[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.For example, bus-only lanes or enhanced stations Bus Rapid Transit 461developed for BRT projects can also benefit local buses that can usethe same lanes and stations.Low-cost transponders installed on BRTvehicles to allow signal priority can also be installed on local buses toimprove travel times.Stakeholder ConcernsRating: High/can partially address >medium.Many BRT fea-tures produce benefits for transit riders without creating negative con-sequences for other motorists or surrounding communities and thusare unlikely to engender stakeholder opposition.Examples in this cate-gory include skip-stop service, low-floor buses, faster payment systems,and next-bus information systems.In contrast, stakeholder oppositionis likely to be high where the implementation of BRT services imposescosts (real or perceived) on other drivers or on local residential or busi-ness communities.One of the most potent BRT strategies for improv-ing bus travel times along the arterial system the creation of bus-only lanes falls squarely into this category.If a general-purpose travellane is converted to bus-only (or bus and carpool) operation, and ifthis transition fails to produce a significant mode-shift from auto totransit, congestion in the remaining general-purpose lanes may verywell worsen.Such a shift could therefore be expected to raise signifi-cant objections from motorist advocacy groups.Such objections coulddiminish over time if motorists perceive that bus-only lanes carry morepeople than general-purpose lanes do (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger,Gast, et al., 2003).Local business leaders may also oppose the removal of curbsideparking for bus-only lanes on the arterial system.To address this con-cern, Los Angeles has implemented demonstration projects with bus-only lanes enforced during peak periods, when curbside parking isalready prohibited.Businesses are also less likely to oppose bus-onlylanes if they are implemented regionally, as opposed to being imple-mented in just a few areas.Regionwide implementation reduces the riskthat local business groups will feel like they have been unfairly targetedor that they will be unable to compete with businesses elsewhere.Overthe longer term, if the addition of bus-only lanes stimulates significanttransit-ridership gains and thereby expands the number of passenger 462 Moving Los Angeles: Short-Term Policy Options for Improving Transportationtrips in a corridor, the local economy likewise stands to benefit, helpingto offset any initial concern about parking losses (Streeter, 2003).General Political ObstaclesRating: Medium/can fully address >low.Beyond the potentialstakeholder concerns outlined in the preceding section, BRT is unlikelyto generate additional political opposition.One factor that should benoted, however, is the historical proclivity of elected officials to favorhigher-profile (and higher-cost) investments in light and heavy rail overbus-system investments.Recent trends suggest, however, that this pref-erence may be shifting.To begin with, both the Metro Rapid pro-gram and the Orange Line have been enormously successful, leadingto significant ridership gains for a much lower level of expenditure thanwould be required for rail.Second, the gradual decline in the availabil-ity of federal and state transportation dollars has made it less feasible topursue costly rail investments, and, as a result, BRT represents a morerealistic option for many corridors.These trends are helping to reducepolitical opposition to BRT investment.Institutional ObstaclesRating: High/can partially mitigate >medium.For BRT treat-ments that fall within a transit agency s direct control, institutionalobstacles are likely to be quite low.Some of the most compelling fea-tures, however, such as dedicated bus lanes or signal prioritization, willrequire coordinated efforts with multiple jurisdictions and agencies.In addition, while transit operators construct and provide bus-stopshelters, stations, and signposts, the sidewalks on which they must beplaced fall under municipal control.Bus-only lanes may present conflicts with curbside meteredparking a valuable source of local revenue over which municipalitiesmay be unwilling to cede control.At the same time, bus-only lanes mayconflict with commercial loading zones, passenger-loading zones, andtaxi zones, and overcoming these conflicts will require coordination aswell.Finally, the curb-lane repairs necessary for faster bus operationsmay require assistance from public-works departments. Bus Rapid Transit 463Implementation of the signal-priority system likewise requires sig-nificant institutional coordination in which transit agencies must workclosely with city and county DOTs to develop signal-timing strate-gies that minimize delays for buses while avoiding significant adverseeffects on general traffic.The potential for institutional obstacles can bereduced by introducing BRT improvements in multiple phases and byfine-tuning and evaluating the program before adding rapid lines
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]