp

er le

vel

com

mer

cial

, a 3

,000

ft2

com

mun

ity c

ente

r, an

d 32

0dw

ellin

g un

its

Bus

(15-

30 m

in.)

Upt

own

Dis

trict

, San

Die

go, C

AN

one

Non

eN

one

1/25

0 ft2

1/28

5 ft2

2.25

/uni

t

Mar

tin L

uthe

rK

ing,

Jr.

Pla

za, M

iam

i,Fl

LRT

& bu

sO

ffice

= 1

91,0

00 ft

2 ;re

tail/

rest

aura

nt =

3,0

00ft2

800

exis

ting

gara

gesp

aces

con

stru

cted

by

trans

it ag

ency

Non

eN

one

Non

eN

one

Ret

ail/

Res

taur

ant

1/50

ft2

1/25

0 ft2

Dad

elan

d-S

outh

,M

iam

i, Fl

LRT

& bu

sS

ubur

ban

proj

ect:

Offi

ce =

290

,000

ft2 ;

H

otel

= 60

5 ro

oms

2500

-spa

ces

stru

ctur

ed p

arki

ng1/

250

ft21.

5/1

Bd;

1.75

/2 B

d;2/

3 B

d1/

unit

Hot

el: 1

/2ro

oms

1/25

0 ft2

TOD

: 1/4

00 ft

2

Sub

urba

n pr

ojec

t:O

ffice

= 1

40,0

00 ft

2 ;H

otel

= 2

50 ro

oms;

Res

iden

tial =

211

loft

apar

tmen

ts

Moc

king

bird

Stat

ion,

Dal

las,

TX

LRT

& bu

s1,

600-

spac

e pa

rkin

g,72

% u

nder

grou

nd, r

est

surfa

ce a

nd s

truct

ure

4 / 1

,000

ft21.

16/u

nit

Hot

el: 1

/1ro

oms

3/1,

000

ft2

Ret

ail

Gue

st

Page 133: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

133

PARKING AND TRANSIT “GENERAL”STUDIES

Center for Urban Transportation Research(CUTR). (1993). Parking and transit policystudy: Overview of urban transit and parkingpolicies (Technical Memorandum No.1).Tampa, FL: CUTR, College of Engineering,University of South Florida.

This report, the first of three technical memoranda,describes parking policies currently in place in Floridaand in other states and identifies issues related topolicy implementation. Firstly it presents a summaryof parking and transit policy-related literature. Then itdiscusses the regulatory framework that exists withinthe systematic planning process in Florida. It providesan overview of the urban areas in Florida that havefixed-route transit system and offers preliminary dataon four Florida urban areas that have been selectedfor a closer examination of parking and transitcoordination. The last section is a summary of thisreport and discusses issues that will be addressed intwo future technical memoranda. Abstract by theauthor.

Dueker, K., Strathman, J., & Bianco, M. (1998).Strategies to attract auto users to publictransportation. (TCRP Report 40).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_40.pdf

TCRP Report 40 focuses on parking strategies as ameans of increasing transit patronage, particularly forwork trips. This report will be of interest totransportation and urban planners and to localdecisionmakers. The effectiveness of automobileparking strategies as a means of increasing transitridership was analyzed. Eight strategies affecting theprice and availability of parking and transit servicelevels were examined, alone and in combination, toassess their effects on travel mode choice,

particularly transit. The final chapter of the report isan implementation guide for transportation plannersand decisionmakers.

The study concludes that no single strategy isboth effective and politically feasible enough towarrant implementation throughout a metropolitanarea. Rather, the researchers recommend thatpolicymakers implement combinations of parkingstrategies, in response to the policy andtransportation objectives of specific geographicalareas. The final chapter of the report, animplementation guide, provides forms, examples, andother information to assist agencies in selectingcombinations of parking strategies that will beappropriate for local needs. Abstract by the authors.

Ewing, R. (1997). Transportation and land useinnovations: When you can’t pave your wayout of congestion. Tallahassee, FL: FloridaDepartment of Transportation.

Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) have risen at analarming rate. Between 1983 and 1990, VMT in theU.S. grew by 42%, about seven times the growth ofthe population. We cannot build roads fast enough tokeep up with VMT. By the best available estimate, a 1percent increase in highway lane miles leads, afteronly 4 years, to a .9 percent increase in metropolitanVMT. Even if we had the resources, would we want tosupply all the road capacity demanded? The out ofpocket costs of auto use are low- averaging about 11cents a mile; depreciation, insurance, and other fixedcosts add another 29 cents per mile. These costs areborne by auto users themselves. But when youconsider road subsidies from the general taxpayer,costs of free parking, and various social costs, theautomobile is extraordinarily expensive. Tocharge auto users for all social costs wouldrequire a gas tax of $1.80 to $3.00 pergallon. Moreover, the ability of some totravel far and fast by automobile does nottranslate into mobility for all. A full 37

Parking and A

uto

Page 134: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

134

percent of Floridians fall into one or anothertransportation disadvantaged category, whetherphysically handicapped, too young or too old to drive,or too poor to afford an automobile. In an auto-centricsociety, these groups suffer from what one sociologistcalls deprivation of access. Therefore, in thishandbook, mobility is conceived differently than usual.It is not the ability to travel far and fast by automobile.Rather it is the ability of people, regardless of ageand status, to engage in desired activities atmoderate cost to themselves and society. Thishandbook offers practical suggestions for reducingcongestion, automobile dependence, and vehiclemiles of travel. Abstract by the author.

Higgins, T. J. (1993). Parking requirements fortransit-oriented developments (TransportationResearch Record 1404), 50-54. Washington,DC: National Research Council, TransportationResearch Board.

Local transportation and land use planners areincreasingly attempting to develop parkingrequirements (both minimum and maximum) toencourage transit use and avoid excess parkingsupply. Planners are focusing particular attention ontransit-oriented developments in proximity to transitwhere tight parking supply, good pedestrian access totransit, and dense develpment are aimed atincreasing transit use. This paper presents a method

Parking and Auto

for setting parking requirements for office,commercial, and industrial developments in proximityto transit stations and stops. The method presentedrelies on annual employee transporation surveys ofthe kind typically required under trip-reductionordinances. These ordinances are now present, orsoon will be, in many urban areas and are the resultof air quality regulations, traffic managementregulations, or both. The method derives a range ofestimates for parking demand in proximity to transitstops on the basis of high and low use of transit andother alternatives to solo driving, as revealed in theemployee survey data. The author draws implicationsfor maximum and minimum parking requirements inSan Diego and suggests general cautions in applyingthe method and areas for further research to improveresults from the method. Abstract by the author.

Parsons and Brinckerhoff. (2002). Parking andTOD: Challenges and opportunities (specialreport). Sacramento, CA: CALTRANS,California Department of Transportation.Retrieved on Dec. 12, 2003, from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Parking%20and%20TOD%20%20Report.pdf

The research summarized in this special reportindicates that TOD can potentially reduce parking perhousehold by approximately 20 percent, compared tonon transit-oriented land uses. A wide range ofparking reductions (from 12 percent to 60 percent)has also been found for commercial parking in TODs.To date, however, there are no clear conclusionsregarding how much parking may reasonably bereduced for any particular TOD. Therefore parkingneeds must be calculated on a site-by-site basis.Abstract by the author.

