Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 1 BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses A Business Impact Survey and Comparison of Implemented BRT/Bus Improvements on: AC Transit’s Alameda City, Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor LA Metro’s Wilshire Blvd. Metro Rapid 720, Corridor SF MUNI, Proposed Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT, Pre-BRT Impact Survey June 2007 Roger McKean Bazeley Author & Principal Investigator M.S.T.M. Degree Research Project (Capstone) Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0219 Created by Congress in 1991________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses i Abstract The assessment of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructure improvements’ impact upon corridor businesses has been inadequate. Many public workshops and community outreach efforts fall short of gaining a balanced perspective of analyzing the positive or negative impact of implemented BRT/Rapid Bus improvements upon transit corridor businesses, their customers, working employees or ultimately the corridor businesses’ sales and vitality. This research study compares by survey, interviews, and the photo design audits of four different levels of BRT/Rapid Bus and basic bus systems’ service and infrastructure improvements along four metropolitan transit corridor business communities with similar and diverse land-use characteristics, business types, and social-economic characteristics. The selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels of bus transit improvement “system packages” with different service and infrastructure attributes including Rapid Bus with Signal Priority Technologies (Smart Corridors), and proposed advanced BRT with exclusive bus lanes, while trying to balance transit corridor business and community multi-modal transportation needs with BRT/Rapid Bus improvements. To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of all local community transportation improvement stakeholders, there is a need to analyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements have been implemented. The research results and conclusions reached can also aid transportation planners and managers in accessing the need for service and infrastructure changes in the existing studied transit corridors and future BRT/Rapid Bus system installations.________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses ii ROGER M. BAZELEY, IDSA M.S.T.M., M.S.I.D., C.T.S.M. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSCliff Henke, BRT-Specialist, PB Transit & Rail Systems, Inc.Devinder Singh, P.E., Executive Secretary CTCDC, CaltransDr. Peter Haas, PhD. Educational Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteFrank Markowitz, Pedestrian Program Manager, SF Municipal Transportation Agency, MTAJames Cunradi, Project Manager AC Transit Rapid Bus ProgramJose L. Moscovich, Executive Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTAJulie Kirschbaum, Transportation Planner, Geary BRT Study Project Manager, SFCTA/MTAKenneth J. Kochevar, PE, Federal Highway Administration, FHWAMaria Lombardo, Deputy Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, SFCTAMary Banks, Manager Special Projects, California State Automobile AssociationMineta Transportation Institute, Professional Staff and ProfessorsNorman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of TransportationRachel Hiatt, Transportation Planner, San Francisco Transportation Authority, SFCTARex Gephart, Director Regional Transit Planning, LA Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityRichard Haggstrom, PE Non-Motorized Program Manager, CaltransRod Diridon, Executive Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteTrixie Johnson, Research Director, Mineta Transportation InstituteViviann Ferea, Program Administrator, Mineta Transportation InstituteWill Kempton, Director, California Department of Transportation, CaltransIn Memoriam/DedicationArthur James Bazeley, Sr. ME., National Malleable Casting, Cleveland, Ohio(90 U.S. Patents Automatic Railroad Coupler Systems). Superintendent Great Northern RailwayArthur James Bazeley II, Senior Associate Booz Allen & Hamilton, and(Senior VP Corporate Planning, Rockwell International/Boeing North America)Charlotte Tuckerman, M.S. Languages, Spanish and Latin America Studies, Professor, CIA.Dr. Bryan Tuckerman, PhD. Physicist, Mathematician, IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterFrank L. Rownd, P.E. Carnegie Tech., Sales/Marketing, Republic Steel, Cleveland, OhioJoe Yaccarino, Restaurateur, Owner of Joe’s Place, Brooklyn, New YorkRobert Simonsen, Petroleum Engineer, Standard Oil of Ohio,Marion Simonsen, Designer/Artist, Cleveland Art MuseumSupport and MentorsCarol Kocivar, State Board Manager, California State PTADr. Alan Tong, DDSDr. Harold Levine, Professor Mathematics, Stanford UniversityDr. Peter Baluk, PhD. UCSF Medical Research LabGeorge Komodikis, CEO, Madison Holdings. Ltd. New York, London, AthensMichelle Nahum-Albright, Professor Design, Pratt Institute, Parsons School of DesignNoriko and Mikiko Bazeley______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses iv TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2THE RESEARCH STUDY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Research Study Benefit and Goals-------------------------------------------------------------7SURVEY METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------------------8 The Survey------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Transit Corridor Business Comment --------------------------------------------------------12SURVEY ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE ---------------------------------------------------13ETHNIC and BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DIVERSITYOF RESPONDENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROFILES -----------------------------------------------------------------16 Geary Blvd. Corridor---------------------------------------------------------------------------17 Alameda/Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor-----------------------------------------------19 San Pablo Avenue AC Rapid 72 Corridor--------------------------------------------------21 Wilshire Blvd. LA Metro Rapid 720---------------------------------------------------------23CORRIDOR TRAVEL MODE SHARE CHOICE------------------------------------------------25 Critical Mode Choice Factors for Customers and Employees--------------------------26 Surveying Existing Implemented BRT Systems to Determine System Characteristics Impact on BRT transit Customers-----------------------------30TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPACT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS---------------31SURVEY QUESTIONS 1-10 RESPONSE ANALYSIS------------------------------------------34SUMMARY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVERESPONSES TO IMPACT QUESTIONS 1-10 ---------------------------------------------------39 Geary Transit Corridor------------------------------------------------------------------------39 Alameda-Webster Street/Route 61 Corridor----------------------------------------------40 San Pablo-Rapid 72 Transit Corridor ------------------------------------------------------41 Wilshire Blvd.-La Metro Rapid 720 Transit Corridor ----------------------------------43IMPACTS BY BUSINESS TYPE---------------------------------------------------------------------45______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vRESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Positive Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 Negative Comments-------------------------------------------------------------------------------52 Solution Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AREAS and RECOMMENDATIONS ------------------------------ 55 The Parking Dilemma for BRT/Rapid Bus-------------------------------------------------- 56 Street Walkablity, Safe Routes to Transit, and Safety at Stops -------------------------57 Frequency and Hours of Operation----------------------------------------------------------- 59 Construction Hazards Mitigation--------------------------------------------------------------59 Marketing the BRT/Rapid Bus Brand Attributes------------------------------------------59CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61 The Right System Level of Attributes-------------------------------------------------------- 61 The Right Investment in BRT/Rapid Bus ---------------------------------------------------61 The Right Policy—Transit First and TOD --------------------------------------------------62FINAL REMARKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------64APPENDIX A: Photo Audit Snap-shot of Business Respondents--------------------------------65APPENDIX B: Tables-Positive, Neutral, Negative Impact Question responses---------------58APPENDIX C: Business Type Impact Graphs-------------------------------------------------------64APPENDIX D: Charts-Positive, Negative, Solution Comments----------------------------------66APPENDIX E: Survey Forms---------------------------------------------------------------------------67APPENDIX F: Excel Data Sheets-Survey Intake ---------------------------------------------------77ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------100BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBSITES------------------------------------------------------------------------105ABOUT THE AUTHOR--------------------------------------------------------------------------------109______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vi LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Alameda/Webster Street Photos------------------------------------------------------------40Figure 2 Wilshire/Rapid 720 Elements---------------------------------------------------------------43Figure 