Upload
phambao
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Measuring Bus Stops
Toward a Sustainable
Urban Environment July 31, 2014
Prepared by:
Wenbin Ma |Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,
(corresponding author) Tel (562)599-8538, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected] Shirley Hsiao| Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,
Tel (562)599-8540, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected] Christopher MacKechnie| Long Beach Transit, 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90813,
Tel (562)599-8466, Fax (562)218-1994, [email protected]
Paper Contains: 4,482 text words, 7 figures, 4 tables and 2 photographs.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 1
Abstract
This paper describes how a bus stop measuring system can be developed not only to
achieve transit operation efficiency, but also to proactively collaborate with urban planners and
traffic engineers on transit/land use interface activities. The measuring system is developed by
identifying transit performance variants at the bus stop level, using a dynamic composite
weighting factor approach on a GIS platform. A “tier structure framework” is used to categorize
the composite scores of bus stops into six groups. Specific transit improvement actions are then
tailored based on their bus stop characteristics. Two project application examples are presented
in this paper. One is a bus stop thinning project for speed improvement, and the other is for
prioritizing capital project improvements.
As various “Active Transportation Programs” (ATP) emerge to encourage local
jurisdictions to plan transit connectivity with other community gathering places, this bus stops
measuring approach presents a continued process to monitor their performance. It is also used to
strengthen integration with other street improvement activities, including pedestrian paths and
bikeways, to create a safe and sustainable urban environment.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 2
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3
2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Analysis Tools .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Variants ............................................................................................................................................... 5
4. APPLICATION EXAMPLES .......................................................................................... 9
4.1 Application #1 - Bus Stop Removal Project ....................................................................................... 9
Step 1 - Ridership Distribution and Transfer Stops .............................................................................. 9
Step 2 – Framework of Stop Tiers ....................................................................................................... 11
Step 3 - Distance between Stops ......................................................................................................... 13
Example - LBT Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway ................................................................. 15
4.2 Application #2 – Use of Bus Stop Tiers to Program Capital Funding .............................................. 16
5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 19
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................ 21
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 21
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 3
1. INTRODUCTION
A sustainable urban environment is not functional unless its transport system responds to
the mobility needs of the people. Since bus stops connect people and their travel activities
through a transit network web, the amenities and perception of quality of the service at stop
locations are an important factor in travel mode decision-making.
This paper describes how a bus stop measuring system is developed, not only to improve
internal operation efficiency, but also to proactively collaborate with planners and traffic
engineers on various transit/land use interface projects. This system-wide strategic planning
methodology intends to strengthen the transit element in the overall urban development process.
This measuring system is developed by assessing several transit performance-related
variants at the bus stop level with a dynamic composite weighting factor approach using a GIS
platform. A tier structure framework is used to categorize the composite scores of bus stops into
groups. Different transit improvement strategies are applied based on the individual grouping
characteristics. Two project examples are presented in this paper. One is a bus stop thinning
project on speed improvement, and the other is for prioritizing capital project improvements.
As various ATP emerge that encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities
promoting multiple travel choices for residents, this bus stop measuring approach presents a
continued process to monitor the bus stop performance and improve transit connectivity to other
community gathering places. It also strengthens integration with other street improvement
activities, including pedestrian paths and bikeways toward a safe and sustainable urban
environment.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 4
2. BACKGROUND
Long Beach Transit (LBT) is the second largest municipal operator in Los Angeles
County. The service area covers about 800,000 residents within one-quarter mile of LBT bus
stops. Its seven percent transit mode split is more than double the three percent regional transit
use, which reveals the importance of transit service in the community.
It is challenging, however, to provide bus service in an urbanized area such as Long
Beach that was developed in the 1960’s where the original streetscape didn’t incorporate bus
stops or transit vehicle operation efficiency as part of the street configuration design criteria.