Figure 6 - A park-and-ride facility in California.Image from: Authors

Page 135: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

135

with all types of park-and-ride facilities in the UnitedStates. Included is an overview of the current use ofpark-and-ride facilities and existing practices forestimating demand for park-and-ride services;locating, sizing, and designing facilities; and fundingconstructing, operating, and maintaining park-and-ride lots. Approaches being used to address potentialsafety and security concerns are also examined, aswell as supporting policies and programs that mayenhance the effectiveness of park-and-ride facilities.Further, innovative approaches to developing andoperating park-and-ride programs and enhancingmultimodal integration to improve the overallmanagement of the transportation system areidentified.

Willson, R. W. (2000). Reading between theregulations: Parking requirements, planners’perspectives, and transit. Journal of PublicTransportation, 3 (1), 111-127.

This article reports on local planers’ perspectives onmetropolitan parking requirements. Workplaceparking requirements, which are often in excess ofdemand, influence parking pricing and urban form. Inturn, these affect transit demand and transit servicepotentials. These connections have led researchersand policy-makers to call for changes, but theperspectives of planners who create the parkingrequirements are not well understood. UsingSouthern California cities as a study area, atelephone survey revealed that most parkingrequirements are driven by concerns about trafficmitigation, spillover parking, and risk avoidance.These factors push parking requirements in thedirection of oversupply. The article proposes methodsto reduce the risk of changing parkingrequirements and develops a typology ofapproaches for change. Transit agencieswill benefit if they play a role in reforminglocal parking requirements. Abstract by theauthor.

Parking and A

uto

Shoup, D. (1997). The high cost of free parking.The Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 17 (1), 3-20. Retrieved Dec. 12,2003, from http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu//dup/people/faculty/Shoup%20Pub%204.pdf.

Urban planners typically set minimum parkingrequirements to meet the peak demand for parking ateach land use, without considering either the pricemotorists pay for parking or the cost of providing therequired parking spaces. By reducing the marketprice of parking, minimum parking requirementsprovide subsidies that inflate parking demand, andthis inflated demand is then used to set minimumparking requirements. When considered as an impactfee, minimum parking requirements can increasedevelopment costs by more than 10 times the impactfees for all other public purposes combined.Eliminating minimum parking requirements wouldreduce the cost of urban development, improve urbandesign, reduce automobile dependency, and restrainurban sprawl. Abstract by the author.

Turnbull, K. (1995). Effective use of park-and-ridefacilities (NCHRP synthesis 213). Washington,D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

This synthesis was developed to provide a state ofthe art synopses of the current practices associated

Figure 7 - A transit parking structure in downtown St. Louis,MO.Image from: www.hbdcontracting.com/ Pages/Parking.html

Page 136: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

136

PARKING AND TRANSIT “SPECIFIC”STUDIES

Bianco, M. J. (2000). Effective transportationdemand management: Combining parkingpricing, transit incentives, and transportationmanagement in a commercial district ofPortland, Oregon. (Transportation ResearchRecord 1711), 46-54. Washington, DC:National Research Council, TransportationResearch Board.

The Lloyd District is a high-density commercial andresidential district located a short distance fromdowntown Portland, Oregon. To address parking andcongestion problems, the City of Portlandimplemented a Lloyd District partnership plan inSeptember 1997. This Plan consists of a number ofelements aimed at curbing single-occupancy vehicleuse for the commute to and from the district. Thisplan included parking pricing in the form of meters(whereas on-street parking had been free),discounted transit passes, and other transportationdemand management strategies. The effects of thesestrategies on travel and parking were assessed, withan emphasis on the relationship between parkingpricing and mode choice. A random sample of 1,000employees in the Lloyd District was surveyed abouttheir travel and parking behavior before and after theinstillation of the new meters. Research found that,during the 1 year that had elapsed between theimplementation of the Lloyd District transportationmanagement programs and the survey informationcollected, the drive-alone mode for the trip to work byemployees in the Lloyd District had decreased by 7percent. For the district as a whole, the drive-alonecommute share is now about 56 percent. Theprogram strategies that have emerged as the mostsignificant in effecting this decrease are the instillationof the meters and the discounted transit passprogram. Abstract by the author.

Carter, C. R. (1996). A campus transportationalternative revised. Transportation Quarterly,50 (3), 123-129.

This article describes the Free Local Area Shuttle(FLASH) system, which is a joint venture undertakenby Arizona State University (ASU) and the city ofTempe, AZ, to provide transit service for the universityarea. Originally, ASU had used a tram system toshuttle students from peripheral parking lots becausethere was insufficient parking on campus. However,to meet the requirements of the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the tram systemneeded to be replaced. The city and the universitythen combined efforts to develop a shuttle system in1994. The system was funded using university, city,and federal monies. It was designed to replace thetrams from the peripheral parking lots and transportstudents to and from downtown that had been causedby students looking for places to park. The authorconcludes that FLASH is an excellent example forother universities to follow in reducing parking andcongestion problems near campus.11

Parking and Auto

Figure 8 - A park-and-ride facility in Cambridge, UK.Image from: www.graftoncentre.co.uk/_gpride.asp

Page 137: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

137

Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle. (2002). Parkingratios: White paper presented to: Town ofChapel Hill, NC. Chapel Hill, NC. RetrievedDec. 13, 2003, from http://townhall.townofchapelhill .org/archives/agenda/ca020918 Attachment%204%20%20Final%20Parking%20Paper%208-12-02.htm

This paper introduces the role of minimum andmaximum parking requirements in planning, andexplains some of the issues that need to beconsidered by a municipality that is thinking ofimplementing maximum parking requirements. Theappendix has ordinance examples from municipalitiesthat have implemented maximum parkingrequirements, and web addresses for otherordinances. The bibliography also includes severaladdresses to websites that contain additionalinformation about minimum and maximum parkingrequirements. Following the appendix there is anattached exhibit that illustrates existing parking ratiosin Chapel Hill. Abstract by the author.

Mathers, S. (1999). Reducing travel in the city ofBristol: Promoting bus use throughcomplementary measures. Built Environment,25 (2), 94-105.

Promoting bus use can form a component of a travelreduction policy, when used in conjunction withencouraging switching from car use. The City ofBristol, UK has assembled a complementary packageof measures in which car travelers switch to bus usethrough a park and ride scheme; bus prioritymeasures give the bus an advantage over the car,and office car parking is replaced by parking at thepark-and-ride site. In replacing car travel with bustravel it is possible to reduce vehicle kilometerstraveled overall.12

Parking and A

uto

Shoup, D. C. (1999). The trouble with minimumparking requirements. TransportationResearch Part A, 33, 549-574. Retrieved Nov.23, 2003, from http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf

Urban planners typically set the minimum parkingrequirements for every land use to satisfy the peakdemand for free parking. As a result, parking is freefor 99 percent of automobile trips in the United States.Minimum parking requirements increase the supplyand reduce the price-but not the cost-of parking. Theybundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost ofdevelopment, and thereby increase the prices of allthe goods and services sold at the sites that offer freeparking. Cars have many external costs, but theexternal cost of parking in cities may be greater thanall the other external costs combined. To preventspillover, cities could price on-street parking ratherthan require off-street parking. Compared withminimum parking requirements, market prices canallocate parking spaces fairly and efficiently. Abstractby the author.

