BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor Businesses_Research Project, MTI-Roger-Bazeley
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor Businesses_Research Project, MTI-Roger-Bazeley

on

  • 5,269 views

Abstract ...

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,269
Views on SlideShare
5,268
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
322
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor Businesses_Research Project, MTI-Roger-Bazeley BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor Businesses_Research Project, MTI-Roger-Bazeley Document Transcript

  • 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 Author & Principal Investigator M.S.T.M. Degree Research Project (Capstone) Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0219 Created by Congress in 1991________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses i 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.________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses ii ROGER M. BAZELEY, IDSA M.S.T.M., M.S.I.D., C.T.S.M. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCliff Henke, BRT-Specialist, PB Transit & Rail Systems, Inc.Devinder Singh, P.E., Executive Secretary CTCDC, CaltransDr. Peter Haas, PhD. Educational Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteFrank Markowitz, Pedestrian Program Manager, SF Municipal Transportation Agency, MTAJames Cunradi, Project Manager AC Transit Rapid Bus ProgramJose L. Moscovich, Executive Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTAJulie Kirschbaum, Transportation Planner, Geary BRT Study Project Manager, SFCTA/MTAKenneth J. Kochevar, PE, Federal Highway Administration, FHWAMaria Lombardo, Deputy Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTAMary Banks, Manager Special Projects, California State Automobile AssociationMineta Transportation Institute, Professional Staff and ProfessorsNorman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of TransportationRachel Hiatt, Transportation Planner, San Francisco Transportation Authority, SFCTARex Gephart, Director Regional Transit Planning, LA Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityRichard Haggstrom, PE Non-Motorized Program Manager, CaltransRod Diridon, Executive Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteTrixie Johnson, Research Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteViviann Ferea, Program Administrator, Mineta Transportation InstituteWill Kempton, Director, California Department of Transportation, CaltransIn Memoriam/DedicationArthur James Bazeley, Sr. ME., National Malleable Casting, Cleveland, Ohio(90 U.S. Patents Automatic Railroad Coupler Systems). Superintendent Great Northern RailwayArthur 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 CenterFrank L. Rownd, P.E. Carnegie Tech., Sales/Marketing, Republic Steel, Cleveland, OhioJoe Yaccarino, Restaurateur, Owner of Joe’s Place, Brooklyn, New YorkRobert Simonsen, Petroleum Engineer, Standard Oil of Ohio,Marion Simonsen, Designer/Artist, Cleveland Art MuseumSupport and MentorsCarol Kocivar, State Board Manager, California State PTADr. Alan Tong, DDSDr. Harold Levine, Professor Mathematics, Stanford UniversityDr. Peter Baluk, PhD. UCSF Medical Research LabGeorge Komodikis, CEO, Madison Holdings. Ltd. New York, London, AthensMichelle Nahum-Albright, Professor Design, Pratt Institute, Parsons School of DesignNoriko and Mikiko Bazeley______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iv TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2THE RESEARCH STUDY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Research Study Benefit and Goals-------------------------------------------------------------7SURVEY METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------------------8 The Survey------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Transit Corridor Business Comment --------------------------------------------------------12SURVEY ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE ---------------------------------------------------13ETHNIC and BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DIVERSITYOF RESPONDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15TRANSIT 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---------------------------------------------------------23CORRIDOR 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-----------------------------30TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS---------------31SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10 RESPONSE ANALYSIS------------------------------------------34SUMMARY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVERESPONSES 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 ----------------------------------43IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE---------------------------------------------------------------------45______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vRESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Positive Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Negative Comments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------52 Solution Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54SIGNIFICANT 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------------------------------------------59CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 The Right System Level of Attributes-------------------------------------------------------- 61 The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus ---------------------------------------------------61 The Right Policy—Transit First and TOD --------------------------------------------------62FINAL REMARKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------64APPENDIX A: Photo Audit Snap-shot of Business Respondents--------------------------------65APPENDIX B: Tables-Positive, Neutral, Negative Impact Question responses---------------58APPENDIX C: Business Type Impact Graphs-------------------------------------------------------64APPENDIX D: Charts-Positive, Negative, Solution Comments----------------------------------66APPENDIX E: Survey Forms---------------------------------------------------------------------------67APPENDIX F: Excel Data Sheets-Survey Intake ---------------------------------------------------77ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------100BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBSITES------------------------------------------------------------------------105ABOUT THE AUTHOR--------------------------------------------------------------------------------109______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vi LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos------------------------------------------------------------40Figure 2 Wilshire/Rapid 720 Elements---------------------------------------------------------------43Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments-----------------------------52Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts-------------------------------------------------- 58Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements-----------------------------------------58Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers----------------------------------------------------------- 64______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vii LIST OF TABLESTable 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Index Questions ------------------------------10Table 1-4 Geary: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions---------------------- 11Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary---------------------------------- 12Table 4 Transit Corridors Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background---------------15Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------17Table 5-2 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------18Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile----------------------------------19Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile-----------------------------------20Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------21Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------22Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------23Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------24Table 1-1 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions Results ---------------------------- 32Table 1-2 Transit Corridor Businesses – Geary BRT Pre-Impact Questions Results -------32Table 3 Transit Corridors Business Types - Impact Level Comparison-----------------------39Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS-------------------------- 43Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS-------------------------45Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS – COMMENTS-------------------- 47______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses viii LIST OF CHARTSChart 1a Geary Corridor Respondents---------------------------------------------------------16Chart 2a Alameda Corridor Respondents -----------------------------------------------------16Chart 3a San Pablo Corridor Respondents----------------------------------------------------16Chart 4a Wilshire Corridor Respondents------------------------------------------------------16Chart 1 Customer Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------25Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------26Chart 3 Transit Corridor Impacts---------------------------------------------------------------34Chart 27 Geary Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution-----------39Chart 28 Alameda Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------41Chart 29 San Pablo Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution------42Chart 30 Wilshire Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------44Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail---------------------------------------------------47Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type-----------------------------48Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type----------------------48Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------------------49Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------49Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive Comments------------------------------------------------50Chart 5 Transit Corridor Negative Comments-----------------------------------------------52Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments----------------------------------------------- 54______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • 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.________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 2 INTRODUCTIONHistorically, the assessment and measurement of BRT service and infrastructure improvements’impact upon corridor businesses have been inadequate. With the recent development and interestin implementing BRT in California and in other USA urban corridors, there is a significant needfor survey and research in this area. Many of the initial BRT projects funded through the FTASmall Starts Program are in the study, design, and initiation stages of development, include ACTransit’s International Blvd. BRT Corridor Project, the San Francisco Van Ness 2005/2007 BRTPlanning/Design Study, and the San Francisco Geary 2004/2007 BRT Corridor study.In defining what represents Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) verses other “system package” variantslabeled as “Rapid Bus” utilizing signal priority or “smart corridors” technologies it is useful inunderstanding the scope of BRT to look at a couple of definitions put forth by the Federal TransitAdministration 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 2002TCRP 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______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 3The definition of BRT Bus Rapid Transit offered by the TCRP Transportation CooperativeResearch 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 thatwill 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 businessphysical 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, ACTransit’s San Pablo corridor includes seven different city jurisdictions that differ in theircharacteristics, land-use, and socio-economic profiles which the AC R72 BRT/Rapid Bus systemserves. 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 baseline as an unimproved/Pre-BRT urban bus transit corridor that had a similar marketing mix oftransit corridor businesses and land-use characteristics with the three surveyed improved transitcorridors. 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 railproject was designed and built instead of the planned Geary LRT. The merchants and thecommunity have felt politically “burned” by unfulfilled promises and so the issue of whether theproposed Geary BRT alignment variations and service packages will satisfy and fulfill theservice needs and expectation of the community were an important rationale in examining theGeary corridor with a Pre-BRT impact survey. The Geary Pre-Impact survey indicated 93% ofthe 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 proposinga “state of the art” BRT system with a center alignment and exclusive dedicated bus lanes as oneof several alignment options. San Francisco’s MUNI proposed center alignment Geary BRT canemulate many of the infrastructure and service characteristics of light rail system with greatermarketing appeal, capacity, and efficiency than that which typical traditional urban bus servicesoffer along its increasingly congested multi-modal transit corridors. BRT can be implementedand 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 fullfeatured BRT systems in the planning stages is in the ability to implement BRT at its highestlevel of design and operation possibilities as a bus technology based mode that communicates toits customers, transit boards, and transit directors that it is not a typical bus service; operates likelight rail but is not light rail, and does not eliminate the possibility of future light rail build outand the securing right-of-way and infrastructure for a LRT system. Transit corridor businessesthroughout the United States are very concerned about the negative construction impacts of suchextensive infrastructure construction and build-out time with the more extensive implementationof exclusive bus lanes and the reduction of corridor parking access on a permanent basis orduring peak hour, i.e. Geary BRT and the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, along certain corridor______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 4travel segments. Transit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI have put forth a strong marketingmessage of support for implementing BRT.SFCTA/MUNI—BRT Strategic Marketing MessageBRT 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 ofoperation and management of the system. The technology and infrastructure design choices maynot only affect cost and maintenance factors, but in reality are key (BRT) product marketingfeatures that will affect customer choice, retention, and help grow repeat and sustainableridership numbers. Picking the right type of infrastructure design; vehicle equipment choice willaffect the level of quality perception and customer support for a new high-tech BRT and/or amoderately modernized bus service. What is the appropriate customer oriented design andmarketing methodology that will support the acceptance of a BRT as a mode choice over LightRail or the automobile? Studies supporting BRT as a viable alternative mode choice need toanswer the long term question of what really influences the customer in choosing to supportBRT/Rapid Bus over other alternative modes like Light Rail, when addressing the issues ofequipment 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: AnIntegrated 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 RapidTransit Systems in the Americas, by authors Roderick B. Diaz and Donald C. Schneck, BoozAllan & 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 ofBRT. One very applicable issue derived from an extensive literature search concerning the areaof BRT/Rapid Bus system packaging is that key components of an operating plan; routestructure, service frequency, stop/station spacing, service span, network, and degree ofintegration with other transit services differ and have outcomes that affect the end-user/customerand the transit corridor business community acceptance and support of the system.To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of key local communitytransportation improvement stakeholders which include policy makers, transportationoperators/agencies, corridor businesses—transit riders composed of workers, commuters,shoppers, school children/students, seniors, and the disabled—there is a major need to furtheranalyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridorimprovements have been implemented.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 5 THE RESEARCH STUDYThe research study compares the impacts of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructureimprovements upon four business transit corridors and communities with similar and diverseland-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 SurveyThe selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels ofbus transit improvement “system packages” including Basic/Local Bus, Rapid Bus/SignalPriority Technologies, and Advanced Rapid/BRT while trying to balance the needs andrequirements for implementing successful business and community multi-modal BRTtransportation improvements. The transit corridors’ business composition and sampling didcapture 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 participationlevels until many of the BRT project goals and design concepts were established. There has notbeen sufficient business economic survey, study, and research funding to measure businessexpectations, cost and benefit impacts. This contrasts with the committed level of transit agencystudies focused on the potential impacts on multi-modal corridor transportation travel times andBRT performance related to the proposed levels of service and infrastructure improvements withtraffic flow analysis/counts and corridor simulations. There is an absence of case studies andmethodology as a part of the process for developing the best balance of BRT implementedservice and infrastructure improvements for maximizing the economic benefit to transit corridorbusinesses. 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 ridersto gain necessary insight and data as to travel patterns, mode choice, and for the collection ofmarketing research data related to destination and purpose of travel, rating the performance ofthe transit mode taken, intermodal connectivity, and ridership demographics. See appendix forLA MTA Rider Survey example.1The advanced state-of-the-art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models andaccompanying infrastructure offer a unique opportunity for applying strategic customer orientedmarketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to insure BRT/Rapid Bus1 A key source on the development of collecting travel behavior and customer mode choice preference can be researched throughthe Federal Highway administration OHPI, Office of Highway Policy Information, through the TRB Committee onTransportation Survey Methods (ABJ40) at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm .______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 6systems improve business and community vitality, accessibility, safety, and walkablity. BRT—by its very nature of service flexibility for influencing customer mode choice, its adaptability tochanging land-use patterns, and different infrastructure design possibilities can influence thevitality of transit corridor businesses and their surrounding neighborhoods.During the survey process it became very clear that a large percentage of business employeesand business managers were dependent and users of not only the BRT/Rapid Bus services but theconnecting light and heavy rail systems by way of connecting hubs. Their satisfaction andreliance on fast, frequent, and reliable public transit with good inter-modal connectivity was ofbenefit to transit corridor businesses in getting quality employees to work, and affected thebottom line of sales and customer service levels. Author Graham Currie in the study, TheDemand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, puts forth the concept that the variability in publictransit users’ pattern of choice is influenced by the quality and comfort of the ride as well as bythe factors of distance, the (Total) time of travel, and time waiting to transfer at route/line hubsor changing modes. These factors impact transit corridor businesses’ employees and its customerbase selection of BRT/Rapid Bus as a travel mode for their employment or shopping destinationinstead of driving to corridor businesses.2This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and preference levels as beingrelated 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 bytransit customers related to the industrial design of vehicle interiors/exteriors and human factorsbased improvements associated with ADA accessibility, customer information systems (NextBus) and infrastructure design. Customers place the highest value on the BRT/Rapid Bus servicecharacteristics which include frequency of service, comfort, travel time savings, and reliability ofservice.In this study the impact of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes are measured andsurveyed to evaluate the benefit of specific BRT system attributes and improvements on thetransit customer and the business community. It is important to measure accurately theinfrastructure and system attributes of shelter/platform comfort, information signage andscheduling accuracy (on time performance/frequency) and their cumulative impact on transitcorridor business employees and customers’ travel mode choice. Transit planners need to factorthese into their strategic plans when deciding upon the level of investment in a new or improvedBRT/Rapid Bus system for a particular transit business corridor.The key study question relates to what are the significant attributes that contribute to a positiveor negative impact on BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses. The survey research will shedsome light upon in the comparisons of implemented improvements and impacts upon transitcorridor businesses in the four bus transit corridors selected, and suggest that further ongoingresearch is merited.2 The study, The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit by Author Graham Currie, Chair Public Transport, at MonashUniversity, Australia makes a comparative analysis to examine the passenger values and attributes in selection of transportationmodes when comparing BRT to (LRT) Light Rail as a replacement for traditional bus service.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 7RESEARCH 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 servicecharacteristics along metropolitan business/multi-use transit corridors goes far beyond reducingcommuter travel time through increasing the speed and frequency of service. It impacts land-useand (TOD) transportation oriented development, walkablity, and accessibility to corridorbusinesses 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.