Measuring Bus Stops toward a Sustainable Urban …docs.trb.org/prp/15-3319.pdfToward a Sustainable...

Measuring Bus Stops

Toward a Sustainable

Urban Environment July 31, 2014

Prepared by:

Wenbin Ma |Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,

(corresponding author) Tel (562)599-8538, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected] Shirley Hsiao| Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,

Tel (562)599-8540, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected] Christopher MacKechnie| Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,

Tel (562)599-8466, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected]

Paper Contains: 4,482 text words, 7 figures, 4 tables and 2 photographs.

Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 1

Abstract

This paper describes how a bus stop measuring system can be developed not only to

achieve transit operation efficiency, but also to proactively collaborate with urban planners and

traffic engineers on transit/land use interface activities. The measuring system is developed by

identifying transit performance variants at the bus stop level, using a dynamic composite

weighting factor approach on a GIS platform. A “tier structure framework” is used to categorize

the composite scores of bus stops into six groups. Specific transit improvement actions are then

tailored based on their bus stop characteristics. Two project application examples are presented

in this paper. One is a bus stop thinning project for speed improvement, and the other is for

prioritizing capital project improvements.

As various “Active Transportation Programs” (ATP) emerge to encourage local

jurisdictions to plan transit connectivity with other community gathering places, this bus stops

measuring approach presents a continued process to monitor their performance. It is also used to

strengthen integration with other street improvement activities, including pedestrian paths and

bikeways, to create a safe and sustainable urban environment.


Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3

2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4

3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Analysis Tools .................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Variants ............................................................................................................................................... 5

4. APPLICATION EXAMPLES .......................................................................................... 9

4.1 Application #1 - Bus Stop Removal Project ....................................................................................... 9

Step 1 - Ridership Distribution and Transfer Stops .............................................................................. 9

Step 2 – Framework of Stop Tiers ....................................................................................................... 11

Step 3 - Distance between Stops ......................................................................................................... 13

Example - LBT Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway ................................................................. 15

4.2 Application #2 – Use of Bus Stop Tiers to Program Capital Funding .............................................. 16

5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 19

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................ 21

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 21


1. INTRODUCTION

A sustainable urban environment is not functional unless its transport system responds to

the mobility needs of the people. Since bus stops connect people and their travel activities

through a transit network web, the amenities and perception of quality of the service at stop

locations are an important factor in travel mode decision-making.

This paper describes how a bus stop measuring system is developed, not only to improve

internal operation efficiency, but also to proactively collaborate with planners and traffic

engineers on various transit/land use interface projects. This system-wide strategic planning

methodology intends to strengthen the transit element in the overall urban development process.

This measuring system is developed by assessing several transit performance-related

variants at the bus stop level with a dynamic composite weighting factor approach using a GIS

platform. A tier structure framework is used to categorize the composite scores of bus stops into

groups. Different transit improvement strategies are applied based on the individual grouping

characteristics. Two project examples are presented in this paper. One is a bus stop thinning

project on speed improvement, and the other is for prioritizing capital project improvements.

As various ATP emerge that encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities

promoting multiple travel choices for residents, this bus stop measuring approach presents a

continued process to monitor the bus stop performance and improve transit connectivity to other

community gathering places. It also strengthens integration with other street improvement

activities, including pedestrian paths and bikeways toward a safe and sustainable urban

environment.


2. BACKGROUND

Long Beach Transit (LBT) is the second largest municipal operator in Los Angeles

County. The service area covers about 800,000 residents within one-quarter mile of LBT bus

stops. Its seven percent transit mode split is more than double the three percent regional transit

use, which reveals the importance of transit service in the community.

It is challenging, however, to provide bus service in an urbanized area such as Long

Beach that was developed in the 1960’s where the original streetscape didn’t incorporate bus

stops or transit vehicle operation efficiency as part of the street configuration design criteria.

