This publication was downloaded from the National Aging and Disability Transportation Center’s website (www.nadtc.org). It was developed by Easter Seals Project ACTION, a technical assistance center operated by Easter Seals, Inc. through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

National Aging and Disability Transportation Center [email protected] 866-983-3222 Accessibility Design Guide for Bus Transit Systems Executive Summary

Easter Seals

R Accessibility Design Guide for Systems Executive Summary

Prepared for: Easter Seals Project ACTION 1425 K Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-347-3066 / 800-659-6428 TDD: 202-347-7385 www.projectaction.org

Prepared by: TranSystems Corp. with Oak Square Resources, LLC

April 2009

Easter Seals Project ACTION is funded through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of Easter Seals Project ACTION in the interest of information exchange. Neither Easter Seals, Easter Seals Project ACTION, nor the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration assumes liability for its contents or use thereof.

Easter Seals

R ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Project Team and Advisory Committee Nevada: Sandra Stanko, along with Robert Highfill of Jacobs Engineering and Brian VanHine of Veolia The Accessibility Design Guide for Bus Rapid Transit Transportation Systems was developed by TranSystems of Boston, Mass for Easter Seals Project ACTION. The project • : Terry Parker, Susan team included Project Manager Rosemary Gerty of Hekimoglu, Stefano Viggiano, Cosette Rees, TranSystems; Caroline Ferris of TranSystems; Don George Trauger, Joe McCormack, along with staff Kloehn of Tindale-Oliver & Associates in Tampa (formerly from Alternative Work Concepts and members of with TranSystems); and Susan Bregman of Oak Square the LTD Transportation Committee Resources, LLC, in Brighton, Mass. The team was • Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation assisted by the Project Advisory Committee, which Authority: Michael Schipper represented the diverse interests of transit agencies and • Miami-Dade Transit: Ronald Steiner, along with people with disabilities. Ilene Hyams of Miami-Dade County Office of ADA Coordination Members of the Project Advisory Committee • Port Authority of Allegheny County: David Wishwill • David Evans, Palm Beach County Chapter, National Federation of the Blind; member South • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority: Karen Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail) Burns, Mary Ainsley, Joe Cosgrove, Kathy Cox, ADA Advisory Committee Gary Talbot • Marilyn Golden, policy analyst, Disability Rights Other Acknowldgments Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) We wish to thank Dennis Cannon of the U.S. Access • Ilene Hyams, senior ADA specialist, Office of ADA Board; Cheryl Hershey, Jonathan Klein, and David Coordination (Miami, Fla.) Knight of the Federal Transit Administration Office of • Cynthia Lister, regulatory coordinator, SEPTA Civil Rights; Dennis Hinebaugh and Cheryl Thole of the (Philadelphia, Pa.) National Bus Rapid Transit Institute at the Center for • Michael Miller, accessibility manager, Sound Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), University of Transit (Seattle, Wash.) South Florida; and the Easter Seals Project ACTION staff for their review and comments. • Terry Parker, accessible services manager, Lane Transit District (LTD) (Eugene, Ore.) and Additional thanks to Sandra Stanko, Bob Highfill, Terry Easter Seals Project ACTION National Steering Parker, and Marilyn Golden for reviewing the final Committee Liaison documents and to RTC and LTD for providing some of Case Study Sites the photographs used in this document.

We wish to express our appreciation for the assistance of the following agencies and individuals that served as case study sites for this project: • Regional Transportation Commission of Southern provides guidance to transit agencies on BRT & Accessibility: Getting the development and implementation of it Right from the Start BRT systems. An updated CBRT is expected to be published in 2009.