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 8 SURVEY METHODOLOGYThe one page questionnaire/survey was composed of 10 key questions to develop an overallBRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact rating-scale for analyzing the positive, neutral, andnegative business responses of the four surveyed BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridors. Critical dataintake included: 3 additional “open comment” questions; respondents’ ethnic background; andthe percentage of customer and employee mode choice of travel to and from the businesslocation. These surveys were administered in person to individual business owners at their placeof business located on the selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridors, with an equal collection of datafrom both sides or directions of BRT/Rapid Bus transit travel route.The sampling targeted a large enough number of businesses including retail, commercial, andprofessional offices to result in 100-140 completed surveys per BRT/Rapid Bus corridor. In theAlameda 2 mile corridor the sampling exceeded 100% of the number of corridor street frontbusinesses compared with 33% for the 6 mile Geary Corridor, 32% for the San Pablo 7.5 milecorridor, and 15-25% of the significant street front businesses along the LA Metro Rapid 720’ssurveyed 13 mile corridor.The survey questions were categorized to capture a broad range of business response to transitcorridor BRT/Rapid Bus implemented “package” of improvements ranging fromservices/operations and technology to travel accessibility for business customers and employees,as well as infrastructure impacts. *Survey question categories included: 50% BusinessEconomic, 20% Customer/Community, 20% Corridor Business Accessibility/Travel ModeChoice, Vitality, Parking impact, and 10% Open ended Questions-Responder Opinion. The threeopen-ended responder opinion questions concerning positive, negative, and solution commentsgenerated another 30 responses on impact issues and corridor comparison.The accumulation of the ten key questions were covering the cumulative possible impact effectsto 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, oremployee in charge. The corridor’s retail business mix included small independent owned storefront “mom and pop” businesses, franchised business, independent chain stores, national brandretail chains, and corridor retail shopping malls, centers, and “big box” retailers.All four transit corridors surveyed had many national chains and franchised businesses with asimilar business operations model, size, and employee socio-economic characteristics incommon to improve the data collection consistency, quality and characteristics for generating amore accurate outcome to compare and rank each of the corridors. Many of the businesses incommon 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, PaylessShoes, 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, SprintPCS, U.S. Postal Service, Wells Fargo and many others.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 9In 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, liquorstores/bars, medical-hospitals/clinics/services, non-profit organizations/churches, restaurants andretail.The total number of one-on-one transit corridor businesses surveyed and interviewed withcomplete data collection for the four transit corridors exceeded 498 respondents, with a sampleof 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, asample of 128 out of 550 for the 7.5 mile San Pablo Avenue Corridor, and a 128 survey businessresponse sample out of an estimated 1,200 major street front businesses for LA Metro’s 13 mileWilshire 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, suchas publishing, law and accounting firms. There were several extensive stretches along theWilshire corridor such as Westwood and Beverly Hills where the land-use changed from a densecommercial 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 businessesin the major office towers where employee numbers utilizing the public transit system would bemeaningful. A majority of the significant street front retail businesses were well represented inthe 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-profitorganizations, and restaurants. The survey sampling covered both directions of travel for thevarious BRT/Rapid Bus systems incorporated in the study, with a cumulative total of 50 miles ofurban/metro bus transit corridors, walked, bused and driven.THE SURVEY:Pre-testing for the impact questionnaire/survey, consisting of 25 samples, was administered inperson for interview intake on AC Transit’s Alameda City’s Webster Street/Alameda Route 61corridor successfully with minor adjustments. The question form and response selection for datacomparison and scoring was based on each question asking the responder to answer as to thequestion’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 andpresented in Excel and graphic charts. Through the survey construction, over 55 significant dataitems 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 theBRT/Rapid Bus improvement impacts on their business as positive, neutral, or negative for eachof the ten questions is additionally presented in the format of Tables for comparison and analysis.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 10 SURVEY: BRT/Bus Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire Survey* Notation 1Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions (10) and Response Choices *Notation 1-3 # QUESTIONS* Notation 2 POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE Scoring: Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 IMPACT (3) IMPACT (2) IMPACT (1) 1 What has been the impact or change to yearly Increased No-Change Decreased sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new Increased Adequate Decreased business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus No-Change improvements? 3 Are your customers and employees enthusiastic Yes Adequate No about the BRT/Rapid Bus service, No-Change shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? 4 Do your employees have improved access/usage Increased Adequate or No to reliable public transit for getting to work? No-Change 5 What is the impact on parking access for Good or Off- Adequate- Difficult or customers and employees driving to the street parking Street Spaces No Parking business? available available spaces available 6 Has the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity, Increased No-Change Decreased walkablity, and transit accessibility improved? Neutral 7 How has the location and distance of Increased No-Change Decreased BRT/Rapid bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? 8 What has been the impact of new housing/multi- Increase No-Change Decrease use development (TOD) stimulated by Or Loss BRT/Rapid Bus? 9 Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA Yes No-Change No or marketing increased your location visibility and Increased Reduction in brought in new customers from transit Customer commuters, community residents, or new Parking housing developments? 10 Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support Yes Undecided or No business expansion plans or continued business No-Change Relocation activity? *Note 3 due to factors*Notation 1: See Appendix for actual survey formNotation 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.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 11 SURVEY: PRE-BRT/Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Survey* Notations 1-3Table 1-4 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions (10) and Response Choices # QUESTIONS* Notation 2 POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 Response Response Response 1 What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to Increased No-Change Decreased proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new Increased No-Change Decreased business activity been for the past two years? 3 Are your customers and employees satisfied with Yes Adequate No the present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? 4 Do your employees have good access/usage to Yes Adequate No or reliable public transit for getting to work? Excellent Very Poor 5 How is parking access for customers and Good –or Adequate Difficult or employees driving to the business? additional off- Street Spaces no spaces street parking 6 How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian Excellent- Adequate Poor – Needs activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility? Attracts Infrastructure Customers Improvement 7 How has the location/distance of existing bus Increase No-Change Decreased – stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? Stop Change - Relocation 8 What will be the impact of new housing/multi- Increase No-Change Decrease use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus? *Notation 2 9 Do you expect proposed BRT/Rapid Bus Yes No-Change No – improvements to increase your location visibility or small Reduced and attract new customers from transit change customer- commuters, community residents, or new Employee TOD/housing developments? *Notation 2 parking 10 Will BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support Yes Undecided or No business expansion plans or continued business No-Change Relocation activity? *Notation 2,3 due to factors* SQ Geary BRT Supplemental Question: Do you YES Neutral NO favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive Support BRT Available Do not BRT lanes which maintains street parking Project off-street Support BRT capacity and availability? parking ProjectNotation 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.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 12A compilation (Table 2-4) of the top ten positive comments, top ten negative comments, and topten solutions for the improvement or elimination of the perceived or actual negative impactidentified 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 yourbusiness sales and customer activity?Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to designchanges, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negativelyimpacting your business sales or customer activity?Solutions Comment Question:How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business? Transit Corridors Businesses - COMMENTSTable 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary POSITIVE COMMENTS NEGATIVE COMMENTS SOLUTIONS1 Faster Travel Parking Loss/Damage Extend Operational Hours/ Late Night Service2 Reliability/Bus Frequency Ugly Shelter/Stop Design Increase Bus Frequency3 Increased New Business Bus Stops Not Clean Expand BRT/Rapid Bus Service Development4 Safer-Cleaner Stops and Shelters Stop Shelters Block Store Build Parking Garages on Corridor5 Attractive Streetscapes-Shelters Poor Stop Lighting Weekend Service Needed6 New TOD Customers Loitering/Safety Concern Transit Security/CCTV/Lights7 Pedestrian Activity/Safety Hours of Bus Operation Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter8 New Bus Design/Branding ADA Accessibility-Pedestrian Modify Streetscape Design-Trees Safety Concerns9 Serves Employee Needs Frequency/Reliability Move Bus Stop/Shelter10 Serves Corridor Businesses Lost Business-Relocation Planned More TOD Development______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 13 Survey Administration ExperienceThe author’s one-on-one interview and survey of four metropolitan bus transit corridors totaling57 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, interviewingand data intake from 500 plus business respondents. Depending upon the amount of respondentstime and willingness to go beyond the 10 basic questions including supplemental data intake andthe three additional open-ended questions—the time of for a complete survey intake to collect allof the critical information and responses was reduced from an average of 15-20 minutes to 10minutes by verbally reciting the questions and filling out the survey with the respondent duringintake. Because independent business owners, retail store managers, and respondents were on-duty dealing with customers the personal interview was most effective in leaving the premisewith a completed survey.It was necessary in about 12% of the cases for the interviewer to show identification and researchauthenticity/authority with a driver’s license, business card from the locally involved transitagency BRT/Rapid Bus manager or director, and/or a project letter of introduction to gain surveyparticipation acceptance from business respondents. The interviewer also carried picture of thedifferent BRT/Rapid Bus system equipment and improvements as visual reference for thesurveyed respondents to visualize the improvements referred to in the questions. Theinterviewer’s experience as an industrial designer and brand marketing consultant; working oncommunity transportation design projects, as well as having designed over 150 retail stores, wasbeneficial in securing a 95%-98% average survey participation from business owners andmanagers interviewed during the intake process on all four transit corridors.The business respondents interviewed expressed genuine interest in improving their existingcorridor BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system and provided quality information and data about thebusinesses’ actual and perceived positive and negative impacts of the BRT/Rapid Busimprovements. The collection of respondent comments included the top ten positive impactcomments, top ten negative impact comments, and the top ten solutions for elimination of thenegative impact. These were useful in evaluating the response reliability to the original 10impact questions used to create the business impact survey. It was important to interview business owners and managers that had “intuitional memory” ofthe changes in business sales, bus service, customer and employee parking accessibility, overallcorridor walkablity, streetscape/infrastructure, and business vitality before and after theimplemented improvements. In many of the corridors this was accomplished, especially amongthe long established small neighborhood “mom & pop” independent merchants that wereinterviewed. 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 askedright 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 ofthe survey that most respondents would comfortably and honestly respond to an answer selectionof “increased,” “no-change,” or “decreased” without breaching business confidentiality.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 14When surveying the entire transit corridor for business sales and foot traffic trends, it becameevident in the overall sampling if the trend was based upon the factors of an economic downturnin the corridor that was widespread across the business community or if it was limited to abusiness type category like retail, restaurants, fast food or just the specific store location. In somesurprising cases, the sales managers were so enthusiastic about participating in the projectresearch issues and potential outcome that the interview intake went for as long as 45 minutes toan hour, thereby gaining depth and insight into the very nature of the corridor’s business vitalityand 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 tothe extensive Alameda City’s streetscape and urban renewal Webster Street development, wherea Chevron service station mini-mart manager held a small impromptu meeting of localcustomers. The customers told the interviewer of the change in business due to the public policyelimination of a 600 unit low income housing project being replaced by a 350 unit high-incomecondominium.Owner/manager and customer survey participation occurred in 5% of the intake sessions withrestaurant managers/owners, big box/name brand retailers, bars/liquor stores, and even fast foodoperations. In several cases (2%) the sales managers of some of the national and regional namebrand retailers actually brought the interviewer into the offices to fill out the survey and showedtheir yearly sales trend charts for the store. When taking in the important supplementalinformation determining customer and employee transportation mode share, many of themanagers would pull their employee duty rosters for employee counts and estimating or takingthe actual count of employees who took the BRT/Rapid Bus/Public Transit, drove/parked, orwalked/biked to work; or gathered a couple of employees to calculate how employees commutedto work. In many of the larger corporate businesses, educational institutions, or medical centersthere were transportation managers and administrators who had not only employee counts but thenumber of parking spaces allotted for employees, and were also responsible for administeringemployee 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 andstudent discount program to capture increased use of the LA Metro transit system and reduce carreliance by customer choice and marketing programs. Many of the transit operators do haveprograms like this, and provide a good source of counting monthly public transit mode use bybusinesses taking apart of these programs. The business sampling and information whencoordinated with these other sources of collected data confirmed that the personal one-to-onesurvey process and strategy yielded a more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate data inputprocess than if the survey was mailed or left to fill out. In several businesses where the surveyhad to be left to be filled-out by the owner or manager and collected later that day or on thefollowing day, it was observed that 20% of the respondents did not fill-out the survey, 30% wentinto great depth and 50% respondents basically neutralized a majority of the questions andinformation due to a lack of interest or possible lack of understanding of the questions, whichfurther reinforced the effectiveness of the one-on-one interview/survey methodology.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 15 Ethnic and Business Management Diversity of RespondentsThe ethnic make-up and diversity of the corridors’ surveyed respondents reinforced theeffectiveness of the personal interview strategy by reciting questions with an occasionalrespondent’s request for clarification or language interpretation, about specific transit impacts orterminology. There was a distinct cultural and behavioral interplay between how somerespondents had to be approached by the interviewer.First generation Asian-Pacific immigrants presented the most challenging language and surveycompletion challenge. This does reinforce the usefulness of having survey work and printedmaterials done in multiple languages with Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, andEnglish being the most prevalent languages spoken along the corridors surveyed. In communitytransit workshops where there are large urban communities of immigrants, it is an invaluable partof the public outreach and participation process to provide multi-lingual written materials andinterpreters.In 18% of the interviews the respondent requested the interviewer enter the first name or initialsin order to guarantee confidentiality. However, collecting the full name on the data sheet wasvery useful in capturing the ethnic diversity of the respondents besides observation, or responseas to country of origin. The ethnic composition of the interviewed respondents by transitcorridors are indicated by table 4 and charts 1-4 for comparison, and were reflective of thecomposition and diversity of the corridor business managers/owners and their employees. Ethnic Background of Survey RespondentsTable 4 Transit Corridors 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/administratorsNotation 2: Geary is a PRE-BRT impact surveyed bus transit corridor. (Local, Limited, Express services)______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 16Charts 1-4 Survey Respondents’ Ethnic Background; Four Corridors Compared Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Geary Corridor Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Alameda Corridor Afro-American Afro-American 4% 6% Caucasian/European 27% Asian Chinese Asian Chinese 28% 23% Caucasian/European 47% Middle Eastern 1% Asian Japanese 1% Hispanic 8% Asian Korean 4% Asian Others Asian Others 6% 6% Asian Japanese Hispanic Asian Korean 20% Middle Eastern 8% 6% 5%Chart 1 Geary Corridor Respondents Chart 2 Alameda R61 Corridor Respondents Respondents Ethnic Background - San Pablo Corridor Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Wilshire Corridor Afro-American Afro-American 14% 7% Caucasian/European Asian Chinese 26% 11% Asian Chinese Asian Japanese 7% 2% Asian Japanese 2% Asian Korean Caucasian/European 46% Asian Korean 9% 5% Middle Eastern Asian Others 5% Asian Others 4% 4% Hispanic 12% Hispanic Middle Eastern 36% 10%Chart 3 San Pablo Corridor Respondents Chart 4 Wilshire Corridor RespondentsThe field survey process presented an incredible learning opportunity for experiencing thediversity of cultures, languages, business mixes/segmentation, and the impact that transportationmakes upon the lives of the communities and peoples it serves. The socio-economicdemographics of customers and employees, levels of transit improvement and service operationmix, land-use, and public policy all affect transit corridor businesses’ bottom-line of profitabilityand ultimately the overall vitality and pedestrian shopping activity of the businesses locatedalong these major transit corridors. Transportation is more than moving buses and commutersthrough a corridor; it is about maintaining the vitality of the businesses on the corridor bymoving a diversity of people, goods and services in a manner that maintains quick access andaccessibility for business customers, employees, and community services. Transit Corridors Profiles: Geary, Alameda R61, San Pablo, WilshireThe next section presents a comprehensive snap-shot profile of each surveyed transit corridor’sBRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and facts, system goals, maps, and demographics.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 17Table 5-1 Geary Corridor ProfileGEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre-BRT Improvements70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th PlaceTransit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNIService Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak DirectionStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor 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 TotalRidership: 50,000-54,000 Daily before ImprovementsSystem Characteristics:Ongoing IMPROVEMENT: Corridor Intersection Signal Upgrades/Equipment • 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 buses, Existing Non-exclusive Bus Lanes and Peak Hour Bus Lanes, Onboard Bus Stop Information Displays, Limited Intersection priority (Local/Limited/Express) • Slow Bus speeds during peak hours due to traffic congestion, traditional curbside loadingProposed BRT Improvements: – Alternatives: Basic Plus Transit Priority, Side BRT, CenterAlignment BRT with Side loading platforms, Center Alignment with a Center loading Platform/Station(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 OperationsNote: SFCTA – San Francisco County Transportation Authority – BRT Plan-SFCTA, MTA, MUNI, DPT 4.26.2007______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 18Table 5-2 Geary Corridor ProfileGEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre- BRT Improvements70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th PlaceTransit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNIStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 5.5/6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave.Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total Miles SurveyedSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit InteractionA summary of the Geary Pre- BRT study’s key findings and public concerns included: • Geary Boulevard is a complex multi-modal transit arterial (6 Travel Lanes, 2 Parking Lanes) • Rapid transit service is needed in for residents in the Richmond and Sunset Districts • Balance needed between the multi-nodes of transportation including pedestrians and bicycles • Faster travel time is a high priority on Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue • Transit riders wait and travel time show excessive variability effecting reliability • All Day treatment needed to Improve transit travel time and reliability • Over Crowding top customer/community concern • Street parking is in high demand in the outer Richmond Core • 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 2/26/2003Corridor 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%), Other11,194 (15.8%)* Source US Census 2000, SF1 and SF2Transit Connectivity: BART, SF MUNI LRT, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit, Golden Gate Ferries______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 19Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor ProfileALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa TransitService Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak DirectionStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 7 miles Webster/Atlantic to Hegenberger Road/Oakland AirportSurveyed Alameda/Route 61: Webster to Central., North/South bound, 2 Miles/ 4 TotalRidership: 9,500-11,500 DailySystem Characteristics:BASIC IMPROVEMENT PLUS: MAJOR STREETSCAPE and BUS STOPINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, Urban/Business Corridor Renewal • Selected priority, bus stop relocation, and ADA loading ramps, new bus shelters, trees, sidewalks, benches, pedestrian and bike facilities, bus loading bulbs, store front parking reductions, urban renewal, State Route 61 partial relinquishment (Webster Street) • Bus equipment improved, low floor buses, no exclusive bus lanes, onboard bus stop information display, limited intersection priorityWebster Street Improvements: Bus facilities/stops side loading ADA extended platforms, majorstreetscape 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 transportationaccessibility (AC Transit), and Local Streets and road improvements. 2. Improve multi-modal safety andcongestion mitigation along Route 61/Webster Street with special emphasis on our most vulnerablecitizens, school children, seniors, and the disabled. 3. Streets and Roads improvement along with WebsterStreet rehabilitation, redevelopment vital to servicing and stimulating new 10-20 year growth of additionalhousing and retail multi-use developments 4. To enhance property values, commercial and mixed-useretail business, and sales revenues through promoting the livability and viability of Alameda City as ashopping, recreational, and living environment. 5. Support bicycling as a transportation alternative______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 20Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor ProfileALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61, AC Transit/City Renewal Project79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa TransitStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 7 miles Webster St./Atlantic Ave. to Hegenberger Road/Oakland AirportSurveyed Alameda City/Route 61: Webster/Atlantic to Central Ave. North/South bound, 2 miles/4 totalSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit InteractionA summary of the City of Alameda’s Webster St. “main street” renewal project: • The Webster Street Project involved Caltrans, BART, and AC Transit Buses and Para-transit services in addressing the multimodal transportation interaction with the new bus stops, Route 61 rehabilitation, and streetscape infrastructure which involved Route 61 right a way encroachment/intrusions with bus bulb out platforms, reduction of street parking, and pedestrian seating area mid-block sidewalk extensions into the roadway parking areas. • TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit is the primary bus service provider serving Webster St. Route 61, with BART connections and links at Fruitvale BART station, Oakland’s 12th Street station, and West Oakland BART station with 30 minute headways. 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/ Alameda Point, San Francisco Ferry Terminal, AT&T Ball Park, and Angel Island. Bike Class 1 and Class 2 bike lanes for commute, and recreational use along the shoreline and parksBusiness QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $4.1M, Retail Sales per capita: $5.4M, Accomodations andFood services: $66M, Wholesale: $3.5M, Manufacturing Shipments: $10M, Firms: 6,028 CitywideCorridor Demographics: * Population: 71,805 Corridor/Citywide, 65+ 13%, Housing Units 31,644, Ownership 48%Land Area: 11 Sq. Miles, Population per square mile 6,693, Median Household Income $56,280, PC $30,982Ethnic Background: W 40,929 (56.9%), AFA 4,452 (6.2%), Asian 18,669 (26.1%), Hispanic 6,462 (9.3%), Other3,303 (4.6%), Median House: $345K, Mean travel time to work: 30 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000 Alameda City______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 21Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor ProfileSan Pablo Avenue, Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123 )Service Types: Rapid Bus R72, Local, Limited, Express ServicesStop 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/San Pablo to Jack London Sq./OaklandSurveyed San Pablo/R123: MacArthur to MacDonald., North/South bound, 6.5/14 MilesRidership: 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,TRANSIT PRIORITY all signals, No exclusive bus lanes, Corridor TOD Development • Intersection priority—Headway-based Opticom System, bus stop relocation far-side, no exclusive bus lanes, new bus shelters with real-time information-NextBus, New branding • Bus equipment improved, low floor buses (40 foot Van Hoot*), onboard bus stop 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 displays,Signal Priority at all intersections, “Smart Corridors” technology Implementation Estimate: $1M per mile*Goals: 1. To enhance San Pablo Corridor’s livability and commercial viability with safe efficienttransportation accessibility (AC Transit), and urban arterials improvement. 2. Improve multi-modal safetyand congestion mitigation along Route 123 by implementing “Smart Corridors” improvements/technologythrough (CMA) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 3. Implementation of TSP at 62 corridorintersections, Collect real-time information about traffic conditions 4. To increase ridership and and reducerunning time (*Reported as 26%-30% faster, with a 66% Peak Hour increase in ridership and a 200%increase in all-day ridership). 5. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, walkability-safety*Note: Data from AC Transit, San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus Fact Sheet, Mineta Transportation Institute ReportF-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 22Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor ProfileSan Pablo Avenue, AC Transit Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd PlaceTransit 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/San Pablo to Jack London Sq./OaklandSurveyed San Pablo/Route 123: MacArthur Blvd. to MacDonald Ave., North/South bound, 6.5/14 MilesSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit ConnectivityA summary of the San Pablo Route 123 AC R72 and “Smart Corridors” project: • AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid R72 and “Smart Corridors” Project was coordinated through the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), the lead agency responsible for design, implementation, and operation of the San Pablo SMART Corridor and its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).The TAC is composed of staff from the seven corridor cities, Caltrans, ACCMA, MTC, AC Transit, BART, Port of Oakland and other agencies in addressing the multimodal transportation interaction and links with the R72 Rapid Bus service. (1903-1948/1958 the Key System ran the R123 to SF) • TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit is the primary bus service provider serving San Pablo Route 123, with BART connections at BART El Cerrito del Norte and El Cerrito Plaza stations, Oakland’s 12th Street station, and West Oakland BART station. AMTRAK connections via Emeryville and Oakland’s Jack London Square. Ferry service: Alameda via Oakland Ferry/ Alameda Point to San Francisco Ferry Terminal, AT&T Ball Park, and Angel Island.Business QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $16.5B, Retail Sales per capita: $11.2M, Accomodations andFood services: $66M, Wholesale: $41B, Manufacturing Shipments: $29.6B, Firms: 120,293 CountyCorridor Demographics: * Population: 135,000 corridor Alameda County, 65+ 10.5%, Housing Units 62,474,Population Density per sq. mile 11,000-18,000, Median Household Income $57,659, *Low Income/poverty 14%Ethnic Background: W 61,290 (45.4%), AFA 20,115 (14.9%), Asian 24,300 (18.4%), Hispanic 18,900 (14%), Other10,395 (7.7%), Median House: $303K, Mean travel time to work: 31 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000/AC Transit*______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 23Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, Corridor ProfileWILSHIRE Blvd., Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st PlaceTransit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityService Types: Rapid Bus R720, Local, Express ServicesStop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headwaysCorridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Pacific Ave./Santa MonicaSurveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Pacific Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 MilesRidership: 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,Transit Signal Priority, No exclusive bus lanes*1, Corridor TOD Development • Intersection priority - bus stop relocation far-side, no exclusive bus lanes, Peak direction parking lane usage*1, new bus shelters with real-time information-NextBus, New branding • Bus equipment improved, NABI Low floor articulated 60’ CNG buses, onboard information display, Metro Rapid Bus Branding/Identity-Bus exteriors/interiors and shelters • NextBus Displays at all Metro Rapid Bus Shelters (Curbside lane Peak Period Demo* 2004)Wilshire Blvd. Improvements: New designed bus shelters, curb-side loading, Rapid bus branding,NextBus displays, Signal Priority at 70% - intersections, Implementation Cost: $182M or $14M per mile*Goals: 1. Reduction in travel time, congestion, with BRT/Rapid Bus as a LRT alternative 2. To enhanceWilshire Blvd. Corridor’s livability and commercial viability with safe and efficient accessible transportation3. Improve multi-modal safety and congestion mitigation along Wilshire Blvd. by implementing “SmartCorridors” improvements/technology-LADOT 4. Implementation of TSP at corridor intersections, Collectreal-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. Supportinterconnectivity with the Red-line and rail links throught transfer hubs. 7. Grow ridership to justify futureLRT investment 8. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, pedestrian walkability-safety*Note: Data from LA Metro, Planning Reports 2005 Wilshire Rapid BRT, Mineta Transportation Institute ReportF-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 24Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720. Corridor ProfileWILSHIRE Blvd. Metro Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st PlaceTransit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityStop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways Wilshire/Whittier R720 26 StopsCorridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Ocean Ave./Santa MonicaSurveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Ocean Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 MilesSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit ConnectivityA summary of Los Angeles LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire Corridor: • LA Metro’s Transit’s Wilshire BRT/Rapid Bus Project has been strikingly successful with operating speed, reduced wait times, service quality, ridership and customer response exceeding the original objectives, with little negative impact on the system or other travel modes. • Rapid 720 Wilshire/Whittier Corridor: high passenger demand urban corridor connecting through the Los Angeles Central Business District (LACBD), 2/3 travel lanes, 2 parking lanes • BRT/Rapid Program Objectives*1: 1. Reduce Passenger Travel Times (-29%), 2. Increase Ridership (+42%), 3. Attract New Riders (+33.3%) 4. Increase Service Reliability (Yes), 5. Improve Fleet and Facility Design (Yes), 6. Improve Service Effectiveness (+17%), 7. Build Positive Relations with Communities (Ongoing) *LA Metro Rapid Demonstration Program Final Report, March 2002 • TRANSIT Connectivity: LA Metro serves Wilshire Corridor with Metro Red Line connections at Wilshire- Normandie/Vermont/Alvarado and Blue Line via 7th/Metro Center/Julian Dixon Station • Future: Exclusive lanes/by-pass lanes, pre-board fare collection, high capacity multi door fleetLA* Business QuickFacts: Retail Sales: $92B, Retail Sales per capita: $9M, Accomodations and Foodservices: $14B, Wholesale: $198B, Manufacturing Shipments: $108B, LA Firms: 1.2M Estimated – *U.S. CensusLA County Demographics: * Population: 9,948,081,000, 65+ 10.1%, Housing Units 3,339,763,000Population Density per sq. mile 2,344, Median Household Income $43,518, *Low Income/poverty 16.7%Ethnic Background: W (29.5%), AFA (9.7%), Asian (13.1%), Hispanic (46.8%), Other (3.2%), Median Owner-Occupied Housing Unit: $209K, Mean travel time to work: 29.6 Minutes, *U.S. Census 2000/2005*Note: Final Report LA Metro Rapid, 2002*1, Jobs on LA’s Grand Blvd., Community Redevelopment Agency-2006______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 25 Corridor Travel Mode Share ChoiceThe mode choice preference of transit corridor business customers and employees for all four ofthe surveyed transit corridors indicated that the largest mode share is represented by employeesand customers that drive to and from the business location as shown by Charts 1 and 2. Exceptfor the Geary corridor, the other corridors’ employee mode shares for car travel were higher thanthe customer mode shares for driving. Alameda corridor has the highest share of car usage foremployees at 80.5% and Geary the lowest at 52%. The survey indicated that there were moresmall businesses with supplemental off-street parking on the surveyed Alameda/Webster Streetcorridor compared to the unimproved Geary Corridor which had sparse public garage parkingand limited metered street parking, thus limiting employee access to affordable parking. Customer Travel Modes 80.0 % CUSTOMERS (Bus) 72.0 67.8 70.0 % CUSTOMERS (Drive/Park) % CUSTOMERS (Walk/Bike) 59.9 Percentage of Transportation Mode Share 60.0 55.1 50.0 40.0 30.0 23.4 21.1 21.5 19.0 17.4 20.0 15.5 14.8 12.5 10.0 0.0 Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor Business Corridors Chart 1 Customer Travel ModesThe 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% andAlameda’s at 12.5% indicated lower customer travel by bus transit in those corridors. Theemployee travel mode shares indicate a higher bus transit mode choice on the Pre-BRT Gearycorridor at 40.4%, the Wilshire corridor at 35%, and the San Pablo corridor at 21.3% whileAlameda remained at 12.5% the lowest. The walk/bike mode choice by customers on all transitcorridors is consistently higher for business customers than as a chosen mode of travel foremployees on all four corridors. The data indicated that both the Geary corridor at (4th place) andWilshire corridor at (1st place) were the highest in business customer demand and support forimproved bus services with San Pablo ranking third.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 26 Employee Travel Modes 90 % EMPLOYEES (Bus/Transit) 80.5 % EMPLOYEES (Drive/Park) 80 % EMPLOYEES (Walk/Bike) 68.8 70 Percentage of Transportation Mode Share 57.3 60 52.0 50 40.4 40 35.0 30 21.3 20 12.5 7.6 7.0 10.0 7.6 10 0 Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor Business Corridors Chart 2 Employee Travel ModesThe corridors which showed the greatest increase in employees selecting the BRT/Rapid Busmode had the highest level of transit improvements related to service speeds, frequency,reliability, and hours of operation. The level of mode choice was reflected in the impact rankingof the Alameda-Webster corridor (2nd place) and the San Pablo corridor at (3rd place ) with highercustomer and employee car mode shares and lower than expected Rapid Bus mode shares wasassociated with employee parking availability and the hours of Rapid Bus service operation.Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and EmployeesThe data showed that in the positive to negative ranking of the respondents perceived level ofimpact that six major factors affected BRT/Rapid Bus service as being a preferred mode choiceby the businesses’ customers and employees. These factors included: 1.) the connectivity in doorto door travel in the terms of convenience and total travel time for moderate and long distancetravel to and from the business location, 2.) BRT/Rapid Bus systems’ speed and frequency as atravel mode for moderate to longer distances, along the corridor, 3.) the time of day the trip istaken in relationship to peak or off-peak travel periods, or late night travel relative to theoperational hours of the BRT/Rapid Bus services, 4.) the availability of parking for businessemployees and their customers, 5.) the cost of travel mode selection relative to an employees orcustomer’s income, and 6.) land-use factors in the number of corridor business employees and______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 27customers that lived in adjacent housing along the corridor with convenient access to the newBRT/Rapid Bus system. Transportation connectivity, speed, and frequency usually rose to thetop as a primary reason for managers, employees, and customers utilizing the new implementedBRT/Rapid Bus systems with their improved package of service and equipment. But, these alonewere not a guarantee in the perception of transit corridor business owners and managers of thenew 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 fourcorridors. San Francisco’s Geary corridor showed a far greater preference at 40% by employeeschoosing 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 Wilshireemployee 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 qualityimplemented BRT system that the mode share for Geary could equal or exceed the WilshireRapid 720 employee mode share. It should be mentioned that LA Metro has several significantemployee and student fare programs that have also contributed to the Metro Rapid Bus system’ssuccess in increasing business employees’ and customers’ mode share.Employee auto mode choice for the Pre-BRT Geary corridor at 52% and the Metro Rapid 720Wilshire corridor at 57.3% was considerably lower than both the Alameda corridor with an80.5% auto mode share and the San Pablo corridor at 68.8% for transit corridor employeeschoosing to drive over taking public transit. The available parking with the limitations in theoperating hours of Rapid Bus service being the significant factors in influencing employee automode choice. Many business managers and employees along these two corridors, especially theSan Pablo corridor with AC Transit’s Rapid 72 service indicated that with the late closing hoursof restaurants and big box stores like Home Depot, Best Buy and shopping centers like El CerritoPlaza that employees did not have Rapid Bus services available after 7 PM, Monday throughSaturday and none on Sunday.Other significant issues impacting the San Pablo AC Transit Rapid 72 Bus as a mode choicewere the employees’ perception of the lack of safety in waiting for extended times at poorlylocated and dimly lit stops without security or monitored CCTV. This contributed to theirchoosing the car to commute to transit corridor businesses with late night hours of operation.This issue also had a significant affect and impact associated with the gender of employees andmanagers in their travel mode selection, where late shift female managers and employees feltespecially vulnerable in utilizing the new improved San Pablo R72, AC Rapid Bus services. Thisarea of concern—related to the safety and comfort concerns of female transit customersimpacting travel mode selection—warrants further research.The availability and associated cost of parking for business managers, employees and customerswere major factors in the selection of the car as a travel mode over the Rapid Bus/pubic transitmodes. The Geary corridor is situated in an urban mixed use environment of street frontbusinesses, densely compacted urban apartments and row housing. Geary, with its highresidential 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 higherpublic transit share at 40.4%. In contrast, Alameda businesses had a large number of off-street______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 28supplemental 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 limitedparking availability and with higher public garage parking pricing and land-use density, itdemonstrated a moderately high percentage of Rapid Bus/public transit mode share byemployees at 35%. Parking availability as an impact factor in implementing corridor BRT/RapidBus systems with travel lane exclusivity is perceived by many store front retail corridorbusinesses as a negative impact element to their business vitality for attracting customers andquality employees. This will rise as a major impact throughout the study, and will be discussed infurther 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 eachother 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. Therewere a large number of neighborhood customers frequenting the corridor businesses that livedwithin several blocks walking distance, which accounted for higher customer walk/bike modeshares in all four corridors compared to employees. The reported customer mode shares forRapid Bus/public transit in the four transit corridors ranged from a low of 12.5% for Alameda’sWebster/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 multiplefares when using several transit links such as BART connecting to San Francisco’s MUNIsystem and to AC Transit’s Rapid Bus. These multi-linked system costs were shown to have amajor impact upon low-wage employees working in retail, fast foods, restaurants, governmentservices, 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 historicBullock’s Art Deco department store building on Wilshire, where there was available campus/offstreet parking and reduced monthly Metro passes, a high number of students drove cars to travelin from Pasadena and other locations. The college’s Manager of Transportation indicated that themonthly pass even at the discounted price was expensive enough, along with connectivity andtravel time factors for a considerable number of students to chose driving their car to the campusover taking public transit. This was stated while simultaneously giving high marks for the LAMetro Rapid 720 service.In considering the ramifications of travel mode selection in these four urban metropolitan transitcorridors, one needs to seriously consider the issues of connectivity between multiple transitmodes, hub locations, and the customer convenience in traveling “the last mile.” When transitdoes not connect directly or in a smooth mode to mode linked transfer to jobs, housing,shopping/entertainment, and major transportation hubs or operates at reduced capacity andfrequency during non-peak commute hours a declining ridership can contribute to urban sprawlgrowth patterns and higher automobile mode shares. The San Pablo corridor business survey dataindicates 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 onweekends. This is in spite of the recent gradual increase in (TOD) transit oriented developmentof combined urban housing and multi-use projects along the San Pablo corridor.