GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF ‘US TERMINALS AND BUS STATIONS Ronald T. Jackson, As B Theodor J. Low! wreopuctIoN y Although the proportion of trips mde Ceansport la declioing, passenger voluves are still Anerensing in may parte of Southern Africa, oatoly Decause of sncrearing urbanization end high population grovth cater. One of the vesulte Ls an urgent need for {nproved facilities at due stations ané bus terminals and for passenger tranefere tetveen bus aed rail. Usefut tnformtion on munerous topict related to bus terninal deeiga is scattered throughout the literature, but no comprehensive guidelines to nesist plansece vere Found. The South African’ Departnent of Transport appointed consultants to develop, {0 covoperation with the Department, # set of guidelines for’ the planning fand denign of toe terminals and bis stations. These uldelines vere developed through studies of available Titerature and from observations and ourveys of « large sunber of terninale in Southern Afeica and sose tn the United States and Canada, Foll-scale teats, ueing typteal buees were undertaken to develop quidelines {oF the design of loading berths. Consultations on the Graft guldetines vere beld with groups experienced {a public. treneport in the metropolitan areas. of Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Cape Town, Port. Ellaabeth, Pleternartesborg and the East Rand The guidelines (1) comprehensively covered toptce Felated to station layout, bus loeding, off-loading. and Relding factitties ae well ae pedecttion circulation, Valkweye and stairways and. passenger queuing Atrangenente, This payer, hovever, conflues tteelt to Sone of the aost interesting and useCul findings. One OF these was the Influence of bur operating polletes snd facilities on the cepectty of the loading. berths, Another feature wae the developnent of 9 range of Gtnenstone for paraliel and shallov savtooth berths. A fovel feature uae the development of a Very Shallow Sewtooth berth. Entablished pedestrian capactty and Tevel of service concepts were interpreted. and presented in sinple graphe for use by deotymners, MENTS OF A BUS TERMINAL ‘The nost fundanental facility in a dus station Le the Loading berth, together with che associated passenger boarding. platfore and the afsle giving accers tothe berth. Optional facilites are off-loading areas vith Derthe for the buses and alighting platforee for the passengers, and holding areas for buses arriving early fr standing ty to Heep to thelr schedule. There are hoat of other peesenger facilities, not covered tn this paper. Thivectors, ve Leus, Cather and Assoctates, South Africa Senior Engineer (Ma South Africa ‘Traneit) Dept of Transport, octate Nenber, ITE john 8. Simeone, Member, ITE LOADING BERTH CAPACITY Capsetty can be defined tn terme of the number of Peseengere per hour that can be loaded,” or the Frequency of buses that can depart fron the berth. Tt Le reached uhen the tive at the berth 1e completely occupied by loading buses or Is reserved for. the expected orrivel of buses Many factors influence the capacity of « berth. The Dest know and most documented factors are the ‘sunber of passengers boarding per bue and the rate of Boarding, which depends” on the fare collection procedure. One of the ost inportant features of the Gutdelines wae the recognition and quantification of other operating polictes on loading berth capacity. Critical poltctes are thote relating to adherence to Schedule, ‘the avatlebility of holding areas for early Arrivals and subecitute buses for late arrivals. The capacity of a loading berth can be expres the folloving equation: ed by 3600 5 eee + cee eit GD gers alighting at the Ioading berth per B = Passengere boarding per departure t= Boarding tine per passenger (sec) C= Clearance tive between succeasive buses (sec) ET = Arrival tive earlier than scheduled (eee) LT = Arrival tine later than scheduled (eee) Passenger Boarding Rates Observations of passenger boarding rates vere made at Iatge number of terminals throughout Southern Africa ‘and also in Now York City ond Canada. Fare collection, Procedures and the fere structure stood out as the most Important factors aftecting boarding tive which varied fron under two seconde to efghe seconde per passenger. Remarkable sinflarities were found between boerding rates in Southern Africa and those adopted in the US tn NGIRP Report ti. 155, (2) Te wna clear thet the ore Interaction between the driver and the passenger, the