Executive Summary This paper also highlights solutions identified as part of the ESPA project that will help transit agencies to plan Introduction and implement accessible BRT services, especially related to vehicle This paper highlights the results of a design, station platform and stop design, study funded prepared by TranSystems the platform-to-vehicle interface, and for Easter Seals Project ACTION public involvement in the BRT planning (ESPA) to develop an Accessibility and implementation process. Design Guide for Bus Rapid Transit Systems. The report describes The APTA conference presentation accessible design elements that apply to will focus on the experience of the BRT BRT systems both from the regulatory systems operated by two transit perspective of the Americans with agencies—the Regional Transportation Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as well as Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) the concept of universal design, which in Las Vegas, Nevada and Lane Transit means including barrier-free design District (LTD) in Eugene, —that elements that will enhance system made accessibility a priority right from accessibility for all persons, including the start and were especially proactive individuals with disabilities. in ensuring that vehicles and stations/stops were made accessible for The intent of the project was not to all customers, including people with give detailed engineering information, disabilities, older adults, bicyclists, and but to provide guidance and possible the general public. solutions for incorporating accessible design elements necessary to meet or ADA and BRT SYSTEMS exceed ADA accessibility requirements. The Design Guide identifies accessibility The ADA was enacted to ensure that issues common to BRT systems, people with disabilities have equal documents effective ways of addressing opportunities and access to public those issues, and provides examples of spaces and services as persons who do how these issues are currently being not have disabilities. Although ADA addressed through six case studies. A requirements are well documented for companion ADA Compliance Checklists conventional fixed route bus and rail for Bus Rapid Transit Facilities Design systems, because BRT is a hybrid and Construction is included as a self- service with characteristics of both bus assessment tool. and rail it may be less obvious how the ADA requirements apply. The information presented in the Design Guide and Checklists also may This ambiguity has prompted be used to supplement the FTA’s activities at the Federal level that Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit include proposed changes to the ADA Decision-Making report (CBRT), which Accessibility Guidelines known as 1 ADAAG. The U.S. Access Board is broader definition of stations (i.e., level tasked with developing guidelines for boarding bus systems and rail) as accessible buildings, facilities, and follows: vehicles. In 2006, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) adopted the • Current Wording: updated ADAAG as its current ADA F218.2 New and Altered Fixed Standards for Transportation Facilities. Guideway Stations. New and USDOT also adopted the ADA altered stations in rapid rail, , Accessibility Standards for commuter rail, intercity rail, and high Transportation Vehicles, as amended speed rail, and other fixed guideway through 1998. systems shall comply with 810.5 through 810.10. Revised Draft ADAAG • Proposed Wording: F218.2 New and Altered Stations. On November 19, 2008, the U.S. New and altered stations for level Access Board released a revised draft boarding bus systems and fixed of proposed updates for the ADA guideway systems, including, but not Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and limited to, rapid rail, light rail, Vans, with public comments due by commuter rail, intercity rail, and high January 20, 2009. Of particular interest speed rail, shall comply with 810.5 to BRT systems is the inclusion of through 810.10. specific requirements for level boarding buses, vehicles which did not exist in And proposes to change the reference 1991 when the original guidelines were from rail platforms to station platforms published and are now being used in as follows: many BRT systems. The 2008 draft guidelines define a level boarding bus • Current Wording: system as: 810.5 Rail Platforms. Rail platforms shall comply with 810.5. A system on which buses operate • Proposed Wording: where some or all of the designated 810.5 Station Platforms. Station boarding and alighting areas have platforms in level boarding bus station platforms, and the design of systems and fixed guideway the station platforms and the systems, shall comply with 810.5. vehicles are coordinated to provide level boarding. If adopted, these changes would require level boarding bus systems such As noted, the ADAAG for Buildings as BRT to comply with applicable and Facilities were revised in 2004 and ADAAG standards that formerly applied adopted by USDOT in 2006. The current only to rail platforms and vehicles. For ADAAG primarily standards apply to key example, 810.5.1 would require that and new rail facilities (i.e., stations), with station platforms not exceed a slope of only limited applicability to bus stops. 1:48 (2.1%) in all directions. However, in addition to the proposed definition of level boarding bus systems noted above, the revised draft ADAAG proposes to change the definition of fixed guideway stations (i.e., rail) to a 2 ADAAG Requirements Relevant to stops/stations for compliance with the BRT bus stops checklist. A copy of the bus stops checklist is included in Table 2. For reference, the report contains a set of checklists that include ADAAG Note that until there is a regulatory requirements for design elements that change, USDOT considers BRT are commonly found in a BRT system systems to be bus and not rail and, application, whether or not they are therefore, they are only required to currently required for ADA compliance comply with ADAAG regulations that (see Table 1). apply to bus systems. In any case, it should be remembered that the ADAAG Table 1. requirements represent minimum Common ADAAG Requirements standards and agencies are encouraged Parking to exceed the minimum requirements to Accessible Routes make their systems more user-friendly Passenger Drop-Off and accessible for all passengers. Curb Ramps Entrances Table 2. Doors and Gates Sample ADAAG Checklist for Bus Ramps Stops Elevators Escalators FACILITY: Ticketing and Automatic Fare Vending DATE: Platforms NTP*: Mini-High Platforms *Notice to proceed with construction Public Address Systems and Clocks date Telephones 18.1 Bus Stop Signage Technical Observati Maneuvering/Reach Range Specifications Y N ons Handrails and Grab Bars 18.1.1 Surface of Bus Stops Boarding and Alighting   Detectable Warning Area Controls and Operating Mechanisms Does the boarding and alighting area have a The self-assessment checklists may firm, stable surface? be used to determine whether a level (810.2.1) boarding platform/station is compliant with ADAAG requirements and also may be used to assess the adjacent environment, such as accessible routes, parking, passenger pick-up/drop-off locations, curb ramps, ramps, and so on. The checklists also may be used to assess whether ticket vending machines, telephones, signage, detectable warnings, and other elements of the platform area are compliant. At a minimum, transit agencies should be assessing their BRT