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 29According to Marketing Researcher, Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, “changing demographics,geographic patterns of population, and employment trends have profoundly changed thetransportation needs of the consumer.”3 The author’s research does concur with this author’smutual assumptions that changes in population and urban transit corridor demographics havedramatically impacted mode choice preference and options by transit corridor employers,employees and customers as well as the “commuter customers” who live outside cities wherethey work or live. Transit corridor businesses historically have depended upon local and non-local customers to sustain business revenues.Certain business models may find that the business they gain from ‘nine-to-five” office workersmay in fact not be enough if their traditional customer base is impacted by the loss of parkingaccessibility and availability due to the taking of lanes during AM and PM peak hours, orpermanently 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 questionswhether a particular business model, relative to its land-use location and customer base cansurvive the changes or is suitable to remain as a viable transit corridor business. This will bediscussed further in this study.The four California metropolitan BRT/Rapid Bus corridors surveyed indicated a pattern of land-use density changes along their transit corridors due to increased demand for TOD/housingdevelopment and the impact of implementing “smart growth” planning policies. The selection ofbusiness customers travel mode choice is impacted by work trips which used to be representedby single travel “links” from home to work are increasingly represented by a multilink chain oftrips 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 drop in busas a mode choice along with other modes of public transportation in many metropolitan areas.The increased demand for affordable housing and resulting suburban sprawl patterns can not besupported by costly new transit rail projects except in the densest corridors. The demand foraffordable urban TOD housing has created the opportunity for a cost effective, technologicallyenhanced 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 does demonstrate with its positive business response survey score of81.8% ranking first in business satisfaction with BRT, that one can succeed in turning the tide ofdeclining bus ridership by crafting a BRT/Rapid Bus system with the “right package” of systemand service attributes. The issues of an urban corridor based Bus Rapid Transit is different in itsoperation modeling and requirements when operated within dense multi-modal urban transitarterials, and requires further comparison and research.3 Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 36 - A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership andReport 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 selecting modechoice is that many work trips which used to be represented by single travel “links” from home to work, are nowrepresented by a multilink chain of trips that include child care, errands, shopping, multiple meetings, and otherstops on the way. This has resulted in a drop in bus as a mode choice along with other modes of publictransportation in many metropolitan areas.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 30Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine SystemCharacteristics Impact on BRT transit CustomersIn determining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristics,Michael R. Baltes of The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, uses the statistical data gatheredfrom BRT riders on board surveys conducted in 2001 on the Orlando BRT and Miami BRT, indetermining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristic byidentifying and measuring the attributes that contribute to the customers overall satisfaction withBRT as a transit mode choice.4The survey model was useful in viewing how service and design factors are viewed and reactedto by the transit customer. As previously stated, the BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit CorridorBusinesses survey data supports the premise that transit corridor businesses’ customers andemployees place a high value on the BRT service characteristics which include frequency ofservice, comfort, travel time savings, frequency, and reliability of service. Balte’s statement ofsupport for the FTA conclusions is cautionary, “That no single mode of transportation is right forall situations”. This survey and research of four business transit corridors will also reinforce theidea that no generic “BRT System Package” of attributes can be applied universally with thesame business and community impact and acceptance.The utilization of on board surveys as a customer marketing research tool to compare BRT’scustomer’s experience, demonstrates a valid application for collecting data about the customers’perceptions and value of BRT design features; convenience, comfort, and service attributes forcontinuing to support BRT as a customer mode choice. Transit management and marketing candetermine the attributes and the enhancements which will attract, sustain, and expand customerdemand for new systems; but must not exclude the impacts to transit corridor businesses in theprocess of shaping and selecting the attributes to implement.It is equally important to survey the impact of service elements such as on-board and stationcustomer information systems as well as the issues of station design and placement relative tomulti-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 Transit,National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, Abstract . These surveysare a part of an overall customer analysis of determining the effectiveness and acceptance of 10 national BRTdemonstration projects by the (FTA) Federal Transportation Administration.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 31The measurement and analysis or data collection related to the perception of time waiting,traveling, and transferring between modes affecting the customer choice would have been usefulwhen comparing the Pre-BRT survey of the Geary Corridor and the Alameda Route 61 corridorsto the Rapid Bus/BRT services implemented on the San Pablo Avenue corridor and the LAWilshire Boulevard corridor—but is beyond the scope of this study.5One of the major negatives related to Bus and BRT as a mode choice is the impact of traveldelay related to bus headway spacing and frequency as well as, the excessive amount of dwelltime experience in bus-based systems operating in congested urban corridors. This study doeslook at how BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses are impacted by these servicescharacteristics and the total package of BRT/Rapid Bus attributes implemented throughout thecorridors.TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTSThis section presents the survey’s BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor impact results for the ten basicquestions 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) valuesused to plot the level of positive and negative results based upon the specific questions.Rating Scoring for data comparison is based on asking the responder to answer as to theBRT/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 businessrespondents for each survey question.The Geary Pre-BRT survey represented by Table 4-2 was incorporated into the study to include acorridor with traditional bus service-operational modeling as a baseline. The scores for eachsurvey question and transit corridor businesses are represented as the average response of theentire transit corridor business sample for each question asked. Chart 3 shows the rating scalescore results of the survey in a line graph with 2.0 representing (NEUTRAL) no change, lowerscores a negative impact response, and higher than 2.0 a more positive business response to the10 survey questions.5 The most serious challenge in developing a quality BRT system that customers will support must result insignificant reductions in wait, loading, transfer, and overall travel times within heavily congested multi-modal transitcorridors. A significant approach and study to this problem is reviewed by Phillips and Guttenplan, “A Review ofApproaches for Assessing Multimodal Quality of Service”, Journal of Public Transportation, 2003. The articlereviews the existing studies and issues related to transit corridor congestion and affects on multi-modes of transitwhen transit, bikes, and pedestrians are placed in competition by sharing common right-a-way. This significantlyaffects making management and policy decisions which will affect the quality (QOS), safety and performance oftransit within a multi-modal concept of shared transit corridor space and function.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 32SURVEY: BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Rating Scale Score ResultsTable 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Survey Questions (10) -Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire # QUESTIONS *Notation 3 Geary Alameda San Pablo Wilshire Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 Pre-BRT 1 What has been the impact or change to yearly 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6 business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 3 Are your customers and employees enthusiastic 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.6 about the BRT/Rapid Bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? 4 Do your employees have improved access/usage 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 to reliable public transit for getting to work? 5 What is the impact on parking access for 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8 customers and employees driving to the business? 6 Has the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity, 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 walkablity, and transit accessibility improved? 7 How has the location and distance of 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 BRT/Rapid bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? 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 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 marketing increased your location visibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new housing developments? 10 Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 business expansion plans or continued business activity?Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Transit Corridor Businesses SurveyedNotation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact ExpectationsNotation 3: 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 1-2. 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 BRTimprovement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, and a NegativeImpact/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.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 33 SURVEY: PRE-BRT/ Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses –Rating Scale Score ResultsTable 1-2 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Response Questions (10) and Results * Notations 1-3 # QUESTIONS *Notation 2, Notation 3 Geary Alameda San Pablo Wilshire Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 Pre-BRT 1 What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? *3 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6 business activity been for the past two years? *3 3 Are your customers and employees satisfied with 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.6 the present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? *3 4 Do your employees have good access/usage to 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 reliable public transit for getting to work? *3 5 How is parking access for customers and 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8 employees driving to the business? *3 6 How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility? *3 7 How has the location/distance of existing bus 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? *3 8 What will be the impact of new housing/multi- 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.1 use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus? *2 9 Do you expect proposed BRT/Rapid Bus 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 improvements to increase your location visibility and attract new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or new TOD/housing developments? *2 10 Will BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 business expansion plans or continued business activity? *2Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Transit Corridor Businesses SurveyedNotation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact ExpectationsNotation 3: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions are phrased for respondents to rate pre-existing conditions and futureBRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-1. for Alameda, San Pablo, and Wilshire Impact Survey Questions).Rating Scoring for data comparison is based on each question asking the responder to answer as to the subject or BRTimprovement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, NegativeImpact/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 BRTlanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?The response rating of 142 Businesses was 2.8 for YES, or 93% Support by respondents interviewed.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 34Chart 3 illustrates that there are some significant cumulative results showing differences in theperceived impacts by business respondents and areas showing a commonality in positive andnegative impacts in specific impact areas. The corridors’ total average impact response andranking put the LA Metro Rapid 720 in 1st place with a score of 81.5%, AC Transit’s AlamedaWebster Street/Route 61 corridor as 2nd Place with a score of 79.4%, AC Transit’s San PabloRapid 72 corridor in 3rd place with a score of 76.3%, and the SF MUNI Geary Pre-BRT corridorplaced 4th with a score of 70.6%.Chart 3. Transit Corridor Business Impacts: Four Corridors Compared Transit Corridor Impacts Business Response - Level of Impact 3.0 POSITIVE Geary Corridor NEUTRAL Alameda Corridor 2.0 San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor NEGATIVE 1.0 ty Y D T E Y D ng Y s C IT er C IT EN ET EN ili si PA N IL TV m ib AF TR ou TA TR B to ss IM C IA H /S us IS A ce IC E G EL PS ew D U SS C FF /A IN EN P R ew O N D K NE A O S/ T/ ST O EV R TR ST N ES C SI HO PA E/ Y/ R PA U T S C IT C R O S B U C 5 VI IM IL O LE FO B Q A 10 R B B D SA SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q Q 8 N 9 Q Q 6 Q BRT/Rapid Bus Improvement Impact Questions SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10: RESPONSE ANALYSISQuestion One: What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to proposed BRT/Rapid Busimprovements?Wilshire businesses indicated a positive and robust sales trend when compared with Gearycorridor businesses indicating a lagging sales trend, and Alameda and San Pablo businessrespondents indicating moderate sales improvement after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. Thebusiness 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 strongersales trend response among Wilshire corridor business respondents.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 35The Wilshire corridor in many areas also had a higher density of corporate businesses and luxuryapartment buildings contributing to higher business sales revenues in some surveyed highincome segments like Westwood and Beverly Hills than generated by San Pablo and Alamedacorridors businesses. However, Wilshire had lower positive business response ratings for newcorridor TOD development contributing to new customers and for its Rapid 720 increasingbusiness visibility in attracting customers from transit commuters, residents, or TOD housing.The Wilshire corridor in comparison with Alameda, San Pablo, and Geary had very few TODdevelopments contributing to increased business customers. The Wilshire Rapid 720 had a .75-1mile stop spacing which favored moderate to longer distance commuters than increasing localneighborhood shopping customer foot traffic. However, Wilshire corridor businesses benefitedby additional local bus service coordinated for easier intermodal transfer with the longer distance720 Rapid Bus stops.If there was a positive or negative trend in customer sales, it was captured in the businessrespondents’ surveys, and was a good indicator of the overall business vitality of the transitcorridor. Overall, it did not appear that major numbers of businesses failed or were put out ofbusiness by BRT/Rapid bus improvements. Business closures were more likely attributed to acombination of changes in the customer base, competition, higher lease rents, lost lease, or afailed or outdated business model.Question Two: How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity changed afterBRT/Rapid Bus improvements?Wilshire corridor had an 80% positive response concerning the location and distance of bus stopsaffecting customer “foot traffic”, while the other corridors with a positive response range of13%-26% indicated very little improvement or gain in “foot traffic” from their implementedBRT/Rapid Bus services. In many cases the specific tracking of “foot traffic” directly fromwhether a store customer sale was attributed to taking the BRT/Rapid Bus or other public transitwas not generally tracked by independent retailers, but could be derived from reviewing transitrider surveys that incorporated destination questions. In fact, in the case of the Alameda WebsterStreet and San Pablo Avenue transit corridors the increases in “foot traffic” and sales revenuesfor specific types of businesses were attributed to an increase of mixed-use housing and TOD inthe Berkeley and Emeryville areas of the San Pablo corridor, and the development of residentialhomes on the 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 corridorscored a 63% positive response level of 2.6, and San Pablo scored a 39% positive response ratingof 2.4, with Alameda/Webster Street scoring a 36% positive response rating of 2.3 on the survey.Geary’s low negative score can be attributed to the corridor’s history of a high level of pedestrianinjury and fatalities. These have been dramatically reduced city-wide by 43% through theapplication of extending signal timing for pedestrian crossing, and the installation of pedestrian______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 36count-down signals, new Fluorescent Yellow-Green (FYG) pedestrian and school crossing safetysigns, 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 pedestriansafety signs, signal enhanced crosswalk markings, red-light running cameras and control devicesto aid in creating Safe Routes to School, and Safe Routes to Transit for contributing to theimproved walkablity on these transit corridors. Respondents viewed these areas as part of acommunity oriented transit corridor improvement package that benefited their businesses.Question Four: Do your employees have improved access and usage to reliable publictransit for getting to work? There was an rating score progression from the Geary corridor with the slowest and leastimproved bus services scoring a negative 1.9 compared to Alameda R61 with a positive 2.3, SanPablo with a positive 2.4, and finally Wilshire at positive 2.8 scoring the highest positivebusiness response (82%) and having the most advanced package of BRT/Rapid Busimprovements. System frequency and reliability along with hours of operation were majorcontributors to gaining a positive or negative level of response by business owners andmanagers.Question Five: What is the impact on parking access for customers and employees drivingto the business?All four corridors’ business respondents indicated a significant negative impact on parkingaccess for customers and employees driving to the business, thereby ranking parking on allcorridors as a negative score from 1.9 for the San Pablo corridor to a negative 1.6 forAlameda/Webster corridor. Street-front retailers and small owner businesses withoutsupplemental off-street parking felt especially impacted by parking loss during to peak-hourcommuting congestion policies for clearing parking lanes on heavily traveled major arterials orlimited parking supply due to the density of businesses and housing along corridor segments.Question Six: How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity/walkablity, and transitaccessibility?Alameda/Webster businesses with a positive 2.8 response rating and Wilshire’s with a positive2.5 rating scored the highest positive response levels in rating the impact of improvementsrelated to the issues of pedestrian activity, corridor walkablity, and transit accessibility. Theseissues were, in fact, related to the overall improved look and feel of the corridors as a result ofimprovements in streetscape, transit infrastructure elements such as bus stop shelters and thevisual impact of the transit vehicle design and transit branding identity applications to systemelements.Transportation presents not only a stationary impact on its fixed infrastructure elements but avisual experiential impact of the very “look and feel” of the BRT/Rapid Bus vehicles as theymove up and down the corridor. That old traditional bus sends one kind of a message tocustomers and businesses and the contemporary high-tech streamline BRT vehicle sends a______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 37message of leading edge change, performance, and product/service differentiation. Geary rankedlowest in positive response rating at 2.1 and AC’s San Pablo Rapid 72—using more traditionalbus shelters and dealt with crowded sidewalk placements and storefront issues that generatedtrash problems at stops—scored a positive 2.3 benefiting from its systematic application of