11/11/20052491.

doc

Jepson, D., Ferreira. L. (1999).Assessing travel time impacts of measures to enhance bus operations.
Part I: past evidence and study methodology. Road & Transport Research Journal, 8 (4), 41-54.

Paper submitted to Road & Transport Research

Title: Assessing Travel Time Impacts of Measures to Enhance Bus Operations.

Part I: Past Evidence and Study Methodology

Authors: Dale Jepson 1 and Luis Ferreira2

Address for correspondence: Dr Luis Ferreira, AHURI, QUT, P O Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD
4001
Email: L.Ferreira@qut.edu.au

ABSTRACT

There have been a variety of bus priority measures used for at least 25 years in various areas
throughout the world. European countries, particularly the UK, have pioneered many of the
bus priority systems on arterial streets. Many of the systems associated with freeway
operations have been developed in the United States. Bus lanes and traffic signal priority are
the most common forms of bus priority and these systems can provide significant travel time
savings for congested arterial roads.

This paper presents the main findings regarding evidence from past work and the
methodology used in a recent study that focused on the efficiency of the overall journey time
of bus transport on arterial roads. The analysis of the various treatments will focus on
reducing travel time for buses, which is fundamentally linked to the cost and efficiency of
this form of public transport. The work undertaken considers the travel time savings obtained
for buses and the associated impacts on the remainder of the general purpose traffic to
minimise the person delay through the network. The inclusion of other parameters that may
affect the justification of bus priority measures such as vehicle costs and the environmental
costs is a logical extension of this research.

A methodology for the selection of bus priority is outlined in this paper. This is based on
detailed analysis of the travel time impacts of various bus priority treatments. However, it is
stated that the selection process should entail the consideration of these issues in conjunction
with the wider transport planning context. Furthermore, this paper recommends that bus
priority treatments be part of an overall traffic management strategy for a transport corridor.
It is suggested that there may be significant travel time savings associated with bus priority
treatments. However to obtain these benefits with manageable impacts on other traffic, the
type and nature of the bus priority treatments need to be matched to the road and traffic
conditions. This will ensure that the efficiency of the road infrastructure is maximised for
each traffic management strategy.

1
Senior Traffic Engineer, Queensland Dept. Main Roads
2
Associate Professor in Transportation, Queensland University of Technology

-1-
11/11/20052491.doc

1. INTRODUCTION

It is recognised that the increasing costs of traffic congestion needs to be addressed through

an integrated multi-modal transport system. The savings to the community in facilitating a

shift to public transport can be significant, particularly in urban peak congested conditions.

This may be enhanced through enhancements to the service provided by public transport.

Improvements to public transport may be considered through a number of avenues including

improving vehicle efficiency, integration of transport modes, reduction of the cost of service,

reductions in travel times and in comfort for passengers.

Bus operation efficiency is examined here through single trip journeys for buses on arterial

roads to investigate techniques for improving this form of transport. The work reported here

was part of a research project, which analysed the travel time savings obtained for buses and

the associated impacts on other traffic, in order to minimise the person delay through the

network.

Whilst optimising person delay is one of the most significant transport goals, it is

acknowledged that there are other issues that may influence the decision to implement bus

priority treatments. The impact on bus operating costs, the environmental benefits of public

transport and the management of demand for private vehicles, are three of the substantial

issues that would affect this process. The current analysis was undertaken at a micro level for

a specific route and examines only travel time issues. The effects of vehicle operating costs

and environmental impacts are not included in this research.

-2-
11/11/20052491.doc

Section 2 of this paper provides a review of the existing practice for each of the main bus

priority measures under study, namely: bus lanes, signal priority, busways, transit lanes and

measures related to bus stop delays. Section 3 considers the assessment of bus priority

measures in the context of the wider transport planning objectives. Section 4 offers a brief

outline of the methodology used to assess bus priority measures. This is followed in section 5

by a summary of the main results obtained for bus priority implementation criteria. Finally, a

summary of the evidence reviewed is presented in section 6.

This paper represents Part I of a two part publication in this journal. Part II deals with the

development of assessment criteria for each priority measure and the detailed results

obtained, Jepson and Ferreira (1998).

2. PAST WORK

2.1 Background

The main components of the total bus journey time include the road travel time, delay due to

deccelaration/accelaration of buses stopping at bus stops and the delay associated with the

boarding/alighting of passengers. Bus travel time in urban conditions can be typically twice

the corresponding travel time for a car. Higginson et al. (1995) describes a case study for a

number of areas of the United Kingdom where the journey time for a bus varies from 1.8 to

2.5 times the corresponding journey time for a car.

-3-
11/11/20052491.doc

The road travel time for arterial roads is influenced by delays associated with road geometry,

traffic control devices (eg. traffic signals, roundabouts) and interactions with other vehicles.

The travel time function has been considered in Australia by Davidson (1978), Akcelik

(1991) and Tisato (1991). The prediction of travel time is important in evaluating the effect

of changes in traffic conditions. In situations of high vehicle flows there is increased

interactions with other traffic and the delays are higher for vehicles using the route. In these

circumstances the benefits of bus priority treatments are the most significant.

The travel time effects for buses and general purpose traffic are considered for the main bus

priority treatments used throughout the world. This paper considers the important issues in

selected bus priority treatments. Typical applications and the assessment is considered below.

2.2 Bus Lanes

Bus lanes can be divided in two distinct categories, namely: those that share part of the

arterial road space with general traffic; and streets/malls that are designated exclusively for

buses, Fuhs (1993). Turnbull (1992a) indicates there are over 500 km of bus lanes in various

cities throughout Europe including 200 km in Paris. Furthermore, London Transport (1997)

advise there is currently 95 km of bus lanes in London, and it is proposed to extended the

length of bus lanes to 500 km. Bus lanes are less common in North America with typical

applications involving the re-designation of a parking lane during peak hours to facilitate bus

movements. Australia has similar applications of with-flow bus lanes to other parts of the

world. With-flow bus lanes in Australia may be found in most major cities including

Brisbane, Adelaide (Foley et al., 1980), Melbourne (Piper and Cornwell, 1986) and Sydney

(Luk,1992).

-4-
11/11/20052491.doc

The set-back of the bus lane from a signalised intersection is an issue that is considered in

some detail primarily in the United Kingdom. This treatment operates as a with-flow bus

lane, that is discontinued a specific distance from the intersection. This allows buses mid-

block priority, though they travel through the signalised intersection mixed with general

traffic. There are numerous examples of this treatment in the United Kingdom.

A bus lane in the median lane is used across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as a line haul service

into Sydney CBD, Quail and West (1992). A contra-flow median bus lane is also used on the

Auckland Harbour Bridge, Wilson and Houghton (1996). Other examples of median bus

lanes in North America are in Broadway, Denver; Barbour Blvd, Portland; and Dixie

Highway, Miami, Levinson (1987).