Shoup, D. C. (1999). In lieu of required parking.Journal of Planning Education and Research,18 (4), 307-320. Retrieved Oct 25,2003, from http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu//dup/people/faculty/Shoup%20Pub%202.pdf

Some cities allow developers to pay a feein lieu of parking spaces required by zoning

Figure 9 - A park-and-ride facility in Devon, UK.Image from:www.devon.gov.uk/_dro/gmhpage.html

Page 138: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

138 Parking and Auto

ordinances, and use this revenue to finance thepublic parking spaces to replace the private parkingspaces the developers would have provided. Thispaper presents a survey of in-lieu programs in 46cities in the United States, Canada, the UnitedKingdom, South Africa, Germany and Ireland. Thesein-lieu programs reduce the costs of development,encourage shared parking, improve urban design,and support historic preservation. The in-lieu feesalso reveal that the cost of complying with minimumparking requirements is more than four times the costof the impact fees that cities levy from all other publicpurposes combined. The high costs of requiredparking suggests another promising in-lieu policy:allow developers to reduce parking demand ratherthan increase the parking supply. Examination of anEco Pass program in California shows that reducingparking demand can cost far less than increasing theparking supply. Abstract by the author.

Van Hattum, D. (n.d.). Parking cash-out: Where“smart growth” and effective transit intersect.Minneapolis, MN: Downtown MinneapolisTransportation Management Organization(TMO). Retrieved Dec 11, 2003, from http://www.mplstmo.org/Parking%20Cash-out%20Article.pdf

The paper reports on the implementation of parkingcash-out in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MetropolitanRegion in 1999 and 2000. Parking cash-out refers toemployers offering employees the cash equivalent ofany parking subsidy. Since parking costs in adowntown setting are typically a substantial portion ofcommuting costs, cashing-out parking subsidies canprovide a strong incentive for commuters to choosean alternative to driving alone. Abstract by the author.

Notes

1 Quote from page 5 in Bernick, Michael and RobertCervero. (1997). Transit villages in the 21stCentury. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

2 Cervero, R., Hall, P. & Landis, J. (1991). Transitjoint development in the United States: A reviewand evaluation of recent experience andassessment of future potential. Washington, D.C.:Urban Mass Transit Administration.

3 Cervero, R., Ferrell, C. & Murphy, S. (2002).Transit-oriented development and jointdevelopment in the United States: A literaturereview. (TCRP Research Results Digest 52).Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration.

4 Quote from page 21 in Porter, D. (1997). Transitfocused development (TCRP Synthesis20).Washington, D.C.: TransportationResearch Board.

5 Page 22 in Porter (1997).

6 Page 23 in Porter (1997).

7 Page 78 in Parsons Brinkerhoff (2002). Statewidetransit oriented development study: Factors forsuccess in California. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.

8 Page 113 in Parsons Brinckerhoff (2002)

9 Abstract obtained from Journal of PlanningLiterature, 15 (4), 624.

10 Page 2 in Parsons and Brinckerhoff. 2002.Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities(Special Report). Sacramento, CA: CALTRANS,California Department of Transportation(annotated in this selection).

11 Abstract obtained from Journal of PlanningLiterature, 11 (4), 557.

12 Abstract obtained from Journal of PlanningLiterature, 14 (3), 466.

Page 139: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

139

4: Funding andMarketing Transit

As federal, state and local subsidies shrink, transitagencies across the nation are seeking new sourcesof funding and new strategies for leveraging capital.At the same time that transit agencies’ funding needsbecome ever more pressing, so does the need fortransit to establish a stronger community presenceand visibility, not only among riders but also amongnon riders.

The literature on funding for transit and marketingand visibility of transit annotated in this chapter maybe thought of complementary. First, as the search fornew sources of operating and capital funds havepushed the transit industry to market its services likeany other privately provided service, transit agenciesare now exploring and developing extensivepromotional strategies and marketing plans.Increasingly, these plans are not only similar toprivate sector marketing, but also the plansthemselves are drawing transit agencies and thecorporate sector closer together through partnershipswith the media such as radio and TV as well asthrough corporate sponsorships of transit marketingand promotional campaigns and events. Second, withdecreasing government funding, transit agencieshave had to creatively partner with the private sectorin procuring new sources of revenue through realestate leases and air rights above and aroundstations, leases of right-of-way space and

infrastructure to utility, cable, and telecommunicationscompanies, fees from retail concessions, vendingmachines and pay phones, the selling of advertisingspace on and inside buses and bus shelters,merchandising sales, and the commercialization ofstations and terminals. While this wide-rangingcommercialization of transit property, facilities, androlling stock is seen as controversial and still raisesopposition in many quarters, the trend is increasingrather than declining. Third, the tendency foragencies to increasingly shift from pay-as-you-go forcapital facilities to debt financing, such as bonds,loans, and equity securities, has also its pros andcons. It is still controversial for small and mid-sizetransit agencies, given their limited experience withthese funding mechanisms and uncertainties aboutrepayment streams. Fourth, the funding shift from thefederal to the local has also ushered a strongerreliance on regulatory funding mechanisms such asdevelopment exactions and impact fees for thebuilding of transit passenger facilities (e.g., busshelters and transfer stations) and accessibilityinfrastructure to these facilities (e.g., sidewalks).These are many of the topics examined in thisliterature, which is based on TRB and FTA sponsoredresearch carried out across the nation and by andlarge obtained through the fielding of many transitagencies of different sizes.

Funding and Marketing

Page 140: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

140

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 141: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

141

4.1: Funding

It is well known that transit fares cover a very limitedfraction of the operating costs of transit systems,approximately less than 40% on average.1 Likewise, itis also known that transit agencies are strapped forthe capital investment necessary to keep existingsystems running, to develop new systems, or expandcurrent system capabilities. Furthermore, it is also arecognized fact that small and mid-sized systemsface unique financing challenges and that comparedto larger systems, they have had relatively limitedfinancing experience. The literature annotated in thissection examines these issues and providesrecommendations and lessons learned based onstudies of creative funding mechanisms and financialapproaches practiced by transit agencies.

Across the nation, public transit’s capital fundinghas traditionally relied on federal assistance. Forexample, in 2000 the federal government contributed47% to the total transit capital funding.2 Thus, TEA-21(Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century)capital funding parameters and provisions are ofgreat importance and crucial to small and mid-sizetransit systems. This is the case of many systems inFlorida, whose urbanized area population is growingand demanding the expansion of current transitservices. However, in addition to changingdemographics and travel patterns, which make transitservice provision more expensive, federal unfundedmandates such as ADA—requiring theaccommodation of passengers with disabilities—andthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and theEnergy Policy Act of 1992—requiring less pollutingfleets, have added new layers of expenditures withoutadditional federal assistance to pay for them. This is

forcing transit agencies to review their businessmodels and to become very creative about the waythey procure new sources of capital. However, thereare vast differences between large, mid-size andsmall transit systems in funding practices.