acomprehensive Rapid Bus branding identity program on its shelters, vehicles, and signage.Question Seven: How has the location/distance of existing bus stops/shelters affected “foottraffic” numbers?The location or bus stop distance does impact “foot traffic” generation from bus transitimprovements. Furthermore, the distance to the bus stops from the site location of different typesof businesses showed a variation of impact on “foot traffic” and sales. There were some types ofbusinesses like mini-marts, deli sandwich shops, liquor stores, and bars which found being nextto a bus stop to be a very important contributor to their customer generated sales. That alsocaused some significant problems at certain corridor bus stops and shelters with trash, loitering,and in some cases crime. In a significant number of survey interviews managers and employeescomplained of the trash and maintenance issues related to the bus stops near or in front of theirplace of business, and of several employee robbery and assault incidents at night along the SanPablo corridor, and the Geary Boulevard corridor.These issues were further highlighted and captured with the open question comments. There wasgenerally a fall-off in businesses capturing transit rider customers or shoppers the further theywere from the stops. This issue depends upon how seamlessly the Rapid Bus systems (as the ACTransit San Pablo R72 and its .64 mile stop distance or the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 with .75-1mile stop spacing) integrated their local service with their new BRT/Rapid Bus service. Manyemployees and managers felt that five blocks was the limit for catching the BRT/Rapid Busservice 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%, SanPablo at 25%, and Geary at 30% related to TOD developments. Basically, TOD and affordablemulti-use urban housing is a trend that is increasing, but still at its beginnings as a land-useplanning policy for changing urban housing density along transit corridors. The Alameda’sWebster Street/Route 61 corridor was significant in the areas urban renewal and land-useplanning resulting in major “main street” infrastructure improvements coordinated with ACTransit’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 Nine: Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA marketing increased your locationvisibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, ornew housing developments?New customer generation is tied to the previous questions related to business revenue and foottraffic trends, and was recognized by all respondents as being important to the long-term vitality______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 38of transit corridor business. Geary, Alameda/Webster, and San Pablo corridors experiencedmeasurable 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 programswhich include seasonal destination advertising for transit corridor businesses, entertainment,museums, historic sites of interest, and tourist destination work to boast the overall vitality ofcorridor businesses through generating increased foot traffic and sales. It was felt that bus shelterand vehicle advertising could play an important part of impacting positive business visibility.Informational technology such as “NextBus” in the bus shelters along the Wilshire Rapid 720and the AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 routes gained additional positive response frombusiness employees and customers using the new BRT/Rapid Bus systems. The LA Metro’sWilshire Rapid Bus even had LCD Televisions installed on some of their service routes withCNN News and transportation public service messaging for its riders. Corridor businessmarketing 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 factorin the success or failure of individual transit corridor businesses. Business closures were morelikely attributed to a combination of changes in the customer base, competition, higher leaserents, lost lease, or a failed or outdated business model. That being said, there can be gradual ordramatic shifts in local socio-economics, land-use and TOD development that accompany theimplementation of corridor BRT/Rapid bus systems and multimodal connectivity. These shiftscan 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 improvements support business expansion plans orcontinued business activity?Question ten, in trying to identify whether the business owner’s or manager’s plans for businesscontinuation or relocation was associated with the corridor BRT/Rapid Bus improvements, askedspecifically to circle a reason for relocation. The choices listed on the survey included lost lease,BRT construction, loss of parking, business downturn, higher rent due to increased areadevelopment, or sold business. Overall, it did not appear that significant numbers of businessesfailed 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 alsoasked about the respondents’ plans for continuing business through expansion or site renovationafter the BRT/Rapid Bus implementation. All four corridors presented strong response levels thatthe improvements were positive to businesses located along the surveyed improved BRT/RapidBus transit corridors.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 39 Summary of the Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Business Responses to Impact Questions by CorridorGEARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR – PRE-BRT IMPLEMENTATIONOn San Francisco’s Geary Pre-BRT impact survey, questions eight through ten are based uponthe expectations of corridor businesses on the future impacts of new housing/TOD and visibilityin 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 alignmentBRT with exclusive BRT lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?” Theresponse from 142 businesses was 2.8 for YES, or 93% support by interviewed respondents.Chart 27. Geary Blvd. – Transit Corridor Impact Questions Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Geary Blvd. Corridor (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses) 100% 7% 13% 18% 90% 30% 35% 36% 39% 39% 80% 37% 54% 70% 78% 14% 60% TOTAL % POSITIVE 56% RESPONSES (3) 50% 82% 38% TOTAL % NEUTRAL 35% 36% RESPONSES (2) 40% 65% TOTAL % NEGATIVE RESPONSES (1) 56% 30% 37% 51% 20% 19% 26% 26% 26% 25% 5% 5% 10% 3% 9% 0% TY y D Y Y s T E D T i lit er C ET IT C C EN EN LI PA m N PA ib TV AF BI TR TA TR ss to IM IM AC IA us ce /S IS E C EL G C D PS /A D U S FI N O EN ew ES R D P AF O KI /T O S/ O ST /N EV N R G TR O ST ES SI PA N TY H E/ R SI BU C R T S C LI S 5 O BO AC U BU VI Q LE BI FO O 10 R H SI H 4 7 SA SE Q G Q Q 2 VI EW EI Q 1 3 9 N Q Q N Q 6 8 Q QIn Chart 27, Geary corridor’s overall distribution of positive, neutral, and negative businessresponses for survey questions 1-10 there were higher negative business responses of 56%related to services, stops, and safety and 51% negative response related to parking impacts.There were high neutral responses of 82% related to bus stop distance, 65% for TOD and newhousing impact expectations, and 56% for transit access and reliability. The three highestpositive responses were 78% related to future expectations of BRT’s impact upon businessactivity, 54% on increasing future business visibility and attracting new customers, and 39% forincreasing “foot traffic” and 39% for increasing neighborhood walkablity and accessibility.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 40ALAMEDA/WEBSTER STREET/ROUTE 61 TRANSIT CORRIDORAlameda Route 61 corridor business respondents placed more emphasis on the level of cityinfrastructure improvement as a positive boost to the City of Alameda’s Webster Street businesscommunity than the San Pablo business community placed upon the travel speed by the ACTransit’s San Pablo Rapid R72. These differences become especially apparent in this study’sreview of the respondents’ 10 top positive comments, 10 top negative comments, and the 10 topproposed solutions for improving BRT/Rapid Bus services or the elimination of a perceivednegative impact. The Alameda/Webster Street corridor is compact and benefits from its close distance forconnecting with BART and the Alameda Ferry to San Francisco within a relatively short traveltime with the corridor’s AC Local No. 51 bus and peak AC Transbay Express bus services. Streetscape/AC Hawthorn Suites Streetscape/Historic New Restaurant Transit Stop/ADA New Development Bank Building Integrated Streetscape Figure 1 Alameda/Webster Street PhotosAs a result of Alameda’s Webster Street/Route 61 streetscape infrastructure improvements, ACTransit’s ADA compliant bus loading platforms and shelters, new low-floor buses, and with theCity of Alameda integrating new business and housing redevelopment; business activityincreased for most of the surveyed businesses.Alameda’s high-scoring areas included: a positive 2.8 rating as a result of 84% of the businessessurveyed indicating a positive impact related to neighborhood pedestrian activity, walkablity,and transit accessibility, 72% of businesses surveyed indicated a positive response as to theimpact of new businesses and housing resulting in a positive rating of 2.5, and with the transitimprovements supporting continued business by 72% of the businesses surveyed resulting in a2.7 positive response level. These areas were mostly responsible for Alameda ranking ahead ofthe 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 reductionof street frontage parking by 25% due to the streetscape design intrusion into former storefrontparking areas even with ample supplemental off-street parking available. The overall package ofimplemented improvements was viewed positively by most businesses, for increasing business.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 41Chart 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) 100% 2% 17% 90% 36% 36% 41% 45% 80% 46% 52% 70% 56% TOTAL % POSITIVE 72% RESPONSES (3) 84% 60% TOTAL % NEUTRAL 50% RESPONSES (2) 74% 40% TOTAL % NEGATIVE 54% 57% RESPONSES (1) 45% 48% 56% 50% 30% 14% 42% 24% 20% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 9% 9% 7% 7% 0% TY y D Y Y s T E D T i lit er C ET IT C C EN EN LI PA m N PA ib TV AF BI TR TA TR ss to IM IM AC IA us ce /S IS E C EL G C D PS /A D U S FI N O EN ew ES R D P AF O KI /T O S/ O ST /N EV N R G TR O ST ES SI PA N TY H E/ R SI BU C R T S C LI S 5 O BO AC U BU VI Q LE BI FO O 10 R H SI H 4 7 SA SE Q G Q Q 2 VI EW EI Q 1 3 9 N Q Q N Q 6 8 Q QIn Chart 28, the Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 corridor distribution of positive, neutral, andnegative survey question 1-10 indicate very low negative responses ranging from 2%-9% fornine out of ten questions, with a 42% negative response for parking impacts the most significant.The highest neutral/no-change response was 74% related to bus stop distances, as they were veryclosely spaced. Questions 1-5 showing a consistent neutral response range of 50%-57%, withstrong 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- walkablity-transitaccessibility, 72% indicating increased business activity, and 52% for positive impacts from newhousing and TOD related to the “main street” renewal project and other new nearby housingdevelopment on Alameda’s former Navy Air Station/Base.SAN PABLO/RAPID 72 TRANSIT CORRIDORAC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 corridor businesses indicated negative impacts in several areasof the survey’s negative comments and low survey scores regarding the hours of operation inserving many of the late shift retail business employees and managers. This included the issuesof bus stop location, safety fears of loitering and crime, and limited new customers from ACTransit’s Rapid 72. As a result, many business owners, managers, employees, and customers______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 42chose the car mode to travel to and from San Pablo corridor businesses. The customers in manycases found fairly ample parking available in many areas of the San Pablo corridor, and many ofthe major retail locations were directly accessible by BART or near BART stations like the ElCerrito Plaza shopping center with over 26 retail businesses, many of them national chains.Chart 29. San Pablo/R72 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - San Pablo (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses) 100% 3% 17% 90% 25% 26% 35% 38% 39% 80% 46% 52% 59% 70% 60% TOTAL % POSITIVE 82% RESPONSES (3) 50% TOTAL % NEUTRAL 81% RESPONSES (2) 72% 74% 40% 51% 64% TOTAL % NEGATIVE 59% 38% 50% 30% RESPONSES (1) 46% 20% 10% 5% 15% 4% 11% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% TY y D Y Y s E T D T ilit er C ET IT C C EN EN LI PA m N PA ib TV AF BI TR TA TR ss to IM IM AC IA us ce /S IS E IC EL G C D PS /A D U S F N O EN ew ES D R P AF O KI /T O S/ O ST /N EV N R G TR O ST ES SI PA N TY H E/ R SI BU R C T S C LI S 5 O BO AC U BU VI Q LE BI FO O 10 R H SI H 4 7 SA SE Q G Q Q 2 VI EW EI Q 1 3 9 N Q Q N Q 6 8 Q QIn Chart 29, the San Pablo corridor distribution of positive, neutral, and negative surveyquestions 1-10 indicate very low negative responses with the highest being 15% citing parking asan issue and 11% indicating lower sales revenues. The neutral responses indicating no significantchange or impact were quite high ranging from 82% to 38% for all of the questions. The highestneutral response at 82% was for parking impacts, 81% indicating little impact from visibility ornew customers, and a surprising 74% indicating no change in business from New Housing/TODimpacts. Neighborhood and corridor walkablity and transit accessibility were unchangedaccording to 64% of the business respondents.The strongest positive responses were 59% for impacts upon business activity levels, Rapid Busaccess and reliability at 52%, and increased foot traffic indicated by a 46% response. The veryperception of business respondents as indicating neutral or no-change as a response reflects highauto mode shares of 68% by customers, 69% by business employees, and significantly higher bybusiness managers and owners. The neutral responses should be also be viewed as indicating thelack of personal use or public transportation experience by business owners and managers, who______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 43were found to appreciate the importance of increased reliability, speed, and hours of operationfor 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 WilshireMetro Rapid 720—upon examination of the rating scoring comparison between the differentcorridors 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 andexcellent bus equipment attracted additional positive comment. However, night rider safetyrelated to the limited hours of AC’s R72 operation and late night local bus frequency creatinglonger bus stop waits and potential crime exposure by business employees, were listed as reasonsfor employees and managers driving to work. The survey’s open comments indicated that femaleemployees/store managers felt especially vulnerable and expressed strong negative responsestoward 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 ontime, the issues of the quality of the Rapid Bus “package” was not as significant as the loss ofparking accessibility and reductions in parking capacity that impacted their businesses’customers and employees. There were some owners and managers who frequented the publictransit systems, but this was in no way reflective of the much higher percentage of businessemployees utilizing the BRT/Rapid Bus and connecting public transit systems like BART.The “mom and pop” and small independent owned businesses on all corridors demonstrated thelowest number of those using public transit, compared to managers and employees of large ormedium sized national retail chains, or brand name stores. This is a case where the use ofcorridor transit ridership survey data is useful to compare ridership opinions with those ofcorridor businesses owners and managers.WILSHIRE – LA METRO RAPID 720 TRANSIT CORRIDORThe Wilshire corridor’s LA Metro Rapid 720 clearly scored higher in the majority of the surveyquestion areas to rank 1st place with its 81.5% score by Wilshire transit corridor businesses. Theriding experience during off-peak hours was outstanding and worthy of a higher score reinforcedfrom positive Metro LA ridership surveys. This is also clear from the 47% increase in dailyridership from 43,200 to 90,000 with the implementation of the Metro Rapid 720 service. Thesystem service efficiency reports indicated reduced running time resulting in 29%-40% fasterservice for the LA Metro Rapid 720. Wilshire Stop NABI Bus/ADA Branding LA Metro Shelter Wilshire TOD-Housing Figure 2 Wilshire – Rapid 720 Elements______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 44Chart 30. Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Wilshire Corridor (Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses) 100% 9% 5% 22% 90% 80% 52% 57% 60% 63% 63% 70% 67% 82% 60% 85% TOTAL % POSITIVE RESPONSES (3) 50% TOTAL % NEUTRAL 91% RESPONSES (2) 76% 40% TOTAL % NEGATIVE 44% RESPONSES (1) 39% 30% 39% 37% 34% 20% 28% 1% 18% 1% 14% 10% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% TY y D Y Y s T E D T ilit er C IT ET C C EN EN LI PA m ib N PA TV AF BI TR TA TR ss to IM IM AC IA us ce /S IS E C EL G C D PS /A D U S FI N O EN ew ES D R P AF O KI /T O S/ O ST /N N EV R G TR O ST ES SI PA N TY H E/ R SI BU R C T S C LI S 5 O BO AC U BU VI Q LE BI FO O 10 R H SI H 4 7 SA SE Q G Q Q 2 VI EW EI Q 1 3 9 N Q Q N Q 6 8 Q QIn Chart 30, the Wilshire/Rapid 720 corridor distribution of positive, neutral and negativebusiness responses for survey questions 1-10 indicated minimal to insignificant negativeresponse levels except with 28% of the surveyed Wilshire corridor businesses indicating negativeparking impacts. The LA Metro prior to the survey had implemented peak-hour direction parkingrestrictions so that the La Metro rapid 720 could gain exclusive lane usage in certain segments toincrease travel speed and reduce dwell time at its curbside stops. Retail store owners especiallyin Beverly Hills and the Rodeo Drive area were strong in voicing negative responses.Tables 1-5, 1-6, 1-7 summarizing the four transit corridor business impact questions positiveresponses, neutral responses, and negative responses are included in the appendix B forcomparison with the top ten positive, negative, and solution comments.The validity of data spikes or areas of sharp contrast between the corridors was further analyzedby 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 questionsused to generate the main impact rating scores for each corridor. These were used as a secondarydata compilation, to gather additional information and validation concerning impact responses.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 45 IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPEThe Survey data of BRT/Rapid Bus impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses was further sortedinto to 12 business types segments or categories. The rational and premise was that differenttypes of businesses would possibly have a different view of how they were specifically impactedby the different levels or BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes and service characteristics. Thisrelated to business type, land-use, hours of operation, and satisfying the travel needs of theircustomers and employees to and from the business. Table 3, Impact Level on Transit CorridorBusiness Types lists the business categories and the impact response ratings converted topercentages, as a percentage of the total business surveyed for each individual corridor.Table 3. Impact Level on Transit Corridors Business TypesTable 3 Transit Corridors 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 PercentagesNotation 2: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNotation 3: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*Notation 4: Business Satisfaction with “total package” of BRT/Rapid Bus Improvements*Impact Level Comparison Rating Scale: (Business Opinion)Below 70% F failing, 70-74% C average, 75-79% B Good, 80-85% B+ Excellent, and 86-92% A Outstanding______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 46The survey results of the respondents perceived impacts to their business did indicate that therewere some differences in the levels of impact by business type and differences between thecorridor improvements. Street-front retailers, restaurants, and medical services generally feltmore impacted negatively by the improvements, especially when they resulted in making parkingor travel to their destination more difficult.Alameda’s Medical/Services category scored a 91% positive response as a result of senior careand assisted living housing managers who felt that the AC Bus Transit improvements alongWebster Street/Route 61 were positive in enhancing their mobility and use of public transit.Alameda again scored high at 91% in the hotel/hospitality category because of Hawthorn Suitesguests and convention attendees who found the bus connectivity to downtown Oakland, BART,and the Oakland Airport to be very convenient and provided for rapid point to point travel timeto and from the hotel.There were a couple of business types where impacts could not be compared on all fourcorridors. This is evident in the case of the Wilshire Blvd. which has numerous majorcorporations while the other three corridors have very few if any to sample. Non-profitorganizations were also difficult to capture on Alameda/Webster Street and the San PabloAvenue Corridor for comparison. Street-front restaurants without off-street parking availabilityscored lower as a category than fast foods, while drive-in services with parking availabilityscored higher. Financial institutions scored lower in spite of parking availability, except onAlameda/Webster Street where the institutions had their own off-street parking areas.Analyzing the composite scores should be viewed in relative terms as to the size of the sampletaken. Retail Chart 21 and Restaurants Chart 20 represented the two largest categories of surveyrespondents on all four corridors. The fast food, medical services, and educational categoriescaptured solid survey responses that were reflective of their perceived impact levels.By looking at a particular business category like retail and comparing the response to questions1-10 on the impact survey, one can identify the level of impact and its relationship to eachcorridor’s overall “package” of bus transit services and improvements. It becomes apparentwhich categories of impact have been successful to the particular business type and which areviewed as not successful in the opinions of the business respondents. It is also evident that thetrend lines in general would have ranked BRT/Bus Rapid transit corridors by the success of thetotal “package” of improvements. The cumulative score for overall corridor ranking was affectedby three or four significant positive and/or negative spikes in the businesses’ responses to thesurvey questions, and the BRT/Rapid Bus improvements’ impact to the particular type ofbusiness.The high percentages of neutral or no-change responses were significant in moderating thebusiness respondents’ positive and negative response rating scores. Again, these response rating-scores are represented by the average/mean response rating of the business respondents (ownersor managers) for each survey question. A complete set of charts for the 12 categories ofbusinesses surveyed is located in Appendix C for further review and reference.