Longer. the boarding tne, The shortest. boarding. ti of 1.9 seconde per passenger vas observed at the Boskenhout Transfer Station in Bopbuthatevana. This Tepid boarding tine ceoulted fron a ayeten of pre-paid Clckecing, with passengers having thelr "tickets pre-canceiled on entering the queue area. ongert boarding time vas 7.4 seconds per Peaseager, where the driver descended from the bus and Rook cash fares from the passengers io the queve, 204Table 1 elev shove recommended boarding for conventionel buses with one boarding door. tines ABLE GUIDELINE BoARDING TIMES FOR ‘CONVENTIONAL BUSES xact fare or coupon cancelled 3.0 so machine Pre-patd ticket cancelled by driver 40 50:50 cash fares and coupons 6.0 Ceah fares ~ sultiple zone aysten 8.0 Size of be ‘A common size of bus in Southern Africa carrles 90 Passengers, including standees, at crush load. Sizes wary, hovever, from aini-buses with 12 passengers to articulated buser with 150 passengers. Tncressing. the ‘Dunber of pasrengere loaded per bus reduces the tine Wasted between departing doses manceuvering out of th Berth and arriving buses moving into the berth. Larger buses therefore increase the capacity of the berth ‘although they Fequire nore berth space. a eine ‘This te the non-loading tine between the closing of the passenger doore of s departing bus snd the opening of the passenger’ doots of the next ereiving bus. Clearance tine can be as lov as 10 seconde If the holding area 1s inmediately behind the Loading berth. Te could increase to 60 seconde 1 the holding ares ts bose distance fron the loading berth. For average Conds tlons 30 seconds should be alloved. Adherence to Schedule ‘The eetinates of loading berthe' capactty should take Anto account practical considerations of scheduling. ‘The minimum headvays thet can be safely scheduled at a Leading berth have to allow tive for unloading aengers, loading pasengers, clearance tine, and Strivele earlier or later than’ scheduled (affected by Observations by many researchers Indicate frequency Gietetbotions for arrivals of buses as Poisson, Norsal, Erlang, Chivequare and” Negative Exponental Observations made, tn developing putdelines Gndicated that for practical purposes, in the peak design period, buses can be taken ae arriving at. the the berth within 4 micutes of the scheduled tine. This Figure” wovld, however, depend on the scheduling polictes of the bus operator. Effect of Holding Bey’ Lf a conventent holding erea is not avatlable, the scheduled headwaye at the Toading berth vould have to Slow for a bue arriving ae mich ao 4 ainutes earlier than, scheduled. Otheretee, an early arrival vould block “the afele while waiting for a loading bue to Gepart. Provieton of a bolding bay eliminates thie Songer and allove shorter beadwaye to be scheduled. Thur the capacity Le ineressed by setting ET*0 tn Eq le 2012 ave to allow for late arrival of ‘A late aerival would till. be occupying th berth tf the next scheduled bus arcived on tine. This Would causes Blockage of the aisle, If the operator's Polley te te provide a pool of rubetitute buses for [ete arrivaie, then shorter headweys can be acheduled At the loading berth. Thte obviously increases the capacity of the bereh, by setting 1760 In Eq. 1. oft=toading Ares Proviston of a separate off-loading area reduces the tine on etiving bue occupies et a loading berth by clininsting off-loading passengers and cetting A-O in Bae le EFFECT OP OPERATING POLICIES ON BERTH CAPACITY Fig. 1 shows the dranatic effect that fare collection procedures have on the capacity of a berth for a typleal case in a terninal where there tra. holding area but no substitute buses are available, For bases Loading 50 passengers, the fare collection procedures would change the capacity fron 490 passengers per hour to 270 passengers per hour. 12h nso ca re et OL RRR Se ates z $oco mo i ve $200. i i $ % % % Par 1 bffect of fae cottetion procauve on tang BEE obaSEy, “ote eapielone tohding ee Bit no eetibice bea! ” pg om st st Bg i y { i i i Fig. 2 Effeote of holding areas and substitute buses on loading berth aapacity for @ typtoal fare Solisetion procedureFor any given fare collection procedure, the avallabtitty of a holding area end substitute. buses hhave a pronounced effect on the capacity of @ loading berth Fig. 2 Ailustrates the wide range of capacities that can be achieved with and without these facilities. For a bus loading 90 passengers and a clov boarding rate of 6 sec per parsenger the capacity with « holding ‘aren and substitute busee would be 570. passengers per hour." Eliminating those advantages would reduce the jeapactty to 310 passengers per hour. ‘The conbined effects of fare collection procedure, etze of bus, availability of ¢ holding area and the avatlability of substitute buses eke a trenendous Gifference to the capacity of a berth. Figs 3 Lilustrates “the” range of capacttier that can be achteved. Yor a bus loading 90 passengers, the fastest fare collection procedure together uith a holding area and the evallabiitty of substitute buses would result ina capacity of 1540 passengers per hour. On the ‘other hand, 1f cash fares with sultiple zoner were ured fand in adaitton allovance tad to be nade for early and ate arrival of buses, then the capacity vould reduce £0 260 panrengers per hours Fig. 8 Range of borth aapacitics for various salleation proveduree wid cponaeing poiovee LOADING BERT DESIGN of dimensions for A whole range of alternative Decellel and shallow" savtooth loading berthe were Aeveloped “in the guidelines. The "design bus” for When Joading berth criteria were developed, ed Tengeh of 12-0n, 0 width of 2.6m vith front and rear overhange of 2.5 and 3.5m respectively and a niniaue Corning redive of the outer body of 13-lm at crawl speed. 20-13 Parallel Londing Berthe ‘The paratiel loading berth has been popular tn Southern Africa because of “ite ease of taplenentation, particularly at the curb-eiden of existing streets. Tt Offers flexibility for re-arrangenent to accommodate « Fange of uses [roa wini-buses to articulated. bow Te mio disadvantage te {te {nabllity to restetet buses to their oun deeignated berths. Eapectally where shore berths are used, drivers tend to encroach op the berth in front of then. This sakes the entry of the next bus behind then eore difficult and results ia large tall-oute, which can encroach {nto the aisle and prevent the passage of buse For ingependent arrivals and departures, the length of a berth tas to provide an adequate appreach length for enceuvering into the berth snd parking perallel to the curb, the length of the bus and auffielent exit length in front of the bus to enable it to manoeuvre out avotding a bus perked tn front of 18, ‘There ir 4 close, Felationship between the length of the berth and. the isth of aisle, The ehorter the exit length available, tthe wider the afsle has to be to. permit. the bie to manoeuvre out of the berth. Using a variety of buses, tests vere carried out to. determine the relationship between varioue lengths of parallel berths and. the Width of atsle required. The prefersed parallel berth ‘Should be ‘based on @ module of 22m in length and a 7.38 Width of aisle. An m width of atsle would be sary If the nodule length was reduced to 20n. autooth at that ahort. length, the shallow berth should be sertouely considered, At of wodule, the aisle width shovld be at les 4 shallot’ sawtooth deatgn vould be preferred. Reducing tthe module to « length of 17m would make independent arrivals and departures unfeasible. "Fiz. 4 gives details of various combinations of ‘nodule length and aisle width for the desten Buse reason of Independent arrive ond ipertres Fig. 4 Guideline dinenotone for paraltet Loading fereha.Shallow Savtooth Loading Bert Shallow Savtooth berthe appear to doninate current design practice in North Anerica and Europe. The ain jmantage of the saxtooth te the ease of nanceuvering into {ts Te has a saving of sbout 2a tn length over a parallel berth providing the came level of service. The preferred design hee 20m length of nodule fssociated with « 20 depth of savtooth end a 7.50 kth of alede cucetde. of the savtooth. An important Feature of s savtooth berth is thet drivers are prevented fron encroaching on the berth In front of them. Fig. 5 gives a range of dinensions for sautooth berths A hovel feature in the developnent of a Very Shallow Sawtooth berthy in which the gaveooth ndeat {e reduced 0.1.00 or 1,25n, Saving @ ldttle oa the width of the nodvie often allovs an. extra rov of berth to be Provided on a restricted afte. The Very. Shallov Sawtooth Amprover the bus pull-out saneouvre tn term fof avoiding the whiplash of the rear overhen Fig. 5 Guideline dimenoions for ehatlon eastooth loading bertia. ‘The entgner # usually faced with the problen of having to accommodate e desired number of loading Bertha in a restricted. and often inadequate sites Table 2 provides the detigner with {nforsation on the type of berth and operating conditions