Bus Stop Design Literature
Much of the literature on the design of bus stops is developed and maintained, unsurprisingly, by bus
operators (Benn, 1995). The operational dimension of the material is evident in the customary topics
covered by most design guidelines: stop placement, shelters and seating, service information and
amenities, pedestrian pathways, roadway requirements, maintenance, and procedure (Darnell &
Associates, 2006; Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997; Greater Manchester, 2007; Harvey & Algar, 2004; Mohammed,
1999; TriMet, 2002).
Stop Placement
At the macro scale, stop placement is about the spacing of stops. In this, the literature demonstrates
the tension behind most transit operations—that which exists between speed and access. Spacing stops
more closely together reduces walk distances and thereby increases accessibility to the system (Harvey
& Algar, 2004). But it also tends to slow operations, increasing service time differentials compared to
driving, which tends to erode ridership potential (TTI, 1996).
Chien and Qin (2004) break the literature in this area into three approach types. The first approach
specifies stop locations by assessing the distribution of demand, through surveys of rider preferences
(Fitzpatrick, Perkinson & Hall, 1997; Van Nes, 2000) or by consideration of total costs to riders as well as
non-riders (other road users, local residents, and businesses) (Brouwer, 1983; Wirasinghe, 1981). The
second approach optimizes both routes and stop spacings simultaneously for entire bus systems using
traditional origin-demand (O-D) data distributed geospatially (Chien & Schonfeld, 1997; Chien & Yang,
2000; Chien, Spasovic, et al., 2000; Holroyd, 1967). The third approach optimizes system costs by
focusing on temporal demand issues in various ways (Bramel & Simchi-Lemi, 1996; Gerrard & Hundle,
1975; Chien, Yang & Hou, 2001). Against this literature, Chien and Qin (2004) offer an optimization
model that incorporates both system and user costs, with the latter based on the estimated riders’ value
of time at three levels: walk time to the stop, wait time at the stop, and in-vehicle time.
A fourth approach, not listed by Chien and Qin, relies on qualitative methods, rather than numeric
techniques, for establishing stop spacing. The basis for this approach is the assertion that the degree of
variation of site specific conditions is too broad to be fully captured in a quantitative method. Instead,
location criteria should take the form of guidelines that can be adjusted to individual circumstances
(Demetsky & Asce, 1982).
In practice, the spacing of stops varies widely from agency to agency. Ammons (2001) reports a range of
650 to nearly 2000 feet between stops among U.S. transit agencies. Reilly (1997) highlights a contrast in
stop spacing practice between U.S. and European agencies, with the former placing 7 to 10 stops per
mile, while the latter placing only 3 to 4 stops per mile. Table 1 summarizes stop spacing standards
synthesized in two industry-wide studies (TTI, 1996; TRB, 1980).
TABLE 1. Synthesis of Bus Stop Spacing Standards (in feet) (TTI, 1996; TRB, 1980)
TCRP Report 19
NCHRP 69
High density (80 unites/acre), CBD,
shopping centers
300-1000
440-528
Fully developed residential area (22
to 80 units/acre)
500-1200
660-880
Low density residential (4 to 22
unites/acre)
600-2500
2640 -1056
Rural (less than 4 unites/acre)
650-2640
2640-1320
At the micro scale, stop location focuses on the precise placement of a stop within a given streetscape.
The three basic placement options are the near-side approach to an intersection, the far-side exit from
an intersection, and mid-block locations (usually requiring a mid-block crosswalk) (Demetsky & Asce,
1982; Fitzpatrick & Nowlin, 1997; TriMet, 2002). The predominant consideration is the safety waiting
bus passengers, other non-motorized travelers (pedestrians and bicyclists), the buses (and their
occupants), and other motorists (TTI, 1996). Key factors that figure into these assessments are proximity
to adjacent street intersections, pedestrian crossings, road geometry (curves or crests), on-street
parking, ingress/egress to surrounding structures, fire/emergency access requirements, and curb cuts
for driveways and parking lots (Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997; Harvey & Algar, 2004; Roads Service, 2005).