This presents the need to continuously improve bus stops toward safer, more convenient and

inviting urban settings. With a total of 1,910 bus stops located throughout the service area, a bus

stop measuring approach was initiated to better integrate these connection points with street

improvement and land use development activities.

Until recently, research findings characterizing transit-oriented development activities

have mostly focused on knowledge transfer of the influence of land use on transit from a macro

level policy and regulation perspective in conjunction with micro-level bus stop design

guidelines that includes pedestrian/bikeway connectivity. This study intends to incorporate peer

research recommendations of both levels into practice to support the sustainable urban

development goal.


3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Collection

A master database has been built by LBT to maintain different variants of stops. For

example: ridership; stop location; distance between stops; Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) ; accessibility; amenities; the key destinations served by the stop; and the demographic

characteristics surrounding the stop. These data are collected through the agency’s Intelligent

Transportation System (ITS), on-board surveys, field surveys, and the U.S. Census Bureau. This

master database is updated whenever there are service routing changes or new ridership data

becomes available.

3.2 Analysis Tools

In order to assess the importance of each bus stop, a GIS technological platform was

chosen for this study due to its spatial data analytical capabilities. Advanced and pre-compiled

query tools are used to synchronize the inter-relationships among bus stop-related variables in a

mapping format.

The bus stop importance level is evaluated based on a dynamic measuring and weighting

factor system. This approach leads to a composite score result at each stop location. It is

important to note that the evaluation standards and the weighting system are dynamic and

adjustable depending upon the subject issues being covered. For instance, a data layer on ADA

conditions is essential while assessing bus stop accessibility, but not a primary data variant for

demographic market area analysis around the bus stops.

3.3 Variants

There are many variants that can be taken into consideration in the bus stop evaluation

process. The variants that should be included as primary indicators would depend on the purpose

of the evaluation. For example, if the goal is to eliminate unnecessary stops on a certain transit

corridor in order to improve bus travel time, then stop ridership, stop location and distance

between stops should be considered as primary indicators in the evaluation process. If we are

trying to identify which bus stops need improvement of existing amenity conditions, then the

demographic characteristics of the stop location and the key destinations the stop serves should

be included as critical indicators as well.

In this study we identified five major transit performance related variants and created

evaluation standards for each of them.


Ridership

Ridership is the most critical indicator of bus stop importance. It reflects the usage level

of a bus stop and determines what resources should be allocated to it. Based on fiscal year 2010

– 2013 ridership information, the weekday average boardings and alightings for all the 2,012 bus

stops that have been used in at least one of the four years were calculated. The stop distribution

in different ridership ranges is shown below:

FIGURE 1 LBT Stops Distribution in Different Ridership Ranges.

The boarding-based and alighting-based distributions are very consistent. Five percent of

the stops have weekday ridership higher than 200. According to the spatial analysis conducted

with ArcGIS, these high ridership stops either serve major destinations or are located at major

transfer intersections. One-third of the bus stops have weekday ridership between six and twenty.

Another one-third of them have weekday ridership less than five.

Based on the distribution pattern, we created the following standards for stop ridership:

TABLE 1 Ridership Evaluation Standards

Boarding Ranges #Stops Weighting Point Alighting Ranges #Stops Weighting Point

0 – 5 631 0 0 - 5 580 0

6 – 20 594 1 6 – 20 614 1

21 – 50 345 2 21 – 50 377 2

51 – 200 346 3 51 - 200 352 3

More than 200 96 4 More than 200 89 4

Total 2,012 Total 2,012


Transfer Stops

Stops at transfer intersections are

considered highly important in the transit system.

They connect different routes and are the key

nodes for building a transit network. In this study,

127 street intersections are identified as major

transfer locations (including intermodal and

interagency) in the LBT service area. There are

456 bus stops located at these intersections that

are considered as transfer stops.

Transfer stops are only twenty-three

percent of all the stops. However, they serve

more than half of the system-wide ridership.

