January 2017

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Statewide Guidance

i

Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Planning Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 2

Project Justification ................................................................................................................... 2

Develop a BOS Concept Plan ................................................................................................... 4

Establish a BOS Team .............................................................................................................. 5

Conduct Feasibility Analysis...................................................................................................... 6

Design Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 13

Design Exceptions ................................................................................................................... 13

Lane and Shoulder Width ........................................................................................................ 13

Inside Shoulder vs. Outside Shoulder ..................................................................................... 14

Pavement Conditions .............................................................................................................. 15

Drainage and Utilities .............................................................................................................. 15

Rumble Strips .......................................................................................................................... 15

Signage and Pavement Markings ........................................................................................... 16

Access Management and Control ........................................................................................... 16

Operating Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 22

Speed Protocols ...................................................................................................................... 22

Operating Hours ...................................................................................................................... 22

Driver Training ......................................................................................................................... 22

Authorized Users ..................................................................................................................... 23

Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Arterial Operations .................................................................................................................. 23

Incident Management, Law Enforcement, and Emergency Services ..................................... 24

Highway Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 24

Start-Up Measures .................................................................................................................. 25

Project Development and Concept of Operations ............................................................................. 27

Project Development ............................................................................................................... 27

Concept of Operations ............................................................................................................ 27

Develop Action Plan ................................................................................................................ 29

Approvals and Preparing for Implementation .......................................................................... 29

Memorandum of Agreement ................................................................................................... 30

Implementation Approach ....................................................................................................... 31

Project Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 32

Monitor BOS System ......................................................................................................................... 34

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 36

ii

Tables Table 1. Project Justification Checklist ......................................................................................................... 3

Table 2. Design Criteria Checklist ............................................................................................................... 21

Table 3. Operating Criteria Checklist .......................................................................................................... 26

Table 4. Implementation Checklist .............................................................................................................. 33

Table 5. Post-Implementation Checklist ..................................................................................................... 35

Figures

Figure 1. Standard Bus Dimensions ........................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2. Proposed Rumble Strips .............................................................................................................. 19

Figure 3. Example BOS Signage ................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 4. Incremental Implementation Diagram .......................................................................................... 31

Appendices

Appendix A. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 37

1

Introduction

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Central Office, in collaboration with FDOT

District Seven, initiated a study to develop statewide guidance and criteria for Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) operations in Florida. The study began with a review of literature and BOS systems in

the United States to determine best practices and identify challenges and opportunities

associated with BOS projects. The purpose of this report is to document the findings from the

Literature Review (Appendix A) and, most importantly, present the final guidance for

implementing a BOS system in Florida.

This document presents technical guidance and criteria for

BOS systems, including a generalized approach pertaining

to the evaluation of appropriate locations for use of roadway

shoulders by buses. The document starts with providing

planning, operations, and design guidance, and also

recommends criteria checklists for the selection,

implementation, and evaluation of BOS systems.

The figure to the right shows the key steps involved in

implementing a BOS project. The project request should be

initiated by the transit agency. A Project Justification and

Concept Plan should be presented to the Department for

consideration and approval by the District Secretary. If

preliminary approval is obtained to pursue the project, a

multi-agency BOS Team should be established.

Subsequently, a Feasibility Study should be conducted to

review fatal flaws, develop alternatives to consider special

operating and design aspects of such projects, consider

costs and benefits of each alternative, explore funding

options, and eventually identify a locally preferred

alternative. Once a locally preferred alternative is agreed

upon by all parties, environmental clearance should be

obtained and a Concept of Operations should be developed

which forms the basis for a Memorandum of Agreement

between the project stakeholders.

At this stage, an Action Plan must be presented to the

Department for the District Secretary’s approval. If approved, project implementation phase

can begin which involves programming of funds, final design, start-up measures, etc. It is also

important to monitor the performance of BOS projects and make adjustments over time as

needed. The remaining sections of this report discuss the details of each of these steps.

2

Planning Guidelines

While the planning process for most BOS operations is relatively straightforward, the outcome

ultimately determines if the implementation is feasible, cost-effective, and operationally

beneficial.

Project Justification

The first step in the BOS planning process is to identify the need for running buses on shoulder

which will provide an unimpeded safe runningway. This need should originate at the transit

agency level and is essential in establishing a basis for the development of a range of

reasonable alternatives that assists with the identification and eventual selection of a

conceptual project design. The transit agency must demonstrate how the option will improve

transit operations and reliability.

The justification should describe the problem the project intends to solve and explain the

underlying cause of the problem (example, growth trends are resulting in traffic congestion)

and define the other fundamental reasons for the project proposal.

Common reasons for implementing BOS operations include the following:

High congestion level in the corridor impacting bus schedule reliability;

Support for new express bus service strategy in the corridor;

Solution to a regional connectivity issue and, ultimately, a commuter solution for

maintaining reliability through peak traffic congestion areas;

Interim measure until construction of managed lanes or widening of the highway;

Long-term ultimate transit solution for the corridor; or

Special events.

Transit agencies play a key role in this phase through the monitoring of their current bus

service. Congestion-related delays to bus operations, impacts on schedule reliability,

operating costs, and market competiveness are common problems that lead to BOS

applications. The review of travel time and schedule reliability data may reveal possible

recurring congestion along the routes.

Accordingly, many jurisdictions have implemented policy criteria that must be met before BOS

is implemented. As an example, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul system, a corridor must be used

by a minimum of six buses a day and they must save eight or more minutes per mile, per week

in travel time for BOS to be considered. Existing transit operations analysis should include

evaluation of route level ridership, service frequency, hours of operation, travel time, on-time

performance, vehicle miles, operating cost, etc. Recommended minimum thresholds have

been established by the Department to ensure BOS is justifiable in the proposed corridor.

3

Recommended minimum thresholds for consideration of BOS:

Limited access facility;

Congested speeds of 35 mph for > 15 minute periods at least one day per week;

Six buses operating on the facility per day;

Increase ridership by >10%;

Improved travel times along the routes >20%; and

Minimum 10 feet shoulder width where there is no barrier, minimum 11.5 feet width

where there is a barrier.

Refer to Table 1 below for minimum thresholds and criteria which justify the need for running

buses on the shoulder.

Table 1. Project Justification Checklist

BOS corridor features: Yes/No/N/A Comments

Is the corridor a limited access facility?

(The intent is to limit BOS operations to limited access facilities in Florida in the near term)

Is peak hour congested speed below 35 mph?

(If traffic does not slow to 35 mph or below, BOS may not be beneficial)

How many buses are currently traveling or will travel the corridor each day?

(At least 6 buses per day is recommended)

Is ridership anticipated to increase due to BOS application in the corridor?

(Estimate anticipated increase in ridership)

Can travel time savings be realized by BOS operations?

(Estimate person travel time savings per annum for opening year and horizon year)

Future conditions should also be evaluated to determine if the minimum thresholds will be met.

The implementation of BOS operations should be consistent with the region’s long-range

corridor plans and congestion mitigation strategies.

The planning horizon to evaluate BOS operations should be approximately 10 years in the

future if BOS is considered as an interim measure, and approximately 25 years if BOS is

considered as part of the long-range vision for the corridor. Growth patterns and future traffic

volumes can have a dramatic impact on speeds along a corridor, and thus, alter bus travel

time savings and reliability. Future demand volumes should be developed using procedures

from the FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook and impacts on travel speeds should be

4

assessed. Traffic analysis using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or microsimulation models

may also be desired depending on the level of analysis needed for the corridor.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)/ Transportation Planning Organizations (TPOs)

and FDOT can also identify the need for BOS projects through their planning and programming

efforts. MPOs/TPOs have ongoing updates to their regional transportation plans which may

identify near-term and long-term BOS applications. FDOT monitors highway performance and

identifies current and future congestion areas.

Once limited access facility bus service problems are identified, the search for solutions should

include consideration of BOS measures. Unless the transit agency advocates its

consideration, it is unlikely that BOS solutions will be considered as a viable option. It is

important to understand that BOS may be one of the alternatives in a corridor study and the

purpose and need may be established for the overall corridor study as opposed to a BOS

study.

As part of the process of developing the project justification, a traffic engineering technical

report may be prepared for the project. This report should include the methodology and the

results of a traffic operations analysis for the study corridor and consist of existing volumes,

geometry, safety conditions, and level of service for the impacted roadway network. It should

also include an assessment of anticipated future conditions along the study corridor. The

FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook, Traffic Analysis Handbook, and Quality/ Level of

Service Handbook provide guidance on data, methods, and tools that can be utilized to

conduct the analysis. The report should also identify any recurring and non-recurring

congestion/delay, and its impact on existing bus operations (if any). The results of the analysis

are intended to help with understanding the problems and start developing the purpose and

need for the project.

Develop a BOS Concept Plan

Once the justification for the project and the minimum thresholds have been, or will be met

soon, the BOS vision must be defined. A concept plan should be developed consisting of a

general project description, information on potential BOS segments and preliminary estimates

of potential benefits in terms of running time savings, schedule reliability improvements, and

increased ridership. It is anticipated to provide an overview of the proposed project in order to

further discussions among the key stakeholders.

If the transit agency is currently running buses on limited access facilities, they should analyze

data from the corridor and determine if BOS would be beneficial in terms of bus operating

performance. However, if the transit agency is utilizing an alternate route to bypass congestion

on a limited access facility, they may want to review the current route performance and

compare with the prospective BOS corridor to understand the potential benefits.

5

Traffic analysis using HCM or microsimulation models may also be desired depending on the

level of analysis needed for the corridor. It should be noted that HCM may have some

limitations which reduce reliability of the program results. For example, a lane-by-lane analysis

is not achievable using HCM; therefore, general purpose lanes must be combined with the

shoulder lane for capacity analysis. Due to lane width restrictions and other contributing

factors, it is generally assumed that the shoulder lane will have lower capacity than that of the

general purpose lanes. However, shoulder lane capacity may not be an issue if only buses

run on the shoulders (as opposed to all vehicles).

Additional analysis models to consider should include the Simplified Trips-On-Project Software

(STOPS) model or other planning tools provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

which may identify other important features or attributes such as running times, travel time

savings, and potential ridership.

The future conditions analysis is expected to provide insights into anticipated operating

conditions in the corridor without BOS operations. This serves as a baseline for developing

and comparing alternatives.

The concept plan should identify the problem, demonstrate the need for the project and provide

a conceptual design for the operations. It should also include a plan and schedule for the

evaluation and identification of steps necessary in the pursuit of BOS implementation.

After the concept plan has been established, the justification and operational analyses should

initially be presented to the District Transit Office to determine potential cost and benefits

gained by BOS and to assess the Department’s support in pursuing the project. The transit

agency should meet with Traffic Operations, Modal Manager, Design Office, Director of

Production, and the District Secretary as needed, to determine if BOS is an option for

consideration. Ultimately, the final decision will be made by the District Secretary.

Establish a BOS Team

If preliminary approval is obtained from the District Secretary and all related parties to pursue

the possibility, a multi-agency team should be established in order to successfully implement

a BOS system. The following are examples of agencies that may be included:

FDOT;

Expressway Authorities;

Transit agencies;

MPOs/ TPOs;

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA);

State and local law enforcement;

Traffic Incident Management; and

Local jurisdiction representatives.

6

As referenced in Section 2.1, the initial planning begins with the local transit agency,

MPO/TPO, and the state DOT undertaking a BOS initiative. It is important for these groups to

identify the potential benefits and impacts of implementing BOS operations. Early coordination

helps define the project and implementation strategies shifting the focus from identifying

obstacles when implementing BOS to finding ways to overcome those obstacles.

Presentations should be given to the District Traffic Incident Management Teams which make

up a subset of many of the required BOS team members. While FDOT is a critical partner

throughout the process, they become increasingly involved as the project progresses

specifically into the design and construction phases. It is imperative that FHWA

representatives be included in the process to ensure that the project meets federal

requirements.

State and local law enforcement should be made aware when the concept plan and other

critical analyses are undertaken and specifics can be shared. The most important role law

enforcement plays is ensuring only authorized users are operating on the shoulder.

A technical workshop should be considered to educate stakeholders and facilitate discussion.

The workshop may be set up in two parts. The first part should be educational and focus on a

general overview of operational engineering and technical issues related to the BOS concept,

as well as experiences in other parts of the country. Bringing experts in with direct experience

and extensive knowledge on the subject to share insights and lessons learned may be

beneficial, especially in answering any questions from the stakeholders. The second part of

the meeting should provide the participants with specific technical information and address

challenges associated with the study corridor with the goal of developing potential alternatives.

Conduct Feasibility Analysis

The feasibility analysis should identify physical or operational reasons that would permit or

preclude BOS implementation. In addition, consideration of costs, funding options, and

stakeholder collaboration would be included. The key steps in a feasibility analysis involve

describing the existing conditions and defining the problem, forecasting future conditions,

developing BOS alternatives, evaluating the alternatives, and finally, reaching a

recommendation or locally preferred alternative.

2.4.1 Existing Conditions Analysis

The first step in assessing the feasibility of BOS operations is to develop a complete evaluation

of the existing roadway conditions. The use of shoulders for transit operations may be an

appropriate strategy if critical items, such as visibility, pavement requirements, and geometric

clearances, meet the minimum standards for safe operations. The bus service analysis

developed to justify the need for the project should be incorporated and include relevant

existing transit data, including weekday ridership, and benefits from improved travel times and

reliability.

7

As part of the evaluation of existing roadway conditions, the elements listed below will need to

be considered and reviewed.

1. Inventory shoulder widths, including identification of pinch points.

The width of the shoulder area is the most critical factor in BOS operations. A field review

will need to be conducted to inventory shoulder widths along the potential BOS corridors

unless the information is readily available from prior design work in the corridors. In order

for buses to operate on the shoulders, they must be at least 10 feet wide without a barrier

and 11.5 feet wide with a barrier, or on a bridge. Areas where the shoulder narrows should

be identified and actions taken to ensure bus operators merge back into the general

purpose lanes prior to these pinch points. This situation may warrant the use of signage,

which will be discussed later in this document, to warn the bus operators of the narrowing

shoulder.

2. Assess pavement strength of the shoulders, drainage and utilities.

The required pavement strength will depend on the expected vehicle type/weight and the

frequency of operation on the shoulder. Bus volumes can be estimated using

known/proposed service schedules and expected hours of operation. Ridership on these

routes is also critical to understand the effect the bus will have on the pavement. A review

of the existing shoulder pavement structural section and field assessment of the pavement

conditions, including thickness, should be conducted to determine if the available

pavement is adequate or if improvements are needed.

In addition to pavement strength, existing drainage conditions and structures need to be

reviewed prior to implementation of BOS. Catch basins located in the shoulder area not

only create an uncomfortable ride, but most are not designed to handle high traffic volumes

driving on them. Additionally, some portions of the shoulder may have depressed sections

which direct water toward catch basins or drainage channels. These may also need to be

restructured to ensure a comfortable bus ride. Ponding on the shoulder creates a safety

hazard for buses and must be reviewed while assessing the shoulder conditions. Such

shoulders will need to be avoided during and after heavy rainfall to prevent hydroplaning.

Lastly, there may be conflicts caused by utilities or structures on the shoulder. These

features should be reviewed and considered to ensure there are no conflicts with buses.

3. Assess interchange weave suitability.

BOS operations are not suited for corridors where complicated interchange

merge/diverge/weave areas may occur or cannot be avoided. While buses generally

merge back into the general purpose lanes at interchanges, it is not ideal to have multiple

weaves within a short distance. The corridor shall be assessed to determine if the bus can

travel at least two miles without an interchange weave. Please note that depending upon

whether left or right shoulders are considered, this may not be a challenge. For example,

if there are only right-hand exits, buses traveling on the left shoulder will not need to

consider the weave area.

8

4. Identify traffic sight distance.

Some entry ramps may have geometry that limits the sight distance of bus operators on

the shoulder such that they cannot see vehicles entering the highway on the entry ramp.

All ramps along the BOS corridor should be reviewed to determine if bus operators will

have adequate stopping sight distance. If adequate sight distance cannot be achieved,

buses should move into the general purpose lanes in advance of the entry ramp merge

area. Depending on whether left or right shoulders are considered, this may not be a

challenge. For example, if there are only right-hand exits, buses traveling on the left

shoulder will not need to consider sight distance issues pertaining to entry ramps.

5. Conduct safety analysis.

An analysis of existing crash data for three or more years, including crash type, the time

of crashes, and the location of crashes should be conducted to evaluate safety conditions

along the corridor. Crashes related to driver confusion, road rage, or suboptimal geometry

may increase with BOS operations. Florida Signal Four Analytics

(http://s4.geoplan.ufl.edu/) is a good source for crash data and the Highway Safety Manual

provides guidance on safety analysis methods.

These elements, along with the issues previously identified in the project justification section,

provide a basis for a comprehensive review of current roadway conditions. Traffic operational

analysis using HCM or microsimulation models may also be desired for complex corridors.

2.4.2 BOS Operating Scenarios

Once the existing limited access facility conditions and operations are established, BOS

operating scenarios are developed considering project objectives, physical and operating

conditions, and level of investment. Refer to operational and design guidelines in Sections 3

and 4 of this report while developing the scenarios. Depending on the project objectives, both

low-cost interim solutions and long-term solutions should be considered. Although project

goals and objectives will define the ultimate BOS solution, the scenario development process

may yield multiple short-term and long-term alternatives that can be incrementally

implemented as they become necessary based on corridor operations. Multi-phase

alternatives are often implemented for strategic reasons. BOS operations may be used to

satisfy the following short-term needs:

Reduction of recurring congestion during peak periods (in lieu of adding additional

lanes to increase capacity);

Improved reliability and bus travel time to increase transit ridership; and

Provide low-cost, short-term benefits until such time long-term measures can be

funded.

Please note that an interim solution may provide additional time for the planning,

environmental clearance (if necessary), design, and construction stages of the ultimate

solution.

9

Options for short-term design configurations should take advantage of existing roadway

features and include a combination of various treatments that consider left shoulder/right

shoulder options, operating schedules, speed protocols, and controls as discussed below.

1. Shoulder Operations

Left shoulder: Left side shoulder operations allow for less conflict points with

on-/off-ramp merge, diverge and weave areas; however, they require a number

of lane changes at points where vehicles are traversing from ramps across

general purpose lanes to access the left side shoulder. The left side shoulder

is often used less frequently for emergency stops and enforcement. Typically,

large trucks and oversized vehicles utilize the outside lane for travel, and

therefore, the left shoulder provides greater separation from these types of

vehicles which can be restricted from the inside travel lane. Also, the left

shoulder is preferred when buses travel long distance on limited access

facilities.

Right shoulder: Right side shoulders allow for easy access to and from ramps

and transit facilities, including bus stops and park-and-ride lots. However, they

present additional conflict points with traveling vehicles at each on-/off-ramp

interchange location. The right shoulder is generally utilized by emergency

vehicles and emergency stops and thus, is likely to have greater conflicts with

BOS operations.

2. Operating Options

The dynamic shoulder option allows for BOS operations when speed

thresholds are met, regardless of the time of day. This option provides greater

facility flexibility and shoulders can be closed, if necessary, to facilitate the

movement of emergency vehicles, or in the case of a vehicle breakdown.

The static shoulder option typically occurs during historic peak periods. This is

a low-cost option that generally requires limited ITS infrastructure investments

as compared to the full dynamic option.

In addition to the above, the BOS operating scenarios should consider the following aspects:

Consistency with transportation needs along the corridor;

Consistency with goals and priorities identified in regional traffic management plans

and congestion management plans;

Feasibility of minor construction and traffic control devices on BOS system;

Proximity to park-and-ride lots and/or the availability of right-of-way to develop park-

and-ride lots if needed;

Management of the corridor on a real-time basis for incident management;

Environmental impacts;

10

Cost of incremental BOS implementation as compared to traditional construction

projects to improve capacity;

Improvements to transit, including travel time savings and reliability; and

Optimization of shoulder lane for maximizing benefits and mitigating adverse impacts.

As mentioned above, access to existing park-and-ride lots should be considered for the modal

transfer of passengers. There is a need to assess whether there are existing park-and-ride

lots or if additional lots are necessary. If so, the transit agency and the Department should

consider locations within the existing right-of-way to minimize cost. Additional right-of-way

acquisition can substantially increase the project costs and potentially delay project

implementation

Performance improvements associated with BOS operations should benefit both the project

and the overall system. The systems level impact depends on how extensive the BOS network

is and the travel demand served by the mode.

Currently, in Florida, dynamic shoulder operations is the scenario that is recommended for

improving local bus system reliability and on-time performance. The permanent use of the

limited access facility shoulder must be agreed to by the facility owner and operator and should

be reserved for more established premium transit services such as Express Bus or Bus Rapid

Transit. In either scenario, operating agreements would be required between the agencies.

2.4.3 Operating Scenario Design Evaluation

Upon the selection of potential BOS scenarios, a detailed analysis will be needed for each

alternative to determine potential benefits and costs associated with those improvements. This

analysis should include evaluation of design and Transportation Systems Management and

Operations (TSM&O) improvements, as well as operational and maintenance needs. Please

note that traditional capacity improvement projects typically have higher initial capital costs

and lower operating costs. On the contrary, BOS operations generally have lower initial costs

but more ongoing maintenance costs, which may be significant depending upon the existing

shoulder infrastructure.

A simplified operating scenario design evaluation can utilize the following criteria:

Capital cost;

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) cost;

Benefit-cost ratio; and

Funding options.

11

Capital Costs may include the following items:

Activities related to systems engineering:

Concept of Operations and requirements documents, design and contract documents,

testing and acceptance activities, construction engineering, and environmental

assessments.

Shoulder reconstruction and widening:

Repaving the shoulder, modifying drainage structures, adding/relocating guardrails,

constructing turnouts, and complete reconstruction or minor widening of the shoulder.

Ramp treatments:

Ramp widening and/or shoulder pavement improvement considered along ramps.

Signage and striping:

Most BOS systems only utilize signs

Construction of park-and-ride Lots:

Construction of park-and-ride lots should be considered if they would benefit the BOS

operation and existing right-of-way is available.

Public outreach and marketing:

The new service should be advertised in multiple forms to ensure general motorists

are aware of BOS.

TSM&O:

This may include installation of ramp meters, dynamic message signs, etc.

Operations and Maintenance costs may include the following items:

Compliance:

Additional police presence needed to enforce the use of the shoulder by buses only.

Driver training:

Transit agencies using BOS facilities will need to conduct on-going training for new

bus drivers as they are hired or assigned to routes with BOS.

TSM&O:

Maintenance of the technology used.

Roadway maintenance:

Shoulders will need to be maintained at the same standard as general purpose lanes.

Park-and-ride lots:

Consider the cost of maintaining new park-and-ride lots associated with the BOS

operation.

Benefit-cost ratio of each alternative is estimated considering life cycle costs and

benefits of the project.

The benefits to be quantified in the benefit-cost analysis may include the following:

Travel time savings;

Safety benefits;

Transit schedule reliability;

Emissions savings; and

Vehicle operating cost savings.

12

Availability of funding is also an important consideration in the selection of the recommended

scenario. This should be discussed with the BOS Team for building consensus during the

feasibility analysis phase.

2.4.4 Recommendations

Finally, a recommended conceptual design for the scenario(s) should emerge from the

feasibility analysis for further development and implementation. At this stage, it is

recommended that the selected scenario be brought to the BOS committee for review and to

gain consensus. It may be necessary to present the scenario to the transit agency Board with

oversight authority to ensure awareness and support for the project. If initiated and coordinated

through the transit agency, a public engagement process can be undertaken during and after

the conceptual design concepts are being evaluated and selected.

13

Design Guidelines

A number of design factors must be evaluated prior to implementation of a BOS system. This

includes design exceptions, evaluation of lane and shoulder width, use of the inside or outside

shoulder, evaluation of pavement condition, assessment of drainage and utilities, and

identification of rumble strips or stripes along the proposed BOS corridor.