Evaluation of Bus Lanes

As bus lanes have been operational for over 25 years in Europe, these facilities have become

an accepted form of bus priority. There was substantial research undertaken in Europe in the

1970s regarding the justification of bus lanes. Bly et al. (1978) indicated that bus lanes would

provide appreciable benefits when the degree of saturation is greater than 90 percent, though

they may be justified at lower flow rates. According to Oldfield et al. (1977), a bus flow of in

excess of 120 buses/hour is needed to justify a bus lane with no set-back at traffic signals.

Furthermore, a degree of saturation above 0.9 is required to justify bus lanes with set-back at

traffic signals.

In the United Kingdom, there are various warrants developed for implementation of bus

lanes. These warrants give a ‘rule of thumb’ guidance, though more detailed analysis has

-5-
11/11/20052491.doc

been undertaken using traffic modelling. Oldfield et al. (1977) provides direction in

undertaking economic analysis of bus lanes in the United Kingdom. Their approach weighs

up the person travel time and bus vehicle savings against the additional time for private cars.

The resultant model used equations for queue lengths and simulates the behaviour of

individual vehicles. Robertson (1985) discusses the need for the effects of bus lanes to be

quantified, as achieved in West Yorkshire.

There have been over 20 bus lane treatments changed or taken out in North America for a

variety of reasons, Batz (1986a). The Transportation Research Board (1994) published

criteria for assessing the need for with-flow, kerb-side bus lanes for applications in the

United States. This indicates that bus lanes would be warranted where minimum one-way bus

volumes are 30 - 40 / peak hour, carrying passenger volumes of around 1200

passengers/hour.

There is limited work undertaken in Australia dealing with guidelines for the justification of

bus lanes. Austroads (1991b) discusses the benefits of bus lanes but it does not provide

guidelines for the assessment of these facilities. Taylor (1996) provides information on bus

lane warrants based on the work by Vuchic (1981), which suggests that a bus lane should

carry at least the number of passengers as adjacent general purpose lanes.

2.3 Priority to Buses at Signals

There are two categories of treatments available to allow buses priority at traffic signals,

namely active and passive priority. Active priority entails each bus being selectively detected

prior to an intersection and adjustments made to the signals to enhance bus progression.

-6-
11/11/20052491.doc

Passive priority involves adjustment of the traffic control system to suit the bus schedules for

that route. These methods of traffic signal priority are considered separately.

Active Priority

Whilst this treatment has been used for over twenty years, the more recent developments in

technology have resulted in significant advancements in this area. Existing modern systems

allow real-time detection of buses as an input into sophisticated Urban Traffic Control

Systems. Whilst this is based on relatively recent technology, forms of active priority systems

have been operational in excess of 25 years.

Active bus priority in the United Kingdom started in 1971 with a trial in Leicester. However,

the number of active bus priority schemes were limited due to the extra delays to general

traffic, Hounsell and McDonald (1988). The ‘SELKENT’ system in London, which started in

1987, was the most significant example of selective detection, Hounsell (1995). Fox (1995)

describes a trial in Leeds where a system of bus priority, starting and stopping wave queue

management and speed advice to facilitate progression, was implemented. This trial, which

used radio frequency identification for bus recorded bus travel time savings of up to 8 per

cent with this form of priority (Fox et al. 1995).

Other bus priority systems at traffic signals are used in many areas throughout Europe with

Bishop (1994) identifying over 20 cities with these systems. The systems in Turin and

Gothenburg are part of the ‘PROMPT’ project, which is a major undertaking in Europe to

evaluate the effects of various traffic management systems, Hounsell (1995). Nelson et al.

(1993) describes the trial at the Corso Grosseto in Turin, where an overall traffic management

-7-
11/11/20052491.doc

scheme has been devised that includes bus priority and bus stop rationalisation. This project

is claiming reductions in bus travel time of between 2 per cent and 7 per cent with reductions

also experienced by private traffic, Biora (1995).

There are a number of examples within the United States of active priority or signal pre-

emption as it is commonly known in that country. Batz (1986a), in a study of all high

occupancy vehicle treatments, found that there were sixteen instances of signal pre-emption

systems in the United States. However, over half of those systems have been suspended due

to a number of reasons, including perceived lack of benefit to buses with large delays to

general traffic. The advancements in technology have prompted several recent instances of

active signal priority in North America. These include systems in Minneapolis and Portland.

The system in Portland trialed bus priority on a major arterial road carrying 40000 - 50000

vehicles per day and provided priority using green extension/ early green return or queue

jump priority for buses, Kloos et al. (1994). Minor reductions in bus travel time have been

reported.

There are examples of active priority in most of the larger Australian cities including

Brisbane (Campbell and Miorandi, 1997); Sydney (Mehaffey and Lowe, 1997 and Moore,

1978); and Melbourne (Wisdom, 1990). Brisbane City Council are using selective vehicle

detection on a major western arterial into Brisbane’s CBD, Campbell and Miorandi (1997).

Active bus priority is also used in other parts of the world, though less widespread than that

experienced in European countries. Turnbull (1992a) indicates examples are located in Japan,

Hong Kong, Singapore and South Africa. The results are similar throughout the world with

increasing emphasis on this form of priority as traffic signal technology improves.

-8-
11/11/20052491.doc

A variety of computer models have been used to determine the effects of bus priority

(TRANSYT (Vincent et al.,1980); NETSIM (Taylor and Al-Sahili, 1995); NEMIS (Fox et

al., 1995); and SATURN (Willumsen et al., 1993). The literature indicates modest savings to

buses with traffic signal priority. The technology that is allowing active bus priority at traffic

signals involves real-time communication between buses, ticketing systems and traffic signal

control systems. The centrally controlled integration of real-time passenger information, bus

timetables, real-time bus progress, general traffic conditions and variable message signs has

potential to significantly improve arterial road operations. Using algorithms in a central

computer, priority may be given to buses based on their current operational and passenger

occupancy status.

Passive Priority

Passive priority includes adjustment of traffic signal settings, such as adjusting the cycle

time, splitting phases; or area-wide timing plans. Traffic signal design using this philosophy

does not detect individual buses to provide priority. Rather, it increases the probability of a

bus receiving minimal delays at traffic signals by increasing the green time for a route

travelled by buses.

A recent example of passive priority involves a site in West London, which is using a

metering technique to control the queues of general traffic to minimise the impacts on bus

operations, Oakes and Metzger (1995). This treatment has been modelled and it was

predicted that there will be a small increase in queue length for general traffic with

significant delay savings for buses. The disadvantages of providing extra priority to a bus

-9-
11/11/20052491.doc

route include the potential increase in delay to traffic on routes that are not designated bus

routes.

Other passive priority techniques, such as permitting buses to undertake turns restricted for

general traffic or metering of traffic flows, can be effective with no significant disruptions to

general traffic. In low bus flow situations, allowing buses to undertake restricted turns can

have negligible impact on the general traffic capacity. Similarly, the use of bus pre-signals is

a practical means of providing priority to buses in locations where there is congestion at a

confined area, such as a reduction in traffic lanes.