Given the high productivity of transfer stops,

each of them gets one weighting point in the

evaluation.

Distance between Bus Stops

Distance between bus stops is another important variant from a transit vehicle operation

efficiency perspective. Appropriate bus stop spacing can contribute to smoother transit operation

and a more positive passenger traveling experience. If a stop is very close to the previous or next

stop in its trip pattern, it is considered less important than the ones that are far away from their

adjacent stops. Meanwhile, when considering stop removals, the new distance between the

remaining two stops should be within the standard stop distance range of the transit agency.

Currently, there are 1,910 active bus stops in the LBT service area. Except for 27

terminal or layover stops, the other 1,883 active bus stops are evaluated by the distance between

their two adjacent stops. If a stop is being used by different trip patterns and has different

potential new distances, the maximum new distance is taken.

TABLE 2 Stop Distance Evaluation Standards

New Distance After Stop

Removal #Stops Weighting Point

> 1600 ft. 1255 Not Allowed

1401 – 1600 ft. 164 4

1201 – 1400 ft. 331 3

1001 – 1200 ft. 79 2

801 – 1000 ft. 47 1

<800 ft. 7 0

Total 1,883

FIGURE 2 Major Transfer Intersections.


Major Trip Destinations

Stops serving major trip destinations usually have high passenger volumes. Their

importance, however, could have already been reflected by other variants such as stop ridership.

But sometimes it is necessary to emphasize the fact that these stops not only have high ridership

but also are more visible to the passengers due to their location. For example, when it is decided

to improve bus stop amenities using limited capital resources, major destinations such as

shopping centers and tourist attractions may receive more consideration due to their likelihood

for generating more transit trips.

In this study, local attractions, including senior centers, schools, commercial centers,

airports, and hospitals, are considered as major destinations. Stops located within a quarter mile

of these major destinations are assigned one weighting point.

Demographics

To comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1946 and the provisions of Title VI, Long Beach

Transit ensures that the service provided to minority or low-income areas is as good as, if not

better than, the service provided in other areas. In the stop evaluation process, it is important to

include minority and income characteristics of a stop’s service area.

According to 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 data, for

the Long Beach Transit service area, Census tracts having a minority percentage exceeding 73.2

percent are defined as “minority tracts,” and Census tracts in which the low-income percentage

exceeds 16.4 percent are defined as “low-income tracts.” In this study, stops located in minority

or low-income areas are given one weighting point to reflect their importance.


4. APPLICATION EXAMPLES

4.1 Application #1 - Bus Stop Removal Project

Bus stop location and spacing can affect both transit travel time and service reliability.

Appropriate bus stop location and spacing can provide smoother transit operation and better

passenger experience. The first application is an evaluation of LBT bus stops for potential stop

removal and transit speed improvement. Three variants: ridership (boardings and alightings),

transfer location, and distance between stops are selected as the primary indicators.

In order to use this application in an agency, the following information is needed:

1. Daily boarding and alighting information for all stops – this can be gathered from APC

data, a Comprehensive Operating Analysis, or other similar method.

2. The total number of stops that are transfer stops, defined as the first and last point

where two routes intersect. The easiest way to get this information would be to use the spatial

analysis tool in GIS platform.

3. The distance between each bus stop in the system. This distance would normally be

obtained from scheduling system software such as Hastus or Trapeze.

Step 1 - Ridership Distribution and Transfer Stops

As the charts on the next page indicate, stops have been separated into five different

zones based on the ridership range (boarding or alighting, whichever is larger). The horizontal

axis and the vertical axis represent stop boardings and stop alightings separately. For example,

Zone One contains stops with boardings or alightings higher than 200; Zone Five contains stops

where both boarding and alighting values are less than five.