Design Exceptions

BOS projects often require exceptions to design standards to allow bus operations while

maintaining safe traffic operations. The design exception process allows for the use of criteria

lower than those specified as minimally acceptable values per the AASHTO Green Book

and/or local design standards. BOS projects along the National Highway System require that

all exceptions be justified and documented to FHWA. Formal approval is required for 13

specific controlling criteria, including the following items:

Design Speed;

Lane Width;

Shoulder Width;

Bridge Width;

Structural Capacity;

Horizontal Alignment;

Vertical Alignment;

Grade;

Stopping Sight Distance;

Cross Slope;

Super Elevation;

Vertical Clearance; and

Horizontal Clearance.

Design exceptions should be evaluated to determine the effects on safety and operation of the

adjacent sections of the roadway. The modification process must be documented and show a

positive precedent to support the modification. Several of these design aspects are described

in the following sections.

Lane and Shoulder Width

General purpose travel lanes are typically 12 feet wide and shoulders are typically 10 feet

wide. The conditions of shoulders may vary depending on the age and maintenance of the

pavement. Newer facilities are designed and constructed with full-depth shoulders, while older

facilities may be shallow and unable to support the constant use by heavy vehicles.

14

Ideal conditions for BOS operations include a 12-foot-wide general purpose lane and a 12-

foot-wide shoulder; however, this is not standard in most areas. The majority of BOS

operations run on segments with 11-foot-wide general purpose lanes and 10-foot-wide

shoulders with success. This shoulder width allows for about 9 inches of clearance on either

side of the bus while operating on the shoulder. Refer to Figure 1 for standard bus dimensions.

While most BOS systems experience occasional mirror sideswipes (because the buses are

operating in such narrow lanes), training can diminish these occurrences. The use of advance

technologies and cameras may eliminate the need for mirrors. However, this may involve new

state legislation and coordination with federal agencies. If the BOS is operating on a bridge

or adjacent to a barrier, the width of the shoulder needs to be at least 11.5 feet wide for the

bus operators to feel comfortable. In a few cases, public agencies have restriped the roadway

to narrow the adjacent general purpose lanes and widen the shoulder. Agencies should

consider new construction projects and reconstruction of segments for widening shoulders.

During this time, right-of-way can be fully utilized and shoulders retrofitted without significant

costs.

Inside Shoulder vs. Outside Shoulder

While most existing BOS systems operate on the outside shoulder (right side), there are a few

instances where the inside (left side) shoulder has been used for BOS operations. One of the

reasons is that the inside shoulder is often wider and is closer to the ideal width previously

described. Many bus transit agencies reported that their operators are more comfortable with

a wider shoulder on the inside because of the indirect line of sight and the reliance on mirrors

to view adjacent traffic.

When deciding between running buses on the inside shoulder or outside shoulder, the other

major factors are trip length and location of entry and exit ramps. If the trip is relatively short

and/or entry and exit ramps are on the right, it may be more appropriate to operate on the

outside shoulder. On the other hand, if trips are longer in length and/or entry and exit ramps

are on the left, it may be appropriate to operate on the inside shoulder.

Cincinnati was the first system to use the inside shoulder for BOS operations. The inside

shoulders are 12-feet wide throughout the 10-mile-long BOS segment. The city has been

successful using the inside shoulder rather than the more common outside shoulder. Following

Cincinnati’s footsteps, the Chicago BOS system was implemented in 2011 using the inside

shoulder. Chicago has also had success using the inside shoulder and there have been no

reports of major accidents to date.

FDOT and FHWA prefer the use of the right shoulder for bus operations; however, this should

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine which shoulder is the safest, most viable

option.

15

Pavement Conditions

The condition of the shoulder pavement must be considered before choosing BOS segments.

In past experiences, BOS systems have not encountered significant issues with shoulders

being inadequate in thickness and slope. As previously mentioned, older systems are more

likely to have shallow shoulders than newer facilities. Minnesota DOT suggests from their

experience that occasional use of shoulders will not harm the shoulder structure but as more

buses begin traveling on the shoulder, strengthening may be necessary. Slope is less of a

concern because modern design limits the difference in slope to 6 percent. If there is a greater

difference such as 7 or 8 percent, an agency may want to consider modifying the break to a

round break rather than a hard break. Also, the condition assessment should examine rutting,

edge wear, and skid resistance. If rutting and edge wear is visible, this should be monitored

for repair and suitability. Unfortunately, there are very few mitigation measures for replacing

skid resistance other than reconstruction or overlay. These factors should not be of concern if

the shoulder has not experienced high volumes of traffic previously.

Drainage and Utilities

The location of drainage and utility structures on the shoulder must be assessed during BOS

planning. Roadway surfaces are typically drained by moving water from the roadway down

vegetated slopes to roadside drainage channels. Sometimes, there will be additional

structures to channelize the flow and minimize erosion. While these structures are not usually

a problem for BOS operations, a few systems, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, have

encountered issues with catch basins. The catch basins were causing discomfort for bus

operators and passengers and, eventually, the basins were damaged by the heavy vehicles.

In response to this situation, the Minnesota DOT created a new design for catch basins to

mitigate the issues of bus operations on the shoulders.

Buses operating on the shoulder will not significantly affect most utilities within the right-of-

way. There are some cases where utilities are attached to existing transportation

infrastructure, such as conduit attached to bridges. Agencies would need to check the utilities

and mitigate any conflicts before BOS is implemented. Some agencies have placed warning

signs in advance of reduced clearance for various roadway features, including sides of bridge

structures and/or utility conduits attached to the structure themselves.

Rumble Strips

During planning for BOS operations, several agencies have experienced a complication

related to the location of shoulder rumble strips. Rumble strips create an unpleasant ride for

the bus operators and passengers and should be removed or moved before a roadway

segment can be utilized as BOS. In most BOS operations, it is suggested that the rumble strip

be relocated to the center of the shoulder rather than removed altogether. Rumble strips play

an important role in warning drivers of lane departure.

16

The FDOT Roadway Design office has recently discussed a new design for interstate

applications where the interstate segment is designated as an evacuation route. The design

involves moving the rumble strip to the edge of the general purpose lane and painting a stripe

over the rumble strip. This would conserve the shoulder area and allow for a more comfortable

ride for all shoulder users. The design may also be applied to other hard shoulder running

projects such as BOS. This design feature should be discussed with the Roadway Design

office accordingly.

Figure 2 illustrates the proposed hard shoulder rumble strip design.

Signage and Pavement Markings

Signage and pavement markings play a critical role in communicating information to both

buses and other vehicles on the highway.1 Agencies have relied heavily on signage in the past

and rarely use pavement markings to signal that BOS operations are permitted. The signs

used are fairly simple, indicating the beginning and end of the BOS segment, warning vehicles

that there are buses operating on shoulder at on-ramps, and designating the shoulder for bus

use only. Several systems, including the Minneapolis-St. Paul system, uses “pinch point” signs

to indicate a narrowing shoulder. This communicates to the bus operator to move back into

the general purpose lane. A general rule of thumb for signs warning a bus operator to move

back into a general purpose lane before any obstruction should be 1000 feet.

Figure 3 provides examples of common signage used in BOS operations.

Access Management and Control

Managing the integration of BOS operations at on-ramps, off-ramps, auxiliary lanes, and

interchanges can be a challenge. Majority of the time, the answer is simple: bus operators

yield to other traffic that is merging on or off of the roadway. BOS operations in Minneapolis-

St. Paul, Seattle, and San Diego have limited the required bus movement to one lane merge

or weave at any location. Merging or weaving more than one lane can cause problems

considering the size and operational characteristics of the buses. Cities such as Minneapolis-

St. Paul and San Diego have used other methods such as ramp metering and auxiliary lanes.

In San Diego, the bus operators moved into the auxiliary lane for the area between the off-

ramp and on-ramp at interchanges where they operate on the shoulder.

Ramp metering was an effective strategy used in the Minneapolis- St. Paul to increase

available gaps in traffic so that transit vehicles on the shoulder have a higher probability of

meeting an acceptable gap as they approach the entry ramp. While ramp metering is effective,

1 There are standards for signs and pavement markings; however, these are approved directly by FHWA during the planning process of each individual system.

17

it comes with operational issues and should be discussed with the Department traffic engineers

to assess the feasibility. Additionallty, installing signals at entry ramps adds to the project cost

and BOS is supposed to be a low-cost strategy.

BOS operations are put in place to create a more frequent, faster, and reliable bus service.

BOS service is normally part of a longer bus route that brings riders from home to their job site

downtown or in other major employment centers. With this in mind, transit priority and access

to park and ride lots should be considered during planning.

Transit signal priority is used to complement the BOS service. Like ramp metering, transit

signal priority may have adverse effects including increased delays and queue lengths for

vehicles traveling on cross-streets and disruption of traffic patterns along coordinated arterials.

The concept may be considered at arterials to assist in the movement of buses onto the

interstate on a case by case basis. It also may be more beneficial to limit transit signal priority

to AM and PM peak hours rather than at all hours of the day.

Ideal BOS segments are those with daily gridlock, stop-and-go conditions with traffic moving

15 miles per hour (mph) or less. At this speed, buses can travel up to 15 mph faster than

general purpose lanes, increasing travel time savings, and improving reliability (assuming

maximum 15 mph speed differential). Interchanges on these busy segments can be difficult to

navigate because of the high traffic volume. Some of these have very limited sight distance as

well, further complicating the weave. If these circumstances can be managed to minimize

conflicts, these segments are promising for BOS.

Refer to Table 2. Design Criteria Checklist for technical guidance.

18

Figure 1. Standard Bus Dimensions

Figure 1-a. Standard 40-foot Bus

Figure 1-b: Standard Paratransit Vehicle

Figure 1-c: Standard Articulated Bus

19

Figure 2. Proposed Rumble Strips

20

Figure 3. Example BOS Signage

Figure 3-b: Bus On Shoulder System (BOSS), NCDOT

Figure 3-c: Pinch Point Sign, Cincinnati Metro

Figure 3-a: COTA Bus On Shoulder Sign

Figure 3-d: I-405 Sign, Community Transit, WSDOT

21

Table 2. Design Criteria Checklist

Design Features Yes/ No/N/A Comments/Mitigation Activities (If Necessary)

Is the shoulder along the corridor at least 10 feet in width where there is no barrier?

Is the shoulder along the corridor at least 11.5 feet in width in segments with a barrier?

Can shoulder pavement conditions withstand BOS operations?

(7 inch pavement depth is ideal)

Is the shoulder pavement slope less than or equal to 6 percent?

(Assess rutting, edge wear, and skid resistance)

Are there rumble strips along the shoulder?

Are there drainage structures and/or utilities obstructing BOS operations?

Will the outside shoulder or inside shoulder be used?

(Consider shoulder width, location of entry and exit ramps, segment length, and operating conditions to make this determination)

Can buses travel at least two miles on the shoulder without encountering a conflict such as an on-ramp or off-ramp?

Are there significant traffic weave issues along the corridor?

Do on-ramps have less than 1000 vph merging onto the corridor?

(More than 1000 vph may result in challenging merging and weaving)

Are there traffic sight distance issues along the corridor?

Is it safe to operate BOS in this corridor?

(Evaluate crash rates and types to understand if BOS may impact the safety conditions)

What signs and pavement markings will be used and where along the corridor?

(”Bus Only” signs every quarter to half mile along the segment, watch for BOS, pinch point signs, etc.)

22

Operating Guidelines

Over the course of the past 30 years, including extensive evaluations of existing systems, a

set of standard operating guidelines have been established for BOS systems within the United

States. The TCRP Report 151 discusses these guidelines in-depth and provides examples of

the success they have brought to agencies across the country. The Minneapolis-St. Paul BOS

system has been used as the prototype due to its unwavering success with over 300 miles of

BOS segments. While most of the existing BOS systems have numerous standard operating

policies, many of the systems have slight differences to fit the unique conditions of particular

locations or highway segments that buses will be utilizing. This section outlines the operating

guidelines that should be considered while implementing a BOS system in Florida.

Speed Protocols

Speed plays a major role in the success of BOS systems. The most successful systems have

a higher differential between the congested speed in general purpose lanes and the maximum

speed limit on the shoulder. Based on BOS operating experience and feedback from bus

operators, most existing BOS operations have a maximum shoulder speed of 35 mph. The

threshold speed in general purpose lanes for buses to start using the shoulder is also typically

35 mph. Most BOS systems have set a 15 mph maximum speed differential between the

general purpose lanes and the speed of the buses operating on the shoulder. Bus operators

are required to use their best judgment to determine the speed differential between the general

purpose lanes and their operating speed. BOS operations in Toronto, Ottawa, and Seattle

have higher speed limits, but these locations also tend to have wider shoulders. Additionally,

while these speed protocols are the standard, threshold speed and maximum speed

differential should be reviewed periodically for necessary increases or reductions.

Operating Hours

BOS operations are typically run only during hours of congestion. Most of the systems in the

United States do not have specific operating hours; instead, buses are permitted to merge

onto the shoulder when the general purpose traffic lanes slow to a certain speed. As stated

above, the typical threshold speed for this type of operation is 35 mph or less. Other systems,

have assigned operating hours during the morning peak period and the evening peak period.

Driver Training

Bus transit agencies should provide driver training for BOS in both classroom setting and on

the road. During the classroom training, it is recommended that the bus operators be shown a

video giving an overview of what BOS is and how it works first, and then the local operating

protocols and permitted BOS segments be explained. On-the-road training can be conducted

in a controlled setting with assistance from the state DOT and law enforcement. Several

23

agencies also require operators to log on-the-road hours accompanied by law enforcement to

ensure they are safely operating on the shoulder and general purpose lane motorists are

respecting BOS. Use of driving simulators is also encouraged before on-the-road training. After

the training has been completed, the bus operators are encouraged to drive on the shoulder.

However, trained operators are not always required to operate on the shoulder and are taught

to use their best judgment and only utilize the shoulder if they feel the conditions are safe.

Authorized Users

BOS operations are limited to specific authorized users. While some systems allow express

buses and private and suburban operators, others are only accessible to the express buses.

Additionally, bus operators should be specifically trained to operate on shoulders because they

tend to be narrower than general purpose lanes and they require more complicated

maneuvers.

The type of bus operating on the shoulder is an important detail to consider when defining

authorized users. Standard 40-foot buses are over 10 feet in width, including mirrors, and are

10 feet in height (refer to Figure 1 for standard bus dimensions). The size ensures better sight

distance for the bus operator and the traffic in the general purpose lanes can easily see the

buses. Some states also allow paratransit buses/vans to utilize the shoulder. This situation is

left to the discretion of the state DOTs and transit agencies. It is important to note which types

of buses will be utilized during the planning phase as this will affect the type of shoulder

conditions needed for a safe BOS operation.

Safety

Safety has been a major concern of stakeholders since the beginning of the BOS concept. To

date, there have been very few (mostly minor) accidents in the North American BOS systems.

The impressive track record most likely has much to do with the extensive coordination

between stakeholders, including bus transit agencies, bus operators, law enforcement, and

public motorists in the area. This coordination starts at the planning level and continues

through the lifecycle of the system. The limitations placed on BOS operations also play a role

in the safety, including the speed limit and maximum speed differential, as well as the

requirement of most systems to merge back into the general purpose lanes at on-ramps. Bus

operators are also required to keep their four-way flashers on while operating on the shoulder

to increase visibility. To date, no system has been shut down due to safety concerns.

Arterial Operations

BOS systems generally only run on limited access facilities to avoid the conflicts from

driveways, traffic signals, school zones, bus stop locations, bicycles and pedestrians, and

many other factors that complicate operations. A few agencies run BOS on arterials, including

Middlesex County, New Jersey. Significant improvements were made to New Jersey’s U.S. 9

24

to accommodate buses. Improvements included new sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands,

full-depth shoulders, reduced cross slopes, and an increased number of drainage inlets. There

was a serious accident on U.S. 9 involving a commuter bus on shoulder rear-ending a school

bus. Unfortunately, this accident was caused by a poorly written law which did not define BOS

operating protocols. Buses of all kinds were using the shoulder lanes and the speed limit was

55 mph, equivalent to the general purpose lanes. The lanes were shut down for a period of

time while the legislation was revised and there has not been any more serious accidents

involving BOS.

If an agency is considering a BOS operation on an arterial with the factors mentioned above,

there should be studies to determine if there is a need for mitigation measures. If there are

dedicated lanes for bicycles, a BOS operation should not be considered on an arterial

roadway. Also, driveways, mailboxes, and on-street parking cause more conflict points on

arterials. Mailboxes may need to be pushed back from the pavement and on-street parking

should not be allowed during the BOS operating times. BOS on arterials must be carefully

planned to coordinate with frequent bus stops that are close to the pavement. Although it is

possible to have BOS on arterials roadways, it is generally discouraged.

Incident Management, Law Enforcement, and

Emergency Services

Buses running on the shoulder can present complications if the shoulder is blocked by an

accident, emergency vehicles, or law enforcement. These instances would require the transit

bus to merge back into slow-moving traffic. As previously discussed, law enforcement at the

state and local levels should be included in the planning stage to ensure proper legislation is

in place to allow enforcement of these BOS segments. Traffic Incident Management partners

such as fire and rescue, emergency medical services, towing and recovery, etc. should also

be involved in the planning process.

A best practice used in Atlanta, Georgia is to create pullouts along the BOS segment on the

right side of the BOS operations for law enforcement and disabled vehicles. This is not always

feasible for BOS operations due to right-of-way or cost constraints. BOS operators are trained

to recognize these types of situations on the shoulder, maneuver back into the general purpose

lane, and notify their supervisor of the blockage as needed. The transit agency can then notify

the incident management contact immediately ensuring timely removal of vehicles or debris

and quick clearance of incidents on the BOS facility. The emergency response or clearance

time should be no more than 30 minutes from the time of notification.

Highway Maintenance

Maintenance of shoulders becomes as important as maintenance of the general purpose lanes

when operating buses on the shoulder. There should be regular checks for debris and disabled

25

vehicles on the BOS routes as well as water during heavy storms. Maintenance may be

contracted out and should be considered in the Concept of Operations document which is

discussed in detail in later sections.

During all types of precipitation, bus operators should be trained to use their best judgment

when choosing to merge onto the shoulder. If there is high water, bus operators should remain

in the general purpose lanes.

Start-Up Measures

Start-up activities to inform riders, stakeholders, and the general public should be tailored to

local conditions. On-board signs and at bus stops, bus wraps, and advertisements in

brochures, on websites, and in local news can inform riders of the new service to minimize

panic when buses merge onto the shoulder and bypass traffic. General traffic can be informed

of the new BOS operations using changeable, electronic message signs, on-ramp alert

signage, and general media. It is also a best practice to have signage up several weeks before

operation begins to alert motorists of the new BOS operations and attract potential new riders.

Refer to Table 3. Operating Criteria Checklist for technical guidance.

26

Table 3. Operating Criteria Checklist

Operating features: Comments

When should BOS be allowed?

(Typically allowed when general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph)

What is the maximum speed limit on shoulder?

(35 mph or below)

What is the allowable speed differential between the shoulder and general purpose lanes?

(15 mph or below)

What are the operating hours?

(any time the general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph or below)

Who are the authorized users?

(List all transit agencies/bus operators - fixed route, paratransit, charter, school buses, etc.)

What types of buses will be utilizing the shoulder?

(Standard 40' bus/ paratransit vehicles/ etc.)

How will the operators be trained?

(classroom, simulator, on-the-road)

How long will the training take to complete?

Will trained bus operators be required to use the shoulder under ideal conditions or is shoulder use optional?

(Optional)

Will operators be required to use their four-way flashers at all times when operating on the shoulder?

(Yes)

Are bus operators required to merge into the general purpose lanes when approaching an on-ramp?

(Yes)

Which public agencies will be involved in enforcement?

(FHP, local police, Traffic Incident Management)

Who will be responsible for maintenance of the shoulder and how often will they be cleared of debris?

(Contracted out, Road Rangers, etc.)

27

Project Development and Concept of Operations

After the feasibility analysis has been completed and a preferred operating concept has been

recommended by the committee, the project development and concept of operations phase is

initiated. During this phase, the BOS team will work together to prepare for the implementation

stage of the BOS project.

Project Development

The purpose of the project development phase is to essentially comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federal projects and other regulations for state-funded

projects. This evaluation is critical if federal funds are used to implement the projects. Since

most of the projects are considered TSM&O alternatives and have relatively low capital costs,

federal funds may not be necessary. However, a high-level environmental screening should

be conducted consistent with the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual (PD&E

Manual) or the FTA NEPA document. Because most BOS projects are expected to operate

within the existing right-of-way (ROW) and require little to no additional ROW, they are

anticipated be Categorical Exclusions (CE) as opposed to an Environmental Assessment (EA)

or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Concept of Operations

The purpose of the Concept of Operations (Con-Ops) document is to describe the

characteristics of the proposed BOS system from the perspective of the FDOT, the local transit

agency, and the bus operator. This document will serve as a high-level conceptual guide for

the design, implementation, and operation of the BOS system. The document should cover

the scope and background of the BOS project and include the limits of the project, a description

of the type of roadway use in the BOS corridor, and general traffic characteristics of the

corridor. The project background may include a discussion on the existing operations of the

corridor, including existing infrastructure, commercial vehicle use, existing transit operations,

ITS infrastructure and operations, enforcement, maintenance, and incident management.

It is important to set the stage for the implementation of the BOS system in the Con-Ops

document. The document should define the existing stakeholder roles and responsibilities,

including those of FHWA, the state DOT, emergency responders, state and local law

enforcement, freight facilities, toll facilities (if applicable), and local motorists.

The operational assessment section of the document should focus on existing traffic

operations and mobility, existing and proposed roadway improvement projects, and a thorough

safety assessment of the corridor. Operating guidelines need to be planned jointly with the

state DOT, transit agencies, and bus operators to ensure safe operations as well as a

comfortable ride for the bus operator and passengers. Bus operators are vital during this stage

28

because they can provide feedback on speeds, shoulder widths, and reactions from

passengers and other drivers in the general purpose lanes.

Depending upon the type and extent of signage utilized on the corridor, there may need to be

an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) overview section incorporated into the Con-Ops.

The Con-Ops should directly address access (including any intermediate access and egress

points), signing and striping, enforcement, safety, and emergency response operations based

on design alternatives.

Once a preferred design alternative has been established, the design should be incorporated

into the Con-Ops document. Design features include:

Typical section;

Left side vs. right side operations;

Access control;

Emergency pullouts (if required);

Ramp modifications;

Roadway striping;

Roadway signing; and

TSM&O devices (if required).

The Con-Ops document should also consider system management policies and procedures

and performance measures. Standard operating procedures providing direction for incident

management, weather events, shoulder blockage, etc., should be included along with

identifying the operations manager who will be directing incident response strategies. The

hours of operation and opening and closing procedures for the BOS facility should be defined.

For example, will the operations be based on time of day or speed of traffic in general purpose

lanes? Will the shoulder operations require a visual verification of the shoulders along the

corridor prior to its opening to ensure safe operation? Additionally, system management may

also address how the corridor will be maintained.

Lastly, the Con-Ops document should include a summary of potential impacts based on the

proposed design. This is a general summary of the signage, structure modifications, additional

pavement needs, traffic operations and controls, changes in stakeholder roles and

responsibilities (if applicable), and public outreach and education.

The Con-Ops document provides an opportunity for the agencies to develop and track

performance measures, if desired. The Con-Ops may be utilized to identify which performance

measures are applicable and set a baseline “Before” value for these performance measures.

Performance measures may include consistency and reliability of travel time, congestion

during peak periods, and safety in the corridor.

The Con-ops will serve as the basis for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the

agencies involved in the project.

