Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing...

20
Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 1 case study of the Webster Avenue BRT running way design selection process 2 Submission date: November 15, 2012 3 Corresponding Author: 4 Eric B. Beaton 5 New York City Department of Transportation 6 55 Water Street, 9th Floor 7 New York, NY 10041 8 Phone: 212-839-6697 9 Fax: 212-839-9892 10 Email: [email protected] 11 Co-Authors (alphabetical): 12 Evan Bialostozky 13 MTA New York City Transit 14 2 Broadway, A17.41 15 New York, NY 10004 16 Phone: 646-252-5640 17 Fax: 646-252-5648 18 Email: [email protected] 19 Oliver Ernhofer 20 URS Corporation 21 One Penn Plaza, Suite 610 22 New York, NY 10119-0610 23 Phone: 212-896-0163 24 Fax: 212-629-4249 25 Email: [email protected] 26 Theodore V. Orosz, AICP CTP 27 MTA New York City Transit 28 2 Broadway, A17.53 29 New York, NY 10004 30 Phone: 646-252-5623 31 Fax: 646-252-5648 32 Email: [email protected] 33 Taylor Reiss 34 New York City Department of Transportation 35 55 Water Street, 9th Floor 36 New York, NY 10041 37 Phone: 212-839-6669 38 Fax: 212-839-9892 39 Email: [email protected] 40 Donald Yuratovac 41 URS Corporation 42 One Penn Plaza, Suite 610 43 New York, NY 10119-0610 44 Phone: 212-896-0164 45 Fax: 212-629-4249 46 Email: [email protected] 47 Word count: 5,250 Tables and Figures: 2,250 (9x250 words) Total count: 7,500 TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Transcript of Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing...

Page 1: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 1 case study of the Webster Avenue BRT running way design selection process 2

Submission date: November 15, 2012 3

Corresponding Author: 4 Eric B. Beaton 5 New York City Department of Transportation 6 55 Water Street, 9th Floor 7 New York, NY 10041 8 Phone: 212-839-6697 9 Fax: 212-839-9892 10 Email: [email protected] 11

Co-Authors (alphabetical): 12 Evan Bialostozky 13 MTA New York City Transit 14 2 Broadway, A17.41 15 New York, NY 10004 16 Phone: 646-252-5640 17 Fax: 646-252-5648 18 Email: [email protected] 19

Oliver Ernhofer 20 URS Corporation 21 One Penn Plaza, Suite 610 22 New York, NY 10119-0610 23 Phone: 212-896-0163 24 Fax: 212-629-4249 25 Email: [email protected] 26

Theodore V. Orosz, AICP CTP 27 MTA New York City Transit 28 2 Broadway, A17.53 29 New York, NY 10004 30 Phone: 646-252-5623 31 Fax: 646-252-5648 32 Email: [email protected] 33

Taylor Reiss 34 New York City Department of Transportation 35 55 Water Street, 9th Floor 36 New York, NY 10041 37 Phone: 212-839-6669 38 Fax: 212-839-9892 39 Email: [email protected] 40

Donald Yuratovac 41 URS Corporation 42 One Penn Plaza, Suite 610 43 New York, NY 10119-0610 44 Phone: 212-896-0164 45 Fax: 212-629-4249 46 Email: [email protected] 47

Word count: 5,250 Tables and Figures: 2,250 (9x250 words) Total count: 7,500

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 2: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac

ABSTRACT 1 Providing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on urban arterials can be a challenge for 2 transportation agencies as they look to provide transit benefits within existing street 3 infrastructure. Projects must provide high quality transit service while also supporting other 4 important street needs such as pedestrian activity, traffic flow, on-street parking, and crash 5 safety. Transportation agencies must make tradeoffs across different designs in ways that achieve 6 a project’s goals but do not mire the early planning for the project in unneeded costs and delays. 7 This paper describes the New York City Department of Transportation and MTA New York City 8 Transit’s selection of the most appropriate on-street BRT running way design for Webster 9 Avenue (US 1), a key north-south arterial in the central Bronx, based on a balanced, multi-modal 10 set of criteria. 11

Three BRT running way design alternatives - curbside, offset, and median bus lanes - were 12 considered for Webster Avenue’s 70-foot wide right-of-way during the screening process. The 13 four primary screening categories were transit operations, traffic operations, on-street parking / 14 delivery curb space supply, and pedestrian benefits. Each design alternative was evaluated at two 15 sample intersections that represented typical corridor conditions and the results were then 16 expanded to provide a complete corridor evaluation. The evaluation found that the offset bus 17 lane alternative most effectively balanced the transit and traffic needs along the Webster Avenue 18 corridor while maintaining on-street parking and supporting pedestrian activity, making it the 19 preferred corridor design. 20

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 3: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 1

