Polk Transit Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
Prepared for:
Polk Transportation Planning Organization 330 West Church Street Bartow, FL 33830 www.polktpo.com
Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 545 North Broadway Avenue Bartow, FL 33830 Phone: (863) 533-8454
August 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. Organization of Study .....................................................................................................
1-1 1-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... Mode Identification ......................................................................................................... Segmentation ................................................................................................................. Evaluation .................................................................................................................. Preliminary Modal Assignment ......................................................................................
2-1 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-15
Section 3: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ Final Modal Assignment and Service Improvements Summary ..................................... Phasing and Implementation Plan ..................................................................................
3-1 3-1 3-4
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:
Evaluation Process ........................................................................................................
2-4
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14:
Polk TDP Premium Bus Service Evaluation Criteria ...................................................... Summary of Existing Conditions Criteria Analysis and Mode Assignment .................... Transit Service Density Threshold ................................................................................. Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) ........................................................................ Summary of Future Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment ...................... 2025 Average Daily Person Trips Summary .................................................................. TBEST Modeling Results .............................................................................................. Final Mode Assignment ................................................................................................. Typical Cross-Section Right-of-Way Requirements....................................................... Existing Right-of-Way Availability Analysis Results ....................................................... Service Improvements to Existing Corridor Transit Services ......................................... Proposed Express Services Summary .......................................................................... Proposed BRT Service Summary .................................................................................. Phasing of Service Improvements .................................................................................
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-5 2-8 2-9 2-11 2-12 2-14 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5
i
LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Map 2: Map 3:
Study Corridor Segmentation ........................................................................................ Study Corridor Travel Flow Analysis.............................................................................. Service Improvements Summary...................................................................................
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-3 2-13 3-2
ii
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A Countywide Transit Study was conducted in 2004 to identify the opportunities for continued expansion of transit services in Polk County and to develop a service development strategy and business plan to support this expansion. In that study, several major corridors in Polk County were identified as target premium transit corridors. The results of the Countywide Transit study were incorporated and further refined in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan as part of the Polk County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The regional transit projects identified in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan include the Bartow-to-Lakeland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/Express service along US 98 and US 92 express bus service connecting the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) Transit Terminal and the Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT) Terminal. Currently, service is provided along on US 98 by LAMTD Route 22XL and on US 92 by WHAT Route 12. To further improve transit services between Bartow, Lakeland, and Winter Haven, three corridors were identified to assess the possibility of enhanced premium bus services beyond what is being provided today. These three corridors include:
US 98 from Bartow to Lakeland US 17 from Bartow to Winter Haven US 92 from Lakeland to Winter Haven
ORGANIZATION OF STUDY In addition to the introduction section, this document includes the following sections: Section 2 presents the Methodology and Analysis utilized to perform the premium bus service feasibility assessment. A detailed description of the process, analysis, and preliminary results is presented. Section 3 includes the Prioritization and Implementation Plan. This section summarizes the final recommendations from the assessment and includes a brief implementation plan for achievement of the resulting recommended services.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
1-1
SECTION 2 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS This section provides an overview of the methodology used to conduct the premium bus service feasibility assessment. The evaluation of the three study corridors was conducted using a multi-phased approach that focused on the feasibility of each corridor to support premium transit services and to guide development of a staged implementation plan to introduce those services in these corridors. The methodology used consists of five steps, which include:
Mode identification Segmentation Evaluation Preliminary Modal Assignment Final Modal Assignment
MODE IDENTIFICATION In order to assign modes to the corridors, an initial list of potential modes was determined. The following transit modes are drawn from the Polk 2060 Vision and were determined to be appropriate for possible consideration in Polk County.
Traditional local bus is the primary service that currently operates in Polk County. Traditional local bus service operates using traditional bus stops, makes frequent stops, and travels at lower average speeds than BRT or express bus services. Traditional local bus services generally operate alongside regular traffic with varying service frequencies.
Enhanced express bus is generally characterized as a peak hour commuter service where stops are concentrated at the ends of the route with few or none in the middle. Enhanced express bus often operates out of park-and-ride lots and serves passengers who are completing longer distance trips. The vehicles may include coach-style vehicles and may offer amenities such as wireless internet. There are two express routes in operation in Polk County, the LAMTD 22XL and the WHAT 22XW.
Premium bus service, such as BRT, operates in mixed traffic or on an exclusive lane of travel. The vehicles are typically stylized to look more like a rail vehicle than a bus, can be articulated, and are usually branded. Optional premium features include level boarding, off-board fare payment, and larger stations with more passenger amenities than a bus stop for traditional local bus service. Premium bus service operates at high service frequencies and can use traffic signal priority (TSP) to
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-1
help reduce travel time and improve reliability. High-frequency service, such as what is provided by BRT, typically operates most effectively in corridors consisting of high density commercial and residential development. It is important to note that, for this study, a distinction is made between high frequency, premium bus service and BRT based on the planning horizon of this analysis. 
Light rail can be one or two train cars in length, operates on rail tracks, and is segregated from traffic. It operates at medium speeds, has medium frequencies, and makes frequent stops. Light rail is specifically branded and has significant stations. Although not part of this premium bus service assessment, light rail is included as a possible transit mode if appropriate densities and sufficient right-of-way exist in the urbanized areas within the study corridors.