This presents the need to continuously improve bus stops toward safer, more convenient and
inviting urban settings. With a total of 1,910 bus stops located throughout the service area, a bus
stop measuring approach was initiated to better integrate these connection points with street
improvement and land use development activities.
Until recently, research findings characterizing transit-oriented development activities
have mostly focused on knowledge transfer of the influence of land use on transit from a macro
level policy and regulation perspective in conjunction with micro-level bus stop design
guidelines that includes pedestrian/bikeway connectivity. This study intends to incorporate peer
research recommendations of both levels into practice to support the sustainable urban
development goal.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 5
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection
A master database has been built by LBT to maintain different variants of stops. For
example: ridership; stop location; distance between stops; Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) ; accessibility; amenities; the key destinations served by the stop; and the demographic
characteristics surrounding the stop. These data are collected through the agency’s Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS), on-board surveys, field surveys, and the U.S. Census Bureau. This
master database is updated whenever there are service routing changes or new ridership data
becomes available.
3.2 Analysis Tools
In order to assess the importance of each bus stop, a GIS technological platform was
chosen for this study due to its spatial data analytical capabilities. Advanced and pre-compiled
query tools are used to synchronize the inter-relationships among bus stop-related variables in a
mapping format.
The bus stop importance level is evaluated based on a dynamic measuring and weighting
factor system. This approach leads to a composite score result at each stop location. It is
important to note that the evaluation standards and the weighting system are dynamic and
adjustable depending upon the subject issues being covered. For instance, a data layer on ADA
conditions is essential while assessing bus stop accessibility, but not a primary data variant for
demographic market area analysis around the bus stops.
3.3 Variants
There are many variants that can be taken into consideration in the bus stop evaluation
process. The variants that should be included as primary indicators would depend on the purpose
of the evaluation. For example, if the goal is to eliminate unnecessary stops on a certain transit
corridor in order to improve bus travel time, then stop ridership, stop location and distance
between stops should be considered as primary indicators in the evaluation process. If we are
trying to identify which bus stops need improvement of existing amenity conditions, then the
demographic characteristics of the stop location and the key destinations the stop serves should
be included as critical indicators as well.
In this study we identified five major transit performance related variants and created
evaluation standards for each of them.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 6
Ridership
Ridership is the most critical indicator of bus stop importance. It reflects the usage level
of a bus stop and determines what resources should be allocated to it. Based on fiscal year 2010
– 2013 ridership information, the weekday average boardings and alightings for all the 2,012 bus
stops that have been used in at least one of the four years were calculated. The stop distribution
in different ridership ranges is shown below:
FIGURE 1 LBT Stops Distribution in Different Ridership Ranges.
The boarding-based and alighting-based distributions are very consistent. Five percent of
the stops have weekday ridership higher than 200. According to the spatial analysis conducted
with ArcGIS, these high ridership stops either serve major destinations or are located at major
transfer intersections. One-third of the bus stops have weekday ridership between six and twenty.
Another one-third of them have weekday ridership less than five.
Based on the distribution pattern, we created the following standards for stop ridership:
TABLE 1 Ridership Evaluation Standards
Boarding Ranges #Stops Weighting Point Alighting Ranges #Stops Weighting Point
0 – 5 631 0 0 - 5 580 0
6 – 20 594 1 6 – 20 614 1
21 – 50 345 2 21 – 50 377 2
51 – 200 346 3 51 - 200 352 3
More than 200 96 4 More than 200 89 4
Total 2,012 Total 2,012
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 7
Transfer Stops
Stops at transfer intersections are
considered highly important in the transit system.
They connect different routes and are the key
nodes for building a transit network. In this study,
127 street intersections are identified as major
transfer locations (including intermodal and
interagency) in the LBT service area. There are
456 bus stops located at these intersections that
are considered as transfer stops.
Transfer stops are only twenty-three
percent of all the stops. However, they serve
more than half of the system-wide ridership.
Given the high productivity of transfer stops,
each of them gets one weighting point in the
evaluation.
