Managing Extreme Weather at Airports

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24806 SHARE

   
Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops
DETAILS
0 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-46145-0 | DOI 10.17226/24806
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Barbara Thomson; Transit Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research
Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Marking 25 Years of Service through Research
TCRP SYNTHESIS 129

Managing Extreme Weather
at Bus Stops
A Synthesis of Transit Practice
Consultant
Barbara Thomson
Thomson Consulting
Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
S ubject A reas
Maintenance and Preservation • Passenger Transportation • Public Transportation • Safety and Human Factors
Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with

the Transit Development Corporation
2017
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP SYNTHESIS 129
The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmen- Project J-7, Topic SA-39
tal, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. ISSN 1073-4880
Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, ISBN 978-0-309-39000-2
must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve Library of Congress Control Number 2017936210
efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
operating problems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other
industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and
near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA,
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
research and other technical activities in response to the needs of of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
transit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit material, request permission from CRP.
research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
administrative practices. NOTICE
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement Engineering, and Medicine.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are
outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessari-
cooperating organizations: FTA; the National Academies of Sci- ly those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
ences, Engineering, and Medicine, acting through the Transportation Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.
Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences,
Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization estab- Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative
lished by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered
governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project
essential to the object of the report.
Selection (TOPS) Committee.
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically
but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the respon-
sibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program
by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation,
the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed
by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos-
als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel
throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research
problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by
TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in
other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without
compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to Published reports of the
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
nating TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit
agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series are available from
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- Transportation Research Board
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Business Office
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry
practitioners. and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively http://www.national-academies.org
address common operational problems. TCRP results support and and then searching for TRB
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

TOPIC PANEL SA-39

FABIAN CEVALLOS, Florida International University, Miami
JOHN FILIPPONE, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Aspen, CO
TRACY HARRINGTON, Milwaukee County (WI) Transit System
DAVID A. LEE, Connecticut Transit, Hartford
JOANNE TELEGEN WEINSTOCK, Federal Transit Administration (Liaison)
KEN THOMPSON, Easter Seals Transportation Group (Liaison)
SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
THOMAS HELMS, Consultant
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
GWEN CHISHOLM SMITH, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications
TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7
CHAIR
BRAD J. MILLER, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, FL
MEMBERS
DONNA DeMARTINO, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, CA
MICHAEL FORD, The Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan, Detroit, MI
BOBBY J. GRIFFIN, Griffin and Associates, Flower Mound, TX
ROBERT H. IRWIN, Consultant, Sooke, BC, Canada
JEANNE KRIEG, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, Antioch, CA
PAUL J. LARROUSSE, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
DAVID A. LEE, Connecticut Transit, Hartford
ELIZABETH PRESUTTI, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority–DART
ROBERT H. PRINCE, JR., AECOM Consulting Transportation Group, Inc., Boston, MA
JARRETT W. STOLTZFUS, Foothill Transit, West Covina, CA
FTA LIAISON
FAITH HALL, Federal Transit Administration
APTA LIAISON
PAMELA BOSWELL, American Public Transportation Association
TRB LIAISON
STEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Transportation Research Board
Cover figure: The road is clear, but getting to it from here might be a journey. Source: BBC.

FOREWORD Transit administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the transit industry. Much of it
derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day
work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and
to make it available to the entire transit community, the Transit Cooperative Research Program
Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee authorized the Transportation Research
Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, TCRP Project J-7, “Synthesis of Information
Related to Transit Problems,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available
sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor
constitute a TCRP report series, Synthesis of Transit Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.
PREFACE During extreme weather events, transit systems have to make sure that their transit stops
By Mariela Garcia-Colberg and associated transit infrastructure are functional and safe for passengers. This synthesis
Senior Program Officer documents current practices of transit systems most likely to be affected by extreme weather
Transportation to determine what methods and procedures are used for maintaining transit stops and associ-
Research Board ated transit infrastructure during and following these events.
A literature review and detailed survey responses from 32 of 40 transit systems (an 80%
response rate) are provided as well as an analysis on the state of the practice, emphasizing
lessons learned, successes, challenges, and gaps in information. Case examples of ten transit
systems and the various practices they utilize are interwoven in the report.
This report will assist transit agencies to assess their current policies and identify actions
that are implemented elsewhere.
Barbara Thomson, Thomson Consulting, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania, collected and syn-
thesized the information and wrote the report, under the guidance of a panel of experts in the
subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This
synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable
within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress
in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

Contents
1 SUMMARY
5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background, 5
Audience, 5
Study Methodology, 5
Literature Review, 6
Survey, 6
Case Examples, 6
Content Organization, 6
7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
12 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY results AND EXTREME WEATHER

Survey, 12
Extreme Weather, 14
Case Example: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority:
Students Wait for Buses in Street, 15
Case Example: St. Louis Tracks Extreme Weather for Ridership Patterns, 16
19 CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESULTS: EXTREME WEATHER PLANNING

Case Examples: Severe Weather Planning Varies by City, 19
Case Example: Metrobus (WMATA)—Focus Is on the Roadways, 19
21 CHAPTER FIVE SURVEY RESULTS: GOVERNANCE

Responsibility, 21
Case Example: Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit
Depends on the Multiple City Departments, 21
Case Example: NJ Transit Corporation Depends on State Department
of Transportation, 22
Case Example: Toronto Transit Commission Depends on City
of Toronto Monitoring, 23
Case Example: Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit
Uses Team Effort to Monitor, 26
Case Example: Intercity Transit Has Cooperative Arrangement, 26
Standards and Specifications, 26
28 CHAPTER SIX SURVEY RESULTS: LEGAL CLAIMS

AND COMMUNICATIONS
Legal Claims Resulting from Uncleared Bus Stops, 28
Public Service Announcements, 28
Case Example: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Winter Weather
Customer Service Bulletin, 28
Case Example: Cherriots Winter Bus Travel Service Advisories, 29

31 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND suggestions

for FUTURE RESEARCH
Conclusions, 31
Future Research, 33
34 REFERENCES
36 APPENDIX A Survey Responses
64 APPENDIX B List of Participating Transit Agencies
65 APPENDIX C Ice and Snow Removal Policies—Samples

MANAGING EXTREME WEATHER AT BUS STOPS
SUMMARY Transit agencies of every size and geographic region across the country are managing extreme
weather events at their bus stops. This includes managing snow, ice, heat, wind, rain, and mudslides
while keeping transit stops and their associated infrastructure functional. Although extreme weather
is by no means a new problem, agencies are witnessing an increase in snow events and in extreme
heat (daytime temperatures of over 90°F). The extreme weather creates not only a major inconve-
nience for riders, but also safety hazards and accessibility barriers. It is important to remember that
bus stop customers are pedestrians first.
This synthesis provides a state-of-the-practice report on the extreme weather transit systems are
managing; how they plan for it; who is responsible; what they do and where they do it; the standards
and specifications they follow; associated legal claims; and how they communicate information to
customers. Funding and/or associated costs were not part of this study. Forty transit agencies were
contacted to participate and were sent an electronic survey. They were chosen based on size and
geographic region. Thirty-two transit agencies responded, yielding an 80% (32 of 40) response rate.
Based on the survey, literature review, and in-depth interviews conducted after the survey, ten agen-
cies were able to provide information on the specifics of their practices for case examples. Specific
practices are also documented in chapter two, the literature review.
Overall, the agencies reported that extreme weather at bus stops is an area of growing concern.
There does not appear to be a definitive response to the issue, and agencies are discovering that they
have to adapt to extreme weather to protect their infrastructure and their customers. The adoption
of new policies, for example, closing agencies, and coping with ice, snow, and heat, has an impact
on infrastructure and train and bus customers. Managers of transit agencies face the added stress of
climate change, as well as accommodating bus operators who are concerned about driving conditions
and customer safety. As a result, standards for coping with extreme weather are not fully developed
and continually changing.
As this is a growing and unresolved concern, there are a limited number of practices in place that
focus on bus stops. The literature review, therefore, provides some of the most up-to-date information
on agencies’ priorities as they adapt to extreme weather conditions. Recent research is provided on
climate change and adaptation guidance from the federal government, U.S.DOT, and reports and pilot
programs provided by various other agencies that are planning for the challenge of extreme weather.
As extreme weather becomes more common, many agencies are scrambling to adapt and develop
plans to protect their bus fleets and infrastructure, so that they can ultimately provide uninterrupted
service to their customers.
The key conclusions from this research included:
1. The increasing problem of extreme weather at bus stops. Snowfall has increased and tempera-
tures are getting higher and lasting longer.
2. Agencies are not consistent in their approaches for protecting their customers from extreme
weather at bus stops. Most agencies (26 of 32) reported that they have extreme weather plans
in place.

2
3. The rights-of-way for vehicles and buses are cleared of snow before bus stops, leaving custom-
ers unable to access those buses that are providing service.
4. There is often a disconnect between governance and within the agency that is responsible for
clearing the bus stop.
5. Public service announcements are an effective way to communicate the accessibility of bus
stops during and after extreme weather events.
6. The lack of access at bus stops during extreme weather events has a disparate impact on the
ADA population.
Clearing snow and ice at bus stops is the most common problem at transit agencies surveyed. This
type of work requires significant coordination between the transit agency, municipality, contractors,
and property owners. In the largest agencies, it requires coordination between the agency and the
municipality.
At large agencies, the responsibility of clearing bus stops shifts from the agency to the municipal-
ity as the roads are cleared for bus service and other road traffic, including emergency vehicles. After
the roads are cleared, the focus is on the bus stops. However, a greater problem is that the bus stops
get plowed in and are inaccessible during the first significant round of snow clearance. Bus stops then
become a secondary consideration; although where they have time standards and expectations, snow
must be removed within 2 days.
Small and medium agencies have similar problems despite not sharing responsibility for clear-
ing the bus stops. Providing bus service, however, appears to be a priority over clearing individual
bus stops.
As high temperatures become more extreme, more frequent, and longer lasting, some transit agen-
cies are supporting their customers by providing shade, whereas others continue to grapple with the
issue. The survey showed that agencies that confront snow removal issues are not immune from
extreme heat events; however, the focus of the agencies in the northern United States and Canada
remains on snow removal more so than the effects of heat, as that can affect customer accessibil-
ity more directly.
Across the country, agencies identify certain bus stops as priority during extreme weather in the
same way as they identify bus routes as priority routes. The agencies have various criteria with the most
common reasons including:
• Number of passengers served;

• Interconnectivity to other buses and trains;
• Population dependent on public transit; and
• ADA accessibility.
Agencies are grappling with new ways to address extreme weather at bus stops and how to pay
for it. The larger agencies and municipalities are able to sell or lease the construction and mainte-
nance of bus stops, including snow removal, to private advertising companies. Although not wide-
spread, others have implemented the Adopt-a-Stop practice for collecting trash and extending it to
snow removal.
Although millions of people use and pass through bus stops every year, relatively few agencies
noted that they have had legal claims associated with general accessibility or ADA accessibility to
bus stops. Only the larger agencies reported such claims.
Agencies work in concert with their municipalities to prioritize snow routes and, hence, their cor-
responding bus stops. They are using many communications tools to keep their customers informed
and have designed web pages specifically for this practice. In addition, they reach out by radio, televi-
sion, text message, social media, e-mail, signs at bus stops, agency bus arrival information platforms,
and cell phone alerts.