INTRODUCTION 1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) can be an effective way to provide high quality transit improvements at 2 low cost by better using a city’s street space; however, designing BRT systems within a complex 3 urban streetscape provides a challenge for transportation agencies seeking to balance transit 4 benefits with other important street needs, such as pedestrian safety, traffic flow, and on-street 5 parking. There is a risk that the design process either becomes too simple, sacrificing the 6 potential benefits of BRT to avoid creating other issues, or becomes too complex, reducing the 7 cost benefits of BRT and adding project delay. The Webster Avenue running way design 8 evaluation shows that there is a middle ground, which considers potential options based on a 9 multi-modal set of criteria, includes substantive public input, and can still be completed in a 10 short timeframe and result in substantial transit improvements. 11

New York City BRT Program 12 In 2004, MTA New York City Transit (NYCT), the New York City Department of 13 Transportation (NYCDOT), and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 14 began a joint study of how BRT could be implemented in New York City. The study screened 15 100 corridors citywide, selecting five corridors for Phase I implementation (1). These BRT 16 routes are branded as Select Bus Service (SBS). 17

The first SBS project was the Bx12, inaugurated in 2008 on the Fordham Road/Pelham Parkway 18 corridor in the Bronx and northern Manhattan (2), followed by the M15 SBS route on First and 19 Second Avenues in 2010 (3), the M34/M34A SBS route on 34th Street in 2011, the S79 SBS 20 route on Hylan Boulevard in 2012, and the Nostrand Avenue SBS route scheduled for 2013. 21 Each of the projects implemented to date has seen substantial success, both in terms of 22 improvements in travel times (reductions of 15-23 percent) as well as increases in ridership (5-10 23 percent). 24

A key element of the success of these projects has been the continued partnership between 25 NYCT and NYCDOT. NYCT is a division of the New York State Metropolitan Transportation 26 Authority (MTA), which is the largest public transit system in North America. NYCT operates 27 the subways and buses in New York City, carrying 5.2 million subway trips and 2.7 million bus 28 trips daily. NYCDOT operates the city’s street network, including over 12,000 traffic signals and 29 19,000 roadway lane miles. Improving surface transportation requires extensive cooperation 30 between these agencies, as both bus operations and street design changes must work together to 31 achieve project outcomes. NYCDOT and NYCT work very closely together at both staff and 32 executive levels to ensure that all of the SBS projects achieve success. 33

BRT Phase II Study 34 As the first phase of SBS projects moved towards completion, NYCDOT and NYCT conducted 35 a study to identify an additional set of potential BRT corridors. This Phase II study was 36 conducted in 2009-2010 and looked at slow existing transit trips, areas of the city far from the 37 subway network with high residential density, areas with severe subway crowding, and areas 38 where future growth is expected. The study also incorporated substantial public feedback and a 39 preliminary screening of right-of-way availability (4). The study resulted in the identification of 40 16 additional corridors appropriate for BRT improvements. 41

Webster Avenue scored very highly in the Phase I screening process, and also scored highly and 42 was included on the BRT Phase II list. Webster Avenue serves an area that is a difficult walk to 43

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 4: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 2

the nearest parallel rapid transit routes, and as described below, is expected to have substantial 1 population growth in the near future. In the Phase II public workshop held in the Bronx, the 2 community identified the Webster Avenue corridor as a priority for improved transit service. As 3 a result of both the technical screening and the high priority placed on the project by the local 4 community, Webster Avenue was selected to be the first Phase II corridor to move towards 5 implementation. 6

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND 7 Webster Avenue is a major residential and commercial corridor located in the Bronx, the 8 northernmost of the five boroughs of New York City. The borough has a population of 1.4 9 million and is the third-most-densely-populated county in the United States (2010 US Census). 10

Webster Avenue corridor 11 The Webster Avenue project corridor is 5.3 miles long (8.5 km) and follows the existing NYCT 12 Bx41 bus route, as shown in Figure 1. The Bx41 extends north from The Hub (Third Avenue / 13 East 149th Street / Melrose Avenue) to a new intermodal terminal at East Gun Hill Road and 14 White Plains Road, via Melrose Avenue, Webster Avenue, and East Gun Hill Road. It connects 15 three major commercial and transportation hubs – The Hub, Fordham Plaza, and the Gun Hill 16 Intermodal Terminal. Both The Hub and Gun Hill provide connections to the 2 and 5 subway 17 lines; Fordham Plaza provides connections to two branches of the Metro-North Commuter 18 Railroad, which serves the northern suburbs. The Hub and the Fordham Plaza area are two of the 19 busiest commercial districts in the Bronx. 20

Approximately 200,000 people live within a 10 minute walk of the planned Webster Avenue 21 BRT route, assuming a 2.5 mph (4 km/h) walking speed. The demographic profile of residents 22 living within a quarter-mile of the route shows significantly higher disadvantaged population 23 rates than the rest of the borough or city; almost 40 percent of the corridor population is below 24 the poverty level, twice the percentage of New York City as a whole. In addition, corridor 25 residents are very transit-dependent - 71 percent of households do not have access to a vehicle, 26 and 72 percent of workers rely on public transit or walking to get to work. 27

