El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan
BRT Industry Review
Prepared for:
SamTrans
October 2013
SF13-0692
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 BRT In the SamTrans and El Camino Real Context ............................................................................ 2
1.3 Case Studies and Key Lessons Learned ................................................................................................ 4
2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Background of This Study ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Purpose of the BRT Case Study Review ................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Organization of this Review ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS .................. 8
3.1 Industry Definition of BRT ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Typical Attributes of BRT ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Frequent Service ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Fast and Reliable Service .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Enhanced Passenger Amenities .............................................................................................. 20
3.2.4 Distinctive Branded Service ..................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Variants of BRT .......................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 The Two Families of BRT ........................................................................................................... 23
3.3.2 Formal Differentiation between Rapid and BRT Services ............................................... 24
4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT ........................................................................................29
4.1 Focus of this BRT Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................. 29
4.2 Proposed Delineation between Rapid and BRT Services for SamTrans ................................... 30
5.0 CASE STUDIES .....................................................................................................................................31
5.1 Case Study 1: Metro Rapid – Los Angeles, CA ................................................................................. 32
5.1.1 Description of the System ........................................................................................................ 32
5.1.2 Key Attributes .............................................................................................................................. 33
5.1.3 Performance and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 34
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
5.1.4 Applicability to SamTrans ......................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Case Study 2: AC Transit Rapid – Oakland, CA ................................................................................ 36
5.2.1 Description of the System ........................................................................................................ 36
5.2.2 Key Attributes .............................................................................................................................. 37
5.2.3 Performance and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 38
5.2.4 Applicability to SamTrans ......................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Case Study 3: Rapid 522 – Santa Clara County, CA ........................................................................ 40
5.3.1 Description of the System ........................................................................................................ 40
5.3.2 Key Attributes .............................................................................................................................. 41
5.3.3 Performance and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 42
5.3.4 Applicability to SamTrans ......................................................................................................... 43
5.4 Case Study 4: EmX – Eugene, OR ......................................................................................................... 44
5.4.1 Description of the System ........................................................................................................ 44
5.4.2 Key Attributes .............................................................................................................................. 44
5.4.3 Performance and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 46
5.4.4 Applicability to SamTrans ......................................................................................................... 46
5.5 Summary of Key Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 47
5.6 Next Steps................................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendices
Appendix A – Travel Time Savings Benefits from Transit Priority Enhancements (SFMTA)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
List of Tables
Table 1-1: The Two Families of BRT ................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 1-2: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT.......................................................................................................... 3
Table 1-3: List of Four Case Study Systems ..................................................................................................................... 4
Table 3-1: Typical BRT Attributes and Specific Strategies ........................................................................................ 10
Table 3-2: Average Peak Service Headways on Example BRT Systems ................................................................ 11
Table 3-3: The Two Families of BRT ................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 3-4: Caltrans Incremental BRT Development Stages ...................................................................................... 25
Table 3-5: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 27
Table 4-1: Attributes for SamTrans Rapid vs. BRT....................................................................................................... 30
Table 5-1: List of Four Case Study Systems .................................................................................................................. 31
Table 5-2: LA Metro Rapid Attributes (System-Wide) ............................................................................................... 33
Table 5-3: LA Metro Rapid Performance and System Benefits ............................................................................... 34
Table 5-4: AC Transit Rapid Attributes ........................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5-5: AC Transit Rapid Performance and System Benefits (72R Only) ........................................................ 38
Table 5-6: VTA Rapid 522 Attributes............................................................................................................................... 41
Table 5-7: VTA Rapid 522 Performance and System Benefits ................................................................................. 42
Table 5-8: EmX Attributes .................................................................................................................................................. 44
Table 5-9: EmX Performance and System Benefits (Franklin Corridor Only) ...................................................... 46
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 DEFINITION OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)
Although there is no precise definition universally agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote
bus services that, at a minimum, operate faster than “local bus” service. BRT performance is fac ilitated by
both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements (which are
described in detail in the main report):
Limited stop service;
Bus priority at signals and on streets;
Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;
Transportation system management enhancements;
Enhanced passenger amenities; and
Unique branding.
Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its
own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus,
however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in
each system: Rapid and Full BRT (or just BRT) – as shown in Table 1-1Table 1-1. It should be noted that
for this report, BRT is a shorthand term that will refer to both Rapid and Full BRT.
Formatted: Font: Bold
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
2
TABLE 1-1: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples
Rapid
These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes,
sometimes with some degree of signal priority, and
likely branded service and vehicles. Rapid systems,
also sometimes known as “BRT Lite” have minimal
capital investment.
Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit
District 1R & Line 72R
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro)
Rapid
Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA) Rapid
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) Rapid 522
Full BRT
These systems typically have a much higher degree
of priority and enhancements than Rapid services.
These systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit
lanes (or segments of) that allow vehicles to
operate faster and more reliably. Significant capital
investments are made to upgrade corridor right-of-
way and stations, to make the riding experience
more “rail-like.”
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority HealthLine
Lane Transit District (LTD) Eugene
Emerald Express (EmX)
LA Metro Orange Line
VTA Valley Rapid (Future)
San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Authority Van Ness
BRT (Future)
1.2 BRT IN THE SAMTRANS AND EL CAMINO REAL CONTEXT
The goal of the El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan is to develop a short- and long-term BRT strategy. At
present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or Full BRT service on the El Camino Corridor. The 2006 El
Camino Real Bus Corridor Origin and Destination Survey recommended the implementation of a Rapid
service to “prime the pump” for an anticipated Full BRT service, as current densities are insufficient to
support Full BRT. As such, it seems logical to conclude that for this analysis and development of this
Phasing Plan:
The short-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus service.
The long-term operating plan and phasing plan should focus on more capitally intensive Full
BRT services.
Based on the categorization of Rapid and BRT services by other counterpart entities, Table 1-2 presents
the potential attributes for Rapid and Full BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
3
TABLE 1-2: POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. BRT
Typical BRT
Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid Full BRT
Frequent
Service Frequent bi-directional service X X
Fast and
Reliable
Service
Longer stop spacing X x
Operational measures
o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X
o Low-floor vehicles X X
o Level boarding facilities X
o All-door boarding/alighting X
o Off-board fare payment X
o Transportation system management
enhancements and labeled as Appendix A X X
Transit priority measures
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X
o Bulbouts X X
o Queue jump lanes X X
o Dedicated transit lanes
Reserved lanes X
At-grade busway X
Grade-separated busway X
Enhanced
Passenger
Amenities
More substantial stations X
Real-time information X X
Distinctive
Branded
Service
Branded and specially marketed service X X
Specialized vehicles X X
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
4
1.3 CASE STUDIES AND KEY LESSONS LEARNED
Four case studies are reviewed in this document as applicable examples for the SamTrans context:
TABLE 1-3: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS
Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator
Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LA Metro)
Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) Alameda/Contra Costa Transit District
(AC Transit)
Rapid Rapid 522 Santa Clara County, CA (USA) Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA)
Full BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) Lane Transit District (LTD)
Several recurring themes, which are applicable to the future planning of the SamTrans El Camino Real
BRT, are apparent:
“Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving
Reliability - No single strategy outweighs the synergistic benefits of packaging strategies
together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All Rapid or BRT elements contribute to
the effectiveness of the service – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, TSP, etc. As
noted below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reducing
+travel times and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures
complement longer stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as
TSP and level boarding.
Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings assessments
and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This
is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the
second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others
identify level boarding. What is important is that the combination of these strategies generates
the highest benefits.
Significant Benefits Can Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant benefits
can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP, and signal
coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate benefits, they come with a
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
5
significant added capital investment that need to be evaluated from a return-on-investment
perspective.
Most Agencies Implement TSP on Continuous Stretches to Maximize Benefit – VTA, AC
Transit, and LA Metro all implement TSP along most portions of their Rapid systems. Eugene’s
EmX BRT service provides TSP on only one-third of intersections along the route – however this
should be viewed more as an anomaly than the norm, as Eugene is significantly smaller and less
dense than the other three regions.
Conditional TSP Should Be Considered – AC Transit and LA Metro provide conditional TSP for
their Rapid systems. This prevents “early” buses that are “running hot” from receiving priority and
can help balance headways and prevent bus bunching from an early bus catching up to a late bus.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
6
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY
The 2010 Grand Boulevard’s Initiative Multimodal Corridor Plan (GBI Corridor Plan) identified the need for
improvements in both transportation and land use along the El Camino Corridor.1 In San Mateo County,
the El Camino Corridor is expected to experience an increase of over 24,800 households and 90,800 jobs
between 2005 and 2035 using 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. Several
past studies identified BRT as feasible along the corridor.
Under this backdrop, the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Phasing Plan seeks to define how enhanced
transit service can attract sufficient ridership and achieve cost-effective performance. The Phasing Plan
seeks to identify and develop the following:
Costs and benefits of a BRT system;
Essential system components;
Stakeholder support;
Ridership demand analysis;
Operating and capital cost estimates;
Network integration with existing and future SamTrans, VTA and Muni bus systems;
Funding strategy; and
Phasing and implementation plan.
1 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
7
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE BRT CASE STUDY REVIEW
The BRT Case Study Review is one of the first tasks of the larger BRT Phasing Plan. The Review is intended
to inform SamTrans, key stakeholders, agencies, and cities about the:
Typical attributes that define BRT service and quality;
Potential benefits of various BRT attributes;
Types of BRT in operation today in North America;
The type of BRT being considered for this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan; and
Key lessons learned from implementation and operation of BRT at other agencies.
2.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REVIEW
This review is organized into four sections:
Section 2.0: Introduction (this Section) – This section describes the background of the study and
the purpose of this BRT Industry Review.
Section 3.0: Definition and Typical Attributes of Bus Rapid Transit Systems – This section
presents the industry definition of BRT as well as the typical attributes of BRT systems. This
section also presents how other agencies and entities classify different tiers of BRT.