29

Develop Action Plan

Based on the recommended design and operational concept and the benefit-cost evaluation,

an action plan for implementation of the project should be developed to illustrate the steps

necessary, timeline and estimated costs to implement the project. The purpose of the Action

Plan is to demonstrate the overall project implementation plan for consideration by the BOS

Committee and the District Secretary.

Approvals and Preparing for Implementation

The next step in the process is to obtain approvals from the District Secretary and FHWA in

writing. The following documents should be furnished along with the approval request:

Project Justification;

Feasibility Analysis Report;

Concept of Operations;

Action Plan; and

Funding Plan.

Upon the approval by the District Secretary, the Department would approach the agency with

a MOA. In addition, several activities, including but not limited to, those listed below have to

be undertaken.

Programming of Funds

Capital

Operations and Maintenance

Environmental Clearances

Usually approved through categorical exclusions

Final Design and Constructability Review

100% Design

Signage improvements

Restriping

Pavement strengthening

Drainage inlet improvements

Legal Considerations

Vehicle codes must be modified to permit bus use of shoulders to bypass congestion

and to allow enforcement of the service.

Training

Transit agencies

Bus operators

Law enforcement

30

Maintenance staff

Marketing and Public Outreach

Utilize all forms of media to advertise the service several weeks prior to

implementation;

o Promote the service using signs, brochures, TV and radio advertisements, public

service announcements, press releases, etc.; and

o Marketing efforts aim to increase ridership and inform the vehicles operating in

general purpose lanes that buses should be expected on the shoulders.

Memorandum of Agreement

The MOA is critical to defining the roles and responsibilities of the BOS team. The MOA will

serve as an agreement between the BOS team members and should, at a minimum, include

a description of the infrastructure to be installed for BOS projects and establish the roles and

responsibilities for implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BOS system.

As mentioned earlier, the BOS team should include FDOT, transit agencies, expressway

authorities, MPOs/ TPOs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state and local law

enforcement, Traffic Incident Management, and, but not limited to, local jurisdiction

representatives. The transit agency is responsible for requesting and providing justification for

implementing a BOS operation to FDOT. FDOT will in turn conduct a feasibility study to

determine if the corridor proposed meets the criteria for BOS operations. At this time, FHWA

will need to be involved to ensure compliance with federal requirements and to approve any

design exceptions. When all approvals have been received, the transit agency will undertake

all activities related to marketing, public outreach and education, and training. The

MPOs/TPOs and local jurisdictions will primarily be in charge of regional coordination. The

MPOs/TPOs should include the project in the long range transportation plan (LRTP) so the

project will be eligible for funding. Enforcement of operating guidelines is critical to the safety

of BOS and will be the responsibility of the local and state law enforcement. Also, clearing of

obstructions on the shoulder must be handled in a timely fashion in order to get the buses back

on the shoulder. The FDOT Traffic Incident Management team is in charge of clearing crashes

safely and in a timely manner. The team includes responding agencies such as emergency

personnel, and towing and other contract service providers. Finally, maintenance of the

shoulder and park and ride lots (if applicable) will be maintained by the FDOT maintenance

office staff as well as the FDOT Road Rangers. Each of the agencies must agree to perform

their role for the life of the project to ensure safety and success of the BOS operation.

The MOA must also include a detailed scope of work that clearly defines the work to be

completed under a project, which party is responsible for the installation (for example, this

would be the responsibility of FDOT or a particular project commissioned by FDOT), the owner

of all installed infrastructure, initial purchasing responsibilities, operational responsibilities, and

finally, maintenance responsibilities. The MOA will define the cost to procure project specific

infrastructure and define the terms of transfer of ownership as necessary. The MOA may also

31

define maintenance operations, compensation, and budgetary items if the maintenance is

being done by one agency and paid for by another. This document will also define any

performance monitoring specifications, project compliance issues in addition to the

maintenance of records required by the project.

Implementation Approach

Using the information evaluated in the previous sections, different implemenation approaches

can be considered for a project depending upon many factors, such as physical contraints,

funding, etc. The implementation process may begin with smaller or incremental steps of the

project and, with time and resources, increase until fully implemented/completed. An example

of these approaches is provided below in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Incremental Implementation Alternatives

32

Project Implementation

One aspect of the project implementation period involves the marketing of the new service.

Transit agencies typically have a marketing department and experience with public outreach

and the marketing of new services. It is recommended that the transit agencies be the lead

agency in developing and conducting marketing campaigns for the BOS. These marketing

efforts are aimed at increasing ridership on the BOS corridors as well as informing the

motorists in general purpose lanes that the buses should be given priority. Additionally, once

the buses are running on the shoulder and bypassing congestion, buses become self-

marketing. The coordination with local and state police to enforce bus-only shoulders is critical

in the implementation phase and is discussed in further detail below.

There are many facets to enforceability of the BOS system. Enforceability begins with the type

of signing and striping being designed for the corridor. Regulatory signs are enforceable while

warning signs are only used for advisory purposes. The FDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD) should be used in consideration of all signing and striping used for

BOS operations. In general, enforcement should be primarily focused on ensuring that

authorized buses are the only vehicles using the shoulder for travel. As an example, at merge

points for High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, it is often found that general purpose traffic

will straddle lanes to “block” the HOV vehicles from using the full merge distance as it is

perceived that the HOV drivers are gaining an undue advantage. This can and has happened

with BOS as well; drivers may intentionally or inadvertently block the shoulder to make it

difficult, if not impossible, for the bus to pass. Teaming with local law enforcement and

educating the general public are both potential mitigation measures for this activity.

Educating the general public is also critical to BOS implementatiom. Prior to implementation

of a BOS system, public education and outreach plans should be developed and implemented.

Motorists should be educated on the routes, travel times, fares, and locations where they can

park their vehicles to access the system. The public involvement campaign should address

enforcement and publicize ramifications of a violation. Innovative public involvement

campaigns have included bus wraps advertising that buses are authorized to run on the

shoulder, providing immediate feedback on the use of the shoulder.

A second component of education involves the bus operators themselves. Professionally

trained drivers are at the cornerstone of a successful BOS project. They are accountable for

understanding BOS operations, acknowledging complexities of merge and diverge operations

at ramps, and making informed decisions on re-merging into general purpose lanes based on

shoulder conditions. Training for bus operators typically includes a detailed description of the

BOS policies, operational limitations such as speed, and procedures for a shoulder blockage,

decreased shoulder width or any other obstructions they may encounter.

Refer to Table 4. Implementation Checklist for assistance in this stage of BOS implementation.

33

Table 4. Implementation Checklist

Implementation Comments

What is the cost and funding source for implementation?

Has legal authority been established?

Are operating protocols in place?

Is the necessary infrastructure in place?

Are the bus drivers trained?

Have all approvals to begin BOS service been received?

How will facilitation of agency coordination occur?

Which public agencies need to be involved?

Have the roles of each agency been defined?

Has BOS been coordinated with Florida Highway Patrol (FHP)?

Did they conduct ride along?

How will the public be informed of BOS implementation? How long prior to implementation will public information/awareness campaign begin?

34

Monitor BOS System

Once the system is up and running, the transit agency must monitor the service. Information

regarding the monitoring of the bus service and performance measures should be noted in

detail in the standard operating procedures (SOPs) section of the MOA between the agencies.

It should be the responsibility of the transit agency (as noted in the MOA) to provide the District

Transit Office with an Annual Report on the operational status, any issues with the BOS

operation, and how the performance measures and targets are being met. It they are not

achieved, recommendations for revisions should be made for consideration by the Districts.

Monitoring performance of the BOS operation involves maintenance of the shoulder,

enforcement, assessing the benefits, and determining if there are changes needed to make

the operation safer or more successful. Below are examples of how an agency may monitor

performance.

Maintain the Shoulder

Keep the shoulders clear of debris and broken down vehicles

Monitor for wear and ride quality of the shoulder

Ensure maintenance is performed at the same level as the general purpose lanes

Enforcement

Law enforcement must continually monitor the shoulder to ensure only authorized

users are operating on the shoulder

The state DOT should keep law enforcement up-to-date on authorized users as well

as any other changes associated with BOS operations

Assess Benefits

Collect before and after travel time and safety data for comparison purposes

Review ridership numbers to determine if there has been an increase with the

implementation of BOS

Desired Changes

Interview the bus operators for feedback regarding speed, shoulder conditions,

passenger reactions, as well as any challenges involving vehicles in the general

purpose lanes

Review routes to determine if there are other buses that could benefit from BOS

Assess if there is a need for a change in the bus schedule

Refer to Table 5 for the Post-Implementation Evaluation Checklist.

35

Table 5. Post-Implementation Checklist

Post-Implementation Yes/No/N/A Comments

Conduct a before and after study.

What is the cost of on-going operation/maintenance?

What is the funding source?

Has transit ridership increased as a result of the BOS operation?

(Ridership numbers may need to be evaluated over two years to determine changes)

Has the BOS operation resulted in travel time savings?

Has the BOS operation improved travel time reliability?

Has the BOS operation caused safety issues?

Were there any crashes resulting from buses traveling on shoulder?

If so, specify the type and severity of crash.

Has there been confusion or conflict amongst traffic in the general purpose lanes resulting from the BOS operation?

Conduct a survey of bus operators, bus passengers, and auto drivers in general purpose lanes.

Are their perceptions positive?

What potential improvements were identified?

36

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this report are based on information that was documented

in the Literature Review which can be found in Appendix A. While these recommendations are

best practices, each project may present opportunities and/or challenges beyond those

identified for other BOS systems

37

Appendix A

Literature Review

38

1.0 Introduction

As part of the subject project, a review of available literature surrounding the BOS systems

currently in operation was conducted. The purpose of the literature review was to provide

information on the state of practice for BOS operations and identify best practices used in

North American systems. The Literature Review includes an overview of the BOS concept,

summary of case studies, a review of opportunities and challenges, and a discussion of

lessons learned from other BOS systems.

2.0 BOS Concept

The BOS concept has been in practice in North America since the 1970s. The concept involves

buses running on the shoulder of freeways and major arterials during peak hours of congestion

to assist in improving transit service on-time performance and reliability. BOS is favored by

communities and state DOTs because it is a low-cost solution that can be implemented easily

without adding infrastructure or purchasing additional right-of-way. BOS is different from

shoulders open to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV), as only authorized transit buses are

allowed to operate on the shoulders under specific conditions. Limiting the use of shoulders

for bus operations allows for easy merging into the general purpose lanes if there is an

emergency response vehicle or a blocked shoulder along the route. BOS has proven to be a

safe solution to severe congestion due to the low speed limit on shoulders.

39

3.0 BOS Literature

A number of existing studies and reports were reviewed as part of this research effort. A

summary of the key literature is provided below.

TCRP Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders, 2006

The synthesis identifies current and planned BOS projects in North America with brief

descriptions of each of the systems. It also describes concerns regarding the use of BOS,

operational experiences, and discusses intelligent transportation systems (ITS) applications.

The final section of the synthesis includes case studies of BOS systems from six areas

including: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Falls Church, Virginia; Miami, Florida; San Diego,

California; Toronto, Ontario; and Dublin, Ireland.

TCRP Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder (BOS) Systems, 2012

The report provides extensive guidance on planning, design, and implementation of BOS

operations along urban freeways and major arterials. The guidelines are based on literature,

analysis of existing BOS systems, interviews with transit agencies involved in BOS projects,

and feedback from bus operators and passengers in BOS communities.

FDOT District Five, I-4 BOS Feasibility Analysis, 2008

In 2008, FDOT District Five researched the use of bus on shoulder as an interim solution to

congestion on I-4 (between the LYNX downtown terminal and SR 536). The project included

a literature review and findings from case studies of successful BOS systems. Shoulder

conditions along I-4 were analyzed to determine if BOS was a possibility in this area.

Bus-On-Shoulders Service Evaluation, Miami, 2009

This report documents the planning of the BOS operations along SR 874 and SR 878

connecting to the Dadeland Metrorail Station. It includes a review of similar projects, before-

and-after Metrobus and expressway conditions, roadway and traffic conditions, surveys from

bus operators and passengers, and findings and recommendations of the 2007 pilot project.

The success demonstrated in the evaluation helped Miami-Dade Transit make the case for a

permanent BOS system which was approved in 2010.

Bus By-Pass Shoulder (BBS) Study, Mississauga, Ontario, 2004

This study documents the evaluation of the use of the right shoulder of Highway 403 between

Erin Mills Parkway and Mavis Road by authorized transit operators. The report analyzes traffic

data studied prior to the pilot project, describes road network characteristics of Highway 403,

documents the before-and-after conditions of the corridor with BBS, and includes the findings

and recommendations of the study.

40

Central Ohio Bus On Freeway Shoulder Evaluation, 2007

The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) evaluated the results of a pilot BOS project along

I-70 East in Columbus, Ohio. This report includes the final evaluation of the project based on

safety, benefits to transit operations, and perceptions by drivers and passengers. In addition,

the report documents the research conducted prior to the implementation of the pilot project.

Assessment of the Feasibility of Bus On Shoulders (BOS) at Select Locations in the

National Capital Region, 2013

The report includes an assessment of current BOS projects in the capital region and

throughout the United States, including opportunities and challenges presented in safety,

design, and operations. Potential corridors for BOS operation on the region’s highway network

were identified based on three factors, including current bus service, existing highway

congestion locations, and highway shoulder conditions. The findings of the research and

survey of existing conditions were documented and potential next steps were suggested.

Peak Period Shoulder Use of Urban Expressways, Center for Transportation Research

and Capital Metro Transit Authority, 2010

This report documents the research conducted by the Center for Transportation Research. It

summarizes the four tasks undertaken during the two years of the research project. The four

tasks included a literature review, identifying potential BOS corridors in Austin, Texas, a

benefit-cost analysis on each of the identified corridors, and lastly, possible changes in

ridership resulting from BOS operations.

Johnson County Transit, Bus-on-Shoulder Progress Report, 2012

The purpose of this report is to document the ridership trends, shoulder use, and report on

customer perceptions from the first six months that the BOS in Johnson County, Kansas was

in service. It also outlines the operating guidelines, shoulder preparation, and the marketing

efforts by the transit agency.

FHWA, Use of Freeway Shoulders for Travel, Guide for Planning, Evaluating. and

Designing Part-Time Shoulder Use as a Traffic Management Strategy, 2016

The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance for planning, designing, implementing, and

operating part-time shoulder use. The guide focuses on three factors, including the use of a

Performance-Based Practical Design process to determine if part-time shoulder use is viable

for meeting the goals and objectives of the stakeholders, potential impacts and feasibility of

implementing part-time shoulder use, and designing and operating part-time shoulder use to

optimize safety and lane utilization.

41

In addition, transit agency websites were reviewed in order to obtain current information on

BOS systems. Information sources for each of the Case Studies are documented in Section 5

of this Literature Review.

42

4.0 BOS Systems in North America

Currently, North America has 17 BOS systems in operation. Fourteen of these systems are

located in the United States and three are located in Canada. Figure 1 illustrates the location

of these systems.

The American BOS systems are located primarily in the Midwest, the Northeast, and the

Southeast. While the oldest system originated in Seattle, Washington in the 1970s, the BOS

system located in Minneapolis-St. Paul is considered the prototype system for many of the

recently implemented systems. The Minneapolis-St. Paul system was initiated to improve bus

performance and reliability, and to provide another transportation mode after a nearby river

overflowed and flooded several major roadways near these cities. This system runs along

several interstate and major arterials. Twenty-five years after implementation, this system has

grown to over 300 miles of BOS operations and over 400 buses used on a daily basis.

Along with Minneapolis-St. Paul, another important existing BOS system from the perspective

of this study is the Miami, Florida system. This system, which is the only one in Florida to date,

has been in operation for nearly 10 years and is running on shoulders along several

expressways/toll facilities.

The research of the existing systems2 revealed that most of the BOS programs primarily run

along interstate or toll facilities. A few instances exist where surface arterials are also served

by BOS operations. These arterials tend to be limited-access facilities to minimize stops at

intersections, which is an important element of a BOS system. In addition, most systems have

implemented a reasonable, maximum bus operating speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) so the

buses may continue traveling along the shoulders in a safe manner while having the ability to

accommodate sudden stops or the need to maneuver back into the general purpose lanes due

to vehicle breakdowns or crashes on/near the shoulder. With regard to safety, it has been

shown that most of these systems have had minimal accidents/incidents since their inception.

It should be noted that in addition to the existing BOS operations previously shown, there was

also another system in operation up until a few years ago. A BOS pilot project was initiated in

San Diego, California along parts of I-805 in the mid-2000s as an interim improvement until

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Managed Lanes projects were constructed. Although the pilot

project was successful, it was ended after the completion of the HOV/Managed Lanes projects.

Recently however, government officials have indicated that the BOS system will be re-

established on other corridors in the city.

In addition to existing BOS systems, two other systems are in the planning/implementation

stage. These systems will be located in Austin, Texas and Boulder, Colorado. Currently, both

2 A matrix has been provided in Attachment A showing the major attributes of all the BOS systems researched.

43

systems are finalizing the legal authority to allow the use of shoulders by buses as well as

finalizing design/operations considerations.

44

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida Figure 1. Existing Operational BOS in North America

45

5.0 BOS Case Studies

As previously stated, a major task of this literature review involved case study reviews of

relevant existing BOS systems. The selection of these systems was based upon a variety of

factors that are likely to be similar to the proposed project, including system length, years in

operation, geographical location, etc. Upon a review of these factors, the following seven

systems were chosen for a detailed review:

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota;

Atlanta, Georgia;

Chicago, Illinois;

Columbus, Ohio;

Johnson County, Kansas;

Miami, Florida; and

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

The systems listed above, which represent one-half of the existing programs in the United

States, provide a realistic cross section of attributes or features that may be needed for

consideration as part of the proposed project. Although each of these existing systems may

have slightly different features, the items that are similar across all these systems can be

considered as "best practices," or at least, "common practices."

A sampling of the key features for these BOS systems is provided in Table 1, including opening

year, route type/location, shoulder usage, authorized users, BOS allowance times, and

shoulder speed limitations. The complete and detailed case studies for each of the seven

systems are also provided in this section.

As shown in Table 1, many of the key features were similar between all of the case studies

although there are few exceptions. For example, most BOS systems operate on the interstate

system. A few of the locations also operate along other state limited-access (non-interstate)

facilities, including Minneapolis-St. Paul. The use of the outside (or right) shoulder is

predominant in all systems with the exception of Chicago. Authorized users for BOS is

primarily limited to transit agency bus operators, although certain BOS systems like Atlanta

and Columbus have opened up the shoulders to mainstream commuters and private bus

companies. Another consistent feature for the BOS systems is the allowance for buses to

travel on the shoulders when the speed on the general purpose lanes decreases to 35 mph.

Miami is the exception with 25 mph as its threshold. Finally, the maximum travel speed on the

shoulders for buses is typically 35 mph (the Columbus system allows up to 45 mph) while the

speed differential between the buses on the shoulders and vehicles in the general purpose

lanes can range from 10 to 15 mph.

46

Table 1. Key Features of Existing BOS Systems

BOS System Location (Opening Year)

Type of Roadway

Shoulder Used Authorized

Users

When are BOS Operations

Permitted

Max. Shoulder Operating

Speed

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minneapolis (1991)

Over 300 miles of interstates and state highways

Right shoulder (outside)

Metro Transit (fixed route), Transit Team (paratransit), and registered charter buses

When general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph

15 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum

Atlanta, Georgia (2005/Flex shoulder use began in 2012)

State limited access highway (GA 400)

Right shoulder (outside)

GRTA and MARTA transit buses (24hr). In 2012, changed to flex use shoulders and all vehicles now permitted (SB 6:30-10:00am; NB 4:00-7:00pm).

For buses when general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph. For all vehicles during posted peak hour times.

For buses when general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph: 15 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum. For all vehicles: 45 mph during posted peak hour times.

Chicago, Illinois (2011)

Interstate highway (I-55)

Left shoulder (inside)

PaceExpress bus operators

When general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph

10 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum

Columbus, Ohio (2006)

Interstate highway (I-70 and I-670)

I-70: Right shoulder (outside) I-670 Left shoulder (inside)

COTA bus operators and Mainstream vehicles operators

When general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph

15 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 45 mph maximum

Johnson County, Kansas (2012)

Interstate highway (I-35)

Right shoulder (outside)

JCT bus operators

When general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph

10 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum

Miami, Florida (2007)

State limited access toll roads (Don Shula Expressway and Snapper Creek Parkway)

Right shoulder (outside)

Trained MDT bus operators

When general purpose lanes slow to 25 mph

15 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina (2012)

Interstate highway (I-40)

Right shoulder (outside)

Trained GoTriangle bus operators

When general purpose lanes slow to 35 mph

15 mph faster than general purpose lanes; 35 mph maximum

Note: For more information, please reference the complete BOS system matrix in Attachment A and the following complete case studies.

47

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewAs one of the earliest adopters, Minneapolis-St.

Paul, Minnesota has operated the bus-on-shoulder

(BOS) concept since 1991. What began as a low-cost,

congestion relief solution on an arterial highway,

soon developed into a robust network after a severe

flood in 1993 shut down a major bridge that crossed

westbound Interstate 35 (I-35). The city needed

a quick way to gain more access on the alternative

route bridges to continue moving people and cars.

Realizing the potential of the BOS concept, the

program continued and has expanded over the past

20 years into a comprehensive BOS network with

14 routes and over 400 buses operating along over

300 miles of roadways, including along four major

interstates. Almost 25 years after the initiation of

BOS operations, the Twin Cities’ system serves as a

model for the design and operation of BOS programs

throughout the United States.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. The Minnesota Department

of Transportation (MnDOT) authorizes the use of

the shoulders by Metro Transit buses (fixed route

service), Transit Team buses (para-transit service),

and private charter buses registered with MnDOT.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the right-

hand shoulder during all hours when the general

purpose lanes slow to 35 mph. The maximum

speed allowed on the shoulder is 35 mph. Buses

may not operate more than 15 mph over the speed

of vehicles in the general purpose lanes.

• Merging. Buses may not use the shoulder when

approaching a double lane on/off ramp.

• Hazard Lights. Authorized buses must activate

their four-way hazard lights while operating on

the shoulder.

• Training. Bus drivers receive classroom and

extensive on-the-road training for use of shoulder.

Case Study 1:

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

Image Credit: Metro Transit

48

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Bus drivers are not required to use the shoulder

and are encouraged not to if they feel that

conditions are unsafe.

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Pavement Marking & Signage. The designated

BOS routes have no specific pavement markings

and the following limited signage:

° “Watch for Buses on Shoulder” signs are placed

at on ramps;

° "Shoulder--Authorized Buses Only" signs are

located every mile along each route;

° “Caution--Buses on Shoulder” signs are placed

at all on/off ramps; and

° Small, yellow signs with an arrow are located at

tight spots along the routes.

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have

minimum shoulder widths of 10 feet. The

2 October 2014

1.1 What Is Ramp Metering? Ramp meters are traffic signals installed on freeway on-ramps to control the frequency at which vehicles enter the flow of traffic on the freeway. Ramp metering reduces overall freeway congestion by managing the amount of traffic entering the freeway and by breaking up platoons that make it difficult to merge onto the freeway. As seen in Figure 1, vehicles traveling from an adjacent arterial onto the ramp form a queue behind the stop line. The vehicles are then individually released onto the mainline, often at a rate that is dependent on the mainline traffic volume and speed at that time. The configuration in the

diagram is the most common; however, some agencies have altered this design to accommodate transit and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) policies or existing geometric limitations.

Figure 1: Ramp metering configuration

minimum width on bridges is 11.5 feet. However,

MnDOT recommends a 12-foot width and

has been expanding shoulder widths during

construction projects.