SEGMENTATION Segmentation was used to create more uniformly characteristic pieces of the corridors for analysis. Segmenting provides the opportunity for assessing the suitability of each segment in supporting varying levels of service, i.e., transit modes. Ideally, each corridor segment connects a logical beginning and ending point and has uniform characteristics throughout its length. These characteristics may include transitsupportive land uses, accessibility, and user markets. Later steps in this evaluation process will attempt to regroup segments with a similar mode assignment to allow for a more realistic and practical approach to the programming, implementation, and operation of premium bus services. Prior to completing the segmentation of the study corridors, the initial north end of the US 98 corridor was extended based on input provided from City of Lakeland staff to Maple Dr at US 98. The extension ensures that the feasibility analysis captures the portion of US 98 in north Lakeland, which is considered an area that may support premium transit services. Segmentation of the three corridors was then based on the Polk County Comprehensive Plan Transit Corridors and Centers Overlay (TCCO). That overlay identifies specific areas in Polk County targeted for higher densities and intensities for development and organizes those areas into transit corridors, transit centers, and transit center cores. Map 1 illustrates TCCO transit centers and transit center cores along with the segmentation developed for the evaluation. As shown in Map 1, US 98, US 17 and US 92 were divided into six, three, and four segments, respectively.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-2
CR 640 (PINECREST RD)
2
CR 6 4
0
4 Miles
LAKE HAMILTON DR W
CR 557/POMELO ST
NW)
SIXTH STREET SE
Corridor Segmentation US 17-1
US 92-1
HELENA RD
17 US
COOLEY ROAD
US 92-2 US 92-3 US 92-4 US 98-1 US 98-2
CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD) SR 60
Legend
US 17-3
CR 559 (BOMBER RD)
CR 655A (COX RD/ALTUR AS RD N)
US 17/98
NINETY-ONE MINE RD
LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD SR 60
CR 55 5
SR 37
SR 60
SR 60
S U
17
Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan
US 17-2
EAGLE LAKE LOOP RD
8
CARTER ROAD
S U
17
BUCKEYE RD
FIRST STREET SOUTH
REYNOLDS RD
CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)
SR 60
1
CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)
9 US
SHEPHERD RD
LAKE MIRIAM DR
SR 3 OLD HIGHWAY 37 7 (F LO R IDA AVE S)
LUNN ROAD
PIPKIN RD WEST
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A
ALAMO DRIVE
2
AVE T NE/COUNTRY CLUB RD N
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
(AGRIC O LA R D)
WARING ROAD
SR 570 (POLK PAR KWAY)
MAINE AVE
SPIRIT LAKE RD
CR 37B (LAKELAND HIGHLANDS RD)
EDGEWOOD DRIVE E
) RT RD YATES ROAD
SYLVESTER ROAD
2
Y) HW
BEACON ROAD
ER CK (RE
98
(AIRPO
ARIANA ST
55
S U
SR 572
N LAKE DR CRYSTAL
CR 544A (DERBY AVE W)
6 SR
US 92 CR 542 (MAIN ST E/K-VILLE AVE)
K PARKWAY)
LIME STREET
OLIVE STREET
0
ST E)
9 US
BRIDGERS AVE
SR 570 (POL
CR 542 (MAIN
BOLENDER RD/MORRIS RD
7/9 US 1
US 17 (EIGHTH ST
MINEOLA DR
TENTH ST W FIFTH STREET CRUTCHFIELD RD US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W) PARKER STREET
EWELL ROAD
SR 559
CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)
BELLA VISTA STREET
CASS ROAD
THIRTY-FOURTH ST NW
4
98
E AT ST R TE IN
CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)
4 D
US
CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)
L ROA
RD)
Y HIL SLEEP
THORNHILL RO AD
US 98
SR 659 (COMBEE
3 SR 3
US 98-3 US 98-4 US 98-5 US 98-6 SR 60
ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF
Transit Centers and Cores Core Center
Major Road
Map 1 Premium Bus Corridor Segmentation
EVALUATION The segment evaluation process, reflected as a decision tree in Figure 1, consists of a multi-criteria analysis. Each corridor segment was evaluated to determine the appropriate mode for that particular segment. Segments were evaluated first on their ability to support 10- to 15-minute service frequencies today based on an initial set of criteria. If the segment is not considered supportive of 10- to 15-minute service frequencies today then a second set of criteria was used to determine if the segment will support bus service with 10- to 15-minute service frequencies in the future. If segments were not determined to be supportive of 10- to 15minute service frequencies today or in the future, a separate corridor based assessment was conducted using origin-destination (OD) data from the travel demand model to determine if the corridor would support enhanced express bus services. The continuation of existing local bus service was recommended for any corridor that neither supported BRT nor express bus services based on the analysis. An additional right-ofway availability analysis was conducted on all segments to determine if exclusive lanes of travel can be accommodated to further enhance premium bus or express services. Figure 1 Evaluation Process
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-4
To conduct the evaluation, a set of criteria, shown in Table 1, was developed to gauge each corridor segment’s supportiveness of BRT or express bus service. The criteria selected are comprehensive, nonredundant, and mutually-exclusive to the greatest extent possible. The criteria also have been designed to be quantifiable or classifiable to score individual segments/corridors. Scores range from 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 depending on the nature of each criterion. Three criteria were selected for assessing existing conditions, including existing transit ridership, transit dependent populations, and floor area ratio; three separate criteria were selected for assessing future conditions, including future population/employment density, activity centers, and the redevelopment propensity index. Table 1 presents the criteria and corresponding measures of effectiveness and data sources. Following Table 1 is a detailed description of each criterion, scoring thresholds, and the evaluation results. Table 1 Polk TDP Premium Bus Service Evaluation Criteria Criterion
Measure
Data Source
Existing Conditions Existing Transit Ridership
Annual average daily transit ridership per mile (2011)
Transit Agencies
Transit Dependent Populations
Proportion of segment half-mile service area within "Very High" or "High" TOI areas
ESRI 2010 Demographic Data by Block Group
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Proportion of parcels with BRT supportive FARs within half-mile service area
Polk County Property Appraiser
Future Population/Employment Density
Proportion of segment half-mile service area within "Very High" population or employment density thresholds
Polk TPO 2035 TAZ Data
Activity Centers
Total number of activity centers and transit trip generators and attractors per mile within segment half-mile service area
Polk 2060 Vision/Polk Comprehensive Plan
Redevelopment Propensity Index(RPI)*
Percent of parcels within segment half-mile service area with a high RPI
Polk County Property Appraiser
Travel Flow
Average daily person trips to and from corridor end activity centers
Regional Travel Demand Model (2025)
Right-of-Way Availability
Percent of available right-of-way within each segment
Polk County Property Appraiser
Future Conditions
Additional Assessments
*The RPI reflects a composite score for the age of built structures, access to transportation facilities, land value vs. structural value, and designated redevelopment areas.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-5