2.4 Busways

Martinelli (1996) defines busways as access controlled facilities that are dedicated for buses

and provide a high standard carriageway separated from the general purpose lanes. Many of

the busways are high speed facilities with grade separated access. However, busways may

also be constructed in a lower speed environment adjacent to arterial roads. There are a

relative small number of major busway facilities operating throughout the world. The two

notable examples in North America are in Ottawa and Pittsburg, Fuhs (1993). Turnbull

(1992a) identified 6 exclusive busway facilities with separate ‘right-of-way’ operating

outside North America. These facilities are located in Adelaide (Australia), Essen (Germany),

Istanbul (Turkey), Port of Spain (Trinidad), Redditch (Great Britain) and Runcorn (Great

Britain). Other facilities are located in Perth, (Western Australia ) on the Kwinana freeway as

indicated by Middleton (1994). These facilities would all appear to be working successfully,

with the primary aim of providing a high level of service for line haul bus commuters. A

- 10 -
11/11/20052491.doc

further busway is being planned in Australia to improve the travel time for passengers

travelling to and from the Brisbane CBD area.

2.5 Transit Lanes

The use of multi-purpose transit lanes permit high occupancy vehicles (including buses) to

use designated lanes that operate at a higher level of service than the general purpose lanes.

Vehicles with 2 or more occupants, or 3 or more occupants, are the most common occupancy

requirements for such lanes. Turnbull (1992b) identified 10 major transit lane facilities on

freeways and a similar number of transit lanes on arterial roads outside North America. Batz

(1986a) found 95 examples of concurrent flow arterial preferential lanes, which have been in

operation for various periods in North America. Of these facilities in North America, 22 were

suspended due to low utilisation and a high numbers of violations.

There has been significant work done in the United States evaluating transit (HOV) lanes for

the freeway environment. The warrants are predominantly based on maximising person

throughput for a roadway. Nurworsoo et al. (1988) proposes that a HOV lane should provide

a minimum travel time saving of 1 minute/mile with an overall travel time saving of at least 7

minutes for a HOV lane to be effective. Nuworsoo et al. (1988) suggests that the maximum

volume of traffic using a HOV lane should not exceed 1000 vehicles per hour, which equates

to a level of service ‘B’ from the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board

(1994).

2.6 Other Treatments to Improve Bus Journey Time

- 11 -
11/11/20052491.doc

As a significant proportion of the total bus journey time is associated with buses stopping to

allow passengers to board and alight, this area is an important component of the total journey

time analysis. Improved ticketing systems, loading times, reduce customer inquiry, reduce the

number of bus stops and rationalisation of bus stop locations are all examples of treatments

that may increase bus travel efficiency. For Australian conditions, Taylor (1996) found that

approximately 25 percent of the riding time is taken up with the bus stationary at bus stops.

The ticketing systems used by bus operators, the level of passenger enquires and the physical

arrangement for entering/leaving a bus, are the major factors affecting the dwell time at bus

stops.

Bus Stop Relocation

The location of bus stops can be critical to the efficiency of the bus system. Factors such as

traffic volumes, passenger demand, adjacent land use and road geometric conditions must be

considered in siting a bus stop. The location of the bus stop becomes an even more important

in areas where there are bus priority systems. Hounsell (1988) describes the issues in bus stop

location on arterial roads used in conjunction with bus priority. In general terms, the bus stop

location must complement the aim to enhance bus operations.

Bus Stop Spacing

Watry and Mirabdal (1996) discusses a program to rationalise bus stops in San Francisco,

where the bus stop spacing was increased from between 120 m - 250 m to 250 m - 300 m.

These changes resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in bus stops and an increase in overall bus

travel speeds of between 4 and 14 per cent. The spacing of bus stops requires a balance

between bus travel efficiency and passenger convenience in accessing bus stops. The

relationship between convenience and efficiency may be modelled to determine the

- 12 -
11/11/20052491.doc

appropriate spacing of bus stops. It is generally expected that bus stops should be located

between 200 metres and 500 metres apart. The minimum spacing of 200 metres was

calculated by Pretty and Russell (1988) based on Australian conditions, using typical

acceleration, deceleration and stop times for a bus.

Reducing time Spent at Bus Stops

Savings through minimisation of the time to purchase tickets, would appear to represent the

most significant impact on the dwell time at bus stops. The supply of real time passenger

information has been gaining popularity in recent years. This can be used both as a tool to

improve the exposure of public transport and to reduce the delays with drivers answering

questions from infrequent bus users. Campbell and Miorandi (1997) discusses the use of

variable message signs with bus arrival data in Brisbane. This system is stated to be accurate

and is viewed favourably by passengers, though no detailed survey has been reported.

3. THE ASSESSMENT OF BUS PRIORITY TREATMENTS

The discussion on various world-wide practices of the bus priority treatments indicates a

plethora of treatments that may be used to provide priority for buses of which a sample have

been reported in this paper. The literature reviewed suggests the introduction of bus priority

measures for arterial roads should be part of a comprehensive and integrated traffic

management strategy. At the local arterial level, locations where bus priority measures may

be suitable should be identified taking into account overall demand management, as well as

road efficiency considerations. Figure 1 shows the linkages between the more specific

objectives of bus priority treatments, which are the subject of this paper, and the wider goals

which the same measures may help achieve.

- 13 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Public transport enhancements, such as those discussed here, need to be assessed in the

context of a set of strategies which have a time dimension, as well as those which involve

satisfying a range of objectives, which may be in conflict with each other. The time

dimension relates to the achievement of longer-term goals, in addition to the more directly

measurable short-term objectives, such as bus travel time and operating cost savings. What is

much more difficult to quantify with a reasonable degree of accuracy is the potential

contribution of those public transport measures to longer-term goals. Examples of the latter

are shifts away from private car usage and hence reduced levels of emissions from cars and

buses, as well as reduced energy consumption from transport leading to more

environmentally sustainable outcomes. Reduced car dependency and public transport

enhancements of the type discussed here may also be linked in an indirect way. For example:

(1) By including high occupancy vehicles in the bus priority treatment we may increase

average vehicle occupancy rates. However, the impact of a car being now potentially

available to other members of the household, may somewhat negate the overall impact

on vehicular travel;

(2) If the enhancement measures result in a reduction in road capacity, the long-term

outcome may be one of modal shifts away from car travel at congested times. However,

in the short term, there is a critical need to ensure that the loss in capacity and ensuing

increased congestion, coupled with a low initial usage made of the priority facility, is not

seen by motorists as ‘resource wasteful’. Therefore, a well thought out education and

information campaign is required. This apparent conflict between potential inefficient

use of road space in the short term and longer-term benefits, can be seen in assessment

- 14 -
11/11/20052491.doc

terms as effectiveness (in achieving modal shifts), versus efficiency in the use of

efficient road network capacity.

(3) The individual priority measure(s) when introduced in isolation, may have a limited

impact on reducing vehicle-induced congestion. However, they can be a powerful

reinforcing element of a package of measures which may include demand management

strategies (eg. parking pricing and supply, car pooling incentives and road pricing); and

public transport investment (eg. improved frequencies, bus fleet modernisation, new

ticketing system and new traveller information systems). By being directly visible to

motorists, the priority measures highlight the new distinguishing features between the

levels of service provided by the two modes.

Another set of issues arises when assessing network-wide impacts of bus priority measures.