The land uses vary along the corridor and include relatively short stretches of intensive retail 28 activity, multiple schools, high density ‘tower in the park’ public housing projects, and 29 substantial stretches of auto-oriented light industrial uses such as auto-body shops. While some 30 parts of the corridor have very walkable characteristics with continuous retail frontage and wider 31 sidewalks, walking can be difficult along the majority of the corridor, with frequent curb cuts, 32 narrower sidewalks, and wide intersections serving as pedestrian obstacles. 33

The Bx41 bus route 34 Overall, the Bronx is relatively well-served by the subway system, with six lines connecting the 35 borough to the Manhattan CBD. However, many neighborhoods along the corridor have greater 36 than a quarter-mile (400m) and sometimes greater than three-quarters of a mile (1200m) walk to 37 the nearest subway station, with walks made more challenging by steep hills. The current Bx41 38 bus route is therefore critically important to residents of these Bronx neighborhoods. The route 39 serves about 20,000 riders on the average weekday, and connects to two subway routes, five 40 commuter rail stations, and 23 other bus routes. 41

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 5: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 3

The Bx41 operates as both a local and Limited-Stop service. The Bx41 Local runs 24 hours a 1 day, 7 days a week and stops approximately every 0.2 miles (300 m). The Bx41 Limited runs 2 only on weekdays during the AM peak (6:30am-10:00am) and PM peak (2:30pm-7:00pm) and 3 stops approximately every 0.5 miles (800 m). Both services operate in mixed-flow traffic along 4 the entire route. 5

6 FIGURE 1 The Webster Avenue Corridor7

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 6: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 4

PROJECT FOCUS 1

The corridor faces a number of challenges that demonstrate a need for improved transit service: 2

1. Existing slow and unreliable bus service - The Bx41’s travel speed averages seven mph 3 (11 km/h), and over half of the time the bus is stopped at either bus stops or traffic 4 lights. In addition, travel time is unreliable – one-way travel times can vary by more 5 than 20 minutes. 6

7 2. Pedestrian and traffic safety - Webster Avenue has one of the highest rates of vehicular 8

accidents in the Bronx. Between 2006 and 2010, 1,663 crashes occurred along the 9 corridor, resulting in over 2,000 injuries and eight fatalities. Overall, the corridor is in 10 the 93rd severity-weighted percentile compared to other Bronx corridors of similar 11 length. Speeding has been identified as a major issue along many sections of the 12 corridor, contributing to the high crash rate. 13

14 3. Expected development and growth - The New York City Department of City Planning 15

recently rezoned significant portions of the Webster Avenue corridor. Within a half-mile 16 (800 m) of the corridor, the City has undertaken five major rezonings which will create 17 significant capacity for both residential and commercial growth. The agency’s primary 18 objectives in the most recent rezoning surrounding the northern end of the corridor are to 19 shape Webster Avenue into a vibrant, inviting, and walkable residential and commercial 20 corridor; to preserve the existing character of the nearby residential areas; and to 21 encourage new development to concentrate on Webster Avenue. Over time, this will 22 result in greater housing and commercial density along parts of the corridor. 23

DESIGN EVALUATION PROCESS 24 One of the key issues for the Webster Avenue project was to develop the appropriate form of 25 street treatments to address the challenges described above. The previous Bx12 SBS, M15 SBS, 26 and M34/M34A SBS projects were all designed to meet the individual needs of their very 27 different corridors, so it was clear that a design for the Webster Avenue corridor would need to 28 be customized and not directly replicate a design from a previous project. At the same time, one 29 of the key reasons that the SBS program has been a success in New York City has been its focus 30 on implementing improvements quickly, so it was important that the design process be 31 completed in a reasonable timeframe. Finally, it was clear that an appropriate amount of public 32 and stakeholder participation would need to be part of the design process, both to provide input 33 about local issues and to help build support for the outcome. 34

To meet these needs, NYCDOT and NYCT developed a process to select the basic corridor 35 design based on the following principles: 36

• Focus analysis of intersection-specific issues on two representative intersections, rather 37 than try to evaluate every intersection along the corridor; 38

• Evaluate a limited number of potential right-of-way options that would be reasonable for 39 the existing right-of-way; 40

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 7: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 5

• Incorporate robust public feedback within a short timeframe by using workshop-style 1 public events; 2

• Make the final selection based on a qualitative evaluation of the benefits and issues with 3 the different designs. 4

This process, described in more detail below, allowed the selection of a basic project layout 5 within approximately nine months, allowing the project to proceed into more detailed design 6 quickly while meeting all of the project goals. 7

Screening locations 8 In order to focus the running way design selection process, the project team evaluated each 9 alternative at two locations on the corridor that were representative of general corridor 10 conditions. The first location, Webster Avenue and East 167th Street, was designed and screened 11 as a “station location”, which would help the team understand how each design alternative would 12 operate at intersections with BRT stations. The second location, Webster Avenue and East 204th 13 Street, was designed and screened as a “non-station”, focusing on operations at intersections 14 between BRT stations where there would bus lanes and local bus stops but no BRT station. 15 These designations were made for screening evaluation purposes only – detailed station 16 placement would happen later in the design process. 17