Does the segment meet the threshold for 10 to 15 minute bus service frequency today? Existing Transit Ridership A ridership analysis was completed for each segment using FY 2011 route-by-route ridership data provided by PCTS, Citrus Connection, and WHAT. In order to determine the number of transit boardings along each of the analysis corridor segments, it was necessary to determine what proportion of each existing route currently operates within each corridor segment. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that average daily ridership per route was distributed equally across the length of each transit route. Ridership for each BRT analysis corridor segment was then calculated by summing the ridership for all overlapping transit route segments. Average daily ridership for each segment was then normalized by segment length to obtain ridership per segment mile. In order to determine a threshold for this criterion, average daily ridership per route mile for 16 BRT systems in the U.S. was obtained from operating survey data conducted by the National BRT Research Institute in March 2011 (http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Survey/BRT_Currently%20_Operating.pdf). Data from that survey indicates that the minimum BRT ridership per mile is 70 trips per mile. The following scoring system was developed for this criterion based on the minimum BRT ridership per mile. In addition, results of this criterion analysis can be found in Table 2.
A score of 4 is assigned to segments experiencing 70 or more boardings per mile. A score of 3 is assigned to segments experiencing between 40 and 69 boardings per mile. A score of 2 is assigned to segments experiencing between 10 and 39 boarding per mile. A score of 1 is assigned to segments experiencing 9 or less boarding per mile.
Transit Dependent Populations Transit dependent populations, also called traditional market, refer to population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit. Typical transit dependent population segments include the following characteristics:
Older adult population (i.e., age 60 years or older) Youth population (i.e., age 15 to 24) Population below the poverty level Areas with high population density Households with no vehicles
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-6
A Transit Orientation Index (TOI) was developed to identify areas of the county where transit dependent populations exist. The five population segments identified previously were used to develop an index that identifies segments with higher concentrations of transit dependent populations relative to other segments. 2010 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) demographic data estimates were compiled at the block group level and categorized according to each block group’s relative ability to support transit based on the prevalence of the five noted population characteristics. To assess the TOI for each analysis segment, the proportion of each segment’s half-mile service area meeting the “Very High” or “High” TOI thresholds was calculated. An average and standard deviation for all analysis segments was then calculated and used to rank and score each. The following scoring system was developed.
If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was greater than one standard deviation above the average (20.56%) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 3. If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was greater than or equal to the average (12.32%) for all segments and less than or equal to one standard deviation above the average (20.56%), then it was assigned a score of 2. If a segment’s proportion of “Very High” and “High” TOI areas was less than the average (12.32%) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 1.
Floor Area Ratio There is no better indicator of successful public transportation services than the presence of compact urban development. Floor area ratio (FAR) is well-suited to measure residential, non-residential, or mixed-use densities. The existing FAR within each corridor was calculated for parcels within half-mile service area of each corridor segment using the latest parcel data obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser’s Office. That parcel database contains detailed information on the size of each parcel of land in the County and the square footage of existing structures on each parcel. In order to determine appropriate thresholds for this criterion, Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit-Supportive Land Use published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in 2004 was reviewed. Based on this report, areas with FARs equal to or greater than 1.5 are considered supportive of BRT (i.e., 10 to 15 minute service frequencies) application while parcels with FARs less than 1.5 are considered supportive of lower levels of service (i.e., > 15-minute service frequencies). The following scoring system was applied based on the FAR analysis:
If 50 percent of the parcels within half-mile buffer of an individual corridor segment has a FAR of 1.5 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 3. If 50 percent of parcels within half-mile buffer of an individual corridor segment has a FAR of 0.5 or more, then it was assigned a score of 2; If an individual segment does not meet any of the above conditions, it was assigned a score of 1.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-7
Existing Conditions Preliminary Modal Assignment Based on the existing conditions evaluation criteria and thresholds, individual scores were calculated for each criterion and a composite score was determined. A segment with a composite score of 8 or higher was determined to be supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies. Based on the analysis, none of the analysis segments are supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies at this time. Table 2 shows the results of the evaluation of existing conditions. Table 2 Summary of Existing Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment Existing Transit Ridership Segment
US98-1 US98-2 US98-3 US98-4 US98-5 US98-6 US17-1 US17-2 US17-3 US92-1 US92-2 US92-3 US92-4
Average Daily Ridership per Mile 48.6 42.2 39.4 23.3 23.4 10.4 15.5 16.8 17.5 30.0 33.7 5.3 9.6
Transit Dependent Populations
FAR
Score
Percent
Score
Percent with FAR >=1.5
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
1.78% 42.78% 7.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.66% 12.10% 9.19% 0.00% 19.23%
1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2
12% 3% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 18% 9% 0% 0% 5%
Percent with Score FAR >=0.5 17% 8% 14% 10% 1% 5% 0% 0% 25% 14% 3% 1% 9%
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Composite Score
Mode
5 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 4
Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus
ďƒ˜ Will the segment meet the threshold for 10 to 15 minute bus service frequency in the future? Future Employment and Population Densities Future employment density is based on the number of employees per acre in 2025 while future population density is based on the number of dwelling units per acre in 2025. Both data were obtained from Polk TPO 2060 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections. Segment-by-segment employment and population density was determined using a half-mile service area buffer. The number of employees and dwelling units within the half-mile service area for all TAZs of each corridor segment was divided by the service area buffer to obtain employees and dwelling units per acre, respectively.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-8
Three levels of density thresholds were developed to indicate whether or not an area contains sufficient densities to sustain varying levels of transit service. The levels include:
Minimum – Reflects minimum population or employment densities to consider basic fixed-route transit services (i.e., fixed-route bus service).