Figure 1 shows how mid-size and small transitagencies depend on federal funds for capital projectsand operations. This federal component ranges from65% for small systems to 75% for mid-size systems.Therefore, many small and mid-size transit agenciesrely almost completely on pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)and grant assistance to manage their capitalprograms. TRB researchers believe that thisapproach is unsustainable and that these agenciesmust become as financially savvy as their largercounterparts in order to face upcoming capital andoperating budget challenges.

TCRP Report 31 by Price Waterhouse (1998) andTCRP Report 89 by Transtech Management (2003)—annotated in this section—provide valuableinformation in this respect. TCRP Synthesis 32 bySilverberg (1998) and TCRP Report 79 by KFHGroup (2002)—also annotated in this section—respectively offer information about revenuegeneration through advertising and ways of fundingintercity bus systems. These two documents profileillustrative case studies from across the nation andinclude Florida bus systems. LYNX in Orlando isshowcased for advertising practices and Polk Countyfor intercity bus services. Except for the publicationon intercity bus funding, collectively the literatureincluded in this section proffers current knowledge onbest practices surrounding alternative sources offunding above and beyond federal andstate grants. The two-volume TCRP Report31, Funding strategies for publictransportation by Price Waterhouse (1998)and TCRP Report 89, Financing capitalinvestment: A primer for the transitpractitioner by Transtech Management Inc.

Funding

Page 142: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

142

(2003) offer useful information to managers of smalltransit agencies interested in learning aboutalternative funding sources—often exclusively thedomain of large transit systems. The first volumegives a comprehensive overview of the public fundingenvironment up to 1997, while Volume 2 is acasebook that illustrates different alternative andcreative sources of funding practiced by the transitindustry. This work, along with the literature onfunding for public transit, stresses the shift in fundingresponsibility from the federal to the local and howthis has augmented the importance of dedicatedfunding for operations (i.e., dedicated taxes andfunds) at the state, local, and agency-jurisdictionlevel. Moreover, the growth in state and local fundingostensibly corresponds to dedicated taxes approvedvia the ballot box, while funding from general revenuesources, which are not voter-approved, havesignificantly decreased over time. A similar shift to thelocal level has occurred for dedicated capital funds as

the Federal Transit Administration’s capital fundingincreased from 1989 to 1994—the period analyzed inthis report— have consistently remained well bellowthe inflation rate.

The central question of this literature is how havepublic transit agencies responded to this fundingchallenge? In procuring financial support at the locallevel, TCRP Report 31 finds that agencies have: (a)focused on their key and most valued services; (b)cut costs in existing services and sought to increaseproductivity; or (c) reduced services levels (e.g.,headways) or service quality (e.g., less frequentcleaning). Furthermore, funding coping mechanismsdeveloped by agencies involve a vast number ofstrategies, grouped in the following three categories:• Partnerships with the private sector

and transit usersAgencies work directly with large customers (i.e.,universities or employers) to provide service

Figure 1. Transit Captial Funding by Source and by Population SizeSource, TCRP Report 89, Financing capital investment: A primer for the transit practitioner.

Retrieved Feb. 4, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_89a.pdf.

Funding

Page 143: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

143

directly tied to the funding source. Partnershipswith entire communities may also include impactfees, local sales or utility taxes, direct operatingsupport, and the use of passes such as Denver’s“Eco Pass.” Partnerships can also includestrategic alliances with suppliers, investors, ordevelopers.

• Utilization of assets to maximize valueRolling stock and an agency’s real property cangenerate additional revenues through advertisingand leasing. Joint development and concessionsand leasing of rights-of-way to fiber optic andtelecommunications companies are also sourcesthat agencies have tapped into.

• Leveraging scarce dollarsPublic transit agencies, primarily the larger ones,have secured funding through financial leveragingmechanisms in the form of debt financing. Someof these mechanisms include: revolving loanfunds and credit enhancements.

Volume 2 of this report is a casebook with examples ofall the above strategies.

Noting that debt financing could become the waveof the future for public transit agencies, the authors ofTCRP Report 31 caution agencies against becomingover-leveraged. They, as well of the rest of the literaturein this section, stress that rather than complete solutionsto the funding crisis of a particular agency, thesestrategies must be seen as useful tools in addressingfunding needs.

TCRP Report 89 Financing capital investment: Aprimer for the transit practitioner by TranstechManagement Inc. (2003) picks up where theaforementioned report left regarding sources andstrategies of financial capital leveraging. It providesrecommendations and approaches for taking advantageof access to public capital markets and evaluates thetradeoffs of PAYGO versus debt financing approaches.Although small and mid-sized transit systems are theprimary target group, this primer seeks to educate

managers of transit systems of all sizes about thebenefits and tradeoffs of debt financing. The primerinstroduces transit managers to the fundamentals offinancing via a three pronged framework covering:• Sources of capital• Financing (debt) mechanisms; and• Repayment streams.

Capital market experience is primarily concentratedamong the largest transit systems and major playerslike New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority andamong the new light rail systems sprouting in manylarge and mid-size cities like Dallas Area Rapid TransitAuthority (DART) or Denver’s Regional Transit District(RTD). However the experience of bus-only systems,which have heavily relied on federal and state grantshas been limited to PAYGO approaches which are seenas more feasible “because acquisition of replacementbuses can generally be staggered over an extendedtime period, reducing one-time capital costs.” 3 Smalleragencies, which are chiefly risk- aversive, have also littleexperience with debt financing due to their reliance onstate and federal assistance and their lack of alternativerepayment stream for debt service. Nonetheless, theauthors of this report discuss instances in which thebenefits of debt financing versus PAYGO approachesmay override the costs even for med-size and smallagencies.

The primer discusses a variety of primary sourcesof investment capital such as investors in the tax-exempt and taxable bond markets, equity investors,vendors and lessors, and new governmental sources ofcapital structured by TEA-21. It overviews the basicdynamics of accessing each particular capital source,and links the financing mechanisms (e.g.,bonds, loans, equity securities) to the mostcommonly used repayment streams (e.g.,grant funds, taxes, and operating revenues).

In his selection, Hendricks’ (2002)Land developer participation in providing

Funding

Page 144: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

144 Funding

for bus transit facilities and operations provideextensive Florida examples of regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to procuring privatedevelopers’ participation in the provision of bus transitcapital facilities and operations. Capital expensesinclude buses, shelters or new terminals as well asinfrastructural facilities such as rights-of-way,sidewalks, and pull-out bays and park-and-ride lotsand other passenger facilities. This work containsuseful Florida-specific examples of the “partnershipswith the private sector” funding approaches.Regulatory mechanisms include impact fees,transportation concurrency techniques, developmentof regional impact, trip reduction ordinances andspecial financing districts. Non regulatory approachescovered in this report include partnerships andincentive programs such as density bonuses, lowerparking requirements, fast-track permitting, and low-

Figure 2. Matrix of Financing Approaches by System Size and Investment TypeSource, TCRP Report 89, Financing capital investment: A primer for the transit practitioner.