3 Photos of Elements Associated with Negative Comments-----------------------------52Figure 4 Pictures of Bus Stops, Shelter Concepts-------------------------------------------------- 58Figure 5 Photos Transit Corridor Safety Enhancements-----------------------------------------58Figure 6 Business Owners and Managers----------------------------------------------------------- 64______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses vii LIST OF TABLESTable 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Index Questions ------------------------------10Table 1-4 Geary: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions---------------------- 11Table 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary---------------------------------- 12Table 4 Transit Corridors Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background---------------15Table 5-1 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------17Table 5-2 Geary Corridor Profile ----------------------------------------------------------------------18Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor Profile----------------------------------19Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor Profile-----------------------------------20Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------21Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Corridor Profile---------------------22Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------23Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720 Corridor Profile -----------------------------24Table 1-1 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions Results ---------------------------- 32Table 1-2 Transit Corridor Businesses – Geary BRT Pre-Impact Questions Results -------32Table 3 Transit Corridors Business Types - Impact Level Comparison-----------------------39Table 2-1: Transit Corridors Businesses - POSITIVE COMMENTS-------------------------- 43Table 2-2: Transit Corridors Businesses - NEGATIVE COMMENTS-------------------------45Table 2-3: Transit Corridors Businesses – SOLUTIONS – COMMENTS-------------------- 47______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses viii LIST OF CHARTSChart 1a Geary Corridor Respondents---------------------------------------------------------16Chart 2a Alameda Corridor Respondents -----------------------------------------------------16Chart 3a San Pablo Corridor Respondents----------------------------------------------------16Chart 4a Wilshire Corridor Respondents------------------------------------------------------16Chart 1 Customer Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------25Chart 2 Employee Travel Modes-----------------------------------------------------------------26Chart 3 Transit Corridor Impacts---------------------------------------------------------------34Chart 27 Geary Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution-----------39Chart 28 Alameda Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------41Chart 29 San Pablo Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution------42Chart 30 Wilshire Transit Corridor Impact-Questions Response Distribution--------44Chart 21 Transit Corridor Impacts – Retail---------------------------------------------------47Chart 7 Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Impacts by Business Type-----------------------------48Chart 8 Alameda Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type----------------------48Chart 9 San Pablo Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------------------49Chart 10 Wilshire Corridor Bus Transit Impacts by Business Type---------------------49Chart 4 Transit Corridor Positive Comments------------------------------------------------50Chart 5 Transit Corridor Negative Comments-----------------------------------------------52Chart 6 Transit Corridor Solution Comments----------------------------------------------- 54______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models with their integrated infrastructure elements offer a unique opportunity for utilizing strategic customer marketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to ensure that the BRT/Rapid Bus system package supports transit corridor businesses and their community’s economic vitality. BRT—in its very nature of flexibility in possible service options and design iterations with its adaptability to changing land-use patterns, and creative infrastructure/equipment design possibilities—offers further rational for applying innovative customer targeted planning, marketing strategy, and operational service modeling for influencing business customers and employees in BRT/Rapid Bus as a mode choice. The positioning and design characteristics of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of integrated services, operations and facilities/equipment requires intensive quantitative and qualitative marketing research to guide the strategic planning process in BRT/Rapid Bus implementation. BRT can be an alternative mode choice where land-use and populations indicate a need for faster and higher capacity service to replace or supplement slower more traditional local bus services. Many small and medium sized cities which are primarily served by traditional bus systems are showing selective growth patterns and a growing demand for public transportation with faster service and higher capacity levels, cannot afford the intense level of capital investment required to support light or heavy rail options. BRT is an affordable viable option for these urban metropolitan areas and cities. It is imperative to fully engage transit corridor businesses and their neighborhood community stakeholders by addressing their needs with a process that measures the business community’s pre-expectations of BRT/Rapid Bus system costs and impacts. Measuring the resulting impacts of implemented BRT improvements will help transit managers and planners minimize— through transit policy, planning, and design—the potential negative impacts that could reduce the economic viability of BRT corridor businesses, corridor accessibility and walkablity for customers and employees as well as community support for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). It may be that the particular combination of innovative land-use planning and TOD, when aligned with the most effective packages of BRT attributes will be the most successful way to sustain long-term economic growth and business viability along BRT transit corridors. The goals of moving vehicles and trying to reduce congestion—is no less important than moving people, goods, and services, and ultimately customers in and around these urban transit corridor communities in supporting the ideals of the freedom of mobility; to shop, to entertain, to work, and to carry out daily activities. Having the choice in a multi-modal transportation system is vital to maintaining freedom of business competition, efficient land-use development, and environmentally sensitive growth in our communities. Transit corridors often will require a unique combination of local bus, rapid bus, and BRT attributes and improvements to accommodate the transit corridors’ unique infrastructure, land-use, community characteristics, and business diversity for maintaining transit corridor business vitality and customer flexibly in travel mode choice.________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 2 INTRODUCTIONHistorically, the assessment and measurement of BRT service and infrastructure improvements’impact upon corridor businesses have been inadequate. With the recent development and interestin implementing BRT in California and in other USA urban corridors, there is a significant needfor survey and research in this area. Many of the initial BRT projects funded through the FTASmall Starts Program are in the study, design, and initiation stages of development, include ACTransit’s International Blvd. BRT Corridor Project, the San Francisco Van Ness 2005/2007 BRTPlanning/Design Study, and the San Francisco Geary 2004/2007 BRT Corridor study.In defining what represents Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) verses other “system package” variantslabeled as “Rapid Bus” utilizing signal priority or “smart corridors” technologies it is useful inunderstanding the scope of BRT to look at a couple of definitions put forth by the Federal TransitAdministration and from the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).FTA BRT Definition “Bus Rapid Transit…a combination of facility, systems, and vehicle investments that convert conventional bus services into a fixed-facility transit service, greatly increasing their efficiency and effectiveness to the end user.” Federal Transit administration (FTA), Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program, December 2002TCRP BRT Definition “Bus Rapid Transit…[is] a flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated system with strong positive identity that evokes a unique image. BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments. …BRT is an integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improves the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit.” Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP), Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Vol. I, 2003______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 3The definition of BRT Bus Rapid Transit offered by the TCRP Transportation CooperativeResearch Program broadens the definition beyond the “end user” or transit rider to include the“appropriate” level and type of services and infrastructure design applications/improvements thatwill be “appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings.” The word“market” embraces the collective of commuters, transit corridor businesses, customers,employers, employees, and community residents. The expression “physical surroundings”embraces the impact upon land-use, street and pedestrian infrastructure, parking and businessphysical accessibility, as well as the overall identity or “look and feel” of the “BRT package”within the contextual character of the transit corridor’s diverse pattern of business types, mixed-use development, residential neighborhoods and communities served. As an example, ACTransit’s San Pablo corridor includes seven different city jurisdictions that differ in theircharacteristics, land-use, and socio-economic profiles which the AC R72 BRT/Rapid Bus systemserves. LA Metro Rapid 720 serves downtown, Westwood, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica.San Francisco’s Geary Corridor was included in the survey study to create a comparative baseline as an unimproved/Pre-BRT urban bus transit corridor that had a similar marketing mix oftransit corridor businesses and land-use characteristics with the three surveyed improved transitcorridors. Geary was originally slated for a center alignment light rail system many years ago,but through a change in policy, political, and budget prioritization the Third Street light railproject was designed and built instead of the planned Geary LRT. The merchants and thecommunity have felt politically “burned” by unfulfilled promises and so the issue of whether theproposed Geary BRT alignment variations and service packages will satisfy and fulfill theservice needs and expectation of the community were an important rationale in examining theGeary corridor with a Pre-BRT impact survey. The Geary Pre-Impact survey indicated 93% ofthe business owners and managers were supportive of a center alignment BRT for Geary Blvd.San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the lead planning agency is proposinga “state of the art” BRT system with a center alignment and exclusive dedicated bus lanes as oneof several alignment options. San Francisco’s MUNI proposed center alignment Geary BRT canemulate many of the infrastructure and service characteristics of light rail system with greatermarketing appeal, capacity, and efficiency than that which typical traditional urban bus servicesoffer along its increasingly congested multi-modal transit corridors. BRT can be implementedand fast tracked within a shorter time table and at lower build out costs than a light rail system.The marketing and planning dilemma for the Geary Corridor and other future advanced fullfeatured BRT systems in the planning stages is in the ability to implement BRT at its highestlevel of design and operation possibilities as a bus technology based mode that communicates toits customers, transit boards, and transit directors that it is not a typical bus service; operates likelight rail but is not light rail, and does not eliminate the possibility of future light rail build outand the securing right-of-way and infrastructure for a LRT system. Transit corridor businessesthroughout the United States are very concerned about the negative construction impacts of suchextensive infrastructure construction and build-out time with the more extensive implementationof exclusive bus lanes and the reduction of corridor parking access on a permanent basis orduring peak hour, i.e. Geary BRT and the Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, along certain corridor______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 4travel segments. Transit agencies like San Francisco’s MUNI have put forth a strong marketingmessage of support for implementing BRT.SFCTA/MUNI—BRT Strategic Marketing MessageBRT is fast and reliable – it offers passengers a quicker trip with more dependability.BRT is cutting edge – it maximizes transit performance by using state-of-art technology.BRT is cost-effective – it moves people as effectively as light rail at lower capital cost.BRT is a quick solution – with community support and sufficient funding, fast build-out.BRT is flexible – it maximizes operating flexibility by allowing multiple operators.BRT is incremental – can be deployed in phases based upon funding availability and demand.Once built, the issues of purpose, need, and access equity have to be balanced with the cost ofoperation and management of the system. The technology and infrastructure design choices maynot only affect cost and maintenance factors, but in reality are key (BRT) product marketingfeatures that will affect customer choice, retention, and help grow repeat and sustainableridership numbers. Picking the right type of infrastructure design; vehicle equipment choice willaffect the level of quality perception and customer support for a new high-tech BRT and/or amoderately modernized bus service. What is the appropriate customer oriented design andmarketing methodology that will support the acceptance of a BRT as a mode choice over LightRail or the automobile? Studies supporting BRT as a viable alternative mode choice need toanswer the long term question of what really influences the customer in choosing to supportBRT/Rapid Bus over other alternative modes like Light Rail, when addressing the issues ofequipment modernization, and the labor costs in running a BRT system versus a light rail system.Several publications which include the Transportation Cooperation Research Program (TCRP),Report 90, Bus Rapid Transit, Volumes 1 and 2, 2003, the abstract, Bus Rapid Transit: AnIntegrated and Flexible Package of Service, by the authors: Alice H. King and Roderick B. Dias,Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc., and the abstract Innovative Service Design among Bus RapidTransit Systems in the Americas, by authors Roderick B. Diaz and Donald C. Schneck, BoozAllan & Hamilton, Inc. offer greater detail and insight into the areas of developing the right“integrated and flexible package of service and operational model” for maximizing the benefit ofBRT. One very applicable issue derived from an extensive literature search concerning the areaof BRT/Rapid Bus system packaging is that key components of an operating plan; routestructure, service frequency, stop/station spacing, service span, network, and degree ofintegration with other transit services differ and have outcomes that affect the end-user/customerand the transit corridor business community acceptance and support of the system.To successfully meet the transportation needs and travel demand of key local communitytransportation improvement stakeholders which include policy makers, transportationoperators/agencies, corridor businesses—transit riders composed of workers, commuters,shoppers, school children/students, seniors, and the disabled—there is a major need to furtheranalyze and measure BRT/Rapid Bus impacts prior to and after BRT/Rapid Bus corridorimprovements have been implemented.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 5 THE RESEARCH STUDYThe research study compares the impacts of BRT/Rapid Bus service and infrastructureimprovements upon four business transit corridors and communities with similar and diverseland-use characteristics, business mix, and ridership social-economic characteristics. AC Transit’s Alameda City, Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor, AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor, LA Metro’s Wilshire Blvd. Metro Rapid 720, Corridor SF MUNI, Proposed Geary Blvd. Corridor BRT, Pre-BRT Impact SurveyThe selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridor segments have implemented different types and levels ofbus transit improvement “system packages” including Basic/Local Bus, Rapid Bus/SignalPriority Technologies, and Advanced Rapid/BRT while trying to balance the needs andrequirements for implementing successful business and community multi-modal BRTtransportation improvements. The transit corridors’ business composition and sampling didcapture similarities in business types, resulting in 12 business segments for further comparison.In many of the cases, the business community was not fully engaged or lacked high participationlevels until many of the BRT project goals and design concepts were established. There has notbeen sufficient business economic survey, study, and research funding to measure businessexpectations, cost and benefit impacts. This contrasts with the committed level of transit agencystudies focused on the potential impacts on multi-modal corridor transportation travel times andBRT performance related to the proposed levels of service and infrastructure improvements withtraffic flow analysis/counts and corridor simulations. There is an absence of case studies andmethodology as a part of the process for developing the best balance of BRT implementedservice and infrastructure improvements for maximizing the economic benefit to transit corridorbusinesses. This is a key rationale for surveying the impacts on the selected BRT corridors.However, there has been an extensive amount of prior methodology in the survey of transit ridersto gain necessary insight and data as to travel patterns, mode choice, and for the collection ofmarketing research data related to destination and purpose of travel, rating the performance ofthe transit mode taken, intermodal connectivity, and ridership demographics. See appendix forLA MTA Rider Survey example.1The advanced state-of-the-art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Bus service models andaccompanying infrastructure offer a unique opportunity for applying strategic customer orientedmarketing tools, impact survey methodologies, and planning strategies to insure BRT/Rapid Bus1 A key source on the development of collecting travel behavior and customer mode choice preference can be researched throughthe Federal Highway administration OHPI, Office of Highway Policy Information, through the TRB Committee onTransportation Survey Methods (ABJ40) at www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trb/reports.htm .