High – Reflects high population or employment densities that may be able to support higher levels of transit investment than areas that meet only the minimum density threshold (i.e., increased frequencies).
Very High – Reflects very high population or employment densities that may be able to support higher levels of transit investment than areas that meet the minimum or high density thresholds (i.e., premium transit services, etc.).
Table 3 presents the density thresholds for each of the noted categories. Table 3 Transit Service Density Threshold Minimum
Population Density Threshold1 4.5 – 5 dwelling units/acre
Employment Density Threshold2 4 employees/acre
High
6 – 7 dwelling units/acre
5 – 6 employees/acre
Very High
>=8 dwelling units/acre
>=7 employees/acre
Transit Mode
TRB, National Research Council, TCRP Report 16, Volume 1 (1996), Transit and Land Use Form, November 2002, MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy for Regional Transit Expansion Projects. 2 Based on a review of research on the relationship between transit technology and employment densities. 1
Based on Table 3, the following scoring system was used to evaluate future employment and population densities for each corridor segment.
Segments with employment densities of 7 or higher employees per acre or with densities of 8 or higher dwelling units per acre received a score of 4. Segments with employment densities between 5 and 6.9 employees per acre or with densities between 6 and 7.9 dwelling units per acre received a score of 3. Segments with employment densities between 4 and 4.9 employees per acre or with densities between 4.5 and 5.9 dwelling units per acre received a score of 2. Segments with employment densities of less than 4 employees per acre and with densities of less than 4.5 dwelling units per acre received a score of 1.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
population population population population
2-9
Activity Centers Activity centers are categorized into five categories that include University/College, Hospital, Library, Community Center, and Civic Center. This information was obtained from the Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Other major activity centers include business, commercial, mixed-use, professional, logistics, and historical centers identified in the Polk TPO 2060 Transportation Vision Plan. Activity centers were calculated on a per-mile basis, and an average number of activity centers per mile was calculated for all the corridor segments. An average and standard deviation for all analysis segments was then calculated and used to rank and score each. The following scoring system was developed:
If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is greater than one standard deviation above the average (2) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 3. If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is greater than or equal to the average (1) for all segments and less than or equal to one standard deviation above the average (2), then it was assigned a score of 2. If the number of activity centers per mile within the segment is less than the average (1) for all segments, then it was assigned a score of 1.
Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) A Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) was used to better assess the opportunities for redevelopment within each corridor. The RPI refers to an index score value that weights criteria related to the age of structures, the relationship between the value of structures and the value of the property, and access to major transportation facilities. The RPI was used to capture the redevelopment potential of parcels within a half-mile buffer of each corridor segment. Parcels with a higher redevelopment potential can be targeted for mixed-land use or transit-oriented development which is considered supportive of premium transit service with high levels of service. Table 4 details the methodology used to calculate the RPI score. The age of structures and land value/structural value data were obtained from the Polk County Property Appraiser parcel database. A parcel’s access to major transportation facilities was measured utilizing Arc GIS software and the Polk County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City of Lakeland 2020 Comprehensive Plan were used to identify areas targeted as redevelopment areas within the County and the City of Lakeland, respectively. Individual scoring for each RPI criterion and the final composite scoring system is shown in Table 4.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-10
Table 4 Redevelopment Propensity Index (RPI) RPI = Age of Structure + Access + Land Value/Structural Value + Redevelopment Area Age of Structure (Target Year 2025) Score Low High 1 25 35 2 36 50 3 51 75 4 75 + Land Value/Structural Value Score Low 1 0 2 0.51 3 1.26 4 2.51 5 5.01 Sample Input Values Value Description 1950 Year Structure Built I Access $1,000,000 Land Value $500,000 Structure Value High Redevelopment Area Sample Total RPI Score
High 0.5 1.25 2.5 5 +
Score 4 3 2
Score 5 0
Access Value (I) Interstate Interchange (within 0.5 mile) (A) Non Interstate Arterial (within 0.25 mile) (C) Collector (within 0.25 mile) Redevelopment Area Value In Redevelopment Area Not in Redevelopment Area
Score 4 4 3 5 16
After the RPI score for each parcel was calculated, the final score for each corridor segment was determined as follows:
If 50 percent of parcels within a half-mile buffer of a corridor segment have an RPI score of 12 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 3. If 50 percent of parcels within a half-mile buffer of a corridor segment have an RPI score of 8 or higher, then it was assigned a score of 2. If an individual segment does not meet any of the above conditions, it was assigned a score of 1.
