BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses i
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
A publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Created by Congress in 1991
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses ii
Technical Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.
FHWA/CA/OR-
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
A Business Impact Survey and Comparison of Implemented 6. Performing Organization Code
BRT/Rapid Bus Improvements on Four Transit Corridors: Geary
Blvd., Alameda Route 61, San Pablo Ave., Wilshire Blvd.
Author 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Roger McKean Bazeley
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business 11. Contract or Grant No.
San José State University 65W136
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
California Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report
Office of Research—MS42 Research & Special Programs Administration
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
400 7th Street, SW
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
15. Supplementary Notes
Abstract
The assessment of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructure improvements’ impact upon corridor businesses has
been inadequate. Many public workshops and community outreach efforts fall short of gaining a balanced
perspective of analyzing the positive or negative impact of implemented BRT/Rapid Bus improvements upon
transit corridor businesses, their customers, working employees or ultimately the corridor businesses’ sales and
vitality. This research study compares by survey, interviews, and the photo design audits of four different levels
of BRT/Rapid Bus and basic bus systems’ service and infrastructure improvements along four metropolitan
transit corridor business communities with similar and diverse land-use characteristics, business types, and
social-economic characteristics.
The selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels of bus transit
improvement “system packages” with different service and infrastructure attributes including Rapid Bus with
Signal Priority Technologies (Smart Corridors), and proposed advanced BRT with exclusive bus lanes, while
trying to balance transit corridor business and community multi-modal transportation needs with BRT/Rapid Bus
improvements. To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of all local community
transportation improvement stakeholders, there is a need to analyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to
and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements have been implemented. The research results and conclusions
reached can also aid transportation planners and managers in accessing the need for service and infrastructure
changes in the existing studied transit corridors and future BRT/Rapid Bus system installations.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, Rapid Bus, No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
Transit Corridor Business Impacts The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification. 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
(of this page)
Unclassified $15.00
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iii
Copyright Page
Copyright
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cliff Henke, BRT-Specialist, PB Transit & Rail Systems, Inc.
Devinder Singh, P.E., Executive Secretary CTCDC, Caltrans
Dr. Peter Haas, PhD. Educational Director, Mineta Transportation Institute
Frank Markowitz, Pedestrian Program Manager, SF Municipal Transportation Agency, MTA
James Cunradi, Project Manager AC Transit Rapid Bus Program
Jose L. Moscovich, Executive Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTA
Julie Kirschbaum, Transportation Planner, Geary BRT Study Project Manager, SFCTA/MTA
Kenneth J. Kochevar, PE, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA
Maria Lombardo, Deputy Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTA
Mary Banks, Manager Special Projects, California State Automobile Association
Mineta Transportation Institute, Professional Staff and Professors
Norman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation
Rachel Hiatt, Transportation Planner, San Francisco Transportation Authority, SFCTA
Rex Gephart, Director Regional Transit Planning, LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Richard Haggstrom, PE Non-Motorized Program Manager, Caltrans
Rod Diridon, Executive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute
Trixie Johnson, Research Director, Mineta Transportation Institute
Viviann Ferea, Program Administrator, Mineta Transportation Institute
Will Kempton, Director, California Department of Transportation, Caltrans
In Memoriam/Dedication
Arthur James Bazeley, Sr. ME., National Malleable Casting, Cleveland, Ohio
(90 U.S. Patents Automatic Railroad Coupler Systems). Superintendent Great Northern Railway
Arthur James Bazeley II, Senior Associate Booz Allen & Hamilton, and
(Senior VP Corporate Planning, Rockwell International/Boeing North America)
Charlotte Tuckerman, M.S. Languages, Spanish and Latin America Studies, Professor, CIA.
Dr. Bryan Tuckerman, PhD. Physicist, Mathematician, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Frank L. Rownd, P.E. Carnegie Tech., Sales/Marketing, Republic Steel, Cleveland, Ohio
Joe Yaccarino, Restaurateur, Owner of Joe’s Place, Brooklyn, New York
Robert Simonsen, Petroleum Engineer, Standard Oil of Ohio,
Marion Simonsen, Designer/Artist, Cleveland Art Museum
Support and Mentors
Carol Kocivar, State Board Manager, California State PTA
Dr. Alan Tong, DDS
Dr. Harold Levine, Professor Mathematics, Stanford University
Dr. Peter Baluk, PhD. UCSF Medical Research Lab
George Komodikis, CEO, Madison Holdings. Ltd. New York, London, Athens
Michelle Nahum-Albright, Professor Design, Pratt Institute, Parsons School of Design
Noriko and Mikiko Bazeley
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
THE RESEARCH STUDY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Research Study Benefit and Goals-------------------------------------------------------------7
SURVEY METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------------------8
The Survey------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Transit Corridor Business Comment --------------------------------------------------------12
SURVEY ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE ---------------------------------------------------13
ETHNIC and BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DIVERSITY
OF RESPONDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROFILES -----------------------------------------------------------------16
Geary Blvd. Corridor---------------------------------------------------------------------------17
Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor-----------------------------------------------19
San Pablo Avenue AC Rapid 72 Corridor--------------------------------------------------21
Wilshire Blvd. LA Metro Rapid 720---------------------------------------------------------23
CORRIDOR TRAVEL MODE SHARE CHOICE------------------------------------------------25
Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and Employees--------------------------26
Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine
System Characteristics Impact on BRT transit Customers-----------------------------30
TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS---------------31
SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10 RESPONSE ANALYSIS------------------------------------------34
SUMMARY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE
RESPONSES TO IMPACT QUESTIONS 1-10 ---------------------------------------------------39
Geary Transit Corridor------------------------------------------------------------------------39
Alameda-Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor----------------------------------------------40
San Pablo-Rapid 72 Transit Corridor ------------------------------------------------------41
Wilshire Blvd.-La Metro Rapid 720 Transit Corridor ----------------------------------43
IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE---------------------------------------------------------------------45
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vi
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------50
Positive Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50
Negative Comments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------52
Solution Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 55
The Parking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid Bus-------------------------------------------------- 56
Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at Stops -------------------------57
Frequency and Hours of Operation----------------------------------------------------------- 59
Construction Hazards Mitigation--------------------------------------------------------------59
Marketing the BRT/Rapid Bus Brand Attributes------------------------------------------59
CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61
The Right System Level of Attributes-------------------------------------------------------- 61
The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus ---------------------------------------------------61
The Right Policy—Transit First and TOD --------------------------------------------------62
FINAL REMARKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------64
APPENDIX A: Photo Audit Snap-shot of Business Respondents--------------------------------65
APPENDIX B: Tables-Positive, Neutral, Negative Impact Question responses---------------58
APPENDIX C: Business Type Impact Graphs-------------------------------------------------------64
APPENDIX D: Charts-Positive, Negative, Solution Comments----------------------------------66
APPENDIX E: Survey Forms---------------------------------------------------------------------------67
APPENDIX F: Excel Data Sheets-Survey Intake ---------------------------------------------------77
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------100
BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBSITES------------------------------------------------------------------------105
ABOUT THE AUTHOR--------------------------------------------------------------------------------109
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos------------------------------------------------------------40
Figure 2 Wilshire/Rapid 720 Elements---------------------------------------------------------------43
Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments-----------------------------52
Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts-------------------------------------------------- 58
Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements-----------------------------------------58
Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers----------------------------------------------------------- 64
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Index Questions ------------------------------10
Table 1-4 Geary: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions---------------------- 11
Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary---------------------------------- 12
Table 4 Transit Corridor's Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background---------------15
Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------17
Table 5-2 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------18
Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile----------------------------------19
Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile-----------------------------------20
Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------21
Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------22
Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------23
Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------24
Table 1-1 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions Results ---------------------------- 32
Table 1-2 Transit Corridor Businesses – Geary BRT Pre-Impact Questions Results -------32
Table 3 Transit Corridor's Business Types - Impact Level Comparison-----------------------39
Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS-------------------------- 43
Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS-------------------------45
Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS – COMMENTS-------------------- 47
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses ix
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1a Geary Corridor Respondents---------------------------------------------------------16
Chart 2a Alameda Corridor Respondents -----------------------------------------------------16
Chart 3a San Pablo Corridor Respondents----------------------------------------------------16
Chart 4a Wilshire Corridor Respondents------------------------------------------------------16
Chart 1 Customer Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------25
Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------26
Chart 3 Transit Corridor Impacts---------------------------------------------------------------34
Chart 27 Geary Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution-----------39
Chart 28 Alameda Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------41
Chart 29 San Pablo Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution------42
Chart 30 Wilshire Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------44
Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail---------------------------------------------------47
Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type-----------------------------48
Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type----------------------48
Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------------------49
Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------49
Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive Comments------------------------------------------------50
Chart 5 Transit Corridor Negative Comments-----------------------------------------------52
Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments----------------------------------------------- 54
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 2
INTRODUCTION
Historically, the assessment and measurement of BRT service and infrastructure improvements’
impact upon corridor businesses have been inadequate. With the recent development and interest
in implementing BRT in California and in other USA urban corridors, there is a significant need
for survey and research in this area. Many of the initial BRT projects funded through the FTA
Small Starts Program are in the study, design, and initiation stages of development, include AC
Transit’s International Blvd. BRT Corridor Project, the San Francisco Van Ness 2005/2007 BRT
Planning/Design Study, and the San Francisco Geary 2004/2007 BRT Corridor study.
In defining what represents Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) verses other “system package” variants
labeled as “Rapid Bus” utilizing signal priority or “smart corridors” technologies it is useful in
understanding the scope of BRT to look at a couple of definitions put forth by the Federal Transit
Administration and from the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).
FTA BRT Definition
“Bus Rapid Transit…a combination of facility, systems, and vehicle investments that convert
conventional bus services into a fixed-facility transit service, greatly increasing their efficiency
and effectiveness to the end user.”
Federal Transit administration (FTA), Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program, December 2002
TCRP BRT Definition
“Bus Rapid Transit…[is] a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations,
vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into
an integrated system with strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. BRT
applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical
surroundings and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments.
…BRT is an integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improves
the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit.”
Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP), Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Vol. I, 2003
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 3
The definition of BRT Bus Rapid Transit offered by the TCRP Transportation Cooperative
Research Program broadens the definition beyond the “end user” or transit rider to include the
“appropriate” level and type of services and infrastructure design applications/improvements that
will be “appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings.” The word
“market” embraces the collective of commuters, transit corridor businesses, customers,
employers, employees, and community residents. The expression “physical surroundings”
embraces the impact upon land-use, street and pedestrian infrastructure, parking and business
physical accessibility, as well as the overall identity or “look and feel” of the “BRT package”
within the contextual character of the transit corridor’s diverse pattern of business types, mixed-
use development, residential neighborhoods and communities served. As an example, AC
Transit’s San Pablo corridor includes seven different city jurisdictions that differ in their
characteristics, land-use, and socio-economic profiles which the AC R72 BRT/Rapid Bus system
serves. LA Metro Rapid 720 serves downtown, Westwood, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica.
San Francisco’s Geary Corridor was included in the survey study to create a comparative base
line as an unimproved/Pre-BRT urban bus transit corridor that had a similar marketing mix of
transit corridor businesses and land-use characteristics with the three surveyed improved transit
corridors. Geary was originally slated for a center alignment light rail system many years ago,
but through a change in policy, political, and budget prioritization the Third Street light rail
project was designed and built instead of the planned Geary LRT. The merchants and the
community have felt politically “burned” by unfulfilled promises and so the issue of whether the
proposed Geary BRT alignment variations and service packages will satisfy and fulfill the
service needs and expectation of the community were an important rationale in examining the
Geary corridor with a Pre-BRT impact survey. The Geary Pre-Impact survey indicated 93% of
the business owners and managers were supportive of a center alignment BRT for Geary Blvd.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the lead planning agency is proposing
a “state of the art” BRT system with a center alignment and exclusive dedicated bus lanes as one
of several alignment options. San Francisco’s MUNI proposed center alignment Geary BRT can
emulate many of the infrastructure and service characteristics of light rail system with greater
marketing appeal, capacity, and efficiency than that which typical traditional urban bus services
offer along its increasingly congested multi-modal transit corridors. BRT can be implemented
and fast tracked within a shorter time table and at lower build out costs than a light rail system.
The marketing and planning dilemma for the Geary Corridor and other future advanced full
featured BRT systems in the planning stages is in the ability to implement BRT at its highest
level of design and operation possibilities as a bus technology based mode that communicates to
its customers, transit boards, and transit directors that it is not a typical bus service; operates like
light rail but is not light rail, and does not eliminate the possibility of future light rail build out
and the securing right-of-way and infrastructure for a LRT system. Transit corridor businesses
throughout the United States are very concerned about the negative construction impacts of such
extensive infrastructure construction and build-out time with the more extensive implementation
of exclusive bus lanes and the reduction of corridor parking access on a permanent basis or
during peak hour, i.e. Geary BRT and the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, along certain corridor
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 4
travel segments. Transit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI have put forth a strong marketing
message of support for implementing BRT.
SFCTA/MUNI—BRT Strategic Marketing Message
BRT is fast and reliable – it offers passengers a quicker trip with more dependability.
BRT is cutting edge – it maximizes transit performance by using state-of-art technology.
BRT is cost-effective – it moves people as effectively as light rail at lower capital cost.
BRT is a quick solution – with community support and sufficient funding, fast build-out.
BRT is flexible – it maximizes operating flexibility by allowing multiple operators.
BRT is incremental – can be deployed in phases based upon funding availability and demand.
Once built, the issues of purpose, need, and access equity have to be balanced with the cost of
operation and management of the system. The technology and infrastructure design choices may
not only affect cost and maintenance factors, but in reality are key (BRT) product marketing
features that will affect customer choice, retention, and help grow repeat and sustainable
ridership numbers. Picking the right type of infrastructure design; vehicle equipment choice will
affect the level of quality perception and customer support for a new high-tech BRT and/or a
moderately modernized bus service. What is the appropriate customer oriented design and
marketing methodology that will support the acceptance of a BRT as a mode choice over Light
Rail or the automobile? Studies supporting BRT as a viable alternative mode choice need to
answer the long term question of what really influences the customer in choosing to support
BRT/Rapid Bus over other alternative modes like Light Rail, when addressing the issues of
equipment modernization, and the labor costs in running a BRT system versus a light rail system.
Several publications which include the Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP),
Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Volumes 1 and 2, 2003, the abstract, Bus Rapid Transit: An
Integrated and Flexible Package of Service, by the authors: Alice H. King and Roderick B. Dias,
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc., and the abstract Innovative Service Design among Bus Rapid
Transit Systems in the Americas, by authors Roderick B. Diaz and Donald C. Schneck, Booz
Allan & Hamilton, Inc. offer greater detail and insight into the areas of developing the right
“integrated and flexible package of service and operational model” for maximizing the benefit of
BRT. One very applicable issue derived from an extensive literature search concerning the area
of BRT/Rapid Bus system packaging is that key components of an operating plan; route
structure, service frequency, stop/station spacing, service span, network, and degree of
integration with other transit services differ and have outcomes that affect the end-user/customer
and the transit corridor business community acceptance and support of the system.
To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of key local community
transportation improvement stakeholders which include policy makers, transportation
operators/agencies, corridor businesses—transit riders composed of workers, commuters,
shoppers, school children/students, seniors, and the disabled—there is a major need to further
analyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridor
improvements have been implemented.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 5
THE RESEARCH STUDY
The research study compares the impacts of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructure
improvements upon four business transit corridors and communities with similar and diverse
land-use characteristics, business mix, and ridership social-economic characteristics.
AC Transit’s Alameda City, Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor,
AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor,
LA Metro’s Wilshire Blvd. Metro Rapid 720, Corridor
SF MUNI, Proposed Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT, Pre-BRT Impact Survey
The selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels of
bus transit improvement “system packages” including Basic/Local Bus, Rapid Bus/Signal
Priority Technologies, and Advanced Rapid/BRT while trying to balance the needs and
requirements for implementing successful business and community multi-modal BRT
transportation improvements. The transit corridors’ business composition and sampling did
capture similarities in business types, resulting in 12 business segments for further comparison.
In many of the cases, the business community was not fully engaged or lacked high participation
levels until many of the BRT project goals and design concepts were established. There has not
been sufficient business economic survey, study, and research funding to measure business
expectations, cost and benefit impacts. This contrasts with the committed level of transit agency
studies focused on the potential impacts on multi-modal corridor transportation travel times and
BRT performance related to the proposed levels of service and infrastructure improvements with
traffic flow analysis/counts and corridor simulations. There is an absence of case studies and
methodology as a part of the process for developing the best balance of BRT implemented
service and infrastructure improvements for maximizing the economic benefit to transit corridor
businesses. This is a key rationale for surveying the impacts on the selected BRT corridors.
However, there has been an extensive amount of prior methodology in the survey of transit riders
to gain necessary insight and data as to travel patterns, mode choice, and for the collection of
marketing research data related to destination and purpose of travel, rating the performance of
the transit mode taken, intermodal connectivity, and ridership demographics. See appendix for
LA MTA Rider Survey example.1
The advanced state-of-the-art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models and
accompanying infrastructure offer a unique opportunity for applying strategic customer oriented
marketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to insure BRT/Rapid Bus
1
A key source on the development of collecting travel behavior and customer mode choice preference can be researched through
the Federal Highway administration OHPI, Office of Highway Policy Information, through the TRB Committee on
Transportation Survey Methods (ABJ40) at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm .
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 6
systems improve business and community vitality, accessibility, safety, and walkablity. BRT—
by its very nature of service flexibility for influencing customer mode choice, its adaptability to
changing land-use patterns, and different infrastructure design possibilities can influence the
vitality of transit corridor businesses and their surrounding neighborhoods.
During the survey process it became very clear that a large percentage of business employees
and business managers were dependent and users of not only the BRT/Rapid Bus services but the
connecting light and heavy rail systems by way of connecting hubs. Their satisfaction and
reliance on fast, frequent, and reliable public transit with good inter-modal connectivity was of
benefit to transit corridor businesses in getting quality employees to work, and affected the
bottom line of sales and customer service levels. Author Graham Currie in the study, The
Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, puts forth the concept that the variability in public
transit users’ pattern of choice is influenced by the quality and comfort of the ride as well as by
the factors of distance, the (Total) time of travel, and time waiting to transfer at route/line hubs
or changing modes. These factors impact transit corridor businesses’ employees and its customer
base selection of BRT/Rapid Bus as a travel mode for their employment or shopping destination
instead of driving to corridor businesses.2
This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and preference levels as being
related to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improved transportation mode. Mode-
Specific Factors are significant in affecting the perception of BRT quality and innovation by
transit customers related to the industrial design of vehicle interiors/exteriors and human factors
based improvements associated with ADA accessibility, customer information systems (Next
Bus) and infrastructure design. Customers place the highest value on the BRT/Rapid Bus service
characteristics which include frequency of service, comfort, travel time savings, and reliability of
service.
In this study the impact of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes are measured and
surveyed to evaluate the benefit of specific BRT system attributes and improvements on the
transit customer and the business community. It is important to measure accurately the
infrastructure and system attributes of shelter/platform comfort, information signage and
scheduling accuracy (on time performance/frequency) and their cumulative impact on transit
corridor business employees and customers’ travel mode choice. Transit planners need to factor
these into their strategic plans when deciding upon the level of investment in a new or improved
BRT/Rapid Bus system for a particular transit business corridor.
The key study question relates to what are the significant attributes that contribute to a positive
or negative impact on BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses. The survey research will shed
some light upon in the comparisons of implemented improvements and impacts upon transit
corridor businesses in the four bus transit corridors selected, and suggest that further ongoing
research is merited.
2
The study, The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit by Author Graham Currie, Chair Public Transport, at Monash
University, Australia makes a comparative analysis to examine the passenger values and attributes in selection of transportation
modes when comparing BRT to (LRT) Light Rail as a replacement for traditional bus service.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 7
RESEARCH STUDY GOALS:
• Research and report findings on the impact of BRT/Rapid Bus improvements on
BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses customers, employees, and community residents.
• Strengthen the transit planning focus on significant business community expectations
and needs that impact their business vitality when implementing BRT/Rapid Bus
corridor improvements.
• Create Transit management awareness of the critical long-term impacts upon business
which can ultimately affect the levels of capturing new riders from these corridors.
• Analyze impact and benefit of BRT/Rapid Bus corridor transit performance, service and
infrastructure improvements related to type and levels of design investment needed to
deliver the best “impact benefit package for the dollars spent.”
• Develop a comparative snapshot of four different “system packages” of BRT/Rapid Bus
transit investments in service type, infrastructure, technology, community streetscape
and pedestrian improvements that impact transit corridor businesses vitality.
• To find out what was the perceived impact to various business types’ employees, and
their customers including: shoppers made-up of local community residents, school
students, seniors, the disabled, transit riders/commuters and those that drive or walk to
access BRT/Rapid Bus Transit corridor businesses.
The impact of implementing the right BRT/Rapid Bus levels of improvement and service
characteristics along metropolitan business/multi-use transit corridors goes far beyond reducing
commuter travel time through increasing the speed and frequency of service. It impacts land-use
and (TOD) transportation oriented development, walkablity, and accessibility to corridor
businesses and services. This in turn affects the bottom-line of transit corridor businesses’
revenue, foot traffic, and the overall corridor community’s vitality and quality of life.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 8
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The one page questionnaire/survey was composed of 10 key questions to develop an overall
BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact rating-scale for analyzing the positive, neutral, and
negative business responses of the four surveyed BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridors. Critical data
intake included: 3 additional “open comment” questions; respondents’ ethnic background; and
the percentage of customer and employee mode choice of travel to and from the business
location. These surveys were administered in person to individual business owners at their place
of business located on the selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridors, with an equal collection of data
from both sides or directions of BRT/Rapid Bus transit travel route.
The sampling targeted a large enough number of businesses including retail, commercial, and
professional offices to result in 100-140 completed surveys per BRT/Rapid Bus corridor. In the
Alameda 2 mile corridor the sampling exceeded 100% of the number of corridor street front
businesses compared with 33% for the 6 mile Geary Corridor, 32% for the San Pablo 7.5 mile
corridor, and 15-25% of the significant street front businesses along the LA Metro Rapid 720’s
surveyed 13 mile corridor.
The survey questions were categorized to capture a broad range of business response to transit
corridor BRT/Rapid Bus implemented “package” of improvements ranging from
services/operations and technology to travel accessibility for business customers and employees,
as well as infrastructure impacts. *Survey question categories included: 50% Business
Economic, 20% Customer/Community, 20% Corridor Business Accessibility/Travel Mode
Choice, Vitality, Parking impact, and 10% Open ended Questions-Responder Opinion. The three
open-ended responder opinion questions concerning positive, negative, and solution comments
generated another 30 responses on impact issues and corridor comparison.
The accumulation of the ten key questions were covering the cumulative possible impact effects
to transit corridor business were used to create a business managers/owners “Impact Index” or
“satisfaction index” from interviewing respondents who were primarily the business owner,
senior manager or supervisor and where necessary, a sales manager, transportation manager, or
employee in charge. The corridor’s retail business mix included small independent owned store
front “mom and pop” businesses, franchised business, independent chain stores, national brand
retail chains, and corridor retail shopping malls, centers, and “big box” retailers.
All four transit corridors surveyed had many national chains and franchised businesses with a
similar business operations model, size, and employee socio-economic characteristics in
common to improve the data collection consistency, quality and characteristics for generating a
more accurate outcome to compare and rank each of the corridors. Many of the businesses in
common captured on each transit corridor included Subway, Burger King, McDonald’s,
Domino’s Pizza, Panda Express, KFC-Taco Bell, Jack n The Box, Midas Auto, Kragen Auto,
Shell Oil, Union 76, FedEx-Kinko’s, Mancini Sleep World, Sleep Train, Radio Shack, Payless
Shoes, Blockbuster, Benjamin Moore, Pier One Imports, Rite Aid Drugs, Walgreen’s, Safeway,
Best Buy’s, Office Depot, Trader Joe’s, Office Max, Ross for Less, Boarders, Starbucks, Sprint
PCS, U.S. Postal Service, Wells Fargo and many others.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 9
In each corridor the survey intake captured a majority of the key regional and national brands,
major business categories including automotive, corporations, educational intuitions, fast food,
financial/banking institutions, governmental (local, state, federal), hotel/senior housing, liquor
stores/bars, medical-hospitals/clinics/services, non-profit organizations/churches, restaurants and
retail.
The total number of one-on-one transit corridor businesses surveyed and interviewed with
complete data collection for the four transit corridors exceeded 498 respondents, with a sample
of 142 out of 425 estimated street front businesses for the 5.5 mile San Francisco Geary corridor,
a response sample of 107 out of 110 for Alameda’s 2 mile Webster Street Route 61 corridor, a
sample of 128 out of 550 for the 7.5 mile San Pablo Avenue Corridor, and a 128 survey business
response sample out of an estimated 1,200 major street front businesses for LA Metro’s 13 mile
Wilshire Rapid 720 Corridor.
The Los Angeles Metro Wilshire corridor was unique in that it was the longest corridor in miles,
with several clusters of office towers with multiple corporate and professional businesses, such
as publishing, law and accounting firms. There were several extensive stretches along the
Wilshire corridor such as Westwood and Beverly Hills where the land-use changed from a dense
commercial mix to a suburban land-use pattern that was composed of expensive housing, high-
rise luxury condos/apartment buildings, sprawling corporate headquarters, hotel and resorts,
museums, parks and the Beverly Hills Golf Club.
The sampling plan was designed to capture several of the largest or most significant businesses
in the major office towers where employee numbers utilizing the public transit system would be
meaningful. A majority of the significant street front retail businesses were well represented in
the sample along with most of the business type groups, i.e. automotive, corporate, educational,
fast food, financial, government, hotel/housing, liquor, medical hospitals and services, non-profit
organizations, and restaurants. The survey sampling covered both directions of travel for the
various BRT/Rapid Bus systems incorporated in the study, with a cumulative total of 50 miles of
urban/metro bus transit corridors, walked, bused and driven.
THE SURVEY:
Pre-testing for the impact questionnaire/survey, consisting of 25 samples, was administered in
person for interview intake on AC Transit’s Alameda City’s Webster Street/Alameda Route 61
corridor successfully with minor adjustments. The question form and response selection for data
comparison and scoring was based on each question asking the responder to answer as to the
question’s subject concerning the BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact using a multiple choice
(1-3) rating scale represented by: (3) Positive Impact/Increase, (2) Neutral Impact/No-Change,
(1) Negative Impact/Decrease. The responses were charted per business name, type, location and
presented in Excel and graphic charts. Through the survey construction, over 55 significant data
items were defined and collected to create different sorts to define impact comparisons, ranking,
prioritization, impact levels, and trends. Further data on the percentage of respondents’ rating the
BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impacts on their business as positive, neutral, or negative for each
of the ten questions is additionally presented in the format of Tables for comparison and analysis.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

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 1
Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions (10) and Response Choices *Notation 1-3
POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
# QUESTIONS* Notation 2
IMPACT (3) IMPACT (2) IMPACT (1)
Scoring: Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1
What has been the impact or change to yearly
1 Increased No-Change Decreased
sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?
How has customer “foot traffic” and new Adequate
2 Increased 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?
Do your employees have improved access/usage Adequate or
4 Increased 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 form
Notation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-
existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-4. for Geary PRE-BRT Impact Questions).
Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn,
higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

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 1-3
Table 1-4 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions (10) and Response Choices
POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
# QUESTIONS* Notation 2
Response Response Response
Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1
What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to Increased No-Change Decreased
1
proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?
How has customer “foot traffic” and new Increased No-Change Decreased
2
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?
Do your employees have good access/usage to Yes Adequate No or
4
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 Project
Notation 1: See Appendix for actual survey form*
Notation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-
existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations.
Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn,
higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 12
A compilation (Table 2-4) of the top ten positive comments, top ten negative comments, and top
ten solutions for the improvement or elimination of the perceived or actual negative impact
identified by the respondents was collected through the following three open ended questions.
Positive Comment Question: What was the Positive BRT/Rapid Bus impact that improved your
business sales and customer activity?
Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to design
changes, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negatively
impacting your business sales or customer activity?
Solutions Comment Question:
How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business?
Transit Corridors Businesses - COMMENTS
Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary
POSITIVE COMMENTS NEGATIVE COMMENTS SOLUTIONS
Faster Travel Parking Loss/Damage Extend Operational Hours/ Late
1
Night Service
2 Reliability/Bus Frequency Ugly Shelter/Stop Design Increase Bus Frequency
3 Increased New Business Bus Stops Not Clean Expand BRT/Rapid Bus Service
Development
4 Safer-Cleaner Stops and Shelters Stop Shelters Block Store Build Parking Garages on Corridor
5 Attractive Streetscapes-Shelters Poor Stop Lighting Weekend Service Needed
6
New TOD Customers Loitering/Safety Concern Transit Security/CCTV/Lights
7 Pedestrian Activity/Safety Hours of Bus Operation Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter
8 New Bus Design/Branding ADA Accessibility-Pedestrian Modify Streetscape Design-Trees
Safety Concerns
9 Serves Employee Needs Frequency/Reliability Move Bus Stop/Shelter
10 Serves Corridor Businesses Lost Business-Relocation Planned More TOD Development
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 13
Survey Administration Experience
The author’s one-on-one interview and survey of four metropolitan bus transit corridors totaling
57 miles, 4 different locations including San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland-San Pablo Corridor,
and Los Angeles was accomplished in 24 days with 8-10 hours per day for travel, interviewing
and data intake from 500 plus business respondents. Depending upon the amount of respondents
time and willingness to go beyond the 10 basic questions including supplemental data intake and
the three additional open-ended questions—the time of for a complete survey intake to collect all
of the critical information and responses was reduced from an average of 15-20 minutes to 10
minutes by verbally reciting the questions and filling out the survey with the respondent during
intake. Because independent business owners, retail store managers, and respondents were on-
duty dealing with customers the personal interview was most effective in leaving the premise
with a completed survey.
It was necessary in about 12% of the cases for the interviewer to show identification and research
authenticity/authority with a driver’s license, business card from the locally involved transit
agency BRT/Rapid Bus manager or director, and/or a project letter of introduction to gain survey
participation acceptance from business respondents. The interviewer also carried picture of the
different BRT/Rapid Bus system equipment and improvements as visual reference for the
surveyed respondents to visualize the improvements referred to in the questions. The
interviewer’s experience as an industrial designer and brand marketing consultant; working on
community transportation design projects, as well as having designed over 150 retail stores, was
beneficial in securing a 95%-98% average survey participation from business owners and
managers interviewed during the intake process on all four transit corridors.
The business respondents interviewed expressed genuine interest in improving their existing
corridor BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system and provided quality information and data about the
businesses’ actual and perceived positive and negative impacts of the BRT/Rapid Bus
improvements. The collection of respondent comments included the top ten positive impact
comments, top ten negative impact comments, and the top ten solutions for elimination of the
negative impact. These were useful in evaluating the response reliability to the original 10
impact questions used to create the business impact survey.
It was important to interview business owners and managers that had “intuitional memory” of
the changes in business sales, bus service, customer and employee parking accessibility, overall
corridor walkablity, streetscape/infrastructure, and business vitality before and after the
implemented improvements. In many of the corridors this was accomplished, especially among
the long established small neighborhood “mom & pop” independent merchants that were
interviewed. Survey questions one and two captured the critical “sales trend” and “foot traffic”
trend of the businesses. Due to the confidential nature of this important information, it was asked
right after explaining the nature and topic of the survey, purposes of the gathered information,
and often an explanation of the BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system characteristics being surveyed.
As it is very rare to get the actual sales trend figures, it was determined after the pre-testing of
the survey that most respondents would comfortably and honestly respond to an answer selection
of “increased,” “no-change,” or “decreased” without breaching business confidentiality.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 14
When surveying the entire transit corridor for business sales and foot traffic trends, it became
evident in the overall sampling if the trend was based upon the factors of an economic downturn
in the corridor that was widespread across the business community or if it was limited to a
business type category like retail, restaurants, fast food or just the specific store location. In some
surprising cases, the sales managers were so enthusiastic about participating in the project
research issues and potential outcome that the interview intake went for as long as 45 minutes to
an hour, thereby gaining depth and insight into the very nature of the corridor’s business vitality
and sales impacts that were caused by other factors.
These factors included transit corridor urban renewal and TOD housing project development,
city politics and transit policy changes. One example of an extended intake session was related to
the extensive Alameda City’s streetscape and urban renewal Webster Street development, where
a Chevron service station mini-mart manager held a small impromptu meeting of local
customers. The customers told the interviewer of the change in business due to the public policy
elimination of a 600 unit low income housing project being replaced by a 350 unit high-income
condominium.
Owner/manager and customer survey participation occurred in 5% of the intake sessions with
restaurant managers/owners, big box/name brand retailers, bars/liquor stores, and even fast food
operations. In several cases (2%) the sales managers of some of the national and regional name
brand retailers actually brought the interviewer into the offices to fill out the survey and showed
their yearly sales trend charts for the store. When taking in the important supplemental
information determining customer and employee transportation mode share, many of the
managers would pull their employee duty rosters for employee counts and estimating or taking
the actual count of employees who took the BRT/Rapid Bus/Public Transit, drove/parked, or
walked/biked to work; or gathered a couple of employees to calculate how employees commuted
to work. In many of the larger corporate businesses, educational institutions, or medical centers
there were transportation managers and administrators who had not only employee counts but the
number of parking spaces allotted for employees, and were also responsible for administering
employee discount transportation passes for use of buses and connecting rail systems.