The latter may have effects which go beyond impacts on general traffic on buses along the

arterial road under study. For example: if significant changes are induced to travel times for

general traffic, route choice effects may result in increases in vehicular travel for vehicles

using the main arterial, or for those experiencing increased delays at minor approaches to

intersections where buses are given priority. Temporal effects may accompany such spatial

impacts, such as changed peak period trip starting times, to avoid increased congestion.

The complexity of arterial road management issues necessitates an analysis of the impacts of

bus priority in the wider transport planning context. Nevertheless this approach does not

obviate the requirement for a micro-analysis of the bus priority treatments being

contemplated for a specific road link. Bus priority treatments are often used as a tool for

driving public transport efficiency rather than as a part of an overall transport strategy that

- 15 -
11/11/20052491.doc

considers the wider transport planning objectives and the local impacts of these measures.

This paper suggests an approach that considers all of these issues will result in more suitable

applications of bus priority treatments. In this regard, a methodology for identifying the

travel time benefits to buses and any associated impacts for the remainder of the traffic, is

identified in this work.

4. METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE DIRECT TRAVEL TIME IMPACTS

4.1 Analysis Techniques

The analysis here examines the bus priority measures available and identifies conditions

where each of the treatments may be suitable. The effect on travel time for buses and general

traffic from bus priority measures was undertaken using a mix of analysis techniques. The

delay analysis tools used involved separate methodology for individual approaches,

signalised intersections and networks of signalised intersections. The focus of the

investigation was the passenger travel time and this was determined using computer

simulation and traffic flow analysis. The computer simulation was undertaken using SIDRA

version 4.5 and TRANSYT version 8. SIDRA is an intersection simulation package that was

used to obtain indicative delays and queues of individual signalised intersections. TRANSYT

is a traffic signal network analysis and is used to assess the impact of traffic signal

progression over a route. Whilst the computer packages allow a detailed analysis of various

conditions, a basic delay relationship was used to allow detailed analysis of individual

intersection approaches. The relationship adopted by Austroads (1991) to approximate the

total approach delay was considered appropriate for this work for Australian conditions. The

delay at an individual intersection is given by Equation (1). This relationship is used to

- 16 -
11/11/20052491.doc

determine the effects of average delay for an isolated intersection approach with uniform

traffic arrival patterns.

D= qc (1-u)2 + n(o)x ..................................................(1)

2(1-y)

where: D: Total delay in vehicle-hours per hour

q: flow in vehicles per second

c: cycle time in seconds

u: green time ratio = g / c

y: flow ratio = q / s

n(o) : the average overflow queue in vehicles.

An integral part of this work is the development of guidelines for suitable conditions where

the various bus priority measures may be justified. The break-even analysis is undertaken for

situations with and without bus priority treatments, to identify the minimum number of bus

passengers needed justify each treatment.

4.2 Evaluation of Bus Priority Treatments

The current analysis focuses on the impacts on overall journey time. Other impacts, such as

vehicle operating costs and environmental effects are not dealt with here. The base route

layout examined is shown in Figure 2. This is a typical 4-lane divided arterial road with

traffic signals at 250 metre spacing. Various bus priority treatments were considered for this

route to enable the conditions to be identified where these treatments are suitable.

- 17 -
11/11/20052491.doc

For each set of traffic conditions, the minimum number of bus passengers to justify a bus

priority treatment is given by:

Min.( bus) = ( dcar1 * Vcar * OCCcar) - ( dcar2 * Vcar * OCCcar) ……………………….(2)

___________________________________________

Vbus * (dbus2 - dbus1)

Where :-

Min (Bus) = Minimum number of bus passengers to justify bus priority

dcar1 = Average delay to cars without bus priority

Vcar = Volume of general purpose vehicles excluding buses

OCCcar = Average occupancy of general purpose vehicles excluding buses

dbus1 = Average delay to buses without bus priority

Vbus = Volume of buses

OCCbus = Average number of passengers in buses

dbus2 = Average delay to buses with a bus priority

dcar2 = Average delay to cars with bus priority

Bus Lanes

The impacts of bus lanes on buses and the remainder of the traffic may be assessed by

considering the performance of the route with and without these lanes. The calculations are

based on an extra lane added to an approach designated either as a bus lane or as a general

purpose lane. It is assumed that an extra lane may be effectively used either as a bus lane or a

general purpose lane. Figure 3 shows the alternative options for adding extra lanes to the base

- 18 -
11/11/20052491.doc

case. The approach used here determines the total person delay for both options to identify

the lane arrangement that minimises this parameter. In some instances, the use of bus lane

‘set-backs’ may assist in maximising the benefits of the bus lanes. This is demonstrated in

Figure 3 with the bus lane set-back added to the base case. The method of investigating both

bus lanes extended through the intersection and where the bus lanes are set-back from the

stop line are considered separately.

Active Priority at Signals

The various strategies to be assessed could include dedicated bus phases, bus phase queue

jump, absolute bus priority, selective bus priority. Typical phasing associated with each of

these methods of priority are shown in Table 1. The use of active bus priority was modelled

using SIDRA to assess the effects of changing the traffic signal phase times. The average

vehicle delay was determined for the base case (no active signal priority) and for the case

where the signals are modified to give priority for buses. This assessment adopted random

arrivals of vehicles on the side street and random arrivals of buses.

4.3 Transit lanes on Arterial Roads

The person throughput may be analysed by comparing the operating conditions with a transit

lane and the case of the same lane being dedicated to general traffic. The analysis was

undertaken using equation (3). This approach allows the sensitivity of the results to be

assessed with the different conditions.

Min. number of = ( dNTV1 * VNTV * Cocc) - ( dNTV2 * VNTV * Cocc) ....………...(3)

passengers in _____________________________________

- 19 -
11/11/20052491.doc

transit lanes

(dTV2 - dTV1 )* VTV1

Where :-

dNTV1 = Average delay to cars without transit lane

VNTV = Volume of general purpose vehicles excluding transit vehicles

Ccar = Average occupancy of general purpose vehicles excluding transit vehicles

dNTV1 = Average delay to high occupancy vehicles without bus priority

VTV1 = Volume of vehicles eligible for transit lane

Tocc = Average number of people in high occupancy vehicles

dTV1 = Average delay to high occupancy vehicles with no transit lane

dTV2 = Average delay to vehicles in transit lane

5. SUMMARY RESULTS

This analysis investigated the various types of bus priority treatments and their suitability of

use in various situations using the methodology described in section 4. Jepson and Ferreira

(1998) provide detailed results from that work. The analysis focussed on a typical four lane

arterial route with signalised intersections at 250 metre spacing. The calculations were

undertaken on a detailed micro-analysis of specific road links. Table 4 summarises the

conditions for use of the various bus priority treatments. These results were compiled to

identify those locations where the various bus priority measures may be considered, and they

depict the minimum bus patronage required to consider each of these measures.