that would be achieved ty « variety of berth lengths fron 13 netres to 35 setree. (CAPACITY OF WALKWAYS AND STAIRUAYS Pedestrian ctrculation and flov are all too often neglected aspects of bus station design. Where large Volupes of pedestrians are involved, the provision of Adequate capacity on walkuaye and” stairways te Inportant for reasons of safety and confort. Concepts {nthe Guidelines vere. based. on” the work of Dr J J Fruis (5) and. che ITE Technteal Counet] Committee S-R (6) and -confirned by observations at variove bus atations in Southern Africa. Capacity on valkways ané stairways 1s a factor of the Width provided, the physical dimensions of the body, peychological preferences of avoiding bodily contact Sith others and complex human characteriatica of Delance, timing and sight. Levels of service fron A to F have been volune end width conbinationa (5) (6) Interpreted and are presented in « simplified form ia Figures 6 and 7. Level of Service C {e generally recomended for design, except for short duration bulk arrival 7 olD ante ter tuk arias Shite areata ge Tae ee ae de as enectve with of wana (i Pig. © atinay widehe for pedestrian ftovs and lavete of servive. 2014TABLE 2 width of Atte [US LOADING BERTHS FOR VARIOUS MODULES OF LENGTH Length including éepth of of sawtooth Module where applicable @ @ option for Use of Berth Operating Conditions and Preference B38 Queue buses nose to tail Non-independent arrival and departure oy Queue buses nose to ta{l Non-independent arrival and departure but ellove other buses to pi 8 - 875 Parallel berths ~ Delaye reault when frequencies are high independent arrival and Susee encroach on other berths departure 9.0 = 9.25 Sautooth preferred Avotde encroachment 19 80 = 85. Parallel Delaye retuie when frequencies are high Buses encroach on other berths = 9.00 Saurooth Snooth operation m1 - 8.0 Parallel Satietactory operation ~ sawtooth preferred 9.23 = 9.5 Sawtooth [PREFERRED MODULE FOR SAWTOOTH 21S 7078 araled Reasonable operating conéttions 1-75 Parallel [PREFERRED MODULE FOR PARALLEL ~ good ‘operating conditions 2 nas 75 Perettel Tabl-out reduces ma) 70-75 Paratlel Little tati-out 25) 235 Queve 2 buses — Con share berth with another route of fon-independent arrival suftable frequency. fang departure ~ parallel berehe 26 675-- 7.75 Maxtmun layout for single Good - independent arrivals and parallel berthe departures 235 Queve 2 buses intlextbie onsindependent arrival Needs holding are a2 975 Double sautooth = {iret Good - high frequency bus loading second bus wolting. Can acconnodate frtlevlaced bur, 33 = 80 Doubte parallel berth ~ Reasonable ~ high frequency feasible iret tue loading second for double bus berth bor wetting. Can nccospedate articulated bor. as nS = dieto = maximum for double parallel 2015Eectia with ot Pig. 7 Staimsay wideha for pedsatrian flave and Tevele of erste concuustoH ‘The bus operator's operating policies and procedures hheve such s profound influence on the capacity of the Loading berche that tt fe essential for agreenent to be reached between the operator and the designer of « due Station at the planning stage. ‘The loading berth Le the most fundamental factiity tn a bu terminal. Suffietent loading berthe met be 2016 provided to accommodate route requtrenents and each Berth tas sufficient capacity. The geometric design of fa berth te critical 1f congestion and delays are to be Avoided, " ‘To this end range of loading berth Ginensions are available to suit operating conditions ‘and the given efte dimensions. AceNOULEDCENENTS ‘The authors exprese thelr thanks to the Dept of Transport for peralselon to publish the information fron the Guidelines. Hovever, opinions expressed are thote of the authors end not of the Departnent. IRLrocapuy 1, Bus Terminals and Bus Stations - Planning end Design Guidelines. Ref. PC 2/83. Dept of Transport. July 1983, 2, Levinson W.5., Adans C.L, Mighways ~" Planning and Desig Cutdelines Repore 155 (1975). 4S Hoey, WF. Bus Use of HR 3. Soberman RM, and Hazard HA, (Editors) canadian Transit Handbook. University of Toronto, 1980. Taylor Dati. Bus Teratnal Studies. Working Paper 36, Urban Transport Research Croup, University of Warwick, Coventry 1977. Frvin J.J. Pedestrian Planning and Destan. Netropoltian Association of ‘Urban Designers and Eavironsental Planners Tne. Nev York. 6, ITE Technteal —_counct1 _—Commtttes SR. Characteristics ond Service Requirenents of Pedestrians and Pedestrian Factlities. Traffic Engineering, hay 1976.