Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
September 2006
Prepared by:
STV Incorporated
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1
II.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 8
III. CREATING THE BERGEN BRT SYSTEM .............................................................. 9
A. Blue Route Description ....................................................................................... 11
B. Orange Route Description .................................................................................. 15
IV. SELECTING THE INITIAL OPERATING SEGMENT ............................................ 19
A. Initial Operating Segment Alternatives ............................................................... 19
B. Selection of the Initial Operating Segment ......................................................... 22
C. Initial Operating Segment Cost Estimates .......................................................... 24
V.
ELEMENTS OF THE BERGEN BRT SYSTEM ..................................................... 26
Station Design Components and Locations ........................................................ 26
1. Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) .......................................................... 26
2. Transportation Center (TC) ............................................................................. 26
3. Park & Ride Station ......................................................................................... 27
4. BRT Urban Station .......................................................................................... 27
5. BRT Station Amenities .................................................................................... 27
B. Transit Priority Feasibility ................................................................................... 31
1. Traffic Priority Options .................................................................................... 31
a) Traffic Signal Preemption ............................................................................ 31
b) Queue Jumpers ........................................................................................... 32
c) Designated (Reserved) Lanes ..................................................................... 33
d) Exclusive Transit Vehicle On-ramps ............................................................ 33
C. Benefits of Transit Priority Systems .................................................................... 33
D. Signalized Intersection Survey ........................................................................... 34
E. Transit Priority Findings ...................................................................................... 34
F. OPERATING PLAN ............................................................................................ 35
1. Assumptions ................................................................................................... 35
2. Operating Hours and Frequency of Service .................................................... 36
3. Running Times ................................................................................................ 36
a) Blue Route................................................................................................... 36
b) Orange Route .............................................................................................. 36
4. Ridership ......................................................................................................... 37
5. Peak Vehicle Requirements ............................................................................ 41
6. Fare Collection Strategies ............................................................................... 42
a) Proof of Payment ......................................................................................... 42
b) Smart Cards ................................................................................................ 43
7. Pre-Trip Information Systems ......................................................................... 45
A.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
i
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
VI. FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................ 48
A. Funding the Initial Operating Segment: FTA Small Starts Program.................... 48
B. Full System Capital Funding Sources ................................................................. 50
C. Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources ................................................... 52
VII. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................... 54
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Technical Memorandum 1
APPENDIX B – Signalized Intersection Surveys
APPENDIX C – Year 2015 Demand Forecasting Using NJTDFM
APPENDIX D – Full System Capital and O&M Costs
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Blue Route Description .................................................................................... 13
Table 2: Orange Route Description ............................................................................... 17
Table 3: Comparison of Initial Operating Segment Alternatives .................................... 21
Table 4: Initial Operating Segment Capital Costs .......................................................... 24
Table 5: Initial Operating Segment Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................... 24
Table 6: BRT Station Amenities .................................................................................... 28
Table 7: Blue Route Stations - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction ..................................... 29
Table 8: Orange Route Stations - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction .. 30
Table 9: Bergen Rapid Transit Travel Time Savings ..................................................... 38
Table 10: First Cut Preliminary BRT Ridership .............................................................. 39
Table 11: Peak Vehicle Requirements .......................................................................... 41
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure ES 1: Blue Route Initial Operating Segment – Ridgewood Park-and-Ride to NJT
Secaucus Junction …………………..……………………………………….........................4
Figure ES 2: Bergen Rapid Transit Blue and Orange Routes …………………………….6
Figure 1: Bergen Rapid Transit Blue and Orange Routes ............................................ 10
Figure 2: Blue Route - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction .................................................. 12
Figure 3: Orange Route – Bergen Community College to Secaucus ............................ 16
Figure 4: Blue Route Initial Operating Segment – Ridgewood Park-and-Ride to NJT
Secaucus Junction ........................................................................................................ 23
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
ii
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing public transit network in Bergen County is primarily oriented toward bringing
commuters to and from New York City during the morning and afternoon rush hours. This
system was developed incrementally by various competing private entities during a time when
most suburban residents commuted to Manhattan. Mirroring a national pattern, employment has
decentralized with more and more jobs moving to suburban areas. The majority of Bergen
County residents - 57.6% - work within the County.
Intra-county trips to work, coupled with suburban land use patterns that encourage automobile
use, have resulted in increasing traffic congestion within Bergen County. The spine of the
County – the Route 17 Corridor – experiences congestion from rising traffic volumes and
decreasing roadway speeds and Levels of Service. Building new limited access highways to
relieve this road congestion is not a viable option given the high cost of property acquisition and
construction and the high societal costs of highway expansion, including air quality impacts and
homeowner and business displacements. Even if new highways were built, past experience has
shown that the new transportation capacity is quickly absorbed by new users.
Meanwhile, Bergen County’s comprehensive network of bus and rail transit services, while very
effective at providing express service to Manhattan, is much less effective at serving intraBergen County travel needs. Currently there is no express or limited stop transit service oriented
towards intra-county travel.
Bergen County residents and visitors must take circuitous routes for travel to employment,
entertainment, recreation, or shopping trips within the County. While local buses provide some
service for travel between intra-county destinations, the service is slow and infrequent. Trips
involve multiple transfers resulting in extended wait times.
The proposed Bergen Rapid Transit (BRT) system is based upon the emerging concept of bus
rapid transit service, a new mode that is favorably viewed by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) because of its flexibility and cost-effectiveness. Bus rapid transit combines the customerfriendly and attractive features of light rail with the flexibility of roadway-based transit services
that cost much less than rail systems.
Bergen Rapid Transit is specifically designed to offer a viable travel option for intra-county trips.
Offering a new, high-speed, premium-quality transit service this system will take Bergen County
residents and visitors to work, entertainment, recreation, health care, and shopping by connecting
to the myriad destinations within the County. Bergen Rapid Transit is customized for the unique
needs of Bergen County residents and will entice people from their cars, thereby reducing singleoccupancy vehicle travel by offering a fast, reliable, and efficient transit service that is
competitive with the automobile.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
1
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
What differentiates Bergen Rapid Transit from other transit services?
Bergen Rapid Transit offers:

Flexibility. Service can adapt and expand in response to demand, unlike rail service
which is confined to a single right-of-way.

Cost Effectiveness. Lower capital and operating costs than light rail or commuter rail,
and it is a more effective service for lower density suburban settings.

Efficiency. Routes are designed to provide direct service wherever possible, minimizing
time consuming detours and indirect routings.

Frequent Service and Reliability. Service operates throughout the day with consistent
scheduled departure times that are easy to remember, eliminating the need to carry a
schedule.

Traffic Priority Treatments. Shoulder lanes, queue jumping, and traffic signal
preemption which will help reduce travel times.

Premier Service. Stylish vehicles will have a light rail look and feel to them, stopping at
stations that feature attractive platforms, canopies, shelters, seating, maps, and artwork.

Increased Transit Visibility. Strong brand identity will distinguish Bergen Rapid
Transit from other services. Applied to vehicles, stations, maps, schedules, and
advertising, it will create a consistent image.

Enhanced Accessibility. Station platforms that offer level boarding, making it easy for
the elderly, disabled, and children to board. Reduced boarding time will help expedite
your trip.

Real-Time Information. Electronic message signs at stations will provide specific
arrival time and routing information.

Website. Route, schedule and service information will be posted on the Bergen Rapid
Transit website, along with a virtual tour to show new and potential customers how to use
the Bergen Rapid Transit system.

Development Opportunities. Larger stations could become the focal point for new
Transit Oriented Development.