- 20 -
11/11/20052491.doc

The number of persons required to justify each treatment within the guidelines shown here,

would, in the first instance, be based on actual passenger numbers. However, it is

acknowledged that the bus priority treatment may be part of an overall strategy to increase

the patronage of buses. Using marketing tools such as advertising, improving comfort levels

and fare re-structuring, coupled with the bus priority treatment, there may be a significant

increase in patronage for buses. In these circumstances, the appropriate bus priority treatment

may be analysed using the predicted traffic conditions and bus patronage levels.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There have been a variety of bus priority systems used for at least 25 years in various areas

throughout the world. European countries, particularly England, have pioneered many of the

bus priority systems on arterial streets. Many of the systems associated with freeway

operations have been developed United States of America. Bus lanes and traffic signal

priority are the most common forms of bus priority and these systems provide significant

travel time savings in congested arterial roads. Table 2 shows the treatments to improve bus

priority that were reviewed here. Table 3 summarises the applications of the treatments under

study.

The results shown in Table 4 give ‘ball - park’ indications of operating conditions needed to

justify each priority treatment. It is acknowledged however, when assessing the need for bus

priority treatments, a detailed investigation of each route needs to be undertaken. Thus these

results may be used as a filter type mechanism to assist in identifying the selection of bus

- 21 -
11/11/20052491.doc

priority treatments for particular locations. Whilst these results may assist in assessing bus

priority treatments, they should only be used as a guide.

The above analysis does not take into account a number of factors. The inclusion of car and

bus operating costs reduces the minimum number of buses required due to the higher relative

operating costs of buses. The environmental savings will also have an effect on this analysis.

In addition, the desirability to promote buses to improve the overall efficiency of the

transport network provides benefits in favour of this form of public transport.

This work serves to highlight the issues involved in the assessment of bus priority treatments.

The selection of these treatments must be consistent with the traffic management strategy for

a route. As the traffic management strategy is linked to the transportation demand and supply

issues in an urban area, bus priority should be assessed as part of an overall management

approach. The route layout and hierarchy, land use planning, availability and integration of

alternative transportation modes are some of the issues that would influence a transport

strategy. Furthermore, bus priority may provide substantial savings to bus journey times and

if correctly located will have a manageable impact on the general purpose traffic. This paper

suggests that bus priority treatments should be treated in this manner rather than as a panacea

to solve all congestion problems on urban arterials

REFERENCES

Akcelik, R. (1991) Travel Time Functions for Transport Planning Purposes : Davidson’s

Function, its Time-Dependent Form and an Alternative Travel Time Function. Australian

Road Research, 21 (3).

- 22 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Austroads (1991a) Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice : Part 2 (Roadway Capacity).

Austroads. Sydney, N.S.W.

Austroads (1991b) Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice : Part 9 (Arterial Roads).

Austroads. Sydney, N.S.W.

Batz, Thomas M. (1986a) High Occupancy Vehicle Treatments, Impacts, and Parameters ( A

Synthesis) - Volume 1 : Procedures & Conclusions. U.S. Dept of Transportation Report No.

FHWA/NJ-86-017-7767

Batz, Thomas M. (1986b) U.S. Department of Transportation : High Occupancy Vehicle

Treatments, Impacts, and Parameters ( A Synthesis) - Volume 2 : Bibliography and Data U.S.

Dept of Transportation Report No. FHWA/NJ-86-017-7767.

Biora, Fabrizio (1995) Integrated ATT strategies for urban arterials : Drive II Project

PRIMAVERA (4. The Corso Grosseto experiment). Traffic Engineering + Control,

November 1995.

Bishop, C. (1994) Transit Priority Traffic Control Systems : European Experience. Canadian

Urban Transit Association Report Number STRP 9-1. Toronto, Canada.

Bly, P.H., Webster, F.V. and Oldfield, R.H. (1978) Jusification for bus lanes in urban areas.

Traffic Engineering + Control February 1978.

- 23 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Boje, B.F. and Nookala, M. (1996). Signal Priority for Buses : An Operational Test at

Louisiana Avenue, Minneapolis. Institute of Transportation Engineers 1996 Compendium of

Technical Papers.

Bonsall, John A. (1987) Transitways, The Ottawa Experience. Proceedings of 2nd National

Conference on HOV and Transitways (Houston - October 1987), Houston, Texas.

Bowen, G.T., Bretherton, R.D., Landles, J.R., and Cook, D.J. (1994). Active Bus Priority in

Scoot. Proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Road Traffic Monitoring and

Control. London U.K.

Boyle, D.K. (1985) Proposed Warrants for High Occupancy Vehicle Treatments in New

York State. Transportation Analysis Report for New York State Department of

Transportation.

Campbell, J. and Miorandi, J. (1997) Waterworks Road Bus Priority Pilot. Proceedings to the

Third International Conference of ITS Australia - March 1997. Brisbane

Chang, Gang-Len, Vasudevan, Meenakshy and Su, Chih-Chiang (1995). Bus-Preemptive

Under Adaptive Signal Control Environments. Transportation Research Record 1494,

Washington D.C.

Clark, S.D., May, A.D. and Montgomery, F.O.(1996) Transferability of priority management

techniques for unban arterials. Traffic Engineering + Control.September 1996.

- 24 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Cundill, M.A. and Watt, P.F. (1973) Bus Boarding and Alighting Times. Transport & Road

Research Laboratory Report No. 521. Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Cutts, J.C. (1977) Bus Priority in London. Lecture Notes from PRTC. University of Warwick;

England.

Davidson, K.B. (1978) The Theoretical Basis of a Flow - Travel Time Relationship for use in

Transportation Planning. Australian Road Reseach, 8 (1).

Fernandez, Rodrigo (1993) An expert system for the preliminary design and location of high

- capacity bus stops. Traffic Engineering + Control, November 1993.

Foley, S.P., Hallion, S.F. and Ide, S.D. (1980) A Bus Lane Study in Adelaide. Proceedings of

the Tenth Australian Road Research Board Conference. Sydney, NSW, 10 (5).

Fox, K., Montgomery, F., Shephard, S., Smith, C., Jones, S., Biora, F (1995) Integrated ATT

strategies for urban arterials : Drive II Project PRIMAVERA (2. Bus Priority in Scoot and

Spot using TIRIS). Traffic Engineering + Control, June 1995.

Fox, Ken (1995) Integrated ATT strategies for urban arterials : DRIVE II project

PRIMAVERA (3. The Dewsbury Experiment). Traffic Engineering + Control, July/August

1995.

- 25 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Fuhs, Charles A. (1993) Preferential Lane Treatments for High Occupancy Vehicles - A

Synthesis of Highway Practice : Transporatation Research Board (National Research

Council). National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Giannopoulos, G.A. (1989). Bus Planning and Operation in Urban Areas : A Practical Guide.

Gower Publishing Company, Aldershot, England.

Gibson, Jaime, Baeza, Irene and Willumsen, Luis (1989) Bus stops, congestion and

congested bus-stops. Traffic Engineering + Control, June 1989.

Hanks, James W., Jr., Henk, Russell H., Lomax, Timothy J. (1991) Design Features of High

Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. Conference Paper for 1991 National HOV Facility Conference;

Seattle, Washington (April 29 - May 1 1991).