Future Conditions Preliminary Mode Assignment Similar to the existing condition mode assignment, individual criterion scores were calculated and composite scores were summed for each segment for future conditions. A segment with a composite score of 8 or higher was determined to be supportive of 10- to 15-minute frequencies. Table 5 presents the results of the mode assessment for future conditions. Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-11
Table 5 Summary of Future Conditions Criteria Analysis and Modal Assignment Employment Density* (2025) Segment
US98-1 US98-2 US98-3 US98-4 US98-5 US98-6 US17-1 US17-2 US17-3 US92-1 US92-2 US92-3 US92-4
Population Density* (2025)
Activity Centers
Employees/ Acre
Dwelling Units/ Acre
Score*
4.3 7.0 3.5 1.4 1.2 4.9 1.4 0.6 5.1 3.2 3.2 1.3 3.4
1.7 2.3 2.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.6
2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
Per Mile
Score
1.1 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.3 1.0 0.2 1.8
2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2
Redevelopment Propensity Index Percent corridor with RPI >=12 1% 64% 16% 0% 0% 0% 10% 13% 12% 26% 6% 23% 40%
Percent corridor with RPI >=8 20% 95% 35% 20% 10% 28% 56% 40% 44% 49% 36% 58% 75%
Composite Score
Mode
5 9 3 3 3 5 4 3 7 3 4 4 5
Local Bus Premium Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus Local Bus
Score 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
*Score is based on either employment density threshold or population density threshold.
ďƒ˜ Will future travel patterns within the corridor support express bus services? Travel Flow The travel flow analysis is intended to determine if the number of potential person trips that occur on each study corridor will support express transit service. In order to perform this analysis, the 2035 FSUTMS Polk Transportation Model, published in May 2011, was interpolated to obtain 2025 socioeconomic data. Four major trip origin and destination zones, illustrated in Map 2, were developed by grouping TAZs. The TAZ groups include those within Lakeland, Bartow, Winter Haven, and west of the Polk-Hillsborough county line (identified to capture the external trips generated outside and that enter or exit Polk County). TAZ groupings were refined for model purposes and the person trips for all trip purposes, except for truck-taxi trips, for each of the TAZ groups were modeled based on 2025 socioeconomic data. The analysis results are tabulated in an OD matrix showing trips traveling between the TAZ groups. Average daily person-trips were totaled together and are presented in Table 6. Map 2 illustrates the results of Table 6.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-12
CASS ROAD EVENHOUSE ROAD
EWELL ROAD
2
4 Miles
SR 37 OLD HIGHWAY 37
1
US 17/98
0
SIXTH STREET SE
Hillsborough County Winter Haven
HELEN A RD
Daily Person Trips 3,217 5,739
10,950
CR 559 (BOMBER RD)
13,177
Analysis TAZ Zones SR 60
SR 60
Major Road
ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF
CR 640 (PINECREST RD)
CR 640
NINETY-ONE MINE RD
SR 60
CR 5 55
D) ICHOLS R CR 676 (N
SR 542 (DUNDEE ROAD)
US 17/98
RD)
LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD
(AGR ICOL A
SR 60
Orign/Destination
15,066
8
RD
SR 60
S U
17
Legend
City of Lakeland CRUMP R D
9 US
T NE RO CO
CARTER ROAD
NW)
17
US
CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)
CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)
SHEPHERD RD
BAILEY ROAD
SPIRIT LAKE RD
LAKE MIRIAM DR
CHERRY LANE
US 17 (EIGHTH ST
THORNHILL ROAD
REYNOLDS RD
US 98
HALLAM DRIVE
PIPKIN ROAD WEST
COUNTY LINE RD
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
D
MEDULLA ROAD
E RD KEY BUC
NW)
K PARKWAY)
ROA COOLEY
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
98
SR 570 (POL
DRANE FIELD RD
2
Bartow
US 17 (SIXTH ST
US
EDGEWOOD DRIVE E
2
Y) HW
98
BEACON ROAD
US 92
R KE EC (R
ARIANA ST
BRIDGERS AVE
55
PARKER STREET CR 542 (MAIN ST E) LIME STREET
S U
INTERSTATE 4 WY) AMPA H (OLD T CR 542
MINEOLA DR
9 US
6 SR
SWINDELL RD
Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan
US 27
7/9 US 1
CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)
TENTH ST W
CR 17
CR 557/POMELO ST
SR 559
) WAY
ODOM ROAD
US 98
K PAR OLK
CR 35A (KATHLEEN RD)
0 (P
AD OLD BERKLEY RO EY RD) (BERKL CR 655
4
RD)
ROBSON ST
CR 582 (KNIGHTS STATION RD)
AD
ROAD Y HILL SLEEP
3 4 SR 3 STATE R INTE
SR 659 (COMBEE
DEESON ROAD
4 E AT T RS TE IN 3 SR 3
RD
7 SR 5
OL
DUFF RD
Y CIT
TOMKOW RO
BANANA ROAD
K OL DP
Map 2 Study Corridors Travel Flow Analysis
Table 6 2025 Average Daily Person Trips Summary From/To City of Lakeland
To/From Bartow
Daily Person Trips 13,177
Bartow
Winter Haven
5,739
Winter Haven
City of Lakeland
15,066
Hillsborough
Bartow
3,217
Hillsborough
Winter Haven
10,950
The travel flow analysis results presented in Table 6 was compared with the TBEST modeling results for Citrus Connection Route 22XL and WHAT Routes 12 and 22XW. These three routes currently operate on US 98, US 92, and US 17, respectively. Table 7 presents the 2022 TBEST modeling results for the three routes. Table 7 TBEST Modeling Results Route
Existing Average Daily Ridership
22XL
365
12 22XW
598 223
Average Daily Ridership (2022)
Growth Rate (2022)
Citrus Connection 4.2% 386 WHAT 5.4% 638 4.9% 237
Daily Revenue Hours (2022)
Trips per Revenue Hour (2022)
16.35
23.9
26.00 12.92
24.5 18.3
As can be seen in Table 6, a considerable number of daily person trips are forecasted to occur between the City of Lakeland and Winter Haven (15,066) and between the City of Lakeland and Bartow (13,177). When daily person trips between Hillsborough and Winter Haven are taken into consideration total daily person trips between Winter Haven and the City of Lakeland and Hillsborough County rises to 26,016. In addition, daily person trips generated between Bartow and Winter Haven are estimated to be 5,739. Table 7 indicates that Route 12, operating on US 92, will experience the highest average daily ridership (638) and passenger trips per revenue hour (24.50) levels in 2022 among the three existing routes. Route 22XW reflects 237 average daily boardings and 18.3 trips per revenue hour in 2022. These ridership levels indicate that some level of service improvements may be implemented within the US 92 corridor and/or to Route 12, within the US 98 corridor and/or to Route 22XL, and within the US 17 corridor and/or Route 22XW (e.g. increased peak-hour service frequencies.)