The information gathered about employee numbers and transportation modes was very helpful,
especially on the LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire corridor, where there was a Metro employee and
student discount program to capture increased use of the LA Metro transit system and reduce car
reliance by customer choice and marketing programs. Many of the transit operators do have
programs like this, and provide a good source of counting monthly public transit mode use by
businesses taking apart of these programs. The business sampling and information when
coordinated with these other sources of collected data confirmed that the personal one-to-one
survey process and strategy yielded a more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate data input
process than if the survey was mailed or left to fill out. In several businesses where the survey
had to be left to be filled-out by the owner or manager and collected later that day or on the
following day, it was observed that 20% of the respondents did not fill-out the survey, 30% went
into great depth and 50% respondents basically neutralized a majority of the questions and
information due to a lack of interest or possible lack of understanding of the questions, which
further reinforced the effectiveness of the one-on-one interview/survey methodology.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 15
Ethnic and Business Management Diversity of Respondents
The ethnic make-up and diversity of the corridors’ surveyed respondents reinforced the
effectiveness of the personal interview strategy by reciting questions with an occasional
respondent’s request for clarification or language interpretation, about specific transit impacts or
terminology. There was a distinct cultural and behavioral interplay between how some
respondents had to be approached by the interviewer.
First generation Asian-Pacific immigrants presented the most challenging language and survey
completion challenge. This does reinforce the usefulness of having survey work and printed
materials done in multiple languages with Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and
English being the most prevalent languages spoken along the corridors surveyed. In community
transit workshops where there are large urban communities of immigrants, it is an invaluable part
of the public outreach and participation process to provide multi-lingual written materials and
interpreters.
In 18% of the interviews the respondent requested the interviewer enter the first name or initials
in order to guarantee confidentiality. However, collecting the full name on the data sheet was
very useful in capturing the ethnic diversity of the respondents besides observation, or response
as to country of origin. The ethnic composition of the interviewed respondents by transit
corridors are indicated by table 4 and charts 1-4 for comparison, and were reflective of the
composition and diversity of the corridor business managers/owners and their employees.
Ethnic Background of Survey Respondents
Table 4 Transit Corridor's Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background*1
Ethnic
Background/Race Geary*2 Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
Afro-American 4% 6% 14% 7%
AFA
Asian-Chinese 28% 23% 7% 11%
AP-C
Asian-Japanese 20% 1% 2% 2%
AP-J
Asian-Korean 6% 4% 5% 9%
AP-K
Asian-Other 6% 6% 4% 4%
AP-O
Caucasian-European 27% 47% 46% 26%
CW-E
Hispanic 8% 8% 12% 36%
H
Middle Eastern 1% 5% 10% 5%
ME
Notation 1: Respondents* were primarily (99.5%) business owners, managers, supervisors/administrators
Notation 2: Geary is a PRE-BRT impact surveyed bus transit corridor. (Local, Limited, Express services)
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 16
Charts 1-4 Survey Respondents’ Ethnic Background; Four Corridors Compared
Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Alameda Corridor
Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Geary Corridor
Afro-American
Afro-American
6%
4%
Caucasian/European
27%
Asian Chinese
Asian Chinese
23%
28%
Caucasian/European
47%
Middle Eastern
1% Asian Japanese
1%
Hispanic
Asian Korean
8%
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
Survey Respondents' Ethnic Background - Wilshire Corridor
Respondents' Ethnic Background - San Pablo Corridor
Afro-American
Afro-American
7%
14%
Caucasian/European Asian Chinese
26% 11%
Asian Chinese
Asian Japanese
7%
2%
Asian Japanese
2% Asian Korean
Caucasian/European
9%
Asian Korean
46%
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 Respondents
The field survey process presented an incredible learning opportunity for experiencing the
diversity of cultures, languages, business mixes/segmentation, and the impact that transportation
makes upon the lives of the communities and peoples it serves. The socio-economic
demographics of customers and employees, levels of transit improvement and service operation
mix, land-use, and public policy all affect transit corridor businesses’ bottom-line of profitability
and ultimately the overall vitality and pedestrian shopping activity of the businesses located
along these major transit corridors. Transportation is more than moving buses and commuters
through a corridor; it is about maintaining the vitality of the businesses on the corridor by
moving a diversity of people, goods and services in a manner that maintains quick access and
accessibility for business customers, employees, and community services.
Transit Corridors Profiles: Geary, Alameda R61, San Pablo, Wilshire
The next section presents a comprehensive snap-shot profile of each surveyed transit corridor’s
BRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and facts, system goals, maps, and demographics.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 17
Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile
GEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre-BRT Improvements
70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th Place
Transit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNI
Service Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak Direction
Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks
Corridor Length: 6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave.
Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total
Ridership: 50,000-54,000 Daily before Improvements
System Characteristics:
Ongoing IMPROVEMENT: Corridor Intersection Signal Upgrades/Equipment
• 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 loading
Proposed BRT Improvements: – Alternatives: Basic Plus Transit Priority, Side BRT, Center
Alignment 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 Operations
Note: SFCTA – San Francisco County Transportation Authority – BRT Plan-SFCTA, MTA, MUNI, DPT 4.26.2007
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 18
Table 5-2 Geary Corridor Profile
GEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre- BRT Improvements
70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th Place
Transit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNI
Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks
Corridor Length: 5.5/6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave.
Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total Miles Surveyed
Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Interaction
A summary of the Geary Pre- BRT study’s key findings and 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 2/26/2003
Corridor Demographics: Population: 135,128 Corridor, 776,733 Citywide Total, % of SF 17%
Population Density per acre 44.32, Median Household Income $39,727, SF $55,221, % of SF 172%
Ethnic Background: W 67,149 (49.7%), AFA 10,269 (7.6%), Asian 46,516 (34.4%), Hispanic 10,971 (14.1%), Other
11,194 (15.8%)* Source US Census 2000, SF1 and SF2
Transit Connectivity: BART, SF MUNI LRT, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit, Golden Gate Ferries
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 19
Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile
ALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor
79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd Place
Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
Service Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak Direction
Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks
Corridor Length: 7 miles Webster/Atlantic to Hegenberger Road/Oakland Airport
Surveyed Alameda/Route 61: Webster to Central., North/South bound, 2 Miles/ 4 Total
Ridership: 9,500-11,500 Daily
System Characteristics:
BASIC IMPROVEMENT PLUS: MAJOR STREETSCAPE and BUS STOP
INFRASTRUCTURE 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 priority
Webster Street Improvements: Bus facilities/stops side loading ADA extended platforms, major
streetscape infrastructure, planters, bus shelters: Construction Estimate: $1.7M-$2.3M City of Alameda*
Goals: 1. To enhance Alameda City’s livability and commercial viability with safe efficient transportation
accessibility (AC Transit), and Local Streets and road improvements. 2. Improve multi-modal safety and
congestion mitigation along Route 61/Webster Street with special emphasis on our most vulnerable
citizens, school children, seniors, and the disabled. 3. Streets and Roads improvement along with Webster
Street rehabilitation, redevelopment vital to servicing and stimulating new 10-20 year growth of additional
housing and retail multi-use developments 4. To enhance property values, commercial and mixed-use
retail business, and sales revenues through promoting the livability and viability of Alameda City as a
shopping, recreational, and living environment. 5. Support bicycling as a transportation alternative
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 20
Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile
ALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61, AC Transit/City Renewal Project
79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd Place
Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
Stop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 Blocks
Corridor Length: 7 miles Webster St./Atlantic Ave. to Hegenberger Road/Oakland Airport
Surveyed Alameda City/Route 61: Webster/Atlantic to Central Ave. North/South bound, 2 miles/4 total
Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Interaction
A 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 parks
Business QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $4.1M, Retail Sales per capita: $5.4M, Accomodations and
Food services: $66M, Wholesale: $3.5M, Manufacturing Shipments: $10M, Firms: 6,028 Citywide
Corridor 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 $30,982
Ethnic Background: W 40,929 (56.9%), AFA 4,452 (6.2%), Asian 18,669 (26.1%), Hispanic 6,462 (9.3%), Other
3,303 (4.6%), Median House: $345K, Mean travel time to work: 30 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000 Alameda City
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 21
Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor Profile
San Pablo Avenue, Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor
76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd Place
Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123 )
Service Types: Rapid Bus R72, Local, Limited, Express Services
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./Oakland
Surveyed San Pablo/R123: MacArthur to MacDonald., North/South bound, 6.5/14 Miles
Ridership: 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 efficient
transportation accessibility (AC Transit), and urban arterials improvement. 2. Improve multi-modal safety
and congestion mitigation along Route 123 by implementing “Smart Corridors” improvements/technology
through (CMA) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 3. Implementation of TSP at 62 corridor
intersections, Collect real-time information about traffic conditions 4. To increase ridership and and reduce
running time (*Reported as 26%-30% faster, with a 66% Peak Hour increase in ridership and a 200%
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 Report
F-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 22
Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor Profile
San Pablo Avenue, AC Transit Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor
76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd Place
Transit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123)
Stop Spacing: .54-.64 Mile, 26 stops (Rapid 72) 12 Min. peak/15 Min. off-peak 6 am-7 pm Mon-Sat.
Corridor Length: 14 miles Contra Costa College/San Pablo to Jack London Sq./Oakland
Surveyed San Pablo/Route 123: MacArthur Blvd. to MacDonald Ave., North/South bound, 6.5/14 Miles
Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Connectivity
A 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 and
Food services: $66M, Wholesale: $41B, Manufacturing Shipments: $29.6B, Firms: 120,293 County
Corridor 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%), Other
10,395 (7.7%), Median House: $303K, Mean travel time to work: 31 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000/AC Transit*
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 23
Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, Corridor Profile
WILSHIRE Blvd., Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT
81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st Place
Transit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Service Types: Rapid Bus R720, Local, Express Services
Stop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways
Corridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Pacific Ave./Santa Monica
Surveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Pacific Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 Miles
Ridership: 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 enhance
Wilshire Blvd. Corridor’s livability and commercial viability with safe and efficient accessible transportation
3. Improve multi-modal safety and congestion mitigation along Wilshire Blvd. by implementing “Smart
Corridors” improvements/technology-LADOT 4. Implementation of TSP at corridor intersections, Collect
real-time information about traffic conditions 5. To increase ridership and and reduce running time
(*Reported as 29%-40% faster, with a 47% increase in daily corridor ridership (90,000). 6. Support
interconnectivity with the Red-line and rail links throught transfer hubs. 7. Grow ridership to justify future
LRT 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 Report
F-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 24
Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720. Corridor Profile
WILSHIRE Blvd. Metro Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT
81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st Place
Transit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Stop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways Wilshire/Whittier R720 26 Stops
Corridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Ocean Ave./Santa Monica
Surveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Ocean Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 Miles
Summary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit Connectivity
A summary of Los Angeles LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire Corridor:
• LA Metro’s Transit’s Wilshire BRT/Rapid Bus Project has been 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 fleet
LA* Business QuickFacts: Retail Sales: $92B, Retail Sales per capita: $9M, Accomodations and Food
services: $14B, Wholesale: $198B, Manufacturing Shipments: $108B, LA Firms: 1.2M Estimated – *U.S. Census
LA County Demographics: * Population: 9,948,081,000, 65+ 10.1%, Housing Units 3,339,763,000
Population 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 25
Corridor Travel Mode Share Choice
The mode choice preference of transit corridor business customers and employees for all four of
the surveyed transit corridors indicated that the largest mode share is represented by employees
and customers that drive to and from the business location as shown by Charts 1 and 2. Except
for the Geary corridor, the other corridors’ employee mode shares for car travel were higher than
the customer mode shares for driving. Alameda corridor has the highest share of car usage for
employees at 80.5% and Geary the lowest at 52%. The survey indicated that there were more
small businesses with supplemental off-street parking on the surveyed Alameda/Webster Street
corridor compared to the unimproved Geary Corridor which had sparse public garage parking
and limited metered street parking, thus limiting employee access to affordable parking.
Customer Travel Modes
80.0
% CUSTOMERS (Bus)
72.0
67.8
% CUSTOMERS (Drive/Park)
70.0
% CUSTOMERS (Walk/Bike)
59.9
Percentage of Transportation Mode Share
60.0
55.1
50.0
40.0
30.0
23.4
21.5
21.1
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 Modes
The bus mode choice for customers was comparable at 21.1% for the Geary corridor and 21.5%
for the Wilshire corridor, where as the San Pablo corridor bus mode share at 17.4% and
Alameda’s at 12.5% indicated lower customer travel by bus transit in those corridors. The
employee travel mode shares indicate a higher bus transit mode choice on the Pre-BRT Geary
corridor at 40.4%, the Wilshire corridor at 35%, and the San Pablo corridor at 21.3% while
Alameda remained at 12.5% the lowest. The walk/bike mode choice by customers on all transit
corridors is consistently higher for business customers than as a chosen mode of travel for
employees on all four corridors. The data indicated that both the Geary corridor at (4th place) and
Wilshire corridor at (1st place) were the highest in business customer demand and support for
improved bus services with San Pablo ranking third.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

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
10.0
7.6 7.6
7.0
10
0
Geary Corridor Alameda Corridor San Pablo Corridor Wilshire Corridor
Business Corridors
Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes
The corridors which showed the greatest increase in employees selecting the BRT/Rapid Bus
mode 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 ranking
of the Alameda-Webster corridor (2nd place) and the San Pablo corridor at (3rd place ) with higher
customer and employee car mode shares and lower than expected Rapid Bus mode shares was
associated with employee parking availability and the hours of Rapid Bus service operation.
Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and Employees
The data showed that in the positive to negative ranking of the respondents perceived level of
impact that six major factors affected BRT/Rapid Bus service as being a preferred mode choice
by the businesses’ customers and employees. These factors included: 1.) the connectivity in door
to door travel in the terms of convenience and total travel time for moderate and long distance
travel to and from the business location, 2.) BRT/Rapid Bus systems’ speed and frequency as a
travel mode for moderate to longer distances, along the corridor, 3.) the time of day the trip is
taken in relationship to peak or off-peak travel periods, or late night travel relative to the
operational hours of the BRT/Rapid Bus services, 4.) the availability of parking for business
employees and their customers, 5.) the cost of travel mode selection relative to an employees or
customer’s income, and 6.) land-use factors in the number of corridor business employees and
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 27
customers that lived in adjacent housing along the corridor with convenient access to the new
BRT/Rapid Bus system. Transportation connectivity, speed, and frequency usually rose to the
top as a primary reason for managers, employees, and customers utilizing the new implemented
BRT/Rapid Bus systems with their improved package of service and equipment. But, these alone
were not a guarantee in the perception of transit corridor business owners and managers of the
new systems’ attributes fully meeting the needs of corridor businesses, customers, or employees.
In the case of employees the data for mode choice showed a greater contrast between the four
corridors. San Francisco’s Geary corridor showed a far greater preference at 40% by employees
choosing public transit/bus services over the next highest scoring Wilshire corridor at 35%
selecting public transit/rapid Bus services, with a 57.3% share going to the auto. The Wilshire
employee auto share mode at 57.3% for employees compared closest with the Geary Blvd. 52%
auto share. Being that the Geary is a Pre-BRT corridor it could be expected that with a quality
implemented BRT system that the mode share for Geary could equal or exceed the Wilshire
Rapid 720 employee mode share. It should be mentioned that LA Metro has several significant
employee and student fare programs that have also contributed to the Metro Rapid Bus system’s
success in increasing business employees’ and customers’ mode share.
Employee auto mode choice for the Pre-BRT Geary corridor at 52% and the Metro Rapid 720
Wilshire corridor at 57.3% was considerably lower than both the Alameda corridor with an
80.5% auto mode share and the San Pablo corridor at 68.8% for transit corridor employees
choosing to drive over taking public transit. The available parking with the limitations in the
operating hours of Rapid Bus service being the significant factors in influencing employee auto
mode choice. Many business managers and employees along these two corridors, especially the
San Pablo corridor with AC Transit’s Rapid 72 service indicated that with the late closing hours
of restaurants and big box stores like Home Depot, Best Buy and shopping centers like El Cerrito
Plaza that employees did not have Rapid Bus services available after 7 PM, Monday through
Saturday and none on Sunday.
Other significant issues impacting the San Pablo AC Transit Rapid 72 Bus as a mode choice
were the employees’ perception of the lack of safety in waiting for extended times at poorly
located and dimly lit stops without security or monitored CCTV. This contributed to their
choosing 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 and
managers in their travel mode selection, where late shift female managers and employees felt
especially vulnerable in utilizing the new improved San Pablo R72, AC Rapid Bus services. This
area of concern—related to the safety and comfort concerns of female transit customers
impacting travel mode selection—warrants further research.
The availability and associated cost of parking for business managers, employees and customers
were major factors in the selection of the car as a travel mode over the Rapid Bus/pubic transit
modes. The Geary corridor is situated in an urban mixed use environment of street front
businesses, densely compacted urban apartments and row housing. Geary, with its high
residential street parking demand, its metered parking with high overtime parking fines ($40.),
and a lack of corridor public garages contributed to a lower car mode share at 52% and a higher
public transit share at 40.4%. In contrast, Alameda businesses had a large number of off-street
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 28
supplemental parking available, as well as the San Pablo Corridor—which created an incentive
for easy and convenient car usage along those corridors. The Wilshire corridor had limited
parking availability and with higher public garage parking pricing and land-use density, it
demonstrated a moderately high percentage of Rapid Bus/public transit mode share by
employees at 35%. Parking availability as an impact factor in implementing corridor BRT/Rapid
Bus systems with travel lane exclusivity is perceived by many store front retail corridor
businesses as a negative impact element to their business vitality for attracting customers and
quality employees. This will rise as a major impact throughout the study, and will be discussed in
further detail in the areas of effects and recommendation in the impact assessment section.