Expedited Fare Collection. Off-vehicle fare collection using the proof of payment
method and smart card technology will offer quicker and more convenient payment
choices, fare flexibility, and speed vehicle boarding.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
2
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
An Overview of the Bergen Rapid Transit System
Initial Operating Segment
To provide immediate tangible results, Bergen County has expressed a desire to implement an
Initial Operating Segment to institute the proposed BRT service concepts and to provide “starter”
service to the County. The Initial Operating Segment has a focused scope and scale of service,
as funding for the full Bergen Rapid Transit may not yet be available. The Initial Operating
Segment consists of the most promising BRT route segments. The full BRT “treatment” is
applied during the Initial Operating Segment and consists of sleek, low-floor vehicles, limitedstop, frequent service, enhanced stations, free or discounted transfers to other transit services, a
strong brand image, and other premium features to test public acceptance of these concepts. An
Initial Operating Segment would allow the BRT system to be developed incrementally and
expanded in phases as funding permits and as ridership grows.
Several Initial Operating Segment alternatives were examined and Alternative 1: The Blue
Route: Ridgewood Park & Ride to NJT Secaucus Station was identified as the most promising
(shown in Figure ES-1).
Alternative 1 provides new regional, intermodal connections anchored by the Ridgewood Parkand-Ride and the NJT Secaucus Junction. Serving the Secaucus Junction station provides
connections to the NJT Pascack Valley Line, Main and Bergen Lines, Montclair-Boonton Line,
Morris and Essex Lines, Northeast Corridor Line, and North Jersey Coast Line with service to
New York City, Hoboken, Newark, Newark Airport, Princeton and Trenton. If agreements can
be made, then new park-and-ride facilities may be established along the route at the Paramus
Park Mall, Fashion Center, Garden State Plaza Mall, and the Bergen Mall. During the Initial
Operating Segment Phase, BRT service would operate every 15 minutes during peak periods and
every 30 minutes during off peak times.
The projected cost of the Initial Operating Segment is $45.5 Million. Since this project is still at
a conceptual level, a 30% unallocated contingency cost is also included in this cost estimate. The
annual operating and maintenance cost is estimated to be $7.9 Million. All operating
assumptions, statistics and unit costs will be further refined during future phases of this project.
There are a number of potential funding sources that may be used for the construction and
operation of the BRT system. Capital costs represent the costs of long-term assets such as transit
priority improvements and vehicles. These could be funded through a combination of various
Federal programs, NJDOT grants, a bond issue or public-private partnerships. As the BRT would
help increase capacity along the Route 17 corridor, various highway funding sources could be
used to help fund construction costs. Further details on the selection of the Initial Operating
Segment can be found in Section IV of the Final Report.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
3
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
Figure ES-1: Blue Route Initial Operating Segment – Ridgewood Park-and-Ride to NJT
Secaucus Junction
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
4
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
Future Expansion
It is recommended that the proposed Bergen Rapid Transit (BRT) system ultimately encompass
two routes within the Route 17 corridor—the Blue Route and the Orange Route—both shown on
Figure ES-2). These two intertwined routes combine to offer both express and limited stop
services, with multiple timed transfer opportunities to transfer between routes. Just as New York
subway riders transfer easily between express and local trains, the pairing of these routes offer
similar possibilities.
The Blue Route—from Ramapo College in Mahwah south to Secaucus Junction Station in
Secaucus—essentially runs express on a north-south axis using major highways and arterials
within the Route 17 corridor to connect major intra-county destinations. To access the portions
where the Blue Route runs express, new Park & Ride facilities are envisioned. The end-to-end
running time for the Blue Route from Ramapo College to Secaucus Junction Station is
approximately 93 minutes.
The Orange Route—from Bergen Community College in Paramus south to Secaucus Junction
Station in Secaucus—has a different character; it includes limited stops and is more of an urban
route, oriented toward linking the neighborhoods to the major intra-county destinations. It runs
along arterial and local roads, including the high-density Prospect Avenue residential corridor
near downtown Hackensack. The Orange Route is intended to serve “walk on” customers, who
can transfer to the Blue Route for express services.
Major stops served by both the Blue Route and the Orange Route (Garden State Plaza Mall,
Bergen Mall, Hackensack University Medical Center, and Secaucus Junction), serve as transfer
points along the BRT system. The running time for the 27-mile-long Orange Route from Bergen
Community College to Secaucus Junction Station is approximately 83 minutes.