Section 4.0: BRT within the SamTrans Context – This section discusses how BRT should be
categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays out the attributes for different
types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.
Section 5.0: Case Studies – This section presents relevant BRT case studies and identifies
applicable strategies and lessons learned for the El Camino and SamTrans context.
Appendix A - Appendix A illustrates the expected travel time savings from implementation of
transit priority measures from San Francisco MTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project or TEP.
Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other measures such as
longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc.
It should be noted that some of the material presented in this review is based on that from the VTA’s
Service Design Guidelines as well as VTA’s BRT Strategic Plan.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
8
3.0 DEFINITION AND TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BUS RAPID
TRANSIT (BRT) SYSTEMS
This section presents the industry definition of BRT and typical attributes of BRT systems. It concludes with
a comparison of how agencies differentiate between various tiers of BRT service.
3.1 INDUSTRY DEFINITION OF BRT
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) defines BRT as a “flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit
mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
elements into an integrated system…BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they
serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of
environments”.2 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines BRT as a “rapid mode of transportation
that can provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”.3
Although there is no precise definition that is universally
agreed upon, BRT is generally understood to connote
bus services that, at a minimum, operate faster than
“local bus” service. BRT performance is facilitated by
both operational and physical measures that may include some or all of the following elements:
Limited stop service;
Bus priority at signals and on streets;
Faster passenger boarding and fare collection;
Transportation system management enhancements;
Enhanced passenger amenities; and
Unique branding.
In many cases, BRT service is meant to provide “rail-like” service and amenities, while being more flexible
and economical.
2 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit – Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid
Transit, Transportation Research Board, 2003. 3 Thomas, E. 2001. Presentation at Institute of Transportation Engineers meeting, Chicago (August).
BRT is generally understood to connote
bus services that, at a minimum, operate
faster than “local bus” service.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
9
BRT, as it is known today, originates from Latin America in the 1970s, where funding to build rail rapid
transit systems was scarce. Cities such as Curitiba in Brazil led the way by developing rubber-tire bus-
based transit systems operating with fewer stops and in dedicated at-grade rights-of-way with enhanced
stations and intermodal transfer hubs as well as specialized vehicles (including articulated and double-
articulated vehicles).
In the 1990s, North American agencies started to take notice and introduced BRT-like routes with
different color schemes, names, marketing campaigns, and sometimes even fare structures. Vehicles,
services, and branding started to provide a “rail-like” experience – the focus was not only on improving
riding conditions, but also improving the level of service to attract non-riders.
3.2 TYPICAL ATTRIBUTES OF BRT
The following sub-sections describe typical attributes of BRT systems (as identified in TCRP Report 90)
that separate BRT from local bus service. Table 3-1 identifies four key attributes and various underlying
strategies of these attributes. While some BRT systems may not incorporate all four of these attributes,
they typically incorporate several of these attributes – which collectively separate BRT as a premium and
enhanced service over local bus.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
10
TABLE 3-1: TYPICAL BRT ATTRIBUTES AND SPECIFIC STRATEGIES
Typical BRT Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies
Frequent Service Frequent bi-directional service
Fast and Reliable Service
Longer stop spacing
Operational measures
o Turn prohibitions / exemptions
o Low-floor vehicles
o Level boarding facilities
o All-door boarding/alighting
o Off-board fare payment
o Transportation system management enhancements
Transit priority measures
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
o Bulbouts
o Queue jump lanes
o Dedicated transit lanes
Reserved lanes
At-grade busway
Grade-separated busway
Enhanced Passenger Amenities More substantial stations
Real-time information
Distinctive Branded Service Branded and specially marketed service
Specialized vehicles
3.2.1 FREQUENT SERVICE
Local rail transit is renowned for frequent all-day service
in both directions. Vehicle arrivals are frequent enough
that riders can “show up” without consulting a schedule
and experience relatively short waiting periods. BRT
tries to mimic this level of service with bi-directional frequent service. This characteristic is important for
encouraging the public to rely on rapid transit for their local travel needs as well as to attract non-riders
and choice riders.
“Frequent service” is a relative term that varies among agencies. Among agencies operating BRT-type
service in North America, the typical peak operating headway can be between 10 to 12 minutes during
the weekday, and 15 to 30 minutes during off-peak hours (and possibly longer during early morning, late
Frequent BRT service is typically between
10-12 minutes in the peak, and 15-30
minutes in the off-peak.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
11
evening, and Sunday operations).4
Systems operating in their own dedicated transit lanes can often
operate at much lower headways though. Examples include:
TABLE 3-2: AVERAGE PEAK SERVICE HEADWAYS ON EXAMPLE BRT SYSTEMS
BRT System Operating Agency /
Location Running Way Type
Average Peak
Headway (Minutes)
AC Transit 1R and Line 72R AC Transit / Central
Alameda County, CA Mixed flow 12
Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority (KCATA) MAX
KCATA / Kansas City,
MO
Mixed flow and segments of
dedicated median bus lane 10
LA Metro Orange Line Metro / Los Angeles, CA Dedicated busway 4
LAVTA Rapid LAVTA / Eastern
Alameda County, CA Mixed flow 15
VTA Valley Rapid (future service) VTA / Santa Clara
County, CA
Mixed flow and segments of
dedicated median bus lane 10-12
BRT systems typically operate bi-directionally all-day to better serve the needs of higher-density, multi-
use corridors that generate trips all-day, not just during the peak periods. This characteristic distinctly
separates BRT from commuter transportation (such as express bus service) in that the latter may only
operate during the peak periods or in the peak direction of travel.
3.2.2 FAST SERVICE
Fast service – both actual and perceived – is another hallmark of rail rapid transit that BRT seeks to mimic.
Achieving fast and time-competitive transit journeys is paramount to keeping existing riders, but also
attracting choice users that currently drive. Compared to local bus services, BRT can operate faster and
more reliably by implementing: (i) longer stop spacing; (ii) operational measures such as turn restrictions,
level boarding, and off-board fare payment; (iii) transit priority measures including specialized signals and
queue jump lanes; and (iv) some form of dedicated transit lane. While longer stop spacing is relatively
inexpensive and easy to implement, dedicated lanes are the most expensive strategy and the most
difficult to implement. These elements are described below.
4 Most BRT systems also operate on a headway, rather than schedule basis – meaning that a bus is evaluated “early”
or “late” against its expected arrival headway at a given station.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
12
3.2.2.1 Longer Stop Spacing
Along a long route, incremental delay and variability
from frequent stops (including dwell times as well as
merge times) can result in a significant reduction in
travel speed and on-time performance. Reducing the number of stops served (and thus increasing stop
spacing) is the easiest way to improve travel speeds and reliability. Local buses typically stop every quarter
mile or less in some cases, while agencies typically implement half-mile stop spacing for BRT services.
Implementing longer stop spacing is one of the least expensive strategies to improve speed and
reliability, but is less visible and prominent to the public than installing physical infrastructure to speed
buses (such as a queue jump lane or dedicated bus lane).
Under this strategy, BRT serves higher demand stops and major origin/destination nodes, while skipping
low demand stops or those located in less transit-supportive areas. Psychologically, the trip seems faster
for passengers, who perceive a continuous movement uninterrupted by frequent stops. Often, but not
always, implementation of longer stop spacing for BRT is accompanied by the continuation of less
frequent local bus service to maintain local connectivity to/from lower demand stops/areas not served by
BRT.
3.2.2.2 Operational Measures
A variety of “operational measures” can be implemented to
speed BRT vehicles and improve reliability.
3.2.2.2.1 Turn Prohibitions / Exemptions
Vehicles making left turns can block intersections and delay
through traffic in the opposite direction. Vehicles making right turns can delay through traffic while
waiting for pedestrians to cross the street. Prohibiting left and/or right turns at particular intersections
can have significant benefits to transit travel times and reliability by minimizing interruptions to through
transit and general traffic flow.
Longer stop spacing is the easiest way to
improve travel speeds and reliability
Turn prohibitions can improve traffic
through intersections and help buses
run faster.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
13
Another strategy is called transit exemption. Transit
exemption in right-hand turn lanes allows for transit
through movements, while general traffic must turn
right. Likewise, the exemption may allow transit
vehicles to make turning movements where general
traffic is prohibited from doing so. These strategies
give transit “priority” over automobiles. Exemption is
often implemented to allow transit vehicles to enter
bus stations or transit centers without having to
merge in and/or out of mixed flow traffic congestion
on through lanes. Exemption functions similar to queue jump lanes defined in Section 3.2.2.3.3, except
the latter typically involve separate bus signal phasing.
On El Camino Real, two exemptions are in place on El Camino Real at Hillsdale Boulevard in San Mateo
and at Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo Park. These lanes are controlled with “bus exempt” signs on the
right-turn only lanes allowing bus through movement, but no special bus signal phase. VTA also has two
similar facilities along El Camino Real (but VTA refers to them as queue jump lanes, even though there are
no special bus phases at these locations).
SamTrans is pursuing additional exemption lanes at five locations along El Camino Real to improve on-
time performance and efficiency of the new ECR route (which combines the 390 and 391 into a single
service operating at 15-minute headways along the entire corridor through San Mateo County):
Northbound El Camino Real and Second Avenue in San Mateo;
Southbound El Camino Real and Broadway in Redwood City;
Southbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City;
Northbound El Camino Real and Jefferson in Redwood City; and
Southbound El Camino Real and Valparaiso in Menlo Park.
Source: FHWA
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
14
3.2.2.2.2 Faster Loading/Unloading
The time it takes to board and alight a transit
vehicle has impacts on dwell time, which can
collectively add up along a long route.
Loading/unloading can be accelerated through one
of the following strategies:
Low-Floor Vehicles - Buses that must “kneel” or require a “step-up” for passengers – either
because the vehicle is high-floor or because of a significant vertical differential between the bus
and the loading area/platform – require a longer time to board and alight than low-floor vehicles.