There are 148 stops in Zone One, 99 (67 percent) of them are transfer stops. In this

example, transfer stops refer to places where one can connect not only between two LBT bus

routes but also between LBT and other agencies’ service. The 47 non-transfer stops are serving

major trip destinations. As ridership range goes from high to low, the percentage of transfer stops

decreases as well. This is consistent with the fact that transfer stops usually have higher

passenger volume. In Zone Five, in which both stops’ boardings and alightings are fewer than

five, only two percent are transfer stops.

Ridership Range Transfer

Stops

Non-

Transfer

Stops

Total Stops

Zone One Boarding or Alighting > 200 99 49 148

Zone Two Boarding or Alighting between 51 - 200 169 292 461

Zone Three Boarding or Alighting between 21 - 50 124 323 447

Zone Four Boarding or Alighting between 6 - 20 61 593 654

Zone Five Boarding and Alighting <=5 5 297 302

Total 458 1,554 2,012

TABLE 3 Summary of Stop Distribution in Different Ridership Zones


FIGURE 3(a) Stop Ridership Distribution, Zone One.

FIGURE 3(b) Stop Ridership Distribution,

Zone Two.

FIGURE 3(c) Stop Ridership Distribution,

Zone Three, Four and Five.


Step 2 – Framework of Stop Tiers

Using the standards created in Section 3, the bus stops are evaluated based on their

ridership and transfer location. All the stops are categorized into six tiers based on the composite

weighting scores:

Each stop may get 0 – 5 weighting points in this measuring process. For example, the 99

stops in the green area get the highest score of 5 points: 4 points for having ridership higher than

200 and 1 point for being a transfer stop. They get the highest score in the evaluation and are

categorized as Tier I - the cornerstone locations of the network system. Tier II stops receive 4

total weighting points. These could be transfer stops with ridership between 50 and 200, or non-

transfer stops with ridership higher than 200. By that standard, Tier III to VI stops get 3 to 0

point separately. The more points a stop gets, the more important the stop is considered to be and

the higher the tier to which it is assigned.

The following map shows the spatial distribution of stops in each tier.

Transfer Stop

0 Boardings or Alightings3 Points 4 Points

5 20

2 Points50 200

0 Point 1 Point

Stop Evaluation Results

Yes5 124 169 99

1 + 2 = 3 1 + 3 = 4 1 + 4 = 561

1 + 1 = 2

0 P

oint

1 + 0 = 1

49

0 + 4 = 4

1 Poi

nt

No297 323 292

0 + 0 = 0 0 + 2 = 2 0 + 3 = 3593

0 + 1 = 1

Tier Total Point #Stops

Tier 1 5 Points 99

Tier 2 4 Points 218

Tier 3 3 Points 416

Tier 4 2 Points 384

Tier 5 1 Point 598

Tier 6 0 Point 297

Total 2012

FIGURE 4 Stop Evaluation Results.


FIGURE 5 Map of Bus Stops in Different Tiers.


Step 3 - Distance between Stops

The distance between two remaining stops after the stop removal is considered as the

“filter” variant in a stop removal project. As was mentioned earlier, if a stop is very close to

other stops in its trip pattern, it is considered less important than the ones that are far away from

the adjacent stops. We have already identified less important stops (Tier III - VI) as the stop

removal candidates in the previous steps. The next step is to evaluate the target stops based on

the distance variant.

TABLE 4 Summary of Stop Distance Evaluation

New Distance

After Removal Point Tier III Stops Tier IV Stops Tier V Stops Tier VI Stops

> 1600 ft. Not Allowed 258 215 345 181

1401 – 1600 ft. 4 35 38 48 24

1201 – 1400 ft. 3 65 81 126 43

1001 – 1200 ft. 2 24 11 35 9

801 – 1000 ft. 1 17 17 10 3

<800 ft. 0 2 6 0 0

Merging and Relocating Candidates Elimination Candidates

The above summary table shows that the top row of the target stops fell within the “Not

Allowed” category; their removal would therefore result in a new distance between the

remaining stops greater than 1,600 ft., which is not encouraged from a walkable distance

perspective. In this case, these stops will not be considered for any stop removal. Further analysis

needs to be conducted for possible merging or relocating in order to maintain appropriate

distance between stops.