The BRT is also designed to facilitate transfers to other existing and proposed NJ Transit rail
service on the Main Line, Bergen County Line, and Pascack Valley Line, as well as NJ Transit
local and express buses and various private bus carriers such as Academy, Air Brook Express,
Red & Tan, and Short Line. The intent is to foster connectivity between modes and carriers so
that customers can use the routes that best suit their needs in terms of preference for speedy
travel times, low fares, and travel mode preferences.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
5
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
Figure ES-2: Bergen Rapid Transit Blue and Orange Routes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
6
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Executive Summary
Given the high number of signalized intersections along the BRT routes, it is recommended that
an active traffic signal priority strategy be implemented. Using this strategy, BRT vehicles would
be given special treatment (i.e., giving an early green signal to the transit vehicle only, or holding
a green signal longer so a transit vehicle can pass through the intersection). This is a costeffective means of reducing BRT trip times and can be implemented quickly and at less
disruption than building new BRT-only lanes or converting existing general use highway lanes to
BRT-only lanes.
Span and Frequency of Service
The full BRT system is proposed to operate from 6AM to 12 midnight, seven days a week.
During the peak periods (weekdays 6AM to 9AM and 4PM to 7PM), service on each route would
operate every 10 minutes. In off-peak periods, the BRT system will operate at 15-minute
intervals on each route. These frequencies can be adjusted to meet ridership demand and growth.
Time Savings and Ridership
The BRT system will provide Bergen County residents, commuters, and visitors with new transit
links that do not exist in the current transportation network. The two new, full routes will provide
Bergen County with a “county focused” transit service that caters to customers making intracounty work, shopping, personal, and recreational trips.
Time savings is an important determinant of projected ridership. Many ridership models
correlate time savings with increased ridership. In general, the faster the trip, the greater the
number of riders. Estimates of travel time savings for various BRT scenarios were developed.
For example, the trip from Fairleigh Dickinson University to the Secaucus Junction Station
would be reduced from 55 minutes using existing transportation to 40 minutes using the BRT,
almost a 25% savings in travel time. The trip from Ramapo College to the Paramus Park Mall
would be reduced from 80 minutes to only 34 minutes, a savings of 46 minutes or more than
50%.
Preliminary ridership projections suggest that the daily weekday ridership on the Blue Route
would be 4,200 passengers and the Orange Line 3,200, for a total of 7,400 daily riders. These
preliminary projections are indicative of a very strong demand for BRT service. When presented
with the ridership projections, NJ Transit was enthusiastic about the proposed BRT service and
indicated a desire to become a partner to help implement the project.
The proposed BRT system responds to the new realities of Bergen County’s travel needs. It
provides a new rapid, high-quality transit service to address demand that is not currently met,
and provides new capacity within the Route 17 corridor. While BRT cannot alleviate all traffic
congestion in the County, it can help by providing a new travel alternative. Above all, the BRT
is a flexible system. The system can grow – adding new routes, stops, and services as demand
increases – and meet the needs of both current and future travelers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
7
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
II.
INTRODUCTION
The analyses conducted for the proposed Bergen Rapid Transit (BRT) system as well as
recommendations are described in this Final Report. This effort builds on the work originally
presented in Technical Memorandum 1 (provided in Appendix A). It included discussions of the
original long list of potential BRT routes, the preliminary screening criteria applied to the routes
on the long list, as well as the evaluation results. The Final Report includes the refinement of the
routes advanced for further consideration, the routes ultimately selected, proposed Initial
Operating Segment, the design and location of stations, traffic priority treatments for each route,
running times, frequency and span of service, peak vehicle requirements, fare collection
strategies, ridership estimates, cost estimates and potential funding sources.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
8
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
III.
CREATING THE BERGEN BRT SYSTEM
The development of the BRT routes has been a highly collaborative, iterative process. To begin
with, 14 segments (both north and south of Route 4) were considered as potential “trunk lines.”
These routes would essentially run on a north-south axis and include express stops. Route 4, a
major east-west arterial, was used as a separator for the north-south segments to allow flexibility
in “mixing and matching” segments to create routes that capture the largest share of potential
riders and that have the capacity for the infrastructure improvements necessary to implement the
BRT system. Two potential “community routes” were also evaluated. These were envisioned as