3
Managing extreme weather at bus stops is an ongoing challenge that is expected both to grow in
frequency and increase costs.
Opportunities for future research associated with this synthesis include:
• Use of cameras to monitor conditions at bus stops.

• Paratransit access during snowstorms and extreme heat.
• Disparate treatment of disabled transit users.
• Managing extreme weather at rail stations.
• Information technology/bus arrival time methods to reduce waiting time during extreme weather
at particular bus stops.
• Information technology for stops not routes.
• Universal accessible design and path of travel issues.
• Best practices for coordination issues during extreme weather events.

5
chapter one
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
A chronic problem for transit operations involves keeping transit stops and associated transit infra-
structure functional during and following extreme weather events. Interrupted access creates not
only a major inconvenience for transit riders, but also a possible safety hazard for all passengers
and a potential accessibility barrier for persons with disabilities. This synthesis, TCRP Project J-7,
Synthesis Topic SA-39 “Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops” documents the management of
extreme weather at transit agencies, with particular emphasis on systems in areas most likely to be
affected by extreme weather. It identifies methods and procedures used for maintaining transit stops
and associated transit infrastructure during and following extreme weather events, in particular:
• Extreme weather plans before, during, and after;

• Responsibility for ensuring that transit stops, infrastructure, and adjacent walkways are main-
tained in the event of extreme weather;
• Who performs the work;
• Standards and specifications;
• Experience with liability claims; and
• Public service announcements (PSAs).
This synthesis explores these issues and documents how agencies are responding to and managing
extreme weather events across the country. The literature review, survey of selected transit agencies,
and detailed case examples report on the state of the practice, innovations, challenges, and gaps in
information. Overall, many agencies are struggling with extreme weather as snow, ice, heat, and
mudslides increasingly become problems they have had to address more frequently over the past 5 to
10 years. The case examples augment and expand on the general survey to provide specific examples
of how agencies are managing extreme weather.
The study presents the information in a manner that will assist transit agencies as they assess cur-
rent policies and identify actions that have been successful elsewhere. Finally, the study provides
agency assessments of what they are doing, lessons learned, and obstacles overcome and how they
overcame them.
The study focuses on the collection of information from agencies across the country (plus one
Canadian agency) and their actual practices. It does not include comprehensive information on the
policies and extreme weather plans across the transit industry. However, agencies of all sizes partici-
pated in the study, and common themes were identified.
AUDIENCE
This synthesis targets transit agencies with buses. Transit agencies with light rail fleets and street cars
may find the study useful as well.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
To provide a comprehensive synthesis of managing extreme weather at bus stops, the study consisted
of three parts: a literature review, an electronic survey, and the development of case examples to
illustrate specific practices of managing extreme weather at bus stops. Agencies were chosen for the
electronic survey based on their size and region of the country.
6
Forty agencies received the survey and 32 responded (80%). They ranged in size from the small-
est agencies in the country to the largest, and geographically from the most northern regions of the
country to most southern, representing both extreme heat and extreme snow and ice conditions. Some
of the agencies serve large metropolitan areas and others provide service within counties between
small cities and towns.
Upon completion of the surveys, several agencies were asked to participate in more extensive
interviews to provide case examples. The case examples illustrate extreme weather planning, gov-
ernance, monitoring of bus stops, standards for clearing snow and ice, legal claims faced, and com-
munication practices.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review was undertaken to identify the current practices of managing extreme weather
at bus stops. The review focuses specifically on extreme weather, changes in weather patterns over
the past decade, and the expected changes over the next 50 years. It also presents case examples of
related activities at various agencies and provided insights into the development of the electronic
survey and the case examples.
SURVEY
With assistance and guidance from the topic panel, 40 U.S. and Canadian transit agencies were
selected to participate in the synthesis survey. Transit agencies with large, medium, and small bus
fleets ranging from fewer than 100 to more than 2,500 buses were included. Thirty-two of these
40 agencies completed the survey, for an 80% response rate. (The agencies are listed in Appendix B.)
It is important to note that the information provided in the surveys was self-reported and is consid-
ered confidential unless the agency agreed to participate in a case example interview. The in-depth
interviews provided the information for the case examples found in chapters three, four, five, and six.
CASE EXAMPLES
Ten of the 32 transit agencies that responded to the survey were selected to provide case examples to
demonstrate various practices and real-life experiences in managing extreme weather at bus stops.
They shared details of their agency’s policies, situations, and current practices. The policies and
practices vary depending on the experiences with extreme weather and new policies such as shut-
ting down entire systems during an extreme event. The study depended on these agency-approved
case examples to show the differences among the large, medium, small, state, and city run agencies.
The case examples describe a variety of specific practices and demonstrate the various issues agen-
cies are facing.
CONTENT ORGANIZATION
The report is organized as follows:
Chapter two: Literature Review

Chapter three: Survey Results and Extreme Weather
Chapter four: Survey Results: Extreme Weather Planning
Chapter five: Survey Results: Governance
Chapter six: Survey Results: Legal Claims and Communications
Chapter seven: Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research
The three appendices show survey responses (Appendix A), a list of the participating transit agencies
(Appendix B), and samples of ice and snow removal policies (Appendix C).

7
chapter two
LITERATURE REVIEW
Transit agencies face many challenges from extreme weather events. They are attempting to mitigate
risk, damage, and liability as they manage operations and provide service to millions of customers
each year who depend on service for access to work, medical care, community participation, and
entertainment. More people than ever are riding public transit. Unfortunately for transit agencies,
the broad impacts of climate change have become a prevalent issue throughout the country as more fre-
quent superstorms and snowstorms, as well as specific disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, become more
routine. This brings to light how municipalities and transit agencies plan, react to, and promote greater
accessibility and safety at bus stops and shelters during extreme weather, with snowstorms providing
the most direct threat to accessibility, specifically at bus stops.
Nowadays, it is not surprising to read newspaper stories such as, “Weather Extremes Leave Parts
of U.S. Grid Buckling,” NY Times, July 26, 2012; “The frequency of extreme weather is up over the
past few years, and people who deal with infrastructure expect that to continue. Leading climate models
suggest that weather-sensitive parts of the infrastructure will be seeing many more extreme episodes,
along with shifts in weather patterns and rising maximum (and minimum) temperatures” (Wald and
Schwartz 2014). In 2012, Hurricane Sandy destroyed billions of dollars’ worth of transit infrastruc-
ture in the northeastern United States and interrupted service on the New York City subway for days.
NJ Transit sustained an estimated $400 million in damages from the same storm (Levin 2012).
Although transit agencies across the country have individually been responding to climate change
and managing extreme weather at bus stops, U.S.DOT has been providing guidance as it prepares for a
new normal of change and more extreme weather. In 2014, U.S.DOT released Climate Adapta-
tion Plan 2014 Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience, which recognizes that
climate change, including higher temperatures, increased atmospheric water vapor, rising sea levels,
and the frequency of extreme weather events, is already occurring and this is expected to continue
(U.S.DOT 2014). The plan also recognizes findings from the Third National Climate Assessment,
a report created by a team of more than 300 experts that documents the effects of climate change
on the nation and provides the public and businesses with recommendations on how to react. This
assessment concludes that these changes are the result of increased levels of greenhouse gases from
human activity over the past 50 years (Melillo et al. 2014).
The report also lists Notable Potential Impacts of climate change on transit:
• More frequent and severe flooding of underground tunnels and low-lying infrastructure, requiring
drainage and pumping, as a result of more intense precipitation, sea level rise, and storm surge.
• Decreased driver and/or operator performance and decision-making skills, resulting from
driver fatigue as a result of adverse weather and affected infrastructure.
• Increased numbers and magnitude of storm surges and/or relative sea level rise of potentially
shortened infrastructure life.
• Increased thermal expansion of paved surfaces, potentially causing degradation and reduced ser-
vice life, as a result of higher temperatures and increased duration of heat waves.
• Higher maintenance and construction costs owing to increased temperatures or exposure to
storm surge.
• Asphalt degradation and shorter replacement cycles, leading to limited access, congestion, and
higher costs as a result of higher temperatures.
• Culvert and drainage infrastructure damage because of changes in precipitation intensity or snow
melt timing.
• Increased risk of vehicle crashes in severe weather.
8
• System downtime, derailments, and slower travel times because of buckling of pavement or rail
lines during extremely hot days.
• Restricted access to local economies and public transportation.
In 2011, FTA, Office of Budget and Policy, published Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Pub-
lic Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation (2011). Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails
was undertaken “to provide transit professionals with information and analysis relevant to adapt-
ing U.S. public transportation assets and services to climate change impacts.” The study advocates
“taking a risk management approach that mitigates risk without expensively over-engineering
assets.” The steps identified in the study for performing risk assessments include: (1) identifying
climate hazards; (2) characterizing the risk to agency infrastructure and operations; (3) linking risk
mitigation strategies to the organizational structures and responsibilities; (4) implementing adapta-
tion plans; and (5) monitoring and reassessing. The report further states that an asset management
system offers a streamlined framework for identifying climate risks, tracking climate impacts on
asset condition, and incorporating adaptation strategies into capital plans and budgets. The study
further provides case studies that illustrate the use of criticality and vulnerability of assets to assess
risk. Criteria for assessing criticality of transit assets included the effects on the regional economy
with regard to accessibility and emergency evacuation. Examples of vulnerability included the iden-
tification of thresholds above which impacts are severe (e.g., inches of rain per hour before drainage
systems are overwhelmed) (Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rail 2011).
This report found that the most notable impacts of climate change on transit infrastructure would be:
• Increased temperature,
• Sea level rise and higher storm surge,
• Storm intensity and frequency that involve:
–– Increased snow levels per event (emphasized),
–– More frequent icing events,
–– Higher wind velocities,
–– Increased rain and rainfall per event,
–– Increased lightning, and
–– Increased flooding frequency and levels.
(Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rail 2011)
Shortly after the release of this report, NJ Transit published a local study, Resilience of NJ Transit
Assets to Climate Impacts (2012), which identified projections for current and near-future levels of
the indicators of climate impacts (Tables 1–3). The assessment is based on data collected prior to
2012 (Thomson et al. 2012).
Although snowfall levels may not be considered a result of global warming, scientific data actu-
ally suggests otherwise. Warmer air can hold more moisture, which means that the atmosphere is able
to hold more water for longer periods before dropping precipitation. Therefore, although snowfall
totals have decreased across most of the country in recent years, the amount of snow that has fallen
Table 1
days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit indicator
Years Baseline Increase in Increase in % change % change
Avg. days over days over Trend – Trend –
90° - Trend 90° - Trend High Low
High Low Emissions Emissions
Emissions Emissions