Dwell time for wheelchair and ADA riders using high-floor vehicles can be significant, particularly
when a lift is activated.
Level Boarding Facilities - In some cases, BRT systems have dedicated platforms that allow
customers direct boarding into buses without a “step.” Eugene’s EmX BRT is one example of a
system employing level boarding. The planned SFMTA Van Ness BRT system is another.
All-Door Boarding/Alighting - Faster loading/unloading can also be accomplished with all-door
boarding and alighting. BRT systems adopting this strategy often use off-board fare payment as
well (described below). SFMTA has implemented this program recently system wideand has
installed wireless non-contact card readers at all doors to accommodate all-door boarding and
alighting.
3.2.2.2.3 Off-Board Fare Payment
The exchange of cash or the validation of a commuter
pass can also increase dwell time. In the SamTrans
context, while the use of Clipper has reduced dwell time
impacts for riders, not every rider uses or has a Clipper
card. Off-board fare payment, typically facilitated for BRT with ticket vending machines (TVMs) similar to
those at Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) stations, can speed the boarding process
significantly by minimizing the driver-rider interaction. As noted, off-board fare payment is typically
implemented along with all-door boarding.
In practice, most BRT systems adopt off-board fare payment and TVMs to provide a more “rail-like”
experience. Often, these elements accompany systems with dedicated bus lanes and enhanced, rail-like
stations. A strict and comprehensive fare inspection process needs to be in place to discourage fare
evasion.
Fast loading/unloading is an important element
of BRT that can reduce dwell time – this can be
achieved with low-floor vehicles, level
boarding, and all-door boarding/alighting
Off-board fare payment reduces boarding
times, but is expensive to implement and
requires more intense fare inspection
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
15
3.2.2.2.4 Transportation System Management Enhancements
Another potential attribute of BRT is the implementation
of various transportation system management
enhancements. The typical goal of these enhancements
is to improve on-the-ground operations and
effectiveness through schedule efficiencies, and changes
in fleet type, service frequency, hours of operation, and network structure allow operators to match the
right type and level of service to areas with corresponding demand for transit. These enhancements also
include in-line management strategies including real-time dispatching, real-time monitoring of bus
movements and traffic conditions, refinement of layover time and deadheading, which assist operators in
planning for delays due to peak-hour traffic.
3.2.2.3 Transit Priority Measures
Measures that give transit “priority” over general traffic include both operational and physical elements as
described below.
3.2.2.3.1 Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
Transit Signal Priority (TSP), also known as Bus Signal Priority,
can help reduce delay and variability in bus travel times and
schedule arrival times. TSP can be implemented in a mixed
flow context, but also for dedicated bus lanes and queue jump
lanes to minimize delay to through bus movements.
Generally, TSP can be implemented in two manners: (i)
passively, where signals are programmed to align with transit
running times or to optimize general traffic flow (this is done
in the Denver Transit Mall); or (ii) actively, where priority is
granted to a bus after it is detected. Active priority is either:
(i) conditional, where only late buses are given priority (as is
done on AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid and Los Angeles’s
Transit signal priority is a typical hallmark
of BRT systems, allowing buses to
minimize intersection stoppage along the
journey
Source: Sustainable Transportation in the
Netherlands
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
16
Metro Rapid) or (ii) unconditional, where all buses are given priority regardless of whether they are early
or late (as is done in for the Santa Clara County portion of the El Camino Corridor for VTA).5
Typical active TSP strategies include: (i) extending the green cycle (i.e., green extension), which elongates
the green time to allow an approaching bus to cross the intersection; or (ii) truncating the red cycle (i.e.,
early green), which shortens the red time so that a bus experiences a shorter time waiting at the
intersection.
3.2.2.3.2 Bulbouts
Bus bulbouts, often referred to as curb extensions,
effectively extend the curb at bus stops into the parking
lane, allowing buses to stop in the nearest traffic lane
instead of at the curb lane when loading/unloading.
Bulbouts can reduce bus merge times into and out of general mixed flow traffic lanes, while also creating
more space for bus shelters and street furniture. Bulbouts can impact general traffic flow as buses stop in
the mixed flow lanes, reducing throughput capacity, and forcing vehicles behind the bus to wait if they are
unable to pass.
3.2.2.3.3 Queue Jump Lanes
Queue jump lanes, also known as queue
jumpers or exempt lanes, are short segments of
priority lanes at specific locations. In the US
context, queue jump lanes are typically in right-
hand turn lanes and allow for transit through
movements.6 Queue jump lanes are enabled by
a special bus signal phase or signal priority to allow the bus to move ahead of general purpose traffic.
5 For systems adopting headway-based schedule control, a bus is evaluated “early” or “late” against its expected arrival headway at
a given station. 6 Right-turning vehicles from the cross street, accustomed to turning on red, must be controlled to prevent conflicts
with the through-moving transit vehicles. Control is typically achieved through one or more of the following methods:
(i) signs banning right turns on red; (ii) yield or stop signs; (iii) special right-turn signals; and (iv) channelization to give
right-turn vehicles better visibility of oncoming transit vehicles.
Bulbouts reduce the merge times for buses
to serve curbside stops, but may impact
following traffic on narrow streets
Queue jump lanes are typically implemented in
right-turn lanes and allow transit to continue
through the intersection while general traffic turns
right. Queue jump lanes are typically enabled by a
special bus phase or transit signal priority.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
17
Queue jump lanes can permit transit vehicles
to bypass queues at congested intersections,
bridge approaches and toll plazas, etc. and
can reduce transit delay, improve travel
speeds, and increase reliability. Queue jump
lanes can also be deployed to allow transit
vehicles to more effectively transition into and
out of median bus lanes to serve curbside
stops. No queue jump lanes exist along El
Camino Real.
3.2.2.4 Dedicated Transit Lanes
Transit operating in mixed flow lanes is subject to delay and conflict from other vehicles, cyclists, and
pedestrians. Thus, stretches of dedicated transit lane(s) for exclusive transit use can be one of the most
important factors, aside from implementing longer stop spacing, in achieving faster and more reliable
service. Dedicated lanes are a visible and permanent commitment to providing priority to transit over
general traffic.
While not all BRT systems operate in dedicated transit lanes, those that do are often able to operate at
much higher speeds and carry much higher peak loads than Rapid systems operating in mixed flow traffic.
From the rider perspective, dedicated transit lanes may have an even stronger psychological impact, by
allowing vehicles to bypass congestion and operate unimpeded in the transit lane.
However, implementing stretches of dedicated transit lanes is expensive, requires support both politically
and financially from stakeholder cities, the business communities, and residents, and is often difficult to
achieve, especially if current mixed flow lanes are “re-allocated” for transit-only purposes. The re-
allocation of mixed-flow lanes to dedicated bus lanes can have a significant impact to levels of service.
Source: City of Chandler, AZ
Source: TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk
Dedicated transit lanes can have significant
benefits to travel time and reliability, but are
costly and challenging to implement
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
18
Dedicated transit lanes may be implemented along an entire corridor, or in a portion or portions of a
corridor. Operationally, these lanes may function as:
Peak-Only Lanes – Transit vehicles operate in these lanes during peak hours only. Outside of the
peak, general traffic can operate in the lane as well. Often, peak-only
lanes are implemented in the peak direction of travel and achieved by
instituting parking bans during the peak. Buses then operate in the
vacated parking lanes. This strategy has minimal physical infrastructure
costs as no construction is required. This is the strategy employed in
Vancouver along many arterials including the Broadway Corridor and
Georgia Street, and in Washington DC suburbs such as Silver Springs
(these lanes function as reversible peak-only lane).
All-Day Lanes – Lanes are for exclusive transit use throughout the day.
This strategy is typically the most expensive types as the lanes require
some degree of physical segregation from adjacent traffic as well as
enforcement.
Reversible Lanes – In some right-of-way constrained sections, sufficient width may exist for only
one dedicated transit lane. Some systems operate short reversible (or bi-directional) single lane
segments so both travel directions can benefit from the dedicated transit segment. Functioning
similar to a single track segment of rail, signals control movement into and out of the lane.
Eugene’s EmX operates one short segment of reversible lane, while VTA’s Stevens Creek BRT
Corridor has proposed such a lane through the congested and constrained Valley Fair section.
Contraflow Lanes – Contraflow transit
lanes are often implemented on one-
way streets, where transit operates in
the opposite direction of the
surrounding lanes. This allows two-way
operation of the bus, while general
traffic operates in one direction.
Contraflow lanes can maximize spare
capacity on a road and allow for more
direct routings in areas with significant
one-way road networks. Boston’s Silver
Line operates a contraflow segment on
Washington Street.
Three types of dedicated transit lanes exist – these are described below.
Source: flickr.com
Source: Google Street View
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
19
3.2.2.4.1 Reserved Lanes
Reserved lanes for transit are comprised of curb
bus lanes, median busways, or reserved freeway
lanes. Typically, these lanes are implemented by
“re-allocating” existing mixed flow travel lanes
to exclusive transit use. These lanes are typically
physically separated from adjacent traffic
through colored pavement, bollards, raised
pavement, as well as short, mountable concrete
medians.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX)
operates in a dedicated curbside lane (i.e., the
right-most lane). Most agencies deploying reserved lanes, however, operate median bus lanes to avoid
right-turn and parking conflicts. Median bus lanes can be configured with: (i) side platforms, which allow
for right-side boarding, but also require a platform for each direction; or (ii) center platforms, which have
a wider waiting area to serve both directions, but require either contraflow operations for right-side
boarding or specialized vehicles allowing dual-side boarding. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT and Eugene’s
EmX systems use a center platform configuration with dual-side boarding vehicles. VTA’s proposed BRT
system would operate with side platforms. Mexico City’s TransMetro is a large-scale example of BRT
operating in median bus lanes on city streets.