The two-location screening approach proved to be a very efficient analysis method because it 18 allowed the project team to screen each design alternative across a broad range of objectives and 19 then apply the conclusions to the corridor as a whole. The purpose was to find a design that 20 would work broadly throughout the corridor. There are several more complex intersections that 21 will need more individualized design as the project progresses; however, this would be true 22 under any running way selected, so these locations would not have been appropriate to serve as 23 the driving force at this stage of analysis. A corridor that is longer, or demonstrates more changes 24 in street width and character, would likely require more than two representative locations. 25

Right-of-way options 26 On existing SBS projects, NYCDOT and NYCT have used two basic types of bus lane designs, 27 curbside and offset. These designs were also considered for the Webster Avenue corridor. 28 Median bus lanes, which have been implemented successfully in other cities around the world, 29 were also considered. Other more aggressive rights-of-way, including contraflow bus lanes and 30 grade separations, were not considered to be reasonable alternatives in this dense fully-built 31 urban corridor and so were not examined further. 32

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 8: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 6

Existing conditions 1 Webster Avenue is currently characterized by wide mixed-vehicle travel lanes, with a relatively 2 uninviting pedestrian atmosphere. With a 70-foot (21 m) wide roadway (five travel lanes and two 3 parking lanes) for a significant portion of the project length, the corridor has the capacity to 4 support a variety of bus priority treatments (Figure 2). Each alignment evaluated was designed to 5 fit within a 68 to 70-foot roadway - the width of the majority of Webster Avenue. 6

7 FIGURE 2 Typical existing corridor conditions. (a) Photograph of Webster Avenue at E. 8 167th Street. (b) Photograph of Webster Avenue at E. 204th Street. (c) Typical plan view of 9 the Webster Avenue corridor. 10

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 9: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 7

Curbside Bus Lanes 1 The Curbside Bus Lane alternative (Curbside alternative) converts the existing parking lane into 2 a dedicated bus lane and maintains two mixed-flow through lanes in each direction (Figure 3). 3 Local buses, SBS buses, and right-turning vehicles use the bus lane. To maintain two through 4 lanes along with a standard 12-foot (3.6 m) bus lane, left-turn storage bays are removed at 5 intersection approaches, and the left-most travel lane becomes a shared left-through lane. Both 6 SBS and local buses make stops within the bus lane. SBS stations, including ticket vending 7 machines and station shelters, are placed on existing sidewalk space. No physical changes to the 8 curblines or addition of pedestrian amenities would result from this alternative. 9

10 FIGURE 3 Typical Curbside Alternative corridor conditions. (a) Station rendering of 11 Webster Avenue at E. 167th Street. (b) Non-station rendering of Webster Avenue at E. 204th 12 Street. (c) Typical plan view of curbside bus lanes on Webster Avenue. 13

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 10: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 8

Offset Bus Lanes 1 The Offset Bus Lane alternative (Offset alternative) converts the right-most travel lane into a 2 dedicated bus lane, maintains one through travel lane and parking in each direction, and 3 maintains left-turn storage bays where needed (Figure 4). Local buses, SBS buses, and right-4 turning vehicles use the bus lane. There is one mixed-flow through lane per direction with the 5 option of a left-turn storage lane or pedestrian refuge island at each intersection approach. SBS 6 stations utilize bus bulbs, which extend the sidewalk into the curbside lane to meet the bus lane 7 and allow the SBS buses to stay in the bus lane while picking up and dropping off passengers. 8 Local buses pull out of the bus lane to stop at the existing curb. The combined length of a bus 9 bulb and local stop is only slightly greater than the length of a typical existing stop; therefore, a 10 minimal amount of on-street parking is displaced with the addition of bus bulbs. SBS ticket 11 vending machines and bus shelters are placed on the added bus bulbs. The existing curb is also 12 extended using neckdowns at intersection approaches to shorten pedestrian crossing distances. 13

14 FIGURE 4 Typical Offset Bus Lane corridor conditions. (a) Station rendering of Webster 15 Avenue at E. 167th Street. (b) Non-station rendering of Webster Avenue at E. 204th Street. 16 (c) Typical plan view of offset bus lanes on Webster Avenue. 17

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 11: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 9

Median Bus Lanes 1 The Median Bus Lane alternative (Median alternative) converts the left-most travel lane into a 2 dedicated bus lane, maintains one through travel lane and parking in each direction, and restricts 3 most left turns (Figure 5). Where left turns must be maintained, they can be accommodated with 4 signal phasing reconfiguration and a dedicated left-turn bay adjacent to the median lanes; 5 parking would be restricted at some of these locations. In this alternative, only SBS buses use the 6 bus lanes. SBS stations are accommodated by median station platforms incorporating shelters 7 and ticket vending machines, which also serve as pedestrian crossing refuge areas and areas for 8 landscaping. 9

10 FIGURE 5 Typical Median Bus Lane Corridor Conditions. (A) Station Rendering Of 11 Webster Avenue At E. 167th Street. (B) Non-Station Rendering Of Webster Avenue At E. 12 204th Street. (C) Typical Plan View Of Median Bus Lanes On Webster Avenue. 13

