Best Practices in Many transit agencies in the United States are facing budget shortfalls and deteriorating bus stop infrastructure. Bus stop consolidation may increase service reliability and speed, reduce operating costs, and streamline bus stop enhancement. But transit riders are often resistant to changes in bus stop location…
How have transit agencies approached stop consolidation and what are the best practices for such programs?
Why Consolidate?
Methodology
Having more stops decreases operating speed and increases run time variability There is a fixed time cost associated with entering and exiting a bus stop. Therefore, having short spacing increases the total time spent at bus stops, decreasing average speed and increasing run times. Additionally, with more stops, there is likely to be a higher variation in the number of stops served each trip. This variability is directly associated with run time variability, which agencies must protect against by scheduling expensive slack time buffers between trips.
Conducted Semi-Structured Interviews 16 planners interviewed 13 agencies represented 10 successful programs 2 unsuccessful programs 1 planned program Reviewed Associated Agency Documents Reviewed materials included service standards, bus stop design manuals, post-evaluation analysis of consolidation programs
Primary Findings
Before Consolidation
Stop location optimization and infrastructure improvements are often the primary goals. After Consolidation
Bus Stop Spacing Standards Agency
Updated
Houston Metro Big Blue Bus COTA C-TRAN GCRTA King County Metro Port Authority SEPTA WMATA
2015 2015 2009 2003 2015 2013 2009 2014 2009
Local Bus (by Density) Low
Moderate
High
800-1300 1300-2600 1300-2600 1000-1320 1000-1320 1000-1320 850-1200+ 700-850 500-700 600-2640 500-1200 300-1000 880 880 880 1320 1320 1320 500-1000 500-700 500-700 1000 500-1000 500-1000 1056-1320 1056-1320 1056-1320
Source: Service Standards Manuals Provided by Listed Agencies
Rapid Bus 2600 2640 N/A N/A N/A 2640 900-1300 N/A 1760-2640 Units: Feet
While many agencies sought to improve operational efficiency through stop consolidation, most saw the ability to improve stop location and safety, as well as the opportunity to provide enhanced amenities at a greater percentage of stops, as their primary program objectives. Only one agency specifically attempted to reduce operating costs, and they ultimately found that stop consolidation did not lead to cost reduction.
Community outreach is universal, but limited, and did not usually lead to major changes. Nearly all transit agencies engaged in some level of community outreach, but most limited their efforts to notices posted at affected bus stops and phone/written comment submission. Some agencies held extensive public meetings. It appears that more extensive public outreach may lead to greater rates of stop reinstatement. The most common community concerns centered on transit access for seniors and disabled riders, and post-implementation criticism was limited.
Post-program evaluation is limited Only one agency completed a formal post evaluation of their stop consolidation program, finding mixed results. Anecdotally, however, most agencies have found that their program increased service reliability and did not affect ridership.
Best Practice Recommendations
Bus Stop Consolidation and Optimization Frame program as stop quality and safety improvement effort While stop consolidation will likely have operational benefits, Houston Metro’s program should be framed as stop quality and safety improvement program. Ideally, Houston Metro will also initiate a parallel stop infrastructure investment program. This approach will increase program benefits and generate more community support.
Ideal local bus stop spacing = 1320’ Houston Metro’s bus stop spacing standards are in line with industry best practice. Actual stop spacing, however, is extremely varied and violates these standards in almost all circumstances. Any stop consolidation program should work to make onthe-ground spacing reflect the quarter mile standard.
Conduct bus stop ranking analysis Using available APC, AVL, GIS, bus stop inventory, and farebox data, as well as limited fieldwork, Houston Metro should rate each bus stop currently in the system. Lower rated stops, especially those that are closely spaced to higher rated stops, should be eliminated. This ranking system should reduce staff requirements during the consolidation process for each route and can act as a guide for future stop infrastructure enhancements. This evaluation strategy was first proposed, in a more limited form, by Ma et al. (2014) and Stewart (2014).
Bus Stop Ranking Evaluation Factors Total Ridership Senior/Student Boardings Wheelchair Ramp Deployments Nearby Social Services
Stop Spacing Street Furniture/Shelters Transfer Opprotunities ADA Accessibility
Focus on political engagement, and include community preferences Houston Metro should provide information packets to political officials, and meet with officials upon request. The bus stop ranking process addresses nearly all the community concerns expressed during outreach efforts analyzed for this study. Like most agencies, Houston Metro should post notices at affected stops and solicit public comment. When the community proposes an alteration that does not directly violate the factors expressed above, Houston Metro should accept the change.
Post-evaluation is important, but does not need to be formal Due to the significant service changes that will occur as part of the System Reimaging process, Houston Metro will likely not be able to isolate the effects of the stop consolidation program. Therefore, a formal analysis is not possible, but the agency should monitor service data to anecdotally evaluate program effectiveness.
Daniel Berez | dwberez@gmail.com | Client: Kurt Luhrsen, Houston METRO | Advisor: Brian Taylor