Texas Southern University From the SelectedWorks of Earthea Nance, PhD (Stanford University, 2004)

2017

Strategies for High Intensity Bus: Best Practices for Operating Buses in Managed Lanes Velyjah Southern, et al, Texas Southern University

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/nanceea/25/ 1 Invited Student Paper: Strategies for High Intensity Bus: Best Practices for Operating 2 Buses in Managed Lanes 3 4 5 6 7 Velyjha Southern 8 Graduate Research Assistant 9 Texas Southern University 10 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 11 713-313-4365 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 12 [email protected] 13 14 Earthea Nance, Ph.D. 15 Associate Professor 16 Texas Southern University 17 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 18 713-313-4854 (p) 713-313-7153 (f) 19 [email protected] 20 21 Carol Abel Lewis, Ph.D. 22 Professor and Director, CTTR 23 Texas Southern University 24 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 25 713-313-7924 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 26 Jermaine Potts 27 Graduate Research Assistant 28 Texas Southern University 29 3100 Cleburne St. Houston, TX 77004 30 713-313-4365 (p) 713-313-4821 (f) 31 32 33 Prepared for consideration for 34 Presentation at the 96th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 35 Washington D.C. January 2017 36 37 Word Count: 6,237 (Body) + 1,250 (Tables and Figures) = 7,487 38 References= 18

39 Submission date: November 14, 2016 40

41

42 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 2

1 2 3 4 5 ABSTRACT 6 This paper examines high intensity bus (HIB) service in managed lanes in the US. The research 7 questions are as follows: 1) What best practices are being deployed by transit agencies with 8 notable systems? 2) What are the benefits of high intensity bus service? High intensity bus, also 9 known as express bus in managed lanes, is an emerging transit option that was only federally 10 recognized in the last five years, so little has been published on its best practices. This gap was 11 addressed by analyzing recent statistics on high intensity bus and by interviewing a few of the 12 top-performing agencies. Case studies were conducted of the systems in Virginia/DC, Los 13 Angeles, Dallas, and Houston, and the research team observed which practices were distinctly 14 successful. The research found that the best systems utilize express park and ride routes, 15 neighborhood oriented routes, and transfer routes. The benefits of high intensity bus are often 16 long-term and indirect. Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 3

1 INTRODUCTION 2 Addressing travel needs, particularly in congested corridors, seems to interminably challenge the 3 thinking of planners and engineers. The primary options of roadway expansion and transit 4 expansion face financial and physical limitations. One approach that simultaneously offers 5 additional capacity for personal vehicles and transit riders is managed lanes that include express 6 bus service, termed High Intensity Bus. Often, roadways are constructed by state departments of 7 transportation and bus services are provided by local transit agencies. Managed lanes represent 8 shared roadway use with a combination of pricing, vehicle eligibility, and access control (1). 9 Personal vehicle access can range from a single occupant (who must always pay a charge) to two 10 or more occupants for entrance. Some systems allow multiple occupant vehicles to travel without 11 charge, while others may charge a fee for any personal vehicle. In 2012 a new category called 12 High Intensity Bus (HIB) was introduced in MAP 21. It is expected to be a growing transit 13 category that is one step above local bus and slightly less than a fixed guideway system. The 14 FAST Act, signed December 2015, continues HIB by including funding under the State of Good 15 Repair category. HIB is an important component among transportation strategies, but the clearest 16 best practices for buses that operate in managed lanes are not readily identifiable. This research 17 examines how some of the most successful US transit agencies operate and market their HIB 18 services. This research establishes best practices from a set of cases, highlighting their 19 characteristics and their measures of success. The research questions are as follows: 1) What best 20 practices are being deployed by transit agencies with notable systems? 2) What are the benefits 21 of high intensity bus service? 22 23 BACKGROUND 24 Since the inclusion of HIB in both MAP 21 and the FAST Act, the place of contemporary 25 express bus service in the transportation toolbox has emerged. Historically, express buses 26 traveled a number of miles closed-door and may have been on local streets, never entering a 27 freeway. Over time, express buses began to operate on freeways, often in managed lanes. In 28 managed lanes, the operating agency proactively manages demand and available capacity by 29 applying various strategies to optimize traffic flow and/or vehicle throughput. Two decades of 30 National Transit Database data (2) on buses operating in managed lanes show an increase in lane 31 miles with rapid growth beginning in the late 1990s (Figure 1). 32

33 34 35 FIGURE 1 Growth in US managed lane miles 36 Note: Years 1997 to 2001 are in direction route miles; years 2002-2012 are in lane miles. 37 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 4