______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 6systems improve business and community vitality, accessibility, safety, and walkablity. BRT—by its very nature of service flexibility for influencing customer mode choice, its adaptability tochanging land-use patterns, and different infrastructure design possibilities can influence thevitality of transit corridor businesses and their surrounding neighborhoods.During the survey process it became very clear that a large percentage of business employeesand business managers were dependent and users of not only the BRT/Rapid Bus services but theconnecting light and heavy rail systems by way of connecting hubs. Their satisfaction andreliance on fast, frequent, and reliable public transit with good inter-modal connectivity was ofbenefit to transit corridor businesses in getting quality employees to work, and affected thebottom line of sales and customer service levels. Author Graham Currie in the study, TheDemand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, puts forth the concept that the variability in publictransit users’ pattern of choice is influenced by the quality and comfort of the ride as well as bythe factors of distance, the (Total) time of travel, and time waiting to transfer at route/line hubsor changing modes. These factors impact transit corridor businesses’ employees and its customerbase selection of BRT/Rapid Bus as a travel mode for their employment or shopping destinationinstead of driving to corridor businesses.2This study and survey results supports customer mode choice and preference levels as beingrelated to the total BRT/Rapid Bus “package” as an improved transportation mode. Mode-Specific Factors are significant in affecting the perception of BRT quality and innovation bytransit customers related to the industrial design of vehicle interiors/exteriors and human factorsbased improvements associated with ADA accessibility, customer information systems (NextBus) and infrastructure design. Customers place the highest value on the BRT/Rapid Bus servicecharacteristics which include frequency of service, comfort, travel time savings, and reliability ofservice.In this study the impact of the BRT/Rapid Bus “package” of attributes are measured andsurveyed to evaluate the benefit of specific BRT system attributes and improvements on thetransit customer and the business community. It is important to measure accurately theinfrastructure and system attributes of shelter/platform comfort, information signage andscheduling accuracy (on time performance/frequency) and their cumulative impact on transitcorridor business employees and customers’ travel mode choice. Transit planners need to factorthese into their strategic plans when deciding upon the level of investment in a new or improvedBRT/Rapid Bus system for a particular transit business corridor.The key study question relates to what are the significant attributes that contribute to a positiveor negative impact on BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridor businesses. The survey research will shedsome light upon in the comparisons of implemented improvements and impacts upon transitcorridor businesses in the four bus transit corridors selected, and suggest that further ongoingresearch is merited.2 The study, The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit by Author Graham Currie, Chair Public Transport, at MonashUniversity, Australia makes a comparative analysis to examine the passenger values and attributes in selection of transportationmodes when comparing BRT to (LRT) Light Rail as a replacement for traditional bus service.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 7RESEARCH STUDY GOALS: • Research and report findings on the impact of BRT/Rapid Bus improvements on BRT/Rapid Bus corridor businesses customers, employees, and community residents. • Strengthen the transit planning focus on significant business community expectations and needs that impact their business vitality when implementing BRT/Rapid Bus corridor improvements. • Create Transit management awareness of the critical long-term impacts upon business which can ultimately affect the levels of capturing new riders from these corridors. • Analyze impact and benefit of BRT/Rapid Bus corridor transit performance, service and infrastructure improvements related to type and levels of design investment needed to deliver the best “impact benefit package for the dollars spent.” • Develop a comparative snapshot of four different “system packages” of BRT/Rapid Bus transit investments in service type, infrastructure, technology, community streetscape and pedestrian improvements that impact transit corridor businesses vitality. • To find out what was the perceived impact to various business types’ employees, and their customers including: shoppers made-up of local community residents, school students, seniors, the disabled, transit riders/commuters and those that drive or walk to access BRT/Rapid Bus Transit corridor businesses.The impact of implementing the right BRT/Rapid Bus levels of improvement and servicecharacteristics along metropolitan business/multi-use transit corridors goes far beyond reducingcommuter travel time through increasing the speed and frequency of service. It impacts land-useand (TOD) transportation oriented development, walkablity, and accessibility to corridorbusinesses and services. This in turn affects the bottom-line of transit corridor businesses’revenue, foot traffic, and the overall corridor community’s vitality and quality of life.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 8 SURVEY METHODOLOGYThe one page questionnaire/survey was composed of 10 key questions to develop an overallBRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact rating-scale for analyzing the positive, neutral, andnegative business responses of the four surveyed BRT/Rapid Bus transit corridors. Critical dataintake included: 3 additional “open comment” questions; respondents’ ethnic background; andthe percentage of customer and employee mode choice of travel to and from the businesslocation. These surveys were administered in person to individual business owners at their placeof business located on the selected BRT/Rapid Bus corridors, with an equal collection of datafrom both sides or directions of BRT/Rapid Bus transit travel route.The sampling targeted a large enough number of businesses including retail, commercial, andprofessional offices to result in 100-140 completed surveys per BRT/Rapid Bus corridor. In theAlameda 2 mile corridor the sampling exceeded 100% of the number of corridor street frontbusinesses compared with 33% for the 6 mile Geary Corridor, 32% for the San Pablo 7.5 milecorridor, and 15-25% of the significant street front businesses along the LA Metro Rapid 720’ssurveyed 13 mile corridor.The survey questions were categorized to capture a broad range of business response to transitcorridor BRT/Rapid Bus implemented “package” of improvements ranging fromservices/operations and technology to travel accessibility for business customers and employees,as well as infrastructure impacts. *Survey question categories included: 50% BusinessEconomic, 20% Customer/Community, 20% Corridor Business Accessibility/Travel ModeChoice, Vitality, Parking impact, and 10% Open ended Questions-Responder Opinion. The threeopen-ended responder opinion questions concerning positive, negative, and solution commentsgenerated another 30 responses on impact issues and corridor comparison.The accumulation of the ten key questions were covering the cumulative possible impact effectsto transit corridor business were used to create a business managers/owners “Impact Index” or“satisfaction index” from interviewing respondents who were primarily the business owner,senior manager or supervisor and where necessary, a sales manager, transportation manager, oremployee in charge. The corridor’s retail business mix included small independent owned storefront “mom and pop” businesses, franchised business, independent chain stores, national brandretail chains, and corridor retail shopping malls, centers, and “big box” retailers.All four transit corridors surveyed had many national chains and franchised businesses with asimilar business operations model, size, and employee socio-economic characteristics incommon to improve the data collection consistency, quality and characteristics for generating amore accurate outcome to compare and rank each of the corridors. Many of the businesses incommon captured on each transit corridor included Subway, Burger King, McDonald’s,Domino’s Pizza, Panda Express, KFC-Taco Bell, Jack n The Box, Midas Auto, Kragen Auto,Shell Oil, Union 76, FedEx-Kinko’s, Mancini Sleep World, Sleep Train, Radio Shack, PaylessShoes, Blockbuster, Benjamin Moore, Pier One Imports, Rite Aid Drugs, Walgreen’s, Safeway,Best Buy’s, Office Depot, Trader Joe’s, Office Max, Ross for Less, Boarders, Starbucks, SprintPCS, U.S. Postal Service, Wells Fargo and many others.