DOCSLIB.ORG

Bus Rapid Transit Stations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bus Rapid Transit Stations APTA STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM APTA BTS-BRT-RP-002-10, Rev 1 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE First Published: October 1, 2010 American Public Transportation Association First Revision: December 11, 2020 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 1200 East, Washington, DC 20006 Bus Rapid Transit Working Group Bus Rapid Transit Stations Abstract: This recommended practice provides guidance for planning and designing stations for bus rapid transit systems. Keywords: BRT, Basic BRT, bus rapid transit, Premium BRT, station, stop, platform, transit center, transit- oriented development, TOD Summary: Bus rapid transit (BRT) service creates a premium rapid transit experience using rubber-tired vehicles. The station is one of the elements of BRT service that serves to distinguish it from other bus services. This document provides a set of recommended practices for planning, design and development of BRT stations for planners, transit agencies, local governments, developers and others interested in developing new, or enhancing existing, BRT systems. This document is part of a suite of recommended practices covering the key elements that comprise BRT service. Because BRT elements perform best when working together as a system, this document may reference others in this series of recommended practices. Users of this document are advised to review all guidance documents to better understand how different BRT elements are interrelated in delivering a high impact transit project. Scope and purpose: The recommended practice provides guidance for the planning and development of BRT stations. The document provides guidance for design and implementation of BRT stations (covering station elements and considerations for the overall station area) and on dimensions and layouts of BRT stations (including elements such as curb height, platform width, etc). This document does not review aspects of stations that are universally applicable to other public transportation service as well as BRT systems. This document represents a common viewpoint of those parties concerned with its provisions, namely transit operating/planning agencies, manufacturers, consultants, engineers and general interest groups. The application of any recommended practices or guidelines contained herein is voluntary. APTA standards are mandatory to the extent incorporated by an applicable statute or regulation. In some cases, federal and/or state regulations govern portions of a transit system’s operations. In cases where this is a conflict or contradiction between an applicable law or regulation and this document, consult with a legal advisor to determine which document takes precedence. © 2020 The American Public Transportation Association (APTA). No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of APTA. Table of Contents Participants................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... v GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BRT STATIONS .............................. 1 1. The role of stations .................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Station types ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Basic bus stop .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Basic BRT station .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Premium BRT station .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Freeway/highway stations ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.5 Transit center ........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 End-of-line or terminus facility ................................................................................................................ 9 3. Amenities ................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Shelter and seating ................................................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Real-time passenger information ............................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Maps and other way-finding devices ...................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Lighting ................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.6 Trash and recycling receptacles.............................................................................................................. 12 3.7 Landscaping .......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.8 Bike lockers and racks ........................................................................................................................... 13 3.9 Parking .................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.10 Climate control strategies ..................................................................................................................... 14 3.11 Fare collection equipment .................................................................................................................... 16 3.12 Shared mobility considerations ............................................................................................................ 16 4. Planning and development considerations .......................................................................................... 16 4.1 Land use, development activity and zoning ............................................................................................ 16 4.2 Transit-oriented development................................................................................................................. 17 4.3 Value capture......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.4 Architectural treatments ......................................................................................................................... 19 5. Design considerations .......................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Foundations ........................................................................................................................................... 21 5.2 Concrete bus pads .................................................................................................................................. 21 5.3 Utility considerations ............................................................................................................................. 21 5.4 Branding ................................................................................................................................................ 23 6. Property needs ...................................................................................................................................... 23 6.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................ 23 BRT STATIONS DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT ........................................................................................... 32 7. Station and platform dimensions .......................................................................................................... 32 7.1 Platform layout ...................................................................................................................................... 32 7.2 Platform length ...................................................................................................................................... 32 7.3 Designated location for vehicle servicing of station ................................................................................ 32 7.4 Platform area ......................................................................................................................................... 33 © 2020 American Public Transportation Association | ii 7.5 Platform width ....................................................................................................................................... 34 7.6 Platform height .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Your Paper's Title Starts Here
    Dual Rated Speeds Escalator in Rapid Transit System with Extended Ramping Up and Down KC Gan, LF Cai, SC Cheah, Hadi Wijaya, Melvyn Thong Land Transport Authority, Singapore Keywords: Dual rated speeds, automatic switching, rapid transit system, acceleration, ramping up, ramping down, vibration, jerkiness. Abstract. To cater for different needs of escalator operating speeds in rapid transit systems (i.e. higher rated speed of 0.75m/s during peak hours is for effective discharging of passengers while slower rated speed of 0.50m/s during off-peak hours is for elderly passengers), we have introduced the dual rated speed escalator. Conventionally, the switching between 2 rated speeds can be done either manually through a key switch or automatically when no passengers are detected on the escalators at pre-set timing. However, there is a possibility of not being able to change speed if there are constant passengers coming into the rapid transit station, taking the escalators. Therefore, this shortcoming will be overcome by setting up a schedule timetable to do the safe switching of escalator rated speeds with passengers riding on the escalators with extended ramping up and down without comprising any safety requirements. This paper presents the case studies conducted on an existing station where a performance–based approach was adopted. The timing for the speed ramping up/down between the 2 rated speeds has been increased to 30 seconds in order to reduce the acceleration which results in minimizing the acceleration (vibration) and the rate of change of this acceleration (jerk). The objective is to ensure that the passenger’s perception are imperceptible and do not experience any abnormal and sudden change of vibration and jerk during the switching of dual rated speeds with extended ramping up and down.