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 47 Transit Corridor Impacts - Retail 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact POSITIVE Geary Corridor NEUTRAL Alameda Corridor 2.0 San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor NEGATIVE 1.0 TY y D T E Y ng D Y s lit C er IT C EN T EN I si FE PA N i IL TV m ib TR ou TA TR B to ss A IM C IA H /S us IS A ce IC E G EL PS ew D U S C FF /A IN EN ES P /R ew O N D K A O T/ ST S EV O N R TR ST /N ES C O SI PA E/ R Y PA H U T S C IT C R S O B U C 5 VI IM IL LE O FO B Q A 10 R B B D SA SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q Q 8 N 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact POSITIVE NEUTRAL Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor 2.0 San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor NEGATIVE 1.0 y D TY T E Y g D Y s lit C n er IT C EN T EN I si FE PA N i IL TV m ib TR ou TA TR B to ss A IM C IA H /S us IS A ce IC E G EL PS ew D U S C FF /A IN EN ES P /R ew O N D K A O T/ ST S EV O N R TR ST /N ES C O SI PA E/ R Y PA H U T S C C IT R S O B U C 5 VI IM IL LE O FO B Q A 10 R B B D SA SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q Q 8 N 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 20 Transit Corridor Impacts – Restaurants______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 48Another way this was viewed was by looking at the 12 or so categories of business types andcharting them in total by corridor. This did show visually, that certain businesses had a majordifference in the perceived impact level—whereas others followed a similar level and trend. Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact POSITIVE Total AM Total EDU Total FF Total FI NEUTRAL Total GOV Total HO 2.0 Total LQ Total MED Total ORG NEGATIVE Total RES Total RET Geary Median 1.0 ty E D T TY Y Y D ng s C IT er C IT EN EN ili si FE PA N IL TV m ib TA ou TR TR B to A ss IM C IA /S H us IS A ce E IC G EL PS ew D U S C FF /A IN EN ES P R O ew N D K A O S/ ST T/ EV O N R TR ST N ES C SI O PA E/ Y/ R PA H U T S C C IT R S O B U C VI 5 IM IL LE O FO B Q A R 10 B B SA D SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q Q N 8 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact POSITIVE Total AM TOTAL EDU Total FF Total FI NEUTRAL Total GOV Total HO 2.0 Total LQ Total MED NEGATIVE Total RES Total RET Alameda Median 1.0 y D Y CT E Y D TY ng s lit er IT C IT EN N si PA FE N i E IL TV m ib TR ou TA TR B to ss A IM AC IA H /S us IS ce IC E G EL PS ew D U S C FF /A IN N ES P /R O ew N D VE RK A O ST T/ S O N TR ST /N ES RE C SI O PA E/ TY PA H BU T S C C R S O U AC I 5 VI IM IL LE BO FO B Q 10 R IB D SA SE H 7 4 Q S TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q Q 8 N 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 49 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact POSITIVE Total AM Total EDU Total FF NEUTRAL Total FI 2.0 Total LQ Total MED NEGATIVE Total RES Total RET San Pablo Median 1.0 ty D Y CT E Y D ng TY s IT er NC IT EN N ili si FE PA E IL TV m ib TR ou TA TR B to ss A IM C IA H /S us IS A ce C E G EL PS ew D FI U S C /A IN EN ES AF P R w TO N D RK O S/ Ne T/ EV O N TR ST /S ES C O SI PA Y/ R E PA H U T S C IT IC R S O B U AC 5 IM IL LE O RV FO B Q 10 B B D SA SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q 8 Q N 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type 3.0 Business Response - Level of Impact Total AM POSITIVE Total Corp Total Edu Total FF Total FI NEUTRAL Total GOV 2.0 Total HO Total LQ Total MED Total ORG NEGATIVE Total RES Total RET Wilshire Median 1.0 ty D Y T E Y D TY ng s C IT er C IT EN EN ili si FE PA N IL TV m ib TR ou TA TR B to ss A IM C IA H /S us IS A ce IC E G EL PS ew D U S C FF /A IN EN ES P R ew O N D K A O S/ T/ ST EV O N R TR ST N ES C SI O PA Y/ E/ R PA H U T S C C IT R S O B U C 5 VI IM IL O LE FO B Q A 10 R B B D SA SE H 7 SI 4 Q TO 2 Q Q G VI Q EI 1 3 Q 8 Q N 9 Q Q 6 Q Business Impact Questions Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 50 RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS: Positive – Negative - SolutionsThe respondents at the end of the survey very often wanted to express strong feelings aboutBRT/Rapid Bus system elements impacting their businesses in a more detailed way or in factreinforce issues brought up in the survey’s initial 10 questions. The open constructed questionsgave an opportunity for the respondents to not only express the most positive and negativeexperiences with the implemented improvements, but to expresses creative solutions to resolvingthe negative conflicts and improving 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 comparative levels of concernand comments based upon the top ten collected for each category of comments.Positive Comment Question: What was the Positive BRT/Rapid Bus impact that improved yourbusiness sales and customer activity?Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire POSITIVE COMMENTS 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: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNotation: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*The Wilshire Rapid 720 corridor again showed very strong positive comment levels for fastertravel at 94.2% and 82.5% for reliability/bus frequency compared a positive comment level of80.6% for the San Pablo Rapid 72 in providing faster travel and 22.5% for its increasedreliability/bus frequency. Both systems achieved significant support levels in these categories ascompared to only 2.8% for the Alameda/Webster Street businesses citing faster travel, and 5.6%citing reliability/bus frequency in their positive comments. Geary, as a Pre-BRT corridor showedhigh-level business expectations for positive improvement impacts in all categories for the futureimplementation of the proposed center alignment BRT package. The proposed Geary BRT“package” has major infrastructure, streetscape, landscaping, and pedestrian/traffic safetyimprovements bundled into the proposed various BRT alignment alternatives, which wouldimpact the overall look, walkablity, and vitality of the Geary transit corridor. In the areas ofsafer/cleaner bus stops Alameda/Webster Street was at the top with an 86% positive commentresponse, and again at the top for attractive streetscape/shelters at 88.8%. Wilshire again showed______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 51a strong response in the same categories with a 20.8% for safer/cleaner stops and 15.8% forattractive streetscape/shelters. The LA Metro Rapid Bus shelter design and integrated Rapid BusBrand Identity elements were striking and outstanding in many areas related to their location andpositioning along the corridor, leaving the sidewalk accessibility clear. The AC transit San Pabloattracted low levels of positive comments at 2.3% for both safer/cleaner stops and attractivestreetscape/shelters.Photo audits of the location, placement, design, and trash issues documented both positive andnegative comments concerning these two issues. Finally the LA Wilshire corridor businessesprojected very positive comment levels for the LA Metro Rapid 720 serving employee needs at50%, and serving corridor businesses at 59.2%. Alameda businesses positive comments onserving employee needs were 6.5% and 16.8% for serving corridor businesses. The San Pablobusinesses 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 Comments Transit Corridor Positive Comments 100% 95% 90% % of Positive Comment Index 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Geary Corridor 55% Alameda Corridor 50% San Pablo Corridor 45% 40% Wilshire Corridor 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% t PS ds l s s rs s g t en ve en op er er in te ee G ra em om pm nd m St el us N rT to Sh ra ov st lo er tB ee us te B Cu ve s/ an pr ex oy n/ as C pe De Im le ig -N D pl s, F ca r/C es TO se Em cy ty 1: s -S es D fe fe es en ew us et es Sa in Sa in eq re us B N rv y- us 4: Fr St ew 6: Se B iti B us e iv ew N or tiv 9: ct B 8: ri d N ac A y/ 3: lit or n ttr ria bi C A ia st s 5: ve el de R er Pe 2: :S 7: 10 Positive CommentsChart 4 shows the comparative levels of positive comments in the perspective of what stoodout—in the respondents view—as the most positive areas of BRT/Rapid Bus improvementimpacts. The low response for certain comments on improvement elements are not necessarilynegative unless correlated with the following negative comments collected and the originalsurvey questions. With all three indicating the same level of concern or impact, it may be an areaneeding improvement.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 52Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to designchanges, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negativelyimpacting your business sales or customer activity?Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire NEGATIVE COMMENTS 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 SurveyedNotation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*In the area of negative respondents’ comments parking loss ranked high with the AlamedaWebster Street businesses at 62.6% and 66.9% for Geary businesses with the changes requiredfor the implementation of the proposed future Geary BRT. The Alameda businesses that had busstops or planters and streetscape elements placed directly in front of their stores cited that manycustomers who frequented their store complained of damaging their cars on the protrudingstreetscape elements, which were substantial concrete infrastructure elements that extended intothe parking lanes. The Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 corridor surveyed showed relativelylow negative comments in most of the other categories of complaint areas. Streetscape-Alameda ADA/sidewalk space-R72 Trash/Store View -R72 Vendors LA R720 Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative CommentsSan 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.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 53Three other negative comment categories concerning the issues of bus stops not being clean17.1%, poor bus stop lighting 17.1%, and frequency and reliability issues 17.1%. The issues ofthe 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, and busfrequency for late night shift employees. Wilshire respondents had very few negative commentsabout the Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720.On the Geary corridor 57% of the respondents had negative comments concerning pedestrianconditions and indicated significant safety concerns for safety and safe routes to transit stopswith little or no transit amenities at high volume transfer points. The existing MUNI bus servicehas been plagued with bus bunching which reduces MUNI capacity and aggravates headway anddwell times. This creates rider discomfort, negative feelings about reliability and excessive traveltime.Generally negative comments that scored below 5% were not too significant apart from the areaof bus shelter location and placement which blocked a particular business and compromised itsvisibility, front signage, and marketing image.Chart 5 Transit Corridor Negative Comments Transit Corridor Negative Comments 80% 75% 70% % of Negative Comment Index 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% Geary Corridor 40% Alameda Corridor 35% San Pablo 30% Corridor 25% Wilshire Corridor 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% y e n n an n g e s e lit nc ag ig nd er su ig in le bi es at es nc ta am Is ke C ia Se is D D Co n ee ot el /D e- D io p g- R N ,W s/ ss to or ty ct tin y/ es s r/S fe St ru Lo nc op ht gh cc Sa st te ig ck ue St g Li A on g/ el N n lo eq us ki ED op Sh rin p. -C B ar Fr B O St ite rs /P n y P 3: 9: gl us io te ty Lo or 1: U at el ili B Po oc 6: 2: Sh ib of ss 5: el rs 4: R ce ou s/ A es H A in 7: D us A 8: :B 10 Negative Comments______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 54Solutions Comment Question:How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business?Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS - COMMENTS Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire SOLUTIONS - COMMENTS 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%Notation 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNotation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*The solution comments turned out to be an interesting and productive interview exercise. Thecomments, in general, indicated that most of the respondents were genuinely interested inimproving corridor BRT/Rapid Bus services. Generally the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” that hadthe most features, and the highest per mile investment in equipment and features that reducedtravel speed, increased bus frequency, and had latest in shelter and equipment design with a highprofile system Brand Identity program reflected the least amount of solutions and negativecomments. 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, trafficcongestion, and retail parking capacity. In fact, 67.6% of the Geary businesses suggestedbuilding public parking garages along the corridor to ease the parking problem. Presently SanFrancisco’s MTA Planning is working on a major citywide study of these issues, On-StreetParking Management and Pricing Study, which was presented to the MTA Commission, May 1,2007 .They are basically looking at the overall parking policy and its relationship to the citywide“transit first” policy and related issues which include: • Parking pricing and regulations (peak and off-peak rates, times of day, time limits) • 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/pay by space) • Parking master planning for Transit Corridors implementing LRT/BRT/Rapid Bus______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 55Alameda had the most solution comments—at 25.2%—related to modifying the design of thenew integrated streetscape planters, sitting areas, and bus stops with bumper guards or materialsthat would reduce parking damage to cars. The San Pablo corridor businesses had several strongareas of solution comments concerning, 1.) Extending hours of operation and night service forthe AC Rapid 72 at 50%, 2.) Increasing bus frequency 29.5%, 3.) Expanding AC Rapid 72service route 34.1%, 4.) Weekend Rapid Bus service needed 20.2%, and 5.) Transit Securityimprovement at stops, CCTV and brighter lighting 20.2%.Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments Transit Corridor Solution Comments 75% 70% 65% 60% % of Solutions Reported 55% 50% 45% Geary Corridor 40% Alameda Corridor 35% San Pablo Corridor 30% Wilshire Corridor 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% y s s r t c te e r se en lte lte ht nc ee Sv ag ou ea ig m he he Tr ue ar ht R cr /L op n/ G /S /S eq ig e In TV ig el op ic op g N Fr d/ in es ev rv /C e St St de rk us at Se ity D D ee Pa us us /L B e D ur T ap rs N TO B B se R ld ec H e Sc B e n ui ea tS ic ov e ig p nd B et or rv cr O es M si re 4: pa :M Se In nd an ed 9: St Ex 2: 10 te nd Tr R ify Ex 7: 3: ke 6: od ee 1: M W 8: 5: Business Solutions/RecommendationsEach corridor is charted separately with its positive comments, negative comments, and solutionsranked from highest to lowest percentage of comments on charts 23-26 in Appendix C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONSThere were several impact issues that rose to the top in transit corridor businesses andcommunity concerns. These included 1.) The management, loss, and pricing of on-street parkingin front or adjacent to the businesses, 2.) Street safety inaccessibility around bus stops/shelters,3.) The frequency, reliability, and hours of bus transit operations, 4.) Loss of business during theconstruction phases of an advanced BRT with major infrastructure improvements, 5.) The overalldesign and brand identity as applied to BRT/Rapid Bus system components such as vehicles,shelters, and impact on the street infrastructure/streetscape.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 56The Parking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid BusThe potential loss of parking as mentioned in the study was a constant concern expressed by allof the transit corridors’ surveyed businesses. The Geary Pre-BRT corridor public input processand Geary BRT CAC meetings during the SFCTA Geary BRT study phases became extremelycontentious with one business merchants group, The Geary Merchants Association establishingan anti-Geary BRT website, StopGearyBRT.com. This became such an issue that it was playedup in the press and media. It not only put a public shadow over the process but created additionalstudy costs to work out parking impacts, potential reductions, and parking capacity issues witheach of the different proposed alignment and infrastructure options for implementing BRT onGeary 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 byparticipants at the SFCTA Geary BRT December 2005 public workshops. In December theconceptual designs and service plans considered for the Geary Corridor BRT Study were basedupon 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 “minimize thenegative impacts of the project on local residents and businesses, SFCTA GCAC Memorandum,3/20/2006, Julie Kirschbaum.”There are particularities in the various types of parking configurations from parallel to 45 degreeparking along the Geary Corridor that would have to be modified to handle the BRT alternativesrequiring three travel lanes in each direction, one for BRT and two for general traffic, andleaving one lane for parallel parking. The taking of general traffic travel lanes as proposed by theGeary BRT configurations or parking lanes at peak-hour/peak direction (as the LA Wilshirecorridor Metro Rapid 720) does in several sections is a critical policy balance in maximizing thespeed and operations efficiency potential of BRT/Rapid Bus systems and maintainingbusinesses’ accessibility to parking for customers and employees.Parking is also a citywide issue in the production of revenue that is often used to support transitoperations. It is vitally important that each city has a parking management plan in place thatworks in concert with transit corridor businesses and the implementation and expansion of BRT/Rapid Bus systems.There are many of possibilities and suggested better practices which include: • Modify the allocation of parking spaces by type and time period • Add additional parking on cross-streets; parking spaces size-compact, mid-size, full-size • Install signage to identify off-street parking lots reducing space search congestion • Identify opportunities for shared parking/valet parking • Build strategically placed corridor public garages with time of day and congestion pricing • 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______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 57Transportation planners and managers need to look at how managing, configuring and pricingurban transit corridor vehicle parking affects multi-modal interaction and transit efficiencywithout negatively impacting the commercial accessibility, diversity, and vitality of transitcorridor businesses. The author recommends a thorough look and application of innovativeparking management and parking pricing strategies which welcomes multi-modal activity andpromotes BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses as a shopping, entertainment, and urban livingdestinations.There is a major failure in the areas of local and regional government’s participation in creating apolicy and planning environment of excess in the inefficient use of land resources, by notaccelerating the planning, development, and building process for TOD along major urban transitcorridors with the appropriate capacity of underground off-street parking. The progressivepricing of parking in these TOD units can be related to not only the number of vehicles perhousehold but also to the actual vehicle size category of sub-compact, compact, mid-sized andfull 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 securea parking space before being allowed to purchase a vehicle as in Tokyo, Japan. Hopefullyinnovation in parking management, pricing, and the implementation of exciting BRT/Rapid Bussystems and other transit modes will entice individuals from full-time car usage as their onlychoice of travel. This will help avoid some of the more stringent policy approaches.Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at StopsThere has been a significant increase of urban and metropolitan transit systems required tooperate within a multi-modal network of bikes and pedestrians This in turn requires methods forthe 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, safety,transportation performance—which must reduce and not contribute to congestion. OperatingBRT/Rapid Bus systems in existing congested traffic corridors and interacting with othertransportation modes presents special challenges to maintain a necessary reduction in travel time,reliability with street (dwell) customer wait times and inter-modal transfer times. Thesignificance of the perception of wait and time management will affect the potential transitcustomers’ perception and acceptance of BRT as a unique solution to be embraced and supportedas mode choice over the car. The issues of bus stop safety concerns by transit corridorbusinesses’ employees were not too uncommon in most major urban transit corridors, and wereexacerbated by longer evening service waits at poorly lighted and maintained bus stops.The bold open industrial designed shelters/stops of the Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720 (with theintegration of NextBus information displays, shelter lighting, and features) made a boldstatement in the areas of safety and addressing customer perception of bus service waiting times.Other transit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI are looking for new shelter design conceptsfor their BRT/Rapid Bus services to enhance the customer’s perception of safety and comfort aswell as fit in with the local streetscape fabric of transit corridor businesses and neighborhoods.