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 9In each corridor the survey intake captured a majority of the key regional and national brands,major business categories including automotive, corporations, educational intuitions, fast food,financial/banking institutions, governmental (local, state, federal), hotel/senior housing, liquorstores/bars, medical-hospitals/clinics/services, non-profit organizations/churches, restaurants andretail.The total number of one-on-one transit corridor businesses surveyed and interviewed withcomplete data collection for the four transit corridors exceeded 498 respondents, with a sampleof 142 out of 425 estimated street front businesses for the 5.5 mile San Francisco Geary corridor,a response sample of 107 out of 110 for Alameda’s 2 mile Webster Street Route 61 corridor, asample of 128 out of 550 for the 7.5 mile San Pablo Avenue Corridor, and a 128 survey businessresponse sample out of an estimated 1,200 major street front businesses for LA Metro’s 13 mileWilshire Rapid 720 Corridor.The Los Angeles Metro Wilshire corridor was unique in that it was the longest corridor in miles,with several clusters of office towers with multiple corporate and professional businesses, suchas publishing, law and accounting firms. There were several extensive stretches along theWilshire corridor such as Westwood and Beverly Hills where the land-use changed from a densecommercial mix to a suburban land-use pattern that was composed of expensive housing, high-rise luxury condos/apartment buildings, sprawling corporate headquarters, hotel and resorts,museums, parks and the Beverly Hills Golf Club.The sampling plan was designed to capture several of the largest or most significant businessesin the major office towers where employee numbers utilizing the public transit system would bemeaningful. A majority of the significant street front retail businesses were well represented inthe sample along with most of the business type groups, i.e. automotive, corporate, educational,fast food, financial, government, hotel/housing, liquor, medical hospitals and services, non-profitorganizations, and restaurants. The survey sampling covered both directions of travel for thevarious BRT/Rapid Bus systems incorporated in the study, with a cumulative total of 50 miles ofurban/metro bus transit corridors, walked, bused and driven.THE SURVEY:Pre-testing for the impact questionnaire/survey, consisting of 25 samples, was administered inperson for interview intake on AC Transit’s Alameda City’s Webster Street/Alameda Route 61corridor successfully with minor adjustments. The question form and response selection for datacomparison and scoring was based on each question asking the responder to answer as to thequestion’s subject concerning the BRT/Rapid Bus improvement impact using a multiple choice(1-3) rating scale represented by: (3) Positive Impact/Increase, (2) Neutral Impact/No-Change,(1) Negative Impact/Decrease. The responses were charted per business name, type, location andpresented in Excel and graphic charts. Through the survey construction, over 55 significant dataitems were defined and collected to create different sorts to define impact comparisons, ranking,prioritization, impact levels, and trends. Further data on the percentage of respondents’ rating theBRT/Rapid Bus improvement impacts on their business as positive, neutral, or negative for eachof the ten questions is additionally presented in the format of Tables for comparison and analysis.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 10 SURVEY: BRT/Bus Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers Alameda, San Pablo, Wilshire Survey* Notation 1Table 1-3 Transit Corridor Businesses - Impact Questions (10) and Response Choices *Notation 1-3 # QUESTIONS* Notation 2 POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE Scoring: Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 IMPACT (3) IMPACT (2) IMPACT (1) 1 What has been the impact or change to yearly Increased No-Change Decreased sales after BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new Increased Adequate Decreased business activity changed after BRT/Rapid Bus No-Change improvements? 3 Are your customers and employees enthusiastic Yes Adequate No about the BRT/Rapid Bus service, No-Change shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? 4 Do your employees have improved access/usage Increased Adequate or No to reliable public transit for getting to work? No-Change 5 What is the impact on parking access for Good or Off- Adequate- Difficult or customers and employees driving to the street parking Street Spaces No Parking business? available available spaces available 6 Has the neighborhood’s pedestrian activity, Increased No-Change Decreased walkablity, and transit accessibility improved? Neutral 7 How has the location and distance of Increased No-Change Decreased BRT/Rapid bus stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? 8 What has been the impact of new housing/multi- Increase No-Change Decrease use development (TOD) stimulated by Or Loss BRT/Rapid Bus? 9 Have BRT/Rapid Bus improvements/TA Yes No-Change No or marketing increased your location visibility and Increased Reduction in brought in new customers from transit Customer commuters, community residents, or new Parking housing developments? 10 Do BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support Yes Undecided or No business expansion plans or continued business No-Change Relocation activity? *Note 3 due to factors*Notation 1: See Appendix for actual survey formNotation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations. (See Table 1-4. for Geary PRE-BRT Impact Questions).Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn,higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 11 SURVEY: PRE-BRT/Rapid Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses – Questions/Answers Geary Corridor Pre-BRT Survey* Notations 1-3Table 1-4 GEARY: Transit Corridor Businesses -Impact Index Questions (10) and Response Choices # QUESTIONS* Notation 2 POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Negative = 1 Response Response Response 1 What has been the trend of yearly sales prior to Increased No-Change Decreased proposed BRT/Rapid Bus improvements? 2 How has customer “foot traffic” and new Increased No-Change Decreased business activity been for the past two years? 3 Are your customers and employees satisfied with Yes Adequate No the present bus service, shelters/stops, and pedestrian/safety improvements? 4 Do your employees have good access/usage to Yes Adequate No or reliable public transit for getting to work? Excellent Very Poor 5 How is parking access for customers and Good –or Adequate Difficult or employees driving to the business? additional off- Street Spaces no spaces street parking 6 How is the neighborhood’s pedestrian Excellent- Adequate Poor – Needs activity/walkablity, and transit accessibility? Attracts Infrastructure Customers Improvement 7 How has the location/distance of existing bus Increase No-Change Decreased – stops/shelters affected “foot traffic” numbers? Stop Change - Relocation 8 What will be the impact of new housing/multi- Increase No-Change Decrease use development (TOD) stimulated by BRT/Rapid Bus? *Notation 2 9 Do you expect proposed BRT/Rapid Bus Yes No-Change No – improvements to increase your location visibility or small Reduced and attract new customers from transit change customer- commuters, community residents, or new Employee TOD/housing developments? *Notation 2 parking 10 Will BRT/Rapid Bus improvements support Yes Undecided or No business expansion plans or continued business No-Change Relocation activity? *Notation 2,3 due to factors* SQ Geary BRT Supplemental Question: Do you YES Neutral NO favor a center alignment BRT with exclusive Support BRT Available Do not BRT lanes which maintains street parking Project off-street Support BRT capacity and availability? parking ProjectNotation 1: See Appendix for actual survey form*Notation 2: Geary Corridor PRE-BRT Impact Questions cover the same topics, but are phrased for the respondent to rate pre-existing conditions and future BRT improvement impact expectations.Notation 3: Relocation plans due to: BRT/Rapid Bus Design, Lost Lease, BRT construction, Loss of Parking, business downturn,higher rent due to increased development, or sold business. Respondent was asked to indicate relocation reason among choices.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 12A compilation (Table 2-4) of the top ten positive comments, top ten negative comments, and topten solutions for the improvement or elimination of the perceived or actual negative impactidentified by the respondents was collected through the following three open ended questions.Positive Comment Question: What was the Positive BRT/Rapid Bus impact that improved yourbusiness sales and customer activity?Negative Comment Question: Is there a negative BRT/Rapid Bus Impact, due to designchanges, streetscape, transit services or other implemented improvements still negativelyimpacting your business sales or customer activity?Solutions Comment Question:How would you eliminate the problem negatively impacting your business? Transit Corridors Businesses - COMMENTSTable 2-4 Transit Corridor Businesses – Comments Summary POSITIVE COMMENTS NEGATIVE COMMENTS SOLUTIONS1 Faster Travel Parking Loss/Damage Extend Operational Hours/ Late Night Service2 Reliability/Bus Frequency Ugly Shelter/Stop Design Increase Bus Frequency3 Increased New Business Bus Stops Not Clean Expand BRT/Rapid Bus Service Development4 Safer-Cleaner Stops and Shelters Stop Shelters Block Store Build Parking Garages on Corridor5 Attractive Streetscapes-Shelters Poor Stop Lighting Weekend Service Needed6 New TOD Customers Loitering/Safety Concern Transit Security/CCTV/Lights7 Pedestrian Activity/Safety Hours of Bus Operation Redesign Bus Stop/Shelter8 New Bus Design/Branding ADA Accessibility-Pedestrian Modify Streetscape Design-Trees Safety Concerns9 Serves Employee Needs Frequency/Reliability Move Bus Stop/Shelter10 Serves Corridor Businesses Lost Business-Relocation Planned More TOD Development______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 13 Survey Administration ExperienceThe author’s one-on-one interview and survey of four metropolitan bus transit corridors totaling57 miles, 4 different locations including San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland-San Pablo Corridor,and Los Angeles was accomplished in 24 days with 8-10 hours per day for travel, interviewingand data intake from 500 plus business respondents. Depending upon the amount of respondentstime and willingness to go beyond the 10 basic questions including supplemental data intake andthe three additional open-ended questions—the time of for a complete survey intake to collect allof the critical information and responses was reduced from an average of 