    [Show full text]
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • [Title Over Two Lines (Shift+Enter to Break Line)]
    BUS TRANSFORMATION PROJECT White Paper #2: Strategic Considerations October 2018 DRAFT: For discussion purposes 1 1 I• Purpose of White Paper II• Vision & goals for bus as voiced by stakeholders III• Key definitions IV• Strategic considerations Table of V• Deep-dive chapters to support each strategic consideration Contents 1. What is the role of Buses in the region? 2. Level of regional commitment to speeding up Buses? 3. Regional governance / delivery model for bus? 4. What business should Metrobus be in? 5. What services should Metrobus operate? 6. How should Metrobus operate? VI• Appendix: Elasticity of demand for bus 2 DRAFT: For discussion purposes I. Purpose of White Paper 3 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Purpose of White Paper 1. Present a set of strategic 2. Provide supporting analyses 3. Enable the Executive considerations for regional relevant to each consideration Steering Committee (ESC) to bus transformation in a neutral manner set a strategic direction for bus in the region 4 DRAFT: For discussion purposes This paper is a thought piece; it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion and a means to frame the ensuing debate 1. Present a The strategic considerations in this paper are not an set of strategic exhaustive list of all decisions to be made during this considerations process; they are a set of high-level choices for the Bus Transformation Project to consider at this phase of for regional strategy development bus transformation Decisions on each of these considerations will require trade-offs to be continually assessed throughout this effort 5 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Each strategic consideration in the paper is 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session
    Housing Financing Tools and Equitable, Location-Efficient Development in California BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session Prepared for: Governor's Office of Planning and Research December 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 5 II. BACKGROUND ON THE SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL FINANCE AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ACT ................................................................................................................ 7 Definition of Bus Transit ......................................................................................................... 7 Extent of Use ........................................................................................................................... 7 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9 Literature Overview ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Passage
    Right of Passage: Reducing Barriers to the Use of Public Transportation in the MTA Region Joshua L. Schank Transportation Planner April 2001 Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 · www.pcac.org ã PCAC 2001 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the following people: Beverly Dolinsky and Mike Doyle of the PCAC staff, who provided extensive direction, input, and much needed help in researching this paper. They also helped to read and re-read several drafts, helped me to flush out arguments, and contributed in countless other ways to the final product. Stephen Dobrow of the New York City Transit Riders Council for his ideas and editorial assistance. Kate Schmidt, formerly of the PCAC staff, for some preliminary research for this paper. Barbara Spencer of New York City Transit, Christopher Boylan of the MTA, Brian Coons of Metro-North, and Yannis Takos of the Long Island Rail Road for their aid in providing data and information. The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee and its component Councils–the Metro-North Railroad Commuter Council, the Long Island Rail Road Commuters Council, and the New York City Transit Riders Council–are the legislatively mandated representatives of the ridership of MTA bus, subway, and commuter-rail services. Our 38 volunteer members are regular users of the MTA system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of County officials and, within New York City, of the Mayor, Public Advocate, and Borough Presidents. For more information on the PCAC and Councils, please visit our website: www.pcac.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Llght Rall Translt Statlon Deslgn Guldellnes
    PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT V.4.0 7/20/18 STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) provides public transportation throughout Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The Authority’s 2,600 employees operate, maintain, and support bus, light rail, incline, and paratransit services for approximately 200,000 daily riders. Port Authority is currently focused on enacting several improvements to make service more efficient and easier to use. Numerous projects are either underway or in the planning stages, including implementation of smart card technology, real-time vehicle tracking, and on-street bus rapid transit. Port Authority is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors – unpaid volunteers who are appointed by the Allegheny County Executive, leaders from both parties in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate, and the Governor of Pennsylvania. The Board holds monthly public meetings. Port Authority’s budget is funded by fare and advertising revenue, along with money from county, state, and federal sources. The Authority’s finances and operations are audited on a regular basis, both internally and by external agencies. Port Authority began serving the community in March 1964. The Authority was created in 1959 when the Pennsylvania Legislature authorized the consolidation of 33 private transit carriers, many of which were failing financially. The consolidation included the Pittsburgh Railways Company, along with 32 independent bus and inclined plane companies. By combining fare structures and centralizing operations, Port Authority established the first unified transit system in Allegheny County. Participants Port Authority of Allegheny County would like to thank agency partners for supporting the Light Rail Transportation Station Guidelines, as well as those who participated by dedicating their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Sunrail.Com Not to Scale