Retrieved Feb. 4, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_89a.pdf.

income housing programs. Regarding the buspassenger facilities discussed in this literature review,this document offers useful examples and anoverview of the Florida experience with developer’scontribution to funding public transit capital facilities.

Rail Investments

SmallSystems

LargeSystems

Bus Investments

•PredominantlyPAYGO

•LimitedCommercial &Vendor Fianacing

•Commericial &Vendor Financing

•Lease Financing

•Most Significant CapitalMarket Participants

•Commercial & VendorFinancing

•Lease Financing

N/A

Page 145: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

145

Hendricks, S. J. (2002). Land developerparticipation in providing for bus transitfacilities and operations (416-06). Tampa, FL:Center for Urban Transportation Research,University of South Florida.

This report provides an overview of the various non-regulatory and regulatory approaches for engagingprivate sector land developer participation incontributing toward the provision of bus transit capitalfacilities and operations. It provides information fromaround the country but focuses on circumstancesapplicable to Florida localities. This study specificallyexamined the development of bus transit facilitiesand services. The funding needs of bus transitsystems include capital expenses such as buses andshelters. Capital needs also exist for accessibilityfeatures at bus stops, such as sidewalks, adequateright-of-way, curb cuts and pull-out bays, passengeramenities, bus stop signage, and park and ride lots.Operating expenses constitute the most seriousfunding gap, and private sector contributions foroperations, outside a special district, have beeninfrequent at best. Provided herein are examples ofthe provision of both on-site and off-site bus facilityimprovements. This investigation included a reviewof case studies nationwide. Case studies include 16examples from eight Florida counties ormunicipalities and 15 additional examples from nineother states. Abstract by the author.

KFH Group Inc. (2002). Effective approaches tomeeting rural intercity bus transportationneeds (TCRP Report 79). Washington D.C.:Transportation Research Board. Retrieved onFeb. 2, 2004, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_79.pdf.

The Nation’s Growth and the need to meet mobility,environmental, and energy objectives place demandson public transit systems. Current systems, some ofwhich are old and in need of upgrading, must expandservice area, increase service frequency and

improve efficiency to meet these demands.This report highlights how less urbanized areas canmeet their transportation needs. It addresses fundingfor intercity bus projects, discusses barriers toimplementation, and identifies strategies for initiating,preserving, and enhancing effective intercity bustransportation. Abstract by the author.

Price Waterhouse. (1998). Funding strategies forpublic transportation (TCRP Report 31).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Jan. 23, 2004, from, http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_31-1-a.pdf.http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_31-2-a.pdf.

This report addresses the current state of funding forpublic transportation in the United States, the variouscircumstances that have contributed to today’sfunding environment, and specific strategies thattransit agencies are pursuing to identify new sourcesof funding. The report is presented in two parts—afinal report and a casebook. The former provides anational perspective on public transportation fundingwhile the latter presents case-level information oninnovative methods for generating revenue for publictransportation capital and operating costs. The reportwill be of interest to federal, state, and localtransportation officials, policy makers, andprofessionals concerned with funding for local publictransportation services during the past decade and inthe near future.

Silverberg, S. (1998). Transit advertising revenue:Traditional and new sources and structures(TCRP Report 32). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Feb. 4, 2004, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn32.pdf.

The intent of this synthesis is to describecurrent practices in transit advertising.

Funding

Page 146: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

146 Funding

Thirty transit agencies were surveyed to find out whatadvertising facilities they had and how much revenuethese facilities generated. This report specifically:Provides pictures and descriptions of the equipmentand facilities, reports the total revenue fromadvertising, describes advertising policy guidelines(for alcohol and tobacco), outlines advertisingcontract management, and provides other innovativerevenue sources.

Staes, L., & Hinebaugh, D. (2001). Analysis ofFlorida department of transportation transitcorridor program/projects (NCTR 392-01).Tampa, FL: CUTR, University of SouthFlorida. Retrieved Jan. 28, 2004, from http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/Transit%20Corridor3.pdf.

Traffic congestion has become a severe problem inFlorida’s urban areas. The inability to construct newcapacity fast enough to keep up with the demand,the increasing costs associated with adding thatcapacity, and the political and environmentalcontroversy often associated with building new roadscompound the mobility dilemma requiring differentapproaches to mobility. Now, more than ever,alternative solutions to mobility must be developedand supported to succeed.

The Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT), in an effort to provide flexibility to urbanizedareas to identify and implement congestion andmobility management techniques, developed theTransit Corridor Program. The Transit CorridorProgram provides funding to urbanized areas forprojects designed to relieve congestion and improvecapacity, within a designated transportation corridor,by increasing the capacity of the corridor through theuse and facilitated movement of high occupancyconveyances.

In the process of developing and implementingthe program, the FDOT established a procedure foradministering the Transit Corridor Program thatspecifically identifies the requirements of the

program and the responsibilities given to the FDOTCentral Office, each of the district offices, as well asthe recipients of the program. Since the inception ofthe program, there has been no consolidated,comprehensive review of the program, nor theindividual projects selected for funding. In addition,there has not been a single source of informationdeveloped that identifies successful corridorprograms or projects and the lessons learnedthrough the implementation of those projects.Each project selected for corridor funding must haveclearly defined goals and objectives. Milestones mustbe established by which progress toward the goalsand objectives can be measured. The goals,objectives, and milestones are defined by thegrantee and must be consistent with local, regionaland state plans. After an initial two year period,projects consistently meeting milestones can bereauthorized. Written progress reports are requiredof the grantee as well as a final report that includes,at a minimum, a description of the project’s history, asummary of its successes, any problemsencountered, and recommendations for futureimplementation. A thorough review of these itemsshould assist in determining the overall success ofthe program. Abstract by the author.

Transtech Management Inc. (2003). Financingcapital investment: A primer for the transitpractitioner (TCRP Report 89). Washington,DC: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Feb. 4, 2004, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_89a.pdf.

This primer is organized to provide a wide-rangingaudience with easy access tothe information they need most regarding capitalfinancing for public transportation. The primerincludes descriptive sections that outline the basicfinancing approaches and structures available totransit systems, as well as sections that help systemmanagers and public officials decide when it is most

Page 147: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

147

appropriate to apply alternative financing techniques.Following the introductory Chapter 1, Chapter 2discusses the financing opportunities created byfederal legislation and programs, emphasizing thecurrent federal transportation program. Chapter 3offers an introduction to the world of municipal debtfinance and offers those readers with lessbackground in public finance a framework for makingthe choice between pay-as-you-go funding andfinancing alternatives. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 introducethe three components of finance-capital sources,financing mechanisms, and repayment streams.Together, these chapters provide an inventory ofavailable funding and finance methods and offer real-life examples of many of the approaches. Chapter 7addresses how-once the options are understood- atransit system and its managers go about formulatinga comprehensive capital financing plan and carryingit out for individual projects or programs of projects.Chapter 8 offers insights and observations based onthe research that contributed to developmentof the primer, including a collection of interviews withtransit system managers, state and local officials,and members of the public finance community.Following the last chapter are five technical annexes(or appendixes), which provide supporting material oradditional technical detail for readers who areinterested in learning more about a particular subject.Abstract by the author.