15-20 minutes to 10minutes by verbally reciting the questions and filling out the survey with the respondent duringintake. Because independent business owners, retail store managers, and respondents were on-duty dealing with customers the personal interview was most effective in leaving the premisewith a completed survey.It was necessary in about 12% of the cases for the interviewer to show identification and researchauthenticity/authority with a driver’s license, business card from the locally involved transitagency BRT/Rapid Bus manager or director, and/or a project letter of introduction to gain surveyparticipation acceptance from business respondents. The interviewer also carried picture of thedifferent BRT/Rapid Bus system equipment and improvements as visual reference for thesurveyed respondents to visualize the improvements referred to in the questions. Theinterviewer’s experience as an industrial designer and brand marketing consultant; working oncommunity transportation design projects, as well as having designed over 150 retail stores, wasbeneficial in securing a 95%-98% average survey participation from business owners andmanagers interviewed during the intake process on all four transit corridors.The business respondents interviewed expressed genuine interest in improving their existingcorridor BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system and provided quality information and data about thebusinesses’ actual and perceived positive and negative impacts of the BRT/Rapid Busimprovements. The collection of respondent comments included the top ten positive impactcomments, top ten negative impact comments, and the top ten solutions for elimination of thenegative impact. These were useful in evaluating the response reliability to the original 10impact questions used to create the business impact survey. It was important to interview business owners and managers that had “intuitional memory” ofthe changes in business sales, bus service, customer and employee parking accessibility, overallcorridor walkablity, streetscape/infrastructure, and business vitality before and after theimplemented improvements. In many of the corridors this was accomplished, especially amongthe long established small neighborhood “mom & pop” independent merchants that wereinterviewed. Survey questions one and two captured the critical “sales trend” and “foot traffic”trend of the businesses. Due to the confidential nature of this important information, it was askedright after explaining the nature and topic of the survey, purposes of the gathered information,and often an explanation of the BRT/Bus Rapid Transit system characteristics being surveyed.As it is very rare to get the actual sales trend figures, it was determined after the pre-testing ofthe survey that most respondents would comfortably and honestly respond to an answer selectionof “increased,” “no-change,” or “decreased” without breaching business confidentiality.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 14When surveying the entire transit corridor for business sales and foot traffic trends, it becameevident in the overall sampling if the trend was based upon the factors of an economic downturnin the corridor that was widespread across the business community or if it was limited to abusiness type category like retail, restaurants, fast food or just the specific store location. In somesurprising cases, the sales managers were so enthusiastic about participating in the projectresearch issues and potential outcome that the interview intake went for as long as 45 minutes toan hour, thereby gaining depth and insight into the very nature of the corridor’s business vitalityand sales impacts that were caused by other factors.These factors included transit corridor urban renewal and TOD housing project development,city politics and transit policy changes. One example of an extended intake session was related tothe extensive Alameda City’s streetscape and urban renewal Webster Street development, wherea Chevron service station mini-mart manager held a small impromptu meeting of localcustomers. The customers told the interviewer of the change in business due to the public policyelimination of a 600 unit low income housing project being replaced by a 350 unit high-incomecondominium.Owner/manager and customer survey participation occurred in 5% of the intake sessions withrestaurant managers/owners, big box/name brand retailers, bars/liquor stores, and even fast foodoperations. In several cases (2%) the sales managers of some of the national and regional namebrand retailers actually brought the interviewer into the offices to fill out the survey and showedtheir yearly sales trend charts for the store. When taking in the important supplementalinformation determining customer and employee transportation mode share, many of themanagers would pull their employee duty rosters for employee counts and estimating or takingthe actual count of employees who took the BRT/Rapid Bus/Public Transit, drove/parked, orwalked/biked to work; or gathered a couple of employees to calculate how employees commutedto work. In many of the larger corporate businesses, educational institutions, or medical centersthere were transportation managers and administrators who had not only employee counts but thenumber of parking spaces allotted for employees, and were also responsible for administeringemployee discount transportation passes for use of buses and connecting rail systems.The information gathered about employee numbers and transportation modes was very helpful,especially on the LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire corridor, where there was a Metro employee andstudent discount program to capture increased use of the LA Metro transit system and reduce carreliance by customer choice and marketing programs. Many of the transit operators do haveprograms like this, and provide a good source of counting monthly public transit mode use bybusinesses taking apart of these programs. The business sampling and information whencoordinated with these other sources of collected data confirmed that the personal one-to-onesurvey process and strategy yielded a more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate data inputprocess than if the survey was mailed or left to fill out. In several businesses where the surveyhad to be left to be filled-out by the owner or manager and collected later that day or on thefollowing day, it was observed that 20% of the respondents did not fill-out the survey, 30% wentinto great depth and 50% respondents basically neutralized a majority of the questions andinformation due to a lack of interest or possible lack of understanding of the questions, whichfurther reinforced the effectiveness of the one-on-one interview/survey methodology.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 15 Ethnic and Business Management Diversity of RespondentsThe ethnic make-up and diversity of the corridors’ surveyed respondents reinforced theeffectiveness of the personal interview strategy by reciting questions with an occasionalrespondent’s request for clarification or language interpretation, about specific transit impacts orterminology. There was a distinct cultural and behavioral interplay between how somerespondents had to be approached by the interviewer.First generation Asian-Pacific immigrants presented the most challenging language and surveycompletion challenge. This does reinforce the usefulness of having survey work and printedmaterials done in multiple languages with Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, andEnglish being the most prevalent languages spoken along the corridors surveyed. In communitytransit workshops where there are large urban communities of immigrants, it is an invaluable partof the public outreach and participation process to provide multi-lingual written materials andinterpreters.In 18% of the interviews the respondent requested the interviewer enter the first name or initialsin order to guarantee confidentiality. However, collecting the full name on the data sheet wasvery useful in capturing the ethnic diversity of the respondents besides observation, or responseas to country of origin. The ethnic composition of the interviewed respondents by transitcorridors are indicated by table 4 and charts 1-4 for comparison, and were reflective of thecomposition and diversity of the corridor business managers/owners and their employees. Ethnic Background of Survey RespondentsTable 4 Transit Corridors Business Survey Respondents Ethnic Background*1 Ethnic Background/Race Geary*2 Alameda San Pablo Wilshire AFA Afro-American 4% 6% 14% 7% AP-C Asian-Chinese 28% 23% 7% 11% AP-J Asian-Japanese 20% 1% 2% 2% AP-K Asian-Korean 6% 4% 5% 9% AP-O Asian-Other 6% 6% 4% 4% CW-E Caucasian-European 27% 47% 46% 26% H Hispanic 8% 8% 12% 36% ME Middle Eastern 1% 5% 10% 5%Notation 1: Respondents* were primarily (99.5%) business owners, managers, supervisors/administratorsNotation 2: Geary is a PRE-BRT impact surveyed bus transit corridor. (Local, Limited, Express services)______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 16Charts 1-4 Survey Respondents’ Ethnic Background; Four Corridors Compared Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Geary Corridor Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Alameda Corridor Afro-American Afro-American 4% 6% Caucasian/European 27% Asian Chinese Asian Chinese 28% 23% Caucasian/European 47% Middle Eastern 1% Asian Japanese 1% Hispanic 8% Asian Korean 4% Asian Others Asian Others 6% 6% Asian Japanese Hispanic Asian Korean 20% Middle Eastern 8% 6% 5%Chart 1 Geary Corridor Respondents Chart 2 Alameda R61 Corridor Respondents Respondents Ethnic Background - San Pablo Corridor Survey Respondents Ethnic Background - Wilshire Corridor Afro-American Afro-American 14% 7% Caucasian/European Asian Chinese 26% 11% Asian Chinese Asian Japanese 7% 2% Asian Japanese 2% Asian Korean Caucasian/European 46% Asian Korean 9% 5% Middle Eastern Asian Others 5% Asian Others 4% 4% Hispanic 12% Hispanic Middle Eastern 36% 10%Chart 3 San Pablo Corridor Respondents Chart 4 Wilshire Corridor RespondentsThe field survey process presented an incredible learning opportunity for experiencing thediversity of cultures, languages, business mixes/segmentation, and the impact that transportationmakes upon the lives of the communities and peoples it serves. The socio-economicdemographics of customers and employees, levels of transit improvement and service operationmix, land-use, and public policy all affect transit corridor businesses’ bottom-line of profitabilityand ultimately the overall vitality and pedestrian shopping activity of the businesses locatedalong these major transit corridors. Transportation is more than moving buses and commutersthrough a corridor; it is about maintaining the vitality of the businesses on the corridor bymoving a diversity of people, goods and services in a manner that maintains quick access andaccessibility for business customers, employees, and community services. Transit Corridors Profiles: Geary, Alameda R61, San Pablo, WilshireThe next section presents a comprehensive snap-shot profile of each surveyed transit corridor’sBRT/Rapid Bus system attributes and facts, system goals, maps, and demographics.