Distance between Bus Stops
Distance between bus stops is another important variant from a transit vehicle operation
efficiency perspective. Appropriate bus stop spacing can contribute to smoother transit operation
and a more positive passenger traveling experience. If a stop is very close to the previous or next
stop in its trip pattern, it is considered less important than the ones that are far away from their
adjacent stops. Meanwhile, when considering stop removals, the new distance between the
remaining two stops should be within the standard stop distance range of the transit agency.
Currently, there are 1,910 active bus stops in the LBT service area. Except for 27
terminal or layover stops, the other 1,883 active bus stops are evaluated by the distance between
their two adjacent stops. If a stop is being used by different trip patterns and has different
potential new distances, the maximum new distance is taken.
TABLE 2 Stop Distance Evaluation Standards
New Distance After Stop
Removal #Stops Weighting Point
> 1600 ft. 1255 Not Allowed
1401 – 1600 ft. 164 4
1201 – 1400 ft. 331 3
1001 – 1200 ft. 79 2
801 – 1000 ft. 47 1
<800 ft. 7 0
Total 1,883
FIGURE 2 Major Transfer Intersections.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 8
Major Trip Destinations
Stops serving major trip destinations usually have high passenger volumes. Their
importance, however, could have already been reflected by other variants such as stop ridership.
But sometimes it is necessary to emphasize the fact that these stops not only have high ridership
but also are more visible to the passengers due to their location. For example, when it is decided
to improve bus stop amenities using limited capital resources, major destinations such as
shopping centers and tourist attractions may receive more consideration due to their likelihood
for generating more transit trips.
In this study, local attractions, including senior centers, schools, commercial centers,
airports, and hospitals, are considered as major destinations. Stops located within a quarter mile
of these major destinations are assigned one weighting point.
Demographics
To comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1946 and the provisions of Title VI, Long Beach
Transit ensures that the service provided to minority or low-income areas is as good as, if not
better than, the service provided in other areas. In the stop evaluation process, it is important to
include minority and income characteristics of a stop’s service area.
According to 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) 2011 data, for
the Long Beach Transit service area, Census tracts having a minority percentage exceeding 73.2
percent are defined as “minority tracts,” and Census tracts in which the low-income percentage
exceeds 16.4 percent are defined as “low-income tracts.” In this study, stops located in minority
or low-income areas are given one weighting point to reflect their importance.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 9
4. APPLICATION EXAMPLES
4.1 Application #1 - Bus Stop Removal Project
Bus stop location and spacing can affect both transit travel time and service reliability.
Appropriate bus stop location and spacing can provide smoother transit operation and better
passenger experience. The first application is an evaluation of LBT bus stops for potential stop
removal and transit speed improvement. Three variants: ridership (boardings and alightings),
transfer location, and distance between stops are selected as the primary indicators.
In order to use this application in an agency, the following information is needed:
1. Daily boarding and alighting information for all stops – this can be gathered from APC
data, a Comprehensive Operating Analysis, or other similar method.
2. The total number of stops that are transfer stops, defined as the first and last point
where two routes intersect. The easiest way to get this information would be to use the spatial
analysis tool in GIS platform.
3. The distance between each bus stop in the system. This distance would normally be
obtained from scheduling system software such as Hastus or Trapeze.
Step 1 - Ridership Distribution and Transfer Stops
As the charts on the next page indicate, stops have been separated into five different
zones based on the ridership range (boarding or alighting, whichever is larger). The horizontal
axis and the vertical axis represent stop boardings and stop alightings separately. For example,
Zone One contains stops with boardings or alightings higher than 200; Zone Five contains stops
where both boarding and alighting values are less than five.
