Download pdf - BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor Business_Roger Bazeley

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 1

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses

A Business Impact Survey and Comparison of Implemented BRT/Bus Improvements on:

AC Transit’s Alameda City, Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor

AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor LA Metro’s Wilshire Blvd. Metro Rapid 720, Corridor

SF MUNI, Proposed Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT, Pre-BRT Impact Survey

June 2007

Roger McKean Bazeley

A publication of the Mineta Transportation Institute

College of Business San Jose State University San Jose, CA 95192-0219

Created by Congress in 1991

Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses i

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA/CA/OR-

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipients Catalog No.

5. Report Date

4. Title and Subtitle BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses

A Business Impact Survey and Comparison of Implemented BRT/Rapid Bus Improvements on Four Transit Corridors: Geary

Blvd., Alameda Route 61, San Pablo Ave., Wilshire Blvd.

6. Performing Organization Code

Author Roger McKean Bazeley

8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University San Jose, CA 95192-0219

11. Contract or Grant No. 65W136

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address California Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Research—MS42 Research & Special Programs Administration P.O. Box 942873 400 7th Street, SW Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Abstract The assessment of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructure improvements’ impact upon corridor businesses has been inadequate. Many public workshops and community outreach efforts fall short of gaining a balanced perspective of analyzing the positive or negative impact of implemented BRT/Rapid Bus improvements upon transit corridor businesses, their customers, working employees or ultimately the corridor businesses’ sales and vitality. This research study compares by survey, interviews, and the photo design audits of four different levels of BRT/Rapid Bus and basic bus systems’ service and infrastructure improvements along four metropolitan transit corridor business communities with similar and diverse land-use characteristics, business types, and social-economic characteristics. The selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels of bus transit improvement “system packages” with different service and infrastructure attributes including Rapid Bus with Signal Priority Technologies (Smart Corridors), and proposed advanced BRT with exclusive bus lanes, while trying to balance transit corridor business and community multi-modal transportation needs with BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of all local community transportation improvement stakeholders, there is a need to analyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements have been implemented. The research results and conclusions reached can also aid transportation planners and managers in accessing the need for service and infrastructure changes in the existing studied transit corridors and future BRT/Rapid Bus system installations. 17. Key Words BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, Rapid Bus, Transit Corridor Business Impacts

18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified

20. Security Classification. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

22. Price $15.00

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)



ii

Copyright Page

Copyright

______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute


iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Cliff Henke, BRT-Specialist, PB Transit & Rail Systems, Inc. Devinder Singh, P.E., Executive Secretary CTCDC, Caltrans Dr. Peter Haas, PhD. Educational Director, Mineta Transportation Institute Frank Markowitz, Pedestrian Program Manager, SF Municipal Transportation Agency, MTA James Cunradi, Project Manager AC Transit Rapid Bus Program Jose L. Moscovich, Executive Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTA Julie Kirschbaum, Transportation Planner, Geary BRT Study Project Manager, SFCTA/MTA Kenneth J. Kochevar, PE, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Maria Lombardo, Deputy Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTA Mary Banks, Manager Special Projects, California State Automobile Association Mineta Transportation Institute, Professional Staff and Professors Norman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation Rachel Hiatt, Transportation Planner, San Francisco Transportation Authority, SFCTA Rex Gephart, Director Regional Transit Planning, LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority Richard Haggstrom, PE Non-Motorized Program Manager, Caltrans Rod Diridon, Executive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute Trixie Johnson, Research Director, Mineta Transportation Institute Viviann Ferea, Program Administrator, Mineta Transportation Institute Will Kempton, Director, California Department of Transportation, Caltrans

In Memoriam/Dedication Arthur James Bazeley, Sr. ME., National Malleable Casting, Cleveland, Ohio (90 U.S. Patents Automatic Railroad Coupler Systems). Superintendent Great Northern Railway Arthur James Bazeley II, Senior Associate Booz Allen & Hamilton, and (Senior VP Corporate Planning, Rockwell International/Boeing North America) Charlotte Tuckerman, M.S. Languages, Spanish and Latin America Studies, Professor, CIA. Dr. Bryan Tuckerman, PhD. Physicist, Mathematician, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Frank L. Rownd, P.E. Carnegie Tech., Sales/Marketing, Republic Steel, Cleveland, Ohio Joe Yaccarino, Restaurateur, Owner of Joe’s Place, Brooklyn, New York Robert Simonsen, Petroleum Engineer, Standard Oil of Ohio, Marion Simonsen, Designer/Artist, Cleveland Art Museum Support and Mentors Carol Kocivar, State Board Manager, California State PTA Dr. Alan Tong, DDS Dr. Harold Levine, Professor Mathematics, Stanford University Dr. Peter Baluk, PhD. UCSF Medical Research Lab George Komodikis, CEO, Madison Holdings. Ltd. New York, London, Athens Michelle Nahum-Albright, Professor Design, Pratt Institute, Parsons School of Design Noriko and Mikiko Bazeley



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

THE RESEARCH STUDY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

Research Study Benefit and Goals-------------------------------------------------------------7

SURVEY METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------------------8

The Survey------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Transit Corridor Business Comment --------------------------------------------------------12

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE ---------------------------------------------------13

ETHNIC and BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DIVERSITY OF RESPONDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROFILES -----------------------------------------------------------------16

Geary Blvd. Corridor---------------------------------------------------------------------------17 Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor-----------------------------------------------19 San Pablo Avenue AC Rapid 72 Corridor--------------------------------------------------21 Wilshire Blvd. LA Metro Rapid 720---------------------------------------------------------23

CORRIDOR TRAVEL MODE SHARE CHOICE------------------------------------------------25

Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and Employees--------------------------26 Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine System Characteristics Impact on BRT transit Customers-----------------------------30 TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS---------------31

SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10 RESPONSE ANALYSIS------------------------------------------34

SUMMARY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE RESPONSES TO IMPACT QUESTIONS 1-10 ---------------------------------------------------39

Geary Transit Corridor------------------------------------------------------------------------39

Alameda-Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor----------------------------------------------40

San Pablo-Rapid 72 Transit Corridor ------------------------------------------------------41

Wilshire Blvd.-La Metro Rapid 720 Transit Corridor ----------------------------------43

IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE---------------------------------------------------------------------45



v

RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------50

Positive Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Negative Comments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------52 Solution Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 55

The Parking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid Bus-------------------------------------------------- 56 Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at Stops -------------------------57 Frequency and Hours of Operation----------------------------------------------------------- 59 Construction Hazards Mitigation--------------------------------------------------------------59 Marketing the BRT/Rapid Bus Brand Attributes------------------------------------------59

CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 The Right System Level of Attributes-------------------------------------------------------- 61 The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus ---------------------------------------------------61 The Right Policy—Transit First and TOD --------------------------------------------------62 FINAL REMARKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------64

APPENDIX A: Photo Audit Snap-shot of Business Respondents--------------------------------65

APPENDIX B: Tables-Positive, Neutral, Negative Impact Question responses---------------58

APPENDIX C: Business Type Impact Graphs-------------------------------------------------------64

APPENDIX D: Charts-Positive, Negative, Solution Comments----------------------------------66

APPENDIX E: Survey Forms---------------------------------------------------------------------------67

APPENDIX F: Excel Data Sheets-Survey Intake ---------------------------------------------------77

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------100

BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBSITES------------------------------------------------------------------------105

ABOUT THE AUTHOR--------------------------------------------------------------------------------109



vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos------------------------------------------------------------40

Figure 2 Wilshire/Rapid 720 Elements---------------------------------------------------------------43

Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments-----------------------------52

Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts-------------------------------------------------- 58

Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements-----------------------------------------58

Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers----------------------------------------------------------- 64



vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Index Questions ------------------------------10

Table 1-4 Geary: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions---------------------- 11

Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary---------------------------------- 12

Table 4 Transit Corridor's Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background---------------15

Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------17

Table 5-2 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------18 Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile----------------------------------19 Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile-----------------------------------20 Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------21

Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------22 Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------23

Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------24

Table 1-1 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions Results ---------------------------- 32

Table 1-2 Transit Corridor Businesses – Geary BRT Pre-Impact Questions Results -------32

Table 3 Transit Corridor's Business Types - Impact Level Comparison-----------------------39 Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS-------------------------- 43 Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS-------------------------45 Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS – COMMENTS-------------------- 47



viii

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1a Geary Corridor Respondents---------------------------------------------------------16

Chart 2a Alameda Corridor Respondents -----------------------------------------------------16

Chart 3a San Pablo Corridor Respondents----------------------------------------------------16

Chart 4a Wilshire Corridor Respondents------------------------------------------------------16

Chart 1 Customer Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------25

Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------26 Chart 3 Transit Corridor Impacts---------------------------------------------------------------34

Chart 27 Geary Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution-----------39

Chart 28 Alameda Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------41

Chart 29 San Pablo Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution------42

Chart 30 Wilshire Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------44

Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail---------------------------------------------------47

Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type-----------------------------48

Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type----------------------48

Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------------------49

Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------49

Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive Comments------------------------------------------------50

Chart 5 Transit Corridor Negative Comments-----------------------------------------------52

Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments----------------------------------------------- 54


BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 1

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models with their integrated infrastructure

elements offer a unique opportunity for utilizing strategic customer marketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to ensure that the BRT/Rapid Bus system package supports transit corridor businesses and their community’s economic vitality. BRT—in its very nature of flexibility in possible service options and design iterations with its adaptability to changing land-use patterns, and creative infrastructure/equipment design possibilities—offers further rational for applying innovative customer targeted planning, marketing strategy, and operational service modeling for influencing business customers and employees in BRT/Rapid Bus as a mode choice. The positioning and design characteristics of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of integrated services, operations and facilities/equipment requires intensive quantitative and qualitative marketing research to guide the strategic planning process in BRT/Rapid Bus implementation. BRT can be an alternative mode choice where land-use and populations indicate a need for faster and higher capacity service to replace or supplement slower more traditional local bus services. Many small and medium sized cities which are primarily served by traditional bus systems are showing selective growth patterns and a growing demand for public transportation with faster service and higher capacity levels, cannot afford the intense level of capital investment required to support light or heavy rail options. BRT is an affordable viable option for these urban metropolitan areas and cities. It is imperative to fully engage transit corridor businesses and their neighborhood community stakeholders by addressing their needs with a process that measures the business community’s pre-expectations of BRT/Rapid Bus system costs and impacts. Measuring the resulting impacts of implemented BRT improvements will help transit managers and planners minimize—through transit policy, planning, and design—the potential negative impacts that could reduce the economic viability of BRT corridor businesses, corridor accessibility and walkablity for customers and employees as well as community support for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). It may be that the particular combination of innovative land-use planning and TOD, when aligned with the most effective packages of BRT attributes will be the most successful way to sustain long-term economic growth and business viability along BRT transit corridors. The goals of moving vehicles and trying to reduce congestion—is no less important than moving people, goods, and services, and ultimately customers in and around these urban transit corridor communities in supporting the ideals of the freedom of mobility; to shop, to entertain, to work, and to carry out daily activities. Having the choice in a multi-modal transportation system is vital to maintaining freedom of business competition, efficient land-use development, and environmentally sensitive growth in our communities. Transit corridors often will require a unique combination of local bus, rapid bus, and BRT attributes and improvements to accommodate the transit corridors’ unique infrastructure, land-use, community characteristics, and business diversity for maintaining transit corridor business vitality and customer flexibly in travel mode choice.



2

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the assessment and measurement of BRT service and infrastructure improvements’ impact upon corridor businesses have been inadequate. With the recent development and interest in implementing BRT in California and in other USA urban corridors, there is a significant need for survey and research in this area. Many of the initial BRT projects funded through the FTA Small Starts Program are in the study, design, and initiation stages of development, include AC Transit’s International Blvd. BRT Corridor Project, the San Francisco Van Ness 2005/2007 BRT Planning/Design Study, and the San Francisco Geary 2004/2007 BRT Corridor study. In defining what represents Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) verses other “system package” variants labeled as “Rapid Bus” utilizing signal priority or “smart corridors” technologies it is useful in understanding the scope of BRT to look at a couple of definitions put forth by the Federal Transit Administration and from the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). FTA BRT Definition

“Bus Rapid Transit…a combination of facility, systems, and vehicle investments that convert

conventional bus services into a fixed-facility transit service, greatly increasing their efficiency

and effectiveness to the end user.” Federal Transit administration (FTA), Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program, December 2002

TCRP BRT Definition

“Bus Rapid Transit…[is] a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations,

vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into

an integrated system with strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. BRT

applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical

surroundings and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments.

…BRT is an integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improves

the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit.” Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP), Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Vol. I, 2003



3

The definition of BRT Bus Rapid Transit offered by the TCRP Transportation Cooperative Research Program broadens the definition beyond the “end user” or transit rider to include the “appropriate” level and type of services and infrastructure design applications/improvements that will be “appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings.” The word “market” embraces the collective of commuters, transit corridor businesses, customers, employers, employees, and community residents. The expression “physical surroundings” embraces the impact upon land-use, street and pedestrian infrastructure, parking and business physical accessibility, as well as the overall identity or “look and feel” of the “BRT package” within the contextual character of the transit corridor’s diverse pattern of business types, mixed-use development, residential neighborhoods and communities served. As an example, AC Transit’s San Pablo corridor includes seven different city jurisdictions that differ in their characteristics, land-use, and socio-economic profiles which the AC R72 BRT/Rapid Bus system serves. LA Metro Rapid 720 serves downtown, Westwood, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica. San Francisco’s Geary Corridor was included in the survey study to create a comparative base line as an unimproved/Pre-BRT urban bus transit corridor that had a similar marketing mix of transit corridor businesses and land-use characteristics with the three surveyed improved transit corridors. Geary was originally slated for a center alignment light rail system many years ago, but through a change in policy, political, and budget prioritization the Third Street light rail project was designed and built instead of the planned Geary LRT. The merchants and the community have felt politically “burned” by unfulfilled promises and so the issue of whether the proposed Geary BRT alignment variations and service packages will satisfy and fulfill the service needs and expectation of the community were an important rationale in examining the Geary corridor with a Pre-BRT impact survey. The Geary Pre-Impact survey indicated 93% of the business owners and managers were supportive of a center alignment BRT for Geary Blvd. San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the lead planning agency is proposing a “state of the art” BRT system with a center alignment and exclusive dedicated bus lanes as one of several alignment options. San Francisco’s MUNI proposed center alignment Geary BRT can emulate many of the infrastructure and service characteristics of light rail system with greater marketing appeal, capacity, and efficiency than that which typical traditional urban bus services offer along its increasingly congested multi-modal transit corridors. BRT can be implemented and fast tracked within a shorter time table and at lower build out costs than a light rail system. The marketing and planning dilemma for the Geary Corridor and other future advanced full featured BRT systems in the planning stages is in the ability to implement BRT at its highest level of design and operation possibilities as a bus technology based mode that communicates to its customers, transit boards, and transit directors that it is not a typical bus service; operates like light rail but is not light rail, and does not eliminate the possibility of future light rail build out and the securing right-of-way and infrastructure for a LRT system. Transit corridor businesses throughout the United States are very concerned about the negative construction impacts of such extensive infrastructure construction and build-out time with the more extensive implementation of exclusive bus lanes and the reduction of corridor parking access on a permanent basis or during peak hour, i.e. Geary BRT and the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, along certain corridor



4

travel segments. Transit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI have put forth a strong marketing message of support for implementing BRT. SFCTA/MUNI—BRT Strategic Marketing Message

BRT is fast and reliable – it offers passengers a quicker trip with more dependability. BRT is cutting edge – it maximizes transit performance by using state-of-art technology. BRT is cost-effective – it moves people as effectively as light rail at lower capital cost. BRT is a quick solution – with community support and sufficient funding, fast build-out. BRT is flexible – it maximizes operating flexibility by allowing multiple operators. BRT is incremental – can be deployed in phases based upon funding availability and demand. Once built, the issues of purpose, need, and access equity have to be balanced with the cost of operation and management of the system. The technology and infrastructure design choices may not only affect cost and maintenance factors, but in reality are key (BRT) product marketing features that will affect customer choice, retention, and help grow repeat and sustainable ridership numbers. Picking the right type of infrastructure design; vehicle equipment choice will affect the level of quality perception and customer support for a new high-tech BRT and/or a moderately modernized bus service. What is the appropriate customer oriented design and marketing methodology that will support the acceptance of a BRT as a mode choice over Light Rail or the automobile? Studies supporting BRT as a viable alternative mode choice need to answer the long term question of what really influences the customer in choosing to support BRT/Rapid Bus over other alternative modes like Light Rail, when addressing the issues of equipment modernization, and the labor costs in running a BRT system versus a light rail system. Several publications which include the Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP), Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Volumes 1 and 2, 2003, the abstract, Bus Rapid Transit: An Integrated and Flexible Package of Service, by the authors: Alice H. King and Roderick B. Dias, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc., and the abstract Innovative Service Design among Bus Rapid Transit Systems in the Americas, by authors Roderick B. Diaz and Donald C. Schneck, Booz Allan & Hamilton, Inc. offer greater detail and insight into the areas of developing the right “integrated and flexible package of service and operational model” for maximizing the benefit of BRT. One very applicable issue derived from an extensive literature search concerning the area of BRT/Rapid Bus system packaging is that key components of an operating plan; route structure, service frequency, stop/station spacing, service span, network, and degree of integration with other transit services differ and have outcomes that affect the end-user/customer and the transit corridor business community acceptance and support of the system. To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of key local community transportation improvement stakeholders which include policy makers, transportation operators/agencies, corridor businesses—transit riders composed of workers, commuters, shoppers, school children/students, seniors, and the disabled—there is a major need to further analyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements have been implemented.



5

THE RESEARCH STUDY

The research study compares the impacts of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructure improvements upon four business transit corridors and communities with similar and diverse land-use characteristics, business mix, and ridership social-economic characteristics.

AC Transit’s Alameda City, Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor, AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor,

LA Metro’s Wilshire Blvd. Metro Rapid 720, Corridor SF MUNI, Proposed Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT, Pre-BRT Impact Survey

The selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels of bus transit improvement “system packages” including Basic/Local Bus, Rapid Bus/Signal Priority Technologies, and Advanced Rapid/BRT while trying to balance the needs and requirements for implementing successful business and community multi-modal BRT transportation improvements. The transit corridors’ business composition and sampling did capture similarities in business types, resulting in 12 business segments for further comparison. In many of the cases, the business community was not fully engaged or lacked high participation levels until many of the BRT project goals and design concepts were established. There has not been sufficient business economic survey, study, and research funding to measure business expectations, cost and benefit impacts. This contrasts with the committed level of transit agency studies focused on the potential impacts on multi-modal corridor transportation travel times and BRT performance related to the proposed levels of service and infrastructure improvements with traffic flow analysis/counts and corridor simulations. There is an absence of case studies and methodology as a part of the process for developing the best balance of BRT implemented service and infrastructure improvements for maximizing the economic benefit to transit corridor businesses. This is a key rationale for surveying the impacts on the selected BRT corridors. However, there has been an extensive amount of prior methodology in the survey of transit riders to gain necessary insight and data as to travel patterns, mode choice, and for the collection of marketing research data related to destination and purpose of travel, rating the performance of the transit mode taken, intermodal connectivity, and ridership demographics. See appendix for LA MTA Rider Survey example.1 The advanced state-of-the-art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models and accompanying infrastructure offer a unique opportunity for applying strategic customer oriented marketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to insure BRT/Rapid Bus

1 A key source on the development of collecting travel behavior and customer mode choice preference can be researched through the Federal Highway administration OHPI, Office of Highway Policy Information, through the TRB Committee on Transportation Survey Methods (ABJ40) at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm .


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm


6

systems improve business and community vitality, accessibility, safety, and walkablity. BRT—by its very nature of service flexibility for influencing customer mode choice, its adaptability to changing land-use patterns, and different infrastructure design possibilities can influence the vitality of transit corridor businesses and their surrounding neighborhoods. During the survey process it became very clear that a large percentage of business employees and business managers were dependent and users of not only the BRT/Rapid Bus services but the connecting light and heavy rail systems by way of connecting hubs. Their satisfaction and reliance on fast, frequent, and reliable public transit with good inter-modal connectivity was of benefit to transit corridor businesses in getting quality employees to work, and affected the bottom line of sales and customer service levels. Author Graham Currie in the study, The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, puts forth the concept that the variability in public transit users’ pattern of choice is influenced by the quality and comfort of the ride as well as by the factors of distance, the (Total) time of travel, and time waiting to transfer at route/line hubs or changing modes. These factors impact transit corridor businesses’ employees and its customer base selection of BRT/Rapid Bus as a travel mode for their employment or shopping destination instead of driving to corridor businesses.2 This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and preference levels as being related to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improved transportation mode. Mode-Specific Factors are significant in affecting the perception of BRT quality and innovation by transit customers related to the industrial design of vehicle interiors/exteriors and human factors based improvements associated with ADA accessibility, customer information systems (Next Bus) and infrastructure design. Customers place the highest value on the BRT/Rapid Bus service characteristics which include frequency of service, comfort, travel time savings, and reliability of service. In this study the impact of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes are measured and surveyed to evaluate the benefit of specific BRT system attributes and improvements on the transit customer and the business community. It is important to measure accurately the infrastructure and system attributes of shelter/platform comfort, information signage and scheduling accuracy (on time performance/frequency) and their cumulative impact on transit corridor business employees and customers’ travel mode choice. Transit planners need to factor these into their strategic plans when deciding upon the level of investment in a new or improved BRT/Rapid Bus system for a particular transit business corridor. The key study question relates to what are the significant attributes that contribute to a positive or negative impact on BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses. The survey research will shed some light upon in the comparisons of implemented improvements and impacts upon transit corridor businesses in the four bus transit corridors selected, and suggest that further ongoing research is merited.