9
Table 2
sea level rise in inches
during significant snow events has increased. This implies that intense snowfall is actually more
common now and that the number of extreme snowstorms and rainstorms is expected to increase as
a result (Union of Concerned Scientists 2015). Figure 1 is a map showing the increases in extreme
precipitation throughout the United States from 1958 to 2012 (Melillo et al. 2014).
In reacting to the body of research regarding climate change, administrations and government agen-
cies across the transportation industry are now taking (or looking to take) steps to prepare for the
increasing intensity and frequency of extreme events. FHWA put together a study in 2012, Climate
Change Adaptation & Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment, which states that, “It is important
to recognize . . . that typical historical climate conditions are unlikely to be representative of all future
climate conditions” (FHWA 2012).
In 2011, FTA designated approximately $1 million in funding for pilot programs to gauge the
effectiveness of climate change adaptations. The projects were designed to “advance the state of prac-
tice for adapting transit systems to the impacts of climate change” (Alberts et al. 2014). These proj-
ects covered seven geographically diverse regions (two of which are discussed in this review) and
nine transit agencies. Many of the projects involved identifying the largest vulnerabilities to climate
change-related events, including both significant one-time events and long-term overall temperature
and climate variations. Examples of identified risks for bus stops in particular included flooding
in bus rights-of-way and the necessity of better air conditioning systems on board vehicles. In the
Gulf Coast regional pilot, for example, a Climate Change Vulnerability Index method was devel-
oped to mathematically asses the vulnerability of particular transit assets to future climate change.
In this case, the primary variables of interest included future sea level rise, hurricanes, rainfall and
flooding, and increases in temperature. The method provided a mathematically sound way to assess
the vulnerability of assets in order to ensure that Gulf Coast agencies could quantitatively analyze
the risk levels of various transit infrastructures. Specific techniques are detailed in the Gulf Coast
Climate Adaptation Pilot Study (Brooks et al. 2013).
The Los Angeles pilot program included recommendations for assessing how climate change
affects the ultimate goal of a transit system: “to provide convenient and safe mobility options to per-
sons who use the system.” The study’s recommendations included conducting surveys to discover
how the comfort and safety of customers at particular stops was affected by weather-related trends
as well as one-time events (Liban et al. 2013).
This is happening at the same time as increased awareness of the direct threat climate change
poses to operations of modern infrastructure. This common consciousness of climate change’s effects,
along with a shift in the public’s perception on transportation away from exclusively car-based travel
Table 3
average percent increase in flooding frequency

10
The map shows percent increases in the amount of precipitation falling in very
heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2012
for each region of the continental United States. Graphic: National Climate
Assessment 2014.
FIGURE 1 Observed change in very heavy precipitation across the

United States. Courtesy: Third National Climate Assessment (2014).
to a mix of transportation modes that incorporate transit, cycling, and walking across modern urban
landscapes, and even accessibility standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has put
pressure on governments and transit agencies to accommodate modes beyond just automobile travel
during such events. The ADA provides particular encouragement for local transit agencies to create
higher accessibility standards during extreme weather events. The ADA contains standards for public
entities to follow to maintain service accessibility for disabled persons, although they are not consis-
tently met by local authorities (Tempey 2016).
The ability of agencies and municipalities to keep bus stops accessible during periods of extreme
weather affects the daily lives of the millions of people who rely on bus transit. This is not a new
problem, although it now occurs more frequently throughout the country. For example, the blizzard of
1969 struck New York City and surrounding areas in February, “. . . eventually killing 42 people . . .
and injuring 288 others. The blizzard prompted a political crisis that became legendary in the annals
of municipal politics, nearly brought down the administration of Mayor John V. Lindsay, and offered
an instructive lesson to elected officials in the politics of snow removal” (Chan 2009). It took days
for schools, streets, subways, airports, and other infrastructure to begin to return to normal operation.
“There were no buses, taxicabs or delivery vehicles, and no trash or garbage collection for days” (Chan
2009). Similar stories played out in 1979 in Chicago, in 1982 in Denver, and in 1996 in Washington,
D.C. Responding to severe weather is a safety, as well as a highly charged, political issue.
Agencies and governments are being held accountable for implementing new solutions to adapt to
more frequent cases of extreme weather. This is shown in the Gothamist’s article from January 2016,
“Most Roads are Clear, Why Not the Crosswalks?,” which expresses the concerns of New York
City’s residents about how long it takes the Department of Sanitation (DOS) to clear crosswalks
and bus stops as compared with how long it takes to plow roads during snowstorms. The clearing of
street corners was in many areas reported to be lackluster, especially in areas of low socioeconomic
status (Tempey 2016).
Currently, according to the New York City’s Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD),
DOS designates priorities in snow removal by first plowing main roads, including expressways

11
and bus routes, for emergency vehicles. Next, heavily traveled local streets are plowed, followed by
side streets. Twenty-four to 48 hours after this plowing is complete, laborers are deployed to begin
shoveling. Even though bus routes are given priority for clearance after the snow stops, accessibility
(especially, but not limited to, elderly and disabled persons) at those stops is not guaranteed until all
plowing has been completed, including side streets. The MOPD makes it clear that property owners
are not responsible for clearing bus stops, although they are responsible for clearing sidewalks in
front of their property. DOS is responsible for clearing bus stops, although the advertising agency that
installs and maintains shelters is responsible for keeping bus shelters snow free. Nevertheless, DOS
has the authority to issue tickets and is responsible for inspecting streets twice a day and investigating
reported violations (Snow Removal Fact Sheet 2016).
A similar sharing of responsibility for different parts of the system and a lack of prioritization for
the clearing of bus stops appears prevalent in many large agencies across the region, including the
New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans-
portation Authority (SEPTA), Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA),
and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Social media users and traditional
media are known to react a few times each winter to complain about the handling of snow removal at
bus stops in their respective cities. The responsible party varies from city to city, and the informa-
tion about this responsibility is often not well-posted or well-circulated to the general public. Smaller
systems often have shared responsibility for clearing bus stops, and policymakers nationwide desig-
nate such responsibility of clearing stops from snow or other weather events to a mixture of property
owners, transit agencies, contractors, local authorities, advertising agencies who pay for the privilege
of maintaining the stop and shelter, and community groups.
Arlington Transit (ART) in Virginia has a creative Adopt-A-Stop program that includes bus stop
snow removal. Adopt-A-Stop programs are typically agreements by volunteers to pick up litter and
assist with other maintenance tasks. At ART, the volunteer’s duty includes “. . . clearing a sidewalk
path from the nearest curb ramp to the bus stop and path from the bus stop to the road.” ART provides
Snow Removal Guidelines for their three types of bus stops: the regular bus stop with bus stop flag
(a non-major, normal stop), major bus stop without a shelter (a busy stop with no shelter), and bus
stop with shelter (a busy stop with a shelter) (“Adopt-a-Stop” 2016).
Transit systems face the challenges of adapting to changing climate patterns and as they make
changes to promote accessibility during weather events they also must plan for the costs associ-
ated with damages from such storms. Better tracking of costs accumulated from extreme weather
has become an industry standard for modern systems. For instance, SEPTA began using a unique
work order number in its system to track the costs of weather events just before Hurricane Sandy;
later than most U.S. transit agencies had finished their implementations. This allowed SEPTA
to track the costs of the storm’s effects much more effectively than previously, revealing more than
$1.3 million in labor costs—approximately ten times more than costs associated with previous storms,
which were widely believed to have caused much more damage than Sandy. Collecting this informa-
tion provides SEPTA and other agencies with the ability to understand the costs incurred from extreme
weather events and better prepare for future events (Asam et al. 2015).
In Rochester, New York, the Rochester–Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) is

given full responsibility for maintaining and clearing bus stops. Although the city provides plowing
services, a spokesperson explained in February 2015 that, “It’s RGRTA’s responsibility to keep those
bus stops clear. We [the city] will help out where we can but our main responsibility is keeping those
main streets clear, those sidewalks clear” (Taney 2015). RGRTA has stated that they simply do not
have the resources to clear their more than 3,800 bus stops during extreme snowstorms.
A January 2015 New York Times article “Leaders in NY and NJ Defend Shutdown for a Blizzard
That Wasn’t,” mentions that recent challenges such as Hurricane Sandy have left decision makers risk-
averse. Extreme weather is now compelling unprecedented decisions to close infrastructure and leave
vulnerable populations without service. In that article, Governor Chris Christie defends the decision
to curtail services, “We’ve had Hurricane Irene, we’ve had Hurricane Sandy, for better or for worse,
we know how to deal with these situations” (Flegenheimer 2015).