Customer mode shares in all four corridors demonstrated relatively similar profiles with each
other with high car mode shares, as might be expected for shoppers that might be frequenting the
corridor 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. There
were a large number of neighborhood customers frequenting the corridor businesses that lived
within several blocks walking distance, which accounted for higher customer walk/bike mode
shares in all four corridors compared to employees. The reported customer mode shares for
Rapid Bus/public transit in the four transit corridors ranged from a low of 12.5% for Alameda’s
Webster/Route 61 to a high of 23.4% bus mode share for the LA Metro’s Rapid 720 Corridor.
Travel mode selection was price sensitive to the total public transit trip cost made-up of multiple
fares when using several transit links such as BART connecting to San Francisco’s MUNI
system and to AC Transit’s Rapid Bus. These multi-linked system costs were shown to have a
major impact upon low-wage employees working in retail, fast foods, restaurants, government
services, education, or medical institutions and hospitals in all of the corridors surveyed.
In the case of students attending the Southwest Law School located in the former historic
Bullock’s Art Deco department store building on Wilshire, where there was available campus/off
street parking and reduced monthly Metro passes, a high number of students drove cars to travel
in from Pasadena and other locations. The college’s Manager of Transportation indicated that the
monthly pass even at the discounted price was expensive enough, along with connectivity and
travel time factors for a considerable number of students to chose driving their car to the campus
over taking public transit. This was stated while simultaneously giving high marks for the LA
Metro Rapid 720 service.
In considering the ramifications of travel mode selection in these four urban metropolitan transit
corridors, one needs to seriously consider the issues of connectivity between multiple transit
modes, hub locations, and the customer convenience in traveling “the last mile.” When transit
does 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 and
frequency during non-peak commute hours a declining ridership can contribute to urban sprawl
growth patterns and higher automobile mode shares. The San Pablo corridor business survey data
indicates that the AC Rapid 72 will not maximize the ridership potential among business
employees without extending the hours of operation beyond 7 P.M. week days, and service on
weekends. This is in spite of the recent gradual increase in (TOD) transit oriented development
of combined urban housing and multi-use projects along the San Pablo corridor.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 29
According to Marketing Researcher, Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, “changing demographics,
geographic patterns of population, and employment trends have profoundly changed the
transportation needs of the consumer.”3 The author’s research does concur with this author’s
mutual assumptions that changes in population and urban transit corridor demographics have
dramatically impacted mode choice preference and options by transit corridor employers,
employees and customers as well as the “commuter customers” who live outside cities where
they 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 workers
may in fact not be enough if their traditional customer base is impacted by the loss of parking
accessibility and availability due to the taking of lanes during AM and PM peak hours, or
permanently for exclusive BRT/Rapid Bus travel lanes. The LA Metro Rapid 720 is presently
experimenting with these issues in several locations along the Wilshire Corridor. This questions
whether a particular business model, relative to its land-use location and customer base can
survive the changes or is suitable to remain as a viable transit corridor business. This will be
discussed further in this study.
The four California metropolitan BRT/Rapid Bus corridors surveyed indicated a pattern of land-
use density changes along their transit corridors due to increased demand for TOD/housing
development and the impact of implementing “smart growth” planning policies. The selection of
business customers travel mode choice is impacted by work trips which used to be represented
by single travel “links” from home to work are increasingly represented by a multilink chain of
trips that include child care, errands, shopping, multiple meetings, and other stops on the way—
favoring the flexibility of the car mode by families. This has historically resulted in a drop in bus
as 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 be
supported by costly new transit rail projects except in the densest corridors. The demand for
affordable urban TOD housing has created the opportunity for a cost effective, technologically
enhanced BRT/Rapid Bus to service urban transit sensitive corridors like the Geary Blvd.,
Alameda-Webster Street Route 61, San Pablo Avenue, and LA Wilshire Boulevard corridors.
The LA Metro Rapid 720 does demonstrate with its positive business response survey score of
81.8% ranking first in business satisfaction with BRT, that one can succeed in turning the tide of
declining bus ridership by crafting a BRT/Rapid Bus system with the “right package” of system
and service attributes. The issues of an urban corridor based Bus Rapid Transit is different in its
operation modeling and requirements when operated within dense multi-modal urban transit
arterials, and requires further comparison and research.
3
Elmore-Yalch, Rebecca. Report 36 - A Handbook: Using Market Segmentation to Increase Transit Ridership and
Report 37- A Handbook: Integrating Market Research into Transit Management, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1998. A key to customers selecting mode
choice is that many work trips which used to be represented by single travel “links” from home to work, are now
represented by a multilink chain of trips that include child care, errands, shopping, multiple meetings, and other
stops on the way. This has resulted in a drop in bus as a mode choice along with other modes of public
transportation in many metropolitan areas.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 30
Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine System
Characteristics Impact on BRT transit Customers
In determining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristics,
Michael R. Baltes of The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, uses the statistical data gathered
from BRT riders on board surveys conducted in 2001 on the Orlando BRT and Miami BRT, in
determining the importance that customers place specifically on BRT service characteristic by
identifying and measuring the attributes that contribute to the customers overall satisfaction with
BRT as a transit mode choice.4
The survey model was useful in viewing how service and design factors are viewed and reacted
to by the transit customer. As previously stated, the BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts to Transit Corridor
Businesses survey data supports the premise that transit corridor businesses’ customers and
employees place a high value on the BRT service characteristics which include frequency of
service, comfort, travel time savings, frequency, and reliability of service. Balte’s statement of
support for the FTA conclusions is cautionary, “That no single mode of transportation is right for
all situations”. This survey and research of four business transit corridors will also reinforce the
idea that no generic “BRT System Package” of attributes can be applied universally with the
same business and community impact and acceptance.
The utilization of on board surveys as a customer marketing research tool to compare BRT’s
customer’s experience, demonstrates a valid application for collecting data about the customers’
perceptions and value of BRT design features; convenience, comfort, and service attributes for
continuing to support BRT as a customer mode choice. Transit management and marketing can
determine the attributes and the enhancements which will attract, sustain, and expand customer
demand for new systems; but must not exclude the impacts to transit corridor businesses in the
process of shaping and selecting the attributes to implement.
It is equally important to survey the impact of service elements such as on-board and station
customer information systems as well as the issues of station design and placement relative to
multi-modal transfer hubs and the relationship to business location and types.
4
Baltes, Michael R. (2003). The Importance Customers Place on Specific Service Elements of Bus Rapid Transit,
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, Abstract . These surveys
are a part of an overall customer analysis of determining the effectiveness and acceptance of 10 national BRT
demonstration projects by the (FTA) Federal Transportation Administration.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 31
The 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 useful
when comparing the Pre-BRT survey of the Geary Corridor and the Alameda Route 61 corridors
to the Rapid Bus/BRT services implemented on the San Pablo Avenue corridor and the LA
Wilshire Boulevard corridor—but is beyond the scope of this study.5
One of the major negatives related to Bus and BRT as a mode choice is the impact of travel
delay related to bus headway spacing and frequency as well as, the excessive amount of dwell
time experience in bus-based systems operating in congested urban corridors. This study does
look at how BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses are impacted by these services
characteristics and the total package of BRT/Rapid Bus attributes implemented throughout the
corridors.
TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS
This section presents the survey’s BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor impact results for the ten basic
questions used to compile a comprehensive index score for corridor ranking and comparison.
Table 1-3 and Table 1-2 list the questions asked and the multiple-choice rating scale (1-3) values
used to plot the level of positive and negative results based upon the specific questions.
Rating Scoring for data comparison is based on asking the responder to answer as to the
BRT/Rapid Bus improvements’ impact using a (1-3) rating scale for the survey questions.
Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, Negative Impact/Decrease =1,
with the mean being 2 representing scoring below 2 as a negative business impact score.
The Question Response Scores are represented by the Average Response Rating of the business
respondents for each survey question.
The Geary Pre-BRT survey represented by Table 4-2 was incorporated into the study to include a
corridor with traditional bus service-operational modeling as a baseline. The scores for each
survey question and transit corridor businesses are represented as the average response of the
entire transit corridor business sample for each question asked. Chart 3 shows the rating scale
score results of the survey in a line graph with 2.0 representing (NEUTRAL) no change, lower
scores a negative impact response, and higher than 2.0 a more positive business response to the
10 survey questions.
5
The most serious challenge in developing a quality BRT system that customers will support must result in
significant reductions in wait, loading, transfer, and overall travel times within heavily congested multi-modal transit
corridors. A significant approach and study to this problem is reviewed by Phillips and Guttenplan, “A Review of
Approaches for Assessing Multimodal Quality of Service”, Journal of Public Transportation, 2003. The article
reviews the existing studies and issues related to transit corridor congestion and affects on multi-modes of transit
when transit, bikes, and pedestrians are placed in competition by sharing common right-a-way. This significantly
affects making management and policy decisions which will affect the quality (QOS), safety and performance of
transit within a multi-modal concept of shared transit corridor space and function.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 32
SURVEY: BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Rating Scale Score Results
Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Survey Questions (10) -Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire
Geary Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
# QUESTIONS *Notation 3
Pre-BRT
Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1
What has been the impact or change to yearly
1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6
sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?
How has customer “foot traffic” and new
2 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?
Do your employees have improved access/usage
4 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 Surveyed
Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact Expectations
Notation 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 BRT
improvement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, and a Negative
Impact/Decrease =1, with the mean being 2, scoring below 2 as a negative question response, and above 2 as a positive response.
The Question Response Score is represented by the Average Response Rating of the business respondents for each question.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 33
SURVEY: PRE-BRT/ Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses –Rating Scale Score Results
Table 1-2 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Response Questions (10) and Results * Notations 1-3
Geary Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
# QUESTIONS *Notation 2, Notation 3
Pre-BRT
Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1
What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to
1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6
proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? *3
How has customer “foot traffic” and new
2 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
Do your employees have good access/usage to
4 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? *2
Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Transit Corridor Businesses Surveyed
Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are based upon PRE-BRT Impact Expectations
Notation 3: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions are phrased for respondents to rate pre-existing conditions and future
BRT 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 BRT
improvement impact using a (1-3) rating scale. (Positive Impact/Increase =3, Neutral Impact/No-Change =2, Negative
Impact/Decrease =1, with the mean being 2, scoring below 2 as a negative question response, and above 2 as a positive response.
The Question Response Score is represented by the Average Response Rating of the business respondents for each question.
SQ: Geary BRT Supplemental Question: Do you favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive BRT
lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?
The response rating of 142 Businesses was 2.8 for YES, or 93% Support by respondents interviewed.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 34
Chart 3 illustrates that there are some significant cumulative results showing differences in the
perceived impacts by business respondents and areas showing a commonality in positive and
negative impacts in specific impact areas. The corridors’ total average impact response and
ranking put the LA Metro Rapid 720 in 1st place with a score of 81.5%, AC Transit’s Alameda
Webster Street/Route 61 corridor as 2nd Place with a score of 79.4%, AC Transit’s San Pablo
Rapid 72 corridor in 3rd place with a score of 76.3%, and the SF MUNI Geary Pre-BRT corridor
placed 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 ANALYSIS
Question One: What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to proposed BRT/Rapid Bus
improvements?
Wilshire businesses indicated a positive and robust sales trend when compared with Geary
corridor businesses indicating a lagging sales trend, and Alameda and San Pablo business
respondents indicating moderate sales improvement after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. The
business respondents’ compared current sales trends with those of the past year. In general,
Northern California’s economy seemed to lag in 2005-2007, slightly behind Los Angeles.
This along with differences in corridor social-economic factors may account for the stronger
sales trend response among Wilshire corridor business respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 35
The Wilshire corridor in many areas also had a higher density of corporate businesses and luxury
apartment buildings contributing to higher business sales revenues in some surveyed high
income segments like Westwood and Beverly Hills than generated by San Pablo and Alameda
corridors businesses. However, Wilshire had lower positive business response ratings for new
corridor TOD development contributing to new customers and for its Rapid 720 increasing
business visibility in attracting customers from transit commuters, residents, or TOD housing.
The Wilshire corridor in comparison with Alameda, San Pablo, and Geary had very few TOD
developments contributing to increased business customers. The Wilshire Rapid 720 had a .75-1
mile stop spacing which favored moderate to longer distance commuters than increasing local
neighborhood shopping customer foot traffic. However, Wilshire corridor businesses benefited
by additional local bus service coordinated for easier intermodal transfer with the longer distance
720 Rapid Bus stops.
If there was a positive or negative trend in customer sales, it was captured in the business
respondents’ surveys, and was a good indicator of the overall business vitality of the transit
corridor. Overall, it did not appear that major numbers of businesses failed or were put out of
business by BRT/Rapid bus improvements. Business closures were more likely attributed to a
combination of changes in the customer base, competition, higher lease rents, lost lease, or a
failed or outdated business model.
Question Two: How has customer “foot traffic” and new business activity changed after
BRT/Rapid Bus improvements?
Wilshire corridor had an 80% positive response concerning the location and distance of bus stops
affecting customer “foot traffic”, while the other corridors with a positive response range of
13%-26% indicated very little improvement or gain in “foot traffic” from their implemented
BRT/Rapid Bus services. In many cases the specific tracking of “foot traffic” directly from
whether a store customer sale was attributed to taking the BRT/Rapid Bus or other public transit
was not generally tracked by independent retailers, but could be derived from reviewing transit
rider surveys that incorporated destination questions. In fact, in the case of the Alameda Webster
Street and San Pablo Avenue transit corridors the increases in “foot traffic” and sales revenues
for specific types of businesses were attributed to an increase of mixed-use housing and TOD in
the Berkeley and Emeryville areas of the San Pablo corridor, and the development of residential
homes 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 corridor
scored a 63% positive response level of 2.6, and San Pablo scored a 39% positive response rating
of 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 pedestrian
injury and fatalities. These have been dramatically reduced city-wide by 43% through the
application of extending signal timing for pedestrian crossing, and the installation of pedestrian
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 36
count-down signals, new Fluorescent Yellow-Green (FYG) pedestrian and school crossing safety
signs, school ladder crosswalks, and other assorted traffic-calming devices and methods.
All the of the surveyed transit corridors have been in the ongoing process of installing pedestrian
safety signs, signal enhanced crosswalk markings, red-light running cameras and control devices
to aid in creating Safe Routes to School, and Safe Routes to Transit for contributing to the
improved walkablity on these transit corridors. Respondents viewed these areas as part of a
community oriented transit corridor improvement package that benefited their businesses.
Question Four: Do your employees have improved access and usage to reliable public
transit for getting to work?
There was an rating score progression from the Geary corridor with the slowest and least
improved bus services scoring a negative 1.9 compared to Alameda R61 with a positive 2.3, San
Pablo with a positive 2.4, and finally Wilshire at positive 2.8 scoring the highest positive
business response (82%) and having the most advanced package of BRT/Rapid Bus
improvements. System frequency and reliability along with hours of operation were major
contributors to gaining a positive or negative level of response by business owners and
managers.
Question Five: What is the impact on parking access for customers and employees driving
to the business?
All four corridors’ business respondents indicated a significant negative impact on parking
access for customers and employees driving to the business, thereby ranking parking on all
corridors as a negative score from 1.9 for the San Pablo corridor to a negative 1.6 for
Alameda/Webster corridor. Street-front retailers and small owner businesses without
supplemental off-street parking felt especially impacted by parking loss during to peak-hour
commuting congestion policies for clearing parking lanes on heavily traveled major arterials or
limited parking supply due to the density of businesses and housing along corridor segments.
Question Six: How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity/walkablity, and transit
accessibility?
Alameda/Webster businesses with a positive 2.8 response rating and Wilshire’s with a positive
2.5 rating scored the highest positive response levels in rating the impact of improvements
related to the issues of pedestrian activity, corridor walkablity, and transit accessibility. These
issues were, in fact, related to the overall improved look and feel of the corridors as a result of
improvements in streetscape, transit infrastructure elements such as bus stop shelters and the
visual impact of the transit vehicle design and transit branding identity applications to system
elements.
Transportation presents not only a stationary impact on its fixed infrastructure elements but a
visual experiential impact of the very “look and feel” of the BRT/Rapid Bus vehicles as they
move up and down the corridor. That old traditional bus sends one kind of a message to
customers and businesses and the contemporary high-tech streamline BRT vehicle sends a
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 37
message of leading edge change, performance, and product/service differentiation. Geary ranked
lowest in positive response rating at 2.1 and AC’s San Pablo Rapid 72—using more traditional
bus shelters and dealt with crowded sidewalk placements and storefront issues that generated
trash problems at stops—scored a positive 2.3 benefiting from its systematic application of a
comprehensive Rapid Bus branding identity program on its shelters, vehicles, and signage.