2 The study, The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit by Author Graham Currie, Chair Public Transport, at Monash University, Australia makes a comparative analysis to examine the passenger values and attributes in selection of transportation modes when comparing BRT to (LRT) Light Rail as a replacement for traditional bus service.



7

RESEARCH STUDY GOALS:

• Research and report findings on the impact of BRT/Rapid Bus improvements on BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses customers, employees, and community residents.

• Strengthen the transit planning focus on significant business community expectations

and needs that impact their business vitality when implementing BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements.

• Create Transit management awareness of the critical long-term impacts upon business

which can ultimately affect the levels of capturing new riders from these corridors.

• Analyze impact and benefit of BRT/Rapid Bus corridor transit performance, service and infrastructure improvements related to type and levels of design investment needed to deliver the best “impact benefit package for the dollars spent.”

• Develop a comparative snapshot of four different “system packages” of BRT/Rapid Bus

transit investments in service type, infrastructure, technology, community streetscape and pedestrian improvements that impact transit corridor businesses vitality.

• To find out what was the perceived impact to various business types’ employees, and

their customers including: shoppers made-up of local community residents, school students, seniors, the disabled, transit riders/commuters and those that drive or walk to access BRT/Rapid Bus Transit corridor businesses.

The impact of implementing the right BRT/Rapid Bus levels of improvement and service characteristics along metropolitan business/multi-use transit corridors goes far beyond reducing commuter travel time through increasing the speed and frequency of service. It impacts land-use and (TOD) transportation oriented development, walkablity, and accessibility to corridor businesses and services. This in turn affects the bottom-line of transit corridor businesses’ revenue, foot traffic, and the overall corridor community’s vitality and quality of life.



8

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The one page questionnaire/survey was composed of 10 key questions to develop an overall BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact rating-scale for analyzing the positive, neutral, and negative business responses of the four surveyed BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridors. Critical data intake included: 3 additional “open comment” questions; respondents’ ethnic background; and the percentage of customer and employee mode choice of travel to and from the business location. These surveys were administered in person to individual business owners at their place of business located on the selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridors, with an equal collection of data from both sides or directions of BRT/Rapid Bus transit travel route. The sampling targeted a large enough number of businesses including retail, commercial, and professional offices to result in 100-140 completed surveys per BRT/Rapid Bus corridor. In the Alameda 2 mile corridor the sampling exceeded 100% of the number of corridor street front businesses compared with 33% for the 6 mile Geary Corridor, 32% for the San Pablo 7.5 mile corridor, and 15-25% of the significant street front businesses along the LA Metro Rapid 720’s surveyed 13 mile corridor. The survey questions were categorized to capture a broad range of business response to transit corridor BRT/Rapid Bus implemented “package” of improvements ranging from services/operations and technology to travel accessibility for business customers and employees, as well as infrastructure impacts. *Survey question categories included: 50% Business Economic, 20% Customer/Community, 20% Corridor Business Accessibility/Travel Mode Choice, Vitality, Parking impact, and 10% Open ended Questions-Responder Opinion. The three open-ended responder opinion questions concerning positive, negative, and solution comments generated another 30 responses on impact issues and corridor comparison. The accumulation of the ten key questions were covering the cumulative possible impact effects to transit corridor business were used to create a business managers/owners “Impact Index” or “satisfaction index” from interviewing respondents who were primarily the business owner, senior manager or supervisor and where necessary, a sales manager, transportation manager, or employee in charge. The corridor’s retail business mix included small independent owned store front “mom and pop” businesses, franchised business, independent chain stores, national brand retail chains, and corridor retail shopping malls, centers, and “big box” retailers. All four transit corridors surveyed had many national chains and franchised businesses with a similar business operations model, size, and employee socio-economic characteristics in common to improve the data collection consistency, quality and characteristics for generating a more accurate outcome to compare and rank each of the corridors. Many of the businesses in common captured on each transit corridor included Subway, Burger King, McDonald’s, Domino’s Pizza, Panda Express, KFC-Taco Bell, Jack n The Box, Midas Auto, Kragen Auto, Shell Oil, Union 76, FedEx-Kinko’s, Mancini Sleep World, Sleep Train, Radio Shack, Payless Shoes, Blockbuster, Benjamin Moore, Pier One Imports, Rite Aid Drugs, Walgreen’s, Safeway, Best Buy’s, Office Depot, Trader Joe’s, Office Max, Ross for Less, Boarders, Starbucks, Sprint PCS, U.S. Postal Service, Wells Fargo and many others.



9

In each corridor the survey intake captured a majority of the key regional and national brands, major business categories including automotive, corporations, educational intuitions, fast food, financial/banking institutions, governmental (local, state, federal), hotel/senior housing, liquor stores/bars, medical-hospitals/clinics/services, non-profit organizations/churches, restaurants and retail. The total number of one-on-one transit corridor businesses surveyed and interviewed with complete data collection for the four transit corridors exceeded 498 respondents, with a sample of 142 out of 425 estimated street front businesses for the 5.5 mile San Francisco Geary corridor, a response sample of 107 out of 110 for Alameda’s 2 mile Webster Street Route 61 corridor, a sample of 128 out of 550 for the 7.5 mile San Pablo Avenue Corridor, and a 128 survey business response sample out of an estimated 1,200 major street front businesses for LA Metro’s 13 mile Wilshire Rapid 720 Corridor. The Los Angeles Metro Wilshire corridor was unique in that it was the longest corridor in miles, with several clusters of office towers with multiple corporate and professional businesses, such as publishing, law and accounting firms. There were several extensive stretches along the Wilshire corridor such as Westwood and Beverly Hills where the land-use changed from a dense commercial mix to a suburban land-use pattern that was composed of expensive housing, high-rise luxury condos/apartment buildings, sprawling corporate headquarters, hotel and resorts, museums, parks and the Beverly Hills Golf Club. The sampling plan was designed to capture several of the largest or most significant businesses in the major office towers where employee numbers utilizing the public transit system would be meaningful. A majority of the significant street front retail businesses were well represented in the sample along with most of the business type groups, i.e. automotive, corporate, educational, fast food, financial, government, hotel/housing, liquor, medical hospitals and services, non-profit organizations, and restaurants. The survey sampling covered both directions of travel for the various BRT/Rapid Bus systems incorporated in the study, with a cumulative total of 50 miles of urban/metro bus transit corridors, walked, bused and driven. THE SURVEY: Pre-testing for the impact questionnaire/survey, consisting of 25 samples, was administered in person for interview intake on AC Transit’s Alameda City’s Webster Street/Alameda Route 61 corridor successfully with minor adjustments. The question form and response selection for data comparison and scoring was based on each question asking the responder to answer as to the question’s subject concerning the BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact using a multiple choice (1-3) rating scale represented by: (3) Positive Impact/Increase, (2) Neutral Impact/No-Change, (1) Negative Impact/Decrease. The responses were charted per business name, type, location and presented in Excel and graphic charts. Through the survey construction, over 55 significant data items were defined and collected to create different sorts to define impact comparisons, ranking, prioritization, impact levels, and trends. Further data on the percentage of respondents’ rating the BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impacts on their business as positive, neutral, or negative for each of the ten questions is additionally presented in the format of Tables for comparison and analysis.



10

SURVEY: BRT/Bus Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers

Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire Survey* Notation 1

Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions (10) and Response Choices *Notation 1-3 # QUESTIONS* Notation 2

Scoring: Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1

POSITIVE

IMPACT (3)

NEUTRAL

IMPACT (2)

NEGATIVE

IMPACT (1)

1 What has been the impact or change to yearly sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?

Increased No-Change Decreased

2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?

Increased Adequate No-Change

Decreased

3 Are your customers and employees enthusiastic about the BRT/Rapid Bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements?

Yes Adequate No-Change

No

4 Do your employees have improved access/usage to reliable public transit for getting to work?

Increased Adequate or No-Change

No

5 What is the impact on parking access for customers and employees driving to the business?

Good or Off-street parking available

Adequate-Street Spaces available

Difficult or No Parking spaces available

6 Has the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity, walkablity, and transit accessibility improved?

Increased No-Change Neutral

Decreased

7 How has the location and distance of BRT/Rapid bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers?


8 What has been the impact of new housing/multi-use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus?

Increase No-Change Decrease Or Loss

9 Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA marketing increased your location visibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new housing developments?

Yes Increased

No-Change No or Reduction in Customer Parking

10 Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support business expansion plans or continued business activity? *Note 3

Yes Undecided or No-Change

No Relocation due to factors*

Notation 1: See Appendix for actual survey form Notation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-4. for Geary PRE-BRT Impact Questions). Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn, higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.



11

SURVEY: PRE-BRT/Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers

Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Survey* Notations 1-3

Table 1-4 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions (10) and Response Choices # QUESTIONS* Notation 2

Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1

POSITIVE

Response

NEUTRAL

Response

NEGATIVE

Response

1 What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?


2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity been for the past two years?


3 Are your customers and employees satisfied with the present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements?

Yes Adequate No

4 Do your employees have good access/usage to reliable public transit for getting to work?

Yes Excellent

Adequate No or Very Poor

5 How is parking access for customers and employees driving to the business?

Good –or additional off-street parking

Adequate Street Spaces

Difficult or no spaces

6 How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility?

Excellent-Attracts Customers

Adequate Poor – Needs Infrastructure Improvement

7 How has the location/distance of existing bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers?

Increase No-Change Decreased – Stop Change - Relocation

8 What will be the impact of new housing/multi-use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus? *Notation 2

Increase No-Change Decrease

9 Do you expect proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements to increase your location visibility and attract new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new TOD/housing developments? *Notation 2

Yes No-Change or small change

No – Reduced customer-Employee parking

10 Will BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support business expansion plans or continued business activity? *Notation 2,3

Yes Undecided or No-Change

No Relocation due to factors*

SQ Geary BRT Supplemental Question: Do you favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive BRT lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?

YES Support BRT Project

Neutral Available off-street parking

NO Do not Support BRT Project

Notation 1: See Appendix for actual survey form* Notation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations. Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn, higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.



12

A compilation (Table 2-4) of the top ten positive comments, top ten negative comments, and top ten solutions for the improvement or elimination of the perceived or actual negative impact identified by the respondents was collected through the following three open ended questions. Positive Comment Question: What was the Positive BRT/Rapid Bus impact that improved your business sales and customer activity? Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to design changes, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negatively impacting your business sales or customer activity? Solutions Comment Question: How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business?

Transit Corridors Businesses - COMMENTS Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary POSITIVE COMMENTS NEGATIVE COMMENTS SOLUTIONS 1 Faster Travel

Parking Loss/Damage

Extend Operational Hours/ Late Night Service

2

Reliability/Bus Frequency

Ugly Shelter/Stop Design

Increase Bus Frequency

3

Increased New Business Development

Bus Stops Not Clean

Expand BRT/Rapid Bus Service

4

Safer-Cleaner Stops and Shelters

Stop Shelters Block Store

Build Parking Garages on Corridor

5

Attractive Streetscapes-Shelters

Poor Stop Lighting

Weekend Service Needed

6 New TOD Customers

Loitering/Safety Concern

Transit Security/CCTV/Lights

7 Pedestrian Activity/Safety

Hours of Bus Operation

Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter

8 New Bus Design/Branding

ADA Accessibility-Pedestrian Safety Concerns

Modify Streetscape Design-Trees

9

Serves Employee Needs

Frequency/Reliability

Move Bus Stop/Shelter

10 Serves Corridor Businesses

Lost Business-Relocation Planned

More TOD Development



13

Survey Administration Experience

The author’s one-on-one interview and survey of four metropolitan bus transit corridors totaling 57 miles, 4 different locations including San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland-San Pablo Corridor, and Los Angeles was accomplished in 24 days with 8-10 hours per day for travel, interviewing and data intake from 500 plus business respondents. Depending upon the amount of respondents time and willingness to go beyond the 10 basic questions including supplemental data intake and the three additional open-ended questions—the time of for a complete survey intake to collect all of the critical information and responses was reduced from an average of 15-20 minutes to 10 minutes by verbally reciting the questions and filling out the survey with the respondent during intake. Because independent business owners, retail store managers, and respondents were on-duty dealing with customers the personal interview was most effective in leaving the premise with a completed survey. It was necessary in about 12% of the cases for the interviewer to show identification and research authenticity/authority with a driver’s license, business card from the locally involved transit agency BRT/Rapid Bus manager or director, and/or a project letter of introduction to gain survey participation acceptance from business respondents. The interviewer also carried picture of the different BRT/Rapid Bus system equipment and improvements as visual reference for the surveyed respondents to visualize the improvements referred to in the questions. The interviewer’s experience as an industrial designer and brand marketing consultant; working on community transportation design projects, as well as having designed over 150 retail stores, was beneficial in securing a 95%-98% average survey participation from business owners and managers interviewed during the intake process on all four transit corridors. The business respondents interviewed expressed genuine interest in improving their existing corridor BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system and provided quality information and data about the businesses’ actual and perceived positive and negative impacts of the BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. The collection of respondent comments included the top ten positive impact comments, top ten negative impact comments, and the top ten solutions for elimination of the negative impact. These were useful in evaluating the response reliability to the original 10 impact questions used to create the business impact survey. It was important to interview business owners and managers that had “intuitional memory” of the changes in business sales, bus service, customer and employee parking accessibility, overall corridor walkablity, streetscape/infrastructure, and business vitality before and after the implemented improvements. In many of the corridors this was accomplished, especially among the long established small neighborhood “mom & pop” independent merchants that were interviewed. Survey questions one and two captured the critical “sales trend” and “foot traffic” trend of the businesses. Due to the confidential nature of this important information, it was asked right after explaining the nature and topic of the survey, purposes of the gathered information, and often an explanation of the BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system characteristics being surveyed. As it is very rare to get the actual sales trend figures, it was determined after the pre-testing of the survey that most respondents would comfortably and honestly respond to an answer selection of “increased,” “no-change,” or “decreased” without breaching business confidentiality.



14

When surveying the entire transit corridor for business sales and foot traffic trends, it became evident in the overall sampling if the trend was based upon the factors of an economic downturn in the corridor that was widespread across the business community or if it was limited to a business type category like retail, restaurants, fast food or just the specific store location. In some surprising cases, the sales managers were so enthusiastic about participating in the project research issues and potential outcome that the interview intake went for as long as 45 minutes to an hour, thereby gaining depth and insight into the very nature of the corridor’s business vitality and sales impacts that were caused by other factors. These factors included transit corridor urban renewal and TOD housing project development, city politics and transit policy changes. One example of an extended intake session was related to the extensive Alameda City’s streetscape and urban renewal Webster Street development, where a Chevron service station mini-mart manager held a small impromptu meeting of local customers. The customers told the interviewer of the change in business due to the public policy elimination of a 600 unit low income housing project being replaced by a 350 unit high-income condominium. Owner/manager and customer survey participation occurred in 5% of the intake sessions with restaurant managers/owners, big box/name brand retailers, bars/liquor stores, and even fast food operations. In several cases (2%) the sales managers of some of the national and regional name brand retailers actually brought the interviewer into the offices to fill out the survey and showed their yearly sales trend charts for the store. When taking in the important supplemental information determining customer and employee transportation mode share, many of the managers would pull their employee duty rosters for employee counts and estimating or taking the actual count of employees who took the BRT/Rapid Bus/Public Transit, drove/parked, or walked/biked to work; or gathered a couple of employees to calculate how employees commuted to work. In many of the larger corporate businesses, educational institutions, or medical centers there were transportation managers and administrators who had not only employee counts but the number of parking spaces allotted for employees, and were also responsible for administering employee discount transportation passes for use of buses and connecting rail systems. The information gathered about employee numbers and transportation modes was very helpful, especially on the LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire corridor, where there was a Metro employee and student discount program to capture increased use of the LA Metro transit system and reduce car reliance by customer choice and marketing programs. Many of the transit operators do have programs like this, and provide a good source of counting monthly public transit mode use by businesses taking apart of these programs. The business sampling and information when coordinated with these other sources of collected data confirmed that the personal one-to-one survey process and strategy yielded a more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate data input process than if the survey was mailed or left to fill out. In several businesses where the survey had to be left to be filled-out by the owner or manager and collected later that day or on the following day, it was observed that 20% of the respondents did not fill-out the survey, 30% went into great depth and 50% respondents basically neutralized a majority of the questions and information due to a lack of interest or possible lack of understanding of the questions, which further reinforced the effectiveness of the one-on-one interview/survey methodology.



15

Ethnic and Business Management Diversity of Respondents The ethnic make-up and diversity of the corridors’ surveyed respondents reinforced the effectiveness of the personal interview strategy by reciting questions with an occasional respondent’s request for clarification or language interpretation, about specific transit impacts or terminology. There was a distinct cultural and behavioral interplay between how some respondents had to be approached by the interviewer. First generation Asian-Pacific immigrants presented the most challenging language and survey completion challenge. This does reinforce the usefulness of having survey work and printed materials done in multiple languages with Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and English being the most prevalent languages spoken along the corridors surveyed. In community transit workshops where there are large urban communities of immigrants, it is an invaluable part of the public outreach and participation process to provide multi-lingual written materials and interpreters. In 18% of the interviews the respondent requested the interviewer enter the first name or initials in order to guarantee confidentiality. However, collecting the full name on the data sheet was very useful in capturing the ethnic diversity of the respondents besides observation, or response as to country of origin. The ethnic composition of the interviewed respondents by transit corridors are indicated by table 4 and charts 1-4 for comparison, and were reflective of the composition and diversity of the corridor business managers/owners and their employees.

Ethnic Background of Survey Respondents Table 4 Transit Corridor's Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background*1

Ethnic Background/Race Geary*2 Alameda San Pablo Wilshire

AFA Afro-American 4% 6% 14% 7% AP-C Asian-Chinese 28% 23% 7% 11% AP-J Asian-Japanese 20% 1% 2% 2% AP-K Asian-Korean 6% 4% 5% 9% AP-O Asian-Other 6% 6% 4% 4% CW-E Caucasian-European 27% 47% 46% 26% H Hispanic 8% 8% 12% 36% ME Middle Eastern 1% 5% 10% 5%

Notation 1: Respondents* were primarily (99.5%) business owners, managers, supervisors/administrators Notation 2: Geary is a PRE-BRT impact surveyed bus transit corridor. (Local, Limited, Express services)



16

Charts 1-4 Survey Respondents’ Ethnic Background; Four Corridors Compared

Chart 1 Geary Corridor Respondents Chart 2 Alameda R61 Corridor Respondents

Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Alameda Corridor

Afro-American6%

Asian Chinese23%

Asian Japanese 1%

Asian Korean4%

Asian Others6%

Hispanic8%Middle Eastern

5%

Caucasian/European47%

Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Geary Corridor

Afro-American4%

Asian Chinese28%

Asian Japanese20%Asian Korean

6%

Asian Others6%

Hispanic8%

Middle Eastern1%


Respondents' Ethnic Background - San Pablo Corridor

Afro-American14%

Asian Chinese7%

Asian Japanese2%

Asian Korean5%

Asian Others4%

Hispanic12%

Middle Eastern10%


Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Wilshire Corridor

Afro-American7%

Asian Chinese11%

Asian Japanese2%

Asian Korean9%

Asian Others4%

Hispanic36%

Middle Eastern5%


Chart 3 San Pablo Corridor Respondents Chart 4 Wilshire Corridor Respondents The field survey process presented an incredible learning opportunity for experiencing the diversity of cultures, languages, business mixes/segmentation, and the impact that transportation makes upon the lives of the communities and peoples it serves. The socio-economic demographics of customers and employees, levels of transit improvement and service operation mix, land-use, and public policy all affect transit corridor businesses’ bottom-line of profitability and ultimately the overall vitality and pedestrian shopping activity of the businesses located along these major transit corridors. Transportation is more than moving buses and commuters through a corridor; it is about maintaining the vitality of the businesses on the corridor by moving a diversity of people, goods and services in a manner that maintains quick access and accessibility for business customers, employees, and community services.

Transit Corridors Profiles: Geary, Alameda R61, San Pablo, Wilshire The next section presents a comprehensive snap-shot profile of each surveyed transit corridor’s BRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and facts, system goals, maps, and demographics.