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 17Table 5-1 Geary Corridor ProfileGEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre-BRT Improvements70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th PlaceTransit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNIService Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak DirectionStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave.Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 TotalRidership: 50,000-54,000 Daily before ImprovementsSystem Characteristics:Ongoing IMPROVEMENT: Corridor Intersection Signal Upgrades/Equipment • Selected Priority, Bus Stop Relocation far side when possible, ADA loading Ramps, Pedestrian and Bike facilities, Bus Loading Bulbs, • Bus Equipment - replacement with Cleaner Hybrid Diesel, Low Floor Articulated buses, Existing Non-exclusive Bus Lanes and Peak Hour Bus Lanes, Onboard Bus Stop Information Displays, Limited Intersection priority (Local/Limited/Express) • Slow Bus speeds during peak hours due to traffic congestion, traditional curbside loadingProposed BRT Improvements: – Alternatives: Basic Plus Transit Priority, Side BRT, CenterAlignment BRT with Side loading platforms, Center Alignment with a Center loading Platform/Station(Exclusive BRT Lanes/Peak Hour Restricted Lanes) Construction Estimate: $170M-$215M SFCTA* Goals: 1. Robust and Stable Ridership, 2. Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service, 3. Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Viability, 4. Transit Priority Network System Development, 5. Advanced BRT Design and OperationsNote: SFCTA – San Francisco County Transportation Authority – BRT Plan-SFCTA, MTA, MUNI, DPT 4.26.2007______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 18Table 5-2 Geary Corridor ProfileGEARY Blvd. Corridor, Pre- BRT Improvements70.6% Business Impact Score, 4th PlaceTransit Agency: San Francisco MTA/ MUNIStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 5.5/6 miles Geary Blvd./Kearney to Geary/48th Ave.Surveyed Geary Blvd: From Van Ness to 34th Ave., East/West Bound, 4 Miles/ 8 Total Miles SurveyedSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit InteractionA summary of the Geary Pre- BRT study’s key findings and public concerns included: • Geary Boulevard is a complex multi-modal transit arterial (6 Travel Lanes, 2 Parking Lanes) • Rapid transit service is needed in for residents in the Richmond and Sunset Districts • Balance needed between the multi-nodes of transportation including pedestrians and bicycles • Faster travel time is a high priority on Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue • Transit riders wait and travel time show excessive variability effecting reliability • All Day treatment needed to Improve transit travel time and reliability • Over Crowding top customer/community concern • Street parking is in high demand in the outer Richmond Core • Pedestrian Safety Improvements and Urban design treatments in high demand to benefit transit and neighborhood livability/walkablity/pedestrian safety/ADA • Support for bicycle infrastructure and facilities along Van Ness and Geary Boulevard.Mode Share for San Francisco Trips* 2000/2025: Transit 16.4%/16.2% (-1.3%), AUTO 54%/54.5%(+0.3%), Walk 28.3%/28.4% (-0.3%), Bike 1.0%/1.0% (-0.4%) * Geary CAC Vision SFCTA 2/26/2003Corridor Demographics: Population: 135,128 Corridor, 776,733 Citywide Total, % of SF 17%Population Density per acre 44.32, Median Household Income $39,727, SF $55,221, % of SF 172%Ethnic Background: W 67,149 (49.7%), AFA 10,269 (7.6%), Asian 46,516 (34.4%), Hispanic 10,971 (14.1%), Other11,194 (15.8%)* Source US Census 2000, SF1 and SF2Transit Connectivity: BART, SF MUNI LRT, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit, Golden Gate Ferries______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 19Table 6-1 Alameda/Webster Street -Route 61 Corridor ProfileALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61 Corridor79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa TransitService Types: Local, Limited, Express Service Peak Hour- Peak DirectionStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 7 miles Webster/Atlantic to Hegenberger Road/Oakland AirportSurveyed Alameda/Route 61: Webster to Central., North/South bound, 2 Miles/ 4 TotalRidership: 9,500-11,500 DailySystem Characteristics:BASIC IMPROVEMENT PLUS: MAJOR STREETSCAPE and BUS STOPINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, Urban/Business Corridor Renewal • Selected priority, bus stop relocation, and ADA loading ramps, new bus shelters, trees, sidewalks, benches, pedestrian and bike facilities, bus loading bulbs, store front parking reductions, urban renewal, State Route 61 partial relinquishment (Webster Street) • Bus equipment improved, low floor buses, no exclusive bus lanes, onboard bus stop information display, limited intersection priorityWebster Street Improvements: Bus facilities/stops side loading ADA extended platforms, majorstreetscape infrastructure, planters, bus shelters: Construction Estimate: $1.7M-$2.3M City of Alameda*Goals: 1. To enhance Alameda City’s livability and commercial viability with safe efficient transportationaccessibility (AC Transit), and Local Streets and road improvements. 2. Improve multi-modal safety andcongestion mitigation along Route 61/Webster Street with special emphasis on our most vulnerablecitizens, school children, seniors, and the disabled. 3. Streets and Roads improvement along with WebsterStreet rehabilitation, redevelopment vital to servicing and stimulating new 10-20 year growth of additionalhousing and retail multi-use developments 4. To enhance property values, commercial and mixed-useretail business, and sales revenues through promoting the livability and viability of Alameda City as ashopping, recreational, and living environment. 5. Support bicycling as a transportation alternative______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 20Table 6-2 Alameda/Webster Street Route 61 Corridor ProfileALAMEDA/Webster Street, Route 61, AC Transit/City Renewal Project79.4% Business Impact Score, 2nd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa TransitStop Spacing: .20-.30 mile, 3-5 BlocksCorridor Length: 7 miles Webster St./Atlantic Ave. to Hegenberger Road/Oakland AirportSurveyed Alameda City/Route 61: Webster/Atlantic to Central Ave. North/South bound, 2 miles/4 totalSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit InteractionA summary of the City of Alameda’s Webster St. “main street” renewal project: • The Webster Street Project involved Caltrans, BART, and AC Transit Buses and Para-transit services in addressing the multimodal transportation interaction with the new bus stops, Route 61 rehabilitation, and streetscape infrastructure which involved Route 61 right a way encroachment/intrusions with bus bulb out platforms, reduction of street parking, and pedestrian seating area mid-block sidewalk extensions into the roadway parking areas. • TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit is the primary bus service provider serving Webster St. Route 61, with BART connections and links at Fruitvale BART station, Oakland’s 12th Street station, and West Oakland BART station with 30 minute headways. AC/East Bay Para transit service provides drop-off at Marina Village and other key locations and BART. AMTRAK connections via Oakland’s Jack London Square. Ferry service: Alameda via Oakland Ferry/ Alameda Point, San Francisco Ferry Terminal, AT&T Ball Park, and Angel Island. Bike Class 1 and Class 2 bike lanes for commute, and recreational use along the shoreline and parksBusiness QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $4.1M, Retail Sales per capita: $5.4M, Accomodations andFood services: $66M, Wholesale: $3.5M, Manufacturing Shipments: $10M, Firms: 6,028 CitywideCorridor Demographics: * Population: 71,805 Corridor/Citywide, 65+ 13%, Housing Units 31,644, Ownership 48%Land Area: 11 Sq. Miles, Population per square mile 6,693, Median Household Income $56,280, PC $30,982Ethnic Background: W 40,929 (56.9%), AFA 4,452 (6.2%), Asian 18,669 (26.1%), Hispanic 6,462 (9.3%), Other3,303 (4.6%), Median House: $345K, Mean travel time to work: 30 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000 Alameda City______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 21Table 7-1 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor ProfileSan Pablo Avenue, Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123 )Service Types: Rapid Bus R72, Local, Limited, Express ServicesStop Spacing: .54-.64 Mile, 26 Stops (Rapid 72) 12 Min. peak/15 Min. off-peak 6 am-7 pm Mon.