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-14
PRELIMINARY MODE ASSIGNMENT Based on the existing conditions, future conditions, and travel flow analyses, a preliminary mode assignment was identified for the three corridors. Table 8 presents the results of that mode assignment. In summary, existing express services operating in the three corridors should be retained and only part of the US 98 corridor, segment US 98-2 in Downtown Lakeland, is considered supportive of premium bus service in 2025. It is important to note that Segment 17-3, Downtown Winter Haven, was identified as having a composite score of 7 for premium bus service supportiveness in the future. That score was one point lower than the threshold identified for premium bus service supportiveness in the analysis. As land use and employment activity changes in the County over time, future efforts to evaluate corridors for premium bus service implementation should strongly consider this corridor segment. Table 8 Final Mode Assignment Corridor US 98 US 92 US 17
Express Service Recommended Comments (Yes/No) Level of service Yes improvement Level of service Yes improvement Level of service Yes improvement
Premium Bus Service Recommended Comments (Yes/No) Only for segment US 98-2 in Yes Downtown Lakeland in the future No
N/A
No
N/A
Level of service improvements for the express services and operational recommendations based on the following right-of-way analysis are included in Section 3 of this report. ďƒ˜ Is there sufficient right-of-way to operate premium bus services in exclusive runningways? Right-of-Way Availability An assessment of current right-of-way availability was performed on all corridor segments to assess the opportunity for exclusive lanes of travel for transit services. Transit services that could utilize exclusive lanes include premium and express transit service. Right-of-way requirements for typical cross-sections were defined and are shown in Table 9. As shown in that table, an existing roadway with 2 lanes should have a minimum right-of-way of 74 feet to add 1 more exclusive lane of travel in each direction.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-15
Table 9 Typical Cross-Section Right-of-Way Requirements Number of Lanes 2 4 6 8
BRT One Lane 74 ft 120 ft 144 ft 168 ft
The typical cross section right-of-way requirements were defined based on typical Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) cross-sections for urbanized areas and the BRT Functional Classification Study prepared by the Office of Modal Development, FDOT District 4. After defining the cross-section designs to calculate the percentage of right-of-way availability, the available right-of-way along each segment was compared against the cross-section needed to accommodate the previously identified modes. The percentage is calculated by dividing the segment length with adequate right-of-way with the total length of each corresponding segment. The percentage of right-of-way availability was computed for each segment. If the percentage was equal to or greater than 60 percent, then it was assumed that there is potential for the implementation of the previously identified modes (Premium or Express Service) on exclusive running ways. In segments where the percentage of right-of-way availability was lower than 60 percent, it was assumed that mixed-traffic operation is more appropriate in that segment. Table 10 presents the results of the right-of-way analysis. These results were used to further define operational recommendations by corridor presented in Section 3 of this report. It is important to note that the lack of right-of-way should not preclude any transit service from exclusive running way operation at this time. Future plans for securing additional right-of-way within the study corridors are currently underway and recommendations for application or use of additional right-of-way at intersections are provided in Section 3 of this report.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
2-16
Table 10 Existing Right-of-Way Availability Analysis Results ROW Availability Segment Percent Segment with Adequate ROW Exclusive or Mixed-Traffic Operation US 98-1 US 98-2 US 98-3 US 98-4 US 98-5 US 98-6 US 17-1 US 17-2 US 17-3 US 92-1 US 92-2 US 92-3 US 92-4
60.2% 53.8% 34.1% 90.1% 100.0% 47.4% 100.0% 66.0% 35.9% 5.4% 51.8% 86.8% 30.0%
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
Exclusive Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Exclusive Exclusive Mixed-traffic Exclusive Exclusive Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Mixed-traffic Exclusive Mixed-traffic
2-17
SECTION 3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A recommendation for a phased implementation plan for the premium bus services identified in Section 2 of this report was prepared and is included in this section. The phasing of improvements will allow for a number of advantages including the assessment of services as service expansions are implemented, coordination of services as the system grows, and the ability to capitalize on changes to the existing environment such as new development, favorable right-of-way acquisition, and/or coordination with county, city, and FDOT projects. Premium bus service improvements are included in the Polk TDP Needs Plan. The incorporation of those service improvements into the Needs Plan ensures consistency with the Polk TDP and also provides an opportunity to prioritize these service improvements with other proposed TDP Needs Plan alternatives. This section is organized into two major parts. The first summarizes the final modal assignment and details the specific service improvements for each corridor based on the analysis presented in Section 2. The second includes recommendations for a phased