3.2.2.4.2 At-Grade Busway
The LA Metro Orange Line and the Miami-Dade Busway both operate as at-grade busways. At-grade
busways are built in their own right-of-way (often abandoned rail corridors). Interaction with mixed flow
traffic is limited to intersections and the entry and exit points of the busway. Transit typically operates
much faster and more reliably than in reserved lanes which are still subject to mixed flow interference.
Speed is limited by the number of mixed flow traffic crossings.
Source: Arup (Mexico City, TransMetro)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
20
3.2.2.4.3 Grade-Separated Busway
The Ottawa Transitway and the Pittsburgh Busway operate
as exclusive busways that provide complete physical
separation from mixed flow traffic. Unlike at-grade busways,
there are no crossings with mixed flow traffic. These BRT
systems operate similar to rail rapid transit systems such as
BART. They can achieve the fastest operating speeds, the
highest reliability, and carry the highest hourly loads of the
various types of BRT systems.
3.2.3 ENHANCED PASSENGER AMENITIES
BRT services also may include enhanced passenger amenities to improve the perceived and actual transit
experience. Typical amenities are described below.
3.2.3.1 More Substantial Stations
Full BRT typically has enhanced and more robust
stations to improve the passenger waiting experience.
Amenities can range from simple and more elegant
stylized shelters to more elaborate rail-like stations with
high platforms and large seated waiting areas. High
quality materials may also be used for the facility. Other
amenities may include better lighting, sheltered waiting
areas, real-time passenger information, ticket vending
machines, etc.
Source: Wikimedia
Enhanced passenger stations and waiting
areas are one facet of BRT, but are typically
implemented at high demand stops first.
Source: VTA
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
21
3.2.3.2 Real-Time Information
Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking of transit vehicles combined with knowledge of real-time traffic
conditions allows transit agencies to provide up-to-date real-time passenger information such as
expected arrival times and journey times both at the wayside and aboard vehicles through variable
message signs and announcements, as well as through smartphones and other handheld devices. Real-
time information systems can reduce perceived waiting times and improve the attractiveness of transit
and use of transit. Implementation of real-time
information systems may not be warranted at all BRT
stops initially – thus such systems are usually phased in
to prioritize high demand stops first, and low demand
stops later.
3.2.4 DISTINCTIVE BRANDED SERVICE
To separate BRT from local and express bus service in the minds of the riders but also non-riders, agencies
typically brand BRT as a distinctive service. This branding is carried through for the entire “package”,
primarily in terms of service, vehicles, and stops.
Real-time information is provided by many
agencies. For Full BRT, it mimics the
reliability and quality of rail.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
22
3.2.4.1 Branded and Specially Marketed Service
To leverage the noted advantages of BRT, most
agencies market BRT as an elite, premium brand of
service. The goal is to create the perception among
riders and non-riders that BRT is faster, more reliable,
comfortable and “hip” than local service operating in
the same corridor and a viable alternative to the
automobile. Specialized branding may include:
A unique name or route numbering for BRT,
which can imply an elite level of service over
local bus;
Unique painting, bus wrapping, or logo for
BRT vehicles;
Specially chosen colors schemes and logos
for BRT marketing materials, stop signs, and
maps; and
Targeted marketing campaigns to extol the
benefits of BRT over local bus and possibly the automobile.
3.2.4.2 Specialized Vehicles
Agencies typically deploy BRT buses that are distinctive
from local buses both in appearance (for instance
branding, color scheme, and logo), but also in make and
model. Sleek and contoured vehicles that look more
“rail-like” in appearance have been adopted at many
agencies, with low-floors for faster entry and exit, and
nicer interior seating. Several BRT systems have introduced dual-side door vehicles to allow both left-side
(for center platform configurations) and right-side boarding. Several agencies have likewise selected
energy-efficient or zero-emission propulsion vehicles to further differentiate and bring greater publicity to
the service. In addition, some BRT vehicles are equipped with Wi-Fi to further differentiate service. The
VTA’s Valley Rapid plans to make all BRT vehicles Wi-Fi capable.
Agencies market BRT as a premium service
and typically give it a catchy and
memorable nickname – EmX, the Rapid,
the HealthLine, etc.
Image: City of Brampton, Ontario
BRT systems typically deploy specialized
vehicles that differentiate the service from
regular local bus. Vehicles sometimes have
a rail-like appearance and feel to
emphasize the premium service.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
23
3.3 VARIANTS OF BRT
This section discusses the two main variants of BRT and how other organizations/entities have tried to
distinguish between different BRT systems.
3.3.1 THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Many variants of BRT operate in North America and throughout the world – each agency and entity has its
own perspective on what constitutes BRT service in the local context. There is general industry consensus,
however, that BRT can be delineated into two families based on the level of attributes and investment in
each system: Rapid and Full BRT – as shown in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3: THE TWO FAMILIES OF BRT
Type of BRT Typical Attributes Examples
Rapid
These systems typically operate in mixed flow lanes, often
with some degree of signal priority, and likely branded
service and vehicles. Rapid systems, also sometimes known
as “BRT Lite” have minimal capital investment.
AC Transit 1R & Line 72R
Los Angeles Metro Rapid
LAVTA Rapid
VTA Rapid 522
Full BRT
These systems typically have a much higher degree of
priority and enhancements than Rapid services. These
systems operate vehicles in dedicated transit lanes (or
segments of) that allow vehicles to operate faster and more
reliably. Significant capital investments are made to upgrade
corridor right-of-way and stations, to make the riding
experience more “rail-like”.
Cleveland HealthLine
Eugene EmX
Los Angeles Metro Orange
Line
VTA Valley Rapid (Future)
SFMTA Van Ness BRT
(Future)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
24
3.3.2 FORMAL DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN RAPID AND FULL BRT SERVICES
Several transit agencies and entities have attempted to
formally differentiate between the two tiers of enhanced
service (Rapid vs. Full BRT) to better define service
expectations to the public and to stakeholders.
The following sections present how different agencies
and entities differentiate between Rapid and Full BRT
services. It is notable that while there are slight nuances
in how the entities define Rapid and Full BRT services –
all similarly conclude that (as described in Table 3-3):
Rapid connotes systems that operate in mixed
flow lanes with some degree of signal priority
and minimal capital investment.
Full BRT connotes more capital intensive systems with dedicated transit lanes, robust and
enhanced stations, and more rail-like amenities.
3.3.2.1 CalTrans BRT Handbook for Partners
In February 2007, CalTrans published its Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners. This handbook was
meant to inform Caltrans staff and other stakeholders about what elements comprise a BRT system. Table
3-4Table 3-4 presents the various stages of BRT implementation leading to Full BRT operations. The
“Initial BRT Stage” represents Rapid type services which operate in mixed flow traffic lanes with some fo rm
of transit priority. BRT requires greater investment but is typically more effective through allocation or
implementation of dedicated bus lanes and transit running ways to provide separation from mixed flow
vehicles.
For the remainder of this review and study,
the following terms will be used:
Rapid will connote systems that operate
in mixed flow lanes with some degree of
signal priority and minimal capital
investment.
BRT will connote more capital intensive
systems with dedicated transit lanes,
robust and enhanced stations, and more
rail-like amenities.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
25
TABLE 3-4: CALTRANS INCREMENTAL BRT DEVELOPMENT STAGES
Source: Caltrans Bus Rapid Transit – A Handbook for Partners, California Department of Transportation,
February 2007.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
26
3.3.2.2 VTA Service Design Guidelines
The VTA Service Design Guidelines (included within its 2007 Transit Sustainability Policy) define the typical
attributes and minimum performance thresholds of Rapid service versus Full BRT as presented Table 3-5
which was adapted from various tables in the Guidelines.7
Similar to the Caltrans working definition of BRT, VTA defines Rapid and Full BRT services as follows (this
definition is from the BRT Strategic Plan’s State of the Industry Review):
Rapid (known as BRT 1 in the Service Design Guidelines) - A premium level of service, with
higher operating speeds, greater reliability, and fewer stops than local bus service. Buses and
stations are brand identified, typically with standard amenities, such as shelters, benches, and
real-time passenger information. BRT 1 primarily operates in mixed flow traffic lanes. Time-
savings is generated from reducing the number of stops served and from transit priority elements
such as signal priority, queue jump lanes, or bulbouts.
Full BRT (known as BRT 2 in the Service Design Guidelines) - An enhanced service with
dedicated running ways (or transitways), both on- and off-street, as well as high-capacity stations
with enhanced amenities on par with those for light or heavy rail, and possibly passing lanes at
stations to allow different types of routes and bypass flexibility. On-street facilities may be in the
center median or at the curbside. Travel time savings accrue and reliability increases since BRT
vehicles are not subject to mixed traffic delays. Capital costs for Full BRT are significantly higher
than for Rapid systems.
7 It is noted that in the Guidelines, the official moniker of Rapid service is BRT 1, while BRT service is known as BRT 2.
VTA’s various BRT corridors, however, are not known to the public as BRT 2.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
27
TABLE 3-5: VTA BRT SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Type of Service
Typical Attributes Rapid Full BRT
Service Elements
All-Day, Frequent Service X X
Limited Stops X X
Simplified Routing X X
Specialized Vehicles X X
More Robust Stops X
Rail-Like Stations X
Off Vehicle Fare Payment X
Runningway
Operates in Mixed-flow Lanes X
Operates in Peak Period Lanes X
Operates in Dedicated Bus Lanes X
Operates in Dedicated Transitway X
Transit Priority
Elements
Transit (Bus) Signal Priority X X
Queue Jump Lanes X X
Bulbouts (Curb Extensions) X X
Service Design
Guideline (SDG)
Standards
Avg. Boardings per Revenue Hour 45 55
Avg. Boardings per Station 150 350
Avg. Boardings per Route Mile 200 350-475
Residential Corridor Density (Minimum
Dwelling Units / Acre) 12-16 12-16
Other Attributes
Higher Investment Costs X
Brand Identity X X
Source: VTA BRT Service Design Guidelines, 2007.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
28
3.3.2.3 LA Metro’s Transit Service Policy
LA Metro published its Transit Service Policy in 2011. This Policy outlines the different tiers of service
Metro provides. It specifically differentiates between its Rapid (called Metro Rapid) and its BRT (called
Metro Liner) services as follows:
Metro Rapid (Rapid) – The Policy defines Metro Rapid service as “expedited arterial bus service
operating on heavily traveled corridors. Time reductions are achieved through the use of fewer
bus stops, transit signal priority, and peak period bus lanes. Metro Rapid buses use specially
branded buses and enhanced bus stops at selected locations that include special shelters,
information kiosks, and “Next Trip” displays.” Well known Metro Rapid routes include the
Wilshire-Whittier Rapid and the Ventura Rapid.