The rest of the target stops are separated into two groups. The first group contains Tier III

and IV stops with an allowed distance. They are identified as the candidates for stop merging or

relocating. The second group contains Tier V and VI stops with an allowed distance and they are

subsequently identified as candidates for stop elimination.

The following map shows the candidates for potential stop distance adjustment after the

three-step evaluation. It’s important to note that not all of the candidates shown on the map will

have distance adjustment at the same time. The relocating or elimination of one stop will affect

the ridership and distance variants of its adjacent stops and therefore may require reevaluation of

the candidates surrounding it. The purpose of the spatial display of the candidates is to identify

transit corridors as the stop-thinning target segments.

In addition to the above variants, additional variants could be factored into this

application. For example, points could be added if a stop is adjacent to a point of interest or trip

generator, especially a trip generator that serves a large number of senior or disabled passengers.

Transit agencies in hilly areas may choose to keep otherwise undesirable bus stops to prevent

passengers from climbing and descending steep grades.

Finally, geographical considerations and physical constraints of certain intersections or

rights-of-way may preclude the consolidation of bus stops. High volumes of traffic, excessive


curb cuts, and other un-bus stop friendly street characteristics may work to prevent optimum bus

stop placement.

FIGURE 6 Map of Potential Bus Stops for Distance Adjustment.


Example - LBT Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway

Based on the findings, LBT initiated a bus stop removal pilot project on the Broadway

corridor between Ximeno and Pacific Avenue in June 2014. The purpose of this project is to

improve existing transit travel time by eliminating less important bus stops on the target transit

corridor. Previous industry experience suggests that up to a 10 percent travel time savings may

be realized. Since the Pilot Project was implemented, additional Long Beach Transit APC

devices have come online which will, in the future, allow for a more accurate estimation of travel

time savings through stop downsizing. By implementing the bus stop evaluation process, 16 of

the 57 existing bus stops (7 outbound stops and 9 inbound stops) were identified as the final

elimination targets. They are two Tier IV stops, 12 Tier V stops, and 2 Tier VI stops. All of the

targets are within the allowed distance range.

Since removing some of these stops will divert existing passenger activity to the next

nearest stop, the Tier rating of the remaining stops may well improve.

Evaluation of the Stop Removal Pilot project is continuing. The evaluation process

consists of analysis of running time data generated by our AVL system, analysis of ridership

generated from APC, farebox, and schedule checker data, and interviews with operators of

Routes 111 and 112. Findings will be available in early 2015.

FIGURE 7 Map of Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway.


4.2 Application #2 – Use of Bus Stop Tiers to Program Capital Funding

Due to limited capital funding resources, transit agencies need to carefully prioritize

which stops will get improvements. Categorizing all bus stops into different tiers based on their

importance level will assist transit agencies in placing stop amenities at locations where the most

passengers can benefit from them. The second application is a description of potential

improvements that could be placed at each of the six stop tiers, in conjunction with street

improvement and development review opportunities.

It is important to note that capital improvement actions always comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title

VI) as a prerequisite. Before any other stop improvements can be made, all outstanding issues

that prevent accessibility to any bus stop should be corrected, including bus stops in Tiers V and

Tier VI. Furthermore, other relevant design elements including pedestrian accessibility, cross

walks, and signalization are incorporated into the overall bus stop site assessment prior to capital

improvement plan development, to ensure that passengers can access the bus stops safely.