Shelters and Seating
An early contribution to the literature by Bodmer and Reiner (1977) identifies the bus stop as the
“primary interface between the patron and the transit system” (p. 48) whose basic function is to provide
a place to wait for the arrival of a bus. When this wait is uncomfortable or inconvenient, transit’s
perceived or actual disamenity value compared to the automobile is highlighted. However, if the stop
provides comfort and even diversion, the disamentity value is suppressed. The presence of a shelter at
the stop is a necessary condition—the authors cite a study indicating that riders are willing to walk half a
block further to a sheltered bus stop—but shelters that are “isolated passive agents” will do little to
provide a positive interface. Instead, the objective of the shelter should be to seamlessly integrate the
community, the transit system, and the patron. The aspiration should be to provide an environment
analogous to airport terminals and main train stations. To this end, shelters should meet certain
minimum functions, including providing security, comfortable rest, access for the disabled, and
protection from the weather. The authors assert that a well-designed shelter contains no fewer than
three different zones, each serving a different function, including an entrance/interface with the
pedestrian environment of the sidewalk, a secure, protected waiting area, and a loading/unloading area
at the curb (see Figure 1). This three-zone approach is reflected in the later literature (Mohammed,
1999), with particular emphasis on placing shelters far enough away from the curb to guard waiting
patrons from high levels of noise and vehicle exhaust (Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997).
FIGURE 1. Functional Schematic of a Transit Shelter (Bodmer and Reiner, 1977).
Factors to be incorporated into a design process should include the needs of the riders, the types and
amounts of transit serving the stop, surrounding pedestrian and vehicular systems, space availability,
desired activities and amenities, materials, maintenance, accessibility for the mobility-limited, weather
protection, and aesthetics (Bodmer & Reiner, 1977; Road Service, 2005). The process for shelter design
should follow a logical progression of steps, including (1)the identification of environmental attributes of
the site and the attributes of likely users, (2) the definition of the design problem to be solved in terms
of needs and objectives, (3) the consideration of social, physical, and technical issues, (4) the definition
of functions to be accommodated by the shelter, (5) the development of alternatives and a process for
selecting an alternative, (6) the creation of an implementation process (Bodmer & Reiner, 1977).
In a unique analysis of bus stops, Ewing (2000) reports on the use of a “visual preference survey” to
identify important stop features. Survey participants—transit riders, non-riders, and planners—were
shown 50 pairs of bus stop photographs and asked to select at which of the two they would prefer to
wait and to rate each stop on a 5-point scale. For the first 25 pairs, respondents were asked to give the
reasons for their selections. The results were assessed using multiple regression techniques that
incorporated 25 design-related variables. All three respondent groups rated the presence of ads at
stops negatively, and the presence of shelters and trees positively. Combined scores show the most
important features are a shelter, a bench, trees at the stop, a curb, trees along the sidewalk leading to
the stop, and the setback of the stop from the street edge.
Most shelter design standards focus on basic dimensional standards, including the distance to the
streetside curb, the degree of sidewalk obstruction, sight lines for bus operators, and seating (Harvey &
Algar, 2004; Road Service, 2005; TriMet, 2002). Other values promoted in most guidelines include
protection from weather and passing vehicles (especially splashes). Most guidelines assert that having a
shelter at every stop is the agency’s aspiration, while acknowledging that fiscal realities necessitate
including standards for determining which stops should have shelters. Most of these standards are tied
to actual or anticipated ridership. (e.g., Road Service, 2005; TriMet, 2002).
Given that most of the shelter design standards are pretty basic and quantitative – the shelter should be
X feet from the curb and the seats should be Y inches high—there is significant variation in produced
shelter designs. This variation has provided a rather robust traffic in unusual and amusing shelter types,
many of which are featured on a variety world wide websites (Toxel.com, 2008; Trend.Land, 2009;
Village of Joy, 2008). The relative flexibility in the standards has also provided opportunities for design
competitions, like those sponsored in Oklahoma City (AIA, 2005) and Salt Lake City (Warburton, 2006).
Service Information and Amenities
Service information standards run the gamut from providing a simple bus stop sign to electronic reader
boards with real time information on bus lines and arrival times. In between these extremes are a
number of design standards providing service maps, printed schedules, fare information, and route
information (Roads Service, 2005; TriMet, 2002). Most design standards articulate a sliding scale for
service information that is hinged to the actual or anticipated ridership of a stop: stops with high
ridership (and usually multiple bus routes) receive higher levels of service information than those with
lower ridership.
The range of amenities addressed in bus stop design guidelines is wide. Across the literature, the
common topics include bicycle parking, public telephones, trash cans, and seats (Fitzpatrick, et al.,
1997). New technologies, however, are greatly expanding the range of amenities available. New options
include solar-powered lighting, air conditioning, heating, and ATMs (Izzett, 2008), and touch screens
that provide real-time service information, allow for web-browsing, and facilitate message posting by
patrons (Tuvie, 2009).