There are 148 stops in Zone One, 99 (67 percent) of them are transfer stops. In this
example, transfer stops refer to places where one can connect not only between two LBT bus
routes but also between LBT and other agencies’ service. The 47 non-transfer stops are serving
major trip destinations. As ridership range goes from high to low, the percentage of transfer stops
decreases as well. This is consistent with the fact that transfer stops usually have higher
passenger volume. In Zone Five, in which both stops’ boardings and alightings are fewer than
five, only two percent are transfer stops.
Ridership Range Transfer
Stops
Non-
Transfer
Stops
Total Stops
Zone One Boarding or Alighting > 200 99 49 148
Zone Two Boarding or Alighting between 51 - 200 169 292 461
Zone Three Boarding or Alighting between 21 - 50 124 323 447
Zone Four Boarding or Alighting between 6 - 20 61 593 654
Zone Five Boarding and Alighting <=5 5 297 302
Total 458 1,554 2,012
TABLE 3 Summary of Stop Distribution in Different Ridership Zones
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 10
FIGURE 3(a) Stop Ridership Distribution, Zone One.
FIGURE 3(b) Stop Ridership Distribution,
Zone Two.
FIGURE 3(c) Stop Ridership Distribution,
Zone Three, Four and Five.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 11
Step 2 – Framework of Stop Tiers
Using the standards created in Section 3, the bus stops are evaluated based on their
ridership and transfer location. All the stops are categorized into six tiers based on the composite
weighting scores:
Each stop may get 0 – 5 weighting points in this measuring process. For example, the 99
stops in the green area get the highest score of 5 points: 4 points for having ridership higher than
200 and 1 point for being a transfer stop. They get the highest score in the evaluation and are
categorized as Tier I - the cornerstone locations of the network system. Tier II stops receive 4
total weighting points. These could be transfer stops with ridership between 50 and 200, or non-
transfer stops with ridership higher than 200. By that standard, Tier III to VI stops get 3 to 0
point separately. The more points a stop gets, the more important the stop is considered to be and
the higher the tier to which it is assigned.
The following map shows the spatial distribution of stops in each tier.
Transfer Stop
0 Boardings or Alightings3 Points 4 Points
5 20
2 Points50 200
0 Point 1 Point
Stop Evaluation Results
Yes5 124 169 99
1 + 2 = 3 1 + 3 = 4 1 + 4 = 561
1 + 1 = 2
0 P
oint
1 + 0 = 1
49
0 + 4 = 4
1 Poi
nt
No297 323 292
0 + 0 = 0 0 + 2 = 2 0 + 3 = 3593
0 + 1 = 1
Tier Total Point #Stops
Tier 1 5 Points 99
Tier 2 4 Points 218
Tier 3 3 Points 416
Tier 4 2 Points 384
Tier 5 1 Point 598
Tier 6 0 Point 297
Total 2012
FIGURE 4 Stop Evaluation Results.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 12
FIGURE 5 Map of Bus Stops in Different Tiers.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 13
Step 3 - Distance between Stops
The distance between two remaining stops after the stop removal is considered as the
“filter” variant in a stop removal project. As was mentioned earlier, if a stop is very close to
other stops in its trip pattern, it is considered less important than the ones that are far away from
the adjacent stops. We have already identified less important stops (Tier III - VI) as the stop
removal candidates in the previous steps. The next step is to evaluate the target stops based on
the distance variant.
TABLE 4 Summary of Stop Distance Evaluation
New Distance
After Removal Point Tier III Stops Tier IV Stops Tier V Stops Tier VI Stops
> 1600 ft. Not Allowed 258 215 345 181
1401 – 1600 ft. 4 35 38 48 24
1201 – 1400 ft. 3 65 81 126 43
1001 – 1200 ft. 2 24 11 35 9
801 – 1000 ft. 1 17 17 10 3
<800 ft. 0 2 6 0 0
Merging and Relocating Candidates Elimination Candidates
The above summary table shows that the top row of the target stops fell within the “Not
Allowed” category; their removal would therefore result in a new distance between the
remaining stops greater than 1,600 ft., which is not encouraged from a walkable distance
perspective. In this case, these stops will not be considered for any stop removal. Further analysis
needs to be conducted for possible merging or relocating in order to maintain appropriate
distance between stops.