Question Seven: How has the location/distance of existing bus stops/shelters affected “foot
traffic” numbers?
The location or bus stop distance does impact “foot traffic” generation from bus transit
improvements. Furthermore, the distance to the bus stops from the site location of different types
of businesses showed a variation of impact on “foot traffic” and sales. There were some types of
businesses like mini-marts, deli sandwich shops, liquor stores, and bars which found being next
to a bus stop to be a very important contributor to their customer generated sales. That also
caused some significant problems at certain corridor bus stops and shelters with trash, loitering,
and in some cases crime. In a significant number of survey interviews managers and employees
complained of the trash and maintenance issues related to the bus stops near or in front of their
place of business, and of several employee robbery and assault incidents at night along the San
Pablo corridor, and the Geary Boulevard corridor.
These issues were further highlighted and captured with the open question comments. There was
generally a fall-off in businesses capturing transit rider customers or shoppers the further they
were from the stops. This issue depends upon how seamlessly the Rapid Bus systems (as the AC
Transit San Pablo R72 and its .64 mile stop distance or the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 with .75-1
mile stop spacing) integrated their local service with their new BRT/Rapid Bus service. Many
employees and managers felt that five blocks was the limit for catching the BRT/Rapid Bus
service 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%, San
Pablo at 25%, and Geary at 30% related to TOD developments. Basically, TOD and affordable
multi-use urban housing is a trend that is increasing, but still at its beginnings as a land-use
planning policy for changing urban housing density along transit corridors. The Alameda’s
Webster Street/Route 61 corridor was significant in the areas urban renewal and land-use
planning resulting in major “main street” infrastructure improvements coordinated with AC
Transit’s bus stops and new (ADA) loading platforms. This will be further addressed in looking
at each corridor, and the distribution of respondents’ positive, neutral, and negative responses.
Question Nine: Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA marketing increased your location
visibility and brought in new customers from transit commuters, community residents, or
new housing developments?
New customer generation is tied to the previous questions related to business revenue and foot
traffic trends, and was recognized by all respondents as being important to the long-term vitality
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 38
of transit corridor business. Geary, Alameda/Webster, and San Pablo corridors experienced
measurable increases and projected future growth from TOD. Respondents felt that business and
neighborhood services needed to be involved and a part of public transportation marketing and
advertising campaigns and programs. Innovative strategic transportation marketing programs
which include seasonal destination advertising for transit corridor businesses, entertainment,
museums, historic sites of interest, and tourist destination work to boast the overall vitality of
corridor businesses through generating increased foot traffic and sales. It was felt that bus shelter
and 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 720
and the AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 routes gained additional positive response from
business employees and customers using the new BRT/Rapid Bus systems. The LA Metro’s
Wilshire Rapid Bus even had LCD Televisions installed on some of their service routes with
CNN News and transportation public service messaging for its riders. Corridor business
marketing to the public transit customer on these new improved systems offers great potential.
There were many other factors than change brought on by transit improvements as a single factor
in the success or failure of individual transit corridor businesses. Business closures were more
likely attributed to a combination of changes in the customer base, competition, higher lease
rents, lost lease, or a failed or outdated business model. That being said, there can be gradual or
dramatic shifts in local socio-economics, land-use and TOD development that accompany the
implementation of corridor BRT/Rapid bus systems and multimodal connectivity. These shifts
can cumulatively impact the sustainability of sales and the vitality of transit corridor businesses,
neighborhoods, and the overall business atmosphere.
Question Ten: Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support business expansion plans or
continued business activity?
Question ten, in trying to identify whether the business owner’s or manager’s plans for business
continuation or relocation was associated with the corridor BRT/Rapid Bus improvements, asked
specifically 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 area
development, or sold business. Overall, it did not appear that significant numbers of businesses
failed 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 improvements
were in this survey, fairly insignificant in determining this as a major issue. Question ten also
asked about the respondents’ plans for continuing business through expansion or site renovation
after the BRT/Rapid Bus implementation. All four corridors presented strong response levels that
the improvements were positive to businesses located along the surveyed improved BRT/Rapid
Bus transit corridors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 39
Summary of the Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative
Business Responses to Impact Questions by Corridor
GEARY TRANSIT CORRIDOR – PRE-BRT IMPLEMENTATION
On San Francisco’s Geary Pre-BRT impact survey, questions eight through ten are based upon
the expectations of corridor businesses on the future impacts of new housing/TOD and visibility
in attracting new customers, and the support of continued business at their present location.
Geary scored positive in all three categories with 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 average response ratings. An
additional Geary corridor supplemental question was asked: “Do you favor a center alignment
BRT with exclusive BRT lanes which maintains street parking capacity and availability?” The
response 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
Q
In Chart 27, Geary corridor’s overall distribution of positive, neutral, and negative business
responses for survey questions 1-10 there were higher negative business responses of 56%
related to services, 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 new
housing impact expectations, and 56% for transit access and reliability. The three highest
positive responses were 78% related to future expectations of BRT’s impact upon business
activity, 54% on increasing future business visibility and attracting new customers, and 39% for
increasing “foot traffic” and 39% for increasing neighborhood walkablity and accessibility.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 40
ALAMEDA/WEBSTER STREET/ROUTE 61 TRANSIT CORRIDOR
Alameda Route 61 corridor business respondents placed more emphasis on the level of city
infrastructure improvement as a positive boost to the City of Alameda’s Webster Street business
community than the San Pablo business community placed upon the travel speed by the AC
Transit’s San Pablo Rapid R72. These differences become especially apparent in this study’s
review of the respondents’ 10 top positive comments, 10 top negative comments, and the 10 top
proposed solutions for improving BRT/Rapid Bus services or the elimination of a perceived
negative impact.
The Alameda/Webster Street corridor is compact and benefits from its close distance for
connecting with BART and the Alameda Ferry to San Francisco within a relatively short travel
time with the corridor’s AC Local No. 51 bus and peak AC Transbay Express bus services.
New Restaurant
Streetscape/AC Hawthorn Suites Streetscape/Historic
Integrated Streetscape
Transit Stop/ADA New Development Bank Building
Figure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos
As a result of Alameda’s Webster Street/Route 61 streetscape infrastructure improvements, AC
Transit’s ADA compliant bus loading platforms and shelters, new low-floor buses, and with the
City of Alameda integrating new business and housing redevelopment; business activity
increased for most of the surveyed businesses.
Alameda’s high-scoring areas included: a positive 2.8 rating as a result of 84% of the businesses
surveyed indicating a positive impact related to neighborhood pedestrian activity, walkablity,
and transit accessibility, 72% of businesses surveyed indicated a positive response as to the
impact of new businesses and housing resulting in a positive rating of 2.5, and with the transit
improvements supporting continued business by 72% of the businesses surveyed resulting in a
2.7 positive response level. These areas were mostly responsible for Alameda ranking ahead of
the San Pablo Rapid Bus corridor.
The Alameda businesses, rated parking impacts at 1.6 with 42% the respondents indicating a
negative impact to their business. This extreme negative response was attributed to the reduction
of street frontage parking by 25% due to the streetscape design intrusion into former storefront
parking areas even with ample supplemental off-street parking available. The overall package of
implemented improvements was viewed positively by most businesses, for increasing business.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 41
Chart 28. Alameda/Webster Street/R61 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions
Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Alameda Webster/Route 61
(Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)
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%
TOTAL % NEGATIVE
40%
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
Q
In Chart 28, the Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 corridor distribution of positive, neutral, and
negative survey question 1-10 indicate very low negative responses ranging from 2%-9% for
nine 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 very
closely spaced. Questions 1-5 showing a consistent neutral response range of 50%-57%, with
strong 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-transit
accessibility, 72% indicating increased business activity, and 52% for positive impacts from new
housing and TOD related to the “main street” renewal project and other new nearby housing
development on Alameda’s former Navy Air Station/Base.
SAN PABLO/RAPID 72 TRANSIT CORRIDOR
AC Transit’s San Pablo Rapid 72 corridor businesses indicated negative impacts in several areas
of the survey’s negative comments and low survey scores regarding the hours of operation in
serving many of the late shift retail business employees and managers. This included the issues
of bus stop location, safety fears of loitering and crime, and limited new customers from AC
Transit’s Rapid 72. As a result, many business owners, managers, employees, and customers
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 42
chose the car mode to travel to and from San Pablo corridor businesses. The customers in many
cases found fairly ample parking available in many areas of the San Pablo corridor, and many of
the major retail locations were directly accessible by BART or near BART stations like the El
Cerrito Plaza shopping center with over 26 retail businesses, many of them national chains.
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%
RESPONSES (1)
30%
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
Q
In Chart 29, the San Pablo corridor distribution of positive, neutral, and negative survey
questions 1-10 indicate very low negative responses with the highest being 15% citing parking as
an issue and 11% indicating lower sales revenues. The neutral responses indicating no significant
change or impact were quite high ranging from 82% to 38% for all of the questions. The highest
neutral response at 82% was for parking impacts, 81% indicating little impact from visibility or
new customers, and a surprising 74% indicating no change in business from New Housing/TOD
impacts. Neighborhood and corridor walkablity and transit accessibility were unchanged
according to 64% of the business respondents.
The strongest positive responses were 59% for impacts upon business activity levels, Rapid Bus
access and reliability at 52%, and increased foot traffic indicated by a 46% response. The very
perception of business respondents as indicating neutral or no-change as a response reflects high
auto mode shares of 68% by customers, 69% by business employees, and significantly higher by
business managers and owners. The neutral responses should be also be viewed as indicating the
lack of personal use or public transportation experience by business owners and managers, who
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 43
were found to appreciate the importance of increased reliability, speed, and hours of operation
for business employees and potential customers from the BRT/Rapid Bus systems and BART.
The AC Rapid 72 scores should have resulted in a second place ranking behind the Wilshire
Metro Rapid 720—upon examination of the rating scoring comparison between the different
corridors and the implemented improvements, with AC Transit’s strong scores in speed,
frequency, and overall reduction of travel times. The Rapid 72 brand identity program and
excellent bus equipment attracted additional positive comment. However, night rider safety
related to the limited hours of AC’s R72 operation and late night local bus frequency creating
longer bus stop waits and potential crime exposure by business employees, were listed as reasons
for employees and managers driving to work. The survey’s open comments indicated that female
employees/store managers felt especially vulnerable and expressed strong negative responses
toward issues that impacted their personal safety, travel commute time and convenience.
The store owners and managers often expressed that as long as the employee came into work on
time, the issues of the quality of the Rapid Bus “package” was not as significant as the loss of
parking accessibility and reductions in parking capacity that impacted their businesses’
customers and employees. There were some owners and managers who frequented the public
transit systems, but this was in no way reflective of the much higher percentage of business
employees utilizing the BRT/Rapid Bus and connecting public transit systems like BART.
The “mom and pop” and small independent owned businesses on all corridors demonstrated the
lowest number of those using public transit, compared to managers and employees of large or
medium sized national retail chains, or brand name stores. This is a case where the use of
corridor transit ridership survey data is useful to compare ridership opinions with those of
corridor businesses owners and managers.
WILSHIRE – LA METRO RAPID 720 TRANSIT CORRIDOR
The Wilshire corridor’s LA Metro Rapid 720 clearly scored higher in the majority of the survey
question areas to rank 1st place with its 81.5% score by Wilshire transit corridor businesses. The
riding experience during off-peak hours was outstanding and worthy of a higher score reinforced
from positive Metro LA ridership surveys. This is also clear from the 47% increase in daily
ridership from 43,200 to 90,000 with the implementation of the Metro Rapid 720 service. The
system service efficiency reports indicated reduced running time resulting in 29%-40% faster
service 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 44
Chart 30. Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720 – Transit Corridor Impact Questions
Transit Corridor Business Impact Questions - Wilshire Corridor
(Distribution of Positive, Neutral, and Negative Responses)
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
Q
In Chart 30, the Wilshire/Rapid 720 corridor distribution of positive, neutral and negative
business responses for survey questions 1-10 indicated minimal to insignificant negative
response levels except with 28% of the surveyed Wilshire corridor businesses indicating negative
parking impacts. The LA Metro prior to the survey had implemented peak-hour direction parking
restrictions so that the La Metro rapid 720 could gain exclusive lane usage in certain segments to
increase travel speed and reduce dwell time at its curbside stops. Retail store owners especially
in 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 positive
responses, neutral responses, and negative responses are included in the appendix B for
comparison with the top ten positive, negative, and solution comments.
The validity of data spikes or areas of sharp contrast between the corridors was further analyzed
by cross comparing with the secondary Respondent Comments Survey generated by three open
comment questions asked at the end of the main survey, not included in the ten impact questions
used to generate the main impact rating scores for each corridor. These were used as a secondary
data compilation, to gather additional information and validation concerning impact responses.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 45
IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE
The Survey data of BRT/Rapid Bus impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses was further sorted
into to 12 business types segments or categories. The rational and premise was that different
types of businesses would possibly have a different view of how they were specifically impacted
by the different levels or BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes and service characteristics. This
related to business type, land-use, hours of operation, and satisfying the travel needs of their
customers and employees to and from the business. Table 3, Impact Level on Transit Corridor
Business Types lists the business categories and the impact response ratings converted to
percentages, as a percentage of the total business surveyed for each individual corridor.
Table 3. Impact Level on Transit Corridors Business Types
Table 3 Transit Corridor's Business Types - Impact Level Comparison*
BUSINESS TYPE Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
Automotive 71.3% 80.8% 74.0% 80.0%
AM
Corporations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.4%
CORP
Education 62.7% 80.8% 65.0% 85.6%
EDU
Fast Food 67.3% 83.3% 80.3% 84.6%
FF
Financial Institution 68.9% 80.0% 79.4% 72.5%
FI
Government 74.2% 78.9% 0.0% 90.0%
GOV
Hotel/Housing 73.3% 91.1% 0.0% 78.7%
HO
Liquor Store/Bar 66.7% 83.3% 79.3% 80.0%
LQ
Medical/Services 69.3% 91.1% 73.3% 78.9%
MED
Organizations 86.7% 0.0% 0.0% 86.7%
ORG
Restaurants 70.2% 77.1% 73.7% 81.9%
RES
Retail 71.4% 74.4% 76.5% 81.8%
RET
Average Overall Score 70.6% 79.4% 76.3% 81.5%
Notation 1: Transit Corridor’s Business Segments/Type Impact Index Converted to Percentages
Notation 2: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed
Notation 3: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
Notation 4: Business Satisfaction with “total package” of BRT/Rapid Bus Improvements*
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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 46
The survey results of the respondents perceived impacts to their business did indicate that there
were some differences in the levels of impact by business type and differences between the
corridor improvements. Street-front retailers, restaurants, and medical services generally felt
more impacted negatively by the improvements, especially when they resulted in making parking
or travel to their destination more difficult.
Alameda’s Medical/Services category scored a 91% positive response as a result of senior care
and assisted living housing managers who felt that the AC Bus Transit improvements along
Webster Street/Route 61 were positive in enhancing their mobility and use of public transit.
Alameda again scored high at 91% in the hotel/hospitality category because of Hawthorn Suites
guests 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 time
to and from the hotel.
There were a couple of business types where impacts could not be compared on all four
corridors. This is evident in the case of the Wilshire Blvd. which has numerous major
corporations while the other three corridors have very few if any to sample. Non-profit
organizations were also difficult to capture on Alameda/Webster Street and the San Pablo
Avenue Corridor for comparison. Street-front restaurants without off-street parking availability
scored lower as a category than fast foods, while drive-in services with parking availability
scored higher. Financial institutions scored lower in spite of parking availability, except on
Alameda/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 sample
taken. Retail Chart 21 and Restaurants Chart 20 represented the two largest categories of survey
respondents on all four corridors. The fast food, medical services, and educational categories
captured 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 questions
1-10 on the impact survey, one can identify the level of impact and its relationship to each
corridor’s overall “package” of bus transit services and improvements. It becomes apparent
which categories of impact have been successful to the particular business type and which are
viewed as not successful in the opinions of the business respondents. It is also evident that the
trend lines in general would have ranked BRT/Bus Rapid transit corridors by the success of the
total “package” of improvements. The cumulative score for overall corridor ranking was affected
by three or four significant positive and/or negative spikes in the businesses’ responses to the
survey questions, and the BRT/Rapid Bus improvements’ impact to the particular type of
business.
