OmniTrans Bus Stop Safety Improvement Plan by KTUA

OmniTrans Bus Stop Safety Improvement Plan

Introduction

1.3 Omnitrans’ Ridership Characteristics In 2017, Omnitrans completed the Fixed-Route Onboard Study that provided valuable insight into the needs and behaviors of Omnitrans’ diverse customer base. This study explored fixed-route rider travel patterns, rider satisfaction, and awareness and attitudes regarding the sbX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). According to the study findings, Omnitrans’ riders are younger when compared to the general population of San Bernardino County. Approximately a third (31 percent) of riders are between 20 and 29 years old, which likely travel to major schools in the area. Similarly, more riders self-identify as Black than U.S. Census demographics of San Bernardino County. About 21 percent of riders speak Spanish and another 3 percent speak another language other than English at home. Additionally, over 35 percent of riders are employed full-time, while 28 percent indicated that they were full-time students. Omnitrans’ riders are long-term riders and more than half of them have been riders for more than two years. About 90 percent of riders use the bus more than once a week (3.7 days per week) but they are riding fewer days than in 2011 (4.4 days per week), likely due to higher unemployment rate, lower gasoline costs, and the expanded availability of driver’s licenses. Approximately 86 percent of users either start or end their trips at home and the majority of them walk to or from bus stops, which is unchanged from 2011. The use of multi-day passes increased from 47 percent in 2011 to 51 percent in 2017. Overall safety at stops was rated good or higher by 82 percent of riders, with 84 percent of sbX riders rating safety at bus stops as good or better, which is likely related to the presence of dedicated lighted stations. In general, rider satisfaction system-wide is higher at 85 percent than in 2011 (81 percent).

OmniTrans Bus Stop Safety Improvement Plan

Articles inside

Implementation

Table 5-32: Implementation Chart - Program Implementation Table 5-33: Implementation Chart - Infrastructure

Table 5-29: Census Tract 9 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-30: Implementation Chart - Identify the Needs Table 5-31: Implementation Chart - Planning and

5.6 Implementation Framework

Assessment

Table 5-28: Census Tract 9 Bicycle Improvements

Figure 5-26: Census Tract 9 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-27: Census Tract 9 Pedestrian Improvements

Figure 5-25: Census Tract 8 Bus Stop Recommendations

Table 5-24: Census Tract 8 Pedestrian Improvements

Table 5-26: Census Tract 8 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-23: Census Tract 7 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-25: Census Tract 8 Bicycle Improvements

Figure 5-20: Census Tract 7 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-22: Census Tract 7 Bicycle Improvements

Table 5-21: Census Tract 7 Pedestrian Improvements

Table 5-20: Census Tract 6 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-19: Census Tract 6 Bicycle Improvements

Figure 5-17: Census Tract 6 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-18: Census Tract 6 Pedestrian Improvements

Figure 5-16: Census Tract 5 Bus Stop Recommendations

Figure 5-15: Census Tract 5 Bicycle Recommendations

Table 5-17: Census Tract 5 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-16: Census Tract 5 Bicycle Improvements

Figure 5-14: Census Tract 5 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-15: Census Tract 5 Pedestrian Improvements

Table 5-13: Census Tract 4 Bicycle Improvements

Table 5-14: Census Tract 4 Bus Stop Improvements

Figure 5-11: Census Tract 4 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-11: Census Tract 3 Bus Stop Improvements

Table 5-12: Census Tract 4 Pedestrian Improvements

Figure 5-8: Census Tract 3 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-9: Census Tract 3 Pedestrian Improvements

Figure 5-7: Census Tract 2 Bus Stop Recommendations

Table 5-8: Census Tract 2 Bus Stop Improvements

Figure 5-4: Census Tract 1 Bus Stop Recommendations

Figure 5-5: Census Tract 2 Pedestrian Recommendations

Table 5-7: Census Tract 2 Bicycle Improvements

Table 5-6: Census Tract 2 Pedestrian Improvements

Table 5-5: Census Tract 1 Bus Stop Improvements

4.6 Personal Safety Best Practices

Table 5-4: Census Tract 1 Bicycle Improvements

5.3 Prioritization Analysis

Table 5-3: Census Tract 1 Pedestrian Improvements

Guidelines

5.4 Prioritized Bus Stop Access Project Types

Figure 5-2: Census Tract 1 Pedestrian Recommendations

Figure 4-6: Fatalities per Billion Passenger Miles Traveled 21

Figure 4-5: Median Treatment to Discourage Unsafe Pedestrian Midblock Crossing21

4.5 Best Practices Research

Figure 4-4: Strategy to Reduce Crime and Reduce Fear that Reduces Transit Ridership15

4.4 Traffic Calming

Crime 6

4.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Solutions

4.1 Barriers and Solutions Overview

Figure 3-3: Virtual Audit Interactive Map

3.9 Results from Outreach Events

2.7 Policy and Planning Context

3.4 Stakeholder Interviews and Outreach Events

Figure 3-2: Omnitrans Virtual Audit Bus Stops Tour

Figure 2-29: Census Tracts 6-9 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-26: Census Tract 5 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-27: Census Tract 5 Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Figure 2-23: Census Tract 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-20: Census Tract 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-24: Census Tract 4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Figure 2-21: Census Tract 3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Figure 2-18: Census Tract 2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities

Figure 2-17: Census Tract 2 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-15: Census Tract 1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities

1.3 Omnitrans’ Ridership Characteristics

2.4 Bicycle Facilities

Figure 2-16: Census Tract 2 Land Uses

Figure 2-1: Omnitrans’ Service Area

Figure 2-14: Census Tract 1 Existing Bicycle Facilities

Table 2-4: Collision Analysis per Census Tract16 Table 4-1: How Transit Improvements Can Reduce Urban

2.3 Land Use