Funding

Page 148: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

148

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 149: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

149

4.2: Transit ImageMarketing andCommunityVisibility

Research dealing with the image and visibility oftransit in its various forms, be it bus, heavy or lightrail, has produced a body of literature and practicalrecommendations geared to enhancing the publicperception of transit. Most of this work acknowledgesthat Americans value their automobiles for reasonsabove and beyond transportation needs, and thatstrategies designed to strengthen the image of publictransit should not focus on the negatives of theautomobile but rather on the community benefitsassociated with transit. Like any other industry, thetransit industry has approached its public imagethrough the marketing of its services to the public.Thus, the literature in this section, gathered fromvarious TCRP sources, approaches the marketing oftransit from a variety of perspectives. TCRP Report50, A handbook of proven marketing strategies forpublic transit by the Texas Transportation Institute(1999), not only provides marketing theory andprinciples and practical worksheets for producing atransit-marketing plan, but also offers a plethora ofsuccessful examples from across the country,gathered from transit agencies of various fleet sizes.The examples offered represent an assortment ofprojects including:• community events that show the role and place of

transit in the community;• accessibility campaigns for the disabled;• cooperative promotions with the public sector that

enhance transit image and secure the publicsector’s long term commitment to transit;

• image promotion projects that strengthen thebonds between a transit agency and the

community by presenting the benefits of a publiclysubsidized transit system;

• internal promotions that raise the transit agency’smorale and build positive management,employee, and customers relations;

• media relations that utilize various local media,such as radio and TV, to promote understandingand good will of transit by the public;

• a variety of transit promotion programs andevents.

This handbook stresses that successfulmarketing programs must deal with transit as aservice designed to meet consumer needs.Therefore, before embarking on any promotionalactivity, transit service and marketing plans should beprepared in tandem. The marketing of transit as aservice should be integrated with the development ofthe transit service itself—from the moment routes andschedules are planned, the service is distributed, andfares are determined. Also, the service must adapt tothe changing needs of customers, andcommunication strategies should aim at changingattitudes and habits. In this last respect, TCRP Report63, Enhancing the visibility and image of transit in theUnited States and Canada by Witrthlin Worldwide(2000), provides a set of message strategiesdesigned to increase the image of transit among non-riders and to attract “swing” supporters to transit. Theauthors carried out a national opinion survey andfound that the dominant value orientation towardtransit can be best summarized by the motto:“community benefit built on personal opportunity.”This value orientation is based on a widely sharedview that transit can provide community opportunitiesthrough mobility, choice, and accessibility.The report provides a good summary andanalysis of the challenges that public transitfaces in boosting its image among non-riders. Some of the most importantchallenges include:

Transit Image M

arketingand C

omm

unity Visibility

Page 150: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

150Transit Image Marketingand Community Visibility

• The automobile is an indispensable and lovedmember of the American family; it is not anenemy of public transportation;

• Low public recognition of transit as a solution topublic transportation;

• Lack of public familiarity with transit’s communitybenefits;

• Nearly one third of American adults do notsupport transit, partly based on bad pastexperience with transit.

However in contrast to TCRP Report 50, whichoffers specific case study experience and bestpractice examples obtained from transit agencies,this report’s recommendations emphasize thecreation of a national public transportation brand builton public recognition of the positive personal benefitsthat transit provides to all citizens not only to transitriders. Its core recommendation is the creation of anationally organized promotional campaign thatspeaks with “one voice” promoting transit inside andoutside the transit industry and at national, regional,and local levels.

Other research reports annotated in this sectionapproach transit’s public image from quite different,yet related angles. TCRP Web Document 8,Marketing transit services to business byMultisystems Inc. et al. (1998), provides theory onbusiness-to-business marketing and presentsexamples from the non-profit sector that are relevantto transit agencies seeking to expand both theireconomic support and community presence. TCRPReport 45, Passenger information services: Aguidebook for transit systems by the TexasTransportation Institute (1999), advises transitagencies on how to design the best possible buspassenger information materials. Transit informationaids, which can range from maps offering routeguidance to bus stop signs and timetables, are criticalcomponents of a quality transit service and are also aform of customer relations through which a transit

agency establishes community presence and visibility.TCRP Synthesis Report 17, Customer information atbus stops by John Dobies (1996), extends a similarset of ideas to passenger information aids provided atbus stops (see Table 1). It notes that the majority oftransit agencies have detailed information displays atless than five percent of their bus stops, and thatsmall transit systems are the less likely to afford welldeveloped on-street information programs such as,an attractive logo, the provision of timetables, routemaps, and system maps showing transferring points,etc. The personnel and maintenance costs of thesefacilities are high for any transit agency, but moreinsidiously so for small ones. Insufficient evidencesupporting the payback in increased ridershipassociated with investments in detailed on-streetprograms has deterred many agencies fromcreatively broaching this issue. This TCRP Synthesisprovides advice and useful practical informationrelated to costs, staffing requirements, designconsiderations, and ADA requirements related to on-street information programs. It also provides anassessment of their cost effectiveness in terms of theneed for user-friendly information and community andcustomer relations vis-à-vis the current budgetarypressures.

Finally, TCRP Report 70, Guidebook for changeand innovation at rural and small urban transitsystems by KFH Group Inc. (2001), identifies an arrayof innovations implemented by small transit agenciesto improve service quality, efficiency, and productivity.This guidebook culls experience and information fromover seven case studies of rural and small urbantransit systems. The profiled agencies show thatwhile facing the challenges common to many smallsystems, such as:• meeting a wide range of riders’transportation needs;• providing service in low density,dispersed settlement areas;• operating with limited funding;

Page 151: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

151

Table 1. Transit Information Sign Audiences and FunctionsSource: Dobies, J. (1996). Customer information at bus stops.

Retrieved Jan. 25, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn17.pdf.

Rider Audiences• Regular Riders• New Riders• Special Riders

• Disabled• Non-English Speaking• Students• Tourists

Non-Rider Audiences• Transit Drivers• New Drivers• Unfamiliar Drivers• Elected Representatives• Retail Merchants

Informational Functions• Bus Stop Identification• Mode Identification• Logo• Route(s) designation• Transfer Points or Centers• Days/Hours of Operation• Service Frequency Public Transit• Handicapped Accessability on Vehicles Servicing Route• Route Map(s)• Telephone Information Number

Pyschological Functions• Promote Corporate Identity (Name, Logo, Color Scheme, etc.)• Reinforce Other Consumer Aids• Rider Reassurance• Create Impression of Service Quality• Attract Non-Riders• Create a Positive Image

Operations Functions• Decrease Dependence on Bus Drivers for Information• Decrease Dependence on Telephone Information Service• Promote Additional Ridership• Improve Driver Morale• Designate Stops More Clearly for New Drivers

Transit Image M

arketingand C

omm

unity Visibility

Page 152: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

152

Cervero, R. (1994). Making transit work insuburbs. Transportation Research Record,1451, 3-11.