1 Data from 2014 (2) show continued emphasis on non-exclusive HIB lane miles. There are 2 50 systems with HIB ranging from one lane mile to more than 200 lane miles. Table 1 presents 3 the top 25 systems operating with more than 24 lane miles. The systems identified for further 4 analysis of best practices in this research are highlighted. Los Angeles Metro represents the 5 median system, with Dallas DART right above it and Houston Metro right below it. Potomac 6 PRTC has decades of operating experience and is among the nation’s top three HIB systems. By 7 selecting these four systems, this research creates a framework of best practices for 8 implementing HIB. For new systems, the median cases provide a set of median best practices to 9 follow, and for established systems the Potomac PRTC system offers a perspective on one of the 10 most extensive and long-serving systems achieved so far in the United States. 11 12 TABLE 1 Top 25 HIB Systems as of 2014 (case studies in yellow) 13 Non-Exclusive High Intensity Transit Agency Bus (lane miles) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority(VTA) 247.8 Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) 240.8 Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission(PRTC) 208.2 Regional Public Transportation Authority 169.0 City of Phoenix Public Transit Department 117.7 King County Department of Transportation - Metro Transit 98.2 Division(King County Metro) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority(ST) 91.3 MTA New York City Transit(NYCT) 77.3 Antelope Valley Transit Authority(AVTA) 77.2 Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads(HRT) 72.8 Fairfax Connector Bus System(Fairfax Connector) 69.5 Dallas Area Rapid Transit(DART) 66.1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 65.9 Foothill Transit 62.3 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas(Metro) 61.0 Martz Group, National Coach Works of Virginia(NCW) 59.8 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District(GGBHTD) 58.1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA) 56.6 Miami-Dade Transit(MDT) 52.4 Denver Regional Transportation District(RTD) 50.6 Metropolitan Council 48.5 Suffolk County Department of Public Works - Transportation 46.9 Division(ST)

New Jersey Transit Corporation(NJ TRANSIT) 35.8

City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation 34.7 Services(DTS) Broward County Transit Division(BCT) 24.6 14 15 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 5

1 Congestion in major urban areas is steadily increasing. According to Higgins (3), “often 2 the congestion problems at suburban activity centers have spilled over onto through traffic routes 3 in the vicinity and [have] affected mobility of those going to urban centers.” As opposed to the 4 older idea that transit can positively reduce congestion, today we recognize that HIB simply 5 offers an alternative for people stuck in traffic congestion (4). HIB does, however, tend to reduce 6 the requirements for downstream parking. Millard-Ball et al. (5) write of the reduced need for 7 parking as a result of ridesharing by carpoolers and transit users. Through the utilization of 8 express buses, commuters are able to access central business districts (CBD) and other centers 9 more quickly due to the exclusion of frequent stops. The travel time of express buses can be 10 further reduced when the bus travels on a managed lane. Critical to attracting riders is the travel 11 speed. According to Scott and Soja (6): 12 The most successful transit options will be those which compete most closely 13 with the automobile, and that means that they should be able to connect many 14 low density communities, provide relatively immediate response times, and 15 overall door-to-door costs and travel times which approximate those of the 16 automobile (pp153). 17 Outwater et al. (7) writes about two categories that influence choice rider decisions to utilize 18 transit. The first category includes variables in the traditional mode choice model, including fare, 19 travel time, passenger income and auto availability. The second category comprises elements not 20 generally used in the model such as reliability, station comfort, on-board amenities and the 21 availability of real-time information. Another consideration by Outwater et al. is how aware 22 potential users are of transit service proximate to their origins. They write that most travelers are 23 informed of transit options within walking distance of their home, but fewer are aware of 24 services beyond three miles. 25 Studies show that there is a connection between the provision of bus amenities and 26 increased bus ridership. Best practices from Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems can be adopted to 27 increase the attractiveness of HIB systems. Transit Cooperative Research Program’s (TCRP) 28 Report 118 (8) notes that new BRT systems experienced higher ridership increases than expected 29 because of features including vehicle attributes, ITS applications, and BRT branding. Some of 30 the most commonly used incentives include on-board amenities, vehicle technological advances 31 and discounted fares. In 2004, all of the aforementioned incentives were applied when creating 32 the Metro Area Express (MAX) in Las Vegas. The MAX bus system was an innovative project 33 sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration and was intended to “increase capacity, 34 improve passenger comfort and convenience… (9).” To accomplish the goal, the MAX was 35 equipped with a host of on-board amenities including interior bike racks, multiple-door boarding 36 and off-board fare collection. By having the fare collector located off-board, doors opened 37 simultaneously allowing patrons to enter or exit the bus. Using both doors increased boarding 38 and alighting time, increasing the vehicle’s average speed. In extremely hot climates rapid door 39 opening and closing helped retain the interior climate of the bus. 40 For New York City, a TRB report entitled “Effects of Fare Incentives on New York City 41 Transit Ridership” (10) showed that the introduction of fare incentives boosted ridership. During 42 the mid-1990s, the New York transit agency introduced free intermodal transfers and express bus 43 fare reductions. Several other transit agencies including those in Houston, Los Angeles and 44 Seattle have permitted free transfers with some variations. 45 Important to agencies that are considering bus service in managed lanes are questions 46 about attracting riders to the buses. Strategies that appeal to riders are clearly travel time and Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 6