The high percentages of neutral or no-change responses were significant in moderating the
business respondents’ positive and negative response rating scores. Again, these response rating-
scores are represented by the average/mean response rating of the business respondents (owners
or managers) for each survey question. A complete set of charts for the 12 categories of
businesses surveyed is located in Appendix C for further review and reference.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

Business Response - Level of Impact Business Response - Level of Impact
Q Q
1 1
SA SA
LE LE
S S
R R
EV EV
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN EN
U U
Q Q
E E
2 2
TR TR
FO FO
EN EN
O O
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
D D
T T
TR TR
A A
Q Q
FF FF
3 3
IC IC
SE SE
TR TR
R R
EN EN
VI VI
C C
D D
E/ E/
ST ST
O O
PS PS
Q Q
/S /S
4 4
A A
A A
FE FE
C C
T T
C C
Y Y
ES ES
S S
/R /R
EL EL
IA IA
B B
Q Q
IL IL
I I
5 5
TY TY
PA PA
Q Q
R R
6 6
K K
N N
IN IN
G G
EI EI
G G
IM IM
H H
B B
PA PA
O O
C C
R R
T T
H H
O O
O O
D D
/A /A
ce ce
Q Q
7 7
ss ss
ib ib
B B
i i
U U
lit lit
S S
y y
ST ST
O O
Q Q
P P
8 8
D D
IS IS
TO TO
Business Impact Questions
D D
TA TA
N N
IM IM
C C
E E
PA
Business Impact Questions
PA
C C
T/ T/
Q Q
N N
9 9
ew ew
H
VI H
VI
SI SI
B ou B ou
Transit Corridor Impacts - Retail
Mineta Transportation Institute
IL IL
si si
n
IT IT
g ng
Y Y
Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant
/N /N
ew ew
C C
us us
Q Q
to to
10 m m
10
B B
er er
U s U s
SI SI
N N
ES ES
S S
A A
BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
C C
TV TV
Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail
IT IT
Y Y
Chart 20 Transit Corridor Impacts – Restaurants
Corridor
San Pablo
Geary Corridor
Geary Corridor
Wilshire Corridor
Wilshire Corridor
Alameda Corridor
Alameda Corridor
San Pablo Corridor
______________________________________________________________________________
47

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 48
Another way this was viewed was by looking at the 12 or so categories of business types and
charting them in total by corridor. This did show visually, that certain businesses had a major
difference 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

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
Total LQ
2.0
Total MED
Total RES
NEGATIVE
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
Total HO
2.0
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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 50
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS: Positive – Negative - Solutions
The respondents at the end of the survey very often wanted to express strong feelings about
BRT/Rapid Bus system elements impacting their businesses in a more detailed way or in fact
reinforce issues brought up in the survey’s initial 10 questions. The open constructed questions
gave an opportunity for the respondents to not only express the most positive and negative
experiences with the implemented improvements, but to expresses creative solutions to resolving
the 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 concern
and 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 your
business 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 Surveyed
Notation: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
The Wilshire Rapid 720 corridor again showed very strong positive comment levels for faster
travel at 94.2% and 82.5% for reliability/bus frequency compared a positive comment level of
80.6% for the San Pablo Rapid 72 in providing faster travel and 22.5% for its increased
reliability/bus frequency. Both systems achieved significant support levels in these categories as
compared 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 showed
high-level business expectations for positive improvement impacts in all categories for the future
implementation of the proposed center alignment BRT package. The proposed Geary BRT
“package” has major infrastructure, streetscape, landscaping, and pedestrian/traffic safety
improvements bundled into the proposed various BRT alignment alternatives, which would
impact the overall look, walkablity, and vitality of the Geary transit corridor. In the areas of
safer/cleaner bus stops Alameda/Webster Street was at the top with an 86% positive comment
response, and again at the top for attractive streetscape/shelters at 88.8%. Wilshire again showed
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 51
a strong response in the same categories with a 20.8% for safer/cleaner stops and 15.8% for
attractive streetscape/shelters. The LA Metro Rapid Bus shelter design and integrated Rapid Bus
Brand Identity elements were striking and outstanding in many areas related to their location and
positioning along the corridor, leaving the sidewalk accessibility clear. The AC transit San Pablo
attracted low levels of positive comments at 2.3% for both safer/cleaner stops and attractive
streetscape/shelters.
Photo audits of the location, placement, design, and trash issues documented both positive and
negative comments concerning these two issues. Finally the LA Wilshire corridor businesses
projected very positive comment levels for the LA Metro Rapid 720 serving employee needs at
50%, and serving corridor businesses at 59.2%. Alameda businesses positive comments on
serving employee needs were 6.5% and 16.8% for serving corridor businesses. The San Pablo
businesses commented with a lower response that employee needs were being met at 9.3%
compared to the AC San Pablo Rapid 72 serving corridor businesses at 20.9%.
Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive Comments
Transit Corridor Positive Comments
100%
95%
90%
% of Positive Comment Index
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
Geary Corridor
60%
Alameda Corridor
55%
50%
San Pablo Corridor
45%
Wilshire Corridor
40%
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 Comments
Chart 4 shows the comparative levels of positive comments in the perspective of what stood
out—in the respondents view—as the most positive areas of BRT/Rapid Bus improvement
impacts. The low response for certain comments on improvement elements are not necessarily
negative unless correlated with the following negative comments collected and the original
survey questions. With all three indicating the same level of concern or impact, it may be an area
needing improvement.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 52
Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to design
changes, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negatively
impacting your business sales or customer activity?
Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS
Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
NEGATIVE COMMENTS
1 66.9% 62.6% 7.0% 12.5%
Parking Loss/Damage
2 Ugly Shelter/Stop Design 5.6% 4.7% 6.2% 0.0%
3 13.4% 3.7% 17.1% 3.3%
Bus Stops Not Clean
4 Stop Shelters Block Store 7.7% 6.5% 3.9% 1.7%
5 Poor Stop Lighting 13.4% 1.9% 17.1% 0.8%
6 Loitering/Safety Concern 64.1% 3.7% 27.9% 3.3%
7 Hours of Bus Operation 12.0% 1.9% 53.5% 9.2%
8 ADA Accessibility/Pedestrian Safety 57.0% 5.6% 3.9% 7.5%
9 Frequency/Reliability 9.2% 1.9% 17.1% 0.8%
10 Lost Business/Relocation Planned 59.9% 6.5% 2.3% 0.0%
Notation 1: Responses Represented by Percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed
Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
In the area of negative respondents’ comments parking loss ranked high with the Alameda
Webster Street businesses at 62.6% and 66.9% for Geary businesses with the changes required
for the implementation of the proposed future Geary BRT. The Alameda businesses that had bus
stops or planters and streetscape elements placed directly in front of their stores cited that many
customers who frequented their store complained of damaging their cars on the protruding
streetscape elements, which were substantial concrete infrastructure elements that extended into
the parking lanes. The Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 corridor surveyed showed relatively
low negative comments in most of the other categories of complaint areas.
Trash/Store View -R72 Vendors LA R720
Streetscape-Alameda ADA/sidewalk space-R72
Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments
San Pablo corridor’s businesses’ negative comments were highest at 53.5% concerning the AC
Rapid 72 hours of operation and showed a 27.9% concern about bus stop loitering and safety.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 53
Three other negative comment categories concerning the issues of bus stops not being clean
17.1%, poor bus stop lighting 17.1%, and frequency and reliability issues 17.1%. The issues of
the San Pablo Rapid 72 not meeting the needs of the surveyed businesses’ employees were
reinforced by the concerns over hours of operation, bus stop safety and loitering issues, and bus
frequency for late night shift employees. Wilshire respondents had very few negative comments
about the Wilshire LA Metro Rapid 720.
On the Geary corridor 57% of the respondents had negative comments concerning pedestrian
conditions and indicated significant safety concerns for safety and safe routes to transit stops
with little or no transit amenities at high volume transfer points. The existing MUNI bus service
has been plagued with bus bunching which reduces MUNI capacity and aggravates headway and
dwell times. This creates rider discomfort, negative feelings about reliability and excessive travel
time.
Generally negative comments that scored below 5% were not too significant apart from the area
of bus shelter location and placement which blocked a particular business and compromised its
visibility, 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%
Geary Corridor
45%
40% Alameda Corridor
35%
San Pablo
30%
Corridor
Wilshire Corridor
25%
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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 54
Solutions 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 26.1% 1.9% 50.4% 8.3%
Extend Operational Hours/ Night
2 Increase Bus Frequency 24.6% 2.8% 29.5% 2.5%
3 12.0% 1.9% 34.1% 2.5%
Expand BRT/Rapid Service Route
4 67.6% 12.1% 1.6% 3.3%
Build Parking Garages on Corridor
5 23.2% 0.0% 20.2% 1.7%
Weekend Service Needed
6 68.3% 4.7% 20.2% 4.2%
Transit Security/CCTV/Lights
7 19.7% 11.2% 7.0% 0.8%
Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter
8 26.1% 25.2% 4.7% 0.8%
Modify Streetscape Design/Trees
9 2.8% 7.5% 2.3% 5.0%
Move Bus Stop/Shelter
10 5.6% 9.3% 2.3% 0.0%
More TOD Development
Notation 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed
Notation 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
The solution comments turned out to be an interesting and productive interview exercise. The
comments, in general, indicated that most of the respondents were genuinely interested in
improving corridor BRT/Rapid Bus services. Generally the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” that had
the most features, and the highest per mile investment in equipment and features that reduced
travel speed, increased bus frequency, and had latest in shelter and equipment design with a high
profile system Brand Identity program reflected the least amount of solutions and negative
comments. In this survey study, this was the LA Wilshire Metro Rapid 720.
Geary Blvd. as a Pre-BRT had the highest number of solution comments and negative comments,
reflecting a general dissatisfaction with the existing corridor bus transit service, traffic
congestion, and retail parking capacity. In fact, 67.6% of the Geary businesses suggested
building public parking garages along the corridor to ease the parking problem. Presently San
Francisco’s MTA Planning is working on a major citywide study of these issues, On-Street
Parking Management and Pricing Study, which was presented to the MTA 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 55
Alameda had the most solution comments—at 25.2%—related to modifying the design of the
new integrated streetscape planters, sitting areas, and bus stops with bumper guards or materials
that would reduce parking damage to cars. The San Pablo corridor businesses had several strong
areas of solution comments concerning, 1.) Extending hours of operation and night service for
the AC Rapid 72 at 50%, 2.) Increasing bus frequency 29.5%, 3.) Expanding AC Rapid 72
service route 34.1%, 4.) Weekend Rapid Bus service needed 20.2%, and 5.) Transit Security
improvement 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%
Geary Corridor
45%
Alameda Corridor
40%
San Pablo Corridor
35%
Wilshire Corridor
30%
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/Recommendations
Each corridor is charted separately with its positive comments, negative comments, and solutions
ranked from highest to lowest percentage of comments on charts 23-26 in Appendix C.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONS
There were several impact issues that rose to the top in transit corridor businesses and
community concerns. These included 1.) The management, loss, and pricing of on-street parking
in 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 the
construction phases of an advanced BRT with major infrastructure improvements, 5.) The overall
design 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 56
The Parking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid Bus
The potential loss of parking as mentioned in the study was a constant concern expressed by all
of the transit corridors’ surveyed businesses. The Geary Pre-BRT corridor public input process
and Geary BRT CAC meetings during the SFCTA Geary BRT study phases became extremely
contentious with one business merchants group, The Geary Merchants Association establishing
an anti-Geary BRT website, StopGearyBRT.com. This became such an issue that it was played
up in the press and media. It not only put a public shadow over the process but created additional
study costs to work out parking impacts, potential reductions, and parking capacity issues with
each of the different proposed alignment and infrastructure options for implementing BRT on
Geary Blvd. This is a citywide issue that needs to be addressed.
Minimizing on-street parking loss was identified as one of the highest ranking priorities by
participants at the SFCTA Geary BRT December 2005 public workshops. In December the
conceptual designs and service plans considered for the Geary Corridor BRT Study were based
upon the design principals under the “Neighborhood Access” goal which was to maintain on-
street parking. The maintaining of on-street parking was also consistent with the third study goal,
enhancing Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality and the objective to “minimize the
negative 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 degree
parking along the Geary Corridor that would have to be modified to handle the BRT alternatives
requiring three travel lanes in each direction, one for BRT and two for general traffic, and
leaving one lane for parallel parking. The taking of general traffic travel lanes as proposed by the
Geary BRT configurations or parking lanes at peak-hour/peak direction (as the LA Wilshire
corridor Metro Rapid 720) does in several sections is a critical policy balance in maximizing the
speed and operations efficiency potential of BRT/Rapid Bus systems and maintaining
businesses’ accessibility to parking for customers and employees.
Parking is also a citywide issue in the production of revenue that is often used to support transit
operations. It is vitally important that each city has a parking management plan in place that
works 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 57
Transportation planners and managers need to look at how managing, configuring and pricing
urban transit corridor vehicle parking affects multi-modal interaction and transit efficiency
without negatively impacting the commercial accessibility, diversity, and vitality of transit
corridor businesses. The author recommends a thorough look and application of innovative
parking management and parking pricing strategies which welcomes multi-modal activity and
promotes BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses as a shopping, entertainment, and urban living
destinations.
There is a major failure in the areas of local and regional government’s participation in creating a
policy and planning environment of excess in the inefficient use of land resources, by not
accelerating the planning, development, and building process for TOD along major urban transit
corridors with the appropriate capacity of underground off-street parking. The progressive
pricing of parking in these TOD units can be related to not only the number of vehicles per
household but also to the actual vehicle size category of sub-compact, compact, mid-sized and
full size.
European and other countries have in place policies which tax and charge owners not only by the
size/weight of the vehicle but by the engine size to curb the inefficient use of resources. There
may come a point in densely populated urban areas like Manhattan where one will have to secure
a parking space before being allowed to purchase a vehicle as in Tokyo, Japan. Hopefully
innovation in parking management, pricing, and the implementation of exciting BRT/Rapid Bus
systems and other transit modes will entice individuals from full-time car usage as their only
choice of travel. This will help avoid some of the more stringent policy approaches.
Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at Stops
There has been a significant increase of urban and metropolitan transit systems required to
operate within a multi-modal network of bikes and pedestrians This in turn requires methods for
the evaluation of the design of transit system improvements or expansion within (TEA-21) and
(SAFETEA-LU) equity constraints that do not detract from (LOS) levels of service, safety,
transportation performance—which must reduce and not contribute to congestion. Operating
BRT/Rapid Bus systems in existing congested traffic corridors and interacting with other
transportation modes presents special challenges to maintain a necessary reduction in travel time,
reliability with street (dwell) customer wait times and inter-modal transfer times. The
significance of the perception of wait and time management will affect the potential transit
customers’ perception and acceptance of BRT as a unique solution to be embraced and supported
as mode choice over the car. The issues of bus stop safety concerns by transit corridor
businesses’ employees were not too uncommon in most major urban transit corridors, and were
exacerbated 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 the
integration of NextBus information displays, shelter lighting, and features) made a bold
statement 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 concepts
for their BRT/Rapid Bus services to enhance the customer’s perception of safety and comfort as
well as fit in with the local streetscape fabric of transit corridor businesses and neighborhoods.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 58
LA Metro Rapid 720 SF MUNI Concept SF MUNI Concept
LA Metro Rapid 720
Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts
Every public transit rider is a pedestrian at some point in their trip to and from work or other
destinations. People’s transit mode choice, accessibility, safety, convenience, and comfort are
seriously influenced by having safe routes to and from transit, and the issues of how well the
transit mode operates within a multi-modal congested environment. The context of multi-modal
connectivity of BRT/Rapid Bus with other modes as rail is significant in influencing the riders’
choice and frequency of use of that mode. These issues affect the overall quality of the transit
experience, performance and time of travel, wait/dwell time at stops and modes transfers—and
the overall concept of transit friendliness and customer use. LOS is a very frequent method of
measurement in planning and marketing a new BRT/Rapid Bus expansion in the present context
of multi-modal transit equity and funding, and is a method that bikes and pedestrian advocates
are using to demand their share of the funding for transit corridor pedestrian safety
improvements, pedestrian traffic calming infrastructure and transit bike facilities.
Geary BRT Concept.
FYG Pedestrian Sign,
SF School Ladder
ADA Compliant Bus
Ladder Crosswalks,
Ladder Crosswalks,
Crosswalks, Bus Line
Stop AC Transit
Countdown Signals
Corner Bulb out, SF
Webster St./Alameda
Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements
Many transit corridors are finding that implementing pedestrian safety improvements and bike
facilities in their BRT/Rapid Bus projects capture a greater level of support for the project, and
enhance 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 several
significant improvements that can be applied through out the BRT/Rapid Bus corridors. These
include pedestrian countdown signals, bold Ladder Crosswalks, (FYG) Fluorescent Yellow-
Green pedestrian signs at crosswalks and K-12 school sites, extended pedestrian crossing timing
at multi-lane intersections, brighter intersection street lighting, and other pedestrian-friendly
traffic-calming elements. The author recommends that a complete program of pedestrian safety
and street improvements be apart of any substantial urban BRT/Rapid Bus corridor project
enhancing travel safety to and from transit and the community at large.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 59
Frequency and Hours of Operation
The frequency and hours of operation can impact the choice of BRT/Rapid Bus as demonstrated
by the survey of the San Pablo Corridor businesses and their employees travel mode choice. The
AC Rapid 72 service operates with 12 minute headway at peak and 15 minutes at off-peak from
6 am – 7 pm Monday through Saturday and works for most corridor office and school riders, but
not as well for retail businesses with late closing times. This issue is so involved in the cost
factors of operating a frequent service with extended night hours that it falls outside of the scope
of this study, but warrants further independent study.