Public outreach 14 In conjunction with the technical screening process described below, NYCDOT and NYCT 15 jointly led public outreach efforts to aid in the running way design selection for the Webster 16 Avenue SBS route. Stakeholder and community input were critical to incorporating community 17 knowledge and feedback into the design selection process. Overall, the outreach had two primary 18 purposes: 19

• To give the local community the opportunity to discuss conceptual designs and learn 20 about the project; and, 21

• To build political and community support for the project by bringing stakeholders into 22 the process at an early stage. 23

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 12: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 10

These objectives were accomplished through two different mechanisms: a Community Advisory 1 Committee (CAC) and a Public Open House. These allowed for effective public input without 2 adding substantial additional time to the evaluation process; as design progresses, additional 3 CAC and public open houses will be held to further refine the chosen design based on 4 community feedback. 5

Community Advisory Committee 6 The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is comprised of representatives from over fifty 7 different organizations that cover the Webster Avenue corridor, including Community Boards, 8 elected officials, and other area stakeholders such as schools and businesses. Before any corridor 9 design began, the project team held an introductory CAC meeting in order to present the project 10 and its goals, as well as features of other SBS projects across the city and results of data 11 collection along the corridor. The CAC expressed strong support for the project at this meeting, 12 noting the importance of high-quality transit service in order to support future growth along the 13 corridor. Following the success of the nearby Fordham Road SBS project, many elected officials 14 immediately expressed interest and support for an SBS project along Webster Avenue. 15

At its second meeting, the CAC participated in a Conceptual Design Workshop. This was a 16 collaborative exercise to establish existing conditions and visions for the corridor and to assess 17 benefits and drawbacks of the three conceptual design alternatives. At this workshop, the CAC 18 attendees were separated into small discussion groups in order to get the maximum amount of 19 participation and feedback. 20

The CAC participants first participated in a problem identification exercise, where they 21 discussed traffic, transit, and safety issues, compared their observations to data collected by the 22 project team, and found that the data generally matched their experience on the corridor. Next, 23 the CAC participated in a visioning exercise, where they cited the recent rezoning along the 24 northern portion of the corridor as a tool to support higher density development and identified 25 accessibility to transit as an attractor for new development. Finally, the conceptual plans were 26 shown one at a time, and CAC members were asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages 27 of the different options. The project team used these evaluations to ensure that all criteria were 28 considered appropriately in the screening matrix. 29

Overall, the CAC’s comments at this workshop were in line with the ongoing technical 30 screening. One key point made by the CAC that would not have come across otherwise was a 31 discomfort with waiting for a bus on a median island, particularly for someone who might want 32 to take the local bus if it came first, stopping at the curb. Comments such as these were then 33 incorporated into the overall analysis. 34

Public Open House 35 The second means of public outreach was through a public open house. At the open house, 36 agency staff guided participants in small groups through a series of presentation boards in order 37 to encourage discussion and feedback. The boards covered material similar to the CAC 38 workshop, including information about existing conditions along the corridor and renderings 39 introducing the three conceptual plan alternatives. Participants then had the opportunity to 40 discuss the alternatives with the project team. 41

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 13: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 11

Similar to the CAC workshop, the public feedback regarding the conceptual designs was 1 consistent with the results of the screening analysis. Key points included that parking was very 2 important along the corridor, raising concerns about the curbside alternative, that traffic 3 circulation could be a problem in some locations, raising concerns about the left-turn restrictions 4 that would be needed to accommodate the median alternative, and that the median alternative 5 might cause safety concerns for people walking between the SBS and local services. Many 6 comments were also made about the importance of improving bus service and making the street 7 safer for all users. Overall, the event helped confirm the analysis going into the screening matrix 8 and also introduced the project to a broader segment of the local community. 9

Technical Screening Analysis 10 The purpose of the technical screening analysis was to evaluate each alternative at two screening 11 locations along the corridor in order to select a preferred Webster Avenue SBS conceptual 12 running way design. The results of this analysis identify the benefits and disadvantages of each 13 design alternative and highlight their significant differences. The screening analysis includes a 14 comprehensive range of criteria to reflect the multi-modal character of the corridor. 15

Screening categories and objectives 16 The technical screening analysis used four primary screening categories to analyze the three 17 conceptual design alternatives. Each screening category contains specific objectives that were 18 individually evaluated based on either quantitative or qualitative analysis. 19

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SCREENING CATEGORIES 20

Screening Category Objective Source Data and Evaluation Method

Improve baseline SBS speed Preliminary SBS running time analysis Maximize signal green time available to SBS buses Traffic analysis (Conducted using Synchro)

Minimize right-turning vehicles in bus lane Minimize conflicts between SBS buses and local buses Benefit local bus service

Transit Operations

Minimize parking maneuvers, drop-offs, and/or deliveries in the bus lane

Qualitative assessment of conceptual designs

Maintain appropriate traffic flows along the corridor

Traffic analysis: vehicle delay (Conducted using Synchro)