-Sat.Corridor Length: 14 miles Contra Costa College/San Pablo to Jack London Sq./OaklandSurveyed San Pablo/R123: MacArthur to MacDonald., North/South bound, 6.5/14 MilesRidership: 15,000 After Rapid R72: 66% Increase Peak, 200% increase- All Day 45,000*System Characteristics:RAPID BUS IMPROVEMENT: RAPID BUS SERVICE with .54-.64 Mile Stop Spacing,TRANSIT PRIORITY all signals, No exclusive bus lanes, Corridor TOD Development • Intersection priority—Headway-based Opticom System, bus stop relocation far-side, no exclusive bus lanes, new bus shelters with real-time information-NextBus, New branding • Bus equipment improved, low floor buses (40 foot Van Hoot*), onboard bus stop information display, AC Rapid Bus Branding/Identity-Bus exteriors/interiors and shelters • NextBus Displays at all AC Rapid Bus Shelters (Rapid 72 start-up 2003/04*)San Pablo Ave. Improvements: Bus shelters curb-side loading, Rapid Branding, NextBus displays,Signal Priority at all intersections, “Smart Corridors” technology Implementation Estimate: $1M per mile*Goals: 1. To enhance San Pablo Corridor’s livability and commercial viability with safe efficienttransportation accessibility (AC Transit), and urban arterials improvement. 2. Improve multi-modal safetyand congestion mitigation along Route 123 by implementing “Smart Corridors” improvements/technologythrough (CMA) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 3. Implementation of TSP at 62 corridorintersections, Collect real-time information about traffic conditions 4. To increase ridership and and reducerunning time (*Reported as 26%-30% faster, with a 66% Peak Hour increase in ridership and a 200%increase in all-day ridership). 5. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, walkability-safety*Note: Data from AC Transit, San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus Fact Sheet, Mineta Transportation Institute ReportF-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 22Table 7-2 AC Transit’s San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor ProfileSan Pablo Avenue, AC Transit Rapid Bus R72, Route 123 Corridor76.3% Business Impact Score, 3rd PlaceTransit Agency: AC Transit – Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (7 Cities/Caltrans R123)Stop Spacing: .54-.64 Mile, 26 stops (Rapid 72) 12 Min. peak/15 Min. off-peak 6 am-7 pm Mon-Sat.Corridor Length: 14 miles Contra Costa College/San Pablo to Jack London Sq./OaklandSurveyed San Pablo/Route 123: MacArthur Blvd. to MacDonald Ave., North/South bound, 6.5/14 MilesSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit ConnectivityA summary of the San Pablo Route 123 AC R72 and “Smart Corridors” project: • AC Transit’s San Pablo Ave. Rapid R72 and “Smart Corridors” Project was coordinated through the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), the lead agency responsible for design, implementation, and operation of the San Pablo SMART Corridor and its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).The TAC is composed of staff from the seven corridor cities, Caltrans, ACCMA, MTC, AC Transit, BART, Port of Oakland and other agencies in addressing the multimodal transportation interaction and links with the R72 Rapid Bus service. (1903-1948/1958 the Key System ran the R123 to SF) • TRANSIT Connectivity: AC Transit is the primary bus service provider serving San Pablo Route 123, with BART connections at BART El Cerrito del Norte and El Cerrito Plaza stations, Oakland’s 12th Street station, and West Oakland BART station. AMTRAK connections via Emeryville and Oakland’s Jack London Square. Ferry service: Alameda via Oakland Ferry/ Alameda Point to San Francisco Ferry Terminal, AT&T Ball Park, and Angel Island.Business QuickFacts: *Retail Sales: $16.5B, Retail Sales per capita: $11.2M, Accomodations andFood services: $66M, Wholesale: $41B, Manufacturing Shipments: $29.6B, Firms: 120,293 CountyCorridor Demographics: * Population: 135,000 corridor Alameda County, 65+ 10.5%, Housing Units 62,474,Population Density per sq. mile 11,000-18,000, Median Household Income $57,659, *Low Income/poverty 14%Ethnic Background: W 61,290 (45.4%), AFA 20,115 (14.9%), Asian 24,300 (18.4%), Hispanic 18,900 (14%), Other10,395 (7.7%), Median House: $303K, Mean travel time to work: 31 Minutes * U.S. Census 1997/2000/AC Transit*______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 23Table 8-1 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720, Corridor ProfileWILSHIRE Blvd., Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st PlaceTransit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityService Types: Rapid Bus R720, Local, Express ServicesStop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headwaysCorridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Pacific Ave./Santa MonicaSurveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Pacific Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 MilesRidership: 90,000 Rapid R720: 47% Increase from previous 43,200, 29% reduction in travel time *System Characteristics:RAPID BUS IMPROVEMENT: RAPID BUS SERVICE with .75-1 Mile Stop Spacing,Transit Signal Priority, No exclusive bus lanes*1, Corridor TOD Development • Intersection priority - bus stop relocation far-side, no exclusive bus lanes, Peak direction parking lane usage*1, new bus shelters with real-time information-NextBus, New branding • Bus equipment improved, NABI Low floor articulated 60’ CNG buses, onboard information display, Metro Rapid Bus Branding/Identity-Bus exteriors/interiors and shelters • NextBus Displays at all Metro Rapid Bus Shelters (Curbside lane Peak Period Demo* 2004)Wilshire Blvd. Improvements: New designed bus shelters, curb-side loading, Rapid bus branding,NextBus displays, Signal Priority at 70% - intersections, Implementation Cost: $182M or $14M per mile*Goals: 1. Reduction in travel time, congestion, with BRT/Rapid Bus as a LRT alternative 2. To enhanceWilshire Blvd. Corridor’s livability and commercial viability with safe and efficient accessible transportation3. Improve multi-modal safety and congestion mitigation along Wilshire Blvd. by implementing “SmartCorridors” improvements/technology-LADOT 4. Implementation of TSP at corridor intersections, Collectreal-time information about traffic conditions 5. To increase ridership and and reduce running time(*Reported as 29%-40% faster, with a 47% increase in daily corridor ridership (90,000). 6. Supportinterconnectivity with the Red-line and rail links throught transfer hubs. 7. Grow ridership to justify futureLRT investment 8. Support corridor multi-use/housing (TOD) development, pedestrian walkability-safety*Note: Data from LA Metro, Planning Reports 2005 Wilshire Rapid BRT, Mineta Transportation Institute ReportF-04-01, Bus in the Fast Lane: A Forum on Bus Rapid Transit in the Bay Area.______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

BRT/Rapid Bus Impacts on Transit Corridor Businesses 24Table 8-2 LA Metro’s Wilshire Metro Rapid 720. Corridor ProfileWILSHIRE Blvd. Metro Rapid Bus R720, Wilshire Corridor BRT81.8% Business Impact Score, 1st PlaceTransit Agency: LA Metro – Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityStop Spacing: .75-1 Mile, 15 Stops (Rapid 720) 3-4 minute headways Wilshire/Whittier R720 26 StopsCorridor Length: 13 miles LA Downtown-Grand/Wilshire to Ocean Ave./Santa MonicaSurveyed Wilshire Blvd.: Grand Ave. to Ocean Ave., East/West bound, 13/26 MilesSummary Overview: Corridor Characteristics and Transit ConnectivityA summary of Los Angeles LA Metro Rapid 720 Wilshire Corridor: • LA Metro’s Transit’s Wilshire BRT/Rapid Bus Project has been strikingly successful with operating speed, reduced wait times, service quality, ridership and customer response exceeding the original objectives, with little negative impact on the system or other travel modes. • Rapid 720 Wilshire/Whittier Corridor: high passenger demand urban corridor connecting through the Los Angeles Central Business District (LACBD), 2/3 travel lanes, 2 parking lanes • BRT/Rapid Program Objectives*1: 1. Reduce Passenger Travel Times (-29%), 2. Increase Ridership (+42%), 3. Attract New Riders (+33.3%) 4. Increase Service Reliability (Yes), 5. Improve Fleet and Facility Design (Yes), 6. Improve Service Effectiveness (+17%), 7. Build Positive Relations with Communities (Ongoing) *LA Metro Rapid Demonstration Program Final Report, March 2002 • TRANSIT Connectivity: LA Metro serves Wilshire Corridor with Metro Red Line connections at Wilshire- Normandie/Vermont/Alvarado and Blue Line via 7th/Metro Center/Julian Dixon Station • Future: Exclusive lanes/by-pass lanes, pre-board fare collection, high capacity multi door fleetLA* Business QuickFacts: Retail Sales: $92B, Retail Sales per capita: $9M, Accomodations and Foodservices: $14B, Wholesale: $198B, Manufacturing Shipments: $108B, LA Firms: 1.2M Estimated – *U.S. CensusLA County Demographics: * Population: 9,948,081,000, 65+ 10.1%, Housing Units 3,339,763,000Population Density per sq. mile 2,344, Median Household Income $43,518, *Low Income/poverty 16.7%Ethnic Background: W (29.5%), AFA (9.7%), Asian (13.1%), Hispanic (46.8%), Other (3.2%), Median Owner-Occupied Housing Unit: $209K, Mean travel time to work: 29.6 Minutes, *U.S. Census 2000/2005*Note: Final Report LA Metro Rapid, 2002*1, Jobs on LA’s Grand Blvd., Community Redevelopment Agency-2006______________________________________________________________________________ Mineta Transportation Institute-M.S.T.M. “Capstone”

Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements

Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements

Similaire à Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements (20)

Plus de Roger Bazeley, USA

Plus de Roger Bazeley, USA (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Businesses Impacted by BRT Improvements