17

Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile

GEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre-BRT Improvements th70.6% Business Impact Score, 4 Place

Transit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNI Service Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak Direction Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks Corridor Length: 6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave. Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total Ridership: 50,000-54,000 Daily before Improvements

System Characteristics:

Ongoing IMPROVEMENT: Corridor Intersection Signal Upgrades/Equipment

,

s, us Lanes, Onboard Bus Stop

• oading

• Selected Priority, Bus Stop Relocation far side when possible, ADA loading Ramps

Pedestrian and Bike facilities, Bus Loading Bulbs, • Bus Equipment - replacement with Cleaner Hybrid Diesel, Low Floor Articulated buse

Existing Non-exclusive Bus Lanes and Peak Hour BInformation Displays, Limited Intersection priority (Local/Limited/Express) Slow Bus speeds during peak hours due to traffic congestion, traditional curbside l

rolignment BRT with Side loading platforms, Center Alignment with a Center loading Platform/Station

*

P posed BRT Improvements: – Alternatives: Basic Plus Transit Priority, Side BRT, Center A(Exclusive BRT Lanes/Peak Hour Restricted Lanes) Construction Estimate: $170M-$215M SFCTA

Goals: 1. Robust and Stable Ridership, 2. Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service,

3. Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Viability, 4. Transit Priority Network System Development, 5. Advanced BRT Design and Operations

Note: SFCTA – San Francisco County Transportation Authority – BRT Plan-SFCTA, MTA, MUNI, DPT 4.26.2007



18

Table 5-2 Gear

Pre- BRT Improvements 70.6% Place

y Corridor Profile GEARY Blvd. Corridor,

Business Impact Score, 4th

Transit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNI Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks Corridor Length: 5.5/6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave. Survey th

ed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34 Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total Miles Surveyed

Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Interaction A summary of the Geary Pre- BRT study’s key findings and pu

• Geary Boulevard is a complex multi-modal transit arterial (6 Travel L• Rapid transit service is needed in for residents in the Richmond• Balance needed between the multi-nodes of transportation incl• Faster travel time is a high priority on Geary Boulevard and Van Ne• Transit riders wait and travel time show excessive variability effecting relia• All Day treatment needed to Improve transit travel time and reliab• Over Crowding top customer/community concern • Street parking is in high demand in the outer Richmond Core

blic concerns included: anes, 2 Parking Lanes)

and Sunset Districts uding pedestrians and bicycles

ss Avenue bility

ility

• Pedestrian Safety Improvements and Urban design treatments in high demand to benefit transit and neighborhood livability/walkablity/pedestrian safety/ADA

• Support for bicycle infrastructure and facilities along Van Ness and Geary Boulevard.

Mode Share for San Francisco Trips* 2000/2025: Transit 16.4%/16.2% (-1.3%), AUTO 54%/54.5% (+0.3%), Walk 28.3%/28.4% (-0.3%), Bike 1.0%/1.0% (-0.4%) * Geary CAC Vision SFCTA 2/26/2003 Corridor Demographics: Population: 135,128 Corridor, 776,733 Citywide Total, % of SF 17% Population Density per acre 44.32, Median Household Income $39,727, SF $55,221, % of SF 172% Ethnic Background: W 67,149 (49.7%), AFA 10,269 (7.6%), Asian 46,516 (34.4%), Hispanic 10,971 (14.1%), Other 11,194 (15.8%)* Source US Census 2000, SF1 and SF2 Transit Connectivity: BART, SF MUNI LRT, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit, Golden Gate Ferries



19

Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile

ALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor 79 %.4 Business Impact Score, 2nd Place Tra ins t Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Se c tion rvi e Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak DirecSto Sp pacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks Co o Oakland Airport rrid r Length: 7 miles Webster/Atlantic to Hegenberger Road/Su yrve ed Alameda/Route 61: Webster to Central., North/South bound, 2 Miles/ 4 Total Rid s

er hip: 9,500-11,500 Daily

System Characteristics: BASIC IMPROVEMENT PLUS: MAJOR STREETSCAPE and BUS STOP

idor Renewal

ading ramps, new bus shelters, trees, bulbs, store front parking

eet)

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, Urban/Business Corr

• Selected priority, bus stop relocation, and ADA losidewalks, benches, pedestrian and bike facilities, bus loadingreductions, urban renewal, State Route 61 partial relinquishment (Webster Str

ses, no exclusive bus lanes, onboard bus stop• Bus equipment improved, low floor buinformation display, limited intersection priority

Webster Street Improvements: Bus facilities/stops side loading ADA extended platforms, major streetscape infrastructure, planters, bus shelters: Construction Estimate: $1.7M-$2.3M City of Alameda*

Goals: 1. To enhance Alameda City’s livability and commercial viability with safe efficient transportation

cal Streets and road improvements. 2. Improve multi-modal safety and te 61/Webster Street with special emphasis on our most vulnerable

g with Webster additional ed-use

eta usho n

accessibility (AC Transit), and Loongestion mitigation along Rouc

citizens, school children, seniors, and the disabled. 3. Streets and Roads improvement alonStreet rehabilitation, redevelopment vital to servicing and stimulating new 10-20 year growth of

ousing and retail multi-use developments 4. To enhance property values, commercial and mixhr il b siness, and sales revenues through promoting the livability and viability of Alameda City as a

ppi g, recreational, and living environment. 5. Support bicycling as a transportation alternative



20

Table 6-

2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile

ALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61, AC Transit/City Renewal Project79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd Place Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks Corridor Length: 7 miles and Airport Webster St./Atlantic Ave. to Hegenberger Road/OaklSurveyed Alameda City/Route 61: Webster/Atlantic h bound, 2 miles/4 total

to Central Ave. North/Sout

Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Interaction A summary of the City of Alameda’s Webster St. “main street” renewal project:

nd Para-transit h the new bus stops, Route

ute 61 right a way reet parking, and pedestrian

ng areas.

• The Webster Street Project involved Caltrans, BART, and AC Transit Buses a

services in addressing the multimodal transportation interaction wit61 rehabilitation, and streetscape infrastructure which involved Roencroachment/intrusions with bus bulb out platforms, reduction of stseating area mid-block sidewalk extensions into the roadway parki

• TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit is the primary bus service pRoute 61, with BART connections and links at Fruitvale BART statistation, and West Oakland BART station with 30 minute headwa

rovider serving Webster St. on, Oakland’s 12th Street

ys. AC/East Bay Para transit service provides drop-off at Marina Village and other key locations and BART. AMTRAK connections via Oakland’s Jack London Square. Ferry service: Alameda via Oakland Ferry/

d Angel Island. Bike Class 1 ng the shoreline and parks

Alameda Point, San Francisco Ferry Terminal, AT&T Ball Park, anand Class 2 bike lanes for commute, and recreational use alo

Business QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $4.1M, Retail Sales per capita:Food services: $66M, Wholesale: $3.5M, Manufacturing Shipments

$5.4M, Accomodations and : $10M, Firms: 6,028 Citywide

Corridor Demographics: * Population: 71,805 Corridor/Citywide, 65+ 13%, Land Area: 11 Sq. Miles, Population per square mile 6,693, Median HouseEthnic Background: W 40,929 (56.9%), AFA 4,452 (6.2%), Asian 18,669

Housing Units 31,644, Ownership 48% hold Income $56,280, PC $30,982

(26.1%), Hispanic 6,462 (9.3%), Other ,303 (4.6%), Median House: $345K, Mean travel time to work: 30 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000 Alameda City 3



21

Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor Profile

San Pablo Avenue, Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor 6 % rd7 .3 Business Impact Score, 3 Place

Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123 ) Service Types: Rapid Bus R72, Local, Limited, Express Services Stop S t. pacing: .54-.64 Mile, 26 Stops (Rapid 72) 12 Min. peak/15 Min. off-peak 6 am-7 pm Mon.-SaCor orid q./Oakland r Length: 14 miles Contra Costa College/San Pablo to Jack London SSurveyed San Pablo/R123: MacArthur to MacDonald., North/South bound, 6.5/14 Miles Riders

hip: 15,000 After Rapid R72: 66% Increase Peak, 200% increase- All Day 45,000*

System Characteristics: RAPID BUS IMPROVEMENT: RAPID BUS SERVICE with .54-.64 Mile Stop Spacing,

opment

ystem, bus stop relocation far-side, no ding

TRANSIT PRIORITY all signals, No exclusive bus lanes, Corridor TOD Devel

• Intersection priority—Headway-based Opticom Sexclusive bus lanes, new bus shelters with real-time information-NextBus, New bran

onboard bus stop • Bus equipment improved, low floor buses (40 foot Van Hoot*),information display, AC Rapid Bus Branding/Identity-Bus exteriors/interiors and shelters

• NextBus Displays at all AC Rapid Bus Shelters (Rapid 72 start-up 2003/04*)

San Pablo Ave. Improvements: Bus shelters curb-side loading, Rapid Branding, NextBus displSignal Priority at all intersections, “Smart Corridors” technology Implementation Estimate: $1M per m

ays, ile*

Gtr

oals: 1. To enhance San Pablo Corrido cial viability with safe efficient sit), and urban arterials improvement. 2. Improve multi-modal safety

Route 123 by implementing “Smart Corridors” improvements/technology

crease in all-day ridership). 5. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, walkability-safety

r’s livability and commeransportation accessibility (AC Tran

and congestion mitigation along through (CMA) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 3. Implementation of TSP at 62 corridor intersections, Collect real-time information about traffic conditions 4. To increase ridership and and reduce running time (*Reported as 26%-30% faster, with a 66% Peak Hour increase in ridership and a 200% in

*Note: DF-04 ,

ata from AC Transit, San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus Fact Sheet, Mineta Transportation Institute Report -01 Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.



22

Tab -le 7 2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor Profile San Pablo Avenue, AC Transit Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor 76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd Place Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123) Stop Spacing: .54-.64 Mile, 26 stops (Rapid 72) 12 Min. peak/15 Min. off-peak 6 am-7 pm Mon-Sat. Corridor Length: 14 miles Contra Costa College and /San Pablo to Jack London Sq./OaklSurveyed San Pablo/Route 123: MacArthur Blvd. to MacDo nd, 6.5/14 Miles

nald Ave., North/South bou

Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Connectivity A summary of the San Pablo Route 123 AC R72 and “Smart Corridors

• AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid R72 and “Smart Corridothrough the Alameda County Congestion Managementresponsible for design, implementation, and operationTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committcomposed of staff from the seven corridor cities, CaltransPort of Oakland and other agencies in addressing thelinks with the R72 Rapid Bus service. (1903-1948/19

• TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit

” project:

rs” Project was coordinated Agency (ACCMA), the lead agency

of the San Pablo SMART Corridor and its ee (PAC).The TAC is

, ACCMA, MTC, AC Transit, BART, multimodal transportation interaction and

58 the Key System ran the R123 to SF) is the primary bus service p

123, with BART connections at BART El Cerrito del Norte and El Cerrito PlaOakland’s 12th Street station, and West Oakland BART station.

rovider serving San Pablo Route za stations,

AMTRAK connections via Emeryville and Oakland’s Jack London Square. Ferry service: Alameda via Oakland Ferry/

al, AT&T Ball Park, and Angel Island. Alameda Point to San Francisco Ferry Termin

Business QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $16.5B, Retail Sales per capita:Food services: $66M, Wholesale: $41B, Manufacturing Shipments

$11.2M, Accomodations and : $29.6B, Firms: 120,293 County

Corridor Demographics: * Population: 135,000 corridor Alameda County, Population Density per sq. mile 11,000-18,000, Median Household IncomeEthnic Background: W 61,290 (45.4%), AFA 20,115 (14.9%), Asian 24,3

65+ 10.5%, Housing Units 62,474, $57,659, *Low Income/poverty 14%

00 (18.4%), Hispanic 18,900 (14%), Other 0,395 (7.7%), Median House: $303K, Mean travel time to work: 31 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000/AC Transit* 1



23

Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, Corridor Profile

WILSHIRE Blvd., Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT 1 % st8 .8 Business Impact Score, 1 Place

Transit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Service Types: Rapid Bus R720, Local, Express Services Stop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways Corridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Pacific Ave./Santa Monica Surveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Pacific Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 Miles Rid s

er hip: 90,000 Rapid R720: 47% Increase from previous 43,200, 29% reduction in travel time *

System Characteristics: RAPID BUS IMPROVEMENT: RAPID BUS SERVICE with .75-1 Mile Stop Spacing,

idor TOD Development

direction -time information-NextBus, New branding

information s

e Peak Period Demo* 2004)

Transit Signal Priority, No exclusive bus lanes*1, Corr

• Intersection priority - bus stop relocation far-side, no exclusive bus lanes, Peak parking lane usage*1, new bus shelters with real

• Bus equipment improved, NABI Low floor articulated 60’ CNG buses, onboardrs/interiors and shelterdisplay, Metro Rapid Bus Branding/Identity-Bus exterio

• NextBus Displays at all Metro Rapid Bus Shelters (Curbside lan

Wilshire Blvd. Improvements: New designed bus shelters, curb-side loading, Rapid b 70% - intersections, Implementation Cost: $182M or $14

us branding, e* NextBus displays, Signal Priority at M per mil

Goals: 1. Reduction in travel time, conge

and commercial viability with safe and efficient accessible transportation d congestion mitigation along Wilshire Blvd. by implementing “Smart

port terconnectivity with the Red-line and rail links throught transfer hubs. 7. Grow ridership to justify future

LRT v

stion, with BRT/Rapid Bus as a LRT alternative 2. To enhance Wilshire Blvd. Corridor’s livability3. Improve multi-modal safety anCorridors” improvements/technology-LADOT 4. Implementation of TSP at corridor intersections, Collect real-time information about traffic conditions 5. To increase ridership and and reduce running time (*Reported as 29%-40% faster, with a 47% increase in daily corridor ridership (90,000). 6. Supin

in estment 8. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, pedestrian walkability-safety

*NoF-04-01,

te: Data from LA Metro, Planning Reports 2005 Wilshire Rapid BRT, Mineta Transportation Institute Report Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.



24

Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720. Corridor Profile WILSHIRE Blvd. Metro Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT 81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st Place Transit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Stop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways Wilshire/Whittier R720 26 Stops Corridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wil e./Santa Monica shire to Ocean AvSurveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Ocean Ave. les

, East/West bound, 13/26 Mi

Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Connectivity A summary of Los Angeles LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire Corridor:

• LA Metro’s Transit’s Wilshire BRT/Rapid Bus Project has been strikinglyspeed, reduced wait times, service quality, ridership and customer responsobjectives, with little negative impact on the system or other travel modes.

• Rapid 720 Wilshire/Whittier Corridor: high passenger demand urban coAngeles Central Business District (LACBD), 2/3 travel lanes, 2 parking lane

• BRT/Rapid Program Objectives*1: 1. Reduce Passenger Travel Times (-29%), (+42%), 3. Attract New Riders (+33.3%) 4. Increase Service Reliability (YesDesign (Yes), 6. Improve Service Effectiveness (+17%), 7. Build Positive (Ongoing) *LA Metro Rapid Demonstration Program Final Report, March 2

• TRANSIT Connectivity: LA Metro

successful with operating e exceeding the original

rridor connecting through the Los s

2. Increase Ridership ), 5. Improve Fleet and Facility

Relations with Communities 002

serves Wilshire Corridor with Metro Red LiNormandie/Vermont/Alvarado and Blue Line via 7th/Metro Center/Julian Dix

• Future: Exclusive lanes/by-pass lanes, pre-board fare collection, high capa

ne connections at Wilshire-on Station city multi door fleet

LA* Business QuickFacts: Retail Sales: $92B, Retail Sales per capita: $9M, Accservices: $14B, Wholesale: $198B, Manufacturing Shipments: $108B, LA Firms:

omodations and Food 1.2M Estimated – *U.S. Census

LA County Demographics: * Population: 9,948,081,000, 65+ 10.1%, Housing UnPopulation Density per sq. mile 2,344, Median Household Income $43,518, *LowEthnic Background: W (29.5%), AFA (9.7%), Asian (13.1%), Hispanic (Occupied Housing Unit: $209K, Mean travel time to work: 29.6 Minute

its 3,339,763,000 Income/poverty 16.7%

46.8%), Other (3.2%), Median Owner-s, *U.S. Census 2000/2005

*Note: Final Report LA Metro Rapid, 2002*1, Jobs on LA’s Grand Blvd., Community Redevelopment Agency-2006



25

Corridor Travel Mode Share Choice The mode choice preference of transit corridor business customers and employees for all four of the surveyed transit corridors indicated that the largest mode share is represented by employees and customers that drive to and from the business location as shown by Charts 1 and 2. Except for the Geary corridor, the other corridors’ employee mode shares for car travel were higher than the customer mode shares for driving. Alameda corridor has the highest share of car usage for employees at 80.5% and Geary the lowest at 52%. The survey indicated that there were more small businesses with supplemental off-street parking on the surveyed Alameda/Webster Street corridor compared to the unimproved Geary Corridor which had sparse public garage parking and limited metered street parking, thus limiting employee access to affordable parking.

Chart 1 Customer Travel Modes

employee travel mode s the Pre-BRT Geary orridor at 40.4%, the Wilshire corridor at 35%, and the San Pablo corridor at 21.3% while

Customer Travel Modes

59.9

19.015.5 14.8

17.4

12.5

10.0

0.0

Perc

23.421.521.1

age

55.1

Mod

e S

72.067.8

2

3

4

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

ent

of T

ran

rha

re

0.0

0.0

0.0spo

Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor

Business Corridors

tatio

n

The bus mode choice for customers was comparable at 21.1% for the Geary corridor and 21.5%for the Wilshire corridor, where as the San Pablo corridor bus mode share at 17.4% and

% CUSTOMERS (Bus)

% CUSTOMERS (Drive/Park)

% CUSTOMERS (Walk/Bike)

Alameda’s at 12.5% indicated lower customer travel by bus transit in those corridors. The hares indicate a higher bus transit mode choice on

cAlameda remained at 12.5% the lowest. The walk/bike mode choice by customers on all transit corridors is consistently higher for business customers than as a chosen mode of travel for employees on all four corridors. The data indicated that both the Geary corridor at (4th place) and Wilshire corridor at (1st place) were the highest in business customer demand and support for improved bus services with San Pablo ranking third.



26

Employee Travel Modes

90

Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes

he corridors which showed the greatest increase in employees selecting the BRT/Rapid Bus ode had the highest level of speeds, frequency, liability, and hours of opera ected in the impact ranking

nd place rd place

.

door vel time for moderate and long distance

travel to and from the business location, 2.) BRT/Rapid Bus systems’ speed and frequency as a travel mode for moderate to longer distances, along the corridor, 3.) the time of day the trip is taken in relationship to peak or off-peak travel periods, or late night travel relative to the operational hours of the BRT/Rapid Bus services, 4.) the availability of parking for business employees and their customers, 5.) the cost of travel mode selection relative to an employees or customer’s income, and 6.) land-use factors in the number of corridor business employees and

35.0

68.8

10.0

21.3

12.5

40.4

80.5

57.3

52.0

7.67.07.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor

Business Corridors

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Mod

e Sh

are

% EMPLOYEES (Bus/Transit)

% EMPLOYEES (Drive/Park)

% EMPLOYEES (Walk/Bike)

Tm transit improvements related to service

tion. The level of mode choice was reflreof the Alameda-Webster corridor (2 ) and the San Pablo corridor at (3 ) with higher customer and employee car mode shares and lower than expected Rapid Bus mode shares was associated with employee parking availability and the hours of Rapid Bus service operation Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and Employees The data showed that in the positive to negative ranking of the respondents perceived level of impact that six major factors affected BRT/Rapid Bus service as being a preferred mode choice by the businesses’ customers and employees. These factors included: 1.) the connectivity in to door travel in the terms of convenience and total tra



27

customers that lived in adjacent housing along the corridor with convenient access to the new BRT/Rapid Bus system. Transportation connectivity, speed, and frequency usually rose to the top as a primary reason for managers, employees, and customers utilizing the new implemented BRT/Rapid Bus systems with their improved package of service and equipment. But, these alone were not a guarantee in the perception of transit corridor business owners and managers of the new systems’ attributes fully meeting the needs of corridor businesses, customers, or employees. In the case of employees the data for mode choice showed a greater contrast between the four corridors. San Francisco’s Geary corridor showed a far greater preference at 40% by employees choosing public transit/bus services over the next highest scoring Wilshire corridor at 35% selecting public transit/rapid Bus services, with a 57.3% share going to the auto. The Wilshire employee auto share mode at 57.3% for employees compared closest with the Geary Blvd. 52% auto share. Being that the Geary is a Pre-BRT corridor it could be expected that with a quality implemented BRT system that the mode share for Geary could equal or exceed the Wilshire Rapid 720 employee mode share. It should be mentioned that LA Metro has several significant employee and student fare programs that have also contributed to the Metro Rapid Bus system’s success in increasing business employees’ and customers’ mode share. Employee auto mode choice for the Pre-BRT Geary corridor at 52% and the Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire corridor at 57.3% was considerably lower than both the Alameda corridor with an 80.5% auto mode share and the San Pablo corridor at 68.8% for transit corridor employees choosing to drive over taking public transit. The available parking with the limitations in the

perating hours of Rapid Bus service being the significant factors in influencing employee auto mode choice. Many business o corridors, especially the

an Pablo corridor with AC Transit’s Rapid 72 service indicated that with the late closing hours f restaurants and big box stores like Home Depot, Best Buy and shopping centers like El Cerrito

hoosing the car to commute to transit corridor businesses with late night hours of operation. his issue also had a significant affect and impact associated with the gender of employees and

s and employees felt specially vulnerable in utilizing the new improved San Pablo R72, AC Rapid Bus services. This

s

,

omanagers and employees along these tw

SoPlaza that employees did not have Rapid Bus services available after 7 PM, Monday through Saturday and none on Sunday. Other significant issues impacting the San Pablo AC Transit Rapid 72 Bus as a mode choice were the employees’ perception of the lack of safety in waiting for extended times at poorly located and dimly lit stops without security or monitored CCTV. This contributed to their cTmanagers in their travel mode selection, where late shift female managerearea of concern—related to the safety and comfort concerns of female transit customers impacting travel mode selection—warrants further research. The availability and associated cost of parking for business managers, employees and customerwere major factors in the selection of the car as a travel mode over the Rapid Bus/pubic transit modes. The Geary corridor is situated in an urban mixed use environment of street front businesses, densely compacted urban apartments and row housing. Geary, with its high residential street parking demand, its metered parking with high overtime parking fines ($40.)and a lack of corridor public garages contributed to a lower car mode share at 52% and a higher public transit share at 40.4%. In contrast, Alameda businesses had a large number of off-street