Hardy, Theodore C. (1987) Busways in Pittsburg. Proceedings of 2nd National Conference

on HOV and Transitways (Houston - October 1987),71-75. Houston, Texas.

Higginson, M., Johnson, N., Potter, H., and White, P. (1995). Building on Today’s Strengths

: The future role of the bus in the urban economy. Proceedings of 23 rd Annual Conference

for European Transport Forum (1995).

Holzwarth, Dipl-Ing. Jurgen, Tyes, Dipl-lng. Horst and Zackor, Professor Dr-Ing. Heinz

(1994) Stuttgart Transport Operation by Regional Management - The STORM Project.

Traffic Engineering + Control, March 1994.

- 26 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Homburger, Wolfgang S., Kell, James H. and Perkins, David D. (1992) Fundamentals in

Traffic Engineering. Course Notes : Institute of Transporation Studies, University of

California at Berkley.

Hounsell, N.B. (1988) Bus Stop Siting at Road Junctions. Contractor Report Number 89 for

Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport. Berkshire, U.K.

Hounsell, N.B. (1995). Public Transport Priority at Traffic Signals : New Developments in

Europe. Proceedings of the Application of New Technology to Transport Systems Conference,

Melbourne 1995 Vol 2.

Hounsell, N.B. and McDonald, M (1988) Bus Priority by Selective Detection. Contractor

Report Number 88 for Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport.

Berkshire, U.K.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (1992a) Design Features of High Occupancy Vehicle

Lanes. An Information Report : Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (1992b) Traffic Engineering Handbook. Prentice-Hall

New Jersey.

James, Norman (1986) The Provision of Real-Time Departure Information for Passengers at

a Rail-Bus Interchange. Traffic Engineering + Control, September 1986.

- 27 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Jepson,D. and Ferreira, L. (1998). Assessing Travel Time Impacts of Measures to Enhance

Bus Operations. Part II: Assessment criteria and main findings. Road & Transport Research

(forthcoming)

Jenkins, R.P. (1977) Selective Detection of Buses. PRTC Compendum of Papers : Bus

Priority Schemes. Lecture Notes from PRTC. University of Warwick; England.

King, G.N. (1977) Bus Priority in London. Lecture Notes from PRTC. University of

Warwick; England.

Kloos, W.C., Danaher, A.R. and Hunter-Zaworski, K.M. (1994). Bus Priority at Traffic

Signals in Portland : The Powell Boulevard Pilot Project. Institute of Transportation

Engineers 1994 Compendium of Technical Papers.

Levinson, Herbert S. (1987) HOV Lanes on Arterial Streets. Proceedings of 2nd National

Conference on HOV and Transitways (Houston - October 1987). Houston, Texas.

London Transport (1997) London Transport Internet Site. Uniform Descriptor Locater :

http://www.londontransport.co.uk/facts/fact1_35.html.

Luk, J.Y.K. (1992) Proceedings - AUSTROADS Travel Demand Management Workshop, 16

th ARRB Conference , Perth (November 1992). Australian Road Research Report No. 240.

Macky, Andrew (1989) Victoria Road Transit Lane - A Pilot Study : October 1989.

Technical Report : National Roads & Motorists Association. Sydney, N.S.W.

- 28 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Martinelli, David R., (1996) A Systematic Review of Busways. Journal of Transportation

Engineering, May / June 1996.

Mehaffey, Andrew and Lowe, David J. (1997) Trials of a real-time bus information system. .

Proceedings to the Third International Conference of ITS Australia - March 1997. Brisbane

Middleton (1994) Conference Proceedings : Urban Public Transport Futures. Workshop

Papers : Aust. Urban & Regional Development Review. Melbourne, Australia.

Moore, S. (1978) Some Experience of Preferential Treatments for High Occupancy Vehicles.

Proceedings of 9th Transport Australian Road Research Forum : Brisbane 1978, 9 (5).

Nelson, J.D., Brookes, D.W. and Bell, M.G.H. (1993) Innovation bus control for congested

urban corridors : the application of conveying systems. Traffic Engineering + Control

September 1993.

Nelson, J.D. and Hills, P.J. (1990). Innovative bus control for congested urban corridors : the

application of convoying systems. Traffic Engineering + Control May 1990.

New York City Deparment of Transportation (1992). Improving the Effiency of Bus Priority

Lane Treatments. Technical Report for U.S. Department of Transportation : Report No. FTA-

NY-08-0185-93-1.

- 29 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Nuworsoo, Cornelius K. and May, Adolf D, (1988) A Technical Memorandum for Planning

HOV Lanes on Freeways. Working Paper No. UCB-ITS-WP-88-3 (Uni of California,

Berkeley).

Oakes, J. and Metzger, D. (1995) Park View Pre-Signals in Uxbridge Road, Ealing. Traffic

Engineering + Control, February 1995

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Road Research Group

(1976). Bus Lanes and Busway Systems. A Technical Report for OECD. Paris, France.

Oldfield, R.H., Bly, P.H. and Webster, F.V. (1977) With-Flow Bus Lanes : Economic

Justification Using a Theoretical Model. Transport & Road Research Laboratory Report No.

809. Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Piper, J. and Corwell, P.R. (1986) Design for Public Transport in Traffic Engineering

Practice (Third Edition). Edited by Ogden, K.W. and Bennett, D.W.. Monash University :

Department of Civil Engineering. Clayton, Victoria.

Pretty, R.L. and Russell, D.J. (1988). Bus Boarding Rates. Australian Road Research, 18 (3),

1988.

Quail, Douglas J. and West, Richard, P. (1992) The Sydney Harbour Bridge Bus Lane.

Proceedings of 16th Transport Australian Road Research Forum : Perth 1992. 16 (5).

- 30 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Queensland Government and Queensland Transport (1996) Draft - Integrated Regional

Transport Plan for South East Queensland. Government Printer. Brisbane, Queensland

Queensland Transport (1997). Busway and HOV Lane Planning Guidelines version 1.01a.

Government Printer. Brisbane, Queensland.

Robertson, G.D. (1985) BLAMP - An interactive bus lane model. Traffic Engineering +

Control, July/August 1995.

Taylor, M.A.P. (1996) Planning and Design for On-Road Public Transport in Traffic

Engineering and Management. Edited by Ogden, K.W. and Taylor, S.Y. Department of Civil

Engineering. Clayton, Victoria.

Taylor, W.C. and Al-Sahili, K.A. (1995) Bus Preemption Signal (BPS) : An Application of

an Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS). Great Lakes Center for Truck and

Transit Research and Michigan State University, Technical Report No. GLCTTR 61-95/01.

Taylor, H.M. (1977) The Planning Implications of Bus Preference Policy. Lecture Notes from

PRTC. University of Warwick; England.

Teer, Alan, Cuthbertson, Toby and Carson, Graham. (1994) Public Transport Initiatives in

Surrey. Traffic Engineering + Control, February 1994.

- 31 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Texas Transportation Institute (1996) Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops

Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 19. Transportation Research Board. National

Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Tisato, P. (1991) Suggestions for an Improved Davidson Travel Time Function. Australian

Road Reseach, 21 (2).

Transportation Research Board (1994) Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209 -

Third Edition. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C..