Rapid decentralization of population and employmentover the last several decades has chipped away atthe U.S. transit industry’s market share. Theimplications of decentralization on the ridership,operating performance, and fiscal health of thenation’s largest transit operators are examined. Onthe basis of the results of a national survey, a numberof service strategies that offer hope for reversingtransit’s decline are explored, including timedtransfers, paratransit services, reverse commute andspecialized runs, employer-sponsored van-pools, andhigh occupancy vehicle and dedicated buswayfacilities. Land use options, like traditionalneighborhood designs, and transit-based housing,are also examined. A discussion of variousinstitutional, pricing, and organizationalconsiderations when implementing sub-urbantargeted service reforms and land use incentives isalso provided. The author argues that century-oldmodels involving joint public-private development ofcommunities and transit facilities also deservereconsideration. Abstract by the author.

Charles River Associates, Inc. (1997). Buildingtransit ridership: An exploration of transit’smarket share and the public policies thatinfluence it (TCRP Report 27). Washington,D.C.: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Jan. 29, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_27.pdf.

State and local transportation officials constitute theprimary intended audience for this report. Thisincludes elected and appointed board members whodeal with local transportation policy, transit agencyofficials, transit agency professionals, andmetropolitan area transportation planners. The reportaddresses transit’s ridership and its share of the

• coordinating with a variety of local organizations;and

• being accountable to multiple sources of funding;

They tried new innovative programs that allowedthem to remain responsive to their riders andcommunities. This report offers guidance based ontransit agencies’ experience related to public-privatepartnerships formed to augment funding by targetingservice to grocery stores and community employers.Taking advantage of volunteer driver programs,boosting morale and service through organizationalinnovations, and new innovative uses andapplications of federal funding are other illustrativeexamples of how rural and small urban transitsystems are tackling both community and customerrelations and budget limitations.

All in all the annotated documents in this sectioncomplement the literature annotated and described inthe previous section. Together with the sources onfunding, it will provide transit managers a goodsource of theory, research, and best practice adviceabout strategies that enhance transit visibility andimage.

Transit Image Marketingand Community Visibility

Page 153: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

153

travel market. The research explored a variety ofdifferent public policies and transit managementactions that can potentially influence transit ridership,particularly in comparison to local travel by privatevehicle. The policies are presented through casestudies, which are summarized in the report anddocumented in greater detail in the accompanyingappendices. Abstract by the author.

Dobies, J. (1996). Customer information at busstops (TCRP Synthesis Report 17).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Jan. 25, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tsyn17.pdf.

It is commonly held that ineffective user informationsystems are barriers to increased ridership. In recentyears, more research and other efforts haveincreased to advance the state of the art forinformation systems for transit users. However, thebus stop sign, with its potential for displaying a widerange of user information, has been highlyunderutilized. Typically, transit agencies do notprovide this information at bus stops, or provideinformation at a relatively small number of stops.

The major focus of this synthesis is to gatherinformation on current transit industry practices andresearch related to the provision of customerinformation at bus stops. The study: 1) Summarizesand presents ideas for transit agency managers todevelop or enhance their information program; 2)provides information on costs, staffing requirements,design considerations (pp29-39), and ADArequirements ; and 3) addresses the costeffectiveness of the transit agency’s investment inthese information systems and programs.Appendices B and C provide photos of informationsystems.

KFH Group Inc. (2001). Guidebook for change andinnovation at rural and small urban transitsystems (TCRP Report 70). Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedJan. 13, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_70a.pdf.

This report will be of interest to individuals whoprovide public transportation in rural and small urbanareas; local, regional, state, and federal planners andfunders of these services; and the administrators ofthese programs at state departments oftransportation. The research, presented in the form ofa guidebook, provides a valuable resource to manypeople who may implement or adapt new concepts toimprove public transportation in their community.Much of the information was derived from a carefulreview of innovative public transportation initiativesundertaken in rural and small urban communitiesthroughout the United States. The guidebook isdivided into two parts: Part I addresses the culture forchange and innovation and Part II presents more than40 initiatives and innovations implemented by anarray of organizations, including public and nonprofittransit systems, regional planning agencies, statetransit associations, and state departments oftransportation. Abstract by the author.

Koppa, R., & Higgins, L. (1996). Bus routeguidance information design: A manual forbus and light rail transit systems - secondedition. College Station, TX: Texas A&MUniversity.

Design guidelines and information are offered forstatic signage and handout information to assisttransit riders in route planning andguidance. An earlier version of the manualwas published in 1994. The manual nowincorporates Americans with Disability(ADA) design guidelines, and also has anAppendix which is comprised of a digest ofADA Accessibility Guidelines applicable to

Transit Image M

arketingand C

omm

unity Visibility

Page 154: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

154

bus and light transit stop design. The manualprovides concise and explicit advice on how to designsigns at stops, transfer points, and terminals for streetand system maps, route maps and timetables, routeand direction designation, and locator signs.Information is also given for the design of timetablesand system maps for distribution to riders. Onehundred transit companies were surveyed by mailand telephone of which 65 sent specimens of theirroute guidance material. This material helped theauthors arrive at these suggestions, however, insome cases the authors had to rely upon their humanfactors and ergonomics backgrounds to provideguidance in the absence of consensus.

Mustard, W. A. (1999). Enhancing consumerawareness and perceptions of public transitproviders (NUTI4-FSU-3). Tallahassee, FL:Florida State University.

This research project was undertaken to determinepublic opinion about the use and effectiveness ofpublic transportation services and organizations. Thisincludes local bus systems, subways, and commuterrailroads. An important part of the mission of thepublic transit organizations is to foster a positivepublic perception of their services. Some describethis process as building brand equity, others refer to itas image building or product positioning. No matterthe description, the process requires a fundamentalunderstanding of how consumers perceive theservices offered. The primary objectives of this studywere to (1) identify current opinions, attitudes, andperceptions of public transit services and (2) establishmarketing priorities for public transit serviceorganizations. This report summarizes the results ofpersonal interviews conducted by trained studentinterviewers. The students were offered bonus pointsin classes taught by the primary researcher in returnfor their efforts. Training took place in class andspecific written instructions were given to eachinterviewer. A total of 371 interviews were completed.Abstract by the author.

Pucher, J., & Kurth, S. (1995). Making transitirresistible: Lessons from Europe.Transportation Quarterly, 49 (1), 117-128.

Decreasing transit ridership and increasing auto-dependency have resulted in environmentaldegradation and increasing congestion. This isleading some countries to examine their public transitsystems and policies. The authors investigate theshifting policy and coordination issues surroundingWestern European countries, most specifically, theformer country of West Germany. The authorsconclude that transit can be a viable alternative ifprotransit governmental policies are maintained orenhanced. They fear, however, that without transitfriendly policies, long-term environmental concernswill be discarded in favor of short-term politicalvictories.4

Texas Transportation Institute. (1999). Ahandbook of proven marketing strategies forpublic transit (TCRP Report 50). Washington,DC: Transportation Research Board.Retrieved Jan. 21, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_50-a.pdf.