12
chapter three
SURVEY results AND EXTREME WEATHER
SURVEY
A total of 32 of 40 (80%) transit agencies from across the United States and Canada completed the
electronic survey 2016 (see Appendix A) The agencies range in size (from smallest to largest),
region (every region in the country), and climate, and experience extreme weather conditions such
as heat, snow, ice, mudslides, wind, and rain. The responding agencies are shown in Figure 2 (and
listed in Appendix B).
The survey was designed to collect information consistently across agencies. Although both qual-
itative and quantitative information was requested, there was an attempt to minimize open-ended
questions so that comparisons could be made across the agencies. Before the survey was distributed,
the topic panel received all the questions and was provided with the opportunity to make comments.
Surveying the large transit agencies was more difficult than surveying the small ones. In a number
of cases, the large agencies are not primarily responsible for clearing bus stops. In several instances,
municipalities are responsible for clearing the streets and associated bus stops. The responsibility
for clearing the streets for the buses was well-defined; however, the responsibility for clearing bus
stops was not necessarily as obvious, because it involves a team effort for a number of agencies and
property owners.
Size of Fleets
The 32 transit agencies that responded to the survey varied in size from the smallest fleets in the coun-
try to the largest, including MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) that has more than 5,000 buses and
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) with more than 2,500 buses.
Nine of the agencies (28%) have fleets with fewer than 100 buses. One-third of the agencies surveyed
(34%) have between 101 and 500 buses, and the remaining agencies operate from 500 to more than
5,000 buses (Figure 3).
Number of Bus Stops
Of the 32 agencies surveyed, the number of bus stops ranges from 68 to 16,350. One-third admin-
isters fewer than 3,001, another one-third between 3,001 and 6,000, and the remaining one-third
more than 6,000 bus stops (Table 4). The largest agencies have more than 16,000. For purposes
of this study, they are categorized as small, medium, and large transit agencies and addressed as
such throughout (Figure 4).
During extreme weather events, agencies are often forced to curtail their service. At such
times, most of the agencies (18 or 56%) identify certain bus stops as priority stops. Some agencies
identify certain routes instead of bus stops (Figure 5). They include emergency routes that must
remain open for people to go to hospitals, urgent care centers, emergency locations such as police
stations and fire houses, and places of employment. The routes are evaluated on the same criteria as
bus stops and include (in order of number of responses):
• Number of passengers,
• Inter-connectivity to other buses or trains,

13
FIGURE 2 Map of surveyed agencies. Source: Thomson Consulting.
9 Buses (28%)
12 Buses
(38%)
0-101
100-500
501+
11 Buses (34%)
FIGURE 3 Agency fleet size. Source: Thomson Consulting.
Table 4
number of bus stops by type
No. of Bus No. of
Stops Type Agencies
0–3,000 Small 11
3,001–6,000 Medium 10
6,001+ Large 11
Source: Thomson Consulting.

14
6001+ Buses, 11 0-3000 Buses, 11

(34%) (34%)
0 - 3000 Small
3001 - 6000 Medium
6001 + Large
3001-6000 Buses,
10 (32%)
FIGURE 4 Number of bus stops. Source: Thomson Consulting.
• Population dependent on public transit,

• ADA accessibility,
• Park N Ride, and
• Express Routes.
According to the survey responses, nine of 11 large agencies identify priority bus stops during
extreme weather; three of the ten medium agencies do not. One of the medium agencies has only
one priority bus stop and it is at a transit center. Six of the 11 small agencies identify priority stops.
EXTREME WEATHER
All regions have the potential to experience any or a combination of types of extreme weather.
Twenty-two of the agencies surveyed (69%) experience snow, 22 (69%) experience ice, and five
(16%) experience extreme heat. Others experience flooding, wind, and rain (Figure 6).
Number of Passengers it Serves
Interconnectivity to Other Buses and Trains
Population Dependent on Public Transit
ADA Accessibility
Park N Ride
Express Route
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
FIGURE 5 Why are bus stops considered priority bus stops during extreme weather?

15
25
20
15
10
0
Snow Ice Heat Flooding Rain Wind
FIGURE 6 What extreme weather does your agency primarily face at bus stops? Source: Thomson Consulting.
Even those in the most comfortable climates have the potential to experience high heat. Two agen-
cies reported that they do not experience extreme weather at any of their bus stops, although their
qualitative responses indicated otherwise. They are preparing for tsunamis and high temperatures.
The frequency of extreme weather events varies among the agencies surveyed; several agencies
mentioned more than one. Snow is the most common extreme weather event and high heat the most
frequent weather event. Although snow may last for days, it is considered one event; however, when
there is a heat wave, each day may be counted as a single event. In addition, a hurricane that can dev-
astate a region for months or years is counted as a single event.
The agencies that responded to the survey reported a number of extreme weather events each year
ranging from snow and ice to high heat. Most of the agencies noted that they primarily face the prob-
lem of both snow and ice at bus stops; requiring clearing and a response so that customers can access
the bus, the bus stops, and not be injured in the process.
CASE EXAMPLE: Massachusetts BAY Transportation AUTHORITY:

STUDENTS WAIT FOR BUSES IN STREET
For the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), heavy snow can pose a serious threat
to service. For instance, the blizzards of 1978 and 2015 left users with severe disruptions of service
and problems with the safety of these services. In 2015, schools in the region were closed for days
after the snowfall, partly because children’s access to bus stops was limited. Boston Mayor Martin
Walsh explained on January 28, 3 days after the snow that, “I have grave concerns about the status
of our sidewalks and the well-being of students walking to and from their bus stops, or needing to
stand in the street when they are waiting for the bus.” Although many roads, bus routes, and trains
had reopened, buses remained less than accessible in many areas owing to uncleared sidewalks and
bus stops (Schworm et al. 2015) The 1978 blizzard—which came in two parts, one in January and
one in February—crippled MBTA for months after the storm, although this was mostly the result of
overcrowded conditions. After a driving ban was implemented but commuter trains were allowed to
keep running, the system suffered such a strain that a 25% reduction in commuter rail service was
necessary for repairs for 2 months following the event (Kaiser 2015).

16
CASE EXAMPLE: ST. LOUIS TRACKS EXTREME WEATHER FOR RIDERSHIP PATTERNS
To provide a better understanding of the time and effects of extreme weather, St. Louis Metro
believes that weather plays a significant role in determining ridership patterns on a daily and monthly
scale. It tracks general weather patterns and weather events by day, superimposed with ridership
so that a swift ridership dip or upward swing from month-to-month or year-over-year may not be
misconstrued as a portent for likely ridership patterns in the long run. Similarly, the data are used to
help determine the likely beginning of a sustained pattern of depressed or increased ridership after
controlling for weather events. To illustrate, St. Louis Metro provided a sample of its October Rid-
ership & Possible Service Impacts for MetroBus (MB) and MetroLink (ML), their light rail transit
(Figure 7).
The effects of extreme weather generally last for a few days (Figures 8 and 9). Snow often remains
on the ground for days and/or another storm can dump more on top. Some agencies that experience
a large number of snow events also experience high heat events. Heat waves can go on for days or
weeks with no reprieve. Agencies that experience primarily snow or ice have fewer than ten such
events per year. Agencies exposed to high heat (over 90°F) typically have more days of extreme
weather: 20 plus days per year.
FIGURE 7 October ridership and possible service impacts for MetroBus (MB) and MetroLink (ML). Source: St. Louis Metro.

17
Number of Passengers it Serves
Interconnectivity to Other Buses and Trains
Population Dependent on Public Transit
ADA Accessibility
Park N Ride
Express Route
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
FIGURE 8 How many extreme weather events per year does your agency have that affect bus stops
on average?
As shown in the literature review, climate change is occurring and extreme weather is becoming
the new norm. When agencies were asked if the number of extreme weather events has increased
within the past 5 to 10 years, 15 (47%) stated that they have. In addition, the severity of the weather
events has taken a toll on transit agencies, such as those in the Northeast when Hurricanes Sandy
and Irene slammed New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Agencies that have not experienced
mud slide in the past have experienced them in recent years.
In recent years, agencies have reported witnessing an increase in the number of extreme weather
events. As shown in Figure 10, snow and ice events are the most common.
One agency reported that the most common extreme weather event is heat; however, it is experi-
encing more ice events than in the past. That same agency is also experiencing flooding in ways it has
not in the past.
FIGURE 9 Snow and ice: number of events experienced per year. Source: Thomson Consulting.

18
14
12
10
0
Snow Ice Heat Rain Wind Mud Slide Hurricane
FIGURE 10 What extreme weather events have increased in number over in recent years?

19
chapter four
SURVEY RESULTS: EXTREME WEATHER PLANNING
The response to extreme weather begins well before the event. Such events are identified as extreme
weather events by various parties. Twenty-one agencies (66%) determine for themselves whether
there is an extreme weather event and if bus stop maintenance is required. Five depend on the munici-
pality to make the decision and three rely on the county. One agency reported that it, the municipality,
and the county combine to make the decision. In addition, one agency reported that the decision is
made by a combination of the municipality, state, and federal government. One agency noted that it
does not have to deal with making extreme weather decisions, because “. . . it is always sunny [there].”
In general, 26 of the transit agencies (81%) have plans for severe weather. These plans provide
a response to snow, ice, rain, wind, heat, and hurricanes and include bus stops. One agency plan
includes tsunamis.
CASE EXAMPLES: SEVERE WEATHER PLANNING VARIES BY CITY
Intercity Transit in Olympia, Washington, operates on snow and ice detours. It will visit all bus stops
along the detour and ensure that they are cleared and maintained for customers. In Austin, Texas, the
agency pre-treats bus stops with salt and kitty litter to deter ice and slippage. In Phoenix, Arizona,
the city recently passed long-term transportation plan Proposition 104, which allocates funds to pro-
vide shade, such as vertical shade panels with seating to protect passengers in the early morning and
late afternoon, large louver shade screens fitted with fabric canopies and growing vines, and canvas
on every one of the Phoenix Public Transit Department’s bus stops (Figure 11). At the time of this
report, 76% of their stops were shaded, with 950 stops remaining to reach 100%.
As discussed in the literature review, shutting down a transit agency in preparation for a storm is
a new practice and is done by relatively few agencies, with the largest agencies most likely to do so.
Six agencies (19%) reported that they have adopted this practice and these include some of the larg-
est agencies in the country: MTA New York City Transit (NYCT), the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA), and NJ Transit. Hurricane Irene was the first time for many agencies,
including MTA NYCT and NJ Transit, to shut down completely before a storm and the practice con-
tinued with Hurricane Sandy so that they could protect transit fleets and infrastructure. This practice
has been expanded to include blizzards.
CASE EXAMPLE: METROBUS (WMATA)—FOCUS IS ON THE ROADWAYS
After the January 2016 blizzard blanketed the Northeast with 2 feet of snow, the Washington, D.C.
Metrobus system, administered by WMATA, failed to clear many bus stops, including some major
shelters, for days after the snow stopped falling (Figure 12). After snowfall had dissipated by the night
of Saturday, January 23, The Washington Post reported that by the following Tuesday “Most area bus
stops remain buried in snow or blocked by massive piles of it plowed from the road,” also including
that, “conditions are not likely to change this week as the region’s cleanup efforts are still centered on
plowing roads” (Lazo 2016).
Although Metrobus service, which had been suspended preemptively between January 22 and 23
(the longest shutdown in the system’s history), was restored on January 24, riders remained chal-
lenged when attempting to board those buses that were in service. Many riders were compelled to