28

supplemental parking available, as well as the San Pablo Corridor—which created an incentivefor easy and convenient car usage along those corridors. The Wilshire corridor had limited parking availability and with higher public garage parking pricing and land-use density, it demonstrated a moderately high percentage of Rapid Bus/public transit mode share by employees at 35%. Parking availability as an impact factor in implementing corridor BRT/RapiBus systems with travel lane exclusivity is perceived by many store front retail corridor

d

usinesses as a negative impact element to their business vitality for attracting customers and in

ere

er mode shares for apid Bus/public transit in the four transit corridors ranged from a low of 12.5% for Alameda’s

tore building on Wilshire, where there was available campus/off reet parking and reduced monthly Metro passes, a high number of students drove cars to travel

the d

mpus

nsit ing “the last mile.” When transit

es not connect directly or in a smooth mode to mode linked transfer to jobs, housing,

vey data

bquality employees. This will rise as a major impact throughout the study, and will be discussedfurther detail in the areas of effects and recommendation in the impact assessment section. Customer mode shares in all four corridors demonstrated relatively similar profiles with each other with high car mode shares, as might be expected for shoppers that might be frequenting thecorridor business as one of several linked trips, and picking-up goods to take home. Chart 1, Customer Travel Modes shows the relationship to the modes selection in all four corridor. Thwere a large number of neighborhood customers frequenting the corridor businesses that lived within several blocks walking distance, which accounted for higher customer walk/bike mode shares in all four corridors compared to employees. The reported customRWebster/Route 61 to a high of 23.4% bus mode share for the LA Metro’s Rapid 720 Corridor. Travel mode selection was price sensitive to the total public transit trip cost made-up of multiple fares when using several transit links such as BART connecting to San Francisco’s MUNI system and to AC Transit’s Rapid Bus. These multi-linked system costs were shown to have a major impact upon low-wage employees working in retail, fast foods, restaurants, government services, education, or medical institutions and hospitals in all of the corridors surveyed. In the case of students attending the Southwest Law School located in the former historic Bullock’s Art Deco department sstin from Pasadena and other locations. The college’s Manager of Transportation indicated thatmonthly pass even at the discounted price was expensive enough, along with connectivity antravel time factors for a considerable number of students to chose driving their car to the caover taking public transit. This was stated while simultaneously giving high marks for the LA Metro Rapid 720 service. In considering the ramifications of travel mode selection in these four urban metropolitan transit corridors, one needs to seriously consider the issues of connectivity between multiple tramodes, hub locations, and the customer convenience in traveldoshopping/entertainment, and major transportation hubs or operates at reduced capacity and frequency during non-peak commute hours a declining ridership can contribute to urban sprawl growth patterns and higher automobile mode shares. The San Pablo corridor business surindicates that the AC Rapid 72 will not maximize the ridership potential among businessemployees without extending the hours of operation beyond 7 P.M. week days, and service on weekends. This is in spite of the recent gradual increase in (TOD) transit oriented development of combined urban housing and multi-use projects along the San Pablo corridor.



29

According to Marketing Researcher, Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, “changing demographics, geographic patterns of population, and employment trends have profoundly changed the transportation needs of the consumer.”3 The author’s research does concur with this authormutual assumptions that changes in population and urban transit corridor demographicsdramatically impacted mode choice preference and options by transit corridor employers, employees and customers as well as the “commuter customers” who live outside cities wthey work or live. Transit corridor businesses historically have depended upon local and non-local customers to sustain business revenues.

’s have

here

ertain business models may find that the business they gain from ‘nine-to-five” office workers

se density changes along their transit corridors due to increased demand for TOD/housing

ted

in bus s a mode choice along with other modes of public transportation in many metropolitan areas.

oes demonstrate with its positive business response survey score of 1.8% ranking first in business satisfaction with BRT, that one can succeed in turning the tide of

its

Cmay in fact not be enough if their traditional customer base is impacted by the loss of parking accessibility and availability due to the taking of lanes during AM and PM peak hours, or permanently for exclusive BRT/Rapid Bus travel lanes. The LA Metro Rapid 720 is presentlyexperimenting with these issues in several locations along the Wilshire Corridor. This questions whether a particular business model, relative to its land-use location and customer base can survive the changes or is suitable to remain as a viable transit corridor business. This will be discussed further in this study. The four California metropolitan BRT/Rapid Bus corridors surveyed indicated a pattern of land-udevelopment and the impact of implementing “smart growth” planning policies. The selection of business customers travel mode choice is impacted by work trips which used to be represenby single travel “links” from home to work are increasingly represented by a multilink chain of trips that include child care, errands, shopping, multiple meetings, and other stops on the way—favoring the flexibility of the car mode by families. This has historically resulted in a dropa The increased demand for affordable housing and resulting suburban sprawl patterns can not be supported by costly new transit rail projects except in the densest corridors. The demand for affordable urban TOD housing has created the opportunity for a cost effective, technologically enhanced BRT/Rapid Bus to service urban transit sensitive corridors like the Geary Blvd., Alameda-Webster Street Route 61, San Pablo Avenue, and LA Wilshire Boulevard corridors. The LA Metro Rapid 720 d8declining bus ridership by crafting a BRT/Rapid Bus system with the “right package” of system and service attributes. The issues of an urban corridor based Bus Rapid Transit is different in operation modeling and requirements when operated within dense multi-modal urban transit arterials, and requires further comparison and research. 3 Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 36 - A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership and Report 37- A Handbook: Integrating Market Research into Transit Management, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998. A key to customers selectingchoice is that many work trips which used to be represented by single travel “links” from home to work, are now represented by a multilink chain of trips that include child care, errands, shopping, multiple meetings, and other stops on the way. This has resulted in a drop in bus as a mode choice along with other modes of public transportation in many metropolitan areas.

mode



30

Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine System Characteristics Impact on BRT transit Customers In determining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristics,

ichael R. Baltes of The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, uses the statistical data gathered

with

ted or

the premise that transit corridor businesses’ customers and mployees place a high value on the BRT service characteristics which include frequency of

t for

erceptions and value of BRT design features; convenience, comfort, and service attributes for

er

is equally important to survey the impact of service elements such as on-board and station

Mfrom BRT riders on board surveys conducted in 2001 on the Orlando BRT and Miami BRT, in determining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristic by identifying and measuring the attributes that contribute to the customers overall satisfactionBRT as a transit mode choice.4 The survey model was useful in viewing how service and design factors are viewed and reacto by the transit customer. As previously stated, the BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit CorridBusinesses survey data supportseservice, comfort, travel time savings, frequency, and reliability of service. Balte’s statement of support for the FTA conclusions is cautionary, “That no single mode of transportation is righall situations”. This survey and research of four business transit corridors will also reinforce the idea that no generic “BRT System Package” of attributes can be applied universally with the same business and community impact and acceptance. The utilization of on board surveys as a customer marketing research tool to compare BRT’s customer’s experience, demonstrates a valid application for collecting data about the customers’pcontinuing to support BRT as a customer mode choice. Transit management and marketing can determine the attributes and the enhancements which will attract, sustain, and expand customdemand for new systems; but must not exclude the impacts to transit corridor businesses in the process of shaping and selecting the attributes to implement. Itcustomer information systems as well as the issues of station design and placement relative to multi-modal transfer hubs and the relationship to business location and types.

4 Baltes, Michael R. (2003). The Importance Customers Place on Specific Service Elements of Bus Rapid TransitNational Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, Abstract . These survare a part of an overall customer analysis of determining the effectiveness and acceptance of 10 national BRT demonstration projects by the (FTA) Federa

, eys

l Transportation Administration.



31

The measurement and analysis or data collection related to the perception of time waiting, aveling, and transferring between modes affecting the customer choice would have been useful

e 61 corridors lo Avenue corridor and the LA

ilshire Boulevard corridor—but is beyond the scope of this study.5

ne of the major negatives related to Bus and BRT as a mode choice is the impact of travel

ic

the responder to answer as to the

trwhen comparing the Pre-BRT survey of the Geary Corridor and the Alameda Routto the Rapid Bus/BRT services implemented on the San PabW Odelay related to bus headway spacing and frequency as well as, the excessive amount of dwell time experience in bus-based systems operating in congested urban corridors. This study does look at how BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses are impacted by these services characteristics and the total package of BRT/Rapid Bus attributes implemented throughout the corridors. TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS This section presents the survey’s BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor impact results for the ten basquestions used to compile a comprehensive index score for corridor ranking and comparison. Table 1-3 and Table 1-2 list the questions asked and the multiple-choice rating scale (1-3) values used to plot the level of positive and negative results based upon the specific questions.

for data comparison is based on asking Rating ScoringBRT/Rapid Bus improvements’ impact using a (1-3) rating scale for the survey questions. Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, Negative Impact/Decrease =1, with the mean being 2 representing scoring below 2 as a negative business impact score. The Question Response Scores are represented by the Average Response Rating of the business respondents for each survey question.

The Geary Pre-BRT survey represented by Table 4-2 was incorporated into the study to include a

he rating scale ore results of the survey in a line graph with 2.0 representing (NEUTRAL) no change, lower ores a negative impact response, and higher than 2.0 a more positive business response to the

0 survey questions.

corridor with traditional bus service-operational modeling as a baseline. The scores for each survey question and transit corridor businesses are represented as the average response of the entire transit corridor business sample for each question asked. Chart 3 shows tscsc1

e most serious challenge in developing a quality BRT system that customers will support must result in gnificant reductions in wait, loading, transfer, and overall travel times within heavily congested multi-modal transit

corridors. A significant approach and study to this problem is reviewed by Phillips and Guttenplan, “A Review of roaches for Assessing Multimodal Quality of Service”, Journal of Public Transportation, 2003. The article

of n.

5 Thsi

Appreviews the existing studies and issues related to transit corridor congestion and affects on multi-modes of transit when transit, bikes, and pedestrians are placed in competition by sharing common right-a-way. This significantly affects making management and policy decisions which will affect the quality (QOS), safety and performance transit within a multi-modal concept of shared transit corridor space and functio



32

SURVEY: BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Rating Scale Score Results

Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Survey Questions (10) -Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire # QUESTIONS *Notation 3


Geary

Pre-BRT

lshire Alameda San Pablo Wi

1 What has been the impact or change to yearly sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?

2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6

2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?

2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6

3 Are your customers and employees enthusiastic about the BRT/Rapid Bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements?

1.5 2.3 2.4 2.6

4 Do your employees have improved access/usage to reliable public transit for getting to work?

1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8

5 What is the impact on parking access for customers and employees driving to the business?

1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8

6 Has the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity, 2.1 2.8 2.3 walkablity, and transit accessibility improved?

2.5

7 How has the location and distance of 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.BRT/Rapid bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers?

5

8 What has been the impact of new housing/multi- 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus?

9 Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA marketing increased your location visibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new housing developments?

2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2

10 Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support business expansion plans or continued business activity?

2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8

Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Transit Corridor Businesses Surveyed Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact Expectations

pre-Notation 3: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rateexisting conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-2. for Geary PRE-BRT Impact Questions). Rating Scoring for data comparison is based on each question asking the responder to answer as to the subject or BRT improvement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, and a Negative Impact/Decrease =1, with the mean being 2, scoring below 2 as a negative question response, and above 2 as a positive response. The Question Response Score is represented by the Average Response Rating of the business respondents for each question.



33

SURVEY: PRE-BRT/ Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses –Rating Scale Score Results

Table 1-2 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Response Questions (10) and Results * Notations 1-3

Notation 3

# QUESTIONS *Notation 2,


Geary

Pre-BRT

Alameda San Pablo Wilshire

1 What has been the trend of yearly sales prior toproposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? *3

2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6

2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity been for the past two years? *3

2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6

3 Are your customers and employees satisfied withthe present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? *3

1.5 2.3 2.4 2.6

4 1.9 Do your employees have good access/usage to reliable public transit for getting to work? *3

2.4 2.5 2.8

5 1.8 How is parking access for customers and employees driving to the business? *3

1.6 1.9 1.8

6 *3

2.1 How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility?

2.8 2.3 2.5

7 How has the location/distance of existing bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? *3

2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5

8 i-OD) stimulated by

2.2 What will be the impact of new housing/multuse development (TBRT/Rapid Bus? *2

2.5 2.2 2.1

9 Do you expect proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements to increase your location visibility and attract new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new TOD/housing developments? *2

2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2

10 rt or continued business

2.6 Will BRT/Rapid Bus improvements suppobusiness expansion plansactivity? *2

2.7 2.6 2.8

Notatio orridor Businesses Surveyed

otatio rridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact Expectations otation 3: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions are phrased for respondents to rate pre-existing conditions and future

act Survey Questions).

n 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Transit Cn 2: Geary CoN

NBRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-1. for Alameda, San Pablo, and Wilshire Imp Rating Scoring for data comparison is based on each question asking the responder to answer as to the subject or BRT improvement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, Negative Impact/Decrease =1, with the mean being 2, scoring below 2 as a negative question response, and above 2 as a positive response. The Question Response Score is represented by the Average Response Rating of the business respondents for each question. SQ: Geary BRT Supplemental Question: Do you favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive BRT lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability? The response rating of 142 Businesses was 2.8 for YES, or 93% Support by respondents interviewed.



34

Cerceived impacts by business respondents and areas showing a commonality in positive and egative impacts in specific impact areas. The corridors’ total average impact response and

hart 3 illustrates that there are some significant cumulative results showing differences in the pnranking put the LA Metro Rapid 720 in 1 place with a score of 81.5%, AC Transit’s Alameda st

W bse ter Street/Route 61 corridor as 2nd Place with a s 79. r Pcore of 4%, AC T ansit’s San ablo Rapid 72 corridor in 3 place with a scorrd e of 76.3%, a MUNI Geary Pre-BRT corridornd the SF p ed Chart 3. Transit Corridor Business Impacts: Four Corridors Compared

lac 4 with a score of 70.6%. th

Transit Corridor Impact

3.0

s

Q1 S

LIANG I ce

ssibilit

y

TOP DISTANCE

CT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISI

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY

Impact Questions

Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NE

1.0

NUE TREND

FFIC TREND

PS/SAFETYBILITY

MPACT

2.0

NEU

T

ALES REVE

Q2 FOOT TRA

Q3 SERVIC

E/STO

Q4 ACCESS/R

E

Q5 PARKI

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/A

Q7 BUS S

Q8 TOD IM

PA

BRT/Rapid Bus Improvement

BILITY/New

GA

TIVE

RA

L

POSI

TIVE

Geary Corridor

Alameda Corridor

San Pablo Corridor

Wilshire Corridor

SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10: RESPONSE ANALYSIS Question One: What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? Wilshire businesses indicated a positive and robust sales trend when compared with Gearycorridor businesses indicating a lagging sales trend, and Alameda and San Pablo business respondents indicating moderate sales improvement after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. The business respondents’ compared current sales trends with those of the past year. In general, Northern California’s economy seemed to lag in 2005-2007, slightly behind Los Angeles. This along with differences in corridor social-economic factors may account for the stronger sales trend response among Wilshire corridor business respondents.



35

The Wilshire corridor in many areas also had a higher density of corporate businesses and luxuapartment buildings contributing to higher business sales revenues in some surveyed high income segments like Westwood and Beverly Hills than generated by San Pablo and Alameda corridors businesses. However, Wilshire had lower positive business response ratings for new corridor TOD development contributing to new customers and for its Rapid 720 increasing business visibility in attracting cus

ry

tomers from transit commuters, residents, or TOD housing. he Wilshire corridor in comparison with Alameda, San Pablo, and Geary had very few TOD evelopments contributing to increased business customers. The Wilshire Rapid 720 had a .75-1

ing local

tance

bster treet and San Pablo Avenue transit corridors the increases in “foot traffic” and sales revenues r specific types of businesses were attributed to an increase of mixed-use housing and TOD in

and Emeryville areas of the San Pablo corridor, and the development of residential homes on the

rating y. an

an

Tdmile stop spacing which favored moderate to longer distance commuters than increasneighborhood shopping customer foot traffic. However, Wilshire corridor businesses benefited by additional local bus service coordinated for easier intermodal transfer with the longer dis720 Rapid Bus stops. If there was a positive or negative trend in customer sales, it was captured in the business respondents’ surveys, and was a good indicator of the overall business vitality of the transit corridor. Overall, it did not appear that major numbers of businesses failed or were put out of business by BRT/Rapid bus improvements. Business closures were more likely attributed to a combination of changes in the customer base, competition, higher lease rents, lost lease, or a failed or outdated business model. Question Two: How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? Wilshire corridor had an 80% positive response concerning the location and distance of bus stops affecting customer “foot traffic”, while the other corridors with a positive response range of 13%-26% indicated very little improvement or gain in “foot traffic” from their implemented BRT/Rapid Bus services. In many cases the specific tracking of “foot traffic” directly from whether a store customer sale was attributed to taking the BRT/Rapid Bus or other public transit was not generally tracked by independent retailers, but could be derived from reviewing transit rider surveys that incorporated destination questions. In fact, in the case of the Alameda WeSfothe Berkeley

former Alameda Naval Base. Question Three: Are your customers and employees satisfied with the present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? Geary the Pre-BRT corridor scored a 56% negative response rating of 1.5, Wilshire corridor scored a 63% positive response level of 2.6, and San Pablo scored a 39% positive response of 2.4, with Alameda/Webster Street scoring a 36% positive response rating of 2.3 on the surveGeary’s low negative score can be attributed to the corridor’s history of a high level of pedestriinjury and fatalities. These have been dramatically reduced city-wide by 43% through the application of extending signal timing for pedestrian crossing, and the installation of pedestri



36

count-down signals, new Fluorescent Yellow-Green (FYG) pedestrian and school crossing safety

n s

ore progression from the Geary corridor with the slowest and least proved bus services scoring a negative 1.9 compared to Alameda R61 with a positive 2.3, San

uestion Five: What is the impact on parking access for customers and employees driving

ll four corridors’ business respondents indicated a significant negative impact on parking

response rating and Wilshire’s with a positive .5 rating scored the highest positive response levels in rating the impact of improvements

nd feel of the corridors as a result of provements in streetscape, transit infrastructure elements such as bus stop shelters and the

y

customers and businesses and the contemporary high-tech streamline BRT vehicle sends a

signs, school ladder crosswalks, and other assorted traffic-calming devices and methods. All the of the surveyed transit corridors have been in the ongoing process of installing pedestriasafety signs, signal enhanced crosswalk markings, red-light running cameras and control deviceto aid in creating Safe Routes to School, and Safe Routes to Transit for contributing to the improved walkablity on these transit corridors. Respondents viewed these areas as part of a community oriented transit corridor improvement package that benefited their businesses. Question Four: Do your employees have improved access and usage to reliable public transit for getting to work? There was an rating scimPablo with a positive 2.4, and finally Wilshire at positive 2.8 scoring the highest positive business response (82%) and having the most advanced package of BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. System frequency and reliability along with hours of operation were major contributors to gaining a positive or negative level of response by business owners and managers. Qto the business? Aaccess for customers and employees driving to the business, thereby ranking parking on all corridors as a negative score from 1.9 for the San Pablo corridor to a negative 1.6 for Alameda/Webster corridor. Street-front retailers and small owner businesses without supplemental off-street parking felt especially impacted by parking loss during to peak-hourcommuting congestion policies for clearing parking lanes on heavily traveled major arterials or limited parking supply due to the density of businesses and housing along corridor segments. Question Six: How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility? Alameda/Webster businesses with a positive 2.8 2related to the issues of pedestrian activity, corridor walkablity, and transit accessibility. These issues were, in fact, related to the overall improved look aimvisual impact of the transit vehicle design and transit branding identity applications to system elements. Transportation presents not only a stationary impact on its fixed infrastructure elements but a visual experiential impact of the very “look and feel” of the BRT/Rapid Bus vehicles as themove up and down the corridor. That old traditional bus sends one kind of a message to



37

message of leading edge change, performance, and product/service differentiation. Geary ranked lowest in positive response rating at 2.1 and AC’s San Pablo Rapid 72—using more traditional

us shelters and dealt with crowded sidewalk placements and storefront issues that generated

oot

e distance to the bus stops from the site location of different types f businesses showed a variation of impact on “foot traffic” and sales. There were some types of

next

ring, employees

eir he San

or, and the Geary Boulevard corridor.