• Ramp Metering. Ramp metering at peak hours

has proven to be helpful to buses when navigating

the tight weave at ramps. Unlike most other

BOS systems, the Twin Cities’ operates using a

relatively short (500-foot) merge and diverge

weave area at ramps.

Ramp Metering Diagram

Image Credit: FHWA/Parsons Brinkerhoff

Signage Examples

Image Credit: RTA, COTA

49

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

FundingThe initial costs for implementation were roughly

$1,500/mile for signage and striping. Each year,

MnDOT budgets $1 million for the expansion of the

BOS network (4 to 8 miles depending on conditions)

and an additional $1 million for maintenance of

the shoulders. The shoulder upgrades include the

rebuilding of drainage grates, expanding shoulder

widths to 12 feet, and increasing depth of asphalt

paving from 3 to 5 inches to 7 inches.

Other Transit ServiceIn addition to local and express bus service,

Minneapolis-St. Paul has light-rail and bus rapid

transit lines, as well as commuter rail service. The

metro area also has numerous park-and-ride lots.

Legal AuthorityThe Uniform Vehicle Code prohibits driving on

shoulders, so Minnesota statutes were amended in

2005 to formalize BOS operations.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. Today, about one-half of all

Metro Transit routes operate on the shoulder for at

least part of the route. Many of the express routes

are served by park-and-ride lots.

• Travel Time-savings. Transit riders save an

estimated 5 to 15 minutes per trip due to the use of

shoulder. Additional time is saved through the use

of ramp-meter bypasses.

• Safety. From 1992 and 2001, 20 property-

damage-only collisions involving buses occurred

on the shoulders. One fatality occurred between

2001 and 2010, but the bus driver was found not

at fault. The accident rate has been so low that

Metro Transit reserves only $7,000 per year for

damages resulting from BOS-related accidents.

• Ridership. During the first two years of BOS

operations, ridership on BOS routes increased by

9.2%. Overall system ridership decreased by 6.5%

during the same time.

Lessons Learned • Network is not continuous, but rather a series of distinct corridors

or segments with recurring congestion.

• Increase shoulder width to 12 feet and shoulder pavement depth

to 7 inches when funding is available or as part of other projects.

• Reinforce drainage structures to withstand the constant travel of

heavy buses over them.

• The use of ramp metering is helpful when navigating the merge

weave and also allows buses to reach the shoulder directly and

bypass traffic on the ramps.

• Make appropriate changes to state law to provide state patrol

jurisdiction over the shoulder.

Image Credit: Metro Transit

50

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

)m

)}

)y

)s

)s

)y

)y

)y

)z

)n

)m

)m

)y

)m )p

)s

)m

)s

)p ?ØA@

?éA@

?úA@

?±A@

?uA@

?¾A@

?tA@

?ÞA@

?ÑA@

?lA@

?ÖA@

?ØA@

?ÒA@

?àA@

?©A@

?«A@

?óA@

?±A@

?øA@

?ûA@ ?ÌA@

?ÒA@

?ûA@

?ÇA@

?§A@

?ØA@

?§A@

?ØA@

?ÒA@

?©A@

%&h(

%&h(

!"b$

%&d(

%&f(

%&e(

%&d(

%&f(

%&c(

%&c(

%&f(

!"̀$

!"b$ %&d(

W.River Rd.Coon Rapids Blvd.

Cliff Rd.

County Rd 15

DAKOTA

SCOTT

ANOKA

HENNEPIN

CARVER

C

WASHINGTON

RAMSEY

O0 10

MilesLast Updated: October 2014

Current Bus-Only Shoulders

Planned Bus-Only Shoulders

Southbound or WestboundNorthbound or Eastbound

2016 New Shoulders

)y

)n

?±A@

?öA@

?©A@

?øA@

hisago

Current and Planned Bus-Only Shoulders

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Current & Planned Bus-on-Shoulder

Corridors (October 2014)

Sources • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

• Metro Transit, http://www.metrotransit.org/transit-advantages

• MNDOT, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/documents.html

• The Center for Transportation Research for Capital Metro Transit Authority, “Peak Period Use of Urban

Expressway,” http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/Capital%20Metro%20Bus%20On%20

Shoulder%20Report%20Final-%20prepared%20by%20UT-CTR.pdf

• Federal Highway Administration, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop14020/sec1.htm

• State and Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota,

http://lgi.umn.edu/centers/slp/transportation/sustainability/pdf/BusOnlyShouldersReportFINAL2007.pdf

Image Credit: MNDOT

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

3.5 million regional population

300 miles

14 routes

400 buses

1991 year service initiated

$1 million annual funding

51

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewThe bus-on-shoulder (BOS) system in Georgia

began in 2005 as an interim solution until the

GA 400, a busy controlled access tollroad in the

northern suburbs of Atlanta could be widened with

managed lanes. The Georgia Regional Transportation

Authority (GRTA) began to use the shoulder for 2

express bus routes on a 6-mile-long segment from

the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

(MARTA) North Springs station northward to Mansell

Road. In 2012, the GDOT converted the shoulders to

flex lanes, and allowed all motorists to use the lanes

during peak hours. GA 400 was converted from a

tollway to a state highway in 2013. Additional lane

mileage was added in 2015 and the hours of use

were extended. Buses continue to be able to use the

shoulders at all hours. Additional flex shoulders were

added to a 2-mile-long segment along Interstate 85

(I-85) in the southern suburbs of Atlanta in 2015.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. Between 2005 and 2012, GRTA

transit buses and MARTA transit buses were the

only authorized users. In 2012, passenger vehicles

were granted authority to use the southbound

outside shoulder lane between 6:30 and 9:30

am. In 2015, the northbound shoulder lanes were

added, the BOS segment was extended, and the

hours were extended to 6:30 to 10:00 am and

4:00 to 7:00 pm.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the

right-hand shoulder at all hours when the general

purpose lanes slow to 35 mph. The maximum

speed on the shoulder is 35 mph and buses may

not operate more than 15 mph over the speed of

vehicles in the general purpose lanes. The current

speed limit for all authorized vehicles is 45 mph in

the flex shoulder lane.

Case Study 2:

Atlanta, Georgia

Image Credit: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution/John Spink

52

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

• Merging. Buses must re-merge into general

purpose lanes in advance of interchange off-ramps

and re-enter after the on-ramp weave.

• Training. MARTA and GRTA transit bus drivers are

not formally trained.

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Pavement Marking & Signage. The original BOS

6-mile route had no specific pavement markings

and limited signage. The corridor also had raised

markers (buttons) to discourage other users, but

these were removed. In addition to pavement

markings indicating the end of shoulder usage, the

current signage includes signs indicating the hours

of usage, speed limits, start and end of lane usage,

signs indicating motorists should move over for

emergency vehicles, and notification of emergency

pull-off locations.

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have widened

shoulders of 12 feet. In addition, GA 400 has

paved accident investigation sites about every

half mile which minimizes the disabled vehicle

blockage on shoulders.

FundingInstallation of the initial BOS system cost $2.8

million to widen the shoulder by 2 feet and to provide

reinforcement of the shoulder pavement. When

additional shoulder lanes were opened in 2015, the

cost was $850,000.

Other Transit ServiceWithin the Atlanta metro region, MARTA operates

rapid transit, commuter rail, and local and express

buses in Fulton and DeKalb counties. MARTA also

operates five park-and-ride lots. Downtown Atlanta

is served by the Atlanta Streetcar. The metro area

is planning for the addition of light rail service and

heavy rail extensions.

Legal AuthorityThe Official Code of Georgia was amended to permit

buses to use the shoulder lanes.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. Today, three bus routes

operate along at least a portion of corridor with the

flex shoulder lanes.

• Travel Time-savings. When the BOS operation

originally opened, buses were estimated to

average a savings of 5 to 7 minutes of travel time

and up to 25 minutes during periods of major

blockages. When the flex shoulder lanes opened

in 2012, GDOT reported time savings for all

motorists between 5-15 minutes along GA 400.

• Safety. GRTA has reported no accidents involving

the buses on shoulder. Emergency pull-off

locations are provided periodically along the

roadway for emergencies.

Image Credit: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Brant Sanderlin

53

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Sources • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

• TCRP, Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders, http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/tsyn64.pdf

• Federal Highway Administration, “Efficient Use of Highway Capacity Summary Report to Congress,” http://

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10023/chap2.htm#n17

• Georgia DOT, http://northfultoncid.com/files/media/documents/ga-400-fact-sheet-5-7-12.pdf; http://

www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Public/PressReleases/GA400FlexLanes.pdf; http://www.dot.ga.gov/

DriveSmart/SafetyOperation/Documents/GA400/GA400-ShouldeLanes-Signage.pdf

Image Credit: Google Maps

ATLANTA BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

5.6 million regional population

12 miles

3 routes

119 daily buses

2005 year service initiated

Lessons Learned • Connection between park-and-ride lot and MARTA rail station.

• Impact of flex shoulder lane use on express bus operations.

Existing Flex Shoulder

54

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewStarting as a two-year demonstration project in

2011, the Chicago metro area currently has 15 miles

of bus-on-shoulder (BOS) service and has plans

for expansion. The demonstration project along

Interstate 55 (I-55) was implemented to determine

the effectiveness and usefulness of BOS transit

operations compared to commuter rail service.

In partnership with the Regional Transportation

Authority, the Illinois Department of Transportation

(IDOT), and the Illinois State Police, Pace Suburban

Bus switched two existing commuter express routes

between southwestern suburban communities and

downtown Chicago to BOS operations. Based on the

success of the program, the number of routes using

BOS was doubled and the Illinois General Assembly

approved a bill to make the pilot project permanent

and extend the program to make it legal on all

Chicago-region expressways and tollroads.

Operational CriteriaAuthorized Users. Only Pace buses are authorized

to use the shoulders.

Maximum Speed. In-service buses may operate

on the left-hand (inside) shoulder during peak

hours when the general purpose lanes slow to 35

mph. Northbound (inbound) buses can use the

shoulders between 5 to 9 a.m. and southbound

(outbound) buses can use the shoulders between

3 to 7 p.m.

Driver Training. Pace bus drivers received training

prior to implementation. The use of shoulder is

optional for bus drivers, who are allowed to use

their professional judgment when operating on

the shoulders.

Case Study 3:

Chicago, Illinois

Image Credit: Pace Suburban Bus

55

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Signage. Signs are located along the corridor that

mark the location of the designated bus shoulders

and indicate the times when buses may use

the shoulder.

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have a

minimum shoulder width of 12 feet. At constrained

locations along I-55, including the I-294

interchange, buses must re-enter the mainline

lanes to avoid obstructions.

• Pavement Markings. Limited to striping to guide

buses in areas where there is an abrupt change in

shoulder width, and a lane drop arrow to be used

in conjunction with the sign marking the end point

of a designated shoulder segment.

• Signal Timing/Ramp Metering. IDOT plans to

install new ramp metering along I-55 in 2017.

FundingIn 2011, the Illinois DOT spent $9.5 million to upgrade

the shoulders along the 15-mile long corridor.

Expansion of service in 2013 was funded using

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

The 3-year grant provided 80% of the $719,000

per year costs for expanded service and marketing.

Additional expansion of BOS service is planned as

part of I-90 tollway reconstruction project. The

shoulder improvements will be funded using $19.7

million in CMAQ program funds. The Illinois Tollway

also plans on providing BOS service on the Elgin-

O’Hare Western Access Highway, which is currently

under construction.

Image Credit: Pace Suburban Bus

Pace Express Bus on Inside Shoulder Along I-55

56

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Other Transit ServiceThe existing and planned BOS services complement

the regional commuter rail service that provides radial

access from suburban areas to downtown Chicago.

The region also has rapid transit, bus rapid transit,

other local and express bus service, and numerous

park-and-ride lots.

Legal AuthorityThe Illinois General Assembly amended the Illinois

Vehicle Code in 2011 to allow buses to drive on

shoulders of roadways as designated by IDOT with

specific emphasis on the Chicago region expressways

and toll roads.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. At the initiation of service,

BOS was utilized for two existing routes

connecting suburban Plainfield, Romeoville, Burr

Ridge, and Bolingbrook to downtown Chicago.

More routes were added to accommodate

increased demand.

• Travel Time-savings. On-time performance

improved from 68 percent to nearly 95 percent

immediately after the program started.

• Public Awareness. Special high-visibility bus

wraps increase awareness among motorists and

include badging that states the bus is authorized

to use the shoulder. An overall increased public

education campaign was undertaken for bus

patrons and general motorists.

• Safety. No safety concerns were reported when

the pilot program was made permanent in 2014.

• Ridership. Prior to implementation, ridership on

the two existing Pace Express routes was 200

riders per day in 2011. In just four years, ridership

on those routes increased by 500% to 1,200 riders

per day. Free parking is provided at park-and-ride

lots along the routes assist in boosting ridership.

Lessons Learned • Public education campaign directly relates to increased

ridership and improved safety along the BOS corridor.

• Free parking at park-and-ride lots served by BOS routes.

• Make appropriate changes to state law to provide state

patrol jurisdiction over the shoulder.

AUTHORIZED TO USE THE SHOULDER

Starting November 14th, Pace is putting the “express”back in

“expressway”. That’s when Pace Express routes 755 & 855 begin

using the shoulder of I-55 to drive safely past congestion—keeping

your commute moving along—all the way to work and back. To learn

more about how Pace riders will be treated to an open road even

during heavy traffic, call 847-364-PACE or visit PaceBus.com.

Commuting, In A Lane Of Its Own.

RegionalTransportationAuthority

PLAINFIELD

PLAINFIELD

BOLINGBROOK

BOLINGBROOKROMEOVILLE BURR RIDGE

ROUTE 755–PLAINFIELD-IMD EXPRESS

ROUTE 855–PLAINFIELD-EAST LOOP EXPRESS

PL

PL

BO

BORO BU

ILLINOIS MEDICALDISTRICT

EAST LOOP

UIC

MICHIGAN AVE.

Image Credit: Pace Suburban Bus

57

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Chicagoland Current & Planned Bus-on-Shoulder Corridors

(November 2015)

Sources • Metropolitan Planning Council, http://www.metroplanning.org/news/7242/Talking-Transit-Bus-on-

shoulder-builds-Pace-ridership

• Illinois Department of Transportation, http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/Network-

Overview/transit-system/i-55-bus-on-shoulder

• Pace Bus Service, http://www.pacebus.com/sub/vision2020/expressway_brt.asp; http://www.pacebus.

com/sub/news_events/press_release_detail.asp?ReleaseID=604; https://www.pacebus.com/pdf/BOS_

brochure.pdf; https://www.pacebus.com/pdf/on_board_newsletter/onBoard5.pdf

• Regional Transportation Authority, http://www.transportchicago.org/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720074/

transport_chicago_paper_i-55_bos_final_27may2011.pdf

Image Credit: Metropolitan Planning Council

CHICAGO BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

13.2 million regional population

15 miles

4 routes

60 daily trips

2011 year service initiated

Existing BOS Segments

PlannedBOSCorridors

58

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewIn partnership with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission, the Ohio Department of Transportation

(ODOT), the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), Columbus Police, and Ohio State Highway

Patrol, the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)

initiated a pilot program for bus-on-shoulder (BOS)

operations along eastbound Interstate 70 (I-70) in

2006. Based on the success of the pilot program on

the heavily congested I-70, additional BOS service

was initiated along I-670 in 2015. Four bus routes

operate on 10 miles of the outside shoulder of

I-70 between the eastern suburbs and downtown

Columbus. Four bus routes currently operate along

the inside shoulder on I-670 between downtown and

the northeastern suburbs. Additional BOS service will

begin between the airport and downtown Columbus

in 2016. COTA is using this to encourage people to

use transit as a faster alternative.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. COTA buses and Mainstream

vehicles (shared-ride service) are authorized to

travel on the outside shoulder on eastbound I-70

and the inside shoulder on both sides of I-670.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the

shoulder at all hours when the general purpose

lanes slow to 35 mph or less. Maximum speed on

the shoulder is 35 mph, but no more than 15 mph

over general purpose lanes.

• Merging. Buses must merge back into general

purpose lanes if the shoulders are obstructed by

emergency vehicles or stopped vehicles.

• Hazard Lights. Authorized bus drivers must

activate their four-way hazard lights while

operating on the shoulder.

• Training. Bus drivers receive classroom and on-

the-road training for use of shoulder operations.

Case Study 4:

Columbus, Ohio

Image Credit: Columbus Underground

59

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

• Driver Discretion. Bus drivers are not required to

use the shoulder and are encouraged not to if they

feel that safety would be compromised.

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Signage & Pavement Markings. The designated

BOS routes have no specific pavement markings

and the following limited signage:

° “Shoulder - Authorized Buses Only” are white

signs with black lettering placed every 1/2

mile. “BEGIN” and “END” placards have also

been added.

° ”Watch for Buses on Shoulder” signs are yellow

with black lettering placed at entrance ramps.

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have a

minimum shoulder width of 10 feet.

• Pavement Markings. Limited to striping to guide

buses in areas where there is an abrupt change in

shoulder width, and a lane drop arrow is used in

conjunction with the sign marking the end point of

a designated shoulder segment.

FundingInitial funding of the project was approximately

$10,000 for signage.

Other Transit ServiceThe Columbus region currently has local and express

bus service, including a free downtown circulator

route. The region is making plans to improve the

existing transit network and exploring addition of rail

and streetcar service.

Legal AuthorizationSection 4511.25 of the Ohio Revised Code was the

legal basis for allowing buses to use the shoulder.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. Currently, 8 routes have BOS

operations on I-70 or I-670. An additional route

between downtown and the airport starts in 2016.

• Travel Time-savings. Improved on-time

performance and helped maintain bus schedules.

• Safety. No collisions occurred during the

pilot period.

Image Credit: Instagram user odot_columbus

Lessons Learned • Frequency for shoulder debris clearance was increased from once every three weeks to once a week.

• Some bus drivers are hesitant to use the shoulder due to the policy of dismissal for three

preventable accidents.

CDOT Social Media Post On Expansion of BOS operations

60

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

22

● More commuter routes

● Reverse commute service

Vision:ServiceImprovements

COTA 2050 Potential Service Improvements, Commuter Routes Map with Existing BOS Segments

(September 2015)

Sources • Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), http://www.cota.com/Riding-COTA/Bus-on-Shoulder-Program.

aspx; http://www.cota.com/COTA/media/PDF/NextGen/150923_COTA-NG_Public-Meeting-

Presentation_Final.pdf

• Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

• Mass Transit, “COTA to Expand Bus on Shoulder Program,” August 6, 2015, http://www.masstransitmag.

com/press_release/12100368/cota-to-expand-bus-on-shoulder-program-to-i-670

Image Credit: COTA

COLOMBUS BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

2 million regional population

16 miles

8 routes

50 daily trips

2006 year service initiated

Existing BOSSegments

3

Project Overview

On January 3, 2012, Johnson County Transit (JCT) began operating The JO Xpress, a modified express transit service on the I-35 corridor that consists of four routes that are allowed to use the shoulders of I-35 to bypass traffic under specific conditions. These routes include:

Route 661/B – Olathe Xpress Route 670/L – Gardner-OP Xpress Route 673/N – South OP Xpress Route 678/S – Shawnee Xpress

The launch of Bus-on-Shoulder (BoS) operations is the result of years of planning and regional coordination involving JCT, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP), and the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), as well as support from various Johnson County municipalities.

For nearly two decades JCT has looked for ways to enhance transit services, increase transit ridership, and decrease congestion in the Johnson County I-35 corridor. The initial solution was a commuter rail operation on the parallel BNSF railroad track. However, after much debate it became apparent that a new approach was needed. In FY 2007, the I-35 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis concluded that BoS was the Locally Preferred Alternative. In FY 2009, JCT completed the I-35 Fixed Guideway Phased Implementation Plan which provided a framework for the implementation of BoS service on I-35. This process included outlining the needed improvements on I-35 and developing a conceptual plan for operations and signage (Ref. Figure 2).

Figure 2: Typical Signage Layout from Phased Implementation Plan

61

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewFuture growth and the quality of life in Johnson

County, the fastest growing county in Kansas, was

threatened by growing congestion and crash delays

along the most heavily traveled corridor in the

state, Interstate 35 (I-35). With funding constraints,

Johnson County decided they needed to increase

transit use and move more people, more efficiently. In

2012, Johnson County Transit (JCT) in coordination

with the Kansas Department of Transportation

(KDOT) began operating enhanced bus services

along an 8-mile segment on I-35. The “JO Xpress”

utilizes the shoulder to bypass congestion and create

more consistent travel times for the commuters. In

2015, an additional 3.5-miles of I-35 in Wyandotte

County was added to the BOS operating corridor.

This county, which is adjacent to the Missouri state

line, provides a continuous BOS operation in eastern

Kansas. This service terminates in Missouri because

BOS is not currently authorized in that state.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. Only JO Xpress bus drivers are

authorized to use the shoulder.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the

right-hand shoulder at all hours when the general

purpose lanes slow to 35 mph. The maximum

speed on the shoulder is 35 mph and buses may

not operate more than 10 mph over the speed of

vehicles in the general purpose lanes.

• Merging. Buses must yield to entering and exiting

traffic at ramps. Buses are not allowed to use

shoulders at system-to-system interchanges with

multiple lane entry ramps.

• Training. Bus drivers are trained on a closed

road course mimicking BOS constraints.

After completing the course, the drivers were

Case Study 5:

Johnson County, Kansas

Image Credit: Johnson County Transit

62

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

accompanied by Kansas Highway Patrol for several

hours to ensure the drivers were operating safely

and comfortably. Bus drivers are not required to

use the shoulder and are encouraged not to if they

feel that conditions are unsafe.

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Pavement Marking & Signage. The designated

BOS routes have “Shoulder--Authorized Buses

Only” signs are along the corridor. At the beginning

and end of the segments, there are “Begin”

and “End placards attached to the “Shoulder--

Authorized Buses Only” signs. Also, “Watch for

Buses on Shoulder” signs are placed at on ramps.

No pavement markings are used.

• Shoulder Width. The shoulders along the I-35

corridor are mostly 11- to 12-foot-wide. Buses are

allowed to operate on the 10-foot-wide segment if

there is no concrete barrier.

FundingThe cost of implementation for BOS in Johnson

County was roughly $9,250 per shoulder mile for

signage and shoulder improvements. Including

improvements to bus stops, the total project cost was

$2.5 million.

Other Transit ServiceThe Kansas City region has several transit providers

in addition to JCT, including Kansas City Area

Transportation Authority (KCATA), IndeBus, Unified

Government Transit, and KC Streetcar Authority.

Recently, these bi-state transit agencies joined

together to create a unified “RideKC” branding for

the various services within the region, including other

local and express bus service, bus rapid transit, and

streetcar service.

Legal AuthorityThe State of Kansas granted legal authority for BOS

operation in Johnson County in 2010. Authorization

for BOS was also granted for Wyandotte County,

Kansas in 2015. As previously stated, the State of

Missouri does not have legislation to allow buses

to travel on the shoulder, so downtown-bound

(eastbound) buses must leave the shoulders when

entering Missouri.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. Six express routes.

• Travel Time-savings. The average time savings is

5 minutes per trip.

• Safety. During 2012, buses traveled 1,350 miles on

the shoulder with no reported safety incidents.

• Public Awareness. The introduction of BOS

was coordinated with an extensive marketing

and public relations effort. This included radio

advertisements, local television and news media

coverage, social media posts, and messaging

on KDOT overhead electronic message boards

on I-35.

• Ridership. In the first year of BOS service,

ridership on the four routes increased by 12%.

Lessons Learned • Key to success is to gain acceptance from

the state legislatures and the state highway

department of transportation.

• A detailed safety analysis was critical to the

success of the project.