Pedestrian Pathways
Fitzpatrick, et al. (1997; TTI, 1996), in their extensive assessment of the state of the practice for the
Transit Cooperative Research Program, identify pedestrian access to the stop as a central element to
good design. Incomplete, inadequate, poorly maintained, and indirect pedestrian connections inhibit
access to the stop and, hence, tend to discourage transit use: “Walls, landscaping berms, fences, large
parking lots, circuitous sidewalks and sidewalks far from the curb can detract from the experience of
using transit by increasing walking time and limiting direct access between the bus stop, sidewalk and
land use” (Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997, p. 40). The authors list a number of methods of overcoming these
conditions, where they already exist, and of avoiding them in initial construction.
Roadway Requirements
The roadway design requirements for bus stops focus on two primary issues: the ease and safety of rider
boardings and alightings, and the safety of the bus itself and other vehicles given traffic conditions
during service hours. With respect to the first issue, the focus is on the ability of the bus to pull parallel
to the curb (Demestky & Asce, 1982) and the curb’s height compared the height of the first step of
buses in that system’s fleet (Road Service, 2005). A common standard in many design manuals specifies
a minimum of 45 feet of curb space for each 40 foot bus expected to be or arrive at the stop
simultaneously (Demestky & Asce, 1982). However, some guidelines call for “bus bulbs”—sometimes
also called “footway build outs” and “nubs”—where the bus stop is an extension of the curb into the
roadway (see Figure 2). This is particularly appropriate in dense urban conditions where on-street
parking and commercial loading zones make attaining parallel approaches to the curb difficult (Road
Service, 2005; Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997). Another less common configuration are “boarding islands,”
where the stop is located in between the lanes of a multi-lane arterial. This arrangement is sometimes
necessary to accommodate high volume right-turning traffic or the needs of overhead catenary power
supplies (for trolley buses or streetcars) (Patrinick, 2006).
FIGURE 2. A Bus Bulb (Road Service, 2005).
With respect to the safety of the bus and other traffic, the question is whether the bus can safely stop in
traffic or whether a dedicated pull out (bus bay) is required. Most guidelines set numeric traffic
standards (in terms of either traffic volume or speed) as the trigger for the construction of bus bays
(Fitzpatrick, et al., 1997; Fitzpatrick & Nowlin, 1997; TTI, 1996;). An innovative approach recommended
in some guidelines for high volume/speed arterials is a “queue jumper” stop, which utilizes a right turn
lane only/bus lane on the near-side of the intersection, a far-side bus bay, and special signal timing
cycles to give buses the opportunity to bypass queued vehicle traffic (see Figure 3; Fitzpatrick, et al.,
1997).
FIGURE 3. A Queue-Jumper Bus Stop Design (Fitzpatrick & Nowlin, 1997).
Accessibility and Universal Design
A layer underlying virtually every aspect of bus stop design is compliance with the ADA . Most guidance
documents address ADA issues comprehensively (e.g., BC Transit, n.d.; Mohammend, 1999; Roads
Service, 2005; TriMet, 2002). To help transit agencies in this process, the Easter Seals Project ACTION
has produced a Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety through a cooperative
agreement with U.S. DOT (Nelson\Nygaard, n.d.). After debunking some myths about the ADA and
accessible design, the Toolkit articulates three principles for accessible bus stop design: barrier-free
design, urban wayfinding, and safety and warning. As with many design guidance documents, the Toolkit
contains an inventory/assessment tool for measuring the accessibility of existing or possible future bus
stops. The Toolkit distinguishes between accessible design, which it asserts “focuses on compliance
with laws and regulations and state or local building codes” (p. 13), and universal design, which it
defines as providing for the needs of everyone—“parents pushing strollers, travelers pulling
luggage, the older man needing a little more time to cross a street” (p. 13)—as well as those with
disabilities. The Toolkit then provides two sets of guidelines, one for each design approach—
accessible and universal—for each of the following topics: landing pads, shelters, lighting,
pathways, service information, and amenities. The Toolkit concludes with discussion of
maintenance, agency coordination, driver training, and technology.
References
American Institute of Architects (AIA). Strengthening Oklahoma City One Bus Stop at a Time.
http://www.okcbusstops.com/. Accessed July 24, 2009.
Ammons, D. N. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community
Standards (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001.
Benn, H. Bus Route Evaluation Standards. TCRP Synthesis 10. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, 1995.
BC Transit. Design Guidelines for Accessible Bus Stops. Vancouver, BC: BC Transit Municipal Systems
Program, n.d.
Bodmer, L. A. and M. A. Reiner. Approach to the Planning and Design of Transit Shelters. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 625, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 1977, pp. 48-53.
Bramel, J. and D. Simchi-Lemi. (1996) Probabilistic Analysis and Practical Algorithms for the Vehicle
Routing Problem with Time Windows. Operations Research, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1996, pp. 501–599.