Metro Liner (Full BRT) – The Policy defines Metro Liner service as “expedited BRT service
operated on its own exclusive right-of-way on either arterials or freeways with dedicated transit
stations.” Metro Liner service incorporates a series of design feastures including dedicated bus
lanes, high-capacity vehicles, transit signal priority, enhanced bus stations and shelters, enhanced
streetscapes, and improved fare collection with TVMs at select stations.” The Metro Orange and
Silver Lines are examples of such services.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
29
4.0 BRT WITHIN THE SAMTRANS CONTEXT
This section discusses how BRT should be categorized and classified in the SamTrans context. It also lays
out the attributes for different types of BRT based on Section 3.0 findings.
4.1 FOCUS OF THIS BRT PHASING PLAN
In the context of this El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan, the goal of this study is to first develop a short-
and long-term BRT strategy. At present, SamTrans does not operate Rapid or BRT service on the El
Camino Corridor. The 2006 El Camino Real Bus Corridor Origin and Destination Survey recommended the
implementation of a Rapid service to “prime the pump” for an anticipated Full BRT service, as current
densities are insufficient to support Full BRT. However, housing and employment densities are anticipated
to meet Full BRT thresholds (20 units per acre and 1.0 floor area ratio, respectively) in some places along
the Corridor by 2035. If looking at residential and job density together, the Corridor is likely to support
Full BRT in the future.8 As such, it seems logical to conclude that for this analysis and development of this
Phasing Plan:
The short-term operating plan and phasing
plan should focus on Rapid bus service, which
include lower cost enhancements such as wider
stop spacing and possible transit signal priority,
as corridor conditions are not suitable for
significant Full BRT investment (i.e., ridership,
densities, etc.).
The long-term operating plan and phasing
plan should focus on more capitally intensive
Full BRT services, possibly with dedicated
transit lane segments and/or rail-like amenities.
8 Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan, The Grand Boulevard Initiative, October 2010.
For this Phasing Plan:
The short-term operating plan and
phasing plan should focus on Rapid bus
service.
The long-term operating plan and
phasing plan should focus on more
capitally intensive Full BRT services.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
30
4.2 PROPOSED DELINEATION BETWEEN RAPID AND FULL BRT
SERVICES FOR SAMTRANS
Based on other counterpart entities in Section 3.3, Table 4-1 presents the potential attributes for Rapid
and Full BRT service tiers for the SamTrans and El Camino Real context.
TABLE 4-1: ATTRIBUTES FOR SAMTRANS RAPID VS. FULL BRT
Typical BRT Attribute Specific Strategy/Strategies Rapid Full BRT
Frequent All-Day Service Frequent bi-directional service X X
Fast and Reliable Service
Longer stop spacing X X
Operational measures
o Turn prohibitions / exemptions X X
o Low-floor vehicles X X
o Level boarding facilities X
o All-door boarding/alighting X
o Off-board fare payment X
o Transportation system management enhancements X X
Transit priority measures
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP) X X
o Bulbouts X X
o Queue jump lanes X X
o Dedicated transit lanes
Reserved lanes X
At-grade busway X
Grade-separated busway X
Enhanced Passenger
Amenities
More substantial stations X
Real-time information X X
Distinctive Branded
Service
Branded and specially marketed service X X
Specialized vehicles X X
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
31
5.0 CASE STUDIES
This section presents four case studies, which were selected due to their perceived applicability to
SamTrans and the El Camino Corridor. Acknowledging that current and short-term corridor conditions
would be more supportive of Rapid services rather than Full BRT, this case study review focuses on Rapid
type systems which are most applicable to the corridor in the short-term. Three Rapid systems are
presented. One BRT case study is also reviewed though to highlight the long-term possibilities in the
Corridor if ridership grows and transit-supportive development and densities arise.
The four case studies are as follows in the table below:
TABLE 5-1: LIST OF FOUR CASE STUDY SYSTEMS
Type of Service Name of Service Region Operator
Rapid Metro Rapid Los Angeles, CA (USA) LA Metro
Rapid Rapid Oakland, CA (USA) AC Transit
Rapid Rapid 522 * Santa Clara County, CA (USA) VTA
Full BRT EmX Eugene, OR (USA) LTD
* Limited performance data is available for this case study. The others have been analyzed by the FTA or the local agency.
Each case study is described in four sections:
Description of the System – This section describes the transit operator and service network, as
well as the BRT services offered by the operator (including length and coverage).
Key Attributes – This section describes the BRT corridor in terms of infrastructure elements such
as dedicated bus lanes, queue jump lanes, and vehicles are detailed. Capital costs and O&M costs
(if available) are also detailed. In addition, operating characteristics such as the span of service,
frequency of service, as well as any transit priority and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
applications that improve operating performance and the passenger experience are noted.
Performance and Benefits – This section highlights key operating performance metrics such as
travel time savings and ridership as available.
Applicability to SamTrans – This section highlights the key lessons learned from each case
study, particularly, how such lessons may be applicable to the SamTrans case.
As a reference, Appendix A presents a table depicting the expected travel time savings from
implementation of various transit priority measures for the on-going San Francisco MTA’s Transit
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
32
Effectiveness Project or TEP. Anticipated TEP time savings benefits are quantified discretely from other
measures such as longer stop spacing, stop relocation, etc.
5.1 CASE STUDY 1: METRO RAPID – LOS ANGELES, CA
5.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
In the summer of 2000, LA Metro initiated
two mixed-traffic Rapid demonstration
lines in major east-west corridors. Called
Metro Rapid, the first two lines were along:
(i) Wilshire and Whittier boulevards in
central Los Angeles, a 25.7-mile route; and
(ii) Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando
Valley, a 16.7-mile route.
Currently, 24 Metro Rapid lines serve Los
Angeles County, spanning nearly 400 miles
– an outgrowth of the success of these two initial demonstration projects. Although Metro Rapid operates
in mixed flow travel lanes, Metro Rapid benefits from TSP (allowing for green extension or red truncation),
low-floor buses allowing for level boarding, and longer
stop spacing. Metro Rapid vehicles are detected by
Automatic Vehicle Location sensors that allow real-time
monitoring and dispatch of vehicles, as well as provision of
real-time vehicle arrival information.
LA Metro also operates a premium BRT service known as
Metro Liner, which operates in extensive dedicated transit
lanes with limited at-grade interaction with mixed flow
traffic. Two Metro Liner routes exists in Los Angeles: (i) the
Orange Line which is an outgrowth of the initial Ventura
Metro Rapid line, which operates in an abandoned rail
Source: LA Metro, 2013.
Source: flickr.com
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
33
right-of-way in the San Fernando Valley connecting to the northern terminus of the Red Line (a rail rapid
transit line that serves Downtown Los Angeles); and (ii) the Silver Line, which operates in dedicated
median lanes of the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway.
The focus of this case study review is on Metro Rapid services, which are most applicable to the current
and short-range SamTrans context.
5.1.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES9
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for Metro Rapid are as follows below. Due to the size of the
current system, information cited below is generalized for the Metro Rapid service as a whole rather than
a single route. Where applicable, information for a single route will be presented and noted specifically.
TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)
Key Attributes Description
Frequent All-
Day Service
Headway
Weekday (Peak): 3-10 minutes (typical)
Weekday (Off-Peak): 15-20 minutes (typical)
Weekend: Reduced compared to weekday
Span of Service Weekday: 5:00AM-9:00PM (typical)
Weekend: Reduced span of service compared to weekday
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Fast and
Reliable
Services
Average Stop Spacing ~0.75 miles apart
Operational Measures
Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly.
Metro Rapid stops are at the far-side, while local bus stops are at the
near-side.
Transit Signal Priority
TSP is implemented at over 1,000 intersections in the City and was
collaboratively developed by the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation and Metro for use in the City of Los Angeles.
Priority is conditional – only buses that are 50% or more behind
schedule are granted priority.
Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension
(up to 10 seconds in both cases).
Dedicated Transit Lanes
None – Metro Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the
entirety of their routes.
Metro Liner routes operate in dedicated transit lanes.
9 Much of this information is from the LA Metro website (http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/) as well as the Wilshire
and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro, 2002.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
34
TABLE 5-2: LA METRO RAPID ATTRIBUTES (SYSTEM-WIDE)
Key Attributes Description
Enhanced
Passenger
Amenities
More Substantial
Stations
Metro Rapid stations have enhanced passenger amenities including
transit information, lighting, and canopies.
Real-Time Information Most stations have “Next Bus” displays.
Branding and
Marketing
Specially Branded
Service
Metro Rapid is a separate branded service different from local buses
with distinctive red and silver colors.
Specialized
Infrastructure
Some routes use stylized, 60’ articulated vehicles, clearly
distinguishable from more “boxy” local bus routes.
Metro Rapid stations are typically separated from local bus stops.