63

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Wor

nall

Rd

Bro

oksi

de B

lvd

Roc

khill

Rd

Troo

st A

ve

Roe

Ave

£¤56

Mad

ison

Ave

52nd St

47th St

War

dPk

wy

Shawnee Miss

ion

Pkwy

£¤56

Ind ian Creek Pkwy

£¤69

§̈¦435

£¤69

151st St

Santa Fe

Sheri dan St

151st St

¬«7

¬«7

§̈¦35

¬«7

¬«10

¬«10

£¤56

Mau

rer R

d

Ant

ioch

Rd

75th St

Wor

nall

Rd

§̈¦35

§̈¦435

SHADOWLAKE

Missouri R iver

Kansas River

Kansa

s Rive

r

Kansas River

PIERSONPARKLAKE

Kansas City, KS

Kansas City, MO

§̈¦35

§̈¦35

Jack

son

Cou

nty

John

son

Cou

nty

KA

NSA

S

MIS

SOU

RI

¼

¼

¼

The Plaza

Hol

mes

St

Troo

st A

ve

Mis

sion

Rd

119th St

Johnson Dr

Lack

man

Rd

College Blvd

95th St

75th St

Qui

vira

Rd

Blue

Val

ley

Pkw

y

135th St

Nie

man

Rd

Lind

enw

ood

Dr

51st St

Nal

l Ave

Elm St

Ren

ner B

lvd

125th St

Lone

Elm

Rd

47th St

Ant

ioch

Rd

Lam

ar A

ve

Santa Fe

Mur

-Len

Rd

Har

rison

St

Kan

sas

Ave

Ant

ioch

Rd

119th St

Stra

ng L

ine R

d

151st St

Central Ave

143rd St

119th St

Met

calf

Ave

Rai

nbow

Blv

d

18th

St

7th

St

Minnesota Ave

VillageOf Loch

Lloyd

WestwoodHills

Westwood

WyandotteCo, Ks

MissionWoodsLake

Quivira

Fairway

RoelandPark

Lenexa

MissionHills

Merriam

Mission

Leawood

Basehor

Shawnee

BonnerSprings

PrairieVillage

Edwardsville

De Soto

Olathe

OverlandPark

KansasCity

JohnsonCo, Ks

CE DAR LAKE

Unnam ed Lake No 2

GARD

NER LAKE

OLATHE

LAK

E

Shore Lake 10202-006

Kernoodles Lake 003

Unnamed Pond

SHAWNEE MISSION LAKEQ

UIVIRA

LAKE

Kans

asRi

ver

Wya

ndot

te C

ount

y

Clay C

ount

y

Wya

ndot

te C

ount

yJa

ckso

n C

ount

y

Wyandotte CountyJohnson County

Wya

ndot

teCo

unty

John

son

Coun

ty

C. A.Franklin

Elem.

DelasalleCharterSchool

Lee A.Tolbert Com.

Academy

LongfellowElem.

BrooksideCharter

Middle SchlBrookside

CharterSch.

AllenVillageSchool

AlternativeResourceCtr.

DerrickThomas CollegePrep

Derrick ThomasElem. Academy

Derrick ThomasJr.Academy

Ewing MarionKauffmanSchool

Foreign LanguageAcademy

GordonParksElem.

Paseo Acad. OfPerforming Arts

TroostElem.

AcademieLafayette

Border StarMontessori

SouthwestEarly CollegeCampus

CenterElem.

B. BannekerAcademy

CenterAlternative

CenterSr. High

HoganPreparatoryAcademy

UniversityAcademy-LowerUniversityAcademy-Middle

UniversityAcademy-Upper

BooneElem.

CenterMiddle

EarlyChildhoodEduc. Ctr.

IndianCreekElem.

John T.HartmanElem.

RedBridgeElem.

MartinCityElem.

Glenwood RidgeElementarySchool

ArgentineMiddle

EmersonElem

J CHarmonHigh

JunctionElementary

MidlandTrail

NewStanleyElem

Oak GroveElem

SilverCity Elem

Turner EarlyLearningCenter

TurnerElem

TurnerHigh

TurnerMiddleSchool

FrankRushtonElem

NoblePrentisElem

RosedaleMiddle

Thomas AEdisonElem

EdwardsvilleElem

StonyPointSouth

JohnFiskeElem

FrancesWillardElem

LindberghElem

M EPearsonElem

MarkTwainElem

MckinleyElementary

School

SchoolFor BlindElementary

School ForBlind High

WhittierElem

WyandotteHigh

StonyPointNorth

CentralMiddle

DouglassElem

BonnerSpringsElementary

DelawareRidgeElementary

ResearchMedical Ctr.Brookside

BethanyMedicalCenter

Children'sMercy West

Kindred HospitalKansas City -Vencor Hospital

St. JosephHealth Ctr

St. LukesHospital ofKansas City

UniversityKansas MedicalCenter

Downtown KCK

RiverMarket

Midtown

Westport

ThePlaza

IndianSprings

VillageWest

Stateand 78th

State andCollege

Stateand65th

Shawnee/47

State 49

Brookside

TheLanding

4. Blue RiverParkwayTrails

5. IndianCreekTrails

6. MillCreekTrail

7. LoosePark

8. Shawnee Mission Park

Kansas CityRiverfront

Saddle &SirloinClub

AmericanRoyal

Deanna RoseChildren'sFarmstead

Kansas CityRenaissanceFestival

KansasSpeedway

Nelson-AtkinsMuseum of Art

The NewTheatreRestaurant

Verizon Wireless(Sandstone)

Amphitheatre

The CornMaze

NASCARTIndoorRacing

Moon MarbleCompany

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬546

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬556

¬575

¬575

¬575¬575

¬575

¬575

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬660

¬661

¬661

¬661

¬661

¬661

¬661

¬661

¬664

¬664

¬664

¬664

¬667

¬667

¬667

¬667

¬667

¬667

¬670

¬670

¬670

¬670

¬670

¬670

¬670

¬672

¬672

¬672

¬672

¬672

¬672

¬672 ¬673

¬673

¬673

¬673

¬673

¬673

¬673

¬678

¬678

¬678

¬678

¬678

¬678

¬710

¬710

¬710

¬710

¬710

¬710

Children'sMercy SouthHospital

OlatheMedicalCenter

Overland ParkRegionalMedical Center

MenorahMedicalPark

St. LukesSouthHospital

ShawneeMissionMedical Center

Brush Creek

Indian CreekIndian

Creek Branch

Dyke Branch Creek

Ja mes Branch

Brenner

Hei ghts Creek

Lit tle

Turkey

Creek

Little

Kaw

Creek

To

mahaw k

Creek

Big Bl ue

Rive

r

Tu

rkey Cr eek

Mill

Cre

ek

East

Mission

C re ek

Wolf Creek

Ca m p

C

reek

LittleCedar Creek

Ced arCre ek

ClearC reek

IndianCreekBranch

BlueValley

LeawoodPioneer

Oak Park

CentralResource

Corinth

Shawnee

Antioch

CedarRoe

Lackman

MerriamTown

Center

Quivira95 Shops

Oak ParkMall

ParkPlace

TownCenterPlaza

OlathePointe

OlatheStation

OldMetcalfCenter

GreatPlainsMall

Santa Fe SquareShopping Center

PriceChopperCenter

Corbin ParkShopping

Center

RosanaSquare

Price Chopper &Market Square

Shopping Center

SouthgateRetail Center

College SquareShopping Center

Deer CreekMarketplace

DeerCreekWoods

OverlandPointe

Marketplace

RegencyPark Ninety

Five West

Metcalf SouthShopping

Center

OverlandStation

SouthglenCenter

LionsgateMarketplace

AldenCenterBlack Bob

Marketplace

OlatheLanding

RosebudPlaza

NorthridgePlaza

Oak ParkCommons

WestbrookeVillage

Shopping Center

ShawneeStationMonticello

Center

ShawneeStationWest

Camelot CourtShopping

Center

Corinth SquareShopping

Center

MerriamVillage

WestGlenCenter

WestVillage

119th & MetcalfShopping Center

Prairiefire

MizeElementary

MillValleyHigh

Clear CreekElementary

MonticelloTrailsMiddle

RiverviewElementary

John DiemerElementary

HorizonsHigh

RheinBenninghovenElementary

ChristaMcAuliffeElementary

ApacheElementary

BelinderElementary

Bluejacket-FlintElementary

BriarwoodElementary

BrookwoodElementary

CorinthElementary

CrestviewElementary

HighlandsElementary

Merriam ParkElementary

Mill CreekElementary

NiemanElementary

OakPark-CarpenterElementary

OverlandParkElementary

PawneeElementary

PrairieElementary

Rising StarElementary

RoeslandElementary

RosehillElementary

RushtonElementary

Santa FeTrail

Elementary

ShawanoeElementary

SunflowerElementary

TomahawkElementary

TrailwoodElementary

WestwoodView

Elementary

HockerGroveMiddle

IndianHillsMiddle

IndianWoodsMiddle

TrailridgeMiddle

WestridgeMiddle

SM EastHigh

SM NorthHigh

SM NorthwestHigh

SM SouthHigh

SM West High

RaymondMarshElementary

ComancheElementary

HorizonElementary

PrairieRidge

Elementary

HavencroftElementary

TomahawkElementary

PrairieCenterElementary

WashingtonElementary

MahaffieElementary

OlatheNorthHigh

CountrysideElementary

HeatherstoneElementary

BentwoodElementary

ScarboroughElementary

RegencyPlace

Elementary

OlatheEast High

Cedar CreekElementary

PrairieTrailMiddle

NorthviewElementary

HeritageElementary

RidgeviewElementary

CentralElementary

MeadowLane

Elementary

Black BobElementary

OlatheSouthHigh

GreenSpringsElementary

CaliforniaTrailMiddle

Santa FeTrailMiddle

ManchesterParkElementary

IndianTrail

Middle

FairviewElementary

PleasantRidgeElementary

ClearwaterCreekElementary

OregonTrailMiddle

RollingRidgeElementary

PioneerTrailMiddle

IndianCreekElementary

WoodlandElementary

Blue ValleyAcademy

Blue ValleyNorth High

Blue ValleyNorthwestHigh

CottonwoodPoint

Elementary

HarmonyMiddle Harmony

Elementary

HeartlandElementary

IndianValleyElementary

LakewoodElementary

LakewoodMiddle

LeawoodMiddle

LeawoodElementary

Liberty ViewElementary

MissionTrailElementary

MorseElementary

Oak HillElementary

OverlandTrailElementary

OverlandTrailMiddle

OxfordMiddle

PrairieStarMiddle

Prairie StarElementary

Valley ParkElementary

WestviewElementary

Mill CreekMiddle

BrokenArrowElementary

BrookridgeElementary

East AntiochElementary

SunsetRidge

Elementary

WalnutGroveElementary

OlatheNorthwestHigh School

FrontierTrailMiddle

MissionTrailMiddle

AdvancedTechnical

Center

BriarwoodElementary

MillbrookeElementary

RavenwoodElementary

BelmontElementary

Forest ViewElementary University

of KansasEdwards Campus

Johnson CountyCommunity

College

Mid AmericaNazareneUniversity

K-StateOlathe

Campus

Universityof Missouri -Kansas City

RockhurstUniversity

DowntownOverland Park &Farmers' Market

Blue ValleyBaptistChurch

PalazzoTheatre

SprintCampus

SheratonConvention

Center

Bass ProShops

Garmin

Black &Veatch

PrescriptionSolutions

QuestDiagnostics

UnitedParcelService

CenturyLink

Matt RossCommunityCenter

PerformingArts Center

BartleHall Sprint

Center

UnionStation

LibertyMemorial

CrownCenter

CityHall

US DistrictCourt

875875

875

875

875

875

875

875 875

JoFlexArea

856

856

856

856

856

856

856

856

856

NortheastOffices

SheriffTrainingCenter

ElectionCommission

JuvenileDetention

Museum

Offices &Workshop

Courthouse

SunsetOfficeBuilding

Health & HumanServices

Center Complex

MotorVehicle-Olathe

Administration& Operations

Building

Great MallPark & Ride

Sheridan& Mur-LenPark & Ride

MetcalfSouth Park& Ride

Oak ParkMall

Strang LinePark & Ride

119th &Metcalf

MissionTransitCenter

JCCC

KU Edwards

151st &Antioch

ShawneeStation

66th &Hilltop

TransitCenter

75th &Waldo

137th &Antioch

&

.

To Lawrence (see inset)

&.To Gardner/Edgerton (see inset)

&.

To Olathe

Find route information & schedules online at www.thejo.com

Hours: Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 6:00pmPhone: 816-221-0660

Email: Comments@thejo.com

0 ½ 1¼Miles

Map produced by AIMS

Other Features

Æü Park & Ride

®v Hospitals

n Schools

Æc Libraries

" Points of Interest

State Line

County Boundary

Shopping/Entertainment

System Map

:

See Downtown Inset

TheJO operates two flex routes (856 & 875) which aredesignated by the dashed lines in the legend above. Duringcertain times of the day the bus may deviate 3/4 mile to any

location shown in the area outlined on the map below.

n

nn

n

n

n

n

!(!(

!(

!(

Æü

Æü

Nai

smith

Har

per

19th St 19th St19th & Naismith

¬710¼

¼

¼

¼

¼

¼

¼

Has

kell

23rd St 23rd St23rd St23rd & Naismith

Lawrence High School

University of Kansas

Kennedy ElementarySchool

Cordley ElementarySchool

Schwegler ElementarySchool

Broken ArrowElementary School

Haskell IndianNations University

Carl KnoxNatatorium

HANDPark

HolcomPark

ChaparralPark

EdgewoodPark

NaismithValleyPark

ParnellPark

Park HillParks

Burrough'sCreek Trail

& Linear Park

VeteransPark

Chief JimMcSwain Park

LawrenceTennisCenter

HaskellRail Trail

PrairiePark

MemorialPark

Cemetery

PioneerCemetery

Universityof Kansas

KU Lawrence

19th &Haskell

Lawrence

To KU Edwards

&

.

Transit Lines

¬546

¬556

¬575

¬660

¬661

¬664

¬667

¬670

¬672

¬673

¬678

¬710

Flex Routes

856

875

JoFlex

Effective: 6/2/2014

"U "U

"U

"U

U Metro Connection

Big Bull CreekFuture Park

CelebrationPark

MildaleFarm

"

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n

nnn

!(

!(

!(

!(Æü

Æü

¬670

New Century

Cen

ter

Main & Center

£¤56

Main

New

Cen

tury

Nelson

Morgan

Santa Fe

Old 56

8Th

§̈¦35

GARDNER

LAKE

Ma r t in C reek

Li

ttleBul l

Creek

Spoo n

Cr e e

k

BullCreek

Kil

l

Cr e ek

Gardner-EdgertonHigh

WheatridgeMiddleGardner

Elementary

MadisonElementary

PioneerRidgeMiddle

SunflowerElementary

EducationAdmin.Office

NikeElementary

MoonlightElementary

Grand StarElementary

TrailRidgeMiddle

New CenturyAirCenter, AdminOffice, Building 9

GardnerTradeNet

4th &Nelson

Gardner/Edgerton

&

. To Johnson County

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

®v

®v!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

12th St

Hol

mes

§̈¦35

Mai

n

§̈¦670

§̈¦70

¬660¬664

¬667

¬661

¬670¬673

¬678

¬672

IRS

12th

& Was

hingto

n10

th & M

ain

12th

& Gran

d

9th &

Oak

10th

& Locu

st

11th

& Che

rry

12th

& Che

rry

10th St

9th St

Union S

tation

MAX

Pershin

g & G

rand

Crown C

enter

MAX

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼

¼¼¼¼¼

20th St

"U

"U"U

Mai

nG

rand

Oak

27th St

25th St

Locu

st

Pershing

£¤71

Cen

tral

11th St

Gra

nd

Was

hing

ton

Che

rry

Cha

rlotte

Bro

adw

ay

PennValleyPark

TheParade

West TerracePark (Mulkey

Square)

West TerracePark (ErmineCase Jr Park)

TroostLake

West TerracePark (Jarboe

Park)

HospitalHill

Park

PerformingArts Center

BartleHall

SprintCenter

UnionStation

LibertyMemorial Crown

Center

CityHall

ManualCareer &Tech. Ctr.

B WSheperdSchool

Alta VistaCharterSch.

Alta VistaMiddleSchool

PrimitivoGarciaElem.

Urban Com.Leadership

Academy

Children'sMercyHospital

TrumanMedicalCenter

Downtown Kansas City, MO

Johnson County System Map andExisting BOS Segments

JOHNSON COUNTY BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

2.1 million regional population

11.5 miles

6 routes

43 daily trips

2012 year service initiated

Image Credit: Johnson County Transit

Existing BOS Segment (Routes 661, 664, 670, 672, 673, 664, 678)

Sources • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

• Kansas Department of Transportation, http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/

pdf/I-35%20Bus%20on%20Shoulder%20Service%20to%20Begin%20in%20Johnson%20County.pdf

• Kansas City Chapter: Institute of Transportation Engineers, http://kcite.org/images/downloads/Awards/

bus_on_shoulder.pdf

• Johnson County, Kansas, http://www.jocogov.org/dept/transit/jo/jo-xpress; http://www.jocogov.org/

sites/default/files/documents/TRN/BOSReportAug2012.pdf

64

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Never drive on Kendall Drive again.Cruise above traffic in one of our new diesel/electric hybrid, energy-efficient and super-slick Kendall Cruisers.

Information: 3-1-1 or 305-468-5900 | TDD service: 305-468-5402 | www.miamidade.gov/transit

FREE PARK & RIDE

LOT AT SW 150 Ave

NOW OPEN!

Image Credit: Miami-Dade Transit

System OverviewIn conjunction with the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) and the Miami-Dade

Expressway Authority (MDX), Miami-Dade Transit

(MDT) implemented a successful bus-on-shoulder

(BOS) pilot program in 2007 that allowed three bus

routes to travel on the shoulder of state roadways

(SR 874/Don Shula Expressway and SR 878/

Snapper Creek Expressway). The 9-mile-long BOS

portion of the express bus routes allows the buses

to use the outside shoulder to bypass congestion

on these busy highways. The program received

permanent approval in 2010. The existing routes

provide connections between several park-and-ride

facilities and the Dadeland North Metrorail station. In

2015, MDT has plans to expand bus on shoulder use

on all expressways in Miami-Dade County and has

recommended that the existing expressway shoulder

be fortified to accommodate buses.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. MDT buses are authorized

to operate on the right-hand shoulder of

MDX roadways.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the right-

hand shoulder when the general purpose lanes

slow to 25 mph. The maximum speed allowed on

the shoulder is 35 mph . Buses may not operate

more than 15 mph over the speed of vehicles in the

general purpose lanes.

• Merging. Buses may not use the shoulder when

approaching a double lane on/off ramp.

• Hazard Lights. Authorized bus drivers must

activate their four-way hazard lights while

operating on the shoulder.

• Training. Bus drivers receive classroom training for

use of shoulder.

Case Study 6:

Miami, Florida

Never drive on Kendall Drive again.Cruise above traffic in one of our new diesel/electric hybrid, energy-efficient and super-slick Kendall Cruisers.

Information: 3-1-1 or 305-468-5900 | TDD service: 305-468-5402 | www.miamidade.gov/transit

FREE PARK & RIDE

LOT AT SW 150 Ave

NOW OPEN!

65

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Pavement Marking & Signage. The designated

BOS routes have no specific pavement markings

and the following limited signage:

° Mainline signs - “Emergency Stopping Only On

Shoulder- Authorized Bus Lane”

° On ramp signs - “Buses Traveling On Shoulder”

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have

minimum shoulder widths of 10 feet or 12 feet

when truck volumes exceed 250 vehicles per hour.

• Signal Timing. The Miami system does not have

any signal timing or ramp metering.

FundingAt the onset of the pilot program, MDT provided

$15,000 to pay for signage. In 2010, MDT and MDX

each contributed $19,000 to relocate vibratory

pavement markings in the shoulder. Under the

current interlocal agreement, MDT is responsible

for bus operations, bus driver training, and potential

future repair costs due to shoulder operations. MDX

is responsible for annual maintenance of roadways,

including debris removal.

Other Transit ServiceMDT operates Metrorail rapid transit, Metrobus

local, circulator, and express service, bus rapid transit

service on the South Miami-Dade Busway, and the

elevated Metromover shuttle service in downtown

Miami. The regional Tri-Rail commuter service

connects Miami to Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach.

Legal AuthorizationFDOT was found to have the authority to initiate

a pilot program for BOS operations. If a long-term

project was contemplated, legislation would be

required. Based upon the need to initiate a BOS

system, FDOT authorized a 3-year pilot program in

2006. MDT signed interlocal agreements with FDOT

and MDX to allow three existing MDT Kendall area

routes to use the shoulders on SR874 and SR878. A

second set of interlocal agreements was signed in

2010 to continue the use of shoulders.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. Three Metrobus routes

currently have BOS operations.

• Travel Time-savings. Since implementation, there

has been a 50% reduction in late buses operating

on the BOS segments.

• Safety. During the pilot program, no traffic

accidents involving Metrobus vehicles

were reported.

• Ridership. Since the implementation of service,

no significant increases in ridership have occurred

due to concurrent reduction in service.