The Wilshire Corridor LA Metro Rapid 720 does operates at an incredible 5 minute headway
during peak AM and PM hours, and operates around the clock. It has captured ridership demand
that is starting to exceed capacity. This system will be possibly a way of creating the level of
ridership that will support the extension of the Red Line rail system, and can take its place. A
possible recommendation for the San Pablo Corridor would be the study of implementing a
special limited late night Rapid Bus Service that works with the closing schedules of large
retailers and corridor businesses and other late night transit modes.
Construction Hazards Mitigation
Construction for a transportation project with major infrastructure improvements will always be
difficult without the support of all stakeholders in the community including businesses. Every
effort 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 facilities
during the construction phases. It is especially important to have police enforcement on a daily
basis to help with traffic and pedestrian safety issues. San Francisco created a special SFPD unit
that works construction projects, and is paid out of the construction project for mitigating traffic
and pedestrian safety hazards. The creation of safe alternative routes and crossing areas for
pedestrians in the corridor and especially for vulnerable groups like school children, seniors and
the disabled is crucial, and additionally helps to ensure community goodwill toward the
BRT/Rapid Bus project during the construction phases.
Marketing the BRT/Rapid Bus Brand Attributes
The importance in differentiating the BRT/Rapid Bus product and service from traditional bus
service can make a real difference in establishing the service’s positioning and acceptance in the
“public marketplace.” Transit riders and the business community are customers and potential
consumers and supporters of transportation services. This is especially critical when trying to
differentiate the BRT/Rapid Bus service image of being just another bus system for low to
moderate income workers and commuters.
The establishment of a truly effective Brand Identity/Marketing Program through being
strategically involved in all stages of planning, concept development, and design process of
implementing a leading-edge BRT/Rapid Bus service is paramount. There are some significant
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 60
important issues and recommendations in developing and establishing the most effective
program that should be considered which include:
• The importance of the public’s perception: One’s correct identification can roughly be
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 design
and corporate identity consultation team to develop an integrated visual nomenclature system for
the BRT/Rapid Bus programs vehicle fleet, signage, bus stop shelters, public infrastructure
elements, and media elements to clarify the public’s perception and acceptance of the new
services, or the organization as a whole. Los Angeles’ successful Metro Rapid Bus program is a
result of this kind of strategic thinking—delivering the best total “BRT/Rapid Bus Package” of
system attributes including performance, frequency, and a leading edge systems design and
applied brand identity.
One can, with enough financial resources and leading edge strategic planning, implement a
BRT/Rapid Bus system that exceeds customer expectations and ridership demand. The
packaging of leading-edge technology and system attributes makes a difference in the vitality
and acceptance of transit corridor businesses for BRT/Rapid Bus service implementation.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 61
Conclusion
In evaluating the success of the implementation of BRT/Rapid Bus services on urban transit
corridor businesses, employees, and customers that are impacted by the implemented type of
BRT infrastructure and service mix, it is important to look at the entire BRT “package” of
attributes and technology. This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and
preference levels as being related to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improved
transportation mode. Because so many levels (and different customer and transit corridor
business segments) of the market are affected by these major BRT/Rapid Bus changes it is vital
to implement a strategic planning process that includes a variety of involved business types and
impacted community stakeholders, smart growth/TOD planners, and business economists to
work with local and regional transportation policy makers and agencies.
The Right System Level of Attributes
Customer acceptance and maintaining stable ridership growth along these urban transit corridors
will require sustainability in service reliability, efficiency and performance. However, design
attributes, customer friendly features, and marketing can support differentiating BRT/Rapid Bus
from the negative factors of the slower traditional bus service that was experienced by transit
corridor businesses and system riders. Ninety-three percent of Geary’s business respondents felt
that the right “flexible package” of community sensitive BRT attributes was vital in emulating
the center alignment characteristics of LRT for justifying not only the capitol investment in BRT
and 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 design
and community/customer sensitive attributes in LA Metro’s BRT system’s performance and
acceptance. 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 the
application of new technologies including: (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems, (GPS)
Global Position Systems for tracking, (NextBus) station arrival information, (APC) Automatic
Passenger Counting, (AFC) Automated Fare Collection, (Smart Cards) electronic passes/cards
for faster boarding with pre-payment, (AVL) transit-based traffic signal priority and signal
preemption, and improvements in safety/security technology for greater passenger security.
Consistent marketing methodology and modernization will have to be an ongoing process by
transit managers adding BRT/Rapid Bus services to the mix of traditional bus service and other
transportation mode choices available to customers. No single formula, set of attributes, or transit
mode is right for all situations nor does any one formula remain static over time.
The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus
Transit management’s commitment to BRT needs to thoroughly define its market demand model
as related to future land-use and population patterns, and clearly in comparing a new BRT/Rapid
Bus system to traditional bus service by differentiating to the BRT customer as a preferred travel
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 62
mode choice. BRT with its adaptability and operational flexibility offers an alternative mode
choice and marketing opportunity for transportation management, regional and local policy
makers, and communities of all sizes to seriously consider.
BRT/Rapid Bus’ key cost advantage of initially being able to use existing bus equipment until
replacement with more advanced specialized BRT vehicles allows for an efficient, affordable,
consumer-oriented mode that can be flexible and cost effective in being implemented
incrementally or rerouted, to adapt to changes in future land-use patterns while maintaining
equity in transportation accessibility for all who depend upon public transportation. BRT/Rapid
Bus 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, and
even connecting with maritime (ferries) and aviation hubs.
The form, shape and how well it works as a truly customer-oriented system will depend on the
quality of strategic planning and customer marketing methodology and strategies built into the
process of implementing and maintaining the initial goals and qualities of the system and its
operation over a sustained period of time. The rapid implementation response in meeting the
current and future needs of customers with lower start-up investment, operational flexibility, and
design/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, proposed
SFMTA/MUNI (Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT) has shown that BRT/Rapid Bus system attributes
and design can be implemented with the right mix of customer services and infrastructure that
can benefit business growth and sustainability. Crucial areas of negative impact were identified
and need for improvement supported the application of quality front end business/community
planning and research methodology. This research must be accurate, descriptive, diagnostic, and
predictive to support strategic planning and strategic marketing efforts in molding and shaping
the right type and level of BRT/Rapid Bus services and infrastructure “package” that delivers
maximum benefit to diverse transit corridor businesses, communities, and transit customers.
The Right Policy – Transit First and TOD
The development of an advanced BRT in its ability to integrate with existing bus systems and
equipment as well as with other transportation modes, adds tremendous flexibility to modify the
product/system’s look, feel, and overall package. BRT can be adapted to customer’s changing
needs and ridership patterns affected by future land-use patterns and growth changes, and is
flexible in expansion implementation. It is this flexibility that creates an effective door to door
surface transportation system at an affordable cost and with rapid implementation capability for
reducing congestion as well as increasing mobility options for transit riders and community
stakeholders.
During the survey process which included a photo audit of not only BRT/Rapid Bus system
elements as well as, businesses and their surrounding communities it became evident that their
was significant growth and development of TOD on corridors like San Pablo, and Alameda-
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 63
Webster Street with increased community foot traffic supporting street-front businesses. Geary
Blvd. has also seen the construction of new apartment housing with new street retail businesses
located in the same structure, resulting in increased neighborhood walkablity and reduced
reliance on the auto, while increasing demand for improved bus service.
The vitality of the Geary corridor has increased traffic congestion, slowed bus speed and thereby
increased peak and off-peak hour travel times. These factors have created the demand and
opportunity for implementing the proposed Geary Corridor BRT service with a “package” of
advanced attributes emulating LRT characteristics and infrastructure features. San Francisco’s
public policy makers and participating businesses and community organizations/advocates are
insisting that major streetscape improvements consisting of urban furniture, lighting, pedestrian
safety improvements, off-street parking and environmentally sustainable landscaping would be
apart of the 2011/2012 implementation of the proposed Geary BRT.
The Wilshire Rapid 720 corridor had the least amount of what could be classified as new TOD
housing and multi-use development with survey responses of only 9% positive and 91% neutral
indicating no significant increase in corridor business “foot traffic” associated with TOD.
However, positive business activity was reported by 85% of the Wilshire business respondents as
well as positive trends in sales revenue by 63% and positive increases in “foot-traffic” by 80% of
the respondents. It appears that the 47% increase in the Wilshire corridor’s daily ridership of
43,000 before implementation of LA Metro’s Wilshire Rapid 720 to a current 90,000 has
concurrently resulted in positive impacts to most businesses.
The combination of expanding TOD with the increased frequency and ridership capacity
building of the Wilshire Rapid 720 service may increase corridor growth and density to a level
that supports future LRT or subway expansion, while reducing auto reliance. While transit
growth in bus ridership has fallen in many communities, the survey supports the premise that the
right “package” of attributes pushed by public policy and transportation planning can grow
ridership and reduce single occupant vehicle use by business employees as in the case of the
Wilshire corridor 720 Rapid Bus service.
In some urban areas such as San Francisco, the importance of rapid, safe, and equitable public
transportation has become part of a “transit first policy’ with leading-edge rail and BRT/Rapid
Bus projects being either implemented or in the process of planning and development. It may be
the actual implementation of combining transportation with a comprehensive land-use plan that
embraces Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) of mixed use and innovative urban housing
along transit corridors that will in the end significantly boost the revenues and growth of transit
corridor businesses.
Good policy and integrated transportation and land-use planning have far-reaching consequences
and positive impacts on transportation and the viability of transit corridor businesses. The survey
results showed that the successes of BRT and transit corridor businesses are intertwined and can
orchestrated with transportation demands to create stakeholder and community harmony and
stimulate urban vitality through innovation and vision in policy, planning, marketing, and
transportation management leadership.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 64
FINAL REMARKS
The survey, in the end, is based upon the collected opinion and input primarily of the four transit
corridors’ business owners, managers, and employees as to their perception of BRT/Rapid Bus
system attributes and service impacts upon their businesses and their community, and should be
utilized with rider survey studies for implementing changes in policy or system attributes. The
survey results do not indicate that any of the BRT/Rapid Bus services implemented have not met
or exceeded their original service goals of a faster and more reliable BRT/Rapid Bus mode.
All three of the improved bus transit corridors were successful relative to their levels of
investment in BRT/Rapid Bus technology, equipment, Brand Identity and service attributes.
Some particular elements and attributes in each corridor were not as successful in meeting the
needs and expectations of their transit corridor business stakeholders. By looking at the survey
results there should be a clearer picture of which elements and system attributes were successful
and a picture of those that need to be reevaluated or modified for reducing negatively perceived
impacts to transit corridor businesses. In the end it may be that the very business model, land-
use, and location of a particular business or business type may have to make major adjustments
or even relocate. Just as transportation modeling and systems need to remain flexible and
adaptable to population and land-use changes, so must urban transit corridor businesses.
The success of BRT/Rapid Bus as a customer mode choice is critically dependent upon many
complex and interrelated issues of land-use, design, operations, infrastructure characteristics, and
customer marketing appeal to meet the goals of delivering a faster, more reliable, customer
preferred transportation mode, and “not as just another flavor of the month”, as referred to by
Steve Heminger (at the Mineta Transportation Institute’s May 2005, Forum on Bus Rapid
Transit In The Bay Area.) BRT/Rapid Bus, as a highly adaptable, flexible, and marketing
sensitive mode will be most successful when shaped with a high quality strategic marketing and
planning process that fully involves customers, transit corridor businesses and other key
stakeholders in its planning, development, and implementation.
Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 65
APPENDIX A
Photo Audit: Business Owners/Managers
Owner KC Ribs Berkeley Owner Martial Arts
College President
Transportation Professor
Wally’s Bar Owner
Co-Owned Guitar Shop
Jim’s Bait Shop Owner Jordanian Foods/Meat Owner Wholesale Butcher - Owner
Sports Shoes – San Pablo ZAP Cars - Sales Manager
Doug’s Dugout - Manager
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 66
APPENDIX B
Table 1-5: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions - POSITIVE RESPONSES
Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
POSITIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES
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 Surveyed
Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
Table 1-6: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions – NEUTRAL RESPONSES
Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
NEUTRAL BUSINESS RESPONSES
Webster
Q1 38% 57% 51% 34%
Sales Revenue Trend
Q2 Foot Traffic Trend 36% 50% 50% 39%
Q3 36% 54% 59% 37%
Services/Stops/Safety
Q4 56% 56% 46% 18%
Access/Reliability
Q5 Parking Impact 14% 56% 82% 67%
Q6 35% 14 64% 39%
Neighborhood/Accessibility
Q7 82% 74% 72% 44%
Bus Stop Distance
Q8 66% 45% 74% 91%
New Housing/TOD Impact
Q9 37% 48% 81% 76%
Visibility/New Customers
Q 10 19% 24% 36% 14%
Business Activity
Note 1: Responses Represented by percentage of Total Businesses Surveyed
Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 67
Table 1-7: Transit Corridors’ Business Impact Questions - NEGATIVE RESPONSES
Geary* Alameda San Pablo Wilshire
NEGATIVE BUSINESS RESPONSES
Webster
Q1 26% 7% 11% 3%
Sales Revenue Trend
Q2 Foot Traffic Trend 25% 5% 5% 1%
Q3 56% 9% 2% 0%
Services/Stops/Safety
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 Surveyed
Note 2: Geary Corridor Responses are PRE-BRT Impact Expectations*
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

Business Response - Level of Impact Business Response - Level of Impact
Q Q
1 1
SA SA
LE LE
S S
R R
EV EV
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN EN
U U
Q Q
E E
2 2
TR TR
FO FO
EN EN
O O
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
D D
T T
TR TR
A
Q AF
Q FF
3 3
FI
C IC
SE SE
TR
R TR
R
EN
VI EN
VI
C C
D D
E/ E/
ST ST
O O
PS PS
Q Q
/S /S
4 A 4 A
A A
FE FE
C C
C TY C TY
ES ES
S
S/
R /R
EL EL
IA IA
B B
Q IL Q IL
5 5
IT IT
Y Y
PA PA
Q Q
R R
6 6
K K
N
IN IN
NE
G G
IG EI
G
IM
H IM
H
B B
PA
O PA
O
C
R C
R
T T
H
HO
O
O O
D D
/A /A
ce
Q ce
Q
7 ss 7 ss
ib ib
B
BU
U
ili
t ili
S y S ty
ST ST