f in businesses capturing transit rider customers or shoppers the further they ere from the stops. This issue depends upon how seamlessly the Rapid Bus systems (as the AC

75-1 y

Bus

an nd Geary at 30% related to TOD developments. Basically, TOD and affordable

ulti-use urban housing is a trend that is increasing, but still at its beginnings as a land-use

.

ine: Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA marketing increased your location isibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or

foot ality

btrash problems at stops—scored a positive 2.3 benefiting from its systematic application of a comprehensive Rapid Bus branding identity program on its shelters, vehicles, and signage. Question Seven: How has the location/distance of existing bus stops/shelters affected “ftraffic” numbers? The location or bus stop distance does impact “foot traffic” generation from bus transit improvements. Furthermore, thobusinesses like mini-marts, deli sandwich shops, liquor stores, and bars which found beingto a bus stop to be a very important contributor to their customer generated sales. That also caused some significant problems at certain corridor bus stops and shelters with trash, loiteand in some cases crime. In a significant number of survey interviews managers and complained of the trash and maintenance issues related to the bus stops near or in front of thplace of business, and of several employee robbery and assault incidents at night along tPablo corrid These issues were further highlighted and captured with the open question comments. There was generally a fall-ofwTransit San Pablo R72 and its .64 mile stop distance or the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 with .mile stop spacing) integrated their local service with their new BRT/Rapid Bus service. Manemployees and managers felt that five blocks was the limit for catching the BRT/Rapidservice for moderate to longer commutes. Question Eight: What has been the impact of new housing/multi-use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus? AC Transit’s Alameda/Webster Street businesses scored positive response levels at 52%, SPablo at 25%, amplanning policy for changing urban housing density along transit corridors. The Alameda’s Webster Street/Route 61 corridor was significant in the areas urban renewal and land-use planning resulting in major “main street” infrastructure improvements coordinated with AC Transit’s bus stops and new (ADA) loading platforms. This will be further addressed in lookingat each corridor, and the distribution of respondents’ positive, neutral, and negative responses Question Nvnew housing developments? New customer generation is tied to the previous questions related to business revenue andtraffic trends, and was recognized by all respondents as being important to the long-term vit



38

of transit corridor business. Geary, Alameda/Webster, and San Pablo corridors experienced measurable increases and projected future growth from TOD. Respondents felt that business andneighborhood services needed to be involved and a part of public transportation marketing andadvertising campaigns and programs. Innovative strategic transportation marketing programs which include seasonal destination advertising for transit corridor businesses, entertainment

, useums, historic sites of interest, and tourist destination work to boast the overall vitality of

ng could play an important part of impacting positive business visibility.

d 720

r

customer base, competition, higher lease nts, lost lease, or a failed or outdated business model. That being said, there can be gradual or

vements support business expansion plans or ontinued business activity?

hether the business owner’s or manager’s plans for business ontinuation or relocation was associated with the corridor BRT/Rapid Bus improvements, asked

e,

es

fter the BRT/Rapid Bus implementation. All four corridors presented strong response levels that

mcorridor businesses through generating increased foot traffic and sales. It was felt that bus shelterand vehicle advertisi Informational technology such as “NextBus” in the bus shelters along the Wilshire Rapiand the AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 routes gained additional positive response from business employees and customers using the new BRT/Rapid Bus systems. The LA Metro’s Wilshire Rapid Bus even had LCD Televisions installed on some of their service routes with CNN News and transportation public service messaging for its riders. Corridor business marketing to the public transit customer on these new improved systems offers great potential. There were many other factors than change brought on by transit improvements as a single factoin the success or failure of individual transit corridor businesses. Business closures were more likely attributed to a combination of changes in the redramatic shifts in local socio-economics, land-use and TOD development that accompany the implementation of corridor BRT/Rapid bus systems and multimodal connectivity. These shifts can cumulatively impact the sustainability of sales and the vitality of transit corridor businesses, neighborhoods, and the overall business atmosphere. Question Ten: Do BRT/Rapid Bus improc Question ten, in trying to identify wcspecifically to circle a reason for relocation. The choices listed on the survey included lost leasBRT construction, loss of parking, business downturn, higher rent due to increased area development, or sold business. Overall, it did not appear that significant numbers of businessfailed or were put out of business by BRT/Rapid bus improvements. The numbers for closing the business or relocation due to the BRT/Rapid Bus improvementswere in this survey, fairly insignificant in determining this as a major issue. Question ten also asked about the respondents’ plans for continuing business through expansion or site renovationathe improvements were positive to businesses located along the surveyed improved BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridors.



39

Summary of the Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Business Responses to Impact Questions by Corridor

GEARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR – PRE-BRT IMPLEMENTATION On San Francisco’s Geary Pre-BRT impact survey, questions eight through ten are based upon the expectations of corridor businesses on the future impacts of new housing/TOD and visibility

e

s, and safety and 51% negative response related to parking impacts. here were high neutral responses of 82% related to bus stop distance, 65% for TOD and new ousing impact expectations, and 56% for transit access and reliability. The three highest ositive responses were 78% related to future expectations of BRT’s impact upon business

activity, 54% on increasing future business visibility and attracting new customers, and 39% for increasing “foot traffic” and 39% for increasing neighborhood walkablity and accessibility.

in attracting new customers, and the support of continued business at their present location. Geary scored positive in all three categories with 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 average response ratings. Anadditional Geary corridor supplemental question was asked: “Do you favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive BRT lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?” Thresponse from 142 businesses was 2.8 for YES, or 93% support by interviewed respondents.

hart 27. Geary Blvd. – Transit Corridor Impact Questions C

Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Geary Blvd. Corridor (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)

37%

%

36%

39%

7%

18%

35%

39%

13%

30%

54%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

In Chart 27, Geary corridor’s overall distribution of positive, neutral, and negative business responses for survey questions 1-10 there were higher negative business responses of 56% related to services, stopThp

26%

25%

26%

26%

9%

5% 5% 3%19

%

0%

10%

20%

S REVENUE TREND

OT TRAFFIC TREND

ICE/S

TOPS/SAFETY

CCESS/RELIA

BILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

ORHOOD/Acess

ibility

S STOP DISTANCE

USING/TOD IM

PACT

ILITY/N

ew C

ustom

ers

BUSINESS ACTVITY

56%

38 36%

35% 82

65%

30%

40%

51%

%

56% 14

%

37%

78%

50%

LE FOERV

4 A HB 7 BU

HO SIBQ10

TOTAL % POSITIVERESPONSES (3)

TOTAL % NEUTRAL

Q1 SA

Q2Q3 S

Q

Q6 NEIG Q

Q8 NEW

Q9 VI

RESPONSES (2)TOTAL % NEGATIVERESPONSES (1)



40

ALAMED

lameda Route 61 corridor business respondents placed more emphasis on the level of city ebster Street business

el speed by the AC

e

provements supporting continued business by 72% of the businesses surveyed resulting in a .7 positive response level. These areas were mostly responsible for Alameda ranking ahead of

n

ront e of

implemented improvements was viewed positively by most businesses, for increasing business.

A/WEBSTER STREET/ROUTE 61 TRANSIT CORRIDOR Ainfrastructure improvement as a positive boost to the City of Alameda’s Wommunity than the San Pablo business community placed upon the travc

Transit’s San Pablo Rapid R72. These differences become especially apparent in this study’s review of the respondents’ 10 top positive comments, 10 top negative comments, and the 10 top proposed solutions for improving BRT/Rapid Bus services or the elimination of a perceived negative impact. The Alameda/Webster Street corridor is compact and benefits from its close distance for connecting with BART and the Alameda Ferry to San Francisco within a relatively short travel

me with the corridor’s AC Local No. 51 bus and peak AC Transbay Express bus services. ti

Streetscape/AC Transit Stop/ADA

Hawthorn Suites New Development

Streetscape/Historic Bank Building

New Restaurant Integrated Streetscap

Figure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos As a result of Alameda’s Webster Street/Route 61 streetscape infrastructure improvements, AC Transit’s ADA compliant bus loading platforms and shelters, new low-floor buses, and with the City of Alameda integrating new business and housing redevelopment; business activity increased for most of the surveyed businesses. Alameda’s high-scoring areas included: a positive 2.8 rating as a result of 84% of the businesses surveyed indicating a positive impact related to neighborhood pedestrian activity, walkablity, and transit accessibility, 72% of businesses surveyed indicated a positive response as to the impact of new businesses and housing resulting in a positive rating of 2.5, and with the transit im2the San Pablo Rapid Bus corridor. The Alameda businesses, rated parking impacts at 1.6 with 42% the respondents indicating anegative impact to their business. This extreme negative response was attributed to the reductioof street frontage parking by 25% due to the streetscape design intrusion into former storefparking areas even with ample supplemental off-street parking available. The overall packag



41

Chart 28. Alameda/Webster Street/R61 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions

Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Alameda Webster/Route 61 (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)

In Chart 28, the Alameda ute 61 butio nd

egative survey question 1-10 indicate very low negative responses ranging from 2%-9% for nine out of ten questions, with a 42% negative pacts the most significant.

he highest neutral/no-chan stances, as they were very losely spaced. Questions 1-5 showing a consistent neutral response range of 50%-57%, with

y-transit activity, and 52% for positive impacts from new

nd low survey scores regarding the hours of operation in

s

/Webster Street/Ro corridor distri n of positive, neutral, an

response for parking imge response was 74% related to bus stop diT

cstrong positive responses ranging from 41%-46% for business sales revenue, foot traffic, service/stop/safety, and bus transportation access/reliability. The highest positive responses were 84% for neighborhood pedestrian activity- walkablitccessibility, 72% indicating increased businessa

housing and TOD related to the “main street” renewal project and other new nearby housing development on Alameda’s former Navy Air Station/Base. SAN PABLO/RAPID 72 TRANSIT CORRIDOR AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 corridor businesses indicated negative impacts in several areas

f the survey’s negative comments aoserving many of the late shift retail business employees and managers. This included the issueof bus stop location, safety fears of loitering and crime, and limited new customers from AC Transit’s Rapid 72. As a result, many business owners, managers, employees, and customers

42%

57

50% 54

%

56%

48%

5%

45%

24%

14%

10%

20%

30%

%

74%

9% 9% 3% 7%

4%2%3%

7%0%

40%

Q1 SALE

S REVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/S

AFETY

Q4 ACCE

BILITY

PACT

ssibi

lityANCE

MPACT

Q9 VIS

I

tomers

TVITY

36%

46% 36

%

41%

84%

17%

52% 45

%

72%

56%

2%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


TOTAL % NEUTRALRESPONSES (2)

TOTAL % NEGATIVE

SS/RELIA

Q5 PARKIN

G IM

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

Q7 BUS STOP D

IST

Q8 NEW H

OUSING/TOD I

BILITY/N

ew C

us

Q10 BUSIN

ESS AC

RESPONSES (1)



42

chose the car mode to travel to and from San Pablo corridor businesses. The customers in many cases found fairly ample parking available in many areas of the San Pablo corridor, and many of the major retail locations were directly accessible by BART or near BART stations like the El Cerrito Plaza shopping center with over 26 retail businesses, many of them national chains.

st ity or

business from New Housing/TOD pacts. Neighborhood and corridor walkablity and transit accessibility were unchanged

us ated by a 46% response. The very

erception of business respondents as indicating neutral or no-change as a response reflects high uto mode shares of 68% by customers, 69% by business employees, and significantly higher by

should be also be viewed as indicating the ck of personal use or public transportation experience by business owners and managers, who

Chart 29. San Pablo/R72 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions

Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - San Pablo (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)

11% 15%

51%

50% 59

%

46%

82%

64% 72

%

74% 81

%

38%

46% 39

%

52%

35% 25

% 17%

59%

4%2%2%2%1%2%2%5%

38%

3%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q1 SALE

S REVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILI

TY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Acess

ibility

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 NEW

HOUSIN

G/TOD IMPACT

Q9 VIS

IBILITY/N

ew C

ustom

ers

Q10 BUSIN

ESS ACTVITY



TOTAL % NEGATIVERESPONSES (1)

In Chart 29, the San Pablo corridor distribution of positive, neutral, and negative survey questions 1-10 indicate very low negative responses with the highest being 15% citing parking as an issue and 11% indicating lower sales revenues. The neutral responses indicating no significant change or impact were quite high ranging from 82% to 38% for all of the questions. The higheneutral response at 82% was for parking impacts, 81% indicating little impact from visibilnew customers, and a surprising 74% indicating no change in imaccording to 64% of the business respondents. The strongest positive responses were 59% for impacts upon business activity levels, Rapid Baccess and reliability at 52%, and increased foot traffic indicpabusiness managers and owners. The neutral responsesla



43

were found to appreciate the importance of increased reliability, speed, and hours of operation for business employees and potential customers from the BRT/Rapid Bus systems and BART. The AC Rapid 72 scores should have resulted in a second place ranking behind the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720—upon examination of the rating scoring comparison between the different corridors and the implemented improvements, with AC Transit’s strong scores in speed, frequency, and overall reduction of travel times. The Rapid 72 brand identity program and excellent bus equipment attracted additional positive comment. However, night rider safety related to the limited hours of AC’s R72 operation and late night local bus frequency creating

nger bus stop waits and potential crime exposure by business employees, were listed as reasons

ts indicated that female employees/store managers felt especially vulnerable and expressed strong negative responses

trated the

om positive Metro LA ridership surveys. This is also clear from the 47% increase in daily dership from 43,200 to 90,000 with the implementation of the Metro Rapid 720 service. The stem service efficiency reports indicated reduced running time resulting in 29%-40% faster

using

Figure 2 Wilshire – Rapid 720 Elements

lofor employees and managers driving to work. The survey’s open commen

toward issues that impacted their personal safety, travel commute time and convenience. The store owners and managers often expressed that as long as the employee came into work on time, the issues of the quality of the Rapid Bus “package” was not as significant as the loss of parking accessibility and reductions in parking capacity that impacted their businesses’ customers and employees. There were some owners and managers who frequented the public transit systems, but this was in no way reflective of the much higher percentage of business employees utilizing the BRT/Rapid Bus and connecting public transit systems like BART. The “mom and pop” and small independent owned businesses on all corridors demonslowest number of those using public transit, compared to managers and employees of large or medium sized national retail chains, or brand name stores. This is a case where the use of corridor transit ridership survey data is useful to compare ridership opinions with those of corridor businesses owners and managers. WILSHIRE – LA METRO RAPID 720 TRANSIT CORRIDOR The Wilshire corridor’s LA Metro Rapid 720 clearly scored higher in the majority of the survey question areas to rank 1st place with its 81.5% score by Wilshire transit corridor businesses. The riding experience during off-peak hours was outstanding and worthy of a higher score reinforced frrisyservice for the LA Metro Rapid 720.

Wilshire Stop NABI Bus/ADA Branding LA Metro Shelter Wilshire TOD-Ho



44

Chart 30. Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions

Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Wilshire Corridor (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)

9%

22%5%90%

100%

28%

67%

91%

76%

63%

60%

63% 52

%

85%

4%

0%

3%

1%1%0%

4%

1%3%

39%

14%18

%

34% 39

%

37% 44

%

57%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

TY Y T ility E CT rs ITY

80%

RENDEND

FE ILIT AC ib ANC

PA me

Q1 SALE

S REVENUE T

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TR

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/S

A

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIAB

Q5 PARKIN

G IMP

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Acess

Q7 BUS STOP D

IST

Q8 NEW H

OUSING/TOD IM

Q9 VIS

IBILITY/N

ew C

usto

Q10 BUSIN

ESS ACTV



TOTAL % NEGATIVERESPONSES (1)

In Chart 30, the Wilshire/Rapid 720 corridor distribution of positive, neutral and negative business responses for survey questions 1-10 indicated minimal to insignificant negative response levels except with 28% of the surveyed Wilshire corridor businesses indicating nparking impacts. The LA Metro prior to the survey had implemented peak-hour direction prestrictions so that the La Metro rapid 720 c

egative arking

ould gain exclusive lane usage in certain segments to crease travel speed and reduce dwell time at its curbside stops. Retail store owners especially Beverly Hills and the Rodeo Drive area were strong in voicing negative responses.

ables 1-5, 1-6, 1-7 summarizing the four transit corridor business impact questions positive

zed

inin Tresponses, neutral responses, and negative responses are included in the appendix B for comparison with the top ten positive, negative, and solution comments.

The validity of data spikes or areas of sharp contrast between the corridors was further analyby cross comparing with the secondary Respondent Comments Survey generated by three opencomment questions asked at the end of the main survey, not included in the ten impact questionused to generate the main impact ratin

s

g scores for each corridor. These were used as a secondary ata compilation, to gather additional information and validation concerning impact responses.

d



45

IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE The of BRT ac si ssinto to 12 business types segments or categories. The rational and premise was that different

pes of businesses would po were specifically impacted s. This ir

ustomers and employees to and from the business. Table 3, Impact Level on Transit Corridor

Survey data /Rapid Bus imp ts on Tran t Corridor Busine es was further sorted

ty ssibly have a different view of how theyby the different levels or BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes and service characteristicrelated to business type, land-use, hours of operation, and satisfying the travel needs of thecBusiness Types lists the business categories and the impact response ratings converted to percentages, as a percentage of the total business surveyed for each individual corridor. Table 3. Impact Level on Transit Corridors Business Types Table 3 Transit Corridor's Business Types - Impact Level Comparison* BUSINESS TYPE Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire AM Automotive 71.3% 80.8% 74.0% 80.0% CORP Corporations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.4% EDU Education 62.7% 80.8% 65.0% 85.6% FF Fast Food 67.3% 83.3% 80.3% 84.6% FI Financial Institution 68.9% 80.0% 79.4% 72.5% GOV Government 74.2% 78.9% 0.0% 90.0% HO Hotel/Housing 73.3% 91.1% 0.0% 78.7% LQ Liquor Store/Bar 66.7% 83.3% 79.3% 80.0% MED Medical/Services 69.3% 91.1% 73.3% 78.9% ORG Organizations 86.7% 0.0% 0.0% 86.7% RES Restaurants 70.2% 77.1% 73.7% 81.9% RET Retail 71.4% 74.4% 76.5% 81.8% Average Overall Score 70.6% 79.4% 76.3% 81.5%

Notation 1: Transit Corridor’s Business Segments/Type Impact Index Converted to Percentages Notation 2: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed Notation 3: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations* Notation 4: Business Satisfaction with “total package” of BRT/Rapid Bus Improvements*

pact Level Comparison Rating Scale: (Business Opinion) ImBelow 70% F failing, 70-74% C average, 75-79% B Good, 80-85% B+ Excellent, and 86-92% A Outstanding



46

The survey results of the respondents perceived did indicate that there

Alameda’s Medical/Services category scored a 91% positive response as a result of senior care and assisted living housing managers who felt that the AC Bus Transit improvements along Webster Street/Route 61 were positive in enhanc g their mobility and use of public transit. Alameda again scored high at 91% in the hotel/h spitality category because of Hawthorn Suites guests and convention attendees who found the bus connectivity to downtown Oakland, BART, and the Oakland Airport to oint to point travel time

and from the hotel.

ty

nalyzing the composite scores should be viewed in relative terms as to the size of the sample gest categories of survey

espondents on all four corridors. The fast food, medical services, and educational categories aptured solid survey responses that were reflective of their perceived impact levels.

By looking at a particular business cate reta p spon tions 1-10 on the impact survey, one can iden leve ct and its relationship to each c o e” of bus tran ices a rovem t becom ent w ateg to ular s type h are viewed as n l in the opinions of the busin nde also e at the trend lines in general would ha by th of the t “packa . The ve sc verall corridor ran affected by three or four significant positive and/or negative spikes in the businesses’ responses to the s ques RT/Rapid B vem pac particular type of business. T h pe l or no-c spon sig n mod he business res tive and neg onse rating scores. Again, these e rating-s are r the average/m onse f th s resp owners o ger ch survey question. te rts categb sinesses e r fu ew ence.

impacts to their business were some differences in the levels of impact by business type and differences between the corridor improvements. Street-front retailers, restaurants, and medical services generally felt more impacted negatively by the improvements, especially when they resulted in making parkingor travel to their destination more difficult.

ino

be very convenient and provided for rapid pto There were a couple of business types where impacts could not be compared on all four corridors. This is evident in the case of the Wilshire Blvd. which has numerous major corporations while the other three corridors have very few if any to sample. Non-profit organizations were also difficult to capture on Alameda/Webster Street and the San Pablo Avenue Corridor for comparison. Street-front restaurants without off-street parking availabiliscored lower as a category than fast foods, while drive-in services with parking availability scored higher. Financial institutions scored lower in spite of parking availability, except onAlameda/Webster Street where the institutions had their own off-street parking areas. Ataken. Retail Chart 21 and Restaurants Chart 20 represented the two larrc

gory like il and com aring the re se to questify the l of impa

orridor’s verall “packag sit serv nd imp ents. I es apparhich c ories of impact have been successful the partic busines and whic

ot successfu ess respo nts. It iscorridors

vident the successve ranked BRT/Bus Rapid transit

ge” of improvementsotal cumulati ore for o king was

urvey tions, and the B us impro ents’ im t to the

he hig rcentages of neutra hange re ses were nificant i erating tpondents’ posi ative resp respons

cores epresented by ean resp rating o e busines ondents (r mana s) for ea A comple set of cha for the 12 ories of u surveyed is located in App ndix C fo rther revi and refer



47

Transit Corridor Impacts - Retail

1.0

3.0

- Le

vel o

f

RA

L

PO

S

Imp

ITIV

Eact

Geary Corridor

Alameda Corridor

San PabloCorridorWilshire Corridor

2.0

Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

T

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY

Business Impact Questions

Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail

Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant

3.0

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

RA

L

POSI

TIVE

Chart 20 Transit Corridor Impacts – Restaurants

1.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


2.0

sine

ss R

espo

nse

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

T

Bu

Geary CorridorAlameda CorridorSan Pablo CorridorWilshire Corridor



48

nother way this was viewed was by looking at the 12 or so categories of business types and r

Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type

Acharting them in total by corridor. This did show visually, that certain businesses had a majodifference in the perceived impact level—whereas others followed a similar level and trend.


Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type

Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

P

OSI

TIVE Total AM

TOTAL EDU

Total FF

Total FI

Total GOV

Total HO

Total LQ

Total MED

Total RES

Total RET

Alameda Median

Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FO

OT TRAFFIC TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

P

OSI

TIVE Total AM

Total EDU

Total FF

Total FI

Total GOV

Total HO

Total LQ

Total MED

Total ORG

Total RES

Total RET

Geary Median


49

Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type

Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Ty

pe

Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type

3.0

- Le

vel

act

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

P

1.0

2.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

of Im

p

OSI

TIVE

Total AM

Total Corp

Total Edu

Total FF

Total FI

Total GOV

Total HO

Total LQ

Total MED

Total ORG

Total RES

Total RET

Wilshire Median

San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type

1.0

2.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- L

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

3.0

evel

of I

mpa

ct

P

OSI

TIVE

Total AM

Total EDU

Total FF

Total FI

Total LQ

Total MED

Total RES

Total RET

San Pablo Median



50

RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS: Positive – Negative - Solutions

he respondents at the end of the survey very often wanted to express strong feelings about BRT/Rapid Bus system

experiences with the im s to resolving the negative conflicts and im

ative levels of concern and comm Positive Comm proved your

T

elements impacting their businesses in a more detailed way or in fact reinforce issues brought up in the survey’s initial 10 questions. The open constructed questions gave an opportunity for the respondents to not only express the most positive and negative

plemented improvements, but to expresses creative solutionproving the overall quality and impact to the community at large.

The following tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and charts 4, 5, and 6 show the comparents based upon the top ten collected for each category of comments.

ent Question: What was the Positive BRT/Rapid Bus impact that imbusiness sales and customer activity?

Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS

POSITIVE COMMENTS

Geary*

Alameda San Pablo Wilshire

1 Faster Travel 98.6% 2.8% 80.6% 94.2% 2 Reliability/Bus Frequency 97.9% 5.6% 22.5% 82.5% 3 Increased New Business Development 78.2% 25.2% 19.4% 9.2% 4 Safer/Cleaner Stops 79.6% 86.0% 2.3% 20.8% 5 Attractive Streetscapes/Shelters 83.8% 88.8% 2.3% 15.8% 6 New TOD Customers 32.4% 6.5% 10.9% 2.5% 7 Pedestrian Activity/Safety 83.1% 63.6% 16.3% 20.0% 8 New Bus Design/Branding 92.3% 0.9% 1.6% 28.3% 9 Serves Employee Needs 35.2% 6.5% 9.3% 50.0% 10 Serves Corridor Businesses 44.4% 16.8% 20.9% 59.2%

Notation: ResponsNotation: Geary Co The W ent levels for faster travel at 94.2% ent level of

reliability/b ls in these categories as comp ster travel, and 5.6% citing reliabi e-BRT corridor showed high-level bu ies for the future implem“package” has major infrastructure, streetscape, landscaping, and pedestrian/traffic safety improvements bundled into the proposed various BRT alignment alternatives, which would impact the overall look, walkablity, and vitality of the Geary transit corridor. In the areas of safer/cleaner mment response, and again at the top for attractive streetscape/shelters at 88.8%. Wilshire again showed

es Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed rridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*

ilshire Rapid 720 corridor again showed very strong positive comm and 82.5% for reliability/bus frequency compared a positive comm

80.6% for the San Pablo Rapid 72 in providing faster travel and 22.5% for its increased us frequency. Both systems achieved significant support leve

ared to only 2.8% for the Alameda/Webster Street businesses citing fality/bus frequency in their positive comments. Geary, as a Prsiness expectations for positive improvement impacts in all categor

entation of the proposed center alignment BRT package. The proposed Geary BRT

bus stops Alameda/Webster Street was at the top with an 86% positive co



51

a strong response in the same categories with a 20.8% for safer/cleaner stops and 15.8% for attractive streetscape/shelters. The LA Metro Ra d Bus shelter design and integrated Rapid Bus Brand Identity elements were striking and outstanding in many areas related to their location and position Pablo ttracte reetscape/shelters.

s at

Comments

area

pi

ing along the corridor, leaving the sidewalk accessibility clear. The AC transit San d low levels of positive comments at 2.3% for both safer/cleaner stops and attractivea

st Photo audits of the location, placement, design, and trash issues documented both positive andnegative comments concerning these two issues. Finally the LA Wilshire corridor businesses projected very positive comment levels for the LA Metro Rapid 720 serving employee need50%, and serving corridor businesses at 59.2%. Alameda businesses positive comments on serving employee needs were 6.5% and 16.8% for serving corridor businesses. The San Pablo businesses commented with a lower response that employee needs were being met at 9.3% compared to the AC San Pablo Rapid 72 serving corridor businesses at 20.9%. Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive

Chart 4 shows the comparative levels of positive comments in the perspective of what stood out—in the respondents view—as the most positive areas of BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impacts. The low response for certain comments on improvement elements are not necessarily negative unless correlated with the following negative comments collected and the original survey questions. With all three indicating the same level of concern or impact, it may be anneeding improvement.

Transit Corridor Positive Comments

80%85%90%

B Ne cti

apes

/Shelters

New TOD C

ustomers

ctivit

iy-Safe

ty Im

prove

ment

8: N

ew B

usDes

ign/Bran

d

9: Serv

es

idor

ustom

Inde

x

95%100%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%

% o

f Pos 30%

35%

i 40%45%

tive

C 50%55%o

60%65%

mm

ent

70%75%

Geary CorridorAlameda CorridorSan Pablo CorridorWilshi

1: Fas

ter

cy-N

ext

Dev

el

r/Clea

ne Travel

BusGPS

opment

r Stops

2: Re

7: P

ede

10: S

ervlia

bility/ 3:

5: Attr

a

strian

A

es C

orrus F

reqen

w Busin

ess

4: Safe

ve Stre

et-Sc

6:

ing

e Nee

ds

E

Busines

smploye

es, C

ers

Positive Comments

re Corridor



52

Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to design changes, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negatively impacting your business sales or customer activity? Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS

NEGATIVE COMMENTS Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire

1 Parking Loss/Damage 66.9% 62.6% 7.0% 12.5% 2 Ugly Shelter/Stop Design 5.6% 4.7% 6.2% 0.0% 3 Bus Stops Not Clean 13.4% 3.7% 17.1% 3.3% 4 Stop Shelters Block Store 7.7% 6.5% 3.9% 1.7% 5 Poor Stop Lighting 13.4% 1.9% 17.1% 0.8% 6 Loitering/Safety Concern 64.1% 3.7% 27.9% 3.3% 7 Hours of Bus Operation 12.0% 1.9% 53.5% 9.2% 8 ADA Accessibility/Pedestrian Safety 57.0% 5.6% 3.9% 7.5% 9 Frequency/Reliability 9.2% 1.9% 17.1% 0.8% 10 Lost Business/Relocation Planned 59.9% 6.5% 2.3% 0.0%

Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations* In the area of negative respondents’ comments parking loss ranked high with the Alameda Webster Street businesses at 62.6% and 66.9% for Geary businesses with the changes required for the implementation of the proposed future Geary BRT. The Alameda businesses that had bus stops or planters and streetscape elements placed directly in front of their stores cited that mcustomers who frequented their store complained of damaging their cars on the protruding streetscape elements, which were substantial concrete infrastructure elements that exthe parking lanes. The Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 corridor surveyed showed relatively low negative comments in most of the other categories of complaint areas.

Streetscape-Alameda ADA/sidewalk space-R72 Trash/Store View -R72 Vendors LA

any

tended into

R720

Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments

San Pablo corridor’s businesses’ negative comments were highest at 53.5% concerning the ACRapid 72 hours of operation and showed a 27.9% concern about bus stop loitering and safety.



53

Three other negative comment categories concerning the issues of bus stops not being clean 17.1%, poor bus stop lighting 17.1%, and frequency and reliability issues 17.1%. The issues of

d bus

pondents had very few negative comments bout the Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720.

n the Geary corridor 57% of the respondents had negative comments concerning pedestrian conditions and indicated significant safety concer fety o sitwith l s at high volume transfer points. The existing MUNI bus service h be ching which reduce I cap d a tes hea d d ll mfort, negative feelings about reliability and excessive travel t G er nts that scored below 5 not too significa rom ea o us ent which block ticul ness promised its v bil age.

r ommen

the San Pablo Rapid 72 not meeting the needs of the surveyed businesses’ employees werereinforced by the concerns over hours of operation, bus stop safety and loitering issues, anfrequency for late night shift employees. Wilshire resa O

ns for sa and safe r utes to tran stops ittle or no transit amenitie

as en plagued with bus bun s MUN acity an ggrava dway anwe times. This creates rider discoime.

en ally negative comme % were nt apart f the arf b shelter location and placem

rketing imed a par ar busi and com

isi ity, front signage, and ma

Cha t 5 Transit Corridor Negative C ts

Transit Corridor Negative Comments

0%

75%80%

mage

esign

Clean

4:

sign

ating

cern

ends

ance

bility

ssue

Negative Comments

5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%

% o

f Neg

ativ

e C

omm

ent I

ndex

1: Park

ing Loss/D

a

2: Ugly

Shelter/

Stop D

3: Bus S

tops Not

Shelters

Block

Store-De

5: Poor S

top Lighting-S

e

6: Loite

ring/Safe

ty Con

7: Hours

of Bus O

p. Night, W

eek

8: ADA A

cess

ibility/P

ED Acc

ess/D

ist

9: Freq

uency

/Reli

a

10: B

usines

s/Relo

catio

n -Constr

uction I

Geary Corridor

Alameda Corridor





54

Solutions Comment Question: How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business? Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS - COMMENTS

SOLUTIONS - COMMENTS Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire

1 Extend Operational Hours/ Night 26.1% 1.9% 50.4% 8.3% 2 Increase Bus Frequency 24.6% 2.8% 29.5% 2.5% 3 Expand BRT/Rapid Service Route 12.0% 1.9% 34.1% 2.5% 4 Build Parking Garages on Corridor 67.6% 12.1% 1.6% 3.3% 5 Weekend Service Needed 23.2% 0.0% 20.2% 1.7% 6 Transit Security/CCTV/Lights 68.3% 4.7% 20.2% 4.2% 7 Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter 19.7% 11.2% 7.0% 0.8% 8 Modify Streetscape Design/Trees 26.1% 25.2% 4.7% 0.8% 9 Move Bus Stop/Shelter 2.8% 7.5% 2.3% 5.0% 10 More TOD Development 5.6% 9.3% 2.3% 0.0%

NN

otation 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed otation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*

e. The

ad

tive

ission, May 1, hip to the citywide

its)

ay by space) • Parking master planning for Transit Corridors implementing LRT/BRT/Rapid Bus

The solution comments turned out to be an interesting and productive interview exerciscomments, in general, indicated that most of the respondents were genuinely interested in improving corridor BRT/Rapid Bus services. Generally the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” that hthe most features, and the highest per mile investment in equipment and features that reduced travel speed, increased bus frequency, and had latest in shelter and equipment design with a high profile system Brand Identity program reflected the least amount of solutions and negacomments. In this survey study, this was the LA Wilshire Metro Rapid 720. Geary Blvd. as a Pre-BRT had the highest number of solution comments and negative comments, reflecting a general dissatisfaction with the existing corridor bus transit service, traffic congestion, and retail parking capacity. In fact, 67.6% of the Geary businesses suggested building public parking garages along the corridor to ease the parking problem. Presently San Francisco’s MTA Planning is working on a major citywide study of these issues, On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study, which was presented to the MTA Comm2007 .They are basically looking at the overall parking policy and its relations“transit first” policy and related issues which include:

• Parking pricing and regulations (peak and off-peak rates, times of day, time lim• Residential Permit Program reforms/Commercial Participation in Revenue Pricing • Shared parking, Car Share Program expansion • Parking Benefit districts with differential pricing • New Parking Technologies (pay and display/p


55

Alameda had the most solution comments—at 25.2%—related to modifying the design of the w integrated streetscape planters, sitting areas, and bus stops with bumper guards or materials

e to cars. The San Pablo corridor businesses had several strong night service for

e AC Rapid 72 at 50%, 2.) Increasing bus frequency 29.5%, 3.) Expanding AC Rapid 72 ecurity

Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments

ent, loss, and pricing of on-street parking n fr t rs,

3.) T g the cons c verall desi a stem components such as vehicles, shel s

nethat would reduce parking damagareas of solution comments concerning, 1.) Extending hours of operation andthservice route 34.1%, 4.) Weekend Rapid Bus service needed 20.2%, and 5.) Transit Simprovement at stops, CCTV and brighter lighting 20.2%.

Transit Corridor Solution ts

t Svc

ency

Routerag

erea

seights

helter

rees

elter

ment

Commen

15%

20%

25%

% o

f So 30%

35%

40%

lutio

ns R

epor

45%

50%

55%t

60%

ed

65%

70%

75%

5%

10%

0%

1: Exte

nd Op H

rs/Late

Nigh

2: Incre

ase B

us Freq

u

3: Exp

and B

RT Service

4: Build

Parking G

a

5: Wee

kend Serv

ice N

eeded

/Inc

6: Tran

sit Sec

urity/C

TV/L

7: Red

esign B

us Stop/S

8: Modify

StreetS

cape D

esign/T

9: M

ove B

us Stop/Sh

10: M

ore TOD D

evelo

p

Business Solutions/Recommendations


Each corridor is charted separately with its positive comments, negative comments, and solutions ranked from highest to lowest percentage of comments on charts 23-26 in Appendix C.

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONS There were several impact issues that rose to the top in transit corridor businesses and ommunity concerns. These included 1.) The managemc

i on or adjacent to the businesses, 2.) Street safety inaccessibility around bus stops/sheltehe frequency, reliability, and hours of bus transit operations, 4.) Loss of business durin

frastructure improvements, 5.) The otru tion phases of an advanced BRT with major ingn nd brand identity as applied to BRT/Rapid Bus syter , and impact on the street infrastructure/streetscape.



56

The a

ing d

er the process but created additional udy costs to work out parking impacts, potential reductions, and parking capacity issues with

each of the different proposed alignment and infrastructure options for implementing BRT on

ize the ,

zing the

s a parking management plan in place that nd the implementation and expansion of BRT/

apid Bus systems.

• Modify the allocation of parking spaces by type and time period • Add additional parking on cross-streets; rking spaces size-compact, mid-size, full-size • In • Identify opportunities for shared parking/valet parking

on pricing

P rking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid Bus The potential loss of parking as mentioned in the study was a constant concern expressed by all of the transit corridors’ surveyed businesses. The Geary Pre-BRT corridor public input process and Geary BRT CAC meetings during the SFCTA Geary BRT study phases became extremely contentious with one business merchants group, The Geary Merchants Association establishan anti-Geary BRT website, StopGearyBRT.com. This became such an issue that it was playeup in the press and media. It not only put a public shadow ovst

Geary Blvd. This is a citywide issue that needs to be addressed. Minimizing on-street parking loss was identified as one of the highest ranking priorities by participants at the SFCTA Geary BRT December 2005 public workshops. In December the conceptual designs and service plans considered for the Geary Corridor BRT Study were based upon the design principals under the “Neighborhood Access” goal which was to maintain on-street parking. The maintaining of on-street parking was also consistent with the third study goal, enhancing Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality and the objective to “minimnegative impacts of the project on local residents and businesses, SFCTA GCAC Memorandum3/20/2006, Julie Kirschbaum.” There are particularities in the various types of parking configurations from parallel to 45 degree parking along the Geary Corridor that would have to be modified to handle the BRT alternatives requiring three travel lanes in each direction, one for BRT and two for general traffic, and leaving one lane for parallel parking. The taking of general traffic travel lanes as proposed by the Geary BRT configurations or parking lanes at peak-hour/peak direction (as the LA Wilshire corridor Metro Rapid 720) does in several sections is a critical policy balance in maximispeed and operations efficiency potential of BRT/Rapid Bus systems and maintaining businesses’ accessibility to parking for customers and employees. Parking is also a citywide issue in the production of revenue that is often used to support transit operations. It is vitally important that each city haworks in concert with transit corridor businesses aR There are many of possibilities and suggested better practices which include:

pastall signage to identify off-street parking lots reducing space search congestion

• Build strategically placed corridor public garages with time of day and congesti• City wide residential parking permit program, limiting commuter parking capacity • Citywide commercial and business parking permit; special priced truck unloading zones • Maximize new parking management/meter technologies for parking turn-over • Install latest technology for parking revenue collection/and parking enforcement



57

Transportation planners and managers need to look at how managing, configuring and pricing urban transit corridor vehicle parking affects multi-modal interaction and transit efficiency

ssibility, diversity, and vitality of transit orridor businesses. The author recommends a thorough look and application of innovative

a

t

he number of vehicles per ousehold but also to the actual vehicle size category of sub-compact, compact, mid-sized and

will entice individuals from full-time car usage as their only hoice of travel. This will help avoid some of the more stringent policy approaches.

for

ety, to congestion. Operating

RT/Rapid Bus systems in existing congested traffic corridors and interacting with other ,

and acceptance of BRT as a unique solution to be embraced and supported s mode choice over the car. The issues of bus stop safety concerns by transit corridor

rridors, and were xacerbated by longer evening service waits at poorly lighted and maintained bus stops.

Theinte astateme tion of bus service waiting times. Oth tfor i rt as wel s

without negatively impacting the commercial accecparking management and parking pricing strategies which welcomes multi-modal activity and promotes BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses as a shopping, entertainment, and urban living destinations. There is a major failure in the areas of local and regional government’s participation in creating policy and planning environment of excess in the inefficient use of land resources, by not accelerating the planning, development, and building process for TOD along major urban transicorridors with the appropriate capacity of underground off-street parking. The progressive pricing of parking in these TOD units can be related to not only thfull size. European and other countries have in place policies which tax and charge owners not only by thesize/weight of the vehicle but by the engine size to curb the inefficient use of resources. Theremay come a point in densely populated urban areas like Manhattan where one will have to secure a parking space before being allowed to purchase a vehicle as in Tokyo, Japan. Hopefully innovation in parking management, pricing, and the implementation of exciting BRT/Rapid Bus systems and other transit modes c Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at Stops There has been a significant increase of urban and metropolitan transit systems required to operate within a multi-modal network of bikes and pedestrians This in turn requires methods the evaluation of the design of transit system improvements or expansion within (TEA-21) and (SAFETEA-LU) equity constraints that do not detract from (LOS) levels of service, saftransportation performance—which must reduce and not contributeBtransportation modes presents special challenges to maintain a necessary reduction in travel timereliability with street (dwell) customer wait times and inter-modal transfer times. The significance of the perception of wait and time management will affect the potential transit customers’ perceptionabusinesses’ employees were not too uncommon in most major urban transit coe

bold open industrial designed shelters/stops of the Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720 (with the gr tion of NextBus information displays, shelter lighting, and features) made a bold

nt in the areas of safety and addressing customer perceper ransit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI are looking for new shelter design concepts the r BRT/Rapid Bus services to enhance the customer’s perception of safety and comfol a fit in with the local streetscape fabric of transit corridor businesses and neighborhoods.



58

LA Metro Rapid 720 LA Metro Rapid 720 SF MUNI Concept SF MUNI Concept

Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts Every public transit rider is a pedestrian at some point in their trip to and from work or other destinations. People’s transit mode choice, accessibility, safety, convenience, and comfort are seriously influenced by having safe routes to and from transit, and the issues of how well the transit mode operates within a multi-modal congested environment. The context of multi-modal connectivity of BRT/Rapid Bus with other modes as rail is significant in influencing the ridchoice and frequency of use of that mode. These issues affect the overall quality of the transit experience, performance and time of travel, wait/dwell time at stops and modes transfers—and the overall

ers’

concept of transit friendliness and customer use. LOS is a very frequent method of

ject, and ity.

ral

w-reen pedestrian signs at crosswalks and K-12 school sites, extended pedestrian crossing timing

safety

measurement in planning and marketing a new BRT/Rapid Bus expansion in the present context of multi-modal transit equity and funding, and is a method that bikes and pedestrian advocates are using to demand their share of the funding for transit corridor pedestrian safety improvements, pedestrian traffic calming infrastructure and transit bike facilities.