implementation plan for each corridor. FINAL MODAL ASSIGNMENT AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY Based on the results of the analysis conducted in Section 2, three types of service improvements were recommended for the three study corridors, high-frequency premium bus service, express bus service, and improvements to existing local bus service. Map 3 illustrates the service improvements summary. Level-of-service improvements for existing services According to the Polk TDP Needs Plan assessment, Routes 22XL, 12, and 22XW are expected to experience high ridership levels in 2022 relative to the rest of the fixed-route transit system. Consequently, these three routes were qualified for service frequency and service span improvements. Table 11 presents the existing and proposed operating characteristics for those three routes. Express Services The analysis results presented in Section 2 indicate that the three study corridors do not support transit service with 10 to 15 minute service frequencies for their entire length all day long. Only one segment was shown to be supportive of those service levels. This does not preclude the possibility for the implementation of express service during peak-hour periods. The 2025 travel flow analysis results show that 13,177 and 15,066 person trips will be generated between Lakeland and Bartow, and between Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
3-1
LAKE MIRIAM DR CR 540 (CLUBHOUSE RD)
4 Miles
17
SIXTH STREET SE
Legend Transit Center
New Services Downtown Lakeland BRT
SR 60
CR 655A (COX RD/ALTUR AS RD N)
CR 655 (RIFLE RANGE RD)
17
NINETY-ONE MINE RD
Polk County 2013 - 2022 Transit Development Plan
Existing Service Improvement HELENA RD
S U
LAKE HAMILTON DR W
CR 557/POMELO ST
NW) 17
US
COOLEY ROAD
FIRST STREET SOUTH
US 17 (SIXTH ST NW)
BUCKEYE RD
EAGLE LAKE LOOP RD
LAKE HENDRY RD/STOKES RD/CR 559/CR 655A
0
SR 60
US 17/98
LYLE PKWY/E.F. GRIFFIN RD
CR 55 5
SR 37 CR 6 4
US
8
SR 60
9 US
SR 60
2
CR 559 (BOMBER RD)
CR 540A (CENTRAL BARN RD)
SR 60
THIRTY-FOURTH ST NW
REYNOLDS RD
SPIRIT LAKE RD
S) AV E
OLD HIGHWAY 37 SR 37 (FL OR IDA
HALLAM DRIVE
CARTER ROAD
CR 0 640 (PINECREST RD)2 1
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
SR 540 (WINTER-LAKE RD)
SR 37 (CHURCH AVE N)
LUNN ROAD
YATES ROAD
HARDEN BLVD
WARING ROAD
SR 570 (POLK PAR KWAY)
MAINE AVE
(AGRIC O LA R D)
) RT RD
EDGEWOOD DRIVE E
7/9 US 1
AVE T NE/COUNTRY CLUB RD N
Y) HW
SYLVESTER ROAD
ER CK (RE
98
(AIRPO
BEACON ROAD
KE DR N
CR 544A (DERBY AVE W)
55
US 92 CR 542 (MAIN ST E/K-VILLE AVE)
S U
SR 572
LA CRYSTAL
ARIANA ST
92 US
6 SR
ST E)
BOLENDER RD/MORRIS RD
BRIDGERS AVE
K PARKWAY)
CR 542 (MAIN LIME STREET
CASS ROAD
US 17 (EIGHTH ST
MINEOLA DR
SR 570 (POL
OLIVE STREET
SHEPHERD RD
SR 559
CR 546 (SADDLE CREEK RD/OLD DIXIE HWY)
BELLA VISTA STREET
TENTH ST W FIFTH STREET CRUTCHFIELD RD US 92 (MEMORIAL BLVD W) PARKER STREET
EWELL ROAD
CR 655 (BERKLEY RD)
4 4
98
E AT ST R TE IN
US
CR 542A (GALLOWAY RD)
OAD HILL R
RD)
Y SLEEP
THORNHILL RO AD
US 98
SR 659 (COMBEE
3 SR 3
US 98 Express Service US 92 Express Service
Analysis TAZ Zones SR 60
ALTURAS-BABSON PARK CUTOFF
Major Road
Map 3 Study Corridor Service Improvements Summary
Table 11 Service Improvements to Existing Corridor Transit Services Routes
Corridor Served
22XL
US 98
12
US 92
22XW
US 17
Existing Conditions Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) Weekday: 60 – 90 Weekday: 6:05 – 6:30 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:42 PM Weekday: 60 Weekday: 6:15 – 7:15 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:15 PM Weekday: 60 Weekday: 6:15 – 7:10 PM Saturday: 60 Saturday: 7:15 – 4:10 PM
Future Conditions Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM Weekday: 30 Weekday: 6:05 – 10:00 PM Saturday: 30 Saturday: 7:15 – 7:15 PM
Lakeland and Winter Haven, respectively. In addition, the TBEST 2022 modeling results note 24 or more trips per revenue hour would be expected for Routes 22XL and 12, which operate along the US 98 and US 92 corridors, respectively. The results of those analyses substantiate implementation of express service during peak-hour periods along the US 98 and US 92 corridors. The two express services would serve as destination-to-destination overlay services in addition to the improvements to existing services shown in Table 11. Table 12 shows the operating characteristics for proposed express services within the US 98 and US 92 corridors. Table 12 Proposed Express Services Summary Routes
Weekday Operating Characteristics Service Frequency Service Span (minutes)
US 98 Express Service (Lakeland to Bartow)
30
6:15 – 8:30 AM/4:30 – 6:30 PM
US 92 Express Service (Lakeland to Winter Haven)
30
6:15 – 8:30 AM/4:30 – 6:30 PM
High Frequency Premium Bus Service
Based on the analysis, one segment on the US 98 corridor will be supportive of 10- to 15-minute service frequencies in the future. The original segment starts at Tucker Street and ends at South Lake Parker Avenue within in US 98 corridor. However, the north end of this segment was extended to US 98 at Crevasse Street (Lakeland Square Mall) based on the following three major considerations:
The City of Lakeland officials have a strong desire to connect the Lakeland Square Mall, located just northwest of the intersection of US 98 and I-4, to Downtown Lakeland with premium bus service.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
3-3
Groundbreaking of a park-and-ride facility to be located at US 98 and I-4 just occurred recently. The construction of this facility is going to take place in 2012. Connecting the park-and-ride facility with Downtown Lakeland via premium bus service will make the facility more appealing to potential park-and-ride users, and thus will enhance the utilization of the park-and-ride facility.