Overall, all bus stops will be equipped with signage and, where space permits, trash

receptacles. Additional infrastructure is dependent on what Tier the bus stop falls into:

Tier I (99 stops)

Tier I bus stops are the cream of Long Beach Transit bus stops. They are the most

productive stops, likely located adjacent to major trip destinations such as colleges, shopping

centers, light-rail stations and tourist attraction sites. At a minimum these stops will have

shelters, seating, real-time schedule information signs, and information about routes in the Long

Beach Transit service area. Where possible, however, these stops will have specially designed

features to strengthen transit facility image (like the Downtown Transit Gallery). Tier I bus stops

may have site-provided lighting and public art that will make them attractive places to wait at all

times. At the busiest Tier I stops consideration should be given to ticket vending machines that

sell passes.

Tier I bus stops form the basis of

intermodal connections with pedestrians and

cyclists and are likely to be located in places

where visible neighborhood activities take

place. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

should ideally be oriented toward the

surrounding area at Tier I stops to

accomplish a mixed use high-density place-

making goal. Transit agencies should work

proactively with local planning departments

to ensure a cohesive integration of Tier I bus

stops with existing and planned land uses.

Ideally, each Tier I bus stop would have a

specially designed plan describing how the Tier I Bus Stop at Transit Gallery, Long Beach


stop will interface with its surroundings and what amenities are to be included and where unique

design characteristics will be placed.

Unfortunately, with current street configuration limitations, some Tier I bus stops may

have no room for bus shelters or other amenities infrastructure. In such cases, special

consideration should be given to attempts to secure expansion space through new development

or land use interface opportunities such as the Downtown Pedestrian Accessibility Improvement

Project. A comprehensive site analysis incorporating other travel modes such as walking or

biking is highly recommended to engage community participation and land use planning support

for long-term capital improvement fruition. While such improvements may be more complicated

and costly, they are likely to provide a more positive passenger travel experience.

Tier II (218 stops)

All Tier II bus stops should have shelters,

seating, site-provided lighting, real-time schedule

information signs, and an information panel about

routes and the Long Beach Transit service area. Where

the nearest Tier I bus stop is more than half a mile

away, Tier II bus stops should take on some of the

characteristics of Tier I bus stops as described above.

They are ideal candidate locations for more amenities

since they will ultimately serve more riders as the

transit service level improves in the future. The bus

stop measuring methodology will continue monitoring

and raise Tier II stops to Tier I level if growing

patterns occur.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, Tier I

and Tier II bus stops should never be relocated or

removed. It is their high passenger use level that

makes them suitable to plan TOD land uses around.

Tier III (416 stops)

All Tier III bus stops should have, where possible, shelters and seating. Tier III bus stops

at transfer locations should also receive consideration for other amenities. If two or more Tier III

bus stops are close together, evaluation should be given to amalgamate them into one bus stop

that, by virtue of the increase in ridership that such a stop would enjoy, would be promoted to a

Tier II bus stop. One benefit of bus stop consolidation is that the resulting stops become more

important and thus more deserving of the kind of stop amenities that attract passengers to transit.

Tier II Bus Stop at Wardlow Station, Long Beach


Tier IV (384 stops)

Tier IV bus stops should, at a minimum, have benches. Tier IV bus stops at transfer

locations should also receive consideration for shelters. Several transit agencies’ stop design

guidelines recommend a shelter at stops with daily boarding of 40-50 passengers or more.

Tier V and Tier VI (895 stops)

Tier V and Tier VI are important to provide reasonable geographical coverage from an

accessibility perspective. Their low ridership means, however, that limited amenities will be

placed at these stops. A bus stop sign will be the only required amenity at Tier V and VI bus

stops.

Tier IV, V, and VI bus stops are usually located in lower density suburban areas or on

lightly traveled routes with long headways that are within walking distance of more frequent bus

services. For the suburban case, stop distances will generally be so long that removing them will

not make sense. In any case, if a bus does not halt at a stop then the running time is not generally

affected. For both the suburban case and the lightly traveled urban bus route, capital

improvement in the performance of these lower Tier bus stops will likely only occur through a

route redesign.