Accommodate local traffic circulation Traffic Operations

Encourage appropriate travel speeds Qualitative assessment of conceptual designs

Minimize parking/delivery loss at station locations On-Street

Parking/Delivery Curb Space Supply Minimize parking/delivery loss at non-

station locations

Projected parking loss based on assessment of conceptual designs

Increase total pedestrian space Change in sidewalk and median areas Shorten pedestrian crossing distances Change in crossing distances Minimize walking distances for SBS/local bus transfers

Projected walking distances between SBS stop and local stop

Pedestrian Safety and Amenities

Add pedestrian crossing refuge islands Potential presence of refuge islands

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 14: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 12

The three conceptual design alternatives were scored relative to one another, based on a 1 quantitative analysis using available data or a qualitative assessment of their ability to fulfill each 2 objective. As described above, feedback received from public outreach was incorporated into the 3 qualitative evaluations where appropriate. 4

Transit operations 5 There were three important considerations when evaluating the effect of alignment alternatives 6 on transit operations. First, there is a clear interest in comparing how the different potential 7 designs would affect SBS performance in terms of speed and reliability; as described above, both 8 travel speed and reliability are issues with the existing Bx41 Limited service. Second, the effect 9 on local bus operations needs to be accounted for; a bus lane design that benefits the SBS service 10 but which has a negative effect on local bus service would only benefit a portion of bus riders on 11 the corridor, and a diminution in local bus reliability could create community opposition to the 12 entire project. Finally, the pedestrian access portion of the transit trip is also important, 13 including both access to the SBS stops as well as the safety and convenience of transfers between 14 the SBS and the numerous crosstown buses that intersect the corridor. The evaluation of all 15 alternatives assumed that Transit Signal Priority and Off-Board fare collection would be 16 implemented in addition to right-of-way changes. 17

The Curbside alternative would marginally improve SBS performance and would offer some 18 improvement for the Bx41 Local, since all buses could use the bus lane. Transfer movements are 19 essentially unchanged from current conditions. If it were possible to maintain an unobstructed 20 curbside bus lane, then this bus lane could likely perform almost as well as an offset bus lane, 21 which is forecasted to save an average of 8.6 minutes (20%) over the existing one-way travel 22 times for the Bx41 Limited. However, experience elsewhere in the city shows that with active 23 street-level businesses, keeping a curbside lane consistently clear is a profound challenge, and 24 doing so would significantly limit local curbside access for business and other institutions; it was 25 therefore assumed that these benefits would be lower. Additionally, the SBS bus would have to 26 maneuver into the general traffic lane to bypass stopped Local buses. 27

The Offset alternative would significantly improve SBS performance and would also improve 28 the Bx41 Local performance, since all buses could use the bus lane. There is far less interference 29 from parked vehicles and moving vehicles with an offset bus lane than with a curbside bus lane, 30 since legitimate needs for curb uses are accommodated although offset lanes are still vulnerable 31 to intermittent delays from parking maneuvers and double-parked vehicles, which reduce service 32 reliability. However, the Offset alternative benefits from added separation of SBS and local bus 33 stops through the implementation of bus bulbs at SBS station locations, making it preferable to 34 the Curbside alternative for transit operations. Transfer movements could require slightly more 35 walking in some circumstances than under current conditions because the local and SBS buses 36 would each have their own berth, but the quality of the pedestrian experience would be 37 improved. The Offset alternative is forecast to save an average of 8.6 minutes (20%) over the 38 existing one-way travel times for Bx41 Limited service. 39

The Median alternative would improve SBS performance to the greatest degree of the three 40 options. This alternative maximizes separation of SBS buses from passenger vehicles and in 41 doing so maximizes both the speed and reliability of SBS operations. The Median alternative is 42 forecasted to save an average of 11.7 minutes (27%) over the existing one-way travel times for 43

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 15: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 13

Bx41 Limited service. The Bx41 Local buses, however, would not be able to use the median bus 1 lane because it would be impossible for SBS buses to pass local buses stopped at local stops. 2 Consequently, local buses would operate in the single remaining mixed-traffic lane and would 3 encounter more interference from general traffic than under current conditions. As the median 4 bus lane would only serve half as many buses, it might also be perceived as less effective by the 5 public. Bus-to-bus transfer movements would be less convenient as customers would have to 6 cross one lane of mixed traffic—albeit at a signalized location with high-visibility crosswalks—7 to transfer between the Bx41 SBS and crosstown buses or the Bx41 Local. 8

Traffic operations 9 During peak periods, both the Curbside and Offset alternatives result in very similar levels of 10 service, and both maintain overall appropriate traffic operations along the corridor (see Figure 6). 11 By maintaining left-turn storage, the Offset alternative provides traffic flows comparable with 12 those of the Curbside alternative, even though it has one fewer through lane in each direction. 13 The Median alternative largely maintains sufficient traffic flows along the corridor during peak 14 periods; however, the additional signal phase required for protected left turns reduces both the 15 left-turn and through capacity along the corridor. 16

During off-peak periods, the added through capacity of the Curbside alternative may result in 17 higher vehicle speeds along the corridor. As such, the Curbside alternative does not provide 18 significant safety benefits from speed reduction measures. In contrast, both the Median and 19 Offset alternatives remove one through lane in each direction and encourage appropriate speeds 20 along the corridor. 21

22 FIGURE 6 PM Peak hour delay at E. 167th Street and Webster Avenue 23

A high amount of vehicle delay impeding access to local streets and required turning restrictions 24 or physical barriers imposed by a conceptual design alternative can both have a negative effect 25 on local circulation. The Median alternative negatively affects local circulation in both regards, 26 causing high delays for vehicles turning left from Webster Avenue and restricting left turns at 27

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 16: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 14

most locations. Further, the inability of vehicles to cross the median bus lanes would restrict left 1 turns to and from driveways and minor cross-streets, effectively acting as a median barrier. There 2 are no significant local circulation effects for either the Offset and Curbside alternatives, as 3 neither alternative would necessarily require turn restrictions and both have minimal impacts to 4 left-turn delay. 5

On-street parking 6 The Offset and Median alternatives both have minimal effects to on-street parking supplies, and 7 the spaces removed are located primarily at SBS station locations, as seen in Table 2. At SBS 8 stations, the Median alternative removes slightly more on-street parking than the Offset 9 alternative due to the need to preserve a curbside local bus stop and to accommodate left-turning 10 bays at selected intersections. The Curbside alternative removes all on-street parking along the 11 corridor and results in a significant displacement of parking. 12

TABLE 2 Estimated Percent Loss of Existing Curbside Parking 13

Percent Loss by Block Face Screening Location

Alignment Alternative NE NW SE SW

Average Percent Loss

Parking Displacement

Curbside 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% High Offset 15% 39% 2% 2% 14% Low

E 167th St / Webster Ave

(Station) Median 34% 0% 39% 33% 27% Medium Curbside 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% High Offset 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

E 204th St / Webster Ave (Non-station) Median 0% 0% 20% 0% 6% Low

Pedestrian amenities and safety 14 The Curbside alternative provides the least benefit to pedestrians, as it does not improve crossing 15 distances or accommodate refuge islands and it displaces existing pedestrian space with SBS 16 shelters and ticket vending machines. 17

The Offset alternative provides the greatest benefit to pedestrians by adding the most pedestrian 18 space of the evaluated design alternatives. This is achieved through the addition of neckdowns at 19 intersection approaches, bus bulbs at station locations, and pedestrian refuge islands where left-20 turn lanes are not required. In addition, the addition of neckdowns and refuge islands further 21 facilitates pedestrian movement by reducing crossing distances. 22

The Median alternative adds a moderate amount of pedestrian space with the addition of median 23 station platforms that also serve as pedestrian refuge islands. As an added benefit, SBS boarding 24 and alighting at these islands would not obstruct existing pedestrian space. As a result of the 25 median platform, walking distances between SBS and local stops are longest under this 26 alternative. Transit users wishing to transfer between SBS and local buses have the shortest walk 27 with either the Offset or Curbside alternatives. 28

Overall results 29 Based on the analysis results summarized for each category above, each of the objectives 30 identified in Table 1 were scored individually on a five-step scale ranging from “objective not 31 met” to “objective fully satisfied”. The final screening results are presented in Figure 7. 32

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 17: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 15

Objectives Curbside Bus Lanes Offset Bus Lanes Median Bus Lanes

Improve baseline speed

1 Minimal improvement in heavy

traffic

3 8.6 minutes (20%) projected time savings compared to existing LTD

4 11.7 minutes (27%) projected time savings compared to existing LTD

Maximize signal green time available to buses

4

4

2 Left-turn phase required

Minimize right-turning vehicles in bus lane

0 All right turns in bus lane

2 Right-turn bays at high volume

locations

4

Minimize turbulence with local bus service

0 Local bus always stops in bus lane

3 4

Benefit local bus service

3

4

0 Local buses do not use bus lanes

Tra

nsit

Ope

ratio

ns

Minimize parking maneuvers, drop-offs, and/or deliveries in the bus lane

1 Drop-offs/loading blocks bus lane

3 Vehicles must cross bus lane;

double parking

4

Maintain appropriate traffic flows along the corridor

4 No change in vehicle delay

3 Slight increase in vehicle delay

2 Moderate increase in vehicle delay

Accommodate local traffic circulation

4

4

1 Left-turn bans; vehicles cannot

cross median bus lanes

Tra

ffic

Ope

ratio

ns

Encourage appropriate travel speeds

0 4 Traffic lane reduction

4 Traffic lane reduction

Minimize parking/ delivery loss at station locations

0 No curb access during bus lane

hours

3 Bus bulbs require additional space

2 Limited parking in station area

On-

Stre

et

Park

ing/

Del

iver

y Sp

ace

Supp

ly

Minimize parking/ delivery loss at non-station locations

0 No curb access during bus lane

hours

4

3 Parking loss at left-turn bays

Increase total pedestrian space

0

4 Bus bulbs; neckdowns; refuge

islands

3 Median bus stations; neckdowns

Shorten pedestrian crossing distances

0

3 Refuge islands and neckdowns

2 Medians at stations; neckdowns

Minimize walking distances for SBS/ local bus connections

3 Adjacent SBS and local bus stops

3 Adjacent SBS and local bus stops

0 Local stops on curb, SBS in median

Pede

stri

an A

men

ities

Add pedestrian crossing refuge islands

0 Limited opportunity for islands

3 Islands at station and non-stations

2 Islands at stations only

Scoring legend: 0 1 2 3 4 Objective not met Objective partially satisfied Objective fully satisfied

