This document discusses how bus rapid transit (BRT) systems can enhance communities through placemaking. It provides examples of BRT systems that have incorporated urban design elements like architectural stations, public art, landscaping, and bicycle lanes. These placemaking features help BRT blend into the urban fabric and promote livability. The document recommends that BRT agencies integrate placemaking starting in the project planning phase to maximize community benefits.

1. Community-Oriented BRT: Urban Design, Amenities, and Placemaking
Jennifer Flynn
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida, Tampa
Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place
September 10, 2014
Pittsburgh, PA

2. Project Background
•
•
•
•
•
•

3. What is Placemaking?

4. Project Background
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

5. Project Background
•
•
•
•

6. Project Background
•
•
•

7. BRT is an enhanced bus system that operates on bus lanes or other transitways in order to combine the flexibility of buses with the efficiency of rail.
BRT operates at faster speeds, provides greater service reliability and increased customer convenience.
BRT uses a combination of advanced technologies, infrastructure and operational investments that provide significantly better service than traditional bus service.
Source: Federal Transit Administration
What is Bus Rapid Transit?

8. Integration of Elements
BRT Elements
MARKETING AND BRANDING
SERVICE AND OPERATIONS PLAN
RUNNING
WAYS
STATIONS
VEHICLES
FARE COLLECTION
ITS
Integration of Elements

9. Integration of Elements
BRT Elements
RUNNING
WAYS
STATIONS

10. Integration of Elements
BRT Elements
MARKETING AND BRANDING
RUNNING
WAYS
STATIONS
VEHICLES
Integration of Elements

11. Bus Rapid Transit Placemaking
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

12. Project Objective
•
•

13. Method
•
•
•

14. Case Studies: Metro Orange Line, Los Angeles
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

15. Architectural Stations

16. Public Art

17. Public Art

18. Public Art

19. Recreational Path

20. Landscape Beautification

21. Landscape Beautification

22. Landscape Beautification

23. Before and After

24. Before and After

25. Before and After

26. Before and After

27. Before and After

28. Before and After

29. Case Studies: Emerald Express “EmX”, Eugene, OR
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

30. Stations

31. Stations

32. Stations

33. Greening the Corridor

34. Public Art

35. Public Art

36. Native Landscaping

37. Native Landscaping

38. Recreational Path

39. Case Studies: Health Line, Cleveland
•
•
•

40. Case Studies: Health Line, Cleveland
•
•
•
•
•

41. Stations

42. Stations

43. Stations

44. Public Art

45. Public Art

46. Landscape Plantings

47. Landscape Plantings

48. Urban Forestry

49. Urban Forestry

50. Urban Forestry

51. Pavement Design

52. Pavement Design

53. Pavement Design

54. Bicycle Lanes

55. Questionnaire to Transit Agencies
•
•
•
•
•
•

56. Recommendations and Lessons
•
•
•
•
•

57. Recommendations and Lessons
•
•
•
•
•

58. Recommendations and Lessons
•
•
•

59. Recommendations and Lessons
•
•
•
•
•
•

60. Thank you for your attention

61. Running Ways

62. Cleveland Health Line

63. Eugene EmX

64. BRT LRT
ROW Options Exclusive or Mixed Traffic Exclusive or Mixed Traffic
Station Spacing 1/4 to 1 Mile 1/4 to 1 Mile
Vehicle Seated Capacity 40 to 85 Passengers 65 to 85 Passengers
Average Speed 15-30 mph 15-30 mph
P/H/D (exclusive ROW) Up to 30,000 Up to 30,000
P/H/D (arterial) Up to 10,000 Up to 10,000
Capital ROW Cost/Mile $0.2M to $25M/Mile $20M to $55M/Mile
Capital Cost/Vehicle $0.45M to $1.5M $1.5M to $3.5M
O&M/SH $65 to $100 $150 to $200
Rapid Transit Mode
Statistic
Source: SpeedLink- A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit. June 2001.
Similar Operating Characteristics

65. Urban Integration and Livability