Sources • Miami-Dade MPO, http://www.miamidade.

gov/transit/ridership-technical-reports.asp#15;

https://www.miamidade.gov/transit/releases/10-

10-09-buses_shoulders.asp

• Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade.gov/

govaction/legistarfiles/Matters/Y2010/102153.

pdf

• Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on

Shoulder (BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/

Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

66

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

Image Credit: Miami-Dade Transit

AA

B

B

B

B

C

E

E

E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

GGG

G

GH

H

H

M

SS

S

S

S

S

H

H

H

CS

A

C

C

S

L

L

MM

M

M

M

120

120

120

H

L

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

2076

6

66

6

77

7

8

8

8 88208

286

286

286

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

9

115111

11

51

20811

51

2112

21

12

12

12

12

16

16

16

17

17

17

17

17

17 17

16

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22 229

24500

500

500

500

24242424

824

500

27

27

27

500

3

3

29

29

29

29

29

29

CBLocal

CBLocal

34

35

35

35

35

35

35

3538

301

344

344

344

344

301

38

38

38

38

38

34

34

35

34

35

31

3431

3438

31

52

52

52

52

52

34

38

31

70

70

70

70

7070

70

70

70

70

52

34

35

1

1

252

252

252252

252

252

252

34

70

52

52

3232

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

33

33

333333

36

36

36

36 36

3636

J J

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

40

4040 40 40

40

40

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

4646

46

545454

54

54

54

54

54

5656

5656

56

56

42

57

57

57

57

57

57

J

57

57

7

48

48

48

24940

56

75

75

75

7575

77

77

77

77

79

79

2112LL

L

L79L

87

87

87

87

87

87

36

17

9

16

286

238WEEKENDEXPRESS

238WEEKENDEXPRESS

288 88 288 288

27

27

27

27

27

27

99

99

9999

99

99

9999

93

93

93

93

93

933

88

88

288

115117

115117

115117

115117

115117

115117

115117

115117

L

51

7

31

246

246246

246

246

246

246

246

9

204

204

204

88

204204

204

288 288

254

301

302

75

77

6

7

35

22

42

3

16

212

212

SBLocal

SBLocal

SBLocal

79

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

9595

9595

9595

959595

95

95

95

95

62 62

62

62

62 62JJC

54

267

267

267

267

267

267

91

24

22

64

45

7274

41

76106

1

111

42

49

34 16

5760

19

63

87

27

98

93

92

112

47

117114

119

113116

67

29

75

28

115

118

65

78

21

9066

20

62

38

26

85

53

36

8413

10

3

9

5

80

6

70

7

8

39

95

73

58

48

32

4

18

83

109

61

3314

89

56

35

71

25

88

97

99

77 105

103

100

104

79

31

50

52

46

94

68

15

101

102

108

81

17

30

11

515459

12

82

69

96

107

86

23

2

55

44 4037

43

110

968

913

972972

5

112195

395

836

9

836

836

826

826

878

836

836

874

874

874

907

907

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A5

854

7

823

826

823

860

860

953

91

826

997

997

997

25

826

25

826

948

826

9

826

909

922

916

922

915

934

916

817

9

932

924

853

826

858

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

41

41

1

1

1

441

441

441

27

27

27

27

To Marathon

41

27

1

DOWNTOWN MIAMI(See Area Enlargement)

NW 207 St

NW 191 St

NW 211 St

NW 202 St

NW 199 St

Palmetto Expy

Miami Gardens Dr

NW 175 StNW 175 St

NW 191 St

NW

12 Ave

NW

17 Ave

NW

7 Ave6 C

t

N M

iami Ave

NE

2nd Ave

N Miami Beach Blvd

NW 159 St

NW 135 St

NE 1 Ct

NE 147 St

NW 125 St

NW 119 StNW 119 St

NW 127 St

13 Ave

11 Ave

E 49 StW 49 StNW 105 Way

NW 106 St

W 68 St

W 60 St

W 68 St

E 65 St

W 28 Ave

W 21 C

tW

24 Ave

W 20 Ave

NW 11

4 St

N Kro

me Ave

SW 17

7 Ave

SW

177 AveSW

177 Ave

NW 106 St

NW

117 AveN

W 117 Ave

NW

117 Ave

Florida’s Turnpike

Florida’s Turnpike

Florida’s Turnpike

NW

107 Ave

112 Ave

SW

127 Ave

SW 137 Ave

SW

147 Ave

SW

157 Ave

SW

153 Ct

SW

167 Ave

SW

117 Ave

SW

117 Ave

SW

127 Ave

SW

117 Ave

SW

127 Ave

SW

137 AveS

W 137 Ave

SW 84 St

SW 72 St

147 Ave

SW

137 Ave

SW

132 Ave

SW

147 AveS

W 147 Ave

SW

167 Ave

SW

162 Ave

SW

162 Ave

SW

157 Ave

W Flagler St

NW 7 St

W Flagler St

Tamiami Trail

NW 6th St

Tamiami Trail SW 8 St

Coral WayCoral Way

P E A K H O U R S O N L Y

SW 18 St

16 St

Walsh Blvd

SW 26 St

Bird Rd

SW 42 St

SW 34 St

SW

127 Ave

SW 42 St

SW 47 St

SW 47 St

SW 56 StSW 56 St

SW 8 StSW 8 St

SW 17 St

16 St

32 St

SW 8 St

SW 24 St SW 24th St

SW 40 St Bird Rd Bird Rd

27 Terr27 Ln

SW 40 St

Miller Dr

Sunset Dr

N Kendall Dr

SW 56 St

SW 72 St

Snapper Creek Dr

SW 88 St SW 88 St

SW 83 St

79 A

ve

SW 124 St

128 St

Chapman Field Dr

SW 112 StKillian DrSW 112 St

SW 136 St

SW 128 St

SW 104 St

Ingr

aham

Hwy

Old Cutl

er Rd

SW 104 St

SW 112 St

109 Ct SW

102 Ave

SW

112 Ave

SW 104 St

SW 112 St

SW 120 St SW 120 St

SW 180 StSW 184 St

SW 207 St

SW 210 StSW 212 St

SW

92 Ave

85 Ave

Eureka DrEureka Dr

181 Terr

Quail Roost Dr

Quail Roost

Dr

176 St

E Hibiscus St

Ba nyan St

SW 184 St

SW 186 St

BUSW

AY

BUSW

AY

BUSWAY

BUSWAY

BUSWAY

BUSWAY

SW 184 St

SW 200 St SW 200 St

Hainlin Mill DrHainlin Mill Dr SW 216 St

SW

102 Ave

SW 216 St

SW 248 St SW 248 St

SW 216 St

Killian Pkwy

SW 88 St

Old

Cut

ler R

d

Sunset Dr

Snapper Creek Expy

Miller Dr SW 56 St

Standford Dr

Pisano

University

Hardee RdM

ayna

da

SW 72 St

NW 41 St Doral BlvdDoral Blvd

NW 36 St

NW 41 St

Westward Dr

Ham

mon

d D

r

NW

62n

d Av

e

NW

58t

h Av

eN

W 5

7th

Ave

NW 58th St

NW 53 St

NW 74 St

NW 89 St

NW 74 St

NW 103 St NW 103 St

NW 113 St

NW 95 St

W D

ixie H

wy

W D

ixie H

wy

Bisc

ayne

Blv

d

Bis

cayn

e B

lvd

NE

2 AveN

E 2 Ave

NW

2 Ave

NE

6 Ave

NE 123 St Broad Causeway

Opa-Locka Blvd

NE 163 St

NE 170 St

NE 35th Ave

NE 151 St

Bisc

ayne

Blv

d

Dix

ie H

wy

NE

15 Ave

NE

10 Ave

NE

6 Ave

NE

19 Ave

NE

14 Ave

NE

16 Ave

NE

6 AveN

E 6 Ave

NE 171 St172 St

NE 167 St

NE 186 St

NE 207 St

NE 203 St

To S

herid

an S

tor

Bro

war

d B

lvd

NE 199 St

NE

29

Pl

NE 10 Ave

NE

18

St

W D

ixie H

wy

Bisc

ayne

Blv

d

Florida’s Turnpike

NW 186 St

176 St

NW

73

Ave

NW

75

Pl

Grati gny Expy

W 84 St W 20 AveGratigny Expy

W 84 St

Ludlam R

d

NW

82 Ave

79 Ave

87 Ave

NW

87 Ave

W 8 Ave

W 2 C

t

W 12 Ave

NW

60 Ave

W 12 Ave

W 8 Ave

W 16 Ave

NW

72nd AveN

W 72 Ave

72 Ave

Palm

etto Expy

Hialeah Expy W 21 St

W 29 St

NW 79 Ter

3 St

E 17 St

E 9 St

E 13 St

E 10 Ave

NW 54 St

NW46 St

NW 54 StHialeah Dr

NW 62 St NW 62 St NE 62 St

NE

4 Ct

NW 71 St NW 71 StNW 69 St

NE 71 St

N M

iami Ave

N M

iami Ave

NE

2 Ave

NW

2 Ave

W 4 Ave

E 4 Ave

Flamingo W

ay

E 25 StNW 81 St

NW 83 StNE 84 St

NW 87 St

NW 96 St

N M

iami Ave

N M

iami Ave

NW

6 Ave

NW 79 StNW 79 StNW 79 St NE 79 St Causeway Kennedy Causeway

E 4 Ave

East D

r

Palm

AveP

alm Ave

E 1 Ave

SE

8 Ave

NW

37 Ave

NW

32 Ave

29 Ave

NW

23 Ave

E 8 Ave

NW

57 Ave

NW

59t Ave

S Flam

ingo Rd

NW

47 Ave

NW

57 Ave

NW 203 Terr

NW 191 St

NW 206 Terr

46 Ave43 Ave 42 Ave

NW

52 Ave

NW 163 St

NW 158 StMiami Lakes Dr

NW 183 St

NW 167 St

NW 159 St

NW 151st St

PervizO

pa-locka Blvd

NW 157 St

NW

42 Ave

NW

37 Ave

NW

32 AveN

W 32 Ave

NW

32 Ave

NW

27 Ave

NW 183 St

177th St

NW 191 St

NW

22 Ave

NW

12 Ave

NW

37 Ave

NW

27 AveN

W 27 Ave

Sim

bad

Ali Baba

NW

27 AveN

W 27 Ave

Airport ExpyAirport Expy

SW

27 Ave

SW

22 AveN

W 22 Ave

NW

19 Ave

NW

17 Ave

NW

14 Ave

NW

22 AveN

W 22 Ave

NW

17 Ave

NW

14 Ave

NW

8 Ave

NW

17 Ave

NW

12 Ave

NW

7 Ave

NW

10 Ave

14 AveS

W 17 Ave

NW

22 Ave

NW

17 Ave

13 Ave

NW 135 St

Pal

met

to E

xpy

Palm

etto Expy

Palm

etto Expy

Palmetto Expy

160 St

151 StStat

e Rd 9

Service Rd

23 St

44 St

NE 17 St

Col

lins

Ave

Venetian Causeway

Julia Tuttle Causeway

Dolphin Expy

W Hallandale Beach Blvd W Hallandale Beach Blvd

E Hallandale Beach Blvd

Oce

an B

lvd

N B

ay R

d

Col

lins

Ave

Col

lins

Col

lins

Ave

Har

ding

Ave

Har

ding

Ave

Haw

thor

ne

Dic

k en

s

73 St71 St

85 St

88 St

Abb

ott

Ave

63 St

Col

lins

Ave

Pine

tree

Dr

Alto

n R

d

Dade Blvd

Alto

n R

dM

erid

ian

Ave

Wes

t Ave

Col

lins

Ave

Col

lins

Ave

5 St

17 St18 St

Lincoln Rd

20 StBay

Rd

16 St

1 StSouth Pointe Dr

MacArthur Causeway

NW 14 St

NW 21 St

NW 12 StNW 12 StNW 12 St

NW14 StDolphin Expy

Don

Shula

Expy

Don S

hula

Expy

NE 205 Terr

NW 199 St

SW 141 St NW 215 St

NW

2 A

ve

NW

7th AveN

W 7 Ave

NW

7 Ave

NW

7 Ave

NW 29 St

NW 20 St21 St

NW 30 St

N River Dr

W Okeechobee Rd

E Okeechobee Rd

W Okeechobee Rd

W Okeechobee Rd

S River Dr

N Royal Poinciana Blvd

NE 20 St

NW 36 StNE 36 St

NW

42 AveS

W 42 Ave

SW

57 Ave

SW

67 Ave

SW

62 Ave

SW

87 Ave

SW

97 Ave

SW

107 Ave

SW

112 Ave

SW

107 AveS

W 107 Ave

SW

87 AveS

W 87 Ave

SW 97 Ave

SW

97 Ave

SW

117 Ave

112 Ave

107 Ave

113 Ave

192 St

196 St

Howard Dr

SW 128 St

SW

127 Ave

SW

122 AveS

W 120 Ave

SW

137 Ave

SW

147 AveS

W 147 Ave

SW

137 Ave

272 St

142 Ave

SW

137 AveTallahassee R

d

SW

132 Ave

SW

127 Ave

Ram

ey A

ve

Talbot Rd

Naranja R

d

Burr R

d

SW

112 Ave

Franjo Rd

SW

87 AveN

W 87 Ave

NW

79 Ave

NW

87 AveN

W 87 Ave

NW

84 Ave

NW

79 Pl

NW

79 Ave

NW 25th StNW 25 St

NW

97 AveN

W 97 Ave

SW

67 Ave

62 Ave59 P

l

San A

maro D

r

Gallow

ay Rd

SW

82 Ave

SW

67 Ave

SW

62 AveSW

77 Rd

SW

72 Ave

Palm

etto Rd

SW

97 AveS

W 97 Ave

SW

97 Ave

Ludlam R

d

SW

57 AveR

ed Rd

Old C

utler Rd

SW

37 AveS

W 37 Ave

Ingra

ham H

wy

Main H

wy

Grand Ave McFarlane Rd

SW

37 AveD

ouglas Rd

SW

32 Ave

Ponce de Leon Blvd

Le Jeune Rd

Le Jeune Rd

Red R

d

Ludlam R

d

62 Ave

60 Ave

Le Jeune Rd

SW

12 Ave

SW 1 St

NW 2 StW Flagler StW Flagler St

NW 7 St

NW 12 St

NW 7 St

Tamiami CanalNW 7 St

SW 7 StBeaco

n

Blvd

SW 8 St

Rickenbacker Causeway

Rickenbacker Causeway

Rick

enba

cker

Cau

sewa

y

SW 22 St

Andalusia

Aragon

Anastasia

Segovia

Coral Way

SW 3 Ave

S Federal Hwy

Tigertrail A

ve

S Dixie

Hwy

S Di

xie H

wy

S Fe

dera

l Hwy

S Fed

eral

Hwy

S Fed

eral

Hwy

S Dixi

e Hwy

Old D

ixie H

wy

SW 288 St SW 288 St

SW 280 St

SW

147 Ave

SW

157 Ave

SW

152 Ave

SW

157 Ave

SW

167 Ave

Waldin Dr

Biscayne DrSW 288 St

SW 272 St

SW 264 St SW 264 St SW 264 St

SW 248 St

SW 240 St

SW 232 St

Florida’s Turnpike

Florida’s Turnpike

Epmore Dr

Bauer Dr

Coconut Palm Dr

Anderson Dr

Silver Palm Dr

SW 296 StAvocado Dr NW 23rd St

SW 312 St

E Lucy St SW 328 St SW 328 St

W Mowry Dr

W Palm Dr

NE 15 StSW 304 St

S Fede

ral H

wy

SW 320 St

SW

187 AveS

W 187 Ave

SW

192 AveS

W 18 Ave

N K

rome Ave

S K

rome Ave

CardSound Rd

SE

12 Ave

SE

6 Ave

SW

177 Ave

SW

182 Ave

SW

187 Ave

SW

182 Ave

SW

187 Ave

Krom

e AveS

W 177 Ave

NW

6 Ave

SW

170 Ave

SW

162 Ave

NW

6 Ave

Campbell Dr

SW 268 St Moody Dr

S Bayshore Dr

S Bayshore Dr

S Miami Ave

Brickell A

ve

4 St

Miami International Airport

Mila

m D

airy Rd

University

D

r

Granada

Granada Blvd

Key Biscayne

San MarinoIsland

WatsonIsland

Palm IslandStar Island

Hibiscus Island

Di LidoIsland Rivo Alto

Island

LittleHavana

TurnberryIsle Resort& Club

Crandon ParkTennis Center atCrandon Park

Crandon Golf Course

Cape FloridaState Park

10 A

ve

Caribbean Blvd

S H

omes

tead B

lvd

SW 344 St

SW 360 StLucille Dr

SW 344 St E Palm DrE Palm Dr

SW 1 St

SW 211 St

Ingraham HwyOld Cutler Rd

SW 97 Ave

SW 280 St S W 1

40 A

ve

MetrorailTransfer

Opa-locka

GoldenGlades

SW 280 St

Fontainebleau Blvd

NW

97 Ave

NW

107 Ave

Dolphin ExpyBlue Lagoon Dr

Central Blvd

Perimet

er R

d

132 Ave

152 Ave

S Meadowlake Dr

131 Ave

Shar

azad

Dou

glas

Rd

Ext

Dolphin Expy

NW 103 St

Commerce Way

Miami Lakes Dr

Miami Lakes Dr

Oak Ln

NW 192 St

Ponce de Leon B

lvd

Old Cutler R

d

SW 136 St

SW 4 St

NW 2 St

112 Ave

NW 179 St

NW 173 St

NW

68 Ave

SW 142 Ave

SW

137 Ave

SW 132 Ave

NW 199 St

NE Miami Gardens Dr

Was

hing

ton

Ave

Ham

m

ocks Blvd

SW 1

47 A

ve

SW 80 St

SW

167 Ave

SW 96 St

N Country Club Dr

E C

ountry

Club

Dr

W C

ount

ry C

lub

Dr

NE 192 St

W Lehman Cswy

Sunny Isles Blvd

Alto

n Rd

NW 67 Ave

NW 67 Ave

N Flag

ler Ave

Miramar Pkwy Miramar Pkwy S D

ouglas Rd

NW

32 Ave

S U

niversity Dr

SW 33 StMiramar Pkwy

Oce

an B

lvd

Old

Cut

ler R

d

Old

Cut

ler R

d

Ingraham H

wy

SW 152 St

SW 160 St

SW 144 St

SW 168 St

SW 152 St SW 152 St

SW 168 StRichmond Dr

172 St

BUSW

AY

Coral Reef Dr

SW

87 Ave

SW

117 Ave

SW

112 Ave

SW

107 Ave

103 Ave

Carver

Dr

Lincoln Dr 146 St

Service Rd

SW

137 AveS

W 137 Ave

SW

147 Ave

SW

162 AveS

W 160 Ave

SW

77 Rd

S Fe

dera

l Hw

y

SW

187th Ave

Krom

e Ave

CoralGables

SW 1

07

Ave

Graham Dr

SW 9

2nd Ave

Hamletat Walden

Pond

Gratigny Rd

Harbor D

r

Mashta Dr

Cra

ndon

Blv

d

California Dr

(NE 195 St)

Grapetree Dr

Lago

rce

Dr

Alto

n R

d

Pin

etre

e D

r

Indian Creek D

r

SW

122 Ave

SW

140 Ave

SW 1

52 A

ve

SW 104 St Station

SW 112 St Station

SW 117 St Station

SW 124 St Station

SW 128 St Station

SW 136 St Station

SW 144 St Station

SW 152 St Station

SW 168 St Station

SW 173 St Station

SW 184 St Station

Marlin Rd Station

SW 200 St Station

SW 112 Ave Station

SW 216 St Station

SW 220 St Station

SW 232 St Station

SW 264 St Station

SW 272 St Station

SW 280 St Station

SW 296 St Station

SW 312 St Station

Historic HomesteadStation

SW 324 St Station

SW 328 StStation

SW 344 St Station

SW 244 St Station

W Ind igo St Station

Bis

cayn

e Bl

vd

Indi

an C

reek

Dr

Gratigny Pkwy

Naranja Lakes Blvd

W Flagler St

Hom

este

ad E

xtension o

f Florid

a’s Turnpike

FisherIsland

SouthBeach

MiamiBeach

North BayVillage

Indian CreekVillage

Surfside

Bal Harbour

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

BROWARD COUNTY

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

BROWARD COUNTY

NorthMiami Beach

Aventura

SunnyIslesBeach

NorlandMiami Gardens

GoldenBeach

Bay HarborIslands

North Miami

Opa-Locka

Carol City

MiamiLakes

HialeahHialeahGardens

Medley

MiamiSprings

Sweetwater

Westchester

Pinecrest

Kendall

RichmondHeights

Palmetto Bay

Saga Bay

Goulds

Naranja

Princeton

Homestead AirReserve Base

Homestead

The Redland

Florida City

CutlerBay

SouthMiamiHeights

WestwoodLakes

Kendale Lakes

TheHammocks

Kendall-TamiamiExecutive Airport

OlympiaHeights

SouthMiami

CoconutGrove

Doral

El Portal

Miami Shores

Little Haiti

Opa-Locka Airport

Wynwood

HialeahMarket

Adrienne ArshtCenter for the Performing Arts

Route 344 continues toEverglades Village

SW

104 Ave

X

W

V

U

T

S

R

Q

P

O

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

X

W

V

U

T

S

R

Q

P

O

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

METROBUS ROUTES

POINTS OF INTEREST

BUSWAY STATION

METRORAIL GREEN LINE

METRORAIL ORANGE LINE

TRI-RAIL

62

LEGEND

75

8623

J

N

S

EW

UniversityMetrorail Station

CoconutGroveMetrorailStation

Douglas Road Metrorail Station

South Miami Metrorail Station

Dadeland North Metrorail Station

Dadeland South Metrorail Station

VizcayaMetrorailStation

Brickell MetrorailStation

Government Center Metrorail Station

Historic Overtown/Lyric Theatre Metrorail Station

CulmerMetrorail Station

CivicCenterMetrorailStation

Santa ClaraMetrorailStation

Earlington HeightsMetrorail Station

Miami International AirportMetrorail Station

BrownsvilleMetrorail Station

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Metrorail Station

NorthsideMetrorailStation

Tri-RailMetrorailStation

Hialeah Metrorail StationOkeechobee

MetrorailStation

PalmettoMetrorailStation

Allapattah Metrorail Station

Miami-Dade County Transit System

Airports 1 Miami International Airport .................... I-11 2 Opa-Locka Airport .............................. D-11 3 Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport ....... O-5

Park & Ride Lots 4 Busway / SW 152 St ............................ P-8 5 Busway / SW 168 St ........................... Q-8 6 Busway / SW 112 Ave ......................... R-7 7 Busway / SW 244 St ............................ T-6 8 Busway / SW 296 St ............................ V-4 9 Coral Reef Dr / Turnpike ....................... P-7 10 Hammocks Town Center ..................... N-5 11 Golden Glades ................................... D-13 12 Miami Gardens Dr / NW 73 Ave ............ C-9 13 North Kendall Dr / SW 150 Ave ........... N-5 14 West Kendall Transit Terminal ................ N-4

Hospitals 15 Aventura Hospital ............................... A-16 16 Jackson Memorial Hospital .................. I-13 17 Jackson North Medical Center ......... C-14 18 Jackson South Community Hospital ..... P-8 19 Bascom Palmer Eye Institute/ Ann Bates Leach Eye Hospital .............. I-13 20 Doctors Hospital ................................. L-11 21 Coral Gables Hospital ........................ K-11 22 Hialeah Hospital ................................. G-11 23 Palmetto General Hospital .................... E-9 24 Palm Springs General Hospital ........... F-10 25 South Miami Hospital ......................... M-10 26 Westchester General Hospital .............. K-9 27 Mercy Hospital ................................... K-13 28 Miami Heart Institute .......................... H-17 29 Mount Sinai Medical Center ............... H-16 30 North Dade Health Center ................. C-12 31 North Shore Medical Center ............... F-13 32 Community Health Center of South Dade .......................................... S-8 33 West Kendall Baptist Hospital .............. N-4 34 Veterans Administration Hospital .......... I-13 35 Baptist Hospital ................................... N-8 36 Kendall Regional Medical Center .......... L-7 37 University of Miami Hospital ................. I-13 38 Miami Children’s Hospital ................... K-10 39 Homestead Hospital ..............................V-5

Government Centers 40 Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office ..... I-13 41 U.S. Post Office General Mail Facility ..... I-9 42 Joseph Caleb Community Center ....... H-12 43 Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building .... I-13 44 Miami-Dade Jail ................................... I-13 45 Miami-Dade Police Department ............. I-8 46 North Dade Justice Center ................ D-16 47 PortMiami ........................................... J-15 48 South Miami-Dade Government Center S-7 49 Department of Children & Families ....... I-12

Schools & Colleges 50 Barry University ................................... E-14 51 St. Thomas University ........................ D-12 52 FIU Biscayne Bay Campus ................ D-16 53 FIU Modesto A. Maidique Campus ....... J-7 54 FIorida Memorial College ................... D-11 55 MDC North Campus ........................... E-12 56 MDC Kendall Campus .......................... N-7 57 MDC Medical Center Campus .............. I-13 58 MDC Homestead Campus ................... V-3

59 Miami Lakes Educational Center ........ D-10 60 Lindsey Hopkins Technical Education Center ................................. I-13 61 Robert Morgan Educational Center ...... Q-6 62 University of Miami .............................. L-11 63 MDC Wolfson Campus ........................ I-14 64 MDC West Campus ............................. H-7 65 MDC Interamerican Campus .............. J-12

Shopping Centers 66 Village at Merrick Park ........................ L-11 67 Shops at Midtown Miami .................... H-14 68 Aventura Mall ..................................... B-16 69 Bal Harbour Shops ............................. E-17 70 Southland Mall ...................................... S-7 71 Dadeland Mall ...................................... M-9 72 Dolphin Mall ........................................... I-7 73 Florida Keys Outlet Center ................... W-3 74 Miami International Mall ......................... I-7 75 Lincoln Road Mall ................................ I-16 76 Mall of the Americas ............................. J-9 77 Mayfair in the Grove ............................ L-12 78 Miracle Mile ....................................... K-11 79 Northside Shopping Plaza ................. G-12 80 Perrine Plaza ....................................... Q-8 81 Skylake Mall ........................................ C-15 82 163rd Street Mall ................................ C-15 83 The Falls Shopping Center ................... O-8 84 Town and Country Mall ........................ M-7 85 Westchester Shopping Center ............. K-9 86 Westland Mall ....................................... F-9 87 Bayside Market Place ......................... J-14 88 Shops at Sunset Place ...................... M-10 89 Cauley Square Historic Village .............. S-6 90 CocoWalk ........................................... L-12

Parks & Beaches 91 Amelia Earhart Park ............................ E-11 92 Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park .... N-15 93 Crandon Park Beach ......................... M-16 94 Greynolds Park .................................. C-16 95 Harris Field ........................................... V-4 96 Haulover Beach Park ......................... D-17 97 Matheson Hammock Park & Marina .. N-11 98 Historic Virginia Key Beach Park ..........K-15 99 Tamiami Park ....................................... K-7 100 Tropical Park ......................................... L-9 101 Oleta River State Park ....................... C-16

Attractions & Recreational Facilities 102 Calder Race Course ........................... A-12 103 The Barnacle ...................................... L-12 104 Miami-Dade County Auditorium .......... J-12 105 Dinner Key Marina .............................. L-12 106 Flagler Dog Track ................................ J-12 107 Hialeah Park ...................................... G-11 108 Sun Life Stadium ............................... B-12 109 Zoo Miami ............................................ Q-6 110 Miami Beach Convention Center ......... I-16 111 Casino Miami Jai-Alai ......................... H-12 112 Miami Seaquarium .............................. L-15 113 Museum of Science ........................... K-13 114 Jungle Island ....................................... I-15 115 Jackie Gleason Theater of the Performing Arts .......................... I-16 116 Vizcaya .............................................. K-13 117 Miami Children’s Museum .................... I-15 118 Marlins Park ........................................ J-13 119 Perez Art Museum Miami ..................... I-14

Points of Interest

MetrorailStation

Existing BOS Segment (Routes 204, 272, & 288)

to downtown Miami

Lessons Learned • Park-and-rides increase success.