making limited stops to collect passengers and connecting to the trunk lines at key locations.
Technical Memorandum #1 presented the results of the preliminary screening process. Based on
the initial screening, nine trunk line segments and both community routes were advanced for
further evaluation as the short list of alternatives.
The Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development reviewed the short list
of alternatives and further refined the routings by combining/modifying the potential routes
assessed in Technical Memorandum #1. In some cases, new route segments and/or alignments
were proposed. This new set of routes became Bergen County’s short list of routes.
The two short lists were compared to determine where overlaps might exist and where they
might be consolidated to create a harmonized set of routes. In consultation with the Bergen
County Department of Planning and Economic Development, the two sets of routes were
reviewed and refined and the most promising route segments were combined to form the two
recommended BRT routes, known as the Blue Route and Orange Route (shown in Figure1). The
Blue Route essentially runs express on a north-south axis through Bergen County connecting
major intra-county destinations. The Orange Route, although still making limited stops is more
of an urban route, oriented toward linking the neighborhoods to the major intra-county
destinations. The two routes interconnect at major stops (Garden State Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall,
Hackensack University Medical Center, and Secaucus Junction), allowing transfers between the
Blue and Orange Routes. In addition, intermodal and transportation center stations are proposed
along both routes to provide connections to NJ Transit rail service, express bus service to New
York City, local buses, as well as private bus operators such as Short Line. The market area of
the BRT system would be extended by integrating it with other services.
Based upon the two recommended routes, Bergen County has expressed a desire to implement,
in the nearer-term, an Initial Operating Segment to institute some of the proposed BRT service
concepts and to provide a “starter” service that would provide immediate tangible results at a
significantly lower cost. For an Initial Operating Segment, the scope and scale of service would
be focused, as funding for the more comprehensive Bergen Rapid Transit may not yet be
available. The Initial Operating Segment proposed is described in detail in the next section of
this report (Section IV). It is crucial however, to explain the full-build Blue and Orange Routes
and the development of these concepts, in order to understand the context and evolution of the
proposed Initial Operating Segment.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
9
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Figure 1: Bergen Rapid Transit Blue and Orange Routes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
10
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
A description of both full-build routes, the roadways used, and station stops are provided in the
following sections.
A.
Blue Route Description
The Blue Route would run from Ramapo College in Mahwah to Secaucus Junction in Secaucus,
primarily functioning as an express route while running mostly on major highways within
Bergen County. In the northern part of the County, there are no signalized intersections along
Route 17, and limited commercial development, thereby allowing the free flow of the BRT
vehicles. In Hackensack, the Blue Route shifts to Farview Avenue to parallel Route 17 and
bypass its most congested segment.
The Blue Route (shown in Figure 2) would extend from Mahwah to Secaucus for a total length
of 38.6 miles. This route serves the following municipalities: Mahwah, Ramsey, Ridgewood,
Paramus, and Hackensack. It uses major highways such as Route 17, Interstate 80 (I-80) and
Interstate 95 (I-95) for much of its length in the northern and southern segments of the route and
provides express service over much of its length. Some of the major activity centers served by
the Blue Route include: Ramapo College, NJ TRANSIT Ramsey-Route 17 Station, Paramus
Park Mall, Fashion Center Mall, Bergen County Regional Medical Center, Garden State Plaza
Mall, Bergen Mall, Hackensack University Medical Center, and Secaucus Junction Station.
A detailed description of the Blue Route stations, routing, and locations/activities served is
provided in Table 1. The route operates both in the north and south directions along the same
roadways.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
11
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Figure 2: Blue Route - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
12
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Table 1: Blue Route Description
Station
Ramapo College
NJT Ramsey Rt. 17
Station
Ramsey Square
Shopping Center (SB)
/ Interstate Shopping
Center (NB)
Ridgewood Park &
Ride
Paramus Park Mall
Fashion Center Mall
Oradell Ave. Park &
Ride
Bergen Regional
Medical Center
Garden State Plaza
Mall
Locations/Activities Served
Serves major educational
institution. Provides
connections to Ramapo
College Shuttle and Short
Line Route 1.
Provides intermodal
connections to NJT Main Line
commuter rail.
Route
 East on Rt. 202 to
Rt. 17
 South on Rt. 17
Station to
Station
Distance
(miles)
-
 South on Rt. 17
2.65