ADA Compliant Bus Stop AC Transit Webster St./Alameda

SF School Ladder Crosswalks, Bus Line

FYG Pedestrian Sign, Ladder Crosswalks, Corner Bulb out, SF

Geary BRT Concept. Ladder Crosswalks, Countdown Signals

Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements

Many transit corridors are finding that implementing pedestrian safety improvements and bike facilities in their BRT/Rapid Bus projects capture a greater level of support for the proenhance the transit corridors neighborhood safety, walkablity, and business community vitalSan Francisco and other metropolitan areas have had significant results (43% reduction 2001-2007) in reducing pedestrian, bike, and vehicle collision injuries and fatalities with sevesignificant improvements that can be applied through out the BRT/Rapid Bus corridors. These include pedestrian countdown signals, bold Ladder Crosswalks, (FYG) Fluorescent YelloGat multi-lane intersections, brighter intersection street lighting, and other pedestrian-friendly traffic-calming elements. The author recommends that a complete program of pedestrianand street improvements be apart of any substantial urban BRT/Rapid Bus corridor project enhancing travel safety to and from transit and the community at large.



59

Frequency and Hours of Operation The frequency and hours of operation can impact the choice of BRT/Rapid Bus as demonstrated by the survey of the San Pablo Corridor businesse

ith 12 mi – 7 pm Monday through Saturday and works

with late cl

s and their employees travel mode choice. The AC Rapid 72 service operates w nute headway at peak and 15 minutes at off-peak from 6 am for most corridor office and school riders, but not as well for retail businesses osing times. This issue is so involved in the cost factors of operating a frequent service with extended night hours that it falls outside of the scope of ants t stud

he Wilshire Corridor L 5 minute headway nd

ses. Every

king, pplemental off-street parking or maybe shuttle buses from perimeter area parking facilities

basis to help with traffic and pedestrian safetythat works construction projects, and is paid out of the construction pr ic and pedestrian safety hazards. The creation of safe alternative routespedestrians in the corridor and especially for vulnerable groups like scthe disabled is crucial, and additionally helps to ensure comm

jec uction

arketing the BRT

this study, but warr further independen y.

T A Metro Rapid 720 does operates at an incredibleduring peak AM and PM hours, and operates around the clock. It has captured ridership demathat is starting to exceed capacity. This system will be possibly a way of creating the level of ridership that will support the extension of the Red Line rail system, and can take its place. A possible recommendation for the San Pablo Corridor would be the study of implementing a special limited late night Rapid Bus Service that works with the closing schedules of large retailers and corridor businesses and other late night transit modes. Construction Hazards Mitigation Construction for a transportation project with major infrastructure improvements will always bedifficult without the support of all stakeholders in the community including businesffort should be made to come up with creative parking solutions be they valet pare

suduring the construction phases. It is especially important to have police enforcement on a daily

issues. San Francisco created a special SFPD unit oject for mitigating traff

and crossing areas for hool children, seniors and

unity goodwill toward the BRT/Rapid Bus pro

t during the constr phases.

M /Rapid Bus Brand Attributes The importance in differentiating the BRT/Rapid Bus product and service from traditional bus service can make a real difference in establishing the service’s positioning and acceptance in the“public marketplace.” Transit riders and the business community are customers and potential consumers and supporters of transportation services. This is especially critical when trying to differentiate the BRT/Rapid Bus service image of being just another bus system for low to moderate income workers and commuters. The establishment of a truly effective Brand Identity/Marketing Program through being strategically involved in all stages of planning, concept development, and design process of implementing a leading-edge BRT/Rapid Bus service is paramount. There are some significant



60

important issues and recommendations in developing and establishing the most effective program that should be considered which include:

• The importance of the public’s perception: One’s correct identification can roughly be

ith growing public policy engagement. The public can be easily left with, at best, a fragmented image of who one is, what one

he

he

• Branding Identity is Equity: In terms of real dollars and customer investment, one’s h a tremendous amount and effects

mble the best quality industrial design nd corporate identity consultation team to develop an integrated visual nomenclature system for

stop shelters, public infrastructure eption and acceptance of the new

er expectations and ridership demand. The ackaging of leading-edge technology and system attributes makes a difference in the vitality

and acceptance of transit corridor businesses for BRT/Rapid Bus service implementation.

defined as how an organization wants the public to perceive its business, products or services. This perception is defined not only through words, but through image, graphics, and design.

• It is a complex and sensitive area of consideration that is extremely important in sustaining service revenue and customer interest as a travel mode choice.

• It is an area that is globally expanding as technology innovation accelerates, brands proliferate, corporations internationalize, and w

stands for, and what the organization is capable of delivering. • Positive identification is an essential ingredient in the support of all public transportation

organization’s communications, advertising, and public outreach…to engage and win tsupport between the organization, its employees and the public.

• The Brand Identity must be truly reflective of the new BRT/Rapid Bus service and incorporate the elements of community destination points and improvements along ttransit corridor.

identity or the identity of one’s transit services is wortthe long term growth and sustainability of the business.

• “Your identity is uniquely yours,” and can build employee esprit d’corps; no one else has it, and it is a prominent factor in the organization’s self worth and customer’s perceived shared value.

• Many of the communications problems faced by larger public transportation organizations mirror those of small businesses where the actual program difference is in complexity and scale of solutions being applied and the cost of implementation.

• Urban community diversity with populations of immigrants has contributed to the complexity of multi-lingual and multi-cultural understanding, perception, and acceptance of transportation projects making communications design and brand identity critical.

strategically-thinking transportation manager will asseAathe BRT/Rapid Bus programs vehicle fleet, signage, bus lements, and media elements to clarify the public’s perce

services, or the organization as a whole. Los Angeles’ successful Metro Rapid Bus program is aresult of this kind of strategic thinking—delivering the best total “BRT/Rapid Bus Package” of system attributes including performance, frequency, and a leading edge systems design and applied brand identity. One can, with enough financial resources and leading edge strategic planning, implement a

RT/Rapid Bus system that exceeds customBp



61

Conclusion In evaluating the success of the implementation of BRT/Rapid Bus services on urban transit corridor businesses, employees, and customers that are impacted by the implemented typeBRT infrastructure and service mix, it is important

of to look at the entire BRT “package” of

ttributes and technology. This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and pre etranspobusinesto impl gic planning process that includes a variety of involved business types and imp te s to work w The R Customwill reqattribut tiating BRT/Rapid Bus from it corrido t that the ackage” of community sensitive BRT attributes was vital in emulating the cen RT and risi The Wiand c macceptance. Vehicle appima , rved by the appli aGlobal Pas g rds for f tpreemp

onsistent marketing methodology and modernization will have to be an ongoing process by

odel use and population patterns, and clearly in comparing a new BRT/Rapid

to traditional bus service by differentiating to the BRT customer as a preferred travel

afer nce levels as being related to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improved

rtation mode. Because so many levels (and different customer and transit corridor s segments) of the market are affected by these major BRT/Rapid Bus changes it is vital ement a strate

ac d community stakeholders, smart growth/TOD planners, and business economistith local and regional transportation policy makers and agencies.

ight System Level of Attributes

er acceptance and maintaining stable ridership growth along these urban transit corridors uire sustainability in service reliability, efficiency and performance. However, design es, customer friendly features, and marketing can support differen

the negative factors of the slower traditional bus service that was experienced by transr businesses and system riders. Ninety-three percent of Geary’s business respondents fel right “flexible pter alignment characteristics of LRT for justifying not only the capitol investment in Bng operational costs as the system ages, but to allow for future LRT.

lshire Rapid 720 corridor survey responses reinforced the importance of vehicle design o munity/customer sensitive attributes in LA Metro’s BRT system’s performance and

earance is a key contributor to the system’s customer’s comfort, appeal, ge identity and positioning. BRT/Rapid Bus operations and passengers will be se

c tion of new technologies including: (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems, (GPS) Position Systems for tracking, (NextBus) station arrival information, (APC) Automatic

sen er Counting, (AFC) Automated Fare Collection, (Smart Cards) electronic passes/caas er boarding with pre-payment, (AVL) transit-based traffic signal priority and signal

tion, and improvements in safety/security technology for greater passenger security. Ctransit managers adding BRT/Rapid Bus services to the mix of traditional bus service and other transportation mode choices available to customers. No single formula, set of attributes, or transit mode is right for all situations nor does any one formula remain static over time. The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus Transit management’s commitment to BRT needs to thoroughly define its market demand ms related to future land-a

Bus system



62

mode choice. BRT with its adaptability and operational flexibility offers an alternative modechoice and marketing opportunity for transportation management, regional and local polmakers, and communities of all sizes to seriously consider.

icy

BRT/Rapid Bus’ key cost advantage of i to use existing bus equipment until placement with more advanced specialized BRT

apid lti-

il, and

e the system and its

peration over a sustained period of time. The rapid implementation response in meeting the urrent and future needs of customers with lower start-up investment, operational flexibility, and

erious contender in the transportation marketplace.

nitially being ablevehicles allows for an efficient, affordable, re

consumer-oriented mode that can be flexible and cost effective in being implemented incrementally or rerouted, to adapt to changes in future land-use patterns while maintaining equity in transportation accessibility for all who depend upon public transportation. BRT/RBus can be an exciting alternative mode that integrates rapidly with other transit links in a mumodal operation environment of pedestrians, bikes, cars, trucks, buses, light rail, heavy raeven connecting with maritime (ferries) and aviation hubs. The form, shape and how well it works as a truly customer-oriented system will depend on the quality of strategic planning and customer marketing methodology and strategies built into thprocess of implementing and maintaining the initial goals and qualities ofocdesign/marketing adaptability makes BRT a s The survey of AC Transit’s (Alameda/Webster-Route 61 Corridor), AC Transit’s (San Pablo-Rapid Bus Corridor), LA Metro’s (Wilshire/Rapid 720 Corridor) and the SFCTA’s, proposed SFMTA/MUNI (Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT) has shown that BRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and design can be implemented with the right mix of customer services and infrastructure thatcan benefit business growth and sustainability. Crucial areas of negative impact were identified and need for improvement supported the application of quality front end business/community planning and research methodology. This research must be accurate, descriptive, diagnostic, and predictive to support strategic planning and strategic marketing efforts in mold

ing and shaping e right type and level of BRT/Rapid Bus services and infrastructure “package” that delivers

g

exible in expansion implementation. It is this flexibility that creates an effective door to door r

uring the survey process which included a photo audit of not only BRT/Rapid Bus system lements as well as, businesses and their surrounding communities it became evident that their

on corridors like San Pablo, and Alameda-

thmaximum benefit to diverse transit corridor businesses, communities, and transit customers. The Right Policy – Transit First and TOD The development of an advanced BRT in its ability to integrate with existing bus systems and equipment as well as with other transportation modes, adds tremendous flexibility to modify theproduct/system’s look, feel, and overall package. BRT can be adapted to customer’s changinneeds and ridership patterns affected by future land-use patterns and growth changes, and is flsurface transportation system at an affordable cost and with rapid implementation capability foreducing congestion as well as increasing mobility options for transit riders and community stakeholders. Dewas significant growth and development of TOD



63

Webster Street with increased community foot traffic supporting street-front businesses. Geary

eby have created the demand and

pportunity for implementing the proposed Geary Corridor BRT service with a “package” of

edestrian be

f only 9% positive and 91% neutral dicating no significant increase in corridor business “foot traffic” associated with TOD.

s f

he combination of expanding TOD with the increased frequency and ridership capacity

e

be

e actual implementation of combining transportation with a comprehensive land-use plan that mbraces Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) of mixed use and innovative urban housing

antly boost the revenues and growth of transit rridor businesses.

y can

Blvd. has also seen the construction of new apartment housing with new street retail businesses located in the same structure, resulting in increased neighborhood walkablity and reduced reliance on the auto, while increasing demand for improved bus service. The vitality of the Geary corridor has increased traffic congestion, slowed bus speed and therincreased peak and off-peak hour travel times. These factors oadvanced attributes emulating LRT characteristics and infrastructure features. San Francisco’s public policy makers and participating businesses and community organizations/advocates are insisting that major streetscape improvements consisting of urban furniture, lighting, psafety improvements, off-street parking and environmentally sustainable landscaping would apart of the 2011/2012 implementation of the proposed Geary BRT. The Wilshire Rapid 720 corridor had the least amount of what could be classified as new TOD housing and multi-use development with survey responses oinHowever, positive business activity was reported by 85% of the Wilshire business respondents awell as positive trends in sales revenue by 63% and positive increases in “foot-traffic” by 80% othe respondents. It appears that the 47% increase in the Wilshire corridor’s daily ridership of 43,000 before implementation of LA Metro’s Wilshire Rapid 720 to a current 90,000 has concurrently resulted in positive impacts to most businesses. Tbuilding of the Wilshire Rapid 720 service may increase corridor growth and density to a levelthat supports future LRT or subway expansion, while reducing auto reliance. While transit growth in bus ridership has fallen in many communities, the survey supports the premise that thright “package” of attributes pushed by public policy and transportation planning can grow ridership and reduce single occupant vehicle use by business employees as in the case of the Wilshire corridor 720 Rapid Bus service. In some urban areas such as San Francisco, the importance of rapid, safe, and equitable public transportation has become part of a “transit first policy’ with leading-edge rail and BRT/RapidBus projects being either implemented or in the process of planning and development. It maythealong transit corridors that will in the end significco Good policy and integrated transportation and land-use planning have far-reaching consequences and positive impacts on transportation and the viability of transit corridor businesses. The surveresults showed that the successes of BRT and transit corridor businesses are intertwined and orchestrated with transportation demands to create stakeholder and community harmony and stimulate urban vitality through innovation and vision in policy, planning, marketing, and transportation management leadership.



64

FINAL REMARKS

The survey, in the end, is based upon the collected opinion and input primarily of the four transit

et

uccessful in meeting the

ritically dependent upon many

nd

and implementation.

corridors’ business owners, managers, and employees as to their perception of BRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and service impacts upon their businesses and their community, and should be utilized with rider survey studies for implementing changes in policy or system attributes. Thesurvey results do not indicate that any of the BRT/Rapid Bus services implemented have not mor exceeded their original service goals of a faster and more reliable BRT/Rapid Bus mode. All three of the improved bus transit corridors were successful relative to their levels of investment in BRT/Rapid Bus technology, equipment, Brand Identity and service attributes. Some particular elements and attributes in each corridor were not as sneeds and expectations of their transit corridor business stakeholders. By looking at the survey results there should be a clearer picture of which elements and system attributes were successful and a picture of those that need to be reevaluated or modified for reducing negatively perceived impacts to transit corridor businesses. In the end it may be that the very business model, land-use, and location of a particular business or business type may have to make major adjustments or even relocate. Just as transportation modeling and systems need to remain flexible and adaptable to population and land-use changes, so must urban transit corridor businesses. The success of BRT/Rapid Bus as a customer mode choice is ccomplex and interrelated issues of land-use, design, operations, infrastructure characteristics, and customer marketing appeal to meet the goals of delivering a faster, more reliable, customer preferred transportation mode, and “not as just another flavor of the month”, as referred to by Steve Heminger (at the Mineta Transportation Institute’s May 2005, Forum on Bus Rapid Transit In The Bay Area.) BRT/Rapid Bus, as a highly adaptable, flexible, and marketing sensitive mode will be most successful when shaped with a high quality strategic marketing aplanning process that fully involves customers, transit corridor businesses and other key stakeholders in its planning, development,

Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers



65

APPENDIX A

Photo Audit: Business Owners/Managers

Sports Shoes – San Pablo Doug’s Dugout - Manager ZAP Cars - Sales Manager

College President Owner KC Ribs Berkeley Owner Martial Arts

Co-Owned Guitar Shop Wally’s Bar Owner Transportation Professor

Jim’s Bait Shop Owner Jordanian Foods/Meat Owner Wholesale Butcher - Owner



66

APPENDIX B

Table 1-5: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions -

POSITIVE RESPONSES

POSITIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES

Geary*

Alameda Webster

San Pablo Wilshire

Q 1 Sales Revenue Trend 36% 36% 38% 63% Q 2 Foot Traffic Trend 39% 46% 46% 80% Q 3 Services/Stops/Safety 7% 36% 39% 63% Q 4 Access/Reliability 18% 41% 52% 82% Q 5 Parking Impact 35% 2% 3% 5% Q 6 Neighborhood/Accessibility 39% 84% 35% 57% Q 7 Bus Stop Distance 13% 17% 26% 52% Q 8 New Housing/TOD Impact 30% 52% 25% 9% Q 9 Visibility/New Customers 54% 45% 17% 22% Q 10 Business Activity 78% 72% 59% 85%

Note: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*

Table 1-6: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions – NEUTRAL RESPONSES

NEUTRAL BUSINESS RESPONSES

Geary* Alameda Webster

San Pablo Wilshire

Q 1 Sales Revenue Trend 38% 57% 51% 34% Q 2 Foot Traffic Trend 36% 50% 50% 39% Q 3 Services/Stops/Safety 36% 54% 59% 37% Q 4 Access/Reliability 56% 56% 46% 18% Q 5 Parking Impact 14% 56% 82% 67%

sibility 35% 14 64% 39% Q 6 Neighborhood/Acces82% 74% 72% 44% Q 7 Bus Stop Distance 66% 45% 74% 91% Q 8 New Housing/TOD Impact 37% 48% 81% 76% Q 9 Visibility/New Customers 19% 24% 36% 14% Q 10 Business Activity

Note 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*



67

Table 1-7: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions -

NEGATIVE RESPONSES

NEGATIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES

Geary* Alameda Webster

San Pablo Wilshire

Q 1 Sales Revenue Trend 26% 7% 11% 3% Q 2 Foot Traffic Trend 25% 5% 5% 1% Q 3 Services/Stops/Safety 56% 9% 2% 0% Q 4 Access/Reliability 28% 3% 2% 1% Q 5 Parking Impact 51% 42% 15% 28% Q 6 Neighborhood/Accessibility 26% 2% 1% 4% Q 7 Bus Stop Distance 5% 9% 2% 0% Q 8 New Housing/TOD Impact 5% 3% 2% 3% Q 9 Visibility/New Customers 9% 8% 2% 1% Q 10 Business Activity 3% 4% 4% 4%