Based on the tier level framework, various levels of bus stop improvement activities can

be better organized and designed with cost estimates. They not only apply for facility and assets

management, but also gear toward grants applications when opportunities occur. In addition, this

bus stop measuring project is useful when coordinating with cities on street improvement

programs, including pedestrian and bikeway during the conceptual design stage.


5. CONCLUSION

It is found that utilizing this bus stop measuring approach on a GIS analytical platform is

productive for a transit agency for the following reasons:

1. Capacity to organize big/open data sources: Unlike many existing transportation

technology software programs, which often come with data proprietary and complicated

interface issues, the core design of GIS technology lies in analyzing the inter-relationships

among various land use and demographic spatial data layers.

2. Flexibility: The selection of the number of data layers is scalable and adjustable in

response to the focus of the analysis. “What-if” scenarios can be designed to generate impact

measures for comparison and decision-making. For instance, the total population within walking

distance of bus stops being considered for removal can easily be calculated to project potential

impact to the passengers.

3. Adaptability: The built-in spatial analytical capabilities can correlate bus stops with

other external urban data layers accurately and efficiently. For instance, the bikeway behind the

shelter concept presented in earlier section can be identified while overlaying a bikeway plan

with selected bus stop locations.

4. Industry Data Standard Consistency: Given the popularity of providing transit

scheduling and routing data in GTFS (Geographic Transit Data Feed Standard) format for

internet information distribution, consistent data standards and exchange mechanism are now

available among transit agencies in a cost-efficient manner. An agency can start with GTFS data

to initiate the bus stop measuring process at a minimum cost, and the GIS analytical skills are

more readily available among planners and practitioners.

Given that a sustainable urban environment doesn’t happen quickly, more relevant

research efforts may enrich the transit and land use integration in the following areas:

Obtain input from the public: So far the focus of this study has been to set up an

analytical tier framework to support internal transit planning and programming activities.

However, no public input has been included in the process. It is highly recommended that

the proposed bus stop improvement ideas be shared with the public for feedback and

refinement.

If a healthy conversation between transit and land use planning agencies should

take place on an on-going basis, then an inter-agency monitoring process may be worthy

of being developed. This study would be more creative if the existing land use and

planned use data were supported by other participating agencies. Each individual stop

location and its surrounding urban setting characteristics can be better revealed and

documented through this measuring process.

Linkage to regional and corridor issues: The techniques presented in this study

are analytical tools employed at the local level. The study describes how a transit agency

may apply the tool to communicate and influence local land use and street improvement


decisions at the city level. How this type of tool can be better deployed to support

regional planning or corridor development issues requires further investigation.

With more research and analytical tools developed in this area, a sustainable urban

environment can be evolved to reflect community vision, neighborhood values and social

needs.


6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was performed by staff to support internal transit planning and bus stop

improvement activities. It does not represent agency policies in land use, infrastructure financing

or facility planning areas. Further work may be required to formalize the procedures.

7. REFERENCES

Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form, Volume 1. National

Academy Press, 1996.

David L. Harkey and Charles V. Zegeer. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and

Countermeasure Selection System. Federal Highway Administration and University of North

Carolina, 2004.

Mark L. Hinshaw, FAICP. True Urbanism: Living In and Near the Center. Planners Press,

American Planning Association, 2007.

Anne Mikoleit and Moritz Purckhauer. Urban Code: 100 Lessons for Understanding the City.

The MIT Press, 2011.

Emily Talen. City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. Island Press, 2012.

Reid Ewing and Otto Clemente. Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places. Island

Press, 2013.

Hiroaki Suzuki, Robert Cervero and Kanako Luchi. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit

and Land-Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development. The World Bank, 2013.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Island Press,

2013.

Colette Santasieri. Planning for Transit-Supportive Development: A Practitioner’s Guide.

Federal Transit Administration Report No. 0054, 2014.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phambao
View:	221 times
Download:	2 times

Measuring Bus Stops toward a Sustainable Urban …docs.trb.org/prp/15-3319.pdfToward a Sustainable...

Documents