3 18.1.2 Dimensions of 18.1.4 Slope of Bus Stop Boarding and Alighting   Boarding or Alighting   Area Area Does the bus stop Is the slope of the bus boarding and alighting stop boarding and area provide a clear alighting area parallel to   length of 96 inches the roadway the same minimum, measured as the slope of the perpendicular to the curb roadway, to the or vehicle roadway edge, maximum extent and a clear width of 60 practicable? (810.2.4) inches minimum, Perpendicular to the measured parallel to the roadway, is the slope of vehicle roadway? the bus stop boarding (810.2.2) and alighting area no steeper than 1:48 (2%)? (810.2.4)

ELEMENTS OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN

As part of the ESPA study, the

research team conducted six case study visits to determine what accessibility 18.1.3 Connection of features were being employed—both Boarding and Alighting   those that were required by ADAAG, as Area to Adjoining well as design elements that make Elements sense to include from a universal design Is the bus stop boarding perspective. The study sites included: and alighting area connected to streets, • Regional Transportation Commission sidewalks, or pedestrian (RTC) of Southern Nevada in Las paths by an accessible Vegas, Nevada route? Use Checklist 2 – Accessible Route. • Lane Transit District (LTD) in (810.2.3) Eugene, Oregon

• Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority (GCRTA) in Cleveland, Ohio

• Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) in Miami, Florida

• Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) in , Pennsylvania

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston, Massachusetts

4 These six transit agencies BRT routes are the same as highlighted below all have been conventional fixed route transit, which pioneers in the development of has encouraged the use of BRT. accessible BRT systems, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

RTC of Southern Nevada MAX/ACE

The RTC is focused on providing rapid transit service through its MAX BRT service. The transit agency has worked closely with a European vehicle manufacturer to develop a vehicle that suits the needs of its BRT service including a rear-facing securement area, a rear-entry area for bicycle storage separate from the wheelchair securement area. Most passenger boarding areas are rail-like stations with accessibility amenities including detectable warnings, level boarding, off- vehicle ticket vending machines, and platform markings that direct passengers to the doorways. RTC station with optical guidance street markings The Las Vegas BRT system was

scheduled to utilize optical guidance for

precision docking beginning in 2003; LTD Emerald Express (EmX) however, the system was turned off

because the city’s road maintenance LTD has a long history of providing staff could not keep the pavement accessible services to all customers. markings clean and well-defined in the LTD’s Accessible Transportation city’s extremely hot, dry, and sunny Committee (ATC) was formed to ensure desert climate. Moreover, the transit that this tradition would continue in an agency’s management found that the official capacity. All of LTD’s services vehicles’ drivers could be trained to are designed with assistance from the manually steer the vehicle into the Committee. The ATC is made up of stations with sufficient precision. paratransit and fixed route riders and of

individuals from social service agencies. RTC also has focused on

developing a brand identity for its BRT Members of the ATC participated system that does not include the word extensively during the development, bus, but emphasizes the rapid transit design, and implementation of EmX. aspect of service. The second BRT LTD also went out into the community to line—ACE—is under construction and generate input from users who were not will include the second generation of members of the ATC. In addition, a specially designed BRT vehicles as well separate work group for persons with separated running ways. Fares for the 5 vision disabilities was established to result was a more accessible vehicle address specific issues related to using design. transit with a sight impairment. A committee member reported that the GCRTA HealthLine (Euclid Avenue biggest challenge to a person with a Corridor) vision impairment is finding your way within a transit station. With help from All HealthLine BRT stations are the working group, LTD generated designed to provide passenger-friendly tactile maps of the EmX stations. As waiting environments, to be integrated previously discussed, they also worked into the community, and to be easily with the city to get audible signals accessible, with fast loading platforms. placed along the EmX route. Tactile pavers will define station locations and station platform edges and Audible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, which provide tactile and audible pedestrian signals at crosswalks.

GCRTA partnered with Lane Transit District in Eugene to purchase 21 specially designed rapid transit vehicles from New Flyer Industries. The articulated, low-floor, 62-foot vehicles, known locally as Euclid Corridor Vehicles, operate via a low-sulfur diesel motor that powers smaller electrical engines mounted near the vehicle wheels. Each vehicle is equipped with three right side doors, two left side doors, and interior bicycle racks. In

LTD EmX stop at transfer center addition, vehicles are uniquely stylized, with an aerodynamic, rounded front ATC members and others with nose and wheel skirts to give the buses different styles and sizes of mobility a more rail-like appearance. devices participated in several demonstrations, trying out different seating configurations and securement positions, and maneuvering through the vehicle using a full-scale, three- dimensional, plywood mock-up with ADA securement locations. From these experiments, planners and participants were able to uncover unanticipated barriers, such as maneuverability through the vehicle. Different door GCRTA BRT vehicle with left-side boarding locations and a variety of configurations for securement areas were tested. The

6 Miami-Dade Transit Busway PAAC Miami-Dade Transit’s Office of Civil The Port Authority’s commitment to Rights actively pursued public involving individuals and groups participation in the planning and design representing people with disabilities is of the Busway infrastructure and BRT applied in all aspects of providing public service. Public right-of-way access was transportation. Although information a key concern of the participating was not available concerning the groups including the Miami-Dade specific input from the disability County Commission on Disability Issues community during the planning of the and several organized local disability three busways, PAAC has made groups. Attention to pedestrian crossing improvements to the BRT infrastructure signals, BRT station design, service that provides an accessible system. schedules, and transfer to other routes were issues of concern which were The Martin Luther King, Jr. East coordinated with the design and Busway, , and the light rail planning groups. Input from the disability “T” are accessible. These transit advisors were also applied to the vehicle facilities have wheelchair ramps and procurement process. curb ramps for easy and convenient access, guide rails, and key station information available in raised lettering and Braille. In addition, the T has high- platform stations, allowing direct access to light rail vehicles, although low-level stops along the T and South Busway, as well as the are not yet accessible.

The Committee for Accessible Transportation has been in existence MDT busway stations since 1991. It is composed of people with disabilities, agencies that serve Station boarding and alighting areas them, and members of their families. (platforms) are constructed parallel to CAT advises PAAC and ACCESS the Busway travel lanes with a slip lane Transportation Systems, Inc. for bus loading/offloading operations at (paratransit service) on how to make the six-inch high concrete platform. public transportation accessible to riders Kneeling buses with flip-out ramps are with different types of disabilities. It used for accessible boarding and meets quarterly and is governed by a present ADA compliant slopes for 15-member steering committee, which is boarding and alighting. elected by its membership every two years. At the time of the case study, MDT had a procurement process underway to Stations on the original South purchase 60-foot, 56-passenger Busway were extremely basic; later, the capacity low-floor articulated diesel / busway features improved stations, but electric hybrid buses for the BRT these are still modest in dimensions, service. design, and materials. All stations rely 7 on at-grade pedestrian crossings. South Busway stations are treated more as enhanced bus stops (some even feature bus stop signs) than as the rapid transit stations. Stations are not barrier- separated, and fares are paid onboard vehicles.

MBTA Silver Line Tunnel Station

For the Silver Line Airport route, the MBTA has located BRT stops at the far end of each of the five terminals, making it easy for customers to find the stops, even if they are not familiar with the system. Fare payment may be made on- PAAC Negley Avenue station board, although passengers are encouraged to purchase tickets or fare All vehicle types in the Port cards. Authority’s bus fleet may be operated in busway service, using the busways to The South Station BRT station is provide travel time benefits to an located in a multi-modal transit center, existing bus system. Articulated which includes subway, bus, commuter coaches provide most of the spine rail, and intercity bus connections. service on the East Busway route. Although this system includes elevators, signage and other amenities common to MBTA Silver Line rail stations, one item that was not initially included was detectable A decade after initiating plans to warnings. With patrons sometimes develop a BRT system in the congested wandering into the underground downtown Boston service area, the busway, the MBTA plans to add MBTA’s Silver line exemplifies an urban detectable warnings to the edge of the BRT system that was adapted to meet curb to clarify the edge for all challenging local operating conditions. customers. The system includes rights of ways that operate along urban streets as well as in The MBTA also experienced an exclusive underground tunnel challenges with the automated voice system. Bus stops serving the BRT annunciator system not being able to system are located along the above- receive a signal in the underground ground portions of the system, while tunnel system. As a result, the stop underground rail-like stations are placed announcements were out of sync. That throughout the tunnel system. issue has been corrected.

8 ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS to ensure quick and safe wheelchair securement. The ADA regulations and the ADAAG describe minimum accessibility One of the most important requirements for meeting programmatic, components to facilitating accessibility architectural, structural, and/or of BRT systems is level boarding, which operational conditions intended to allow is a system that aligns boarding most people with disabilities to use platforms at the same level as the floor facilities and services. Compliance with of the bus. Level boarding eliminates these regulations and guidelines, the need to navigate steps, which can however, does not fully describe the be difficult for anyone with a mobility level of accessibility provided. Higher limitation, packages, baby strollers or levels of accessibility can be achieved luggage. with the implementation of certain design treatments and BRT elements. In Quick entry and exit decreases dwell some cases, transit systems are now times for all passengers. Where adopting the notion of universal design, designed, buses can then be automated which embraces the concept of a to dock precisely at bus stops— barrier-free environment to provide a precision docking—thus providing easy more accessible and usable system for access and enhancing passenger all passengers including people with safety. Precision docking eliminates the disabilities, older adults, children, people need for wheelchair lifts or similar costly with luggage or baby strollers, as well as devices. The technologies included in the general public. level boarding and precision docking for BRT include intelligent transportation BRT affords a great opportunity to systems (ITS) technologies, satellite- get it right from the start. By investing in based technologies, onboard bridge the long-range planning that is required plates, and even simple driver training to implement a successful BRT service, techniques, among others. transit agencies can create more sustainable, useable, and accessible Precision-docking or consistent transit systems. Based on the literature alignment practices helps to ensure a review and case studies, in order to minimal gap for level-boarding and achieve this goal, transit agencies alighting, acting as rails do for rail should, where possible, incorporate the transit. The end result would be greater following elements into their BRT accessibility and boarding speed for system. individuals with disabilities without negating the other benefits accrued by Level Boarding and Precision the BRT system as a whole. In fact, the Docking BRT system would be even more efficient for all passengers, due to its Being able to board and alight shorter dwell times. quickly and safely is a key factor to BRT’s overall success if it is to be competitive with other transportation options. Thus, it is incumbent upon transit agencies to design platforms and vehicles to minimize boarding times and 9

GCRTA precision docking guide wheel

Guided vehicles, used in conjunction with stations having platforms at the same height as the vehicle floor, can be LTD EmX busway expected to have boarding and alighting times similar to those on heavy rail or on Since the ADAAG requirement some LRT systems, or approximately already says that the accessible path one second per person less than the should coincide with the general public passenger service times for path to the maximum extent feasible, conventional buses. Besides reducing that requirement would also apply to average passenger service times, this BRT. BRT stations placed in the center step-less and gapless boarding and median will have different pedestrian alighting can significantly reduce the access issues from stations placed to time it takes for customers with the bus-traditional right side of traffic disabilities or customers with children in lanes, particularly with regard to street strollers to board and alight from BRT crossings. By using a center median, vehicles. This precision docking, passengers have to cross traffic to combined with wide aisles, can reach the boarding area, which may significantly reduce passenger service create a safety as well as potential times for these customers, thus accessibility issue. improving schedule reliability. Passenger Information—Signage and Station Location Displays

Station placement in relation to As with conventional bus and rail street intersections, pedestrian crossing services, the accessibility of the locations and timing, and overall information provided to passengers pedestrian facilities surrounding stations affects access to the BRT system. are key accessibility issues for BRT. Traveler information (such as vehicle Walkways and pathways for passengers arrival time, next-stop information, and with and without disabilities should be way-finding directions to guide the same, thereby eliminating the passengers in and around the station) distinction between the two customer needs to be accessible to everyone, groups. including passengers with vision and hearing disabilities.

10

Not only access at the BRT stop/station and onto BRT vehicles, but access to the BRT system as a whole should be considered. Accessible pathways connecting various points of approach to the BRT facilities are critical in providing an accessible system. By taking into consideration user safety, RTC real-time arrival message sign comfort, and accessibility right from the start, transit agencies can move forward Emerging technologies including more quickly and avoid the pitfalls and Talking Signs® and web-based expensive cost of retrofitting. information can also be used to improve passenger information. Information An important part of understanding should be provided in visual, tactile, and and identifying accessibility issues audible formats. This information needs during the design and construction of to be easy to access throughout the BRT systems is through the use of station and vehicle. For example, as is public participation, particularly the case on EmX vehicles, LED displays consumers who have disabilities and on a vehicle should be visible to both older adults, as well as the general forward and rear-facing passengers. public who may use BRT when handling Audible announcements need to be luggage, strollers, and other packages. understandable and at a volume that As mentioned above, the use of transit does not interfere with other audible advisory committees and special task cues. forces provides a direct avenue to informed participants with real-world Public Involvement experiences. Actively involving consumers and potential riders helps to Designing accessible BRT transit educate the local community about BRT environments requires creativity and and what it can offer. Meaningful input attention to detail. Involvement of from these consumers results in better organized disability groups, advisory and more accessible system design, panels, or focus group testing during the increased public awareness and design and implementation phases of acceptance, and serves to educate the BRT has proven to be an invaluable public about the potential benefits of aide to transit agencies. The ability to BRT. focus on BRT characteristics unique to communities or system users during the Public involvement can also be design phase of the project allows early useful in generating political support. solutions and reduces potential for During the initial stages of LTD’s EmX expensive fixes during the construction BRT planning process, in an effort to phases of the project. Accessibility address concerns regarding safety and considerations for BRT systems must be accessibility, LTD wanted to have viewed in a holistic setting, beginning audible signals installed throughout the with initial system design and continuing EmX route. City traffic engineers throughout system implementation and protested, saying that audible signals operation. were not currently used within the city of 11 Eugene. Through continued discussions will contribute to success in the amongst LTD Accessible Services staff, implementation of the service and LTD planners, and other stakeholders provide support and willingness to help the City re-evaluated the request. problem solve solutions to unforeseen Audible signals were installed along the issues that invariably arise at start-up of corridor and more signals have since the system. been installed at other intersections throughout the City in what is now Branding and Public Image standard practice. A unique branding convention makes Many of the transit agencies BRT service easily distinguishable from interviewed for this project stated that conventional bus service and can attract using their advisory groups had been customers that would otherwise choose very beneficial, particularly when they not to utilize public transit. Transit were involved in testing vehicle and agencies should try to create an image station/stop design elements. Using that customers will associate with station and vehicle mockups, speed, ease of use, high quality and consumers in Eugene were able to help high frequency service, and attractive identify maneuverability issues within vehicles and stations. the vehicles, and assist LTD in developing a vehicle design appropriate Brand recognition is important in for their BRT initiative, resulting in a generating familiarity with BRT service, more accessible vehicle. both from an ease of use standpoint, and because persons familiar and comfortable with the service are more likely to continue use of the service. From the beginning of the planning process, LTD recognized the importance of developing the EmX service as a brand.

Logos and branding elements can serve a purpose beyond cosmetics. The LTD bike rack EmX logo was designed with a straight line, so that when the logo is placed on Participants also influenced LTD’s the floor of the BRT vehicle, it can also decision to separate bicycles from act as a guideline for persons with mobility device securement areas; input mobility devices. from persons with disabilities indicated that they did not want to compete with bikes for use of securement areas. Additionally, a special working group within the advisory group played a significant role in generating tactile maps designed to help those customers with vision impairment navigate EmX transit stations. Partnering with users of the BRT system and other stakeholders LTD’s EmX floor logo 12 Similarly, in Las Vegas the RTC has specifically branded its BRT service— currently called “MAX”—and will be re- branding the system to be called “ACE” once the second line of BRT is completed. The vehicles have been designed to appear and function as LRT vehicles (including custom wheel covers) and the BRT shelters resemble LRT stations, with a design that is distinctly different from the regular bus stop shelters. Additionally, to underscore the difference between ACE and conventional fixed route service, the RTC has dropped the word bus and instead refers to MAX and ACE simply as rapid transit. LTD Media Kit

GETTING IT RIGHT FROM THE START

In summary, the following can be used as key indicators for accessibility in a BRT system:

RTC MAX rapid transit vehicle • Compliance with current ADA and ADAAG accessibility requirements This trend was consistently obvious for bus stops and voluntary use of at the other five transit systems we ADAAG rail station elements that looked at during our case studies. In all improve accessibility to the system. cases, the BRT service was clearly distinguishable from the local bus • Qualitative ratings of ease of system service or other modes of transit offered use by people with disabilities, older by the agencies. Indeed, creating an adults, children, adults with strollers, image was one of the primary goals of and adults with luggage. the BRT service. LTD planners attribute an increase in overall system ridership • BRT ridership trends (e.g., rates of to the fact that customers identify BRT use) by people with disabilities and service as something entirely different older adults. and more appealing than conventional bus service. • Access to transfer points from BRT to local bus or rail service to provide a system-wide accessibility approach.

13 If the Access Board adopts new guidelines for level boarding bus systems and vehicles, and USDOT adopts those guidelines into standards, then many of the recommended practices cited here that are based on the current ADAAG requirements for rail systems will apply to BRT. It will be important for transit agencies to remain aware of any changes in ADA regulations that will affect their systems and to act proactively to achieve maximum accessibility, regardless of Federal requirements.

Considering elements related to accessibility early on in the design phase of BRT will benefit both users and operators of transit service, for both the short and long run. Ensuring that vehicles, stations, and the system are barrier-free and accessible to all users will greatly contribute to overall system quality and success. And, involving individuals with disabilities and other stakeholders in the design, construction, and operations decisions for BRT service will enable an ownership value that will help to ensure success of the system.

14