Serves major regional retail
destinations.
 South on Rt. 17
0.72
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 163,164,175, 746,
752 and Greyhound longdistance bus, Airport Express
Shuttle
Serves major regional retail
destination. Provides
connections to NJT bus
routes 155,157, 168, 758,
762, and Ramapo College
Shuttle.
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination.
Provides connections to NJT
bus route 762.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 165,762. Provides
intermodal connections to
NJT Pascack Valley Line
commuter rail.
Serves major employment
destination. Provides
connections to NJT bus
routes 758, 762.
 South on Rt. 17 to
A&S Drive exit
 South on Ring Rd.
on west side of
Paramus Park Mall
6.05
 Circulate on Ring Rd.
to Winters Ave.
 North on Winters
Ave.
2.77
 North to Ridgewood
Ave.
 East on Ridgewood
Ave./Oradell Ave.
1.62
 East on Oradell Ave.
to Farview Ave.
 South on Farview
Ave.
0.59
 South on Farview
Ave. to Plaza Way
 West on Plaza Way
to Garden State
Plaza Mall
0.69
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes163, 171, 175, 709,
756, 758, 770 and Ramapo
College Shuttle.
 East on Plaza Way
to Farview Ave.
 North on Farview
Ave. to Spring Valley
Ave.
 East on Spring
Valley Ave.
4.15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
13
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Station
Bergen Mall
Prospect Ave. &
Passaic St.
Prospect Ave. &
Central Ave.
Prospect Ave. &
Beech St.
Hackensack University
Medical Center
Locations/Activities Served
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 171, 756.
Serves dense residential
development along Prospect
Ave. Provides connections to
NJT bus route 162
Serves dense residential
development along Prospect
Ave. Provides connections to
NJT bus route 162.
Serves dense residential
development along Prospect
Ave. Provides connections to
NJT bus route 162
Serves major employment
destination. Transfer point
between Blue Route and
Orange Route. Provides
connections to NJT bus
routes 144, 164.
Essex St. & Polifly Rd.
Serves local neighborhood
area. . Provides connection to
NJT bus route 144.
Secaucus Junction
Station
Provides intermodal
connections to NJT Pascack
Valley Line, Main and Bergen
Lines, Montclair-Boonton
Line, Morris and Essex Lines,
Northeast Corridor Line, and
North Jersey Coast Line.
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 2, 78, 85, 124,
129, 772.
Route
Station to
Station
Distance
(miles)
 East on Spring
Valley Ave. to
Summit Ave.
 South on Summit
Ave. to Passaic Ave.
 East on Passaic Ave.
to Prospect Ave.
 South on Prospect
Ave.
1.98
 South on Prospect
Ave.
1.49
 South on Prospect
Ave.
0.48
 South on Prospect
Ave. to Essex St.
 East on Essex St.
0.27
 East on Essex St. to
Polifly Rd.
0.25
 South on Polifly Rd.
 Merge onto I-80 east
 East on I-80 to I-95
south
0.27
11.88
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
14
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
B.
Orange Route Description
The Orange Route would run from Bergen Community College in Paramus to Secaucus Junction
in Secaucus. It runs along arterial and local roads, including the high-density Prospect Avenue
corridor in Hackensack, linking intra-county destinations, such as the shopping centers along
Route 4.
The Orange Route (shown in Figure 3) would extend from Bergen Community College to
Secaucus for a total length of 27.9 miles. This route serves the following municipalities:
Paramus, Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Wood-Ridge, Rutherford and East Rutherford. Some
of the major activity centers served by the Orange Route include: Bergen Community College,
Ikea, Garden State Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Hackensack Transit
Center, Bergen County Government Complex, Hackensack University Medical Center,
Meadowlands Sports Complex, and Secaucus Junction Station.
A detailed description of the Orange Route stations, routing, and locations/activities served is
provided in Table 2. It is assumed that the route would operate both in the north and south
directions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
15
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Figure 3: Orange Route – Bergen Community College to Secaucus
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
16
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Table 2: Orange Route Description
Station
Bergen Community
College
Century Rd. & College
Rd.
Ikea
Garden State Plaza
Mall
Bergen Mall
Shops at Riverside
Locations/Activities Served
Route
Serves major educational
institution. Provides
connections to NJT bus
routes 163, 756
Serves major regional
employment destination with
high concentration of office
parks/employment centers.
 South on Paramus Rd.
to Century Rd.
 East on Century Rd.
Serves major regional retail
destination.
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes163, 171, 175, 709,
756, 758, 770 and Ramapo
College Shuttle.
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 171, 756.
Serves major regional retail
and employment destination.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 171, 756, 762.
Fairleigh Dickenson
University
Serves major educational
institution.
Hackensack Transit
Center
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 751, 752, 753,
762, 770, 772.
County Buildings
Serves major governmental
institutions and employment
destinations.
 East on Century Rd. to
James F. Brown Jr.
Rd.
Station to
Station
Distance