Costs
Capital Costs (YOE)
Wilshire Metro Rapid: $5.0 million (2000) or $200,000 / mile (roughly
split between stations and TSP)
Ventura Metro Rapid: $3.3 million (2000) or $180,000 / mile
O&M Costs (YOE) Wilshire & Ventura Metro Rapid Lines: $12.7 million annually (2000) or
$300,000 / mile
5.1.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS10
Key Metro Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Much of these results
are from the initial Wilshire and Ventura demonstration projects.
TABLE 5-3: LA METRO RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Travel Time Savings
Wilshire Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by
approximately 28%, with three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing
and level boarding, and the rest due to TSP.
Ventura Metro Rapid: Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by 23%, with
three-quarters of this reduction from wider stop spacing and level boarding, and
the rest due to TSP.
Broadway Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 35%.
Vermont Metro Rapid: Average travel time was reduced by 40%.
10
Sources: (i) Wilshire and Venture Metro Rapid: Final Report, Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program, LA Metro,
2002; (ii) Broadway and Vermont Metro Rapids (LA Metro – www.metro.net), 2012; and (iii) Metro Rapid TSP and ATSAC: (US
Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Home - http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov),
2012.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
35
TABLE 5-3: LA METRO RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Improved Reliability and
On-Time Performance
Wilshire Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 33%.
Ventura Metro Rapid: TSP reduced traffic signal delay by 36%.
In general, Metro Rapid TSP reduced: (i) bus travel time variability by 35%; (ii) AM
peak intersection bus delay by 13%; and (iii) the number of times a bus stops at a
red light by 50%.
TSP parameters (for instance granting less than 7 to 10 seconds of green per call),
can reduce bus delays and also have negligible impacts on cross-street traffic.
Improved Rider Experience
(for Wilshire/Ventura Metro
Rapid only)
Metro Rapid ratings were higher for all attributes compared to the prior service.
The largest improvements in ratings were in cleanliness, travel time on the bus,
and bus frequency.
Increased Ridership
Wilshire Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 42%, while the share of new
riders grew by 33%.
Ventura Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 27%, while the share of new
riders grew by 26%.
Wilshire/Ventura Metro Rapid: 14% of Metro Rapid riders began using transit
service after Metro Rapid services were established.
Broadway Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 17%.
Vermont Metro Rapid: Corridor ridership increased by 4%.
5.1.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the Metro Rapid context include:
Combined, Low-Floor Vehicles and Longer Stop Spacing Reduces Travel Times – The Metro
Rapid results estimate that nearly 75% of travel time savings is from both reducing stops and
operating low-floor vehicles. This result suggests that combinations of attributes are most
effective at achieving desired travel time savings and reliability.
Specific TSP Operating Parameters Can Optimize Performance – LA Metro operates
conditional priority for its TSP system – thus only late buses are granted priority. Furthermore, a
TCRP study found that modest early green or green extension (e.g., less than 7 to 10 seconds per
cycle) can reduce bus delays with negligible impacts on cross-street traffic. For the SamTrans
context, it may be worthwhile to consider implementing conditional priority to reduce impacts on
cross traffic.
TSP May Be More Useful to Maintain Reliability Rather than Reduce Travel Time - The Metro
Rapid results estimate that only about 25% of travel time savings is directly attributable to TSP. At
the same time however, TSP significantly reduced the number of times buses stopped at
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
36
intersections and the amount of time they were stopped – both factors that determine how
reliable and on-time service is.
An Extensive TSP Network Has Facilitated Metro Rapid Operations – TSP is implemented on
over 1,000 streets in Downtown Los Angeles to facilitate transit movements. Long, continuous
stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout
the corridor.
Separate Metro Rapid and Local Bus Stops Differentiate the Brand – Metro Rapid stops are
not only designed differently than those for local bus stops, they are placed at different locations.
Metro Rapid stops are located at the far-side of intersections, while local stops are at the near-
side. While there is a capital cost associated with separating these facilities, this approach can
help differentiate services in the minds of the public and accentuate the premium nature of Rapid
or BRT services.
5.2 CASE STUDY 2: AC TRANSIT RAPID – OAKLAND, CA
5.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
In 2003, AC Transit initiated Rapid service along San Pablo
Avenue (Line 72R also known as the San Pablo Rapid).
Rapid service operates in mixed flow travel lanes. Rapid
service operates with increased frequency, reduced travel
time by reducing stops and implementing TSP, and real-
time arrivals information at select locations.
The weekday-only 72R operates for 14.0 miles from
Contra Costa College in San Pablo to Downtown Oakland
and Jack London Square. The 72R replaced the 72L,
which provided limited stop service. Two local routes (72
and 73) were maintained in the corridor.
In 2007, a second Rapid line, Line 1R (also known as the International Rapid), was started along Telegraph
Avenue, International Boulevard and East 14th Street from UC Berkeley to Bay Fair BART Station. The
International Rapid line is 18 miles long and serves Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Weekend service
is from Oakland and San Leandro only.
Source: showbus.com
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
37
AC Transit’s first full-fledged BRT service will commence in 2016 between Downtown Oakland and San
Leandro, essentially replacing the southern portion of the 1R’s route, operating in dedicated transit lane
segments with enhanced median stations and other rail-like amenities such as TVMs.
5.2.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the AC Transit Rapid are as follows:
TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Frequent All-
Day Service
Headway Weekday: 12 minutes all-day (1R/72R)
Weekend: 15 minutes all-day (1R)
Span of Service Weekday: 5:30AM-8:30PM (1R) / 6:00AM-8:00PM (72R)
Weekend: 8:30AM-7:00PM (1R)
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Fast and
Reliable
Services
Average Stop Spacing ~0.50 miles (26 stops over 14 miles for 72R only)
Operational Measures Low-floor vehicles with three to four doors help riders to load and
unload quickly.
Transit Signal Priority
Signal coordination and TSP was implemented for the Rapid.
TSP is conditional meaning only late vehicles are provided priority.
Rapid vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension.
All 63 intersections for the 72R are TSP enabled, yet only the Rapid
bus can trigger the system.
Other Measures
(Bulbouts & Queue
Jump Lanes)
Two short queue jump lanes were installed on San Pablo Avenue for
the 72R.
No queue jump lanes were installed for the 1R due to insufficient
street width.
Dedicated Transit Lanes
None – Rapid services operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety
of their routes.
Dedicated transit lanes will be built for the new BRT project opening
in 2016 on International Blvd.
Enhanced
Passenger
Amenities
More Substantial
Stations Stops are not enhanced. Rapid stops also function as local bus stops.
Real-Time Information Select stations are equipped with NextBus real-time arrival screens.
Branding and
Marketing
Specially Branded
Service
Bus shelters and distinctive signs with the Rapid logo are located at
most of the 51 stops, which are also used by local buses.
Buses also have the Rapid logo.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
38
TABLE 5-4: AC TRANSIT RAPID ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Specialized
Infrastructure
No specialized buses or stops were implemented as part of the Rapid
program. Vehicles used for Rapid service are also used for local
service.
Costs
Capital Costs (YOE)
72R: $3.2 million (2003$), which did not include the vehicle cost, while
some capital costs were split between TSP and on-street
improvements.
Cost per mile: $230,000 / mile (excluding vehicles)
O&M Costs (YOE) Data unavailable
5.2.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS11
Key AC Transit Rapid performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only
performance of the initial 14.0-mile 72R service is described below.
TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Travel Time Savings
Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 12 minutes,
equating to a 21% reduction compared to local service and 17% reduction
compared to the old 72L. This meets the goal of a 20% reduction in travel time set
by AC Transit.
It was estimated that about a third of travel time savings was from reducing stops,
a third was from signal progression improvements (or signal coordination), a sixth
from TSP, and a sixth from moving stops to the far-side.
Improved Reliability and
On-Time Performance
72R reliability is still impacted by heavy congestion.
Service reliability has been maintained by providing additional vehicles in the
afternoon.
11
Source: The San Pablo Rapid BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report – June 2006, Federal Transit Administration, 2006.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
39
TABLE 5-5: AC TRANSIT RAPID PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (72R ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Improved Rider Experience
72R service received an average rider rating of 4.2, which is higher than
the 3.7 for other services.
80% of users perceived the 72R as faster than the previous service, with
almost half of respondents indicated the service was at least 15 minutes
faster.
90% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good”
or “very good”
Increased Ridership
72R ridership grew by 22% in the year after implementation
System-wide ridership grew by about 4.5% from 2003-04 during which
72R began operations.
One survey of Rapid Bus users found that 40-50% of those using the line
were new riders, with 19% having previously driven to their destination
and 10-15% previously rode BART.
5.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the AC Transit context include:
Targeted Investment Can Increase Ridership and Choice Rider Capture – Average capital cost
per mile for Rapid service is very low compared to other similar BRT systems. The majority of the
costs were for TSP and other on-street improvements. However, the Rapid met its goal of 20%
travel time savings over the replaced limited service, while capturing choice riders. Thus, even
small targeted investments can be effective at meeting goals.
Traffic Signal Coordination May Be Just As Important as TSP – It was estimated that a third of
travel time savings came from better traffic signal coordination, while a sixth of the savings came
from TSP. This means that while TSP shows promise, better coordination of signals can have
significant benefits as well. Since Rapid operates solely in mixed flow lanes, this lesson may be
especially applicable to SamTrans.
72R Implements TSP at All Intersections – TSP is implemented on all Line 72R intersections.
Long, continuous stretches of TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are
coordinated throughout the corridor.
Sharing of Vehicles and Stops Can Dilute the Brand – Although Rapid services are distinct and
have a distinct logo (as 90% of customers noted identification of the system was “good” or “very
good”, Rapid vehicles and stations are essentially indistinguishable from local service. Rapid
vehicles look no different than local buses, in fact some Rapid vehicles are used on local service.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
40
Bus stops have Rapid signs, but these stops are used by both Rapid and local services. This
“blending” of the two services may cause rider confusion, as well as the loss of premium brand
recognition. This issue, at least for AC Transit, will be solved when the new BRT system opens with
dedicated stations and new vehicles.
5.3 CASE STUDY 3: RAPID 522 – SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA
5.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
The VTA initiated Rapid 522 service in mid-2005, as its first
foray into enhanced bus service. The Rapid 522 replaced the
Limited Stop 300 and operates on a 26.0-mile route from the
Palo Alto Transit Center in Palo Alto to the Eastridge Mall in
East San Jose on El Camino Real, the Alameda, Alum Rock
Avenue, and Capitol Expressway. The Local 22 provides local
coverage along the route.
Rapid 522 operates frequent all-day service at 15-minute
headways, with longer stop spacing than the Local 22
(operating at 12-minute headways), all low-floor vehicles, and
TSP as well as two queue jump lanes. The Rapid 522 is specially branded and marketed, with buses having
a unique red and blue wrap.
Rapid 522 is the first step towards developing a full-
fledged BRT system in Santa Clara County. The
planned Valley Rapid will include three BRT
corridors – the El Camino, Alum Rock, and Stevens
Creek.
Valley Rapid will operate in median bus lanes (and
mixed flow lanes in some areas) with rail-like
stations and vehicles. Ultimately, Valley Rapid will
operate at 10-minute headways, with a local overlay
at 15 minutes.
Source: VTA
Source: VTA
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
41
The focus of this case study review is on the VTA Rapid 522, which is most applicable to the SamTrans
context.
5.3.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES12
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the Rapid 522 are as follows below.
TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Frequent All-
Day Service
Headway
Weekday: 15 minutes all-day; 20-25 minutes in the early morning and
late night
Weekend: 15 minutes all-day; 20 minutes in the early morning and
late night
Span of Service Weekday: 4:45AM-9:00PM
Saturday: 7:30AM-8:30PM
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Fast and
Reliable
Services
Average Stop Spacing 0.5-1.0 mile (compared to 0.25 miles for local buses)
Operational Measures
Low-floor vehicles help riders to load and unload quickly.
Rapid 522 stops are typically at the far-side of the intersection.
Queue jump lanes exist along El Camino Real at the Page Mill and
Arastradero intersections in Palo Alto. (Note – in the BRT attributes
section, these are referred to as exemptions)
Transit Signal Priority
Rapid 522 vehicles receive priority through early green or green
extension. No other routes receive priority.
Unconditional priority is granted, thus early or late vehicles still
receive TSP.
Railroad preemption takes precedent over any TSP call by the Rapid
522
Consecutive TSP calls at a single location are not allowed.
TSP is installed in continuous stretches along the entire 26.0-mile
corridor except on the southern end on the Capitol Expressway.
Dedicated Transit Lanes
None – Rapid 522 operate in mixed flow traffic along the entirety of
the routes.
Valley Rapid services will operate in mixed flow traffic as well as
segments of dedicated median transit lanes.
Enhanced
Passenger
More Substantial
Stations
Metro Rapid stations have enhanced passenger amenities including
transit information, lighting, and canopies.
12
Much of this information is from the VTA website (http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html).
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
42
TABLE 5-6: VTA RAPID 522 ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Amenities Real-Time Information Most stations have “Next Bus” displays.
Branding and
Marketing
Specially Branded
Service
Rapid 522 is a distinctive branded service.
Vehicles have a special wrap, and stations have branded Rapid signs
attached to the bus poles.
Branding was a significant piece of the BRT Strategic Plan and
development the future Valley Rapid.
Specialized
Infrastructure
Rapid 522 has no specialized infrastructure. Conventional buses are
used, but wrapped with the unique branding.
Costs
Capital Costs (YOE)
Capital cost: $3.5 million (includes $1.6 million for queue jump lanes
and TSP implementation)
Cost per mile: $140,000 / mile
O&M Costs (YOE) Not available
5.3.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS13
Key Rapid 522 performance highlights are detailed below (if available).
TABLE 5-7: VTA RAPID 522 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Travel Time Savings VTA expected Rapid 522 to generate travel time savings on the order of 10-25%
Improved Reliability and
On-Time Performance No information available.
Improved Rider Experience No information available.
Increased Ridership
In September 2007, the Rapid 522 served 8,300 daily riders, its highest total since
being started in 2005.
In September 2007, the combined Local 22 / Rapid 522 handled over 27,000 daily
riders, representing significant growth over the “pre-Rapid” corridor ridership of
about 20,000 daily riders.
13
Sources: (i) VTA BRT Strategic Plan, VTA, 2009; and (ii) http://www.vta.org/projects/line22brt.html.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
43
5.3.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Key lessons learned from the Rapid 522 include:
VTA Implements TSP on Long Continuous Stretches – As noted, Rapid 522 enjoys transit signal
priority for most of its route, except at the very end on its 26.0-mile route. Continuous stretches of
TSP maximizes the benefit of priority, especially if signals are coordinated throughout the
corridor. This is particularly instructive for SamTrans, as the Rapid 522 operates through multiple
jurisdictions (including that of Caltrans).
Rapid 522 and Local Service Perform Effectively Together – The Rapid 522 provides skipped
stop service along the corridor, while the local service provides continuity and mobility to areas
not served by the Rapid 522. This combination has been effective at increasing ridership as seen
in the 2007 corridor transit travel volumes. Interestingly, the Rapid 522 operates at 15-minute
headways, while the Local 22 operates at 12-minute headways.
Conditional TSP Could Improve Performance – VTA currently grants unconditional priority to
the Rapid 522, regardless of whether a vehicle is early or late. In the SamTrans context, it may be
worth exploring how conditional or unconditional priority would impact Rapid service as well as
cross-traffic. In addition, it would be instructive to discuss with VTA how Caltrain pre-emption and
TSP calls are handled for cross streets along El Camino, particularly in Palo Alto, which has
similarly configured grade-crossings as in San Mateo County.
Marketing Was a Key Focus of VTA’s BRT Development Effort – An initial marketing effort was
undertaken to develop the Rapid 522 brand and logo. During the planning for VTA’s BRT system,
significant focus in the BRT Strategic Plan was placed on branding, focus groups, and outreach to
develop a new logo, scheme, and name for BRT. Eventually this effort led to the Valley Rapid
name. Branding again here is key to differentiate service and elevate a premium tier of service,
this time from Rapid service to BRT service.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
44
5.4 CASE STUDY 4: EMX – EUGENE, OR
5.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM
Eugene’s LTD initiated BRT service, called Emerald Express or EmX, on its Franklin Corridor in January
2007. It replaced the western portion of the popular 11-
Thurston line, which now terminates at Springfield Station.
EmX represents one of the first full-BRT systems to operate in
the United States, running in dedicated median lanes physically
separated from adjacent mixed flow lanes with a high level of
transit priority. EmX operates with 63’ articulated vehicles.
The initial Franklin Corridor is a 4.0-mile corridor connecting
downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield, the two principal
hubs in LTD’s network. A 7.8-mile extension north to the
Gateway Mall and Sacred Heart Medical Center was opened in January 2011. An extension to West
Eugene from the current Eugene Station is in the planning phases.
5.4.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES
Key operating and infrastructure attributes for the EmX are as follows:
TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Frequent All-
Day Service
Headway
Weekday: 10 minutes all-day; 15-30 minutes in early morning / late
evening
Saturday: 15 minutes all-day
Sunday: 30 minutes all-day
Span of Service
Weekday: 5:30AM-11:30PM
Saturday: 6:45AM-11:30PM
Sunday: 7:45AM-8:30PM
Bi-Directional Service Yes
Source: Wildish Land Co.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
45
TABLE 5-8: EMX ATTRIBUTES
Key Attributes Description
Fast and
Reliable
Services
Average Stop Spacing ~0.5 miles (23 stops over 12 miles)
Operational Measures
Low-floor vehicles and all-door speed entry and exit.
Ticket vending machines allow for off-board fare payment.
All stops are at the far-side of the intersection.
Transit Signal Priority
TSP is unconditional and given regardless of whether or not the
vehicle is running on-time or late.
EmX vehicles receive priority through early green or green extension.
16 of 45 intersections along the Franklin Corridor are TSP enabled.
Other Measures
(Bulbouts & Queue
Jump Lanes)
Queue jump and bulbouts are employed at several signalized
intersections.
Dedicated Transit Lanes
EmX operates in both mixed flow lanes and exclusive lanes.
For the 4.0-mile Franklin Corridor, EmX operates in exclusive lanes for
65% of the journey. Half of the exclusive lanes are delineated by
painted lanes and are located in both the median or alongside one
side of the street. The remainder of exclusive lanes is located in the
median and is physically separated from adjacent traffic by low curbs.
Most exclusive segments have one lane only and allow for reversible,
bi-directional operations.
Enhanced
Passenger
Amenities
More Substantial
Stations
Stations are stylized with enhanced passenger amenities and appear
similar to LRT stations.
Real-Time Information Real-time displays added in 2012 to all EmX stations.
Branding and
Marketing
Specially Branded
Service
The EmX is a specially branded service that stands apart from other
LTD services. It has a unique logo and green color scheme.
Specialized
Infrastructure
Vehicles are 63’ low-floor articulated hybrid-electric New Flyer units
with a streamlined design and special color scheme.
Each vehicle holds 39 passengers and allows for dual-side boarding.
Costs
Capital Costs (YOE)
Franklin Corridor: $25 million (2007), including $12 million to build, $6
million to design, and $6 million for six vehicles
Cost per mile: $6.3 million / mile (including vehicles); $4.5 million /
mile (without vehicles)
O&M Costs (YOE) Data unavailable
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
46
5.4.3 PERFORMANCE AND BENEFITS14
Key EmX performance highlights and system benefits are detailed below. Note – only performance of the
initial 4.0-mile Franklin EmX service is described below.