The rest of the target stops are separated into two groups. The first group contains Tier III
and IV stops with an allowed distance. They are identified as the candidates for stop merging or
relocating. The second group contains Tier V and VI stops with an allowed distance and they are
subsequently identified as candidates for stop elimination.
The following map shows the candidates for potential stop distance adjustment after the
three-step evaluation. It’s important to note that not all of the candidates shown on the map will
have distance adjustment at the same time. The relocating or elimination of one stop will affect
the ridership and distance variants of its adjacent stops and therefore may require reevaluation of
the candidates surrounding it. The purpose of the spatial display of the candidates is to identify
transit corridors as the stop-thinning target segments.
In addition to the above variants, additional variants could be factored into this
application. For example, points could be added if a stop is adjacent to a point of interest or trip
generator, especially a trip generator that serves a large number of senior or disabled passengers.
Transit agencies in hilly areas may choose to keep otherwise undesirable bus stops to prevent
passengers from climbing and descending steep grades.
Finally, geographical considerations and physical constraints of certain intersections or
rights-of-way may preclude the consolidation of bus stops. High volumes of traffic, excessive
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 14
curb cuts, and other un-bus stop friendly street characteristics may work to prevent optimum bus
stop placement.
FIGURE 6 Map of Potential Bus Stops for Distance Adjustment.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 15
Example - LBT Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway
Based on the findings, LBT initiated a bus stop removal pilot project on the Broadway
corridor between Ximeno and Pacific Avenue in June 2014. The purpose of this project is to
improve existing transit travel time by eliminating less important bus stops on the target transit
corridor. Previous industry experience suggests that up to a 10 percent travel time savings may
be realized. Since the Pilot Project was implemented, additional Long Beach Transit APC
devices have come online which will, in the future, allow for a more accurate estimation of travel
time savings through stop downsizing. By implementing the bus stop evaluation process, 16 of
the 57 existing bus stops (7 outbound stops and 9 inbound stops) were identified as the final
elimination targets. They are two Tier IV stops, 12 Tier V stops, and 2 Tier VI stops. All of the
targets are within the allowed distance range.
Since removing some of these stops will divert existing passenger activity to the next
nearest stop, the Tier rating of the remaining stops may well improve.
Evaluation of the Stop Removal Pilot project is continuing. The evaluation process
consists of analysis of running time data generated by our AVL system, analysis of ridership
generated from APC, farebox, and schedule checker data, and interviews with operators of
Routes 111 and 112. Findings will be available in early 2015.
FIGURE 7 Map of Stop Removal Pilot Project on Broadway.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 16
4.2 Application #2 – Use of Bus Stop Tiers to Program Capital Funding
Due to limited capital funding resources, transit agencies need to carefully prioritize
which stops will get improvements. Categorizing all bus stops into different tiers based on their
importance level will assist transit agencies in placing stop amenities at locations where the most
passengers can benefit from them. The second application is a description of potential
improvements that could be placed at each of the six stop tiers, in conjunction with street
improvement and development review opportunities.
It is important to note that capital improvement actions always comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VI) as a prerequisite. Before any other stop improvements can be made, all outstanding issues
that prevent accessibility to any bus stop should be corrected, including bus stops in Tiers V and
Tier VI. Furthermore, other relevant design elements including pedestrian accessibility, cross
walks, and signalization are incorporated into the overall bus stop site assessment prior to capital
improvement plan development, to ensure that passengers can access the bus stops safely.