Note: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*



68

APPENDIX C

Transit CorriImpacts - Educ

1.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibil

Q7 BU

TOP DISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY

Business Impact Qu tions

Bus

ines

s R

espo

nev

e

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

dor ation

2.0se -

T

3.0

ct

ity

S S

es

L

RA

l of I

L

PO

SITI

VEmpa


Transit Corridor Impac motive

2.0

ALES

END

FOOT

END

RVIC

FETY

ACCE

LITY

Q5

ACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORH

Acess

ibility

Q7 BUS STO

CE

MPAC

ousing

9 VISIB

ILITY/New

C

ers TY

Business Impact Ques

ess

Res

pons

e - L

evel

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

POSI

TIVE

ts - Auto

3.0

of I

mpa

ct

1.0

Bus

in

Q1 S Q2

Q3 SE Q4

REVENUE TR

TRAFFIC TR

E/STOPS/SA

SS/RELIA

BI

PARKING IM

P

OOD/ P DISTAN

T/New

H

Q8 TOD I

Q

ustom

ESS ACTVI

Q10 B

USIN

tions




69

Transit Corridor Im cts - Fast Food

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKI

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD

Q7 B

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

POSI

TIVE

pa

NG IMPACT

/Ace

ssibilit

y

OP DISTANCE

New H

ousin

US ST


Transit Corridor Impacts - Financial Institution

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

P

OSI

TIVE




70

Transit Corridor Impact Questions - Goverment Offices

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

N

EUTR

AL

P

OSI

TIVE

Geary Corridor

Alameda Corridor


Transit Corridor Impacts - Hotel/Housing

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

PO

SITI

VE




71

Transit Corridor Impacts - Liquor Store/Bar

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

PO

SITI

VEGeary Corridor

Alameda Corridor


Transit Corridor Impacts - Medical Services

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

POSI

TIVE




72

Transit Corridor Impacts - Non-Profit Organization

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

POSI

TIVE


Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant

3.0

f Im

pact

ITIV

E

1.0

2.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

POS




73

Transit Corridor I pacts - Retail

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

s R

espo

nse

- Lev

el o

f Im

pact

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

PO

SITI

VE

m

Geary Corridor

Alameda Corridor


Wilshire Corridor Impact - Corporation

1.0

2.0

3.0

Q1 SALES R

EVENUE TREND

Q2 FOOT TRAFFIC

TREND

Q3 SERVIC

E/STOPS/SAFETY

Q4 ACCESS/R

ELIABILITY

Q5 PARKIN

G IMPACT

Q6 NEIG

HBORHOOD/Ace

ssibilit

y

Q7 BUS STOP D

ISTANCE

Q8 TOD IM

PACT/New

Housin

g

Q9 VISIB

ILITY/New

Custo

mers

Q10 B

USINESS A

CTVITY


Bus

ines

Res

pons

e - L

evel

of I

mpa

ct

NEG

ATI

VE

NEU

TRA

L

PO

SITI

VE

Wilshire Corridor



74

APPENDIX D

Geary Blvd_Pre-BRT- Survey

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

1: Fa

ster T

ravel

2: Reli

abilit

y/Bus

Freq

ency

-Nex

tBus

GPS

8: New

Bus

Design

/Bran

ding

5: Attra

ctive

Stre

et-Sca

pes a

nd S

helte

rs

7: Ped

estria

n Acti

vitiy_

Safety

Impro

vemen

t

4: Safe

r/Clea

ner S

tops

3: New

Bus

iness

Dev

elopm

ent

10: S

erves

Corr

idor B

usine

sses

, Cus

tomers

' Nee

ds

9: Serv

es E

mploye

es' N

eeds

6: New

TOD Cus

tomers

1: Par

king L

oss/D

amag

e

6: Lo

iterin

g/Safe

ty Con

cern

10: B

usine

ss/R

eloca

tion -

Constr

uctio

n Iss

ues

8: ADA A

cess

ibility

/PED A

cces

s/Dist

ance

3: Bus

Stop

s Not

Clean

5: Poo

r Stop

Ligh

ting-S

eatin

g

7: Hou

rs of

Bus O

perat

ion

Nigh

t, Wee

kend

s

9: Bus

Freque

ncy/R

eliab

ility

4: She

lters

Block S

tore -

Des

ign

2: Ugly

She

lter/S

top D

esign

Issu

e

6: Tr

ansit

Sec

urity/

CTV/Li

ghts

4: Buil

d Cor

ridor

Parking

Gara

ges

Exte

nd B

us O

pera

tion H

ours

L

ate N

ight S

ervic

1:

e

8: Mod

ify S

treetS

cape

Infra

struc

ture D

esign

/Trees

2: Inc

rease

Bus

Frequ

ency

5: W

eeke

nd S

ervice

Nee

ded

/Incre

ase

7: Red

esign

Bus

Stop

/She

lter

3: Exp

and B

RT Serv

ice R

oute

10: M

ore TOD D

evelo

pmen

t

9: Mov

e Bus

Stop

/She

lter

Geary Blvd_Pre-BRT-SurveyCOMMENTS: Positive, Negative, Solutions

POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS

Alameda_AC Transit R61

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

e/She

lters

aner

Stops

vitiy/

Safet

5: Attra

ctive

StreetS

cap

4: Safe

r/Cle

7: P

edes

trian A

cti

y

3: In

creas

ed N

ew Bus

iness

De

10: S

erves

Corr

idor B

6: New

TOD

9: Serv

es Emplo

2: Reli

ability

/Buvelop

ment

usine

sses

Custom

ers

yee N

eeds

s Freq

ency

1: Fa

8: N

ew Bus

Desig

1: Park

ing Lo

s

4: Stop

Shelte

rs B

10: L

ost B

usine

ss/

8: ADA Ace

ssibi

lity/P

2: Ugly

Shelte

r/S

3: Bu

Stops N

ot Clea

n

6:

ring/S

afety

Conce

rn

5: Poo

r Stop

Ligh

ting

7: Hou

rs of

Bus O

perat

ion

9: Freq

uenc

y/Reli

abilit

ster T

ravel

n/Bran

ding

s/Dam

age

lock S

tore

Reloca

tion

ED Acces

s

top D

esign

s

Loite

y

8: Mod

ify Stre

etSca

pe D

esign

4: Buil

d Park

ing G

arage

7: Red

esign

Bus Stop

/Shelte

r

10: M

ore TOD D

evelo

pmen

t

9: M

ove B

us Stop

/Shelte

r

6: Tran

sit Sec

urity/

CTV/Ligh

ts

2: Inc

rease

Bus Freq

uenc

y

1: Exte

nd O

p Hrs/

Late

Night

3: Exp

and B

RT Service

Rou

te

5: Wee

kend

Service

Nee

ded

Alameda_AC Transit R61

COMMENTS: Postive, Negative, Solutions





75

San Pablo_AC Transit R72

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

Faste

r Trav

el

liabil

ity/B

us Fr

eqen

cy

: Serv

es C

orrido

r Bus

iness

es

sed N

ew B

usine

ss D

evelo

pmen

t

7: P

edes

trian A

ctivit

iy/Safe

ty

6: New

TOD Cus

tomers

9: S

erves

Emplo

yee N

eeds

Attracti

ve S

treetS

cape

s/She

lters

4: S

afer/C

leane

r Stop

s

8: N

ew B

usDes

ign/B

randin

g

7: Hou

rs of

Bus O

perat

ion

6: Lo

iterin

g/Safe

ty Con

cern

3: Bus

Stop

s Not

Clean

5: Poo

r Stop

Ligh

ting

9: Fr

eque

ncy/R

eliab

ility

1: Park

ing Lo

ss/D

amag

e

2: Ugly

She

lter/S

top D

esign

4: Stop

She

lters

Block S

tore

8: ADA A

cess

ibility

/PED A

cces

s

10: L

ost B

usine

ss/R

eloca

tion

1: Exte

nd O

p Hrs/

Late

Night S

vc

3: E

xpan

d BRT S

ervice

Rou

te

2: Inc

rease

Bus

Freque

ncy

5: W

eeke

nd S

ervice

Nee

ded

6: Tr

ansit

Sec

urity/

CTV/Ligh

ts

7: Red

esign

Bus

Stop

/She

lter

Modify

Stre

etSca

pe D

esign

/Trees

9: M

ove B

us S

top/S

helte

r

10: M

ore TOD D

evelo

pmen

t

4: Buil

d Park

ing G

arage

1:

2: Re

10

3: In

crea 5: 8:

San Pablo_AC Transit R72

COMMENTS: Positive, Negative, Solutions


Wilshire_LA Metro R720

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

1: Fas

ter Trav

el

2: Reli

abilit

y/Bus

Freqen

cy

s Corr

idor B

usine

sses

, Cus

tomers

9: Serv

es Emplo

yee N

eeds

8: N

ew B

usDes

ign/B

randin

g

4: S

afer/C

leane

r Stop

s

7: P

edes

trian A

ctivit

iy/Safe

ty

5: Attra

ctive

Stre

etSca

pes/S

helte

rs

creas

ed N

ew B

usine

ss D

evelo

pmen

t

6: New

TOD Cus

tomers

1: Park

ing Lo

ss/D

amag

e

7: Hou

rs of

Bus O

p. Nigh

t, Wee

kend

s

ADA A

cess

ibility

/PED A

cces

s/Dist

ance

3: Bus

Stop

s Not

Clean

6: Lo

iterin

g/Safe

ty Con

cern

4: Stop

She

lters

Block S

tore

5: Poo

r Stop

Ligh

ting

9: Freq

uenc

y/Reli

abilit

y

2: Ugly

She

lter/S

top D

esign

10: L

ost B

usine

ss/R

eloca

tion

1: Exte

nd O

p Hrs/

Late

Night S

vc

9: M

ove B

us S

top/S

helte

r

6: Tran

sit Sec

urity/

CTV/Ligh

ts

4: Buil

d Park

ing G

arage

2: Inc

rease

Bus

Freque

ncy

3: E

xpan

d BRT S

ervice

Rou

te

5: W

eeke

nd S

ervice

Nee

ded/I

ncrea

se

7: Red

esign

Bus

Stop

/She

lter

8: Mod

ify S

treetS

cape

Des

ign/Tree

s

10: M

ore TOD D

evelo

pmen

t

10: S

erve

3: In

8:

Wilshire_LA Metro R720

Comments: Positive, Negative, Solutions




76

APPENDIX E


77

APPENDIX F

Excel Spread Sheets, Data Collection

Four Transit Corridors, 23 pages


BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses A

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACCMA Alameda County Congestion Management Agency

AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Agency

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act, Reference to ADA Compliant

ADT Average daily traffic; average daily trips

Alighted/alight To get off or out of a transportation vehicle

Articulated bus Extra long, high-capacity bus, with a flex joint between the front section and back section

Automatic Guidance

A mechanical or electronic system for automatic guidance control of vehicle

AVL Automatic vehicle location system

Branded Identity

Identity and image communicated through graphic design. Logo, Vehicle Graphics and paint schemes, organizational identity applied to all marketing communications, advertising, media, vehicle fleets, uniforms, signage,

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

BSP Bus Signal Priority

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CCTV Closed-Circuit Television


B

CHP California Highway Patrol

CMA Congestion Management Agency

CNG Compressed natural gas

DTO Division of Traffic Operations

DPT Department of Parking and Traffic (San Francisco)

EVP Emergency vehicle preemption

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transportation Administration

GPS Global positioning system

Headway The time interval between the passing of the front ends of transit vehicles moving along the same lane or track

HOT High-occupancy toll

HOV High-occupancy vehicle

HRT Heavy Rail Transit

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

JPA Joint Powers Authority

LAMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

LA Metro Rapid Los Angeles BRT, Bus Rapid Transit System (LA Metro Rapid 720-Wilshire)

LOS Levels of service (quality and quality of transit free flow, affected by



C

levels of congestion, Scaled A-F)

LRT Light Rail Transit

MTA Metropo geles area) litan Transportation Authority (Los An

MTC Metropolitan Transit Commission (S.F. Bay Area)

MTI Mineta Transportation Institute

NextBus Information system denoting the arrival of the next bus, displayed at bus stops

NIMBY "Not in my backyard"

MUNI San Francisco Municipal Railway, Operates Buses, LRT, Street Cars, and Cable Cars

NABI North American Bus Industries, Leading-Edge Bus Design (LA Metro Rapid)

Ped pedestrian

Rapid Bus

Bus system with wider spacing between stops, 5. Mile – 1 Mile with special system elements and attributes to increase speed, frequency with special buses, branding. Usually one step below a full BRT with exclusive travel way

SAMTrans San Mateo County Transit

Smart Corridors

Refers to the implementation of signal priority and signal management along a corridor to create better traffic flow, when linked with Bus Transit GPS it can give signal priority to transit: i.e., AC Transit San Pablo Rapid Bus

SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority

SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle



D

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

Transdef Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund

TSP Traffic Signal Priority

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

TSP Traffic Signal Priority

TVM Ticket Vending Machine

VMS Variable Message Sign

Wi-Fi Wireless Fidelity

Table 9 Abbreviations and Acronyms



BIBLIOGRAPHY

des, G., P. C nsumer perception and evaluation of waiting time: A field experiment. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (3): 193-202

Baltes, Michael R. (2003). The Importance Customers Place on Specific Service Elements of Bus Rapid Trans titute, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, Abstract

, William G., Transit and High Occupancy Toll Lanes: Assimilation of Bus Rapid transit in congested corridor with roadway val ng of the Transportation research Board

ilton. ”, Curitiba Transportation Authority, vailable on and under BRT Curitiba, Brazil –

ans, Bus Rapid Transit, A Handbook for Partners, 2007 CalTrans, www.caltrans.gov

Antoni . Verhoef and M. van Aalst. (2002) Co

it, National Bus Rapid Transit Ins

Barker and Steven Polzin. (2004). Synergies between Bus Rapid

ue pricing Resented at annual meeti Booz Allen & Ham

ACuritiba, Brazil; BRT Case Study

Booz Allen & Hamilton’s Website,

CalTr

, L. Joseph a 04) An Evaluation of the Role of Marketing in Public Tran ronon, Jr., Florida State University, Roscoe Hightower, Jr. Florida A&M University, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7 No. 2,

am.( 20 t, Chair Public Transport, The Institute of Transportation Studies, Monash University, Australia, Journal of Public Transportati 5, Abstract

Diaz, Roderick B. and Schneck, Donald C. Innovative Service Design among Bus Rapid Transit Systems in th Hamilton Inc., McLean, VA and Philadelphia, PA, Abstract: www.boozallen.com

Cronon nd Hightower, Jr. Roscoe. (20sit Organizations, L. Joseph C

Currie, Grah 05) The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transi

on Volume 8, No. 1 200

e Americas, Booz Allen &

er, A. and P. ect A-15. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 1st Edition. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board

ECONorthwest and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2003 TCRP Report 78: Estimating t blic transportation projects: A guidebook for Practitioners. http://guliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp/78/index.htm

Danah Ryus 199. TCRP Proj

he benefits and costs of puWashington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 36 - A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase eo

Report 37- A Handbook: Integrating Market Research into Transit

ManagemenBoard, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998

Transit RidResearch B

rship, Northwest research Group, Inc. Bellevue, WA; Transportation ard, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998

Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca.t, Northwest Research Group. Inc. Bellevue, WA Transportation Research



Federal Highway Administration/OHPI, TRB Committee on Transportation Survey Methods,

Measuring Day-to-Day Variability in Travel Behavior Using GPS Data, Final report, Evalu ence in Individual Accessibility, Bus Transportation rider Surveys. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm

Reports: ating Gender Differ

, Retrieved 5/9/3007

Federal Transportation Administration, Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, Off roject No. FTA-VA-26-7222-200

niel and ’s Grand Boulevard, Economic Analysis

of the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, Community Redevelopment Agency City of LA, Prepared by

t Ninth S

ice of Research, Demonstration and Innovation Report P4.1, Report 301 pages, August 2004

Flaming, Da Burns, Patrick (2006). Jobs on LA

Economic Roundtable, Non-profit Public Policy Research Organization, 315treet, Suite 1209, LA, CA 90015, wes www.economicrt.org

G. Phillips, Rhonda and Guttenplan, Martin (2003). A Review of Approaches for Assessing

ultimodal da G. Phillips, Urban Regional Planning Department, University of Florida Martin Guttenplan, Systems Planning Office, Florida Department

GAO, Report to Congressi MASS TRANSIT: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, September 2001, GA)-01-984

Vernez and Matlick, Julie. Pedestrian Safety and Transit Corridors, Paul Mitchell Hess, University of Toronto, Anne Vernez Moudon, University o , Julie Matlick, Washington State Department of Transportation, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume, 7, Number 2, 2004 Abstract

Hirano, Steve (2003

ary/M Kang, Alice H. and apid Transit: An Integrated and Flexible Package of

Service, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. McLean, VA is part of a two article series on Bus Trans bsite, Abstract www.boozallen.com

M Quality of Service, Rhon

of Transportation Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003,

onal Requesters GAO (2001)

Hess, Paul Mitchell and Moudon, Anne

f Washington

). The Search for the Perfect BRT Vehicle, Editor; Metro Magazine, arch 2003

Dias, Roderick B. Bus R

Febru

Rapid it. Booz Allen & Hamilton we Levinson, Herbert ( st rospects,

erbert Lev38th Streearch Bo

Lewis, David and Fred L. Williams. (1999). Policy and planning as public choice: Mass transit

the United

en-wah (2003 mute Experience: A Time Perception Approach”, Argosy University, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, N0. 4, 2003,

July 2000). Bus Transit in the 21 Century – Perspectives and Pinson; Institute for Transportation, City College of New York, Convent Ave et, New York, New York 10031, Prepared for Annual meting Transportation ard, July 31, 2000, Revised November 9, 2000.

H& 1Res

in States. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company

Li, Yu ). “Evaluating the Urban Com



Mineta Transportation Institute Report, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in

nsportati n Jose, CA 95192-0219 Sponsored By The US Department of Transportation. Library of Congress Catalog Car www.transweb,sjsu.edu

the Bay AreaTra

, Mineta Transportation Institute Report, F-04001; May 2005, Mineta on Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, Sa

d Number: 2005924524,

(March 2002 stration Program Final Report, Transportati me Contractor Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952, March 2002

Metro, Wilsh nsit (BRT) Project; Peak Period Lanes, Report 8 Planning a September 14, 2005. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952

Microsoft Streets and Trips 2005, Software for Mapping Survey Corridors, Microsoft Corporation

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project; Peak Period Lanes, Report Committee November 16, 2005. Metropolitan

Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952 MTA Website: NYC BRT Study, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Website 10/3/2005 http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/brt/

MTA, ). Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonon Management & Design, Inc. Pri

MTA, ire Boulevard Bus Rapid Trand Programming Committee

MTA, Metro,

36 Planning and Programming

Phase and Activity Schedule for a 5 corridor city-wide BRT demonstrations program. Final Concept Plan for the first and Second Avenue-125th Street Corridor Document ID: CM 1286-01.090200.1 New York City Bus Rapid Transit Study. DMJM+HARRIS, August 2006

MTC Technology Transfer Seminar, (2003). Transit Signal Priority. Presented by Abbas

Mohaddes and Glen Grayson, Caltrans, and Jim Jarzab of Santa Clara VTA, and Javad Mirabdal and Brit Thesen of San Francisco’s DPT, and Ceasar Pujol of AC Transit.

Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Calthorpe

Associates. 1993 Making the land use transportation air quality connection-The pedestrian environment. Volume 4a Portland, Oregon: Thousand Friends of Oregon.

Ramroop, Tara. Geary bus Rapid Transit Gets Green Light, San Francisco Examiner,

www.examiner.com , 706242 Retrieved 05/02/2007 San Francisco Retail Diversity Study (May 2007), Civic Economics – Cunningham, Houston Civic Economics – Chicago 1425 West Summerdale, #3A, Chicago, Illinois 60640 www.CiviEconomics.com/SF



Sislak, Kenneth G. Bus Rapid Transit as a Substitute for Light Rail Transit – A Tale of Two

Cites, Kenneth G. Sislak, Director of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, 55 Public Square, Suite 1120, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 E-mail: [email protected] – Abstract retrieved article from the Wilbursmith.com website

SFCTA Geary Corridor, BRT Study, Memorandum July 22, 2005, Documents, Workshops, and

Public Comment at SFCTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC available at www.gearyBRT.org – hbaum; San Francisco County Transportation Authority,

100 Van Ness Avenue, 25 Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 – Website: www.sfcta.orgProject Manager Julie B. Kirsc

th

SFCTA ent

Van Ness Avenue, BRT Study, Numerous Documents, Workshops, and Public Commat SFCTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC available at www.sfcta.org/vanness/ – Project Manager Rachel Hiatt; San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 – Website: www.sfcta.org 1/10/2007

CTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC Memorandum (3/20/2006) Preliminary Parking Analysis for SF

the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study, www.gearyBRT.org – Project Manager Julie B. Kirschbaum; San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 – Website: www.sfcta.org 1/10/2007

, (2007). San Francisco’s On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study (5/1/2007). SFCTA

Preliminary Parking Analysis for San Francisco www.gearyBRT.org – Project Manager Tilly Chang and Lisa Young; San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 – Website: www.sfcta.org MTA Board Meeting Presentation, Handout May 1, 2007

C.

Levinson, Herbert s., and others. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit. Volumes 1 and 2, TCRP. Report 90,

Bus Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation research Board. Washington, D.TRB, 2003, www.TRB.org

Trans-coalition Organization (2005). Transportation and Land Use Coalition: How BRT and

Express Buses Solve Transit Problems 8/30/2005,

www.transcoalition.org/reports/revt/case_for.html

Transit eport 33.

nd ation

2004, Abstract

Cooperative Research Program. (1998). Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and TrafficManagement Strategies to Support Livable Communities. TCRP RTransportation Board. Washington D.C.

Zimmermann, Samuel L. and Levinson, Herbert (2004). Vehicle Selection for BRT: Issues a

Options, Samuel L. Zimmermann, DMJM+HARRIS; Herbert Levinson, TransportConsultant, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 7, Number 1,


http://www.caltrans.gov/

http://www.boozallen.com/


t, for ch has

speciali e projects , etail st past

fety

e led a ten year campaign as a PTA/San Francisco District Board member for school traffic and

along with nu of school ool Traffic and Pedestr nd

nding

thesis on edesig ices/NYPD—Public Sector Branding, lead to implementing a Brand

Adverti

ne 2007, Mr. Bazeley was awarded an M.S.T.M., Master’s of Science in Transportation Management in

professi transpor

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ROGER M. BAZELEY, M.S.T.M., M.S., IDSA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Roger Bazeley currently is serving as a Transportation Marketing/Industrial Design—ConsultanDesignStrategy-USA, an industrial design and marketing communications consulting firm, whi

zed in corporate and brand identity programs for both private and public sector organizations. Th have included transportation design and branding programs for airlines and transit organizationsore design and marketing programs, as well as packaging and industrial design. Over the r

decade Mr. Bazeley has concentrated efforts on transportation design, traffic and pedestrian saimprovement projects in San Francisco and the State of California.

Hpedestrian safety improvements. Working collaboratively with city, regional, and state agencies

merous stakeholder groups these improvements have contributed to the statewide reductionchildren’s fatalities and injuries. Roger Bazeley authored the 2001, State PTA Schian Safety Improvement Resolution resulting in local legislation which changed the policy a priorities for school and pedestrian safety projects. fu

Roger Bazeley holds a M.S. in Industrial Design/Packaging from Pratt Institute, where his

ning Public Safety ServRIdentity program for the NYPD in 1974, resulting in the iconic “NYPD Blue and white” public safety identity. He also holds two undergraduate degrees from the University of Wyoming, with a B.A. in

sing/Art Design, and a B.A. in International Studies/Anthropology.

Jufrom the Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. He is an active member

onal organizations and participates as a safety advocate in a number of local, regional, and statetation and pedestrian safety committees.