20
FIGURE 11 Phoenix Public Transit Park and Ride Shade

Structure. Source: City of Phoenix.
wait in the street rather than at the bus stops, given that the curb was typically entirely blocked by
more than 2 feet of snow, and considering that much of the plowing had pushed snow directly into
the paths between the stops and the arriving buses. One Washington Post commenter inquired, “What
good does it do to clean out a bus shelter and still leave several feet of snow in the curb lane so that
a rider cannot even reach the bus?” (Lazo 2016).
A path to the bus was not required by WMATA standards during the January 2016 storm. Official
recommendations from the agency to customers were to wait at the nearest possible cleared side-
walk location to the stop, flag drivers down, and, if possible, navigate around snowbanks to the bus.
Drivers were instructed to allow customers to avoid snowbanks to board. “Don’t wait in the street!”
Metrobus Info urged its Twitter followers.
The District of Columbia Department of Transportation reported that by the evening of January 23
500 of its 763 shelters had been cleared by the advertiser responsible for maintaining shelters. No
mention was given in the statement regarding stops without shelters. Progress was slower in the sur-
rounding regions, with Alexandria’s (Virginia) bus system, Driving Alexandria Safely Home (DASH),
reporting only 12 of 115 bus shelters cleared by the morning of January 24. Alexandria spokesperson
Craig Fifer explained that the focus of the municipality was on “making residential streets passable
for emergency vehicles.”
FIGURE 12 Major shelters remained inaccessible to the road for days
following the January 2016 storm. Source: The Washington Post.

21
chapter five
SURVEY RESULTS: GOVERNANCE
RESPONSIBILITY
In general, transit agencies are responsible for either maintaining 100% of their bus stops or none
at all during both extreme weather and regular service. Of those surveyed, 22 (69%) maintain all
of their bus stops, one maintains its Park N Ride lots, one maintains Transit Centers only, and the
others do not maintain any. Bus stops are maintained by the municipality, state, county, outside
contractor, or private property owners. Where the transit agencies do not maintain their bus stops,
the responsibility most commonly lies with the municipality. This was found to be the case at some
of the largest transit agencies.
Overall, more than half of the transit agencies [18 (56%)] maintain their bus stops during extreme
weather; however, some agencies shift responsibility from the agency itself to the municipality, pri-
vate property owners, and in one situation the county. The responsibility only shifts outside the transit
agencies during snow and ice, with the exception of one agency that also shifts responsibility during
wind storms, at which time the county assumes responsibility and is the only one that does so.
During snow and ice events, large agencies in large cities depend more on the municipalities to
clear bus stops than do the small and medium agencies. This is generally because large cities have
larger organizations and more miles of roadways (Figures 13–15). The departments of transporta-
tion, sanitation, and/or public works are responsible for clearing the streets of all vehicles so that the
agencies can then dispatch buses. The municipality provides access and the transit agency provides
the service. Medium-size agencies depend significantly (30%) on property owners. None of the large
agencies reported that they depend on property owners to clear snow from bus stops. Of the large agen-
cies, two use outside contractors.
Seven agencies (four large, one medium, two small) have written policies that govern the mainte-
nance of bus stops during extreme events. Six of these have written policies that describe when the
agency will clear snow from the bus stops (see Appendix C). These plans include the responsibility
of the municipalities, property owners, and transit agencies and are very specific to that agency. One
agency has a written policy where homeowners are responsible for clearing snow and the agency
does not because of liability issues from falls. Others would prefer to but do not yet have a written plan
because these events are becoming more frequent.
CASE EXAMPLE: METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT

DEPENDS ON THE MULTIPLE CITY DEPARTMENTS
MTA NYCT is a state authority that is governed by the state of New York. During blizzards and
snow storms, the city of New York Department of Sanitation is responsible for plowing and
removing snow from the interior of shelters, while the Department of Transportation is responsible
for clearing around the shelter and, in some cases, clearing a path to the bus stop or shelter. The
Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible if the bus stop is on park property. In addition, a
company that pays to advertise and maintain bus shelters in New York City is responsible for snow
removal at those shelters. At times, MTA will clear bus stops and shelters to expedite snow removal
so that customers can access the buses.

22
Municipality, 4,
36%
Transit Agency,
5, 46%
Outside
Contractors, 2,
18%
FIGURE 13 Large agencies: Who primarily maintains bus stops during extreme weather
events? Source: Thomson Consulting.
CASE EXAMPLE: NJ TRANSIT CORPORATION depends on state

department of transportation
NJ Transit Corporation (known as NJ Transit) is a state-owned public transportation system that

provides bus service throughout the state of New Jersey. However, the state department of transpor-
tation, a separate state agency, is responsible for maintaining all of its bus stops (16,100), with the
exception of the few (60) that are on NJ Transit and/or leased property.
Municipality, 1,
10%
Private property
County , 1, 10% owners, 3, 30%
Transit Agency,
5, 50%
FIGURE 14 Medium agencies: Who primarily maintains bus stops during extreme
weather events? Source: Thomson Consulting.

23
Did Not Answer,

1, 9%
Municipality, 1,
9%
County , 1, 9%
Transit Agency,
8, 73%
FIGURE 15 Small agencies: Who primarily maintains bus stops during extreme
CASE EXAMPLE: TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION depends

on city of toronto monitoring
The city of Toronto is responsible for Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC’s) snow removal at bus stops:
Levels of Service for Winter Maintenance Activities

The maintenance of a safe and reliable municipal transportation system is based on three main elements:
de-icing, snow ploughing, and snow removal. The selection of the most appropriate method of dealing with a
particular winter storm is principally based on the amount of accumulated snowfall and prevailing temperatures.
Based on these, the selected method offers a balance between the clearing and/or removal of the accumulated
snow and ice at an appropriately determined pace in a fiscally responsible manner. In addition to these major
winter service operations, work crews ensure that catch-basins, drains, and culverts work properly and that cross-
walks, bus stops, and sidewalks for senior citizens and people with physical disabilities are also cleared of snow
and ice. The effective deployment of these winter service operations makes it possible for emergency vehicles and
the public to travel safely, for the transit system to provide the public with timely service and for commerce to
continue functioning: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=e33422cdac873410VgnVCM
10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=cd3d4074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD (City of Toronto,
March 2015).
During extreme weather events, transit agencies surveyed require that a designated area beyond
the actual bus stops is maintained and cleared. Such an area includes the stops themselves, shelter
structures, adjacent walkways, drains, curb cuts, benches, and paths to the buses. When asked what
the agency maintained, the responses are broken out as follows (Figure 16).
During winter storms, some agencies require a path to the bus and some do not. One-half of the
surveyed agencies (16) reported that they require a path to the bus; 15 (47%) noted that they clear at
least 3 feet beyond the bus stop. The data gathered does not provide a statistical correlation between
either geography or levels of snow to make any general requirements.
Who Performs the Work?
Bus stops are cleared by transit agencies, other public agencies, contractors, property owners, or a
combination thereof (Figure 17). Approximately one-third (11 or 38%) rely exclusively on transit
personnel. Another 11 (38%) rely on a combination of transit personnel, other public employees,
outside contractors, and property owners; three (10%) depend on other public employees; and three
(10%) depend on outside contractors. One agency (3%) depends entirely on property owners.

24
25
20
15
10
0
Bus Stop Shelter Structure Adjacent Walkways Drains
FIGURE 16 What is maintained during extreme weather? Source: Thomson Consulting.
Private Property
Owners, 1, 4%
Outside Contractors,
3, 10%
Other public Transit system

employees, 3, 10% personnel, 11, 38%
Combination, 11,
38%
FIGURE 17 All agencies: What personnel perform maintenance during extreme weather events?

25
One agency (3%) that used a combination of transit personnel and others reported that it hires
temporary employees during extreme weather events. It is not clear, however, whether agencies do
not hire them because it is against agency policy or if it is because another group is responsible for
clearing the bus stops.
The large and medium transit agencies are inclined to use a combination of resources to clear bus
stops, and the smallest agencies more often use their own transit personnel. Many large agencies
also depend on outside contractors; the only size of the agency that depends significantly on them
(Figures 18–20).
FIGURE 18 Large agencies: What personnel perform maintenance during extreme
weather events. Source: Thomson Consulting.
Private Property
Owners, 1, 10%
Transit system
personnel, 2, 20%
Outside Contractors,
1, 10%
Other public
employees, 1, 10%
Combination, 5, 50%
FIGURE 19 Medium agencies: What personnel performs maintenance during

extreme weather events? Source: Thomson Consulting.

26
Other public
employees, 2, 22%
Combination, 1, 11%
Transit system
personnel, 6, 67%
FIGURE 20 Small agencies: What personnel perform maintenance during extreme
Monitoring
One-half of the agencies (16) reported that bus stops are monitored for snow clearing during extreme
weather events. In general, the small and medium agencies monitor themselves; the large agencies
share monitoring responsibility between themselves and the municipality, as well as occasionally
with outside contractors and property owners.
CASE EXAMPLE: METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT USES TEAM EFFORT TO MONITOR
MTA NYCT uses a team effort to monitor bus stops. If a NYCT bus operator notices a bus stop is
impacted, he or she will report it to the Bus Command Center, which then relays the information to the
city Department of Sanitation. The Department of Sanitation also deploys supervisors to monitor the
condition of bus stops during extreme weather events. The public can (and often does) report impacted
bus stops by calling 311, its information line.
CASE EXAMPLE: INTERCITY TRANSIT HAS COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT
Intercity Transit in Olympia, Washington, has a cooperative arrangement between local jurisdic-
tions and other large public agencies that may be impacted by weather conditions. It meets annu-
ally to review and update the current agreement and work assignments. In the case of public transit
service, it works with the jurisdiction to prioritize bus and school routes for snow plowing and/or
de-icing.
One small agency that serves a number of small cities noted that it has inter-local agreements or
Memorandums of Understanding with the cities to assist with extreme weather events.
Other agencies also provided specific examples of who monitors bus stops for clearing. These
include facility managers, the public, property owners, bus operators, police, and other field staff.
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Responses to extreme weather events vary from agency to agency and by type of extreme weather
event. In addition, the clearing of snow and ice can depend on how fast a storm approaches, when
it was predicted, and the intensity of the snowfall. Some agencies have winter weather plans for