Overall, all bus stops will be equipped with signage and, where space permits, trash
receptacles. Additional infrastructure is dependent on what Tier the bus stop falls into:
Tier I (99 stops)
Tier I bus stops are the cream of Long Beach Transit bus stops. They are the most
productive stops, likely located adjacent to major trip destinations such as colleges, shopping
centers, light-rail stations and tourist attraction sites. At a minimum these stops will have
shelters, seating, real-time schedule information signs, and information about routes in the Long
Beach Transit service area. Where possible, however, these stops will have specially designed
features to strengthen transit facility image (like the Downtown Transit Gallery). Tier I bus stops
may have site-provided lighting and public art that will make them attractive places to wait at all
times. At the busiest Tier I stops consideration should be given to ticket vending machines that
sell passes.
Tier I bus stops form the basis of
intermodal connections with pedestrians and
cyclists and are likely to be located in places
where visible neighborhood activities take
place. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
should ideally be oriented toward the
surrounding area at Tier I stops to
accomplish a mixed use high-density place-
making goal. Transit agencies should work
proactively with local planning departments
to ensure a cohesive integration of Tier I bus
stops with existing and planned land uses.
Ideally, each Tier I bus stop would have a
specially designed plan describing how the Tier I Bus Stop at Transit Gallery, Long Beach
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 17
stop will interface with its surroundings and what amenities are to be included and where unique
design characteristics will be placed.
Unfortunately, with current street configuration limitations, some Tier I bus stops may
have no room for bus shelters or other amenities infrastructure. In such cases, special
consideration should be given to attempts to secure expansion space through new development
or land use interface opportunities such as the Downtown Pedestrian Accessibility Improvement
Project. A comprehensive site analysis incorporating other travel modes such as walking or
biking is highly recommended to engage community participation and land use planning support
for long-term capital improvement fruition. While such improvements may be more complicated
and costly, they are likely to provide a more positive passenger travel experience.
Tier II (218 stops)
All Tier II bus stops should have shelters,
seating, site-provided lighting, real-time schedule
information signs, and an information panel about
routes and the Long Beach Transit service area. Where
the nearest Tier I bus stop is more than half a mile
away, Tier II bus stops should take on some of the
characteristics of Tier I bus stops as described above.
They are ideal candidate locations for more amenities
since they will ultimately serve more riders as the
transit service level improves in the future. The bus
stop measuring methodology will continue monitoring
and raise Tier II stops to Tier I level if growing
patterns occur.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, Tier I
and Tier II bus stops should never be relocated or
removed. It is their high passenger use level that
makes them suitable to plan TOD land uses around.
Tier III (416 stops)
All Tier III bus stops should have, where possible, shelters and seating. Tier III bus stops
at transfer locations should also receive consideration for other amenities. If two or more Tier III
bus stops are close together, evaluation should be given to amalgamate them into one bus stop
that, by virtue of the increase in ridership that such a stop would enjoy, would be promoted to a
Tier II bus stop. One benefit of bus stop consolidation is that the resulting stops become more
important and thus more deserving of the kind of stop amenities that attract passengers to transit.
Tier II Bus Stop at Wardlow Station, Long Beach
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 18
Tier IV (384 stops)
Tier IV bus stops should, at a minimum, have benches. Tier IV bus stops at transfer
locations should also receive consideration for shelters. Several transit agencies’ stop design
guidelines recommend a shelter at stops with daily boarding of 40-50 passengers or more.
Tier V and Tier VI (895 stops)
Tier V and Tier VI are important to provide reasonable geographical coverage from an
accessibility perspective. Their low ridership means, however, that limited amenities will be
placed at these stops. A bus stop sign will be the only required amenity at Tier V and VI bus
stops.
Tier IV, V, and VI bus stops are usually located in lower density suburban areas or on
lightly traveled routes with long headways that are within walking distance of more frequent bus
services. For the suburban case, stop distances will generally be so long that removing them will
not make sense. In any case, if a bus does not halt at a stop then the running time is not generally
affected. For both the suburban case and the lightly traveled urban bus route, capital
improvement in the performance of these lower Tier bus stops will likely only occur through a
route redesign.