• A wider shoulder is recommended.

• A bus passenger survey shows the success of the program with 88%

reporting that the bus generally runs on time, 91% reporting that the

ride is comfortable on shoulder, and 84% feeling that BOS is safe.

• “Jealous Motorist” issues- 44% of drivers said they experienced this

daily where cars would block the shoulder and not let the bus pass

• Miami looks for potential corridors already planned for improvement

in hopes that any upgrades to the shoulder can be combined with

other construction to reduce overall costs. Ideal corridors should

also have potential for park and ride locations and continuous

shoulder segments of at least 2,500 ft between merge locations.

MIAMI BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

5.9 million regional population

9 miles

3 routes

200 daily buses

2007 year service initiated

MDT Kendall Area Routes Using Bus-on-Shoulder

67

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

System OverviewAs a low-cost treatment to bypass congestion

and maintain transit schedules, the Research

Triangle region in North Carolina opened their

bus-on-shoulder system (BOSS) in 2012. The

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill BOSS operates on 30

miles of Interstate 40 (I-40). The regional public

transportation agency GoTriangle (formerly Triangle

Transit) trained BOSS drivers to operate on the

shoulder during times of congestion. The North

Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)

has been working with GoTriangle transit agency and

other regional partners to expand the BOSS program

in the Research Triangle. As part of the Fortify

I40/440 rebuild project, additional segments have

opened for BOSS operation in 2013. The NCDOT

is exploring expansion of BOS to other regions of

the state.

Operational Criteria • Authorized Users. The NCDOT permits the use of

shoulders by authorized GoTriangle transit buses

with trained drivers only.

• Maximum Speed. Buses may operate on the

right-hand shoulder at all hours when the general

purpose lanes slow to 35 mph. The maximum

speed on the shoulder is 35 mph and buses may

not operate more than 15 mph over the speed of

vehicles in the general purpose lanes.

• Merging. Buses are required to yield to vehicles

parked on the shoulder and to emergency

response vehicles that need to use the shoulder.

When bus drivers observe that the shoulder is

in use for these purposes (or others), they must

carefully re-enter the general purpose lanes.

• Hazard Lights. Authorized bus drivers must

activate their four-way hazard lights while

operating on the shoulder.

Case Study 7:

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Image Credit: The News & Observer

68

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida

• Training. Bus drivers are trained on the operational

standards, and to use their judgment about

whether it is safe to use the shoulder. NCDOT

helped create a mock track for the initial training

and coordinate dry runs during the day when

traffic volumes were very low. Although bus

drivers are authorized to use the shoulder, they are

not required to do so and are encouraged not to if

they feel conditions are unsafe.

Special Operations and Design Considerations

• Pavement Marking & Signage. The designated

BOS routes have no specific pavement markings

and the following limited signage:

° Mainline signs - “Shoulder-- Authorized Buses

Only” signs and “No Parking—Tow Away Zone.”

° On-ramp signs - “Watch for Buses on Shoulder”

• Shoulder Width. Designated routes have a

minimum shoulder width of 10 feet.

FundingThe initial cost to implement the BOSS was

approximately $2,000 per shoulder-mile, primarily

used to install signage.

Other Transit ServiceIn 2015, several regional transit agencies joined

together to create the GoTransit re-branded transit

system, including GoTriangle, GoRaleigh, GoDurham,

GoCary. The unified system provides local and

express bus service within the Research Triangle

region. The region is planning for light rail service.

Legal AuthorityBased upon a review of state legal documents, it was

determined that NCDOT had the legal authority to

operate buses on the shoulder.

Lessons Learned • Partnerships and collaboration were the

key to successful implementation of BOSS

in North Carolina. The NCDOT, Regional

Transportation Alliance, and GoTriangle

worked together to create the successful

system and continue expansion.

• The NC State Police has monitored the use

of shoulders to ensure appropriate use.

Project Outcomes • Number of Routes. A total of nine different bus

routes currently have BOS operations, including

three express, five local, and one shuttle routes.

• Travel Time-savings. The pilot program produced

limited data on time-savings, but anecdotal

evidence demonstrated the success of the system.

• Safety. During the first year of implementation,

BOSS had been used nearly 700 times with no

accidents reported.

• Public Outreach. NCDOT also developed a

public campaign to inform the public of the new

program. Their outreach efforts included creating

a video of a bus operating on the shoulder and an

extensive media campaign to educate the public

on the rules and regulations of bus-on-shoulder. In

order to discourage vehicles from following transit

buses, law enforcement has the authority to issue

citations for unauthorized users.

• Ridership. No ridership data specific to BOSS has

been prepared.

69

Implementing Bus on Shoulder in FloridaI-40 Bus on Shoulder System (BOSS) implementation -Research Triangle Region of North Carolina

This map describes the current extent of the Bus on Shoulder System (BOSS) on I-40 and Wade Avenue Extension freeway in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina.

Untitled layer

I-40 and Wade Ave inWake/Durham Cos.

I-40 in Wake/Johnston Cos.

Current Extent of the BOSS in the Research Triangle region in North

Carolina (2016)

Sources • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 151: A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder

(BOS) Systems, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166878.aspx

• GoTriangle, http://www.gotriangle.org/boss

• NCDOT, http://www.ncdot.gov/nctransit/boss/

• Regional Transportation Alliance, http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/transit/brt/boss-frequently-asked-

questions/

• North Carolina DOT Complete Streets, http://completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/ex-boss/

• The News & Observer, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10220156.html

Image Credit: Google Maps

Research Triangle BOS BY THE NUMBERS:

1.2 million regional population

40 miles

9 routes

161 daily trips

2012 year service initiated

Existing BOS Segment

Existing BOS Segment

70

6.0 BOS Implementation Opportunities & Challenges

In researching the BOS systems, it was determined that these systems were implemented for

a variety of reasons. For example, the Minneapolis-St. Paul system was originally started as

a solution to an expressway bus operating issue and was largely expanded as a result of a

major flood. San Diego BOS was an interim solution until managed lanes could be constructed.

Other cities began as pilot projects to improve bus run times in congested corridors and were

impressed with the results, so they decided to permanently implement BOS and expand the

BOS system. While BOS offers many opportunities, there are also several challenges that

have to be addressed.

6.1 Opportunities

Overcrowded freeways are a constant challenge in metropolitan areas and the number one

reason BOS operations are pursued by agencies. In the case studies discussed earlier, BOS

proved to be a low-cost solution that could be put into place much quicker than expanding

highways or constructing managed lanes. While BOS does not actually move personal

vehicles off the road, it does make transit more appealing and gets people out of their vehicles

and onto the bus due to improved travel time reliability and the convenience of not driving in

congested traffic. Bus transit agencies are major proponents of the concept due to increased

ridership, reduced operating costs, and improved travel time and schedule reliability.

BOS offers the following opportunities:

Travel Time Savings. Travel time saved largely depends upon the amount of

congestion in the general purpose lanes and how many miles the congestion continues

compared to the BOS corridor. Since all systems’ corridors have different profiles,

there is no way to determine how much travel time will be saved without looking at

each individual corridor. The best way to estimate the benefit is to compare travel times

per bus trip to a 35 mph-BOS speed. The Minneapolis-St. Paul System experienced

up to five minutes in savings on a 10-mile BOS segment. Most of the benefits occur to

buses operating during the peak period.

Ridership Impacts. Buses passing on the shoulder quickly become a self-marketing

effort. As people sit in congestion in general purpose lanes with buses passing by, it

encourages the use of transit as an alternative. BOS has resulted in increased

ridership throughout most of the BOS systems researched. For example, Chicago’s

PACE BOS increased their ridership by 500 percent in the first four years of service.

Miami had a nine percent reduction in service but a three percent increase in

patronage and a 10 percent increase in boardings per bus-hour.

Schedule Reliability. Nearly all of the BOS systems in the U.S. improved on-time

performance dramatically. Two of the three routes in Miami experienced a 7 percent

and 19 percent improvement, respectively, in on-time performance.

Implementation Schedule and Cost Efficiency. BOS can be implemented in a short

period of time and at a low cost relative to major capacity and fixed guideway projects.

71

Some BOS systems were implemented to combat congestion until highways could be

expanded. Minnesota DOT was able to quickly put buses on shoulder to alleviate

congestion after a severe flood that destroyed a major bridge.

6.2 Challenges

The main concern for state DOTs, transit agencies, and law enforcement is safe travel for all

constituents on the roadways. BOS operations on interstates present several safety concerns,

including conflict at interchanges, impact on general purpose lanes, speed differential,

shoulder debris hazards, hydroplaning and, of course, interrupted use of shoulders by

emergency response vehicles and disabled vehicles. Although BOS is significantly less of a

financial burden than expanding highways, it still presents costs to ensure safe operations.

Additionally, operating protocols must be carefully prescribed to meet the needs of the

corridors in which buses will operate on shoulders. In several case studies, agencies ran into

issues with state vehicle codes. Most states require a revision to the vehicle code to permit

buses to operate on the shoulder.

The following challenges must be addressed to successfully implement BOS:

Safety Concerns. State DOTs are cautious when it comes to implementing BOS

because of the safety concerns. BOS could cause significant problems for emergency

vehicles, law enforcement, and disabled vehicles that use the shoulder regularly.

Conflicts with cars in general purpose lanes and entry and exit ramps are also an initial

concern. However, these items have not been an issue in the history of BOS due to

public involvement, driver training, and enforcement of BOS rules and regulations.

Operating and Capital Costs. There are costs associated with implementing BOS

including signage, shoulder improvements, driver training, and public outreach. The

cost can be significantly minimized if the BOS corridors have adequate shoulder width

and strength or if these improvements are undertaken during planned construction.

Signage is minimal and has not been a problem for agencies in the past. Public

Outreach and driver training may also require more work hours during the beginning

of implementation or start-up. However, BOS projects are significantly cheaper

compared to lane addition highway projects.

Shoulder Maintenance. BOS requires more maintenance to keep shoulder clear of

debris, disabled cars, and other potential blockages.

Legal Authority. There are legal and code changes required which authorize the use

of shoulder and enforcement of buses on shoulder. This requires changes to state

vehicle codes. While this has been done with ease in many states, others do run into

issues. For example, Austin, Texas completed all steps associated with implementing

BOS but they did not receive legislative authority and their BOS system was put on

hold. However, this is not the case in Florida as the FDOT does have legislative

authority to implement BOS.

72

Operating Protocols. Operating protocols are critical to the safety of the BOS system.

Because there are many that have been successful, especially Minneapolis-St. Paul,

there are “best practices” and research available to assist agencies in this process.

7.0 Lessons Learned

Based on the literature review conducted as part of this project, following is a list of lessons

learned.

Congestion Level. The more congested the corridor, the more likely allowance of an

existing bus service along the route will benefit from diverting off of the general purpose

lanes and onto the shoulders. Congestion criteria and minimum travel speed

thresholds should be established to determine when BOS is feasible.

Transit Frequency and Ridership. Adequate bus frequency and route ridership

thresholds should be established to justify the need for BOS and improving travel

times. Depending on ridership levels, four buses per hour during congested times

should be considered.

Significant travel delays and poor on-time performance. The transit agency

should be able to document the existing service delays and inability to meet scheduled

stop times in order to justify the need for BOS along certain route segments.

Interchange Operations. Avoid multilane entrance and exit ramps and ramps with

very high traffic volumes (>1000 vph).

Agency Coordination. The key players in a BOS system, such as the local transit

agency, roadway jurisdictional agency like FDOT, and law enforcement would need to

coordinate closely to initiate a BOS implementation plan.

Public Involvement and Education. It is critical for the general motoring public to

understand the creation of a BOS system and associated laws, including its do’s and

don'ts.

Driver Training. Bus operators need to have proper education and training, including

classroom simulations and on-the-road training.

Proper Signage. Appropriate signs are required to inform the bus operator and the

motoring public the limits of the BOS zone as well as other regulations.

Safety. Buses must be able to safely enter and depart the shoulder. In addition, a safe

distance between a bus traveling on the shoulder and a vehicle traveling on the general

lane should be maintained.

Shoulder Conditions. Shoulders must be at least 10 feet wide (or 11.5 feet wide on

bridges or next to barriers) and have sufficient pavement thickness and base to support

constant use by heavy vehicles.

Enforcement. Need for law enforcement to ensure motoring public does not illegally

use the shoulders other than for vehicle breakdowns or refuge area after an accident.

Shoulder Maintenance. It is important to clean up debris on a more regular or frequent

basis to allow safe passage of buses on the shoulders. Most systems reviewed in the

literature review suggested increasing maintenance to the same level as the general

purpose lanes.

73

Emergency Response. Emergency response vehicles take precedence over BOS

operations and all bus operators must re-merge into general purpose lanes as needed.

The shoulders should be cleared promptly of disabled vehicles and debris so BOS

operations can recommence.

Park-and-Ride Facilities. The existence of park-and-ride facilities near the BOS route

appears to be an incentive for some motorists to use transit service instead of their

automobile on these routes.

8.0 Conclusion

As discussed in the previous sections, a number of BOS operations exist in the United States

that are sustainable and successful. The success of these systems has been based upon the

consideration and resolution of issues that will likely be similar to those associated with the

proposed BOS system along I-275. The study team will use the information compiled in this

Literature Review to develop statewide guidance in assessing the feasibility of implementing

BOS in Florida.

74

Attachment A

Existing BOS Systems Matrix

BOS System Matrix

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

*Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Set best practices for BOS systems) Opening Year: 1991 System Description: 4 major interstates, 14 routes, 400 buses Comprehensive network- 300 miles of freeway shoulder available for buses. The buses operate on the right-shoulder during heavy conges-tion. Purpose & Need: The concept was used on HWY 252 in 1991 as a way to get buses out of congestion. It be-gan to further evolve in re-sponse to a Mother's Day flood in 1993 which shutdown some major highways. Today, half of Metro Transit's bus routes use a shoulder for at least half of the trip.

Metro Transit (fixed route) and Transit Team (para-transit) agencies Charter bus-es if regis-tered with MnDOT

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes. Buses should not use shoulder when ap-proaching a double lane on/off ramps or when VPH is >1,500 on ramps

Buses must use four-way flashers. BOS drivers are instruct-ed to merge with the general lanes once within 1,000 feet of an obstruction.

10 ft. (12 ft. is rec.) and 11.5 ft. min-imum on bridges

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

Ramp meter bypasses

None Minimal- "Shoulder-- Authorized buses only" about every 1 mile. Cau-tion Buses on Shoulder at on/off ramps. On ramps- "Watch for buses on shoulder" (yellow background). Small yellow signs with an arrow advise bus drivers of pinch points

Save be-tween 5-15 minutes per trip. An av-erage of 7 minutes is saved on most trips at peak

Few impacts to safety- most acci-dents are mirror side swipes

In 2010: 9 routes were analyzed and showed a 9.2% in-crease. At the same time, there was a 6.5% decrease systemwide

Mostly class-room train-ing- state law, operat-ing rules, responding to issues. Also exten-sive in-bus training on driving the shoulders and annual safety up-dates and briefing on shoulder use. Team Transit also created a video.- Video is online and available to the public

MnDOT- Annual budget of $1M - adds about 4-8 miles ($250K/mile) Metro Transit- 5307 Capital guideway funds for OP & Main.

Uniform Vehicle Code prohibits driv-ing on shoulders so Minnesota statutes were amended in 2005 to formalize BOS operations.

Increase width to 12 ft and depth of shoulder to 7in when funding is available or on planned highway pro-jects Reinforce drain-age structures Ramp Metering is helpful when navigating the merge weave Most successful near Park 'n' Rides Include shoulders in their snow clearance plans Net-work is not continuous, but rather a series of distinct corridors or segments with recur-ring congestion. Crite-ria for BOS corridors: There must be predict-able congestion de-lays, meaning the run-ning speed of roadway must be less than 35 mph during the peak period and/or ap-proaches to intersec-tions have continuous backups. Congestion delays must occur one or more days per week. A minimum of six transit buses per day must use the proposed bus shoulder. The expected time savings of using the shoulder must be greater than eight minutes per mile per week. The proposed shoulder must have a continu-ous shoulder width of at least 10 feet.

Source: Metro Transit site; TCRP Report 151; MnDOT; The Center for Transportation Research for Capital Metro Transit Authority, “Peak Period Use of Urban Expressway,” http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/Capital%20Metro%20Bus%20On%20; Federal Highway Administration, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop14020/sec1.htm; State and Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, http://lgi.umn.edu/centers/slp/transportation/sustainability/pdf/BusOnlyShouldersReportFINAL2007.pdf

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

*Miami, FL (Only FL system) Opening Year: 2007 System Description: 9 Miles Two express bus routes on the Don Shula Expressway (4 lanes each way) and three express bus routes on the Snapper Creek Parkway (2 lanes each way). The three Kendall Area Transit (KAT) routes operate on Sunset (Route 272), Kendall Drive (Route 288) l and Killian Park-way(Route 204) use outside shoulder Purpose & Need: Overwhelming traffic and tight budget.

MDT buses are auth.to operate on the right-hand shoul-der of MDX roadways.

When traffic slows below 25 mph in GP lanes.

Buses must use four-way flashers

10 ft (12 ft where truck volumes ex-ceed 250 VPH)

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

None None Mainline signs- "Emergency Stopping Only On Shoulder- Authorized Bus Lane" On ramp signs- "Bus-es Traveling On Shoul-der"

50% reduc-tion in late buses oper-ating on the BOS seg-ments

During the pilot pro-gram, no traffic acci-dents involv-ing Metrobus vehicles were report-ed.

There were no significant increases in ridership shown due to service cuts; howev-er, BOS is considered a success in Miami.

Drivers take a PPT based classroom training Mi-ami-Dade County host-ed a press conference with the Dis-trict FDOT secretary and reps from transit agency, ex-pressway authority, etc.; social media cam-paign

County pays for signage- $15,000; In 2010, MDT and MDX each contributed $19,000 to relo-cate vibratory pavement mark-ings in the shoul-der

FDOT was found to have the authority to initiate a pilot program for BOS operations. If a long-term project was con-templated, legisla-tion would be re-quired. Based upon the need to initiate a BOS system, FDOT authorized a 3-year pilot pro-gram in 2006. MDT signed interlocal agreements with FDOT and MDX to allow 3 existing MDT Kendall area routes to use the shoulders on SR874 and SR878. A second set of interlocal agree-ments was signed in 2010 to continue the use of shoul-ders.

Park 'n' Rides increase success A wider shoulder is recom-mended Bus passen-ger survey showed- 88%- Bus generally runs on time; 91%- ride is comfortable on shoulder; 84%- feel BOS is safe "Jealous Motorist" issues- 44% of drivers said they experienced this daily where cars would block the shoulder and not let the bus pass Miami looks for poten-tial corridors already planned for improve-ment in hopes that any upgrades to the shoul-der can be combined with other construction to reduce overall costs. Ideal corridors should also have potential for park and ride locations and continuous shoul-der segments of at least 2,500 ft between merge locations.

Source: Miami-Dade MPO; TCRP Report 151; http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/ridership-technical-reports.asp#15 https://www.miamidade.gov/transit/releases/10-10-09-buses_shoulders.asp; Miami-Dade County, http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/legistarfiles/Matters/Y2010/102153.pdf

San Diego, CA Opening Year: 2005 System Description: 8 miles SR 52 (6-lane freeway) and I-805 (8-lane freeway) Route 960- operates with 5 morning and 6 evening round trips Route is Peak-period commute oriented; I-805, an extension of the BOS system operates on the inside shoulder while all other segments use the outside shoulder This pro-ject is currently not in operation. Purpose & Need: Pilot started to assess safety, bus travel time and reliability, as well as bus and car driver and passenger perceptions. Transit First strategy- use of

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Sys-tem buses

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes.

Low beam headlights; all intersec-tions along the BOS cor-ridor have auxiliary lanes be-tween the off‐ramps

and on‐ramps, ena-bling safer merges.

No min. stat-ed- 10ft is optimal

Max of 35 mph but no more than 10 mph over GP lanes

Some of the on-ramps are metered

"Only Buses Transit"

Mainline signs- "Transit Lane- Au-thorized Buses Only" every 1/2 mile

99% on-time performance with up to 5 minutes travel time savings in heavy con-gestion

No accidents ---i Drivers take a PPT based classroom training & field training

$100K for im-plementation

As of 2012, the CA State Streets and Highways Code prohibits use of shoulder lanes as travel lanes. It does allow for transit-only lanes provided engineering studies are performed. Therefore, BOS is technically defined as a "Transit Lane" although it oper-ates as a BOS fa-cility

Need for additional maintenance. There was no change in freeway level of ser-vice; 72% of bus driv-ers feel safe; 86% of drivers think it is a good idea; 91% of rid-ers think it saves time; 90% of riders feel safe

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

transit priority measures along freeways and arterials to by-pass congestion, increasing transit speed and reliability. This was an interim improve-ment measure until the imple-mentation of Managed Lanes or other high-cost, long-term im-provements

Source: TCRP Report 151; Center for Transportation Research "Peak Period Shoulder Use of Urban Expressways- Prepared for Capital Metrohttp://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=283&fuseaction=projects.detail http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20150724czh&_t=SANDAG+approves+busonshoulder+pilot+project#.VrIrmP72aUk

*Atlanta, GA Opening Year: 2005 System Description: GA-400 freeway at the North Springs Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MAR-TA) rail station Northward to the Windward Pkwy (begins and ends at North Springs metro station). GA-400 is a high vol-ume, 6-8 lane freeway serving the northern suburbs of ATL. GRTA- four buses/hour during peak and MARTA- eight bus-es/hour; segment is 12 miles USE OUTSIDE SHOULDER Purpose & Need: Interim solution until the free-way could be widened with managed lanes.

2005-2012-GRTA transit buses & MARTA transit buses 2012- Pas-senger vehi-cles SB 6:30-9:30 AM; 2015- NB added, BOS ex-tended and hours were extended to 6:30-10 AM & 4-7 PM

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes.

Buses must remerge into GP lanes in advance of interchange off-ramps and not re-enter the shoulder until after the on-ramp weave.