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 58 LA Metro Rapid 720 LA Metro Rapid 720 SF MUNI Concept SF MUNI Concept Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter ConceptsEvery public transit rider is a pedestrian at some point in their trip to and from work or otherdestinations. People’s transit mode choice, accessibility, safety, convenience, and comfort areseriously influenced by having safe routes to and from transit, and the issues of how well thetransit mode operates within a multi-modal congested environment. The context of multi-modalconnectivity of BRT/Rapid Bus with other modes as rail is significant in influencing the riders’choice and frequency of use of that mode. These issues affect the overall quality of the transitexperience, performance and time of travel, wait/dwell time at stops and modes transfers—andthe overall concept of transit friendliness and customer use. LOS is a very frequent method ofmeasurement in planning and marketing a new BRT/Rapid Bus expansion in the present contextof multi-modal transit equity and funding, and is a method that bikes and pedestrian advocatesare using to demand their share of the funding for transit corridor pedestrian safetyimprovements, pedestrian traffic calming infrastructure and transit bike facilities.ADA Compliant Bus SF School Ladder FYG Pedestrian Sign, Geary BRT Concept.Stop AC Transit Crosswalks, Bus Line Ladder Crosswalks, Ladder Crosswalks,Webster St./Alameda Corner Bulb out, SF Countdown Signals Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety EnhancementsMany transit corridors are finding that implementing pedestrian safety improvements and bikefacilities in their BRT/Rapid Bus projects capture a greater level of support for the project, andenhance the transit corridors neighborhood safety, walkablity, and business community vitality.San Francisco and other metropolitan areas have had significant results (43% reduction 2001-2007) in reducing pedestrian, bike, and vehicle collision injuries and fatalities with severalsignificant improvements that can be applied through out the BRT/Rapid Bus corridors. Theseinclude pedestrian countdown signals, bold Ladder Crosswalks, (FYG) Fluorescent Yellow-Green pedestrian signs at crosswalks and K-12 school sites, extended pedestrian crossing timingat multi-lane intersections, brighter intersection street lighting, and other pedestrian-friendlytraffic-calming elements. The author recommends that a complete program of pedestrian safetyand street improvements be apart of any substantial urban BRT/Rapid Bus corridor projectenhancing travel safety to and from transit and the community at large.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 59Frequency and Hours of OperationThe frequency and hours of operation can impact the choice of BRT/Rapid Bus as demonstratedby the survey of the San Pablo Corridor businesses and their employees travel mode choice. TheAC Rapid 72 service operates with 12 minute headway at peak and 15 minutes at off-peak from6 am – 7 pm Monday through Saturday and works for most corridor office and school riders, butnot as well for retail businesses with late closing times. This issue is so involved in the costfactors of operating a frequent service with extended night hours that it falls outside of the scopeof this study, but warrants further independent study.The Wilshire Corridor LA Metro Rapid 720 does operates at an incredible 5 minute headwayduring peak AM and PM hours, and operates around the clock. It has captured ridership demandthat is starting to exceed capacity. This system will be possibly a way of creating the level ofridership that will support the extension of the Red Line rail system, and can take its place. Apossible recommendation for the San Pablo Corridor would be the study of implementing aspecial limited late night Rapid Bus Service that works with the closing schedules of largeretailers and corridor businesses and other late night transit modes.Construction Hazards MitigationConstruction for a transportation project with major infrastructure improvements will always bedifficult without the support of all stakeholders in the community including businesses. Everyeffort should be made to come up with creative parking solutions be they valet parking,supplemental off-street parking or maybe shuttle buses from perimeter area parking facilitiesduring the construction phases. It is especially important to have police enforcement on a dailybasis to help with traffic and pedestrian safety issues. San Francisco created a special SFPD unitthat works construction projects, and is paid out of the construction project for mitigating trafficand pedestrian safety hazards. The creation of safe alternative routes and crossing areas forpedestrians in the corridor and especially for vulnerable groups like school children, seniors andthe disabled is crucial, and additionally helps to ensure community goodwill toward theBRT/Rapid Bus project during the construction phases.Marketing the BRT/Rapid Bus Brand AttributesThe importance in differentiating the BRT/Rapid Bus product and service from traditional busservice 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 potentialconsumers and supporters of transportation services. This is especially critical when trying todifferentiate the BRT/Rapid Bus service image of being just another bus system for low tomoderate income workers and commuters.The establishment of a truly effective Brand Identity/Marketing Program through beingstrategically involved in all stages of planning, concept development, and design process ofimplementing a leading-edge BRT/Rapid Bus service is paramount. There are some significant______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 60important issues and recommendations in developing and establishing the most effectiveprogram that should be considered which include: • The importance of the public’s perception: One’s correct identification can roughly be 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 with growing public policy engagement. The public can be easily left with, at best, a fragmented image of who one is, what one 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 the support 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 the transit corridor. • Branding Identity is Equity: In terms of real dollars and customer investment, one’s identity or the identity of one’s transit services is worth a tremendous amount and effects the 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.A strategically-thinking transportation manager will assemble the best quality industrial designand corporate identity consultation team to develop an integrated visual nomenclature system forthe BRT/Rapid Bus programs vehicle fleet, signage, bus stop shelters, public infrastructureelements, and media elements to clarify the public’s perception and acceptance of the newservices, 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” ofsystem attributes including performance, frequency, and a leading edge systems design andapplied brand identity.One can, with enough financial resources and leading edge strategic planning, implement aBRT/Rapid Bus system that exceeds customer expectations and ridership demand. Thepackaging of leading-edge technology and system attributes makes a difference in the vitalityand acceptance of transit corridor businesses for BRT/Rapid Bus service implementation.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 61 ConclusionIn evaluating the success of the implementation of BRT/Rapid Bus services on urban transitcorridor businesses, employees, and customers that are impacted by the implemented type ofBRT infrastructure and service mix, it is important to look at the entire BRT “package” ofattributes and technology. This study and survey results supports customer mode choice andpreference levels as being related to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improvedtransportation mode. Because so many levels (and different customer and transit corridorbusiness segments) of the market are affected by these major BRT/Rapid Bus changes it is vitalto implement a strategic planning process that includes a variety of involved business types andimpacted community stakeholders, smart growth/TOD planners, and business economists towork with local and regional transportation policy makers and agencies.The Right System Level of AttributesCustomer acceptance and maintaining stable ridership growth along these urban transit corridorswill require sustainability in service reliability, efficiency and performance. However, designattributes, customer friendly features, and marketing can support differentiating BRT/Rapid Busfrom the negative factors of the slower traditional bus service that was experienced by transitcorridor businesses and system riders. Ninety-three percent of Geary’s business respondents feltthat the right “flexible package” of community sensitive BRT attributes was vital in emulatingthe center alignment characteristics of LRT for justifying not only the capitol investment in BRTand rising operational costs as the system ages, but to allow for future LRT.The Wilshire Rapid 720 corridor survey responses reinforced the importance of vehicle designand community/customer sensitive attributes in LA Metro’s BRT system’s performance andacceptance. Vehicle appearance is a key contributor to the system’s customer’s comfort, appeal,image, identity and positioning. BRT/Rapid Bus operations and passengers will be served by theapplication of new technologies including: (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems, (GPS)Global Position Systems for tracking, (NextBus) station arrival information, (APC) AutomaticPassenger Counting, (AFC) Automated Fare Collection, (Smart Cards) electronic passes/cardsfor faster boarding with pre-payment, (AVL) transit-based traffic signal priority and signalpreemption, and improvements in safety/security technology for greater passenger security.Consistent marketing methodology and modernization will have to be an ongoing process bytransit managers adding BRT/Rapid Bus services to the mix of traditional bus service and othertransportation mode choices available to customers. No single formula, set of attributes, or transitmode is right for all situations nor does any one formula remain static over time.The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid BusTransit management’s commitment to BRT needs to thoroughly define its market demand modelas related to future land-use and population patterns, and clearly in comparing a new BRT/RapidBus system to traditional bus service by differentiating to the BRT customer as a preferred travel______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 62mode choice. BRT with its adaptability and operational flexibility offers an alternative modechoice and marketing opportunity for transportation management, regional and local policymakers, and communities of all sizes to seriously consider.BRT/Rapid Bus’ key cost advantage of initially being able to use existing bus equipment untilreplacement with more advanced specialized BRT vehicles allows for an efficient, affordable,consumer-oriented mode that can be flexible and cost effective in being implementedincrementally or rerouted, to adapt to changes in future land-use patterns while maintainingequity in transportation accessibility for all who depend upon public transportation. BRT/RapidBus can be an exciting alternative mode that integrates rapidly with other transit links in a multi-modal operation environment of pedestrians, bikes, cars, trucks, buses, light rail, heavy rail, andeven connecting with maritime (ferries) and aviation hubs.The form, shape and how well it works as a truly customer-oriented system will depend on thequality of strategic planning and customer marketing methodology and strategies built into theprocess of implementing and maintaining the initial goals and qualities of the system and itsoperation over a sustained period of time. The rapid implementation response in meeting thecurrent and future needs of customers with lower start-up investment, operational flexibility, anddesign/marketing adaptability makes BRT a serious contender in the transportation marketplace.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, proposedSFMTA/MUNI (Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT) has shown that BRT/Rapid Bus system attributesand 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 identifiedand need for improvement supported the application of quality front end business/communityplanning and research methodology. This research must be accurate, descriptive, diagnostic, andpredictive to support strategic planning and strategic marketing efforts in molding and shapingthe right type and level of BRT/Rapid Bus services and infrastructure “package” that deliversmaximum benefit to diverse transit corridor businesses, communities, and transit customers.The Right Policy – Transit First and TODThe development of an advanced BRT in its ability to integrate with existing bus systems andequipment 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 changingneeds and ridership patterns affected by future land-use patterns and growth changes, and isflexible in expansion implementation. It is this flexibility that creates an effective door to doorsurface transportation system at an affordable cost and with rapid implementation capability forreducing congestion as well as increasing mobility options for transit riders and communitystakeholders.During the survey process which included a photo audit of not only BRT/Rapid Bus systemelements as well as, businesses and their surrounding communities it became evident that theirwas significant growth and development of TOD on corridors like San Pablo, and Alameda-______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 63Webster Street with increased community foot traffic supporting street-front businesses. GearyBlvd. has also seen the construction of new apartment housing with new street retail businesseslocated in the same structure, resulting in increased neighborhood walkablity and reducedreliance on the auto, while increasing demand for improved bus service.The vitality of the Geary corridor has increased traffic congestion, slowed bus speed and therebyincreased peak and off-peak hour travel times. These factors have created the demand andopportunity for implementing the proposed Geary Corridor BRT service with a “package” ofadvanced attributes emulating LRT characteristics and infrastructure features. San Francisco’spublic policy makers and participating businesses and community organizations/advocates areinsisting that major streetscape improvements consisting of urban furniture, lighting, pedestriansafety improvements, off-street parking and environmentally sustainable landscaping would beapart 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 TODhousing and multi-use development with survey responses of only 9% positive and 91% neutralindicating no significant increase in corridor business “foot traffic” associated with TOD.However, positive business activity was reported by 85% of the Wilshire business respondents aswell as positive trends in sales revenue by 63% and positive increases in “foot-traffic” by 80% ofthe respondents. It appears that the 47% increase in the Wilshire corridor’s daily ridership of43,000 before implementation of LA Metro’s Wilshire Rapid 720 to a current 90,000 hasconcurrently resulted in positive impacts to most businesses.The combination of expanding TOD with the increased frequency and ridership capacitybuilding 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 transitgrowth in bus ridership has fallen in many communities, the survey supports the premise that theright “package” of attributes pushed by public policy and transportation planning can growridership and reduce single occupant vehicle use by business employees as in the case of theWilshire corridor 720 Rapid Bus service.In some urban areas such as San Francisco, the importance of rapid, safe, and equitable publictransportation 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 may bethe actual implementation of combining transportation with a comprehensive land-use plan thatembraces Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) of mixed use and innovative urban housingalong transit corridors that will in the end significantly boost the revenues and growth of transitcorridor businesses.Good policy and integrated transportation and land-use planning have far-reaching consequencesand positive impacts on transportation and the viability of transit corridor businesses. The surveyresults showed that the successes of BRT and transit corridor businesses are intertwined and canorchestrated with transportation demands to create stakeholder and community harmony andstimulate urban vitality through innovation and vision in policy, planning, marketing, andtransportation management leadership.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 64 FINAL REMARKSThe survey, in the end, is based upon the collected opinion and input primarily of the four transitcorridors’ business owners, managers, and employees as to their perception of BRT/Rapid Bussystem attributes and service impacts upon their businesses and their community, and should beutilized 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 metor 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 ofinvestment in BRT/Rapid Bus technology, equipment, Brand Identity and service attributes.Some particular elements and attributes in each corridor were not as successful in meeting theneeds and expectations of their transit corridor business stakeholders. By looking at the surveyresults there should be a clearer picture of which elements and system attributes were successfuland a picture of those that need to be reevaluated or modified for reducing negatively perceivedimpacts 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 adjustmentsor even relocate. Just as transportation modeling and systems need to remain flexible andadaptable to population and land-use changes, so must urban transit corridor businesses.The success of BRT/Rapid Bus as a customer mode choice is critically dependent upon manycomplex and interrelated issues of land-use, design, operations, infrastructure characteristics, andcustomer marketing appeal to meet the goals of delivering a faster, more reliable, customerpreferred transportation mode, and “not as just another flavor of the month”, as referred to bySteve Heminger (at the Mineta Transportation Institute’s May 2005, Forum on Bus RapidTransit In The Bay Area.) BRT/Rapid Bus, as a highly adaptable, flexible, and marketingsensitive mode will be most successful when shaped with a high quality strategic marketing andplanning process that fully involves customers, transit corridor businesses and other keystakeholders in its planning, development, and implementation. Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 65 APPENDIX A Photo Audit: Business Owners/Managers 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 Sports Shoes – San Pablo Doug’s Dugout - Manager ZAP Cars - Sales Manager______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 66 APPENDIX BTable 1-5: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions - POSITIVE RESPONSES POSITIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire Webster Q1 Sales Revenue Trend 36% 36% 38% 63% Q2 Foot Traffic Trend 39% 46% 46% 80% Q3 Services/Stops/Safety 7% 36% 39% 63% Q4 Access/Reliability 18% 41% 52% 82% Q5 Parking Impact 35% 2% 3% 5% Q6 Neighborhood/Accessibility 39% 84% 35% 57% Q7 Bus Stop Distance 13% 17% 26% 52% Q8 New Housing/TOD Impact 30% 52% 25% 9% Q9 Visibility/New Customers 54% 45% 17% 22% Q 10 Business Activity 78% 72% 59% 85%Note: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNote 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*Table 1-6: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions – NEUTRAL RESPONSES NEUTRAL BUSINESS RESPONSES Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire Webster Q1 Sales Revenue Trend 38% 57% 51% 34% Q2 Foot Traffic Trend 36% 50% 50% 39% Q3 Services/Stops/Safety 36% 54% 59% 37% Q4 Access/Reliability 56% 56% 46% 18% Q5 Parking Impact 14% 56% 82% 67% Q6 Neighborhood/Accessibility 35% 14 64% 39% Q7 Bus Stop Distance 82% 74% 72% 44% Q8 New Housing/TOD Impact 66% 45% 74% 91% Q9 Visibility/New Customers 37% 48% 81% 76% Q 10 Business Activity 19% 24% 36% 14%Note 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNote 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 67Table 1-7: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions - NEGATIVE RESPONSES NEGATIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire Webster Q1 Sales Revenue Trend 26% 7% 11% 3% Q2 Foot Traffic Trend 25% 5% 5% 1% Q3 Services/Stops/Safety 56% 9% 2% 0% Q4 Access/Reliability 28% 3% 2% 1% Q5 Parking Impact 51% 42% 15% 28% Q6 Neighborhood/Accessibility 26% 2% 1% 4% Q7 Bus Stop Distance 5% 9% 2% 0% Q8 New Housing/TOD Impact 5% 3% 2% 3% Q9 Visibility/New Customers 9% 8% 2% 1% Q 10 Business Activity 3% 4% 4% 4%Note: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses SurveyedNote 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • Q Business Response - Level of Impact Q Business Response - Level of Impact 1 1 SA SA LE LE S S R R EV EV EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE Q U Q U 2 E 2 E TR TR FO EN FO EN O O 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 T D T D TR TR Q AF A 3 Q FF FI C 3 IC SE TR SE R EN R TR VI VI EN C D C D E/ E/ ST ST O O PS PS Q /S Q /S 4 A 4 A A FE A FE C C C TY C TY ES ES S/ S R /R EL EL IA IA B B Q IL Q IL 5 IT 5 IT PA Y PA Y Q R Q R 6 K 6 K NE IN N IN IG G EI G H IM G IM B H O PA B PA R C O C T R T HO H O O D O /A D /A Q ce ce 7 ss Q ib 7 ss BU B ib S ili t y U ili ST S ty ST Q O O 8 P Q P 8 D Transit Corridor TO DI ST TO IS D A D Impacts - Education Business Impact Questions Business Impact Questions TA IM N IM N C C PA E PA E C C Q T/ 9 N Q T/ N ew 9 ew VI H APPENDIX C SI VI H B ou SI B ou IL si IL si IT ng IT ng Y/ Y/ Ne Transit Corridor Impacts - Automotive Ne w w C C us Q to Q us 10 m to er 10 m BU er SI s BU s SI NE N S S ES S AC A CMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” TV TV IT BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses Y IT Y Geary Corridor Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor San Pablo Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 68
  • Q 1 Business Response - Level of Impact SA Business Response - Level of Impact LE Q S 1 R SA EV LE EN S U NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE R Q E EV 2 TR EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE FO U O EN Q E 1.0 2.0 3.0 T D 2 TR TR FO EN A O 1.0 2.0 3.0 Q FF T D 3 IC TR SE A R TR Q FF VI EN 3 IC C D SE TR E/ ST R EN VI O C D PS E/ Q /S ST O 4 A A FE PS C Q /S C TY 4 A ES A FE S C T /R C Y EL ES IA S /R B Q IL EL 5 IT IA PA Y B Q R Q IL 6 K 5 I TY N IN PA EI G Q R G IM 6 K H N IN B PA G O C EI G R T H IM H B O O PA O R C D H T /A O Q ce O D 7 ss /A B ib ce U i lit Q s S y 7 si ST B bi O U lit Q P S y 8 D ST TO IS Q O D TA 8 P N D Business Impact Questions IM TO IS C D PA E TA C IM N C Business Impact Questions Q T/ N PA E 9 ew C Q T/ VI SI H 9 N B ou ew IL IT si ng VI S H IB ou Y/ N IL s in ew IT g Y/ C N Transit Corridor Impacts - Fast Food Transit Corridor Impacts - Financial Institution us ew Q to C 10 m us B er Q to U s 10 m SI N B er ES U s SI S N A ES C S TV A IT CMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” Y TV IT BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses Y Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 69
  • Q Business Response - Level of Impact Q Business Response - Level of Impact 1 1 SA SA LE LE S S R R EV EV EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE EN U NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE U Q E Q E 2 2 TR TR FO FO EN O 1.0 2.0 3.0 EN O 1.0 2.0 3.0 T D T D TR TR A A Q Q FF 3 FF 3 I C SE IC SE TR R TR R EN VI VI C EN C D E/ D E/ ST ST O O PS PS Q /S Q /S 4 A 4 A A A FE C FE C C TY C TY ES ES S /R S/ R EL EL IA IA B B Q IL Q IL 5 I 5 IT TY PA Y Q PA Q R 6 R 6 K N KI N N IN EI G EI G G G IM H IM H B B PA O PA O C R C R T H T H O O O O D D /A /A ce Q ce Q 7 ss 7 ss B ib B ib U ili US i lit S ty y ST ST O Q O Q 8 P 8 P D D TO IS TO IS D TA D Business Impact Questions TA IM N IM N C C E Business Impact Questions PA PA E C C T/ Q T/ Q N N 9 ew 9 ew VI VI H S H SI B ou IB ou IL si IL si IT ng I TY ng Y/ /N N ew ew C Transit Corridor Impacts - Hotel/Housing C Q us us to Q to 10 m 10 m B er B er U s U s SI SI N N ES Transit Corridor Impact Questions - Goverment Offices ES SMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” S A A C C BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses TV TV IT IT Y Y Corridor San Pablo Geary Corridor Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 70
  • Q Business Response - Level of Impact Q 1 1 Business Response - Level of Impact SA SA LE LE S S R R EV EV EN U NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE Q E Q U 2 TR 2 E FO TR EN FO O 1.0 2.0 3.0 EN O 1.0 2.0 3.0 T D T D TR TR A A Q FF Q 3 IC 3 FF SE IC TR SE R EN RV TR VI EN C D I CE D E/ ST /S O TO PS PS Q /S Q /S 4 A 4 A FE A AF C C TY CC ET Y ES ES S/ R S/ R EL EL IA IA B B Q IL Q IL 5 IT 5 PA Y IT Y Q R Q PA 6 K 6 R N IN K EI G N IN G IM EI G G H IM B PA H O C B PA R T O C H R T O H O O D O /A D ce /A Q ce 7 ss Q ib 7 ss BU i lit B ib S y ili ST US t y Q O ST 8 P Q O D 8 P TO IS D D TA TO IS Business Impact Questions IM N D TA C IM E Business Impact Questions PA NC C PA E Q T/ N C 9 ew Q T/ N VI H 9 ew S IB ou VI S H IL si IB ou I TY ng IL si /N IT ng ew Y/ Ne C w Transit Corridor Impacts - Medical Services Q us C Transit Corridor Impacts - Liquor Store/Bar to us 10 m Q to BU er 10 m s B er SI N U s ES SI NE S S A S C A TV CMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” IT TV Y BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses IT Y Corridor San Pablo Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 71
  • Q Business Response - Level of Impact Q Business Response - Level of Impact 1 1 SA SA LE LE S S R R EV EV EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE EN U NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE Q U Q E 2 E 2 TR TR FO FO EN O 1.0 2.0 3.0 EN O D 1.0 2.0 3.0 T D T TR TR A A Q Q FF 3 FF 3 IC IC SE SE TR R TR R EN VI VI EN C D CE D E/ /S ST TO O PS PS Q /S Q /S 4 A 4 A A A FE C FE C C TY C TY ES ES S/ S/ R R EL EL IA IA B B Q IL Q IL 5 IT 5 IT Y PA Y Q PA Q R 6 R 6 K K N IN N IN EI G EI G G G IM H IM H B PA BO PA O C R C R T H T H O O O O D D /A /A ce Q ce Q 7 ss 7 ss B ib B ib U ili U ili S ty S ty ST ST O Q O Q P 8 P 8 D D TO IS TO IS D Business Impact Questions TA D TA IM N Business Impact Questions IM N C C PA E PA E C C T/ Q T/ Q N 9 N 9 ew ew VI H VI SI H SI B ou B ou IL si IL si IT ng IT ng Y/ Y/ Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant N Ne ew w C C us Q us Q to 10 to 10 m m B er B er s U s U Transit Corridor Impacts - Non-Profit Organization SI SI N N ES ES S S A AC CMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” TV TV IT IT Y BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses Y Geary Corridor Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor San Pablo Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 72
  • Q 1 Business Response - Level of Impact Q 1 Busines Response - Level of Impact SA SA LE LE S S R EV R EV EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE Q U EN 2 E U Q E TR 2 TR FO EN O 1.0 2.0 3.0 FO EN T D 1.0 2.0 3.0 O D TR T A TR Q FF A 3 IC Q FF SE 3 IC R TR SE TR VI EN R EN C D VI E/ C D ST E/ ST O PS O Q /S PS 4 A Q /S A FE 4 A C A FE C TY C TY ES C S /R ES S/ EL R IA EL B IA Q IL B 5 I TY Q IL PA 5 IT Q R PA Y 6 K Q N IN 6 R EI G K G IM N IN H EI G B PA G IM O C H R T B PA H O C O R T O H D O /A O ce D Q /A 7 ss ce B ib Q ss U i lit 7 ib S y B i ST U lit O S y Q P ST 8 D Q O TO IS 8 P D TA D Business Impact Questions IS IM N TO C D E Business Impact Questions TA PA IM N C C Q T/ PA E 9 N C ew Q T/ N VI S H 9 IB ou Transit Corridor Impacts - Retail ew IL si VI S H I TY ng IB ou IL s in /N I TY g ew Wilshire Corridor Impact - Corporation /N C us ew Q to C 10 m Q us B er t om U s 10 SI N BMineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone” er U s ES S BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses SI N A ES C TV S IT A Y C TV IT Y Corridor San Pablo Geary Corridor Wilshire Corridor Alameda Corridor Wilshire Corridor ______________________________________________________________________________ 73
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 74 APPENDIX D Geary Blvd_Pre-BRT- Survey COMMENTS: Positive, Negative, Solutions Geary Blvd_Pre-BRT-Survey 100% 95% 90% POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% t s s e s l S g in lter s en ps nt ed ds ers age ern ue s nc e an tin end g y lit sig n ue hts ges rvic ree cy ase lte r ut e t en elte r ve P to me Ne bi ss Lig en re ra usG and he vem ee m nc Iss ista le ea ek ia De n I a e T he Ro pm r S lop s N sto Da Co on m C / ar t S gn/ qu Inc h rT B r S ro D ot g-S We el R re - g TV g G igh esi /S e lo /S te ext /B nd p ne ve er es Cu / ti s/ N in t, / si re / op rvic eve top s gn a a e e ss ety uc es cy to e C y/ rkin e N e D F St Fa y-N esi es Im le D tom oy OD Lo Saf str s t op igh igh D s ed Se D D S 1: nc ty r/C ss us pl cc en k S op rit t r Bu ed s s sD cap afe T ng ng/ on D A St p L N qu t cu Pa La ctu Bu RT Bu e fe ne , C Em ew ki us to c re Blo er/S Se idor se Ne n TO ve eq Bu t-S S Sa usi es s i ar iter n - C E tru ea ice ig B e Fr y_ 4: B ss e N P y/ P B S F s el t si t rr s s cr es an d or o ew ree iviti rv 6: 1: : Lo ati o 3: or s r ra In erv M s ew in e Se lit Bu lte Sh an Co ur nf ed xp 0: M 9: Bu N 8: e S Ac t t N us 6 loc si bi Po on 9: She gly Tr ild Ho e I 2: S R E y/ 9: 5: rati 6: Bu n d 7: 3: 1 ilit tiv ian 3: r B R e es : U o ap en b c r o s/ Ac pe 4 2: 4: rat i c k el ia tra st rid es A O tS ee R At ede or in AD s pe tree W 2: 5: C us Bu O 5: 7:P es :B 8: of us ify S v 10 rs B er d od :S ou en : M 10 H xt 8 7: :E 1 Alameda_AC Transit R61 COMMENTS: Postive, Negative, Solutions Alameda_AC Transit R61 95% 90% POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% rs ps ty nt es rs ds cy el ng ge re on ss gn an rn ng on lity gn ge ter nt ter ts cy ht te ed lte to afe e ss me ee en rav di a to ati ce si le ce hti ati bi si ra el me el igh en ig ou ed he er S y/S lopm ine sto e N req r T ran am ck S loc Ac De ot C on Lig per elia De Ga /Sh lop /Sh V/L qu te N e R Ne /S n iti e s u e F te /B /D o e D p C p R e g p e p T re a ic pe ea ctiv ev r Bu C loy us as ign oss Bl s/R PE /Sto ps N fety Sto us O cy/ cap rkin Sto ev Sto y/C s F rs/L erv vice ca Cl D o D p B F s L rs s y/ r o a n S a s D s it u S r e tS fer/ n A ss rrid TO Em lity/ 1: De ng lte ine ilit elte St g/S oor of B que eet P Bu OD Bu cur e B p H T Se ia e i us rki She Bus ssib Sh us rin : P rs re Str uild ign e T ve Se eas d O BR end tre Sa str sin Co ew ves liab B a S 4: de Bu es 6: N er Re P p t e ly : B ite 5 ou 9: F ify : B es or Mo sit cr ten nd ek ive ew 1: to Los Ac Ug 3 Lo H a od 4 Red 0: M 9: ran 2: In : Ex xp We ct Pe ew erv S : 9: 2 N S A : 6: 7: ra : N :S 8: 4: 10: AD 2 8: M 7: 1 T 1 : E 5: A tt 7 d 0 : 6: 3 5: se 1 8 ea cr In 3:______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 75 San Pablo_AC Transit R72 COMMENTS: Positive, Negative, Solutions San Pablo_AC Transit R72 100% 95% 90% POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% t s W ase rvic Svc eq te op s pe g rs t rn r oc ign n d ss usin cy ty s s n s y r ne D A e e s lte /Da ty ps e n /R ting en re el en lte te ee e ed ht nc n Ex p H s/R ces er io /C ede tio ag or ag op lea ou es D C afe lte li ce av ev ss n di gn Sto el m 4: y S Los iabi es pm at ig D She re plo om PE St Tr r B qe ue ap Ne ra h m ar he ite f Bu ran ht R on C Sh Bu Tr e c /L S nd /La loc e Pa en Lig D n/ G ig k Pa elo N el t y/ e er Bu TV /S ot C Em us / el Sc ee ed ve lity/ ter p/ ig /B p ap top e N rri s F iti O g sD an Po s N ec ice Fr es to TO to ty es ev s in Bl y ew ctiv s BR te cy s Sh r/S Bu afe Sc s S S ia : Fa Bu Cle Fr r St D Se rk ke Bus t S erv D ity op ou esi es ers s y/ Bu do s A tra erv TO e D S ur Bu ilit ew fer/ St S T g o 1 u rs n t g/ o ne in he el nd usi et eq : L sib ild ria nd s ew Co bi rin St gn rs 10 ove Sa rk si Bu B st e 5: e N si et St or O cr s nc 10: Rel de 4: Ex st p si M ee 9: od ede Ac 3: gl H re 6: 4: Lo pa 8: Sto :M In o an 1: e Pe S U 9: N iv 7: as er 2: A 2: Tr te R 6: 9: ct 2: N 8: S AD 10 7: ify 5: 7: 3: 6: At 1: M 5: re 8: I 3: Wilshire_LA Metro R720 Comments: Positive, Negative, Solutions Wilshire_LA Metro R720 100% 95% POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ve l cy ers eds ing ops fety ters ent ers age nds nce an ern tore ting ility sign tion Svc lte r ts ag e nc y ut e as e ter es en t ra qen m nd St el le c gh l re e a m m m ke ta C on k S igh liab De oca ght She /Li Gar que Ro cre She /T opm r T Fre usto e N Bra er tiy/S /Sh elop sto /Da ee Dis ot C l oc p L e l i / V g e e /In / n l st e C loye gn/ ean tivi es ev u ss t, W ess / N y /R op e N top CT in Fr rvic ed op sig ve Fa Bu s s, C s et s B Sto ncy r/St ss/R ate S ty/ k s St De De p si l c ap D D Lo h c op af r ri ar Bu Se eed us 1: lity/ sse Em De er/C n A tSc ess TO ng Nig Ac St g/S elte oo que elt sin r e e /L us e D i e s f i a e i s rs e B ecu ild P se T R e N n B cap TO b in es Bu : Sa str tre usin New ark Op . ED Bu teri n Sh 5: P re Sh Bu p H v u ea d B ic ia el Bus erv w : F gly o tS ig tS ore 4 e S B 6 : P s /P 3: i p st d O : M nsi 4: B Incr an erv des ree R r S e ed ive w 1: Bu ility Lo Sto 9 U : Lo n a p t M 2: ido 9: 8: N P t e 6: 4: 2: 10 te 9 Tr 2: Ex nd S : Re y S 10: r 7: trac d N of ssib Ex 6: 3: ke 7 if or rs od C At se ou Ac e 1: ee M e s 5: rea : H DA 8: rv c 7 A 5:W e In :S 3: 8: 10______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 76 APPENDIX E______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 77 APPENDIX F Excel Spread Sheets, Data Collection Four Transit Corridors, 23 pages______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSACCMA Alameda County Congestion Management AgencyAC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit AgencyADA Americans with Disabilities Act, Reference to ADA CompliantADT Average daily traffic; average daily tripsAlighted/alight To get off or out of a transportation vehicle Extra long, high-capacity bus, with a flex joint between the frontArticulated bus section and back sectionAutomatic A mechanical or electronic system for automatic guidance control ofGuidance vehicleAVL Automatic vehicle location system Identity and image communicated through graphic design. Logo,Branded Vehicle Graphics and paint schemes, organizational identity appliedIdentity to all marketing communications, advertising, media, vehicle fleets, uniforms, signage,BART Bay Area Rapid TransitBRT Bus Rapid TransitBSP Bus Signal PriorityCaltrans California Department of TransportationCCTV Closed-Circuit Television________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses BCHP California Highway PatrolCMA Congestion Management AgencyCNG Compressed natural gasDTO Division of Traffic OperationsDPT Department of Parking and Traffic (San Francisco)EVP Emergency vehicle preemptionFHWA Federal Highway AdministrationFTA Federal Transportation AdministrationGPS Global positioning system The time interval between the passing of the front ends of transitHeadway vehicles moving along the same lane or trackHOT High-occupancy tollHOV High-occupancy vehicleHRT Heavy Rail TransitITS Intelligent Transportation SystemJPA Joint Powers AuthorityLAMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles BRT, Bus Rapid Transit System (LA Metro Rapid 720-LA Metro Rapid Wilshire)LOS Levels of service (quality and quality of transit free flow, affected by______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses C levels of congestion, Scaled A-F)LRT Light Rail TransitMTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles area)MTC Metropolitan Transit Commission (S.F. Bay Area)MTI Mineta Transportation Institute Information system denoting the arrival of the next bus, displayed atNextBus bus stopsNIMBY "Not in my backyard" San Francisco Municipal Railway, Operates Buses, LRT, Street Cars,MUNI and Cable Cars North American Bus Industries, Leading-Edge Bus Design (LA MetroNABI Rapid)Ped pedestrian Bus system with wider spacing between stops, 5. Mile – 1 Mile with special system elements and attributes to increase speed, frequencyRapid Bus with special buses, branding. Usually one step below a full BRT with exclusive travel waySAMTrans San Mateo County Transit Refers to the implementation of signal priority and signalSmart management along a corridor to create better traffic flow, when linkedCorridors with Bus Transit GPS it can give signal priority to transit: i.e., AC Transit San Pablo Rapid BusSFCTA San Francisco County Transportation AuthoritySOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses DTCRP Transit Cooperative Research ProgramTransdef Transportation Solutions Defense and Education FundTSP Traffic Signal PriorityTOD Transit-Oriented DevelopmentTSP Traffic Signal PriorityTVM Ticket Vending MachineVMS Variable Message SignWi-Fi Wireless FidelityTable 9 Abbreviations and Acronyms______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses BIBLIOGRAPHYAntonides, G., P. C. Verhoef and M. van Aalst. (2002) Consumer perception and evaluation of waiting time: A field experiment. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (3): 193-202Baltes, Michael R. (2003). The Importance Customers Place on Specific Service Elements of Bus Rapid Transit, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, AbstractBarker, William G., and Steven Polzin. (2004). Synergies between Bus Rapid Transit and High Occupancy Toll Lanes: Assimilation of Bus Rapid transit in congested corridor with roadway value pricing Resented at annual meeting of the Transportation research BoardBooz Allen & Hamilton. Curitiba, Brazil; BRT Case Study”, Curitiba Transportation Authority, Available on Booz Allen & Hamilton’s Website, and under BRT Curitiba, Brazil –CalTrans, Bus Rapid Transit, A Handbook for Partners, 2007 CalTrans, www.caltrans.govCronon, L. Joseph and Hightower, Jr. Roscoe. (2004) An Evaluation of the Role of Marketing in Public Transit Organizations, L. Joseph Cronon, Jr., Florida State University, Roscoe Hightower, Jr. Florida A&M University, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7 No. 2,Currie, Graham.( 2005) The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, Chair Public Transport, The Institute of Transportation Studies, Monash University, Australia, Journal of Public Transportation Volume 8, No. 1 2005, AbstractDiaz, Roderick B. and Schneck, Donald C. Innovative Service Design among Bus Rapid Transit Systems in the Americas, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., McLean, VA and Philadelphia, PA, Abstract: www.boozallen.comDanaher, A. and P. Ryus 199. TCRP Project A-15. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 1st Edition. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research BoardECONorthwest and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2003 TCRP Report 78: Estimating the benefits and costs of public transportation projects: A guidebook for Practitioners. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. http://guliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp/78/index.htmElmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 36 - A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership, Northwest research Group, Inc. Bellevue, WA; Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 37- A Handbook: Integrating Market Research into Transit Management, Northwest Research Group. Inc. Bellevue, WA Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor BusinessesFederal Highway Administration/OHPI, TRB Committee on Transportation Survey Methods, Reports: Measuring Day-to-Day Variability in Travel Behavior Using GPS Data, Final report, Evaluating Gender Difference in Individual Accessibility, Bus Transportation rider Surveys. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm , Retrieved 5/9/3007Federal Transportation Administration, Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision- Making, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation Report Project No. FTA-VA- 26-7222-2004.1, Report 301 pages, August 2004Flaming, Daniel and Burns, Patrick (2006). Jobs on LA’s Grand Boulevard, Economic Analysis of the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, Community Redevelopment Agency City of LA, Prepared by Economic Roundtable, Non-profit Public Policy Research Organization, 315 west Ninth Street, Suite 1209, LA, CA 90015, www.economicrt.orgG. Phillips, Rhonda and Guttenplan, Martin (2003). A Review of Approaches for Assessing Multimodal Quality of Service, Rhonda G. Phillips, Urban Regional Planning Department, University of Florida Martin Guttenplan, Systems Planning Office, Florida Department of Transportation Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003,GAO, Report to Congressional Requesters GAO (2001) MASS TRANSIT: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, September 2001, GA)-01-984Hess, Paul Mitchell and Moudon, Anne Vernez and Matlick, Julie. Pedestrian Safety and Transit Corridors, Paul Mitchell Hess, University of Toronto, Anne Vernez Moudon, University of Washington, Julie Matlick, Washington State Department of Transportation, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume, 7, Number 2, 2004 AbstractHirano, Steve (2003). The Search for the Perfect BRT Vehicle, Editor; Metro Magazine, February/March 2003Kang, Alice H. and Dias, Roderick B. Bus Rapid Transit: An Integrated and Flexible Package of Service, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. McLean, VA is part of a two article series on Bus Rapid Transit. Booz Allen & Hamilton website, Abstract www.boozallen.comLevinson, Herbert (July 2000). Bus Transit in the 21st Century – Perspectives and Prospects, Herbert Levinson; Institute for Transportation, City College of New York, Convent Ave & 138th Street, New York, New York 10031, Prepared for Annual meting Transportation Research Board, July 31, 2000, Revised November 9, 2000.Lewis, David and Fred L. Williams. (1999). Policy and planning as public choice: Mass transit in the United States. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing CompanyLi, Yuen-wah (2003). “Evaluating the Urban Commute Experience: A Time Perception Approach”, Argosy University, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, N0. 4, 2003,______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor BusinessesMineta Transportation Institute Report, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area, Mineta Transportation Institute Report, F-04001; May 2005, Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0219 Sponsored By The US Department of Transportation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2005924524, www.transweb,sjsu.eduMTA, (March 2002). Los Angeles Metro Rapid Demonstration Program Final Report, Transportation Management & Design, Inc. Prime Contractor Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952, March 2002MTA, Metro, Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project; Peak Period Lanes, Report 8 Planning and Programming Committee September 14, 2005. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952Microsoft Streets and Trips 2005, Software for Mapping Survey Corridors, Microsoft CorporationMTA, Metro, Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project; Peak Period Lanes, Report 36 Planning and Programming Committee November 16, 2005. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles CA 9000-12-2952MTA Website: NYC BRT Study, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Website 10/3/2005 http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/brt/ 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 2006MTC 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 05/02/2007San Francisco Retail Diversity Study (May 2007), Civic Economics – Cunningham, Houston Civic Economics – Chicago 1425 West Summerdale, #3A, Chicago, Illinois 60640 www.CiviEconomics.com/SF______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor BusinessesSislak, 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: ksislak@wilbursmith.com – Abstract retrieved article from the Wilbursmith.com websiteSFCTA Geary Corridor, BRT Study, Memorandum July 22, 2005, Documents, Workshops, and Public Comment at SFCTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC available at 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.orgSFCTA Van Ness Avenue, BRT Study, Numerous Documents, Workshops, and Public Comment at 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 1/10/2007SFCTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC Memorandum (3/20/2006) Preliminary Parking Analysis for 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 1/10/2007SFCTA, (2007). San Francisco’s On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study (5/1/2007). 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, 2007Levinson, 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.C. TRB, 2003, www.TRB.orgTrans-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.htmlTransit Cooperative Research Program. (1998). Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities. TCRP Report 33. Transportation Board. Washington D.C.Zimmermann, Samuel L. and Levinson, Herbert (2004). Vehicle Selection for BRT: Issues and Options, Samuel L. Zimmermann, DMJM+HARRIS; Herbert Levinson, Transportation Consultant, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 7, Number 1, 2004, Abstract______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”
  • BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses ABOUT THE AUTHOR ROGER M. BAZELEY, IDSA M.S.T.M., M.S.I.D., C.T.S.M. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORRoger Bazeley currently is serving as Director of Marketing/Industrial Design Services, forDesignStrategy-USA, an industrial design and marketing communications consulting firm, which hasspecialized in corporate and brand identity programs for both private and public sector organizations. Theprojects have included transportation design and branding programs for airlines and transit organizations,retail store design and marketing programs, as well as packaging and industrial design. Over the pastdecade Mr. Bazeley has concentrated efforts on transportation design, traffic and pedestrian safetyimprovement projects in San Francisco and the State of California.He led a ten year campaign as a PTA/San Francisco District Board member for school traffic andpedestrian safety improvements. Working collaboratively with city, regional, and state agencies alongwith numerous stakeholder groups these improvements have contributed to the statewide reduction ofschool children’s fatalities and injuries. Roger Bazeley authored the 2001, State PTA School Traffic andPedestrian Safety Improvement Resolution resulting in local legislation which changed the policy andfunding priorities for school and pedestrian safety projects.Roger Bazeley holds a M.S. in Industrial Design/Packaging from Pratt Institute, where his thesis onRedesigning Public Safety Services/NYPD—Public Sector Branding, lead to implementing a BrandIdentity program for the NYPD in 1974, resulting in the iconic “NYPD Blue and white” public safetyidentity. He also holds two undergraduate degrees from the University of Wyoming, with a B.A. inAdvertising/Art Design, and a B.A. in International Studies/Anthropology.June 2007, Mr. Bazeley was awarded an M.S.T.M., Master’s of Science in Transportation Managementfrom the Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. He is an active member inprofessional organizations and participates as a safety advocate in a number of local, regional, and statetransportation and pedestrian safety committees.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”