1 cost, but in addition there may be other benefits that enhance the transit experience, such as fare 2 incentives, perceptions of safety and guaranteed ride home programs. Technological advances in 3 fare payment methods, vehicles and on-vehicle technologies are available to optimize services. 4 5 METHODOLOGY 6 This research provides a new perspective on HIB based on the latest data and a review of key 7 transit systems currently using HIB. The methodology consisted of internet searches, literature 8 reviews, expert interviews, and an analysis of all of the agencies currently offering HIB. From 9 the list, four successful HIB operations were identified. System characteristics, incentives, and 10 technology applications were extracted to provide a summary of best practices. Cities represent 11 the east, west and southern areas of the United States. An interview instrument facilitated data 12 retrieval, standardized queries to each agency, and better informed our study of each agency. 13 Finally, the information gathered was assessed and synthesized to determine best practices. 14 15 EXPRESS BUS SERVICE STRATEGIES 16 Transit agencies run express bus service in managed lanes using several strategies. Barker and 17 Polzin (4) identified six strategies that are in use (Figure 2). The first of these, Dedicated Routes, 18 is most like rail, with buses stopping at stations on the facility granting patron access. In the 19 Express and Park and Ride option, patrons board a bus at a parking lot and the vehicle travels 20 non-stop to the destination. With the Neighborhood-Oriented Services option, buses circulate 21 collecting passengers along a typical bus route, then enter the facility and travel non-stop to the 22 destination. Similarly, buses in the Feeder Service option circulate in the neighborhood 23 collecting passengers. However, upon arrival at the facility the bus route ends and patrons 24 transfer to a bus that will travel non-stop on the facility. The Reverse Commute Service option 25 allows for patrons traveling from the urban core to locations on the edge. Timed Transfer Route 26 Network introduces major activity generators outside the central business district. The 27 implication in this option is that patrons may board or disembark at the on-line station locations 28 and connections are pulsed to the destination to diminish wait time. 29 30 BENEFITS OF BUSES IN MANAGED LANES 31 Express bus service in managed lanes is a growing transit strategy that offers a number of 32 advantages. In traditional economic terms the total combined advantages are termed “benefits,” 33 and the total benefits less costs are termed “net benefits.” Benefits may occur to users, to the 34 local population, and/or to society at large. Benefits are typically calculated over a specified time 35 period for comparison under different alternatives, such as a “with express bus” scenario and a 36 “without express bus” scenario. Lane management strategies may be adopted to increase 37 capacity, control demand, provide more choices to users, improve safety, and generate revenue 38 (11). Additional objectives of express bus include improved transit system operating efficiency, 39 direct benefits to users, increased auto-to-transit mode shifts, increased mobility, more 40 accessibility, greater social equity, improved public health, and reduced environmental impacts 41 (12 & 13). 42 The benefits of the express bus strategy, as expressed in the literature, are summarized in 43 Table 1 and are individually described in the following subsections. According to an express bus 44 benefit-cost analysis by Sullivan and Burris (14), “the majority of benefits are derived from 45 travel time savings.” However, in the long-term express bus service can improve the overall 46 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 7

1

2 3 FIGURE 2 Transit operating options using managed lanes (4). Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 8