(miles)
-
1.83
 South on James F.
Brown Jr. Rd. and Ikea
Dr.
0.83
 East on Plaza Way to
Farview Ave.
 North on Farview Ave.
to Spring Valley Ave.
 East on Spring Valley
Ave.
1.89
 East on Spring Valley
Ave. to Forest Ave.
 North on Forest Ave.
 Merge onto Rt. 4 east
 Continue to
Hackensack Ave. exit
2.08
 South on Hackensack
Ave.
2.02
 South on Hackensack
Ave./River St. to
Camden St.
 West on Camden St. to
Moore St.
 South on Moore
St./Church St.
 South on Moore
St./Church St. to Court
St.
 East on Court St. to
River St.
 South on River St. to
Kansas St.
 West on Kansas St. to
Hudson St.
 North on Hudson St. to
Essex St.
 West on Essex St.
0.98
1.49
0.43
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
17
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Station
Hackensack University
Medical Center
Summit Ave. &
Pleasantview Ave.
Boulevard & Williams
Ave.
Locations/Activities Served
Serves major employment
destination. Transfer point
between Blue Route and
Orange Route. Provides
connections to NJT bus
routes 144, 164.
Serves local neighborhood
area. Provides connections to
NJT bus route 163.
Serves local neighborhood
area.
Boulevard & Windsor
Rd.
Serves local neighborhood
area.
Hackensack St. &
Hoboken Rd.
Serves local neighborhood
area.
Intermodal connections to
NJT Pascack Valley
commuter rail
NJ Transit Rutherford
Station
Union Ave. & Murray
Hill Pkwy.
Serves local neighborhood
area.
Serves major entertainment
destinations.
Meadowlands Sport
Complex Station
Secaucus Junction
Station
Provides intermodal
connections to NJT Pascack
Valley Line, Main and Bergen
Lines, Montclair-Boonton
Line, Morris and Essex Lines,
Northeast Corridor Line, and
North Jersey Coast Line.
Transfer point between Blue
Route and Orange Route.
Provides connections to NJT
bus routes 2, 78, 85, 124,
129, 772.
Route
Station to
Station
Distance
(miles)
 West on Essex St. to
Summit Ave.
 South on Summit Ave.
1.12
 South on Summit
Ave./Boulevard
0.89
 South on Boulevard
0.52
 South on Valley Blvd.
to North St.
 East on North St. to
Hackensack St.
 South on Hackensack
St.
 South Hackensack St.
to Union Ave.
 East on Union Ave. to
Murray Hill Pkwy.
 North on Murray Hill
Pkwy. to Meadowlands
Pkwy
 . South on
Meadowlands Pkwy. to
Seaview Ave. to Castle
Rd. to Seaview Ave. to
New County Rd.
1.38
1.41
1.13
0.85
1.72
5.36
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
18
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
IV.
SELECTING THE INITIAL OPERATING SEGMENT
To provide immediate tangible results, Bergen County is considering implementing an Initial
Operating Segment to institute some of the proposed BRT service concepts and to provide a
“starter” service. For an Initial Operating Segment, the scope and scale of service would be
focused and limited, until such time that funding to support a larger system could be secured.
The Initial Operating Segment consists of the most promising BRT route segments. The full
BRT “treatment” is applied during the Initial Operating Segment and consists of sleek, low-floor
vehicles, limited-stop service, frequent service, enhanced BRT stations, free or discounted
transfers to other transit services, a strong brand image, and other premium features to test public
acceptance of these concepts. An Initial Operating Segment would allow the BRT system to be
developed incrementally and expanded in phases as funding permits and as ridership grows.
The Initial Operating Segments were developed by identifying areas with high concentrations of
potential ridership, activity centers and intermodal opportunities within the Blue and Orange
Routes as described in the Final Report.
A.
Initial Operating Segment Alternatives
Five Initial Operating Segment alternatives were examined:

Alternative 1: Blue Route: Ridgewood Park & Ride to NJT Secaucus Station

Alternative 2: Blue Route: Garden State Plaza Mall to NJT Secaucus Station

Alternative 3: Orange Route: BCC College to NJT Rutherford Station

Alternative 4: Combination of Alternatives 1 + 3

Alternative 5: Combination of Alternatives 2 + 3
For each of the five alternatives, basic information concerning the type or route, number of
stations, route length, areas and major activity centers served, run times, fleet requirements, and
capital costs were developed. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 3. Using this
information, the alternatives were compared to each other and the most promising Initial
Operating Segment was identified.
The Initial Operating Segment alternatives were evaluated using the following criteria:

The Initial Operating Segment capital cost should not exceed $50 Million.

The Initial Operating Segment should serve origin and destination pairs that are not
currently well served by existing transit services.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
19
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report

The Initial Operating Segment should serve portions of the routes with the highest
ridership.

The Initial Operating Segment should offer new regional, intermodal transfer opportunities
as well as new park-and-ride opportunities (assuming agreements with mall owners can be
reached).

The Initial Operating Segment should fall within close proximity to the Route 17 Corridor
and its key activity centers, but also have the ability to bypass its most congested sections.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
20
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Table 3: Comