Exhibit A – FDOT – Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design FROM BUS SHELTERS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A LITERATURE REVIEW OF BUS PASSENGER FACILITY PLANNING, SITING, AND DESIGN Florida Planning and Development Lab Florida State University 1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 2 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transporation Public Transit Office By: Florida Planning and Development Lab Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida State University March 2004 3 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 4 From Bus Shelters to Transit-Oriented Development: A Literature Review of Bus Passenger Facility Planning, Siting, and Design Budget No: 362656539 Prepared by: Ivonne Audirac, Ph.D. Harrison Higgins, AICP Florida Planning and Development Lab Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2280 (850) 644-8513 http://www.fsu.edu/~durp Program Manager: Amy Datz, FDOT Contract Number BC137-18 Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (850) 414-4500 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation. This document was prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation. 5 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 6 Acknowledgements The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has requested that Florida State University (FSU) provide small Florida transit agencies design guidelines for bus passenger transit facilities. Beyond identifying the minimum standards, the purpose of this study is to provide transportation agencies with feasible alternatives when developing bus passenger facilities that focus on the interaction of transit facilities with transit operations and the built environment. The following FSU staff and students participated in conducting the research, analysis, design, and preparation of this report: Principal Investigators: Ivonne Audirac, Ph.D and Harrison Higgins, AICP. Research Assistance: Poorna Bhattacharya, Catherine Hartley, Tanya Kunkel, David Sheern and Sue Trone With Participation From: Raniera Barbisan, Paul Flavien, Michelle Freeman, John Patrick John-Peter, Roberto Miquel, Santanu Roy, Tang Lei, and Jeff Thelen. The Principal Investigators would also like to acknowledge assistance provided by the staff of several Florida transit agencies, including: James Liesenfelt of Brevard County Transit; Jennifer Stults of the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority; Ramona Cavasos, Richard Deibler, and Julia Pearsall of Escambia County Area Transit; Shenley Neely and Jesus M. Gomez of the Gainesville Regional Transit System; Les Weakland and Ed Crawford of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority; Karen Wood and Liz Walton of Indian River County Transit; Steve Githens of Lakeland Citrus Connection; Steve Meyer of Lee County Transit; Peter Gajdis and Ralph Hesler of Manatee County Area Transit; Mike Carroll and Thelma Williams of Pasco County Public Transit; Roger Sweeny and Mike Sibalt of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority; Marsha A. Danielson and Paul A. Simmons, III of Polk County Transit Services Division; Sarah Blanchard and Phil Lieberman of Sarasota County Area Transit; DeWayne Carver of TALTRAN; and Jim Dorsten of Votran. 7 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 8 Table of Contents Literature Review Introduction........................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1: Accessing Bus Transit Facilities...................................................................... 17 1.1 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.............. 19 1.2 Bicycle-Oriented Considerations.................................................................................................. 25 1.3 Pedestrian-Oriented Considerations............................................................................................ 29 1.4 Security and Crime Prevention.................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 2: Building Bus Transit Facilities.......................................................................... 41 2.1 Transit Facility Design Guidelines................................................................................................ 43 National and Transit Cooperative Research Program-Report-Based Guidelines........................ 43 State, Regional, and Local Guidelines......................................................................................... 51 Books and Articles on Transit Facility Design.............................................................................. 62 2.2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)...................................................................................... 69 2.3 Bus Passenger Facilities.............................................................................................................. 83 2.4 Green Design Considerations...................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 3: Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD)............................................................... 97 3.1 TOD Planning and Strategies...................................................................................................... 101 National Studies and Guidelines..................................................................................................101 State and Regional Studies and Guidelines................................................................................ 109 County, City, and Transit Agency Studies and Guidelines........................................................... 116 Journal Articles on TOD and Transit-Friendly Development....................................................... 120 3.2 Parking and Auto Relationship to Transit.................................................................................... 127 Chapter 4: Funding and Marketing Transit.........................................................................139 4.1 Funding....................................................................................................................................... 141 4.2 Transit Image Marketing and Community Visibility...................................................................... 149 9 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 10 Introduction The recent California Supreme Court decision in safety conditions of the right of way where bus stops Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30 must be located. Transit-oriented development and Cal. 4th 139 (2003) ruled in favor of a pedestrian who bus stops will remain marginal planning and urban was tragically hit by a car while crossing a dangerous design considerations as long as the focus remains intersection to reach a bus stop. Although the $1.6 set on rail and as long as local land-use planning and million verdict undoubtedly sent a chilling message to transit planning continue to be out of sync. hundreds of public transit agencies that now they can be held liable for the location of their property, it The current planning and design philosophy reaffirms the importance of good planning, siting and toward more livable, equitable and environmentally design of bus passenger facilities—often a low level friendly cities expressed in several Smart Growth and priority vis-à-vis other transit operation concerns. The New Urbanist manifestos is strongly reliant on judges’ decision underscored the significance of practical transit mobility solutions. In some instances effective interagency coordination in enhancing safe these solutions are offered as alternatives to the bus service provision. The car driver was sued and automobile, while in others they are complementary. bore the bulk of total liability. However, the lack of Although Curitiba-inspired bus rapid transit (BRT) coordination between the county owning the right of (Cervero 2003) is at the center of new regional design way along the busy street and the public transit and mobility schemes like Peter Calthorpe’s “urban agency which neglected to relocate its bus stop to a network” (Calthorpe 2001) as well as a nationwide safer location was what ultimately resulted in flurry of light-rail based transit-oriented development avoidable physical trauma and injury to bus patrons. (TOD) initiatives (Cura 2003), we must not forget that these transit mobility schemes are dependent on This court case brings attention to the bus stop, subsidiary bus feeder and pedestrian mobility an often overlooked, yet fundamental component of networks and as well as on the “buying-in” of a large overall safe quality transit service which provides a number of transit agencies and county and city viable alternative to the automobile. As the Bonanno departments. As of late, some progressive transit case demonstrates, bus stops and other bus agencies have assertively advocated for transit passenger facilities have been treated as residual review in local site plans and development review elements in a transportation system biased toward processes, but this is more the exception than the rapid automobile flow and characterized by poor rule; the vast majority of bus passenger facility design