O O
Q Q
P P
8 8 D
Transit Corridor
DI
TO IS
TO
ST
D A D
Impacts - Education
Business Impact Questions
Business Impact Questions
TA
N
IM N
IM
C C
E
PA
E
PA
C C
T/
Q N T/
Q N
9 9
ew ew
VI H
APPENDIX C
H
VI
SI
B ou SI
B ou
IL si IL si
IT ng IT ng
Y/
Mineta Transportation Institute
Y/
Ne
Transit Corridor Impacts - Automotive
Ne
w w
C C
us
Q us
Q
to to
10 m m
10
er
BU er
s BU s
SI SI
N
NE
S ES
S S
A
AC
C
TV TV
IT
BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
IT
Y 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
Q
LE 1
S
R SA
EV LE
S
EN
R
U NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
Q E EV
2 NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
TR EN
FO U
Q
EN
E
O
1.0
2.0
3.0
2
D
T TR
FO
TR EN
A O
1.0
2.0
3.0
D
Q T
FF
3 IC TR
A
SE
Q
TR
R FF
3 IC
EN
VI
C D SE TR
R
E/
ST EN
VI
C
O D
E/
PS
Q ST
/S
O
4 A
A PS
FE
C Q /S
C TY
4 A
A
ES FE
S C T
C Y
/R
ES
EL
S
IA /R
B
Q IL EL
5 IT IA
Y B
PA
Q IL
Q R I
5
6 K TY
N IN PA
Q
G R
EI
6
G K
IM
H N IN
B G
PA
O EI
G
C
R IM
H
T
H B
O PA
O
O C
R
D T
H
O
/A
O
ce
Q D
7 ss /A
ib
B ce
i Q
U s
lit 7
S y si
B bi
ST
U
O lit
S
Q y
P
8 D ST
O
IS Q
TO
P
8
D TA
D
N
Business Impact Questions
IM IS
TO
C D
E TA
PA
N
C IM
C
Business Impact Questions
E
T/
Q PA
N
9 C
ew T/
Q N
H
VI
9
SI ew
B ou
H
VI
IL si S
IT ng IB ou
s
Y/ IL
N in
IT g
ew
Mineta Transportation Institute
Y/
N
C
Transit Corridor Impacts - Fast Food
Transit Corridor Impacts - Financial Institution
ew
us
Q C
to
10 m us
Q
B er to
U s 10 m
B
SI
N er
U s
ES SI
N
S
A ES
C S
A
TV
C
IT
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
Q Business Response - Level of Impact
Business Response - Level of Impact 1
1
SA
SA
LE
LE
S
S R
R EV
EV
EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN
U
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
D
T
D
T TR
TR
A
A Q
Q FF
3
FF
3 I C
IC SE
SE TR
R
TR
R EN
VI
C
EN
VI
D
C D E/
E/ ST
ST
O
O PS
PS
Q /S
Q /S 4 A
4 A A FE
A 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 I Y
TY PA
Q
PA
R
Q 6
R
6 K KI
N N
N IN G
EI
G G
EI
G IM
H
IM
H B
B PA
O
PA
O C
R
C T
R H
T
H O
O O
O D
D /A
/A ce
Q
ce
Q 7 ss
7 ss ib
B
ib
B U ili
i S ty
lit
US
y ST
O
ST
Q
O P
Q 8
P D
8 D IS
TO
IS
TO D TA
D
Business Impact Questions
N
TA IM
C
N
IM
E
C
Business Impact Questions
PA
E C
PA
C T/
Q N
T/
Q 9
N ew
9 ew
H
VI
VI H SI
S B ou
IB ou IL si
IL
Mineta Transportation Institute
IT
si ng
I ng Y/
TY
N
/N ew
ew
C
Transit Corridor Impacts - Hotel/Housing
C us
Q
us to
Q m
10
to
10 m B er
U s
B er
U s SI
N
SI
N ES
Transit Corridor Impact Questions - Goverment Offices
S
ES
S A
C
A
C
BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
TV
IT
TV
Y
IT
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
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN 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
D
T D
T
TR TR
A A
Q Q
FF
3 FF
3
IC IC
SE SE
TR
R TR
RV
EN
VI EN
C I
D D
CE
E/
/S
ST
O TO
PS PS
Q /S Q /S
4 A 4
A AF
FE
A
C
C ET
TY CC
Y
ES ES
S/
R S/
R
EL EL
IA IA
B B
Q IL
Q IL
5 IT 5
Y IT
Y
PA
Q PA
R Q
6 R
K 6 K
N IN
N
G IN
EI
G G
EI
IM G
H IM
B H
PA
O B
C PA
O
R T C
H R T
O H
O O
D O
D
/A
/A
ce
Q ce
7 Q
ss
7
ib ss
i
BU ib
B
lit
S y ili
t
US
y
ST
O ST
Q P O
8 Q P
D 8 D
IS
TO
IS
D TO
TA
Business Impact Questions
D
N
IM TA
C IM
E
Business Impact Questions
NC
PA
E
C PA
C
T/
Q N
9 T/
Q N
ew
9
H ew
VI
S
H
VI
IB ou S
IL IB ou
si
I ng IL si
TY
IT ng
/N
Mineta Transportation Institute
Y/
ew Ne
C w
Transit Corridor Impacts - Medical Services
C
us
Q
Transit Corridor Impacts - Liquor Store/Bar
to us
Q
10 m to
10 m
er
BU s B er
U s
SI
N SI
ES NE
S S
A S
C A
C
TV
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 Business Response - Level of Impact
Q 1
1 SA
SA
LE
LE
S
S R
R EV
EV
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE EN NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN
U
Q
U E
Q E 2
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 TR
SE
R
TR
R EN
VI
C
EN
VI D
D
CE E/
/S ST
O
TO
PS
PS
Q /S
Q /S 4 A
4 A A FE
A C
FE
C C TY
C TY ES
ES
S/
R
S/
R EL
EL
IA
IA B
B Q IL
Q IL 5 IT
5 IT Y
Y PA
Q
PA
R
Q 6
R K
6 K N IN
N IN G
EI
G G
EI
G IM
H
IM
H B PA
O
PA
BO
C
R
C
R T
H
T
H O
O O
O D
D /A
/A ce
Q
ce
Q 7 ss
7 ss ib
B
ib
B U ili
U S
ili ty
S ty ST
ST O
Q
O P
Q 8
P D
8 D IS
TO
IS
TO
D
Business Impact Questions
TA
D TA
N
IM
Business Impact Questions
N C
IM
C E
PA
E
PA
C
C T/
Q N
T/
Q N 9
9 ew
ew
H
VI
H
VI SI
B ou
SI
B ou
IL si
IL si IT ng
IT ng Y/
Y/
Mineta Transportation Institute
Transit Corridor Impacts - Restaurant
N Ne
w
ew
C
C us
Q
us
Q to
to 10 m
10 m B er
B s
U
er
s
U
Transit Corridor Impacts - Non-Profit Organization
SI
N
SI
N ES
ES
S
S A
C
AC
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

Business Response - Level of Impact
Q
1
Busines Response - Level of Impact
Q
1 SA
LE
SA
S
LE
R
S EV
R
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE
EN
EV
U
NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE Q E
EN
2
U
E
Q TR
2 FO EN
TR O
1.0
2.0
3.0
D
T
FO EN
1.0
2.0
3.0
O D TR
T A
Q
TR FF
3
A IC
Q FF SE
3 TR
IC R
SE EN
VI
TR
C
R D
EN E/
VI
C D ST
O
E/
ST PS
O Q /S
4 A
PS
A
/S
Q FE
C
A
4 C TY
A FE
C ES
TY
C S /R
ES
EL
S/
R IA
B
EL
Q IL
IA I
5
B TY
IL
Q PA
Q
5 IT R
Y 6 K
PA N IN
Q R G
6 EI
K G IM
N H
IN
G B
EI PA
O
G IM C
R
H T
H
B PA
O
O C O
R T D
H
O /A
O ce
D Q
7 ss
/A
ib
B
ce i
Q U lit
ss S
7 y
ib
B i ST
U O
lit
S y Q P
8 D
ST
O IS
TO
Q P D
8 TA
D
Business Impact Questions
N
IM
IS C
TO
E
D
Business Impact Questions
PA
TA
C
N
IM C T/
Q
E N
PA
9
C ew
H
VI
T/
S
N
Q
9 IB ou
Mineta Transportation Institute
Transit Corridor Impacts - Retail
ew
IL si
H I
VI
S ng
TY
ou
IB
s /N
IL in
I ew
g
TY
Wilshire Corridor Impact - Corporation
C
/N us
Q
ew to
m
10
C
B
us er
Q s
U
t om
10 SI
N
B er
s ES
U S
BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
SI
A
N C
ES 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%
POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
t s e s
s
nt ed s t
s r
ue hts ges rvic ree cy ase
e r
S
l y
g ds ers age ern ue e
g n
en ps
in lter an tin end lit sig ut en elte
lte
nc
ve P to me Ne bi ss Lig en re
ee le
nc Iss ista
ra usG and he vem he Ro pm
ae T
ea ek ia De n I
m ar t S gn/ h
m
r S lop s' qu Inc
C
' N sto Da Co on /
rT B el /S /S
ot g-S We
r lo
e
S ro
TV g G igh esi
R re - g
D
ne ve er re
es Cu
te ext si / op rvic eve top
/B nd s/
/ ti
p N in t, /
ss ety uc F
gn a St
s a C
e e
es cy to y/ rkin e N e D
e
D tom t s ed
Im s
oy OD
le
Fa y-N esi es Se D D S
Lo Saf str D
op igh igh rit
cc Bu ed
en k S op
pl s s
ty r/C ss us t r
1: nc Pa La ctu
St p L N Bu RT Bu
ng ng/ on D A cu
sD cap afe qu
T t
se Ne
fe ne , C c
Em ew TO ve
ki re Blo er/S Se idor
e us to n
Bu t-S Sa usi es C B
i tru
eq ea ice
S ar iter n - ig
E
s e
y_ Fs d
B t or o
t
Fr S cr
N P es an
si
e rr s
4: el s
y/
B ss P 3: or
ew ree iviti s
6:
rv r
o ra M
In erv
1: : Lo ati an Co ur
Bu lte Sh
lit ed xp 0: M 9:
nf
s e
Se
ew in Po on
bi
N t 2:
t
Bu Tr ild Ho e I
6 loc 9: She gly S
8: e S Ac R
si E
N us 9:
y/ 1
5: rati 7:
d
6: Bu n 3:
3: r B es
e
ilit en
ap
tiv ian : U
R o
s/ Ac 4 i
pe 2: 4: rat k
c
b c
r o
st ee
tra
ia tS
es
rid
el O
A
At ede pe tree
or in AD s W
R
Bu
us 5:
5: O
2: C
8:
:P S
us ify
es of
:B
7 v B
10 rs
er od
d
ou en : M
:S
xt
H
10 8
7: :E
1
Alameda_AC Transit R61
COMMENTS: Postive, Negative, Solutions
Alameda_AC Transit R61
95%
POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS
90%
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 Cp p e p T re a ic
F te /B /D o eDp Reg
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 p B F s L rs s y/ r o a D s it r
Do nSas u S
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
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
ia e
tre Sa str sin Co ew ves liab Ba e ly : B ite 5 ou 9: F ify : B es or Mo sit cr ten nd ek
S 4:
de Bu es 6: N er Re t
Pp
ew 1: to Los Ac Ug 3 Lo
ive H a
od 4 Red 0: M 9: ran 2: In : Ex xp We
Pe ew erv S: 7:
ct N S 6:
9: 2 A:
4: 10: AD 2
8: M T 1 : E 5:
:
ra N :S 7: 1
8: 6:
7d0
tt 3
:
A se 1 8
5: ea
cr
In
3:
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

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%
POSITIVE NEGATIVE SOLUTIONS
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
cy ers eds ing ops fety ters ent ers age nds nce
l t
r e ter
an ern tore ting ility sign tion Svc lte es en
y
ts e e
ve ut
nc as
ag
gh l
ra qen m re
le
nd St el c
C on k S igh liab De oca ght She /Li Gar que Ro cre She /T opm
a
e ta
m ke
m m
r T Fre usto e N Bra er tiy/S /Sh elop sto /Da ee Dis ot n
/ /
l
L e e /In
i l
Vg
C l oc p e
op op sig ve
e N top CT in
e Fr rvic ed
u / /R
st C loye gn/ ean tivi es ev N y
ss t, W ess et s B Sto ncy r/St ss/R ate St De De
C
s S ty/
s
Fa Bu s, k s
ap
si Lo Se eed us
l af ar Bu
c op
D D
p h r ri
c us
1: lity/ sse Em De er/C n A tSc ess TO ng Nig Ac r /L
e
e
St g/S elte oo que elt sin e D
rs e B ecu ild P se T
R e N n B cap TO
i
f
i a
s
e i s
e re Sh Bu p H v
. P
es Bu : Sa str tre usin New ark Op n
b Sh 5:
ED Bu teri
in ea d B ic
u
tS ig
ia tS ore
: F gly
el Bus erv w o
st d O : M nsi 4: B Incr an erv des ree
e /P 3:
Ps i p
S :
4 B6
ed ive 9
1: Bu ility Lo Sto
e U : Lo n
Rr M
S t
p
w a
2: ido 2: Ex nd S : Re y S 10:
9
N P 6: 4:
9: 8: Tr
2: 10
e
t te
of ssib
7: trac d N Ex 6: if
3: ke
r 7
or rs od
At e
se 1: ee
ou Ac
C M
5: rea
s
8:
: H DA
e :W
rv c 7A 5
In
e
3:
:S 8:
10
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 76
APPENDIX E
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 77
APPENDIX F
Excel Spread Sheets, Data Collection
Four Transit Corridors, 23 pages
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses A
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACCMA Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Agency
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act, Reference to ADA Compliant
ADT Average daily traffic; average daily trips
Alighted/alight To get off or out of a transportation vehicle
Extra long, high-capacity bus, with a flex joint between the front
Articulated bus
section and back section
Automatic A mechanical or electronic system for automatic guidance control of
Guidance vehicle
AVL Automatic vehicle location system
Identity and image communicated through graphic design. Logo,
Branded Vehicle Graphics and paint schemes, organizational identity applied
Identity to all marketing communications, advertising, media, vehicle fleets,
uniforms, signage,
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BSP Bus Signal Priority
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses B
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CNG Compressed natural gas
DTO Division of Traffic Operations
DPT Department of Parking and Traffic (San Francisco)
EVP Emergency vehicle preemption
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transportation Administration
GPS Global positioning system
The time interval between the passing of the front ends of transit
Headway
vehicles moving along the same lane or track
HOT High-occupancy toll
HOV High-occupancy vehicle
HRT Heavy Rail Transit
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LAMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses C
levels of congestion, Scaled A-F)
LRT Light Rail Transit
MTA 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 at
NextBus
bus stops
NIMBY \"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 Metro
NABI
Rapid)
Ped pedestrian
Bus system with wider spacing between stops, 5. Mile – 1 Mile with
special system elements and attributes to increase speed, frequency
Rapid Bus
with special buses, branding. Usually one step below a full BRT with
exclusive travel way
SAMTrans San Mateo County Transit
Refers to the implementation of signal priority and signal
Smart management along a corridor to create better traffic flow, when linked
Corridors with Bus Transit GPS it can give signal priority to transit: i.e., AC
Transit San Pablo Rapid Bus
SFCTA San Francisco County Transportation Authority
SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses D
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
Transdef Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund
TSP Traffic Signal Priority
TOD Transit-Oriented Development
TSP Traffic Signal Priority
TVM Ticket Vending Machine
VMS Variable Message Sign
Wi-Fi Wireless Fidelity
Table 9 Abbreviations and Acronyms
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonides, 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): 193-202
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
Barker, 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 Board
Booz 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.gov
Cronon, 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, Abstract
Diaz, 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.com
Danaher, A. and P. Ryus 199. TCRP Project A-15. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual, 1st Edition. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board
ECONorthwest and Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2003 TCRP Report 78:
Estimating 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.htm
Elmore-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. 1998
Elmore-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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
Federal 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 5/9/3007
Federal 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 2004
Flaming, 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.org
G. 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)-01-984
Hess, 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 Abstract
Hirano, Steve (2003). The Search for the Perfect BRT Vehicle, Editor; Metro Magazine,
February/March 2003
Kang, 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.com
Levinson, 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 Company
Li, 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

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
Mineta 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.edu
MTA, (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
2002
MTA, 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 9000-12-2952
Microsoft Streets and Trips 2005, Software for Mapping Survey Corridors, Microsoft
Corporation
MTA, 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 9000-12-2952
MTA 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 2006
MTC Technology Transfer Seminar, (2003). Transit Signal Priority. Presented by Abbas
Mohaddes and Glen Grayson, Caltrans, and Jim Jarzab of Santa Clara VTA, and Javad
Mirabdal and Brit Thesen of San Francisco’s DPT, and Ceasar Pujol of AC Transit.
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Calthorpe
Associates. 1993 Making the land use transportation air quality connection-The
pedestrian environment. Volume 4a Portland, Oregon: Thousand Friends of Oregon.
Ramroop, Tara. Geary bus Rapid Transit Gets Green Light, San Francisco Examiner,
www.examiner.com , 706242 Retrieved 05/02/2007
San Francisco Retail Diversity Study (May 2007), Civic Economics – Cunningham, Houston
Civic Economics – Chicago 1425 West Summerdale, #3A, Chicago, Illinois 60640
www.CiviEconomics.com/SF
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses
Sislak, Kenneth G. Bus Rapid Transit as a Substitute for Light Rail Transit – A Tale of Two
Cites, Kenneth G. Sislak, Director of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, 55 Public
Square, Suite 1120, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 E-mail: ksislak@wilbursmith.com – Abstract
retrieved article from the Wilbursmith.com website
SFCTA Geary Corridor, BRT Study, Memorandum July 22, 2005, Documents, Workshops, and
Public Comment at SFCTA Geary Corridor BRT CAC available at www.gearyBRT.org –
Project Manager Julie B. Kirschbaum; San Francisco County Transportation Authority,
100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 – Website: www.sfcta.org
SFCTA 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 1/10/2007
SFCTA 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 1/10/2007
SFCTA, (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, 2007
Levinson, Herbert s., and others. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit. Volumes 1 and 2, TCRP. Report 90,
Bus Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation research Board. Washington, D.C.
TRB, 2003, www.TRB.org
Trans-coalition Organization (2005). Transportation and Land Use Coalition: How BRT and
Express Buses Solve Transit Problems 8/30/2005,
www.transcoalition.org/reports/revt/case_for.html
Transit 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

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 INVESTIGATOR
Roger Bazeley currently is serving as Director of Marketing/Industrial Design Services, for
DesignStrategy-USA, an industrial design and marketing communications consulting firm, which has
specialized in corporate and brand identity programs for both private and public sector organizations. The
projects 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 past
decade Mr. Bazeley has concentrated efforts on transportation design, traffic and pedestrian safety
improvement 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 and
pedestrian safety improvements. Working collaboratively with city, regional, and state agencies along
with numerous stakeholder groups these improvements have contributed to the statewide reduction of
school children’s fatalities and injuries. Roger Bazeley authored the 2001, State PTA School Traffic and
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Resolution resulting in local legislation which changed the policy and
funding priorities for school and pedestrian safety projects.
Roger Bazeley holds a M.S. in Industrial Design/Packaging from Pratt Institute, where his thesis on
Redesigning Public Safety Services/NYPD—Public Sector Branding, lead to implementing a Brand
Identity program for the NYPD in 1974, resulting in the iconic “NYPD Blue and white” public safety
identity. He also holds two undergraduate degrees from the University of Wyoming, with a B.A. in
Advertising/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 Management
from the Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University. He is an active member in
professional organizations and participates as a safety advocate in a number of local, regional, and state
transportation and pedestrian safety committees.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mineta Transportation Institute