27
During Snowfall, 3,
Within 2 Days, 3, 21% 22%
Within 1 Day, 8, 57%
FIGURE 21 How much time is allowed to meet snow clearing requirements?
bus stops and others do not, and depend on other public agencies to clear them. The agencies have
standards to identify what sort of storm is approaching, such as a blizzard or hurricane; however, the
responses require a balance of resources, costs, and the severity of the individual storms. The focus of
most agencies is on providing and/or restoring bus service and then clearing the bus stops for passen-
ger access. The priorities then are evaluated, with those bus stops associated with the largest number
of passengers being attended to first (Figure 21).
The survey asked if agencies have standards, such as the amount of snow, wind speed, or rain
anticipated, associated with determination of an extreme weather event. They were also provided a
space to describe qualitatively and/or provide a link to their standards. Although given the oppor-
tunity, no links or actual policies were submitted. For those that responded, ten (31%) noted that
there are standards, which are developed by the transit agency (six), municipality (two), and the
county (two). All of these standards are enforced by the transit agency itself and focus on identifying
and documenting whether or not there was an extreme weather event for budgeting and planning
purposes.
The synthesis also attempted to identify whether agencies have standards and/or specifications
to prepare for and clean following severe weather. Five agencies (16%) require that bus stops are
prepared before a snow or ice event. Eight agencies (25%) have time requirements covering ice
removal, 14 (44%) have time requirements for clearing snow, and eight (57%) of these must clear
snow within one day of an event. Three agencies (9%) clear snow during snowfall and three more
(9%) must clear snow within 2 days. No agency has a requirement beyond 2 days.
Several agencies protect passengers from wind and heat with bus shelters. Five agencies (16%)
have bus shelters that protect passengers from wind by designing and building them with permanent
wind shields or glass panels. Three agencies protect passengers from heat by providing structures for
shade. None prepare bus stops for floods or mud slides.
Some agencies use next-bus arrival or real-time arrival signs and apps to minimize wait time for
customers, thereby protecting them from an extreme weather event. Although it is a normal operat-
ing procedure, it also allows people to minimize wait times during periods of extreme heat, extreme
cold, or precipitation. This information takes the guess work out of waiting and customers can make
alternative arrangements depending on this real-time information.

28
chapter six
SURVEY RESULTS: LEGAL CLAIMS AND COMMUNICATIONS
LEGAL CLAIMS RESULTING FROM UNCLEARED BUS STOPS
Although most transit agencies have experience with legal claims for various liability issues, only
six of the responding agencies (19%) have been involved with legal claims resulting from uncleared
bus stops. Each of the six agencies has more than 4,500 bus stops. None of the smaller agencies
reported such claims.
The six claims were the result of negligence, five claims from the public and one from non-
compliance with ADA requirements. No agencies were fined or involved with violation notices
from local or state governments.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
Of the 32 agencies that responded to the survey, 22 (69%) disseminate weather-related public service
announcements (PSAs) during extreme weather events (Figure 22). The agencies that do not have
extreme weather have no need to make such announcements. The most widely used method of com-
munication is through the agency website, followed by radio, television, text message, social media,
e-mail, signs at bus stops, agency bus arrival information platform, and cell phone alerts.
Although agencies tend not to create PSAs for individual bus stops, they do make PSAs for routes
that are affected by extreme weather and the corresponding bus stops within the route. For example,
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) may detour a route and that detour is noted
on its website, on the bus platform, text and cell phone alerts, e-mail, and social media. Cherriots, a
transit provider in Salem, Oregon, posts snow routes on its website all year long and warns the public
in advance of service changes.
CASE EXAMPLE: MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY WINTER WEATHER

CUSTOMER SERVICE BULLETIN
MBTA regularly reaches out to customers during extreme weather events using e-mail, text mes-
saging, applications (apps), social media posts, and on-site PSAs. Figure 23 is the agency’s premier
customer service slogan.
MBTA allows frequent riders to sign up for “T-alerts” through e-mail or text message, which the
agency advertises as the most reliable, up-to-date method for a rider to receive notifications about
changes in transit availability during extreme weather. MBTA encourages customers to follow the
agency on Twitter: @mbta for important updates about system-wide temporary changes.
In addition, MBTA encourages customers to download third-party apps, which deliver real-time
transit information to passengers. The agency conducted a customer survey to determine which inde-
pendent applications were most useful to riders; one of the criteria on which the apps were rated was
their service alerts for updated information on changes in schedules or routes during extreme weather
events.
The app “Transit” was easily the most well-reviewed app for MBTA buses and was rated posi-
tively by users in every category. Interestingly, “Transit” covers several metropolitan areas—large and

29
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Agency Website
Radio
Television
Text Message
Email
Social Media
Sign at Bus Stop
Agency Bus Arrival Information Platform
Cell Phone Alert
FIGURE 22 How are weather-related PSAs received during extreme weather events? Source: Thomson Consulting.
small—across the United States, including Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City,
Los Angeles, and Houston, although exactly which types of transit and which agencies are covered
by this application varies by region. A full list is available at transitapp.com/regions.
MBTA bus routes that are located on hilly or narrow streets are particularly difficult to navigate
during winter weather. As a result, routes that are likely to be changed during snow and ice storms
have clearly posted “Snow Routes” available as PDF files on mbta.com/winter (2016). These files
often include maps of where routes will detour during and just proceeding snowfall. The MBTA has
34 snow route maps available on its site.
“THE RIDE,” the MBTA’s paratransit program, is operated by three independent organizations
under contract to the agency. As services may be reduced according to the accessibility of a given
area during extreme weather, MBTA shifts responsibility to the contractors to inform customers about
availability.
CASE EXAMPLE: CHERRIOTS WINTER BUS TRAVEL SERVICE ADVISORIES
Salem, Oregon, has a small transit agency called Cherriots, which posts on its website all year long
what the snow routes are and alerts the public in advance of service changes. This website is a prime
example of customer-oriented, simple, and accessible service advisories for small agencies.
Under the How to Ride section of cherriots.org, Winter Bus Travel is the first category posted on
the site. There one can find both a list and a map of routes most frequently affected by snowfall, heavy
FIGURE 23 MBTA slogan. Source: MBTA.

30
FIGURE 24 Cherriots’ website includes a list of routes frequently affected by

extreme weather.
rain, ice, and wind, as well as a link to the Service Advisories page, which is updated frequently and
regularly year-round (Figure 24).
The page includes all currently effective service advisories listed in chronological order, with
more recent advisories at the top. During extreme weather events, the page lights up with the most
up-to-date information on snow routes and closures, as well as route suspensions that are scheduled
in the future.

31
chapter seven
CONCLUSIONS AND suggestions for FUTURE RESEARCH
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of managing extreme weather at bus stops is a highly charged political issue and
affects millions of people every year. This synthesis documents the current state of the practice
and demonstrates current practices at transit agencies throughout the country by focusing on extreme
weather planning, governance, standards, legal claims, and communications. In general, managing
extreme weather at bus stops is a new idea for most transit agencies as they grapple with the problems
associated with more snow, higher temperatures, and more frequent and longer heat waves.
As this is a new concept, it was found that standards for coping with extreme weather events
are not fully developed and appear to be evolving. For snow removal, priority is given to clearing
streets and providing service from priority locations, while many bus stops are left unplowed or
“re-plowed” in. Coordination between snow removal on the street and at bus stops is not consistent,
creating a situation where individuals, particularly the disabled are denied access to the bus stops
and buses they depend on.
Nevertheless, transit agencies are not insensitive to the issues that extreme weather presents.
They are scrambling to adapt and develop plans to protect their fleets, infrastructure, and customers.
Agencies are providing shade where shade has never been accessible. They are using the most up-to-
date research on climate change and adaptation guidance documents from the federal government,
U.S.DOT, and reports and pilot studies that are identified in the literature survey.
The key points from this study include:
1. The problems with extreme weather at bus stops are increasing; the snowfall levels are greater
and the levels of heat are higher and last longer.
2. Agencies are not consistent in their approaches for protecting their customers from extreme
weather at bus stops. Not all agencies have extreme weather plans.
3. The rights-of-way for vehicles and buses are generally cleared before bus stops, leaving cus-
tomers unable to access buses.
4. There is often a disconnect between governance and within the agency that is responsible for
clearing the bus stop.
5. Public service announcements are an effective way to communicate the accessibility of bus
stops during and after extreme weather events.
6. The lack of access at bus stops has a disparate impact on the ADA population. Extreme weather
becomes a barrier for people seeking to access buses.
Transit agencies have been attempting to cope with extreme weather events for decades. Storms
are becoming stronger and more frequent and the levels of heat have become more intense. Accord-
ing to the agencies surveyed, individuals are increasingly unable to access bus stops for days because
of snow and ice and must stand in high heat with no shade during heat wave. Transit agencies must
contend with snow, ice, heat, flooding, rain, wind, and extreme cold and combinations thereof. Of
those agencies surveyed, most are responding to snow, ice, and heat events with increasing frequency.
However, it is important to note that transit agencies do not count all extreme events the same way.
High heat events are counted by day (i.e., each day in a heat wave is counted as an event), whereas each
snowstorm is counted as an event (i.e., a blizzard and its ensuing snow and ice cleanup is considered

32
one event). Every agency surveyed that experiences high heat reported more than 20 events per year.
Half of the agencies surveyed experience snow and ice from one to ten times each year.
Although some of the agencies surveyed are proactively planning for extreme weather and estab-
lishing procedures to provide and/or restore service and accessibility as quickly as possible while
protecting their bus fleets and infrastructure, others do not have extreme weather plans for bus stops.
Inadequate planning results in a haphazard approach to clearing and maintaining bus stops during
extreme weather and a lack of accessibility for customers.
Transit agencies require that streets be cleared and available to accommodate bus service before,
during, and after storms. Clearing streets is the first priority and clearing bus stops is second, result-
ing in a delay between bus service and bus access from stops and sidewalks. Several agencies have
written plans for snow and ice removal at bus stops; however, success depends on where the respon-
sibility lies and bus stops suffer from streets being re-plowed, where stops are cleared and then plowed
in again when a plow takes a second pass. Although there is a consensus that bus stops should be
accessible, there are times when there is no room for all the snow and, therefore, bus stops become
and remain unreachable.
Agencies across the country identify certain bus stops during extreme weather as priority bus stops
in the same way that they identify bus routes as priority routes. The agencies have various criteria, with
the most common including:
• Number of passengers served,