Texas Transportation Institute, in association with theSouth West Transit Association and the Center forTransportation Education and Development at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, prepared thehandbook for TCRP Project B-13. To achieve theproject objective of identifying proven marketingstrategies to implement at transit agencies, theresearchers identified and described low-cost andcost-effective marketing techniques currently used atlarge, medium, and small, urban and rural transitagencies throughout the transit industry. Thecomplete range of lowcost marketing activitiesincludes traditional, broad marketing activities suchas pricing, promotions, advertising, planning, andservice delivery targeted at specific submarkets.Further, a method was developed to define the

Transit Image Marketingand Community Visibility

Page 155: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

155

criteria that would be used to assess and selectcreative and promising marketing techniques.Selection of promising practices was made on thebasis of cost, cost-effectiveness, ease ofimplementation, community support, and staff timerequired to implement the marketing program. Ageneral overview of each strategy is provided. Theoverview includes a basic description of thestrategies, the objective of its implementation, theresources necessary, the time required, the results ofthe project, any suggested adaptation or refinements,and when the project was implemented. The size ofthe transit agency implementing the project isindicated by fleet size. Also provided in this handbookare summary materials on general principles ofmarketing public transit. Included are checklists andforms to make it easier for the public transit managerto incorporate solid principles of marketing and publicrelations. Abstract by the authors.

Texas Transportation Institute (1999). Passengerinformation services: A guidebook for transitsystems (TCRP Report 45). Washington D.C.:Transportation Research Board. RetrievedJan. 21, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_45.pdf

This guidebook is written for transit planners,customer service departments, marketing andgraphics professionals, consultants, and all othersresponsible for the design of passenger informationmaterials for public transit systems. It is intended toprovide basic instructions for designing passengerinformation aids, as well as theory and backgroundmaterial for those who need or want more of the“why” that is behind the “how.”

The guidebook is organized into three mainsections:Section 1-Preliminary Considerations-This section

addresses basic information needs of transitpassengers, including wayfinding behavior anddecision making during a trip.

Section 2-Suggestions for Route GuidanceInformation Aids-Each type of recommendedroute guidance information is briefly described,with examples where applicable.

Section 3-Design Elements for Information Aids-Design and format details for information aids(e.g., print sizes, visual contrast, use of color andsymbols, and map legends) are discussed.

In addition, there are two appendixes. Appendix Aprovides background and reference information aboutsome of the topics and recommendations containedin Sections 1 through 3. Appendix B contains materialfrom the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990pertaining to elements of bus stop design. Althoughthe instructions in this guidebook refer to bus service,the same information aids and design elementsdescribed also apply to rail transit. Abstract by theauthor.

Transportation Research Board. (1999). Marketingtransit services to business (TCRP WebDocument 8). Washington, DC: TransportationResearch Board. Retrieved Jan. 29, 2003, fromhttp://books.nap.edu/books/tcr008/html/8.html#pagetop.

This TCRP web document presents “how to”information about the marketing of transit tobusinesses such as employers, developers and otherconsumers of transit. It draws on best practicesrelated to business-to-business marketing techniquesdeveloped by the non-profit-sector; it provides theprinciples of business-to-business marketing theoryand offers practical recommendations for transit-to-business marketing. The document also presentscase studies and examples of transitagencies, whose transit-to-businessmarketing has proven successful.

Transit Image M

arketingand C

omm

unity Visibility

Page 156: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

156

Transportation Research Board. (2001). Makingtransit work (Special Report 257).Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Retrieved Jan. 29, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/sr/sr257.pdf.

This report was prepared for policy makers searchingfor ways to boost public transit use in U.S. urbanareas and wishing to know what can be learned fromthe experiences of Canada and Western Europe.With few exceptions, public transit has a moreprominent role in Canada and Western Europe thanin the United States. This is true not only in largecities, but also in many smaller communities andthroughout entire metropolitan areas. Transit is usedfor about 10% of urban trips in Western Europe,compared with about 2% in the U.S. Canadians usepublic transit about twice as much as Americans,although there is considerable variation acrossCanada, just as there is in Western Europe and theU.S.

This report describes the differences in publictransit use among U.S., Canadian and WesternEuropean cities; identifies those factors, from urbanform to automobile usage, that have contributed tothese differences; and offers hypotheses about thereasons for these differences—from historical,demographic, and economic conditions to specificpublic policies, such as automobile taxation andurban land use regulation. Chapter 1 provides anintroduction. In Chapter 2, international trends intransit ridership, automobile use, and urbandevelopment are compared. In Chapter 3,descriptions are given of a number of policies andpractices that have been directly supportive of transitin Europe and Canada, enhancing transit quality,reliability, and availability.

The discussion then turns to other, broaderpolicies that have been complementary to transit,including high taxes on automobiles and motor fuel.The chapter concludes by comparing the extent towhich urban land use and transportation

infrastructure are coordinated in Western Europe,Canada, and the U.S. The external factors andconditions that have spurred transit use and the manytransit-supportive policies found abroad are examinedin Chapter 4. Differences in political institutions,public attitudes, and economic and social trends,among other factors, are discussed. The mainfindings of the report are summarized in Chapter 5.Opportunities for applying the successes of Canadaand Western Europe in the U.S. to enhance the useand availability of public transit are indicated. Abstractby the author.

Wirthlin Worldwide. (2000). Enhancing thevisibility and image of transit in the UnitedStates and Canada (TCRP Report 63).Washington, D.C.: Transportation ResearchBoard. Retrieved Jan. 12, 2003, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_63-a.pdf.

This report will be of interest to transit managers,marketing professionals, and others at the local,regional, and national levels interested in improvingthe visibility and image of transit in the United Statesand Canada through the implementation of imagecampaigns. The report documents and presents howthe image of transit can be strengthened by buildingon existing positive perceptions. The researchprovides a communications strategy to guide national,regional, and local efforts to enhance the image andvisibility of transit in order to create a more positiveand supportive environment.

The findings of the research suggest thatcommunications strategies should build on thefollowing powerful themes: (a) providing opportunitiesfor people from every walk of life; ( b) making lots ofchoices and options available; (c) providing easyaccess to things people need in everyday life; and (d)offering the mobility and freedom to do what peoplemost want to do. The dominant theme identified was“Community Benefit Built on Personal Opportunity.”The report consists of two stand-alone sections. The

Transit Image Marketingand Community Visibility

Page 157: FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT · 5 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design

157

first section documents market research conducted inthe United States. The second section providessimilar information based on research conducted inCanada.

Notes

1 Transtech Management Inc. (2003). Financingcapital investment: A primer for the transitpractitioner (TCRP Report 89). Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board. Retrieved Feb.4, 2004, from http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_89a.pdf.

2 Transtech Management Inc (2003)

3 Transtech.Management Inc (2003) p. 8.

4 Abstract obtained from Journal of PlanningLiterature 10 (4), p.434.

Transit Image M

arketingand C

omm

unity Visibility


Top Related