Brouwer, P. Position and Design of Bus Stops in Urban Areas. UITP Revue, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1983, pp. 74-86.
Chien, S. I. and Z. Qin. Optimization of Bus Stop Locations for Improving Transit Accessibility.
Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 27, 2004, pp. 211-227.
Chien, S. and P. Schonfeld. Optimization of Grid Transit System in Heterogeneous Urban Environment.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 1, 1997, pp. 28–35.
Chien, S., L. Spasovic, R. Chhonkar, and S. Elefsiniotis. Evaluation of Feeder Bus System with Probabilities
Time-Varying Demands and Non-Additive Time Costs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1760, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 47–55.
Chien, S. and Z. Yang. Optimal Feeder Bus Routes with Irregular Street Networks. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000, pp. 213–248.
Chien, S., Z. Yang, and E. Hou. A Genetic Algorithm Approach for Transit Route Planning and Design.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 3, 2001, pp. 200–207.
Darnell & Associates. Bus Stop Design Guidelines. San Bernardino County, CA: Omnitrans, 2006.
Demetsky, M. J. and M. Asce, and B. B. Lin. Bus Stop Location and Design. Transportation Engineering
Journal, Vol. 108, No. 4., 1982, pp. 313-327.
Ewing, R. Asking Transit Users about Transit-Oriented Design. In Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1735, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 19-24..
Fitzpatrick, K., K. Hall, D. Perkinson, and L. Nowlin. Location and Design of Bus Stops. ITE Journal, Vol. 67,
No. 5, 1997, pp. 36-41.
Fitzpatrick, K. and R. L. Nowlin. Effects of Bus Stop Design on Suburban Arterial Operations. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1571,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 31-41.
Fitzpatrick, K., D. Perkinson, and K. Hall. Findings from a Survey on Bus Stop Design. Journal of Public
Transportation, Vol. 1, no. 3, 1997, pp. 17-27.
Gerrard, C. and V. F. Hundle. (1975) An Operating Strategy for a Commuter Bus System. Transportation
Science, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1975, pp. 1–20.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. Design Guidelines for Bus Stops in Greater
Manchester. Author, Manchester, UK, 2007.
Harvey, M. and R. Algar. Bus Stop and Bus Shelter Policy & Guidelines. Manukau City Council, Manukau,
NZ, 2004.
Holroyd, E. The Optimal Bus Service: A Theoretical Model for a Large Uniform Urban Area. In Vehicular
Traffic Science. Elsevier, New York, 1967, pp. 309–328.
Izzett, C. Transit Shelters: Not Just a Bus Stop Anymore. Metro, Vol. 104, No. 5, 2008, pp. 68-73.
Mohammed, T. Pace Development Guidelines. Pace, Arlington Heights, IL, 1999.
Nelson\Nygaard. Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety. Washington, DC: Easter
Seals, n.d.
Patrinick, S. Bus Stop Placement in San Francisco: A Flexible Process for an Activist City. San Francisco
Municipal Railway, San Francisco, CA, 2006.
Reilly, J. M. Transit Service Design and Operation Practices in Western European Countries. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1604,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 3-8.
Roads Service. Bus Stop Design Guide. Belfast, Ireland: UK Dept. for Regional Development, 2005.
Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops. TCRP Report 19.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 1996.
Toxel.com. Creative Bus Stop Advertisements. http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2008/10/03/creativebus-stop-advertisements/. Accessed July 24, 2009.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). Bus Route and Schedule Planning Guidelines. NCHRP Synthesis 69.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 1980.
Trend.Land. Creative Bus Stop Design. http://cyanatrendland.com/2009/05/26/creative-bus-stopdesign/. Accessed July 24, 2009.
TriMet. Bus Stop Guidelines 2002. TriMet, Portland, OR, 2002.
Tuvie. EyeStops: Futuristic Bus Stops from SENSEable City Lab of MIT. Tuvie: Design of the Future.
http://www.tuvie.com/eyestops-futuristic-bus-stops-from-senseable-city-lab-of-mit. Accessed July 24,
2009.
Van Nes, R. and P. H. L. Bovy. Importance of Objectives in Urban Transit-Network Design. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1735,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2000, pp. 25-34.
Village of Joy. Interesting Bus-Stops around the World. http://villageofjoy.com/interesting-bus-stopsaround-the-world/. Accessed July 24, 2009.
Warburton, N. U. Student Entries May Be the Future TRAX Stops. Deseret News, Jan. 14, 2006.
Wirasinghe, S. C. and N. S. A. Ghoneim. Spacing of Bus-Stops for Many-to-Many Travel Demand.
Transportation Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1981, pp. 210-221.