1 efficiency of the entire transit system, influence modal choice, and even stimulate multimodal 2 development. Express bus benefits that are indirect, qualitative and long-term are not typically 3 included in conventional benefit-cost models (12 & 13). Excluding these important benefits from 4 a benefit-cost analysis can result in an incomplete analysis that could lead transportation officials 5 toward a sub-optimal decision. Unfortunately, conventional analysis of express bus relies 6 primarily on direct traffic impacts and total travel time impacts. Even worse, there are few if any 7 integrated models that analyze comprehensive change to a total traffic network. If additional 8 benefits such as those listed in Table 2 are considered, decision makers gain a more complete 9 picture of the advantages of express bus. 10 11 Direct Benefits 12 The two primary direct benefits typically considered in most evaluations of express bus are 13 traffic congestion and travel time. Congestion can be measured either as hours saved per year, 14 vehicle travel speed, or peak delay in vehicle-hours per day. Travel time savings are typically 15 measured as the value of travel time saved, bus frequency in vehicle-trips per hour, and on-time 16 performance. Other ways of calculating these two most common benefits include total capacity 17 in people per traffic lane, increased mobility in passenger-miles per hour, and ridership 18 distribution in peak vehicles per hour. Other important direct benefits that are typically 19 considered include energy conservation (fuel savings), pollution reduction (reduced emissions), 20 and accessibility (access to destinations). 21 22 Indirect Benefits 23 Social equity is a key indirect benefit, measured as the degree to which the system is affordable 24 and accessible to low-income population segments. A related concept is the fair allocation of 25 public road space, given the fact that buses carry far more passengers during peak periods than 26 regular traffic lanes. While pollution prevention is often used in express bus models, 27 improvements to public health (in quality-adjusted life years) are less common, perhaps because 28 the benefit is more indirect (15). The same is true of traffic safety (measured as the value of 29 accidents prevented) and downstream parking congestion. Lastly, express bus systems can 30 promote, over the long-term, transit-oriented development, compact urban densities, and 31 walkable communities. These indirect benefits are highly valued yet rarely included in the 32 analysis of express bus benefits. 33 34 Incentives 35 In order to actualize the above described benefits, a large number of drivers must be incentivized 36 to mode shift from cars to transit, specifically to express bus. Cost factors are an important 37 incentive. Discounted blanket pricing, such as SelectPass on the Washington, DC Metro, allows 38 passengers to pay one monthly amount at a discount (16). Free or discounted parking and transit 39 is available to commuters New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. A recent study of 40 transit incentives found that when free parking at the destination was available, transit incentives 41 were not as effective (17). More specific information is available on a case-by-case in the 42 following section. 43 44 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 9

1 Table 2. Benefits of Express Bus Service in Managed Lanes. 2 Category Benefits Measured As…

Direct Reduced traffic congestion hours saved per year Benefits Increased vehicle travel speed vehicle-miles per hour Increased ridership passengers per vehicle-mile Increased trips passengers trips per mile Ridership dispersed over time peak ridership per hour Decreased peak delay vehicle-hours per day Increased on-time performance percent of on-time trips Increased bus frequency vehicle trips per hour Value of travel time saved dollars per year Reduced vehicle repairs repairs per year Value of reduced vehicle repairs dollars per year Energy conservation/reduced fuel use gallons per day Value of fuel saved dollars per year Reduced carbon footprint no. of vehicles on the road Pollution prevention/reduced tons per day emissions Value of reduced emissions dollars per year Total capacity increased people per traffic lane Increased mobility passenger-miles per hour Increased accessibility to jobs, schools accessible in (x) minutes and healthcare

Indirect total operating costs per vehicle Overall system efficiency Benefits mile total operating costs per passenger Overall service efficiency mile Social equity consumer savings and affordability Space allocation maximum #of passengers

accommodated per mile quality-adjusted life years and Public health health costs Increased traffic safety accidents per year Value of accidents prevented dollars per year Reduced parking congestion spots available per year Multi-modal development urban density at transit nodes Income growth household income per year Improved labor participation unemployment rate Increased property value property tax income 3 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 10

1 CASE STUDIES 2 Below are the findings from our interviews with transit officials in the Virginia/ DC suburbs, Los 3 Angeles, Dallas and Houston. These top performing systems have similar characteristics while 4 exhibiting unique outreach strategies to reach riders.

5 Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission – PRTC 6 PRTC serves suburban Virginia and its bedroom communities in the area business district 7 including Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia. This well-established community has a 40 8 year commuting culture, so overt marketing is not done. Current managed lanes operate on I95 9 and are planned for I66 and I395. The facilities follow a familiar pattern of beginning with other 10 operating scenarios and later converting to managed lane status. I95 began as a busway and later 11 allowed high occupancy vehicles (HOV). I66 and I395 currently operate as HOV, but the portion 12 inside the beltway is expected to begin tolling in 2017. I95 requires personal vehicle occupancy 13 of 3+; I66 is 2+ and is only HOV during peak hours. PRTC buses circulate in neighborhoods 14 throughout the region then access the managed lanes replicating the Neighborhood-Oriented 15 Service.

16 Incentives, Branding and Technology 17 Attractiveness of the system is related to time and cost. There are other transit agencies operating 18 in Virginia and Washington, DC and all have adopted a regional fare card (SmarTrip) recognized 19 by all systems. Discounts are provided through use of the card. The largest financial incentive is 20 a federal incentive offered through the Internal Revenue Service (18) that allows a commuting 21 transit fare reduction. The amount allowed is currently $255 per month. The downside is that the 22 government alters the amount available and in a prior year, the allocation fell to $130. The most 23 common way patrons access the benefit is through their employer. The amount of the discount is 24 included in the SmarTrip Card. Area realtors provide PRTC with information on people new to 25 the area and newcomers are provided a welcome pack introducing the service.