Based on the tier level framework, various levels of bus stop improvement activities can
be better organized and designed with cost estimates. They not only apply for facility and assets
management, but also gear toward grants applications when opportunities occur. In addition, this
bus stop measuring project is useful when coordinating with cities on street improvement
programs, including pedestrian and bikeway during the conceptual design stage.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 19
5. CONCLUSION
It is found that utilizing this bus stop measuring approach on a GIS analytical platform is
productive for a transit agency for the following reasons:
1. Capacity to organize big/open data sources: Unlike many existing transportation
technology software programs, which often come with data proprietary and complicated
interface issues, the core design of GIS technology lies in analyzing the inter-relationships
among various land use and demographic spatial data layers.
2. Flexibility: The selection of the number of data layers is scalable and adjustable in
response to the focus of the analysis. “What-if” scenarios can be designed to generate impact
measures for comparison and decision-making. For instance, the total population within walking
distance of bus stops being considered for removal can easily be calculated to project potential
impact to the passengers.
3. Adaptability: The built-in spatial analytical capabilities can correlate bus stops with
other external urban data layers accurately and efficiently. For instance, the bikeway behind the
shelter concept presented in earlier section can be identified while overlaying a bikeway plan
with selected bus stop locations.
4. Industry Data Standard Consistency: Given the popularity of providing transit
scheduling and routing data in GTFS (Geographic Transit Data Feed Standard) format for
internet information distribution, consistent data standards and exchange mechanism are now
available among transit agencies in a cost-efficient manner. An agency can start with GTFS data
to initiate the bus stop measuring process at a minimum cost, and the GIS analytical skills are
more readily available among planners and practitioners.
Given that a sustainable urban environment doesn’t happen quickly, more relevant
research efforts may enrich the transit and land use integration in the following areas:
Obtain input from the public: So far the focus of this study has been to set up an
analytical tier framework to support internal transit planning and programming activities.
However, no public input has been included in the process. It is highly recommended that
the proposed bus stop improvement ideas be shared with the public for feedback and
refinement.
If a healthy conversation between transit and land use planning agencies should
take place on an on-going basis, then an inter-agency monitoring process may be worthy
of being developed. This study would be more creative if the existing land use and
planned use data were supported by other participating agencies. Each individual stop
location and its surrounding urban setting characteristics can be better revealed and
documented through this measuring process.
Linkage to regional and corridor issues: The techniques presented in this study
are analytical tools employed at the local level. The study describes how a transit agency
may apply the tool to communicate and influence local land use and street improvement
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 20
decisions at the city level. How this type of tool can be better deployed to support
regional planning or corridor development issues requires further investigation.
With more research and analytical tools developed in this area, a sustainable urban
environment can be evolved to reflect community vision, neighborhood values and social
needs.
Wenbin Ma, Shirley Hsiao, & Christopher MacKechnie 21
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was performed by staff to support internal transit planning and bus stop
improvement activities. It does not represent agency policies in land use, infrastructure financing
or facility planning areas. Further work may be required to formalize the procedures.
7. REFERENCES
Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form, Volume 1. National
Academy Press, 1996.
David L. Harkey and Charles V. Zegeer. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System. Federal Highway Administration and University of North
Carolina, 2004.
Mark L. Hinshaw, FAICP. True Urbanism: Living In and Near the Center. Planners Press,
American Planning Association, 2007.
Anne Mikoleit and Moritz Purckhauer. Urban Code: 100 Lessons for Understanding the City.
The MIT Press, 2011.
Emily Talen. City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. Island Press, 2012.
Reid Ewing and Otto Clemente. Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places. Island
Press, 2013.
Hiroaki Suzuki, Robert Cervero and Kanako Luchi. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit
and Land-Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development. The World Bank, 2013.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Island Press,
2013.
Colette Santasieri. Planning for Transit-Supportive Development: A Practitioner’s Guide.
Federal Transit Administration Report No. 0054, 2014.