• Interconnectivity to other buses and trains,
• Population dependent on public transit, and
• ADA accessibility.
The primary responsibility for managing bus stops during extreme weather is generally held by the
transit agency itself or the municipality. When agencies work with the municipalities, however, there
is often a disconnect between clearing the streets and clearing the bus stops. Study findings show that
the size of the agency matters; the larger the agency, the more likely it is that the bus stops are cleared
by the municipality. This is also a reflection of whether or not the agency is run by the municipality.
A handful of agencies hold outside advertising vendors responsible for maintaining bus stops and
shelters. Where transit agencies have standards and time expectations for snow removal, it is typically
within 2 days.
Snow and ice removal is performed by transit agencies, municipalities, contractors, and property
owners. The larger agencies depend on the efforts of the municipalities and others to clear the streets
and bus stops. Medium and small agencies are responsible for their own snow removal. The small
agencies that provide intercity bus service work with the collective municipalities to ensure access.
Most agencies self-monitor access to bus stops both formally and informally. Crews will survey
stops and identify those in need of clearing. Bus operators will report areas that have not been cleared
and/or those that were once cleared but became inaccessible again following a new round of plowing
or shoveling.
Although agencies struggle with snow removal and high levels of heat at bus stops, the transit
agencies surveyed did not report a high number of legal claims filed against them resulting from
uncleared bus stops. Only large transit agencies reported such issues and they were all associated
with negligence. Only one agency surveyed reported a claim based on ADA non-compliance.
The policies for maintaining bus stops after the streets are cleared were consistent among the agen-
cies surveyed; however, this results in a disparate impact on individuals with disabilities, seniors, and
low income individuals who are disproportionately dependent on public transportation services.
As the frequency in extreme weather events increases, people also have increased access to com-
munication of information about their bus routes and corresponding bus stops before, during, and

33
after storms. Transit agencies have become increasingly successful in providing PSAs identifying
snow routes and bus stops during extreme weather events. The PSAs are provided through the agency
website, radio, television, text message, social media, e-mail, signs at bus stops, bus arrival informa-
tion platforms, and cell phone alerts. Agencies have access to technology and are using it to provide
customer-focused information.
Formerly, shutting down a transit agency during a severe weather event was not an option. Certain
roads may have been closed and snow covered roads may have denied access but shutting down
an agency is becoming an option for the largest transit agencies. These agencies are protecting their
fleets and infrastructures as the cities call for states of emergency and attempt to keep people off
the street and away from bus stops. When the buses return to the streets, the public is made aware;
however, as Cherriots’ website states so well, “If you use these bus stops, it’s especially important to
make a plan in advance; walk to the next closest bus stop, arrange other transportation options on snow
days, or if possible, arrange to telecommute and work from home.”
FUTURE RESEARCH
To continue to better serve customers at bus stops during extreme weather, future research could
include:
Use of cameras to monitor conditions at bus stops—Transit agencies use personnel and bus
operators to monitor bus stop conditions during extreme weather. They also use cameras
at rail stations and inside and outside buses to monitor the passengers for safety and security
reasons. This study as well as the review completed in 2016’s TCRP Synthesis 123: On-Board
Applications for Buses did not indicate that cameras are used to monitor bus stops for passenger
accessibility. Is it feasible for cameras on buses to be used to monitor bus stops for the clearing
of snow and ice and inclement weather conditions?
Paratransit access during snowstorms and extreme heat—The paratransit community is par-
ticularly vulnerable during extreme weather events. These customers are frequently in need of
medical care and often stranded from access to professional, work, educational, and entertain-
ment activities. Are paratransit vehicles accessible during these events? How are transit agen-
cies responding to individuals during these events?
Managing extreme weather at rail stations—Customer access to rail stations is becoming
increasingly difficult during extreme weather events such as snow, ice, and flooding. What are
transit agencies doing to minimize the impact to customers?
Disparate treatment of disabled transit users—Disabled transit users rely on both paratransit
and regular service. Are disabled users of transit facing a disparate impact when there are
extreme weather events?
Information technology/bus arrival time methods to reduce waiting time during regular ser-
vice and extreme weather at bus stops—Transit agencies throughout the country provide
customers with real-time bus arrival information at bus stops and on personal devices. What
technologies are transit agencies using to provide customer information to transit riders? How
does this information reach the customer?
Information technology for stops not routes—Transit agencies are increasingly providing
PSAs, messages, and other information during extreme weather events on bus routes. They
inform customers in advance and in real time of bus routes that are not in service. How can
agencies supply information regarding individual bus stops that are not clear because of
extreme weather?
Universal accessible design and path of travel issues—Bus stop design ranges from bus shel-
ters with shade, benches, lights, and curb cuts to a sign on a pole. What would be a universal
design and path of travel between the bus stop and the bus that would be accessible to all transit
passengers?
Best practices for coordination issues during extreme weather—Transit agencies coordinate
snow and ice removal both within and outside of the agencies leaving them to grapple with the
issues at the time of the event. Meanwhile, extreme weather events are increasing in frequency.
What are best practices for this coordination?

34
REFERENCES
“Adopt-a-Stop,” Arlington Transit, Va., n.d. [Online]. Available: http://www.arlingtontransit.com/

pages/about/adopt-a-stop/ [accessed May 10, 2016].
Alberts, B., A.A. Mazhar, and K.A. Gayle, Transit and Climate Change Adaptation: Synthesis of
FTA-Funded Pilot Projects, FTA Report No. 0069, FTA, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Asam, S., C. Bhat, J. Bauer, and D. Gopalkrishna, Climate Change Adaptation Guide for Transporta-
tion Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance, Report FHWA-HOP-15-026, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2015.
Brooks, J., et al., Gulf Coast Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Study, FTA Report No. 0072, Federal
Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Chan, S., “Remembering a Snowstorm That Paralyzed the City,” The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2009.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Climate Change Adaptation & Extreme Weather Vulner-
ability Assessment, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2012.
Flegenheimer, M., “Leaders in New York and New Jersey Defend Shutdown for a Blizzard That
Wasn’t,” The New York Times, Jan. 27, 2015.
Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation,
Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011.
“It’s Cold and My Car Is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening?” Union of Con-
cerned Scientists, Dec. 17, 2015 [Online]. Available: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html#.WMruim_yuHs [accessed
July 16, 2016].
Kaiser, S., “The Blizzard of 1978—What Was it Like To Get Around,” Cambridge Community Televi-
sion, Mar. 22, 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.cctvcambridge.org/node/316925 [accessed
July 17, 2016].
Lazo, L., “Caution Urged at Bus Stops. Snow Piles Likely to be There for a While,” The Washington
Post, Jan. 26, 2016 [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/
2016/01/26/caution-urged-at-bus-stops-snow-piles-likely-to-be-there-for-a-while/?utm_term=.
ae375df44399 [accessed April 17, 2016]
Levin, A., “NJ Transit Had $400 Million in Hurricane Sandy Damage,” Bloomberg.com, Dec. 6, 2012
[accessed Apr. 16, 2016].
Liban, C.B., M. Egge, and C. Markovitz, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Project, FTA Report No. 0073, FTA, Washington, D.C., 2013.
“MBTA Bus Stops and Snow Removal: Who’s Responsible?” MBTA.com, Massachusetts Bay Trans-
portation Authority, n.d. [accessed Apr. 28, 2016].
Melillo, J.M., T. (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C.,
2014, 841 pp.
Schworm, P., E. Allen, and L. Crimaldi, “Roads Open, MBTA Operating as Region Digs Way Out of
Historic Blizzard of 2015,” The Boston Globe, BostonGlobe.com. Jan. 2015 [Online]. Available:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/28/roads-open-mbta-operating-region-digs-way-
out-historic-blizzard/g9Ch43F5ldtC9kS3FPRmVK/story.html [accessed July 17, 2016].
Snow Removal Fact Sheet, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, New York, N.Y., 2016, n.d.
[Online]. Available: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mopd/downloads/pdf/Snow-Removal-One-sheeter-
with-DSNYs-revisions-version-8.pdf.
Taney, P., “Who Is Responsible for Keeping Bus Stops Clear?” WHEC Rochester, Feb. 9, 2015 [accessed
Apr. 28, 2016].
Tempey, N., “Most Roads Are Clear, Why Not the Crosswalks?” Gothamist, Jan. 25, 2016 [Online].
Available: http://gothamist.com/2016/01/25/clearing_snow_for_cars.php [accessed Apr. 28, 2016].
Thomson, B., E. Delaney, S. Eget, and L. Gallagher, Resilience of NJ TRANSIT Assets to Climate
Impacts, NJ Transit, Newark, 2012.
Thomson, B., I. Matos, and J. Previdi, TCRP Synthesis 123: On Board Applications for Buses, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., May 2016, 70 pp.

35
Union of Concerned Scientists, “It’s Cold and My Car Is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really
Happening?” Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., Dec. 17, 2015 [Online]. Available:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.
html#.WMruim_yuHs [accessed July 16, 2016].
U.S.DOT, Climate Adaptation Plan 2014: Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System
Resilience, U.S.DOT, Washington D.C., 2014, 29 pp.
Wald, M.L. and J. Schwartz, “Weather Extremes Leave Parts of U.S. Grid Buckling,” The New York
Times, July 26, 2012 [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/rise-in-weather-
extremes-threatens-infrastructure.html [accessed Apr. 28, 2016].