FIGURE 7 Screening Matrix1

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 18: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 16

CONCLUSION 1

The screening analysis described above considers all of the key goals and objectives of the 2 project and has allowed the selection of a base corridor design relatively quickly. The design of 3 the screening criteria means that an analysis that focused on a limited number of locations, and 4 qualitative assessments where necessary, still created results applicable to the full corridor. This 5 process also incorporated substantial public outreach, which both provided input to the selection 6 process and will build credibility for the project as it moves towards design and implementation. 7 While the choice set was limited in this analysis, this drawback was more than offset by the 8 ability to move the project forward expeditiously. 9

Selected design 10 Based on the screening analysis, the Offset Bus Lane alternative most effectively balances transit 11 and traffic needs along the Webster Avenue corridor while maintaining on-street parking and 12 supporting pedestrian activity, making it the overall preferred alternative. 13

The Median Bus Lane alternative would have offered the greatest improvement to transit speed 14 and reliability while maintaining on-street parking and supporting pedestrian activity. However, 15 the screening analysis suggests that a corridor-wide implementation would likely result in 16 negative effects to traffic operations and local circulation. Public feedback also included a large 17 number of concerns about the Median alternative. A focused pilot program for the Median 18 alternative may be suitable for key segments of the corridor where bus delays are most severe. 19 This approach would minimize impacts to local circulation while providing relief to bus delays at 20 key intersections. 21

The Curbside Bus Lane alternative provides a small transit operational improvement but no 22 improvement to overall traffic operations, pedestrian space, or safety in comparison to the Offset 23 alternative, and results in significant negative impacts to on-street parking. Therefore, it would 24 be recommended only in targeted locations where other bus lane designs would not be 25 appropriate. 26

Applicability of Selection Process 27 While New York City is often thought of as unique with respect to transit in American cities, the 28 challenges faced on the Webster Avenue corridor are in fact similar to those faced on other major 29 transit corridors around the country: auto-oriented land uses that make walking difficult, wide 30 arterials outside of a grid network, and substantial needs for traffic and parking. Transportation 31 agencies must work to improve surface transit service while balancing the other street needs of 32 traffic, parking, and roadway safety. The BRT design selection approach for Webster Avenue 33 was to do a moderate amount of analysis of all of these issues in order to move forward with a 34 design solution in a short timeframe. 35

It is important to note that a more thorough environmental review will be conducted on the 36 selected design instead of bringing all alternatives through a potentially lengthy environmental 37 review process. Additionally, public outreach was made an integral part of the selection process 38 in order to get public support early in the planning process. While the result may vary from 39 corridor to corridor, this approach would be valuable both to other projects in New York City 40 and to similarly-scaled BRT projects in other cities. 41

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 19: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 17

Next steps 1 Now that the BRT running way design has been selected, the project team is currently in the 2 process of developing a corridor-wide design plan that will include offset bus lanes, bus bulbs, 3 and other transit, traffic, and pedestrian improvements. This corridor plan will then be put 4 through traffic analysis and environmental review. Public outreach will also continue throughout 5 the design and implementation process. The full conceptual plan is expected to be completed by 6 the end of 2012, with service start expected in late 2013 or early 2014.7

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Page 20: Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained ...docs.trb.org/prp/13-1346.pdf1 Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: A 2 case study of the

Beaton, Bialostozky, Ernhofer, Orosz, Reiss, Yuratovac 18

REFERENCES 1

(1) McNamara, I. G., S.L. Zimmerman, T. Orosz, H. S. Levinson, D. Sampson. Bus Rapid 2 Transit in New York City: Corridor Evaluation and Screening. In Transportation Research 3 Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1971, Transportation Research 4 Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 3-13. 5

(2) Barr, J., E. Beaton, J. Chiarmonte, T. Orosz. Select Bus Service on the Bx12 in New York 6 City: Bus Rapid Transit Partnership of New York City DOT and Metropolitan Transit 7 Authority New York City Transit. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 8 Transportation Research Board, No. 2145, Transportation Research Board of the National 9 Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 40-48. 10

(3) Barr, J., E. Beaton, J. Chiarmonte, T. Orosz, D. Paukowits, A. Sugiura. Select Bus Service on 11 the M15 in New York City: A BRT Partnership Between the New York City DOT and MTA 12 New York City Transit. In TRB 91st Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD. 13 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, Paper 14 #12-1809. 15

(4) The City of New York. (2012). BRT Phase II - Planning. In +BusRapidTransit. Retrieved 19 16 July 2012, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/html/routes/brt_phase2.shtml. 17

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.