A Central Lakeland Transit Signal Prioritization Study is programmed in the FDOT Five Year Work Program and is scheduled to be conducted in FY 2013/14. The northern terminus of the proposed study corridor is US 98 is at the Lakeland Square Mall. Consequently, the extension of the premium bus service segment to US 98 at Crevasse Street reflects the scope of that study.
Table 13 presents the operating characteristics for the proposed premium bus service for the noted segment. Table 13 Proposed Premium Bus Service Summary Route Downtown Lakeland Premium
Weekday Operating Characteristics Service Frequency Service Span (minutes) 10/15 (Peak/Off-Peak) 6:15 AM – 8:00 PM
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN It is important to emphasize that high-frequency bus service and BRT have been differentiated in this study. This has been done to ensure consistency with the planning horizon of the My Ride document and to inject a sense of scale into the development of a fully articulated BRT operation and its appropriateness for Polk County. Understanding that BRT can include a host of technology components, it has been determined through the analysis that Polk County should consider a more conservative approach to premium bus service implementation. That approach includes enhancing existing bus service gradually over time to improve the appeal, speed, and reliability of bus service within the US 98 corridor. This would allow the system to adapt and grow without the large capital investments necessary to produce the type of premium bus service commonly associated with BRT (e.g., Bogotá, Colombia; Eugene, Oregon; Miami, Florida). Long term planning processes, such as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update, should continue to assess the need for full-scale BRT operations beyond the planning horizon of the TDP. Implementation of the proposed premium bus service improvements, particularly the high-frequency premium bus service, should be phased consistent with the pace of development occurring along the three study corridors. Initial service improvements should include the improvements to existing services shown in Table 11, followed by the implementation of express bus service. For the high-frequency premium bus service, an incremental approach to implementation will allow transit agency staff to assess and test the Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
3-4
success of less aggressive service improvements prior to making a large investment in more aggressive service expansions. Table 14 presents a tentative implementation schedule recommended for the implementation of all three service improvement types. Table 14 Phasing of Service Improvements Routes
Service Improvement Details
Tentative Schedule
Note
22XL, 12, and 22XW
Service Frequency and Service Span
By 2013
N/A
Express Services
Implementation of New Service
By 2014
N/A
High-Frequency Premium
Implementation of New Service
By 2022
Preceded by improvements to Route 1
For the high-frequency premium bus service, it may be beneficial to increase service frequencies on Citrus Connection Route 1 prior to implementation of other technological improvements. Currently, the route operates on 30-minute frequencies and an investment directed at reducing frequencies to 15 minutes, specifically within the US 98 corridor segment identified in this study, is strongly recommended. Larger investments in service can more easily be justified as recognition of the service grows and as development along the corridor also continues to grow. To truly create a rapid bus service, the bus must be given some level of priority or exclusivity above and beyond the regular flow of traffic. Otherwise, the service would function as traditional bus service functions, in mixed-traffic alongside other vehicles and stopping at all signalized intersections. The speed and reliability offered by BRT service boils down to two major components, signal priority and exclusive bus lanes. Other common BRT components, such as off-board fare payment, level boarding, and advanced passenger information systems, contribute marginal improvements to speed and reliability when compared to signal priority and lane exclusivity. Consequently, for Polk County, the focus of improvements beyond operational frequencies and service span should be capital investments in signal priority and exclusive runningways. Signal priority and exclusive runningway facilities can be added to the corridor once Route 1 service frequency improvements are implemented, productivity levels have risen, and capacity on the route begins to be saturated. To facilitate the implementation of bus supportive infrastructure, it is to the advantage of the agency to participate in local efforts to improve intersection signalization and in city, county, and state roadway maintenance projects to ensure that capital improvements that will benefit premium bus services considered are included in those plans. The FY 2012 FDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies several PD & E and construction projects that can serve as opportunities to enhance transit Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
3-5
services within all three study corridors. An evaluation of the level-of-service of major intersections along the corridor may also supply information for the planning and programming of intersection treatments for buses, such as signal priority. Right-of-Way To further assist in the implementation of the high-frequency premium bus service, information from the right-of-way analysis results presented in Section 2, Table 10, were evaluated. That analysis reveals several opportunities for enhancing the quality of the premium bus services in the study corridors. Making use of available right-of-way will enhance the operational characteristics of the transit services through the application of exclusive runningways or through the addition of queue jump lanes at intersections. Guidance on making use of the available right-of-way identified in the analysis is provided below.
Segments with adequate right-of-way should be considered for construction of exclusive running way facilities. Ideally, the facility would be exclusive for bus service only in the AM and PM peak period, particularly for the high-frequency premium bus service. For express service, the facility could be a shared facility or even a shared tolled facility throughout the day or during off-peak hours.
Major intersections with adequate right-of-way should be considered for signal priority combined with a queue jump lane. If signal priority timing cannot be accomplished, then a queue jump lane application with a receiving lane should be considered. The speed and reliability of both BRT and express bus services will benefit from either application.
Consolidated Transit Development Plan FY 2013 – FY 2022 Premium Bus Service Feasibility Study
3-6