TABLE 5-9: EMX PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM BENEFITS (FRANKLIN CORRIDOR ONLY)
Component Description of Performance / Benefits
Travel Time Savings
Average end-to-end travel time was reduced by approximately 1.0 minutes
compared to the original Route 11 operating on the corridor.
This equates to a 4% reduction in travel time compared to the local service.
Travel time decreased due to reductions in signal delay (28%), dwell time (10%),
and time in transit (18%).
Improved Reliability and
On-Time Performance
Service reliability and schedule adherence improved over Route 11.
Variability of travel times was reduced.
Improved Rider Experience
80% of users perceived the EmX as faster than the previous service, with almost
half of respondents indicating the service was at least 15 minutes faster.
Customers rated reliability as “good”, compared to “fair” for Route 11.
85% of customers stated that the “ease of Bus identification” was “good” or “very
good”
Increased Ridership
Since operations started, EmX has continually increased ridership (with ridership
increasing from 4,000 riders in February 2007 to 5,400 in April 2008).
LTD system ridership also increased commensurate with the opening of EmX.
16% of EmX users previously drove.
Other One negative was that eight accidents were recorded in the first year of operation,
with all accidents being the fault of the other party involved.
5.4.4 APPLICABILITY TO SAMTRANS
Although EmX, with its rail-like amenities and dedicated transit lanes, represents one long-term vision for
BRT on the El Camino Corridor, several key lessons are applicable to SamTrans and the El Camino
Corridor:
Perceived Travel Time May Be More Important than Actual Travel Time – EmX service was
shown to have improved travel times by 4% - however riders perceived a much greater level of
travel time savings, in some cases up to 15 minutes. This implies that the total package of BRT
improvements (new vehicles, nicer stations, and dedicated lanes and transit priority) can have a
14
Source: EmX Franklin Corridor – BRT Project Evaluation, Final Report, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), April
2009.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
47
significant psychological impact on riders and serve as a way to attract choice riders (as 13%
previously drove).
Selective Implementation of TSP Can Be Effective, But Only in Low Density and Low Activity
Corridors - Of the 45 intersections in the Franklin Corridor, only 16 of them were equipped with
TSP. One result of the TSP (as well as select queue jump lanes) was a 28% reduction in signal
delay (not overall travel time savings). The selective implementation of TSP in Eugene reflects the
light traffic volumes and lower density of development in its operating environment – which do
not necessitate TSP at every intersection (as done in the other case studies).
Branding Helps People to Recognize the Service and its Transit Benefits - EmX was marketed
with branded vehicles with special colors and logos. This scheme was applied to all marketing
materials and infrastructure. This helped riders and the community to publically identify and
recognize BRT service and its transit benefits.
Implementation of Expensive, But Non-Essential BRT Elements Can Be Postponed – Ticket
vending machines and real-time passenger information were expensive, but were non-essential
elements that were implemented years later after initial service began. The initial capital focus was
on improving travel time and the passenger riding experience with dedicated lanes, TSP, and
specialized vehicles instead. Thus, not all the “bells and whistles” of the system need to be
introduced from the start, but can be added incrementally as demand grows.
5.5 SUMMARY OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED
From the case studies, several recurring themes are apparent, which are applicable to the future planning
of the SamTrans El Camino BRT:
“Packages” of Strategies Are Most Effective at Reducing Travel Time and Improving
Reliability - No single strategy “outweighs” the synergistic benefits of packaging optimal
strategies together to achieve maximum time savings or reliability. All elements contribute to the
effectiveness of BRT – whether it is longer stop spacing, level boarding, or TSP, etc. As noted
below though, longer stop spacing (or skip stop service) is most effective at reducing travel times
and is typically part of the initial phasing of any BRT system. Other measures complement longer
stop spacing to incrementally improve travel time and/or reliability such as TSP and level
boarding. The findings from Appendix A for the SFMTA’s TEP show the relative effectiveness of
these packages.
Longer Stop Spacing Is Viewed As Most Effective – From the travel time savings breakdowns
and anecdotal evidence, reducing stops comprised the largest element in travel time savings. This
is also the easiest strategy to implement. There is some question, however, over what is the
second most effective strategy – some agencies identify traffic signal coordination, while others
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
48
identify level boarding. What is important to take away though is that the combination of these
strategies generates the highest benefits.
Significant Benefits Can Still Be Generated with Minimal Capital Investment – Significant
benefits can be generated from low-cost strategies such as reducing the number of stops, TSP,
and signal coordination. While dedicated lanes and rail-like stations can generate certain benefits,
they come with a significant added capital investment that may not be worth the marginal
benefit.
Most Agencies Implement TSP on Continuous Stretches to Maximize Benefit – VTA, AC
Transit, and LA Metro all implement TSP along most portions of their Rapid systems. EmX
provides TSP on only one-third of intersections along the route – however this should be viewed
more as an anomaly than the norm, as Eugene is significantly smaller and less dense than the
other three cities/regions.
Conditional TSP Should Be Considered – AC Transit and LA Metro provide conditional TSP for
their Rapid systems. This prevents early buses that are “running hot” from receiving priority and
can help balance headways and prevent bus bunching from an early bus catching up to a late bus.
5.6 NEXT STEPS
The findings from the BRT Industry Review and the El Camino Real Existing Conditions Report establish
the groundwork for the development of the conceptual short-term Rapid and long-term Full BRT
alternatives. The upcoming activities for this study include:
Developing objectives and evaluation criteria;
Developing Rapid and Full BRT alternatives and then collaborating with SamTrans and other
stakeholders to refine these alternatives; and
Selection of up to two alternatives to carry forward for more detailed analysis.
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
October 2013
APPENDIX A – TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS BENEFITS FROM TRANSIT
PRIORITY ENHANCEMENTS (SFMTA)
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
August 2013
TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS
Service Type Current
Daily Ridership
Length of TEP
Enhanced Segment
One-Way Non-TSP
Travel Time Savings
(% Savings)
Additional One-Way
TSP Travel Time
Savings (% Savings)
Service Management and Operational Optimization Strategies Proposed
5 Fulton
Local Bus
19,000 5.6 miles (9.0 km)
6.0 min (18%)
1.5 min (5%)
Increase stop spacing to between 2-3 blocks
Optimize bus stop location at 15 locations (relocate stops)
Add bus bulb at 17 locations
Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 9 intersections
Add right-turn lanes at 11 intersections
Implement a road diet on a 6 block segment
Add peak-period parking restrictions
Add pedestrian bulbs or islands at 8 intersections
8X Bayshore
Express Bus
23,000 5.0 miles (8.0 km)
7.0 min (18%)
1.5 min (4%)
Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 5 intersections
Optimize bus stop location at 7 intersections (relocate stops)
Establish 1.6 km of transit-only lanes
Increase stop spacing from 2 to 2.5 blocks
Add turn pockets at up to 8 intersections
Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections
Elongate transit stops at 6 intersections
14 Mission
Local Bus
24,600 7.5 miles (12.1 km)
10.0 min (14%)
4.0 min (6%)
Create right-turn lane at key intersections
Convert side-running transit-only lanes to center-running transit-only lanes in 5 block segment
Add transit boarding islands at 6 intersections
Create signalized transit queue jumps at 3 locations
Increase bus stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks
Optimize bus stop location at 6 intersections (relocate stops)
Add bus bulbs at 6 intersections
Elongate existing transit stops at 2 locations
Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 2 intersections
Restrict turns at 14 intersections
Reconfigure roadway
22 Fillmore
Local Bus
18,000 2.2 miles (3.5 km)
6.0 min (28%)
1.0 min (5%)
Shift route to serve new residential area
Create center-running transit-only lanes for several blocks
Create peak-period curb side transit-only lanes through lane conversion and parking removal for several blocks
El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT Industry Review
August 2013
TABLE A-1: ANTICIPATED BENEFITS FROM TEP TRAVEL TIME REDUCTION PROPOSALS ON EIGHT CORRIDORS
Service Type Current
Daily Ridership
Length of TEP
Enhanced Segment
One-Way Non-TSP
Travel Time Savings
(% Savings)
Additional One-Way
TSP Travel Time
Savings (% Savings)
Service Management and Operational Optimization Strategies Proposed
Restrict left turns at most locations
Add new traffic lights at 4 locations
Improve pedestrian environment
28 & 28L 19
th
Avenue
Local & Limited
Bus 17,500
3.4 miles (5.5 km)
5.5 min (26%)
0.5 min (2%)
Remove 14 stops at 7 intersections
Optimize 6 stops at 5 intersections (relocate stops)
Add bus bulbs at 21 locations
Add pedestrian bulbs at 19 locations
Add 31 right-turn lanes at 19 intersections
Remove one left turn lane at one intersection
30 Stockton
Local Bus
28,000 2.2 miles (3.5 km)
3.5 min (15%)
2.0 min (9%)
Increase stop spacing from 1 to 2 blocks
Optimize bus stop location at 5 intersections (relocate stops)
Add bus bulbs at 11 locations
Elongate existing bus bulbs at 4 locations (for multiple buses)
Add transit-only lanes at three locations
J Church LRT 14,000 4.0 miles (6.4 km)
3.0 min (12%)
TSP benefits not calculated
for this route
Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 4 intersections
Optimize transit locations at 3 intersections (relocate stops)
Create more consistent stop spacing
Add transit bulbs at 7 intersections
Extend boarding islands at 2 intersections
N Judah LRT 40,000+ 3.4 miles (5.5 km)
10.0 min (19%)
Unclear at this time if TSP will be
imple-mented on this route
Replace all-way STOP-controlled intersections with traffic signals or calming measures at 8 intersections
Optimize transit locations at 4 intersections (relocate stops)
Increase transit stop spacing from 2-3 blocks to 3-4 blocks
Add transit bulbs at 6 intersections
Extend boarding islands at 13 intersections
Source: SFMTA, 2012 (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepover.htm)
Note: Other changes such as operational improvements and network enhancements could further improve travel times along the corridor.