26 Ridership 27 Ridership levels declined over the past two years and are attributed to two primary factors. First, 28 the number of federal government and contract jobs in the Virginia/Washington, DC area 29 decreased by 100,000 since 2011. Second, the allowance for the IRS discount was $130 during 30 much of that period, only recently rising to $255 monthly.

31 Evaluation and Success 32 PRTC evaluates success by conducing triennial customer satisfaction surveys that are traced and 33 compared. Employee incentives are provided that are partially tied to the number of complaints. 34 Data are collected on costs and passenger trips per mile, however, their perspective is that 35 ridership is driven as much by outside forces as by service quality. 36 37 LA Metro 38 Under Los Angeles Metro, express bus service in managed lanes has evolved into four distinct 39 types over the past 50 years: express bus service in HOV and regular freeway lanes (1950’s and 40 1960’s), express bus service in transitway HOT lanes (El Monte Transitway in 1976 and Harbor 41 Transitway in 1996, includes the Silver Line), peak period bus in dedicated street lanes with 42 limited stops and signal priority (Rapid Bus Line, early 1990s), and bus rapid transit (Orange 43 Line in 2006). Per the National Transit Database, LA has 104.4 lane miles and 2.3 million 44 revenue miles operated in a managed lane configuration. LA Metro express buses go from Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 11

1 parking lots to the managed lanes, replicating the Express and Park-and-Ride Routes 2 configuration. The Silver Line express bus enters the downtown and travels in a managed lane 3 configuration on city streets. 4 5 Incentives, Branding, and Technology 6 LA Metro periodically promotes new segments and new features of the system using billboards, 7 pamphlets on buses, website banners, and sometimes ads in newspapers for the Latino and 8 African American communities. Usually the entire metro system is marketed. Most of the 9 technological advances are associated with the Orange Line. The Orange Line has all-door 10 boarding and uses in-line stations so passengers cannot board without paying. All-door boarding 11 currently is being piloted on the Silver Line. LA Metro credits all-door boarding technology with 12 improvements in running time and schedule adherence; however, the agency does not expect all- 13 door boarding to improve ridership because of its potential to increase fare evasion. Other 14 technology is on-time messaging of the next bus coming, which is being considered but not yet 15 in the planning stage.

16 Ridership 17 Although there are more commuters on the Orange Line than on the Silver Line, ridership on 18 both lines and throughout the system is decreasing. The Silver Line merged with another line in 19 December 2015 and since then their combined ridership is decreasing. However, when measured 20 by itself, Silver Line ridership is increasing (the only increase in the entire system) by +15.6 21 percent from 2014-2016. For comparison, ridership on the Orange Line is decreasing by -10.8 22 percent from 2014-2016. 23 24 Evaluation of Success 25 LA Metro monitors service performance in terms of availability (accessibility and connectivity), 26 quality (in-service on-time performance and customer complaints), quantity (frequency and 27 average load factor), and effectiveness (boardings per service hour, cost per passenger mile, 28 passenger miles per seat mile, and a Route Performance Index). The Route Performance Index 29 (RPI) is comprised of 3 indicators: 30 Utilization of Resources: passenger boardings per revenue service hour operated 31 Utilization of Capacity: passenger miles per seat mile 32 Fiscal Responsibility subsidy per passenger 33 The RPI ranges from 0 to 1.8 by service category (e.g., local bus, shuttle, express bus, etc.), with 34 1.0 indicating average and less than 1.0 indicating below average. If the RPI falls below 0.6 then 35 that line needs serious attention. Each indicator is equally weighed. 36 37 DART 38 The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) installed its first managed lane (HOV) in October of 39 1991. Four years later, Route 283 was introduced as the agency’s first express bus to operate on 40 a managed lane. The route traveled from Garland to downtown Dallas on a reversible HOV lane. 41 Today, the DART express bus system operates on over 35 lane miles and 594,759 revenue miles. 42 DART’s express bus system attracts riders from outside of their 13-city service area, but the 43 predominant market is the suburban choice rider. These commuters are from the eastern, 44 southern, and outside region of Dallas but they all have the same destination—downtown Dallas. 45 As a result, routes 282, 278 and 206 are express routes that were designed to serve those areas Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 12

1 respectively. DART’s express buses go from parking lots to the managed lanes replicating the 2 Express and Park-and-Ride Routes configuration.

3 Incentives, Branding, and Technology 4 Over the years, DART’s marketing strategies have changed with the times. Initially, the agency 5 took the traditional route by sending out press releases, submitting newspapers ads and putting 6 up billboards. DART also ran promotions that offered free rides to try their new routes as they 7 were being introduced into the market. As the times advanced, so did DART’s marketing tactics. 8 Now the agency advertises their transit services online, posts trailblazer signs along the highway 9 and offers partnerships with companies in an effort to gain ridership from companies’ 10 employees. 11 DART has applied a multitude of technological enhancements to their bus system that 12 benefit both the commuters and the agency itself. For example, all new buses, including express, 13 have video cameras and DART promotes that feature as a safety element. The recordings allow 14 DART police to monitor the facility in real time and to react accordingly. There are other 15 proactive tools that DART uses such as electronic display boards and advanced onboard 16 technology. The electronic display boards, also called “info-tainment”, provide information to 17 the riders such as where the next stop is, where the rider is relative to the next stop and if there 18 are any detours. This system works in cooperation with the buses’ onboard technology. Transit 19 Master, a software system utilized by DART, has “connection protection” which helps prevent 20 riders from missing their connecting buses. The connection protection feature is currently in pilot 21 testing, but the software works by utilizing the buses’ GPS capabilities to predict when a bus will 22 miss a connection. When the problem occurs, the connecting bus will be contacted and requested 23 to wait for the arriving bus. 24 In addition to the onboard technology advances there are some mobile advances as well, 25 such as the Go Pass mobile app. Riders have the option to download this app to their smartphone 26 and do everything from planning their trip to receiving updates on the location of their bus. If a 27 rider is not interested in downloading an app, they have the option to text DART their bus stop 28 number to find the buses’ location. With all of these mobile advances, Wi-Fi seems to be a 29 logical addition to the DART bus. Currently DART’s MAX express bus is testing this feature 30 and it will be further tested on a UT Dallas route this fall. The problem with providing Wi-Fi is 31 that there are some dead zones in some areas, resulting in poor cell coverage. Therefore, 32 although there is interest in this area, DART has decided not to provide this service on all buses 33 until they can provide credible service and determine if the cost of keeping it up and running is 34 feasible.

35 Ridership 36 Ridership on express buses has had substantial growth from the time there were no managed 37 lanes to the inception of express buses on managed lanes. However, since then there has not been 38 continual growth. When route 283, the first express bus used on managed lanes, first began there 39 were about 780 passengers a day and then it reached a peak of about 1300 passengers a day in 40 2008, but since then the ridership has dropped down to 900-1000 a day. A similar situation 41 occurred with route 206, which began in 2000, the bus started with 380 boardings a day and it 42 grew to over 1000 and reached a peak of 1300 in 2008 but has since dropped to around a 1000. 43 The rise and drops in ridership correlates with the city’s gas prices and employment rates. When Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 13

1 there was a gas spike in 2008, ridership increased, but when the recession hit the nation, resulting 2 in a higher unemployment rate, ridership dropped. Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 14

1 Evaluation of Success 2 The success of DART’s bus system is measured quarterly based on whether or not the system 3 meets the standards of the Route Performance Index (RPI). The board requires that services have 4 a statistical number of performances that is determined by the RPI. Once the board sets a goal, if 5 a system drops below the goal, the board requires that you make changes and market to reach the 6 set goal.

7 METRO Harris County (Houston) 8 Houston METRO’s predecessor, the City of Houston’s Office of Public Transportation 9 implemented a nine-mile contra flow lane demonstration project on the North Freeway (IH-45N) 10 in August 1979 using federal, state, and local funds. Based on the success of the demonstration 11 project, a decision was made to expand the HOV program and build permanent HOV lanes in 12 Houston’s radial freeway corridors. METRO Park & Rides are direct nonstop service to 13 Downtown, the Texas Medical Center or other major employment centers in the METRO service 14 area. Park & Ride facilities also serve as staging areas for vanpools and carpools. Houston 15 Metro’s express buses go from parking lots to the managed lanes replicating the Express and 16 Park-and-Ride Routes configuration. 17 Katy (I10) was the first of four managed facilities in Houston. For Katy Freeway 2+ are 18 free during weekday peak hours, but must pay at other times. For the other three facilities, 2+ are 19 free during peak hours. Single occupants must pay on all facilities at all times.

20 Incentives, Branding, and Technology 21 Due to challenges with limited parking spaces and high seating capacity utilization at several 22 lots, METRO does not do system wide marketing for these services on a regular basis. 23 Historically, route level promotions have included free and/or discounted rides, commute save 24 calculations, and grandfathered fares as well as shifts from monthly to time activated fare media 25 as well as stored value card electronic and smart card media. The majority of METRO’s fixed 26 route bus service on HOV/HOT lanes is commuter, or Park & Ride bus service. Due to 27 METRO’s distance based fare system, the riders on these services tend to attract more non-low 28 income and non-minority riders than METRO’s local bus service. Virtually all of the riders are 29 making home-to-work trips in the morning and work-to-home trips in the afternoon.

30 Ridership 31 Park and Ride bus ridership has decreased slightly over the year on a system wide basis. There 32 were 718, 251 Park & Ride boardings in June 2016 compared to 746,808 boardings in June 33 2015, a decrease of 28,558 boardings (or a loss of 4 percent) despite the same number of 34 weekdays in June 2016 as June 2015. Metro suggests a higher ridership loss in 2015 due to 35 weather. Houston’s economy is heavily impacted by the oil and gas industry and low oil and gas 36 prices have resulted in significant layoffs, which directly affect METRO’s ridership.

37 Evaluation of Success 38 As with many transit properties, the primary evaluation of success is reflected in increased 39 ridership, minimizing complaints, increased efficiency, and improved effectiveness. While 40 ridership comparisons are fairly straightforward, complaints are not. In the age of social media, it 41 is often that case that multiple customers on the same trip may complain about service thereby 42 inflating the raw data beyond a normalized calculation of complaints per trip. 43 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 15

1 Summary 2 Each case study city reflects high quality express bus service and has taken advantage of the 3 improved travel speed available on the managed lanes. There is general acknowledgement that 4 ridership is a result of employment strength, congestion levels and parking availability and 5 pricing. Each system offers fare convenience through a smart card of some kind with most 6 attaching a discount to frequent card use. A guaranteed ride home provides a level of confidence 7 to riders in case of an emergency. These things that are in common are established benefits 8 therefore these best practices may be transferrable to other cities. Variations create an advantage 9 in some markets and several systems are applying technological advances to improve the 10 customer experience. The interviewees indicated that even when recent technology has not yet 11 been applied, advances are in consideration or planning stages. In the near future real time 12 information will be available for mobile devices in all locations. 13 14 TABLE 3 Summaries of Case Study Agency Characteristics 15 Initial year Congestion Service System operation Managed Lane Ranking Superior Techniques Configuration as HOV: (20) Welcome packet to new area I95; 3+ personal residents; luggage racks and vehicle free: 1 or 2 reading lights on buses; Neighborhood- 1969 as bus pay requirement; PRTC 1 SmarTrip discount; Oriented only lane pay is variable Promotion of IRS discount; based on Guaranteed ride home for congestion registered commuters

1976 El Piloting all-door boarding; Express Park and Monte I10 and I110; Guaranteed ride home for LA Ride Routes & Transitway Single occupants pay 2 registered commuters; Metro Transfer Route and 1996 Retains managed status on Network Harbor select city streets Transitway

On-board video cameras; transfer connection I30; graduated guarantee; mobile phone Express Park and 1995 HOV DART payment for 1+ and 8 routing schedule Ride Routes with bus 2+ information; Guaranteed ride home for registered commuters

Free and discounted rides; I10; free for 2+ mobile app; smart card Houston Express Park and 1979 during peak hours; media; luggage racks and 11 METRO Ride Routes contraflow payment required reading lights; Guaranteed off peak ride home for registered commuters

16 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 16

1 Study Limitations 2 It should be noted that systematic data for bus service categorized as HIB is not requested as part 3 of the National Transit Database reports for ridership and operating costs. The HIB data that are 4 available are extremely limited and only reflect lane miles. The official HIB designation is 5 relatively new so there are not decades of data from which to draw. These limitations make large 6 scale data assessments cost and time restrictive. The research reported in this paper used case 7 studies to glean what could be learned from the largest systems in different parts of the country. 8 9 Conclusions 10 The growth in managed lane miles is clearly evident. What makes them successful needs to be 11 illuminated. This paper identified the top 25 managed lane systems in the nation. Case study 12 analyses identified which superior techniques and incentives to attract riders were being applied. 13 These techniques included: 14 15  The Express Park-and-Ride Route configuration 16  Welcome packet for new area residents 17  Smart card discounts 18  Promotion of the IRS discount 19  Luggage racks and reading lights in buses 20  Piloting of all-door boarding 21  Guaranteed ride home for registered commuters 22  Retaining managed status on select city streets 23  Transfer connection guarantees 24  Mobile phone routing schedule information 25  On-board video cameras 26  Free and discounted rides 27 28 Current practice focuses on ridership growth as a measure of success. According to the 29 interviewees, service quality is not the primary way to lure riders. Ridership is materially 30 affected by the economy and employment rates. In fact, growth in ridership is linked to a number 31 of variables that are independent of service quality. Key among them is employment level. Drops 32 in employment due to recession, oil prices, or other factors are typically associated with reduced 33 ridership. Therefore, there is a weak link between ridership and transit in general, and because of 34 this one agency transitioned to HIB in spite of ridership stagnation. 35 Current practice also cites congestion reduction as an important benefit of transit. In 36 reality, congestion may go down at first only to increase back to the equilibrium level in spite of 37 increases in transit. HIB offers long term and indirect benefits that makes it desirable regardless 38 of ridership and congestion levels. These benefits include: 39 40  System wide efficiency 41  Social equity 42  Increased traffic safety 43  Reduced parking congestion 44  Income growth 45  Increased property value Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 17

1  Multi-modal development 2  Improved public health 3  Reduced environmental impacts 4  Increased mobility 5

6 Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 18

1 References

2 1. Martin, J., E. Nance, and N. Young. Exclusivity and Shared Use: Examining the State of 3 the Practice in US High Intensity Bus Service. In Transportation Research Record: 4 Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 16- 4403, Transportation Research 5 Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015. 6 2. National Transit Database 1997-2012. Table 16-32, Table 17-32, Table 24, and UZA 7 Allocation Table. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm 8 3. Higgins, T. J. Demand Management in Suburban Settings, April 1990. Transportation 9 (1986-1998) 17, no. 2: pp 93. 10 http://tsuhhelweb.tsu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/211924549 11 ?accountid=7093. Accessed June 20, 2016. 12 4. Barker, W. and S.E. Polzin. Synergies of Bus Rapid Transit and High-Occupancy Toll 13 Lanes Simulation of Bus Rapid Transit in Congested Corridor with Roadway Value 14 Pricing. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 15 Board, No. 1884, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 16 Washington, D.C., 2004. http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/1884-01. 17 Accessed June 20, 2016. 18 5. Millard-Ball, A., G. Murray, and J. Ter Schure. Carsharing as Parking Management 19 Strategy, March 2006. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 20 Research Board, No. 06-0652, Transportation Research Board of the National 21 Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=776448. Accessed 22 July 28, 2016. 23 6. Ed. Scott, A.J. and Edward W.S. A Wider Range of Mass Transportation Options. The 24 City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. University of 25 California Press, Los Angeles, 1996. 26 7. Outwater, M.L., G. Spitz, J. Lobb, M. Campbell, B. Sana, et al. Characteristics of 27 Premium Transit Services That Affect Mode Choice, July 2011. Transportation 38.4: pp 28 605-623. 29 http://search.proquest.com/docview/872232876/A2A8E4404D2849F2PQ/2?accountid=7 30 093. Accessed June 20, 2016. 31 8. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 32 Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants, DMJM+Harris. 2007. 33 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2016. 34 9. Swallow, D.C. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal 75.2. MAX-The New 35 Trend in Rubber-Tire Rapid Transit (Feb 2005): 32-39. 36 http://search.proquest.com/docview/224896155/fulltextPDF/437FEA410B374FBBPQ/2? 37 accountid=7093. Accessed June 17, 2016. 38 10. Hirsch L.R., J.D. Jordan, R.L. Hickey, and V. Cravo. Effects of Fare Incentives on New 39 York City Transit Ridership. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 40 Transportation Research Board, No. 00-1285, Transportation Research Board of the 41 National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000 pp 151-152. 42 http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/1735-18. Accessed June 27, 2016. 43 11. Kuhn, B., G. Goodin, A. Ballard, et al. Managed Lanes Handbook. Texas Department of 44 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Texas Transportation Institute at 45 Texas A&M University-College Station, Report No. 0-4160-24. October, 2005. Southern, Nance, Lewis, and Potts 19

1 12. Transportation Research Board, Selected Indirect Benefits of State Investment in Public 2 Transportation, Research Results Digest 393, April 2015. 3 13. US Government Accountability Office, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for 4 Improving Information on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for 5 Results, Report No. GAO-05-172. January 2005. 6 14. Sullivan, E. and Mark B. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Variable Pricing Projects: SR-91 7 Express Lanes. Journal of Transportation Engineering, March (191-198), 2006. 8 15. American Public Health Association. The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. 9 February 2010. 10 https://www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/factsheets/hidden_health_costs_transportation.as 11 hx. Accessed July 10, 2016. 12 16. Fessenden, H. Getting Unstuck. Econ Focus, Fourth Quarter (15-19), 2015. 13 17. Hamre, A. and R. Buehler. Commuter Mode Choice and Free Car Parking, Public 14 Transportation Benefits, Showers/Lockers, and Bike Parking at Work: Evidence from the 15 Washington, DC Region. Journal of Public Transportation 17:2 (67-91), 2014. 16 18. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Employer Guide to Fixed Benefits 17 2016, pp 19. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15b.pdf . Accessed on July 12, 2016.