Transportation Research Board (1997) Using Adaptive Control for Movement of Transit

Vehicles. Newsline :- Current Research in Public Transportation. Washington, D.C.

Turnbull, Katherine F. (1992a) International High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities.

Transportation Research Record 1360, Washington D.C.

Turnbull, Katherine F. (1992b). High Occupancy Vehicle Project Case Studies - Historical

Trends and Project Experiences. Technical Report prepared for Texas Department of

Transportation and Federal Transit Administration. Washington, D.C.

Turner, Shawn M. (1993) High Occupancy Vehicle Treatments on Arterial Streets.

Institution of Transportation Engineers Journal, November 1993.

- 32 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Vincent, R.A. (1973). Junction Priority for Public Transport. Proceedings of the Symposium

on Bus Priority. Transportation Road Research Laboratory (United Kingdom) TRRL

Laboratory Report : LR 570

Vincent, R.A., Mitchell, A.I. and Robertson, D.I. (1980). User Guide for Transyt Version 8.

Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report Number : LR 888. Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Vuchic, V.R. (1981) Urban Public Transportation : Systems and Technology. Prentice Hall.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., U.S.A.

Watry, D. and Mirabdal, J. (1996). Transit Preferential Streets Program in San Francisco.

Institute of Transportation Engineers 1996 Compendium of Technical Papers.

Webster, F.V. (1972) Priority to buses as part of traffic management. Transport and Road

Research Laboratory Report Number LR 448. TRRL Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Willumsen, L.G., Bolland, J., Hall, M.D. and Arezki, Y. (1993) Multi-modal modelling in

congested networks : SATURN and SATCHMO. Traffic Engineering + Control, June 1993.

Wilson, D. J. and Houghton, D. (1996 ). Auckland’s North Shore Buswas. Proceedings of

17th Transport Australian Road Research Forum : Gold Coast 1996. 17 (6).

Wisdom, Andrew S. (1990) Bus Priority Guidelines in Melbourne : An Innovative Approach.

Report for Institute of Transportation Engineers : 1990 Past President’s Award.

- 33 -
11/11/20052491.doc

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Strategies For Active Bus Priority At Traffic Signals

Table 2. Summary of Bus Priority Treatments Reviewed
Table 3. Summary of Guidelines for Use of Bus Priority Treatments
Table 4: Summary of Justification for Bus Priority Treatments

Figure 1. Assessment of Bus Operating Enhancements

Figure 2 : Base Route Layout for Analysis of Bus Priority Treatments
Figure 3. Bus Lane Extended Through Intersection and Extra Lane Designated for
General Purpose

- 34 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Table 1. Strategies For Active Bus Priority At Traffic Signals

Bus Arrival Period Bus Phase Bus Phase Absolute Bus Priority Selective Bus Priority
Queue Jump
Bus arrives during green No change No change in No change in phasing. No change in phasing.
phase of intersection. in phasing phasing.

Bus arrives 0 to 13 Phasing is Bus receives Extend green phase to Extend green phase to
seconds from the end of modified to a 5 s green accommodate the bus. accommodate the bus.
the green phase. provide a phase prior to
green light start of next
for bus green

Bus arrives between 13 Phasing is Bus receives Cut off opposing green Cut off opposing green
seconds from the end of modified to a 5 s green phase and return the phase and return the
the green phase and 13 provide a phase prior to green phase for the green phase for the
seconds from the start of green light start of next approach with the bus approach with the bus
the next green phase. for bus green arriving. The arriving 13 seconds
modifications to the early. A bus that arrives
opposing phases must be during the red phase will
made with a minimum have to wait until the
green time of 6 seconds. start of the next green
phase.

Bus arrives 0 to 13 Phasing is Bus receives Cut-off the green phase Cut-off the green phase
seconds from the start of modified to a 5 s green for opposing approaches for opposing approaches
the green phase for the provide a phase prior to and start the green phase and start the green phase
approach the bus is green light start of next for the bus approach for the bus approach
travelling. for bus green early by the required early by the required
time to allow the bus to time to allow the bus to
receive a green light. receive a green light.

- 35 -
11/11/20052491.doc
Table 2. Summary of Bus Priority Treatments Reviewed
Arterial Road Treatment
Treatments to Address Bus Travel Time
General Arterial Road M’ment
‘With-flow’ bus lanes
Median bus lanes
Bus streets / bus malls
Bus Lane Set-Back
Active Priority for Buses at Signals
Passive Priority at Traffic Signals
Adjustment of Signal Phasing
or area-wide timing plans
Gating (Metering Vehicles)
Turn prohibition
Transit lanes on Arterial Roads
Transit Facilities on Freeways
Busways
Bus Priority to Access Freeways
Measures To Provide Priority by
Investigation of Bus Stops
Bus Stop Relocation
Increase Bus Stop Spacing
Create Lay-bys.
Addressing Delays due to Passengers
Boarding and Alighting
Reduce time Spent at Bus Stops
Bus Convoys
Description
Examination of techniques for improving travel time for
buses and general traffic (ie. review of signal spacing, median
break policy etc.)
Extensively used throughout the world by redesignating a
kerb-side lane for buses during peak hours.
Locations with line-haul bus routes and restricted right turns.
High numbers of buses and passengers (ie. CBD area).
Widespread use in the UK. Set-back of bus lane from signals
to maintain capacity of intersection.
Selective detection and priority to buses is used throughout
the world. Developments in technology has renewed interest.
Design signals to suit requirements of bus routes. This is a
common approach that may produce modest improvements.
This technique meters flow into an area to reduce the
congestion over a section of an arterial road. Several
examples in the UK. May allow buses priority around
congested areas without unduly changing operations for cars.
If turning vehicles cause congestion, the banning of particular
movements will reduce congestion and favour bus operations.
May be used in lieu of bus lanes where bus numbers are low
to encourage use of car-pooling.
Encourages car-pooling on freeways. Common in the USA
and provide high level of service for buses and HOVs into
and out of the CBD on the freeway system. May be barrier
separated or have flows concurrent with general traffic.
Busways are a premium facility providing a separate right of
way for buses. Several examples are located throughout
world.
Systems to improve bus or hov access to the freeway using
either queue bypass of ramp metering or exclusive ramps.
Consider most appropriate site for individual bus stops.
Consider most appropriate spacing for bus stops.
Indented bays to separate stationary buses from traffic stream.
Using improved information or ticketing to improve the
boarding time of buses.
Used in several locations to facilitate bus loading
- 36 -
11/11/20052491.doc

Table 3. Summary of Guidelines for Use of Bus Priority Treatments

Bus Priority Treatment Typical Guidelines for Use Key References

Bus Lanes
‘With-flow’ bus lanes General Guidelines : Often used for peak hours only.
Moderate - high bus numbers

United Kingdom :
Used warrants that depend on the level of congestion and Oldfield,R.H.
numbers of buses such as: (1978)
Congestion(D.of S.) Minumum No.Buses Bly, P.H. (1978)
0.7 65/hr
0.8 60/hr
0.9 50/hr
0.95 20/hr
0.97 5/hr
Recently have assessed bus lanes using simulation models as
part of larger schemes. Robertson, G.D.
(1985)
United States :
Use criteria of number of buses/hour and passengers/hour.
Minumum 30 - 40 buses & 1200 passengers / hour. Transportation
Research Board
Australia : (1994)
Use criteria developed in the United States to maximise person
throughput which equates to the equation as shown : Taylor, M.A.P.
Min. Bus Flow = No. of cars x ratio of car & bus occupancy (1996)
Total number of lanes - 1 Vuchic, V.R. (1981)

Median bus lanes General guidelines : High numbers of buses

Bus streets / bus malls
Line - haul bus routes
Limited right turns
United States :
Minimum bus flow : 60 -90 /hr. & 2400 - 3600 passengers/hr.
& ability to separate turning traffic from buses. Levinson, H.S.
Australian Applications : (1987)
Sydney Harbour Bridge : 165 buses /hr (7000 passengers)
Quail, D.J. & West,
General guidelines : High numbers of buses & passengers R.P. (1987)
Applicable for CBD areas

Bus Lane Set-Back General guidelines : Bus lane ends a set distance from traffic
signals to retain capacity of intersection.
United Kingdom :
Depends on congestion & bus numbers. Optimum set-back 2.5
m/s at 95 % of saturation & 1 m/s at 70 % of saturation. Oldfield, R.H
(1977)
Congestion Minumum No.Buses Minimum No. Buses Bly, P.H. (1978)
(Deg. of Sat.) (Optimum Setback) (No Set-back)
0.7 65/hr 105/hr
0.8 60/hr 120/hr
0.9 50/hr 120/hr
0.95 20/hr 100/hr
0.97 5/hr 85/hr

Priority to Buses at Signals

- 37 -
11/11/20052491.doc
Active Priority for Buses
Passive Priority at Traffic
Signals
Adjustment of Signal
Phasing or area-wide
timing plans
Gating (Metering
Vehicles)
Turn prohibition
Transit lane on Arterial
Roads
Transit Facilities on
Freeways
Busways
Bus Priority to Access
Freeways
General Guidelines : Assessed on the basis of benefits vs
costs.
No typical guidelines developed yet.
Various cities are using bus priority as
part of traffic management scheme.
Significant Users Hounsell, N.B.
United Kingdom : Selknet, Leeds Holzworth,
Europe : Turin, Golthenburg, Stuttgart Fox,
United States :Minneapolis, Portland Batz, T.M. (1986)
Australia : Brisbane Kloos, (1994)
Boje, (1996)
Miorandi, J. &
Campbell, J. (1997)
General Guidelines : Assesses priority based on weighting
of buses (1 bus = 10 - 20 cars)
No warrants for implementation available.
General Guidelines : Used to relocate queues to the benefit of
a bus route.
Significant Example : Uxbridge Road (West London)
General Guidelines : Used to improve capacity without Oakes, J. (1995)
affecting bus operations.
General Guidelines : Improve capacity of arterial by
increasing the person throughput
General Guidelines : Improve capacity of arterial by
increasing the person throughput. Turnbull, KF
Effective if has min. travel time saving (1992b)
of 1 min./mile & total saving of 7 mins. Transportation Res.
Capacity should be less than 1000 vehs/hr Board (1994)
General Guidelines : Carriageway dedicated for buses Nurworsoo,C.K.
Requires large numbers of buses to justify (1988)
Significant Examples : Pittsburg
Ottawa
Hardy, T.C. (1987)
General Guidelines : Enhances buses entry to freeways Bonsall, J.A. (1987)
Batz, T.M. (1986a)
- 38 -
 11/11/20052491.doc

Table 4: Summary of Justification for Bus Priority Treatments

Bus Lane Treatments Active Bus Priority at traffic signals Passive priority at traffic signals Improve
d
Main Minor Bus Lane Bus Lane Dedicated Queue Absolute Selected Design of Restriction Metering Transit Busways Ticketing
Approach Approach Extended set - back Bus Jump Bus Bus signals for bus of right turn of flows Lane Bus Stop
Volume Volume to stop line from stop Phase Bus Phase Priority Priority travel time buses location
(veh/h) (veh/h) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) of 30 km/h excepted review
(1) (1) (1) (3) (1) (1)
2000 100 n/a 100 >10000 60 100 100 2500 (2) (2) 2000 (2) (2)
2000 300 n/a 100 >10000 240 100 100 2500 (2) (2) 2000 (2) (2)
2000 500 n/a 100 >10000 1600 1539 100 2500 (2) (2) 2000 (2) (2)
2000 700 n/a 100 >10000 >10000 4479 2334 2500 (2) (2) 2000 (2) (2)
1500 100 1550 100 1755 49 100 100 1900 (5) (5) 1300 (5) (2)
1500 300 1550 100 1901 195 100 100 1900 (5) (5) 1300 (5) (2)
1500 500 1550 100 3006 1300 >10000 >10000 1900 (5) (5) 1300 (5) (2)
1500 700 1550 100 >10000 >10000 >10000 >10000 1900 (5) (5) 1300 (5) (2)
1000 100 850 100 860 14 100 100 1400 (5) (5) (4) (5) (2)
1000 300 850 100 1040 57 285 100 1400 (5) (5) (4) (5) (2)
1000 500 850 100 2400 378 >10000 4014 1400 (5) (5) (4) (5) (2)
1000 700 850 100 >10000 >10000 >10000 >10000 1400 (5) (5) (4) (5) (2)

Notes : (1) This column depicts the minimum number of bus passengers/hour required for each of the
bus priority treatments to be justified to maximise the person throughput.
(2) This indicates that this form of bus priority may be considered further for this situation.
(3) This column depicts the minimum number of passengers / hour eligible for the transit lane
to maximise the person throughput.
(4) This indicates the analysis was not undertaken for this situation
(5) This indicates that this form of bus priority is not appropriate for these traffic conditions

- 39 -
 11/11/052491.doc

Figure 1. Assessment of Bus Operating Enhancements

Network Performance

Operational Economic Environmental

Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts

Bus travel times

Modal shifts
Bus operating costs
Route choice
Car travel times

Car operating costs

Trip start times
Emissions
Car pooling
Energy consumption

- 40 -
 11/11/052491.doc

Figure 2 : Base Route Layout for Analysis of Bus Priority Treatments

Side Street
Side Street
Side Street Main Arterial

Main Arterial

250 metres 250 metres

Base Case : Route for Analysis

- 41 -
 11/11/052491.doc

Figure 3. Bus Lane Extended Through Intersection and Extra Lane Designated for General
Purpose
Option A

Side Street

Side Street

Side Street
Bus lane set - back
from stop line
Main Arterial
Bus lane Bus lane Bus lane Bus lane

Bus lane Bus lane Bus lane Bus lane

Main Arterial

250 metres 250 metres

Base case with bus lane set-back
from intersection

Option B
Side Street

Side Street

Side Street

Main Arterial
Bus lane Bus lane

Bus lane Bus lane

Main Arterial

250 metres 250 metres

Base case with bus lane extended
through intersection

- 42 -