    WELCOME ABOARD! BROCHURE LYMMO is your ride to great places M around Downtown Orlando. Whether you’re heading to work, a meal, or one of the many attractions Downtown, LYMMO’s frequent service and bus-only lanes will get you there faster. LYNX is the public transit provider for LYMMO Orange, Lime and And when you’re riding LYMMO, you Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties. never have to worry about parking. Additional connectivity with Grapefruit Lines If you don’t see your destination here, Lake and Polk counties. CONTACT US and we can connect you DIRECT SERVICE TO: to the right LYMMO. CONTACT US for information on fares, bus stops, schedules and trip planning: Amway Center Heritage Square Ready to roll? Look inside for more info... Bob Carr Theater Lake Eola Park 407-841-5969 phone County Courthouse LYNX Central Station 407-423-0787 tdd County Health Dept Orlando City Stadium Dr Phillips Center Parramore Notice of Title VI Rights: LYNX operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, golynx.com web religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or family status in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes Effective: he or she has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice APRIL 2017 related to Title VI may file a complaint in writing to LYNX Title VI Officer Desna Hunte, 455 N. Garland Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 or by calling THANK YOU FOR RIDING LYNX! 407-254-6117, email [email protected] or www.golynx.com. Information in other languages or accessible formats available upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Line Image Rotation Amir Hossein Ashtari, Member, IEEE,Mdjannordin,Member, IEEE, and Seyed Mostafa Mousavi Kahaki, Member, IEEE
    3370 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 24, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2015 Double Line Image Rotation Amir Hossein Ashtari, Member, IEEE,MdJanNordin,Member, IEEE, and Seyed Mostafa Mousavi Kahaki, Member, IEEE Abstract— This paper proposes a fast algorithm for rotating rotation transformation has been expressed in (2). The direct images while preserving their quality. The new approach rotates determination of the rotated points is a one-pass method. images based on vertical or horizontal lines in the original image and their rotated equation in the target image. The proposed xr cos α − sin α xt method is a one-pass method that determines a based-line = . (2) yr sin α cos α yt equation in the target image and extracts all corresponding pixels on the base-line. Floating-point multiplications are performed Determining the rotated point directly using a single to calculate the base-line in the target image, and other line function such as (2) is a one-pass technique, whereas cal- coordinates are calculated using integer addition or subtraction and logical justifications from the base-line pixel coordinates in culating the rotated point using multiple functions such the target image. To avoid a heterogeneous distance between as (3), (4), and (5) is a multi-pass technique. Compared with rotated pixels in the target image, each line rotates to two multi-pass methods, one-pass methods are simple and usually adjacent lines. The proposed method yields good performance more accurate [2], [5]. However, although one-pass methods in terms of speed and quality according to the results of an are accurate, they are still inefficient because multiple analysis of the computation speed and accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING GUIDE for Public Transportation Elevators Table of Contents
    PLANNING GUIDE FOR Public transportation elevators Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................4 1.1 About this Planning Guide ............................................................................................4 1.2 About KONE .................................................................................................................4 2. Special demands of public transportation ........................................................... 7 2.1 Airports ........................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Benefits of KONE elevators for airports ...................................................................................... 7 2.2 Transit centers (railway and metro ststions) ...................................................................8 2.2.1 Benefits of KONE elevators in railway and metro stations .......................................................... 8 2.3 Main specifications for public transportation elevators ...............................................10 2.4 Electromagnetic compatibility standards ....................................................................11 2.5 LSH and LH cables ......................................................................................................11 3. Odering a public transportation elevator ...........................................................12 3.1 Key cost drivers for elevators in
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
    [Show full text]