36
APPENDIX A
Survey Responses

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64
APPENDIX B
List of Participating Transit Agencies
• Bi-State Development (DBA Metro)—St. Louis, MO

• Capital Metro Transportation Authority (Cap Metro)—Austin, TX
• Capital Transit—Juneau, AK
• Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX)—Orlando, FL
• City of Phoenix Public Transit Department—Phoenix, AZ
• CTtransit—Hartford, CT
• Intercity Transit—Olympia, WA
• Lane Transit District—Eugene, OR
• Los Alamos City Transit—Los Alamos, NM
• Los Angeles Metro—Los Angeles, CA
• Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority—Charlestown, MA
• Metro Transit Omaha—Omaha, NE
• Metropolitan Transportation Authority—New York, NY
• Milwaukee County Transit System—Milwaukee, WI
• National Express—Arlington, VA
• Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority—Buffalo, NY
• New Jersey Transit—Newark, NJ
• Oahu Transit Services—Honolulu, HI
• Port Authority of Allegheny County—Pittsburgh, PA
• Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada—Las Vegas, NV
• Rochester–Genesee Regional Transportation Authority—Rochester, NY
• Rhode Island Public Transit Authority—Providence, RI
• RiverCities Transit—Longview, WA
• Roaring Fork Transportation Authority—Aspen, CO
• Rapid Transit System—Rapid City, SD
• Salem–Keizer Transit (Cherriots)—Salem, OR
• San Diego Metropolitan Transit System—San Diego, CA
• Toronto Transit Commission—Toronto, ON
• TriMet—Portland, OR
• Utah Transit Authority—Salt Lake City, UT
• Valley Transit—Walla Walla, WA
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (MetroBus)—Washington, DC

65
APPENDIX C
Ice and Snow Removal Policies—Samples
The following agencies responded that they have written policies regarding snow removal at bus stops
and share them publicly.
1. Intercity Transit, Walla Walla—ice and snow removal policy can be found in their website at: http://
www.wallawallawa.gov/depts/publicworks/streets/snow-icecontrol
It states:
The Street Division diligently follows weather reports, monitors our weather stations and road conditions,
and prepares for and is on the ready for weather events. Often City crews get started in the early hours to
eliminate commuting hazards or mitigate very snowy or icy conditions. In the event of snowfall where plow-
ing is required, the City has five dump trucks with plows, two of which are equipped with sand spreaders.
The City also utilizes a road grader for plowing.
The City Street crew generally begins plowing when
• Snow reaches about four inches deep and the forecast is for continued snowfall.
• Moisture content of snow is a factor. “Dry,” light snow is less of an issue than “wet,” heavy snow.
• The crew plows priority routes first to keep arterials and emergency service routes open.
• Once the priority routes are cleared of snow the crews begin plowing residential streets.
View Snow Removal Priority Map
A few pointers for homeowners when snow falls:
• Give plenty of room to snow plows and sanders—these vehicles make frequent stops, turns, and
back-ups.
• Park cars off the street where possible to avoid being plowed in. This also allows the plow to place
the snow next to the curb.
• Keep the sidewalks in front of your home free from snow and ice.
• Keep a clear path to your mail box.
• Help your neighbor with snow removal from their driveway and sidewalk.
• Some local organizations have volunteers who are willing to assist the elderly or handicapped with
snow removal. Please call the Street Division at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you would like to be added to
the volunteer list.
A document listing individuals and agencies that can assist property owners who are unable to remove
the snow from their property is available here.
2. Lane Transit—Snow Removal Plan at LTD Stations
The purpose of snow removal at LTD facilities is to protect District employees and customers from unsafe
conditions due to ice and snow and to ensure free vehicle movement on LTD property.
The primary focus for snow removal at all facilities will be walkways to ensure that employees and
customers can safely navigate the lots, boarding platforms, and walkways. At locations with large plat-
form areas, such as the Eugene Station and Springfield Station, the concentration of volunteers for snow
removal will ensure that customers can get to and from the buses and from bay to bay. The Glenwood snow
removal will concentrate on sidewalks around the building and ensure that there are cleared walkways to
the bus lot and the employee parking lot.
Listed below are the staff who have volunteered to help with snow removal at the various stations and at
the Customer Service Center with phone coverage. There are additional people we can call upon if neces-
sary to cover Glenwood and the other stations, or it may mean that a crew at the smaller stations will do
double duty. We will have to play it by ear. If helpers will be out of town, they need to inform XXXX
in advance.

66
The (*) symbol by a station indicates that supplies are in a storage area. Shovels, deicer, cones, safety
vests, and applicators for the deicer will be stored on the premises at those locations. Volunteers will be
issued a key to all of the storage areas. For those assigned to stations without storage, Facilities Main-
tenance staff will give each team member a shovel and other supplies mentioned in the previous section.
XXXX will make the determination that snow removal is necessary and will call XXXX, who will call
each person on the snow removal list. XXXX will contact the Customer Service volunteers as needed.
XXXX names and phone numbers
mX Stations—EmX Stations will be maintained by Facilities staff and privately contracted shelter
E
cleaners.
Eugene Station*—XXXX
Lane Community College LCC—will provide its own snow/ice removal.
UO Station North & South UO—will provide its own snow/ice removal.
Valley River Center VRC—will provide its own snow/ice removal.
VOLUNTEERS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER PHONE COVERAGE: XXXX
Snow and Ice Procedures for the Use of the Following Equipment:
Rock spreader
Snow blower I
Snow blower II
Snow plow
Note: Employees must be trained on the use of the equipment before they use it. The graveyard super-
visor will plow the bus yard as needed before the call goes out for snow volunteers.
This will allow the buses to move around the yard and travel out of the gate. Plowing the bus lot is
relatively easy; simply push the snow out of the way. (You can move the snow over to the curb on the
south side of the lot.)
3. Los Alamos County—Snow and Ice Control Plan
Transit Division
The normal snow and ice control operations will provide for the snow removal services along existing
public transit routes (roadways and sidewalks) in accordance with the Plan’s priority schedule (page 20).
These services will include the use of snow plows, sanding, salt, and deicers, as well as other heavy equip-
ment as needed. Transit employees will be activated as needed to perform the hand clearing of snow and
ice from the bus shelters, access directly to the shelters from the longitudinal sidewalks, and areas around
bus stops as time allows.
4. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
The 2015–2016 Snow & Ice Operations Plan can be found at: http://www.mbta.com/winter/bus_status/
The website states:
Winter Weather—Bus Stop Clearing and Snow Removal

As snow begins to fall, riders can depend on the MBTA to be ready. The MBTA is determined and pre-
pared to provide its riders with clear and accessible bus stops during the winter months. Added resources
and equipment help the MBTA work through harsh weather conditions and riders will experience snow
removal improvements as they commute through the Commonwealth. The MBTA will prioritize the clear-
ing of snow and ice from bus stops along its Fifteen Key Bus Routes.
What the MBTA Clears

The MBTA will clear snow from all MBTA-owned bus shelters and stops along the following key routes:
1, 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, 39, 57, 66, 71, 73, 77, 111, 116, 117.
For a full list of MBTA-owned bus shelters cleared by the MBTA, please click here.

67
Other Stops
Virtually all other bus stops are the property owner/abutter’s responsibility. The municipality in which the
bus stop is located may have the ability to enforce snow removal, depending on the local ordinance. If you
notice one of these stops is obstructed by snow/ice, refer to this municipality contact list to find the contact
information for the department that may be able to help resolve the problem.
When will bus stops be cleared?

The MBTA’s goal is to clear all MBTA-owned bus shelters and stops along its key routes listed above within
twenty-four hours of the end of a snowstorm. All MBTA-owned bus shelters and stops will be cleared as
quickly as possible.
How do I know if my stop has been cleared?

Following winter storms, the MBTA will post updates on bus stop clearing status of bus stops along the
Fifteen Key Bus Routes within the table below.
Who to Contact
To report a bus stop that has not been cleared, please call the MBTA’s Customer Care Department at
617.222.3200/(TTY) 617.222.5146 with the route and intersection for the stop that needs to be cleared.
You can also e-mail this information to snowandice@mbta.com.
5. MTA New York City Transit
City Dept. of Sanitation is responsible for clearing bus routes and the interior of bus shelters. City Dept. of
Transportation is responsible for clearing around the shelter and in some cases creating a path to the bus
stop/shelter. Depending on the location, City Dept. of Parks or even private companies may be responsible
as well. MTA will in some cases help clear bus stops/shelter, even though we do not have responsibility
for clearing shelters.
6. City of Toronto
The City of Toronto’s Winter Operations Program keeps roads and sidewalks safe and passable for pedes-
trians, cyclists, and motorists.
24-hour patrols continuously check road conditions and staff monitor weather forecasts and pavement
temperature. Even before the snow starts to fall, our crews swing into action and they work continuously
until the storm is over.
Levels of Service for Winter Maintenance Activities.

The maintenance of a safe and reliable municipal transportation system is based on three main elements:
de-icing, snow ploughing, and snow removal. The selection of the most appropriate method of dealing
with a particular winter storm is principally based on the amount of accumulated snowfall and prevailing
temperatures. Based on these, the selected method offers a balance between the clearing and/or removal
of the accumulated snow and ice at an appropriately determined pace in a fiscally responsible manner.
In addition to these major winter service operations, work crews ensure that catch-basins, drains, and
culverts work properly and that crosswalks, bus stops, and sidewalks for senior citizens and people with
physical disabilities are also cleared of snow and ice. The effective deployment of these winter service
operations makes it possible for emergency vehicles and the public to travel safely, for the transit system to
provide the public with timely service and for commerce to continue functioning. http://www1.toronto.ca/
wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=e33422cdac873410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnext
channel=cd3d4074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
7. One of the transit agencies has a policy in writing that they do NOT clear bus stops during storms
because of liability issues resulting from falls.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
500 Fifth Street, NW U.S. POSTAGE
Washington, DC 20001 PAID
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

90000
ISBN 978-0-309-39000-2
9 780309 390002

Managing Extreme Weather at Airports

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Managing Extreme Weather at Airports

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24806 SHARE

Managing Extreme Weather at Bus Stops

0 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

TCRP SYNTHESIS 129

A Synthesis of Transit Practice

Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP SYNTHESIS 129

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TOPIC PANEL SA-39

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

TCRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT J-7

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

12 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY results AND EXTREME WEATHER

19 CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESULTS: EXTREME WEATHER PLANNING

21 CHAPTER FIVE SURVEY RESULTS: GOVERNANCE

28 CHAPTER SIX SURVEY RESULTS: LEGAL CLAIMS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

31 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND suggestions

36 APPENDIX A Survey Responses

64 APPENDIX B List of Participating Transit Agencies

65 APPENDIX C Ice and Snow Removal Policies—Samples

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

MANAGING EXTREME WEATHER AT BUS STOPS

The key conclusions from this research included:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Number of passengers served;

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Opportunities for future research associated with this synthesis include:

• Use of cameras to monitor conditions at bus stops.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Extreme weather plans before, during, and after;

The report is organized as follows:

Chapter two: Literature Review

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

(Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rail 2011)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 1 Observed change in very heavy precipitation across the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

In Rochester, New York, the Rochester–Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) is

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

SURVEY results AND EXTREME WEATHER

Number of Bus Stops

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 2 Map of surveyed agencies. Source: Thomson Consulting.

FIGURE 3 Agency fleet size. Source: Thomson Consulting.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6001+ Buses, 11 0-3000 Buses, 11

FIGURE 4 Number of bus stops. Source: Thomson Consulting.

• Population dependent on public transit,

Number of Passengers it Serves

Interconnectivity to Other Buses and Trains

Population Dependent on Public Transit

28 CHAPTER SIX SURVEY RESULTS: LEGAL CLAIMS

31 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND suggestions