Shoulders were wid-ened to 12ft

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes for buses when BOS began; Now the speed limit is 45 mph for all vehicles on the flex shoulder

None The original 6 mil. seg-ment had raised mark-ers (buttons) to discour-age other users but these were not needed and are no longer used/replaced

Pavement markings indicating the end of shoulder usage, signs indicating the hours of us-age, speed limits, start and end of lane usage, signs indicat-ing motorists should move over for emergency vehicles, and notification of emergency pull-off loca-tions.

Average sav-ings of 5-7 minutes and up to 25 minutes when major blockages occur; when flex shoulder lanes opened in 2012, GDOT reported time savings for all motorists between 5-15 minutes along GA 400.

GRTA has reported no accidents

--- No formal training is given. Driv-ers are "talked" to about the operating protocols.

$2.8 M to widen the shoulder by 2 ft and reinforce them; in 2012, additional shoul-der lanes cost $850,000

Georgia vehicle code had to be amended to permit buses to use the shoulder lanes.

GA-400 has paved accident investigation sites about every half mile which minimizes the disabled vehicle blockage on shoulders and therefore keeps the BOS system mov-ing; Connection be-tween park and ride lot and MARTA rail sta-tion; impact of flex shoulder lane use on express bus opera-tions

Source: TCRP Synthesis 64: Bus Use of Shoulders; TCRP Report 151; Federal Highway Administration, “Efficient Use of Highway Capacity Summary Report to Congress,” http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10023/chap2.htm#n17; Georgia DOT, http://northfultoncid.com/files/media/documents/ga-400-fact-sheet-5-7-12.pdf; http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Public/PressReleases/GA400FlexLanes.pdf; http://www.dot.ga.gov/DriveSmart/Safety Operation/Documents/GA400/GA400-ShouldeLanes-Signage.pdf

*Columbus, OH (first of 3 BOS systems in Ohio) Opening Year: 2006/2015 System Description: 10 mile segment on I-70, E be-tween Downtown Columbus and State Route 256, 6-lane AND I-670 between Downtown and I-270 on the east side of Columbus; 3 routes which is about 20 bus trips a day I-70 USE OUTSIDE SHOULDER I-670 USE INSIDE SHOULDER Purpose & Need: The program starting with a pilot to determine the viability of

Central Ohio Transit (CO-TA) Authority Buses and Mainstream vehicles

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes.

Buses must use four-way flashers; buses are allowed to travel through in-tersections and not re-quired to merge back into GP lanes

10 ft. Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

None Limited to striping to guide buses in areas where there is an abrupt change in shoulder width, and a lane drop arrow is used in con-junction with the sign marking the end point of a designated shoulder segment.

Main signs are white with black lettering "Shoulder. Authorized Buses Only." They are placed ever 1/2 mile. "BEGIN" & "END" plac-ards have been added to signs. On ramps- Yel-low w/ black lettering-"Watch for

Improved on-time perfor-mance and helped main-tain bus schedules

Proved safe in pilot

--- Drivers take a PPT based classroom training & field training; inform bus operators and law en-forcement about shoul-der lane us-age, and install the appropriate signage to ensure safe-ty in the cor-ridor; special ride along at

$10,000 for sign-age

Section 4511.25 of the Ohio Revised Code forms the legal basis for bus-es to use shoulder

Frequency for shoulder debris clearance was increased from once every three weeks to once a week Some drivers are hesitant to use the shoulder due to the policy of dismis-sal for three preventa-ble accidents

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

BOS operations. This segment regularly experience speeds less than 35 mph, has a shoul-der of 10 ft or more and full depth. The program expanded to I-670 in Sept. 2015. COTA is using this to encourage people to use transit as a faster alter-native.

buses on shoulder".

the kick-off with media present

Source: COTA website (http://www.cota.com/Riding-COTA/Bus-on-Shoulder-Program.aspx); TCRP Report 151; Mass Transit, “COTA to Expand Bus on Shoulder Program,” August 6, 2015, http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/12100368/cota-to-expand-bus-on-shoulder-program-to-i-670

Cincinnati, OH Opening Year: 2007 System Description: 11.7 mile segment of I-71 in the northeastern part of the metro-politan area USE INSIDE SHOULDER (first system to use the inside shoulder) Purpose & Need: Reduce traffic congestion, in-crease ridership by providing a faster commute, and maximize highway capacity.

Metro buses When traffic slows below 30 mph in GP lanes.

Buses must use four-way flashers; un-like the twin cities, buses are RE-QUIRED to use the shoulder when the traffic slows to 30 mph

12 ft mini-mum w/ rumble strips down the center

Max of 45 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

None No pave-ment mark-ings

Minimal- "Shoulder-- Authorized buses only" (white back-ground) about every 1 mile. Cau-tion Buses on Shoulder at on/off ramps. On ramps- "Watch for buses on shoulder". Small yellow signs with an arrow advise bus drivers of pinch points

--- At the end of the pilot, 0 accidents had occurred

--- Drivers take a PPT based classroom training & field training

--- --- Frequency for shoulder debris clearance in-creased from twice a month to twice a week.

Source: TCRP Report 151; http://www.go-metro.com/riding-metro/bus-on-shoulder

Cleveland, OH Opening Year: 2008 System Description: I-90 EB (betweenSR-283 and East 260th Street in Euclid) & I-90 WB (East 55th Street to the SR-2 East 9th Street inter-change) Purpose & Need: To reduce traffic delays

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. (GCRTA) & Laketran buses

When traffic slows below 30 mph in GP lanes.

Treat en-trance and exit ramps as yield signs

10 ft. mini-mum

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

None None “Authorized Buses Only” signs.

--- Laketran had safety issues including debris on the shoulder so GCRTA started run-ning BOS earlier. The cleaning process was improved and the ser-vice began.

--- Not all driv-ers were trained. They began with only drivers going to and from park and ride lots and added drivers as needed later.

--- --- The operation began with buses going to and from the PNR lot but after success, 10 additional drivers were trained.

Source: https://laketran.com/schedules-maps/bus-on-shoulder/ ; University of Texas at Austin, Peak Period Bus Use Of Freeway Shoulders-- http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf

*Raleigh/Durham/ Chapel Hill, NC Opening Year: 2012 System Description:

GoTriangle transit buses with trained drivers only

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes.

Buses must use four-way flashers

10 ft. mini-mum

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

None No pave-ment mark-ings

“Shoulder: Authorized Buses Only” and “No Parking — Tow Away

--- The shoul-ders were used 700 times with 0 accidents

GoTriangle transit buses with trained drivers only.

Drivers are trained in the classroom and on the road Video on BOSS;

Implementation was $2,000/mile for signage

NCDOT has the legal authority to operate buses on the shoulder

The most important lesson learned from the process used to ‘build’ the bus on shoulder system is that about partnering and

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

The BOSS program operates on virtually all sections of I-40 in Durham, Wake, and John-ston counties with regional bus service from Triangle Transit, from the US 15-501 inter-change (exit 270) to the Wade Avenue extension (exit 289). and again from the I-40/US 64 split (exit 301) to NC 42 (exit 212) BOSS also operates on the Wade Avenue extension from I-40 to the Blue Ridge Road exit. USE OUTSIDE SHOULDER Purpose & Need: Increase the use of public transit by providing more relia-ble service which leads to a decrease in congestion

Zone” signs on I-40 and Wade Ave-nue. “Watch for Buses on Shoulder” signs

extensive media cov-erage; web-site exclu-sively on the BOSS

collaboration. North Carolina DOT, the Re-gional Transportation Alliance, and Triangle Transit all worked to-gether to create a suc-cessful system. Addi-tionally, the NC state police have to monitor the shoulders and en-sure appropriate use.

Source: http://www.ncdot.gov/nctransit/boss/ http://www.gotriangle.org/maps-and-schedules http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/transit/brt/boss-frequently-asked-questions/ http://completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/ex-boss/ The News & Observer, http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10220156.html; Map- https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zHGajzve-h5I.kK6Nxe5KGucg&msa=0

*Johnson County, Kansas Opening Year: 2012 System Description: I‐35 in Johnson County, KS, in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. In 2015, BOS operations began in adjoining Wyandotte County (3.5 miles on I-35). USE OUTSIDE SHOULDER Purpose & Need: Johnson County Transit (JCT) was looking for ways to en-hance transit services, increase transit ridership, and decrease congestion in the Johnson County I-35 corridor.

Jo Xpress express buses

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes.

Peak period only

10ft. mini-mum; most shoulders along the I-35 corridor are mostly 11-12ft wide.

Max of 35 mph but no more than 10 mph over GP lanes

Bus stopping station con-cept

No pave-ment mark-ings

"Shoulder-- Authorized buses only" (white back-ground) about every 1 mile. On ramps- "Watch for buses on shoulder".

2.56 minutes is saved on average if a bus uses shoulder for at least a 2-mile seg-ment

During 2012, buses trav-eled 1,350 miles on the shoulder with no reported safety inci-dents.

The first year of BOS ser-vice, rid-ership on the 4 routes in-creased by 12%.

Drivers take a PPT based classroom training & field training; commercials and video; focus groups and media engagement

Implementation was $9,250/mile for shoulder im-provements/ signage

The State of Kan-sas granted legal authority for BOS operation in John-son County in 2010. Authorization for BOS was also granted for Wyan-dotte County, Kan-sas in 2015. As previously stated, the State of Mis-souri does not have legislation to allow buses to travel on the shoulder, so down-town-bound (east-bound) buses must leave the shoulders when entering Missouri.

Johnson County Transit is improving transit stations along Xpress Routes as well as adding park 'n' ride stops to encourage transit use Key to suc-cess is to gain ac-ceptance from the state legislatures and the state highway de-partment of transporta-tion. A detailed safety anal-ysis was critical to the success of the project.

Source: http://www.jocogov.org/sites/default/files/documents/TRN/BOSReportAug2012.pdf; http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/kcMetro/pdf/I35%20Bus%20on%20Shoulder%20Service%20to%20Begin%20in%20Johnson%20County.pdf; Kansas City Chapter: Institute of Transportation Engineers, http://kcite.org/images/downloads/Awards/ bus_on_shoulder.pdf; Johnson County, Kansas, http://www.jocogov.org/dept/transit/jo/jo-xpress; http://www.jocogov.org/sites/default/files/documents/TRN/BOSReportAug2012.pdf

Old Bridge, NJ Opening Year: 2007 System Description: US Route 9- 4 miles between Spring Valley Road and Cindy

NJ Transit buses

AM peak period NB and PM peak period SB

--- --- --- Queue Jumps

"Bus Only" markings, "Bus Only" signs, "Yield to Bus" signs

The BOS signs show what time BOS can be used.

8.9 minutes going to-wards NYC, Newark, Jer-sey City 11.3 minutes go-ing away

There was report of a accident be-tween a school bus and a transit bus on

--- --- $8.5M for 9 miles of arterial high-way- shoulder improvements, bus shelters, sidewalks, pe-destrian islands

--- Required 2.5 degree slopes to replace the previous 4 degree slopes as well as 78 new drain inlets for the 4-mile segment

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

Street and between Fairway Lane and Perrine Road; Ap-proximately 440 buses and 6800 passengers daily This route serves NB buses going to NYC in the morning and SB buses in the evening USE OUTSIDE SHOULDER Purpose & Need: The project is an element of the New Jersey DOT's Enhanced Bus Improvement Program and was designed to reduce delays and increase on-time bus per-formance

from NYC, Newark, Jer-sey City

shoulder. Signage did not specify type of bus-es permitted to operate on the shoulder. Only 3 peo-ple injured on the transit bus.

Source: http://wagner.nyu.edu/files/rudincenter/marchwinski.pdf; Center for Transportation Research "Peak Period Shoulder Use of Urban Expressways- Prepared for Capital Metro"; http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/01/old_bridge_mayor_clear_rules_n.html;http://www.apta.com/mc/multimodal/previous/2010/Presentations/New-Jersey-Transit-BRT-Initiatives-Go-Bus28-and-Reuse-of-a-Right-of-way-in-Union-County.pdf

* Chicago, IL Opening Year: 2011 System Description: Stevenson Expressway (I-55) from Bolingbrook and Plainfield to downtown Chicago and the Illinois Medical District (15 miles); I-90 toll way northwest from Rosemont to Elgin. Start-ed at 15-miles and they plan to expand to 230-mile network USE INSIDE SHOULDER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_iFdACjp0o Purpose & Need: The demonstration project along I-55 was implemented to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of BOS transit operations compared to com-muter rail service. In partner-ship with the Regional Trans-portation Authority, IDOT, and the Illinois State Police, Pace Suburban Bus switched two existing commuter express routes between southwestern suburban communities and downtown Chicago to BOS op-erations.

Pace Ex-press buses

When traffic slows below 35 mph in GP lanes; buses can-not use the shoulder when dead-heading; Northbound (inbound) buses can use the shoulders between 5 to 9 a.m. and southbound (outbound) buses can use the shoulders between 3 to 7 p.m.

--- 12 ft mini-mum

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

IDOT plans to install new ramp meter-ing along I-55 in 2017.

Limited to striping to guide buses in areas where there is an abrupt change in shoulder width, and a lane drop arrow to be used in con-junction with the sign marking the end point of a designated shoulder segment.

Signs are located along the corridor that mark the location of the desig-nated bus shoulders and indicate the times when buses may use the shoulder.

On-time per-formance improved from 68 per-cent to near-ly 95 percent immediately after the program started.

No safety concerns were report-ed when the pilot program was made permanent in 2014.

Ridership in 2011 was 200 riders/ day on the I-55 Pace Ex-press routes. In 2015, the ridership totaled 6 times that at 1,200 riders/ day on the Pace ex-press routes.

Public Out-reach- Pace Express bus wraps read "Authorized to use the shoulder"; Pace also created a TV commercial to advertise the new BOS system; so-cial media campaign including fb and twitter;

$9.5 million to rebuild the shoulders; CMAQ funds are being used for I-90 shoulder up-grades

Illinois Vehicle Code was amend-ed to temporarily legalize bus on shoulder opera-tions

Public education cam-paign directly relates to increased ridership and improving safety along the BOS corri-dor. Free parking at park-and-ride lots served by BOS routes. Make appropriate changes to state law to provide state patrol jurisdiction over the shoulder.

Source: http://www.pacebus.com/sub/vision2020/expressway_brt.asp; http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/Network-Overview/transit-system/i-55-bus-on-shoulder Pace Bus Service; http://www.pacebus.com/sub/vision2020/expressway_brt.asp; http://www.pacebus. com/sub/news_events/press_release_detail.asp?ReleaseID=604; https://www.pacebus.com/pdf/BOS_brochure.pdf; https://www.pacebus.com/pdf/on_board_newsletter/onBoard5.pdf Metropolitan Planning Council, http://www.metroplanning.org/news/7242/Talking-Transit-Bus-onshoulder-builds-Pace-ridership; Regional Transportation Authority, http://www.transportchicago.org/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720074/ transport_chicago_paper_i-55_bos_final_27may2011.pdf

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Opening Year: 1992 System Description: Highway 417 &174- 14 miles of BOS on limited access facili-ties; 100 buses per hour Otta-wa has bus stops along the highway which have call but-tons so that buses can exit the shoulder and access the stops to pick up passengers Purpose & Need: Improve speed and reliability of transit services by providing transit priority measures to lessen delays on transit vehi-cles caused by other traffic and traffic control signals Source: TCRP Report 151

Public Trans-it buses--OC Transpo buses and on 174, Leduc Bus lines are permitted

No speed restrictions so buses can operate on the shoulder when speeds slow below 62 mph which is the max shoul-der speed limit

--- 11.5 ft + a 3 ft shoulder and 3 ft ref-uge area

up to the posted speed limit of 62 mph

--- Pavement stripe was increased from 8 inch-es to 15 inches

In English and French; mainline signs every quarter mile

--- --- --- All drivers are trained on BOS op-erations when hired

--- Most of the BOS is located within city boundaries but the westernmost seg-ment of 417 is un-der the jurisdiction-al control of Ontar-io Province.

---

Toronto, Canada Opening Year: 2003 System Description: Hwy 403 (about 3 miles) Purpose & Need: --- Source: TCRP Report 151

GO Transit and Missis-sauga Trans-it

When traffic slows to 35 mph

--- --- No more than 12mph over GP lanes

--- Double the thickness of white line separating shoulder from GP lanes

Every 200-300 m there is a sign warning drivers of buses on shoulder

--- --- --- Training ma-terial in-cludes: Pur-pose of BBS, Review of BBS layout, signs, and markings, Operating speed re-strictions, Safe merg-ing, BBS access and egress; and Emergency procedures.

--- --- ---

Austin, Texas Opening Year: Not in operation to date System Description: As of 2011, Austin is still work-ing to get legislative approval- The following information are the recommendations Austin has developed through their research Would use right shoulder on IH-35 (9 miles) and US-183 (7.17 miles)

Capital Met-ro

When traffic slows to 35 mph

At least six buses travel along the corridor per day

10 ft. mini-mum and adequate pavement depth

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

--- Minimal striping changes

--- IH-35 esti-mated time savings would aver-age 1.98 minutes/mile

US-183 es-timated time savings could aver-age as much as 5 minutes per/mile

--- (with 90% confidence) ridership will increase by at least 4.5% and as much as 14.3%

Drivers will be trained and only op-erate on the shoulders when they feel comfort-able

Estimations--

IH-35: restriping costs per lane mile- $12,620 and re-paving per lane mile- $401,166;

signage- $5,670

US-183: restrip-ing per lane mile- $12,624 and re-paving is not re-quired

signage- $5,775

Texas Vehicle Code would need to be amended to legalize bus on shoulder opera-tions

The chosen corridors do not require physical alterations due to the high cost

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

Purpose & Need: Interim measure to bypass freeway congestion until managed lanes can be built according to the CAMPO 2030 plan

Source: University of Texas, Austin Report- Predicting the Incremental Effects on Transit Ridership; University of Texas at Austin, Peak Period Bus Use Of Freeway Shoulders-- http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf

Fairfax County/ Falls Church, VA Opening Year: 2013 System Description: 1.3 miles segment of Route 267 (Dulles Connector) Purpose & Need: To facilitate bus access to the West Falls Church metro transit station

Transit Bus-es going to West Falls Church met-ro station

When traffic slows below 25 mph, M-F, 4PM-8PM

In 2009, the BOS operat-ing hours expanded to include a morning peak period of 6AM-10AM

Buses must have their headlights on when op-erating on the shoulder

Shoulders are 14 feet wide; oper-ate on out-side shoul-der

Max of 25 mph

--- Double, solid white line separates Bus shoulder from GP lanes

Shoulder—Authorized Buses Only; Watch for Buses on Shoulder; Yield to Bus-es on Shoul-der; toward the end of the shoulder that advises bus drivers to yield to off-ramp traffic

-- --- --- --- --- --- Best Practice:

Operators call in if any breakdowns or obsta-cles are encountered on the shoulder, at-which point transit dis-patchers instruct all bus drivers not to make use of the shoulder.

Acts as a queue jump-er for a small conges-tion area resulting from vehicles merging onto congested I-66 rather than a bypass for miles of heavy congestion along the BOS corridor

Source: http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/Northern_Virginia/asset_upload_file945_71500.pdf

Arlington, VA Opening Year: 2015 System Description: I-66 inside the capital beltway. 6.3 mile segment. This con-nects to the Dulles Connector BOS system Purpose & Need: To move more people through congested areas, improve reli-ability, and increase ridership.

Omni ride buses

When traffic slows below 35 mph

Buses must have their headlights on when op-erating on the shoulder

Shoulders were modi-fied to 12 feet along the corridor

Max of 25 mph

None Double, solid white line separates Bus shoulder from GP lanes

Shoulder—Authorized Buses Only; Watch for Buses on Shoulder; Yield to Bus-es on Shoul-der; toward the end of the shoulder that advises bus drivers to yield to off-ramp traffic

--- --- --- Bus drivers are required to sign a document stating they know and will follow the rules of the program

$600,000 in im-provements in-cluding widening and tree trimming in some portions of the corridor, relocating mile marker signs, and installing new signs indi-cating BOS is permitted

--- --

Source: http://www.virginiadot.org/VDO/Projects/Northern_Virginia/asset_upload_file945_71500.pdf

Maryland/ Washington D.C. Metro Opening Year: 1998 System Description: US-29 southward from Bur-tonsville approximately halfway toward the Washington Belt-way; I-495 Washington Beltway

Metrobus US-29: 6-9AM and 3-8 PM M-F I-495: 6-9AM and 4- 7PM M-F

--- --- --- None None Appropriate signage was installed

Travel time did not im-prove due to the bus be-ing unable to avoid the most con-gested seg-ment of the corridor

VDOT did not allow BOS on its portions of 1-495 due to safety risks.

None- the BOS opera-tion did not have signifi-cant rid-ership

--- --- --- Without end‐to‐end coverage of the corri-dor/route, and in par-ticular not at the most congested location, BOS did not offer im-proved travel time or reliability. In addition, there were reports that “jealous motorists”,

Location

Operational Criteria Special Operations/ Design Considerations

Outcomes Driver Training &

Public Outreach

Funding Sources/ Cost of

Implementation

Authority Key Lessons

Learned Auth. Users

When Allowed

Other Recs. Min.

Shoulder Width

Max. Speed Signal

Timings Pavement Markings

Signage Travel Time Reliability

Safety Impacts

Ridership Changes

near I-270 Purpose & Need: Significant reconstruction of these highways has eliminated the need for BOS.

whether in automobiles or trucks, occasionally attempted to block the buses.

Source: Center for Transportation Research "Peak Period Shoulder Use of Urban Expressways- Prepared for Capital Metro

Seattle, WA Opening Year: 1970s System Description: I-405 SB- (from SR 527 on-ramp to NE 195th Street off-ramp and from SR 522 on-ramp to NE 160th Street off-ramp) Purpose & Need: To bypass congestion

Community Transit, King County Met-ro, Sound Transit

Operate only during weekdays from 6-9AM

--- --- Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

--- --- "Emergency Stopping Only" are located throughout the corridor

--- --- --- all drivers must be trained in the operating rules of bus shoulder lanes and able to han-dle complex driving deci-sions while on the shoulder

--- --- This was the first BOS system.

Source: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Tolling/405/busshoulderlanes.htm

University of Texas at Austin, Peak Period Bus Use Of Freeway Shoulders-- http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf

Wilmington, DE Opening Year: 2008 System Description: Route 202 SB- only 1500 feet Purpose & Need: --- Source: TCRP Report 151 & TCRP Report 64

--- --- --- --- --- Queue Jump for SB traffic toward I-95

Diamond symbol

Signalized "T" intersec-tion- Signal is similar to a walk/don't walk sign but there is a green bus for go and a red X for stop

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Boulder to Denver, CO Opening Year: 2016 System Description: 18 miles of U.S. 36 between Denver and Boulder Purpose & Need: Bypass traf-fic jams on this busy route Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2016/04/rtds-denver-boulder-buses-will-use-shoulders-to.html

Regional Transporta-tion District- Flatiron Flyer

When traffic slows below 35 mph

--- 12ft shoul-ders were constructed prior to the pilot project

Max of 35 mph but no more than 15 mph over GP lanes

--- --- --- --- --- Increased 45% from August 2015 to April 2016.

--- The shoulders were widened to 12 feet during reconstruction projects

HB 1008 called for allowing buses to use the shoulders of U.S. 36 as well as on other high-ways in the state if the shoulders of the roads are up-graded to accom-modate buses

This project was going to begin January 3, 2016 but at the last minute, CDOT and the regional transportation district realized the buses did not have the privilege to drive on the Shoulder. The law was passed on March 9, 2016.

* Case Study (See Section 8.0)

i The information was not available.

Diane Quigley

Transit Planning Administrator

Florida Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee Street, MS 26

Tallahassee, FL 32399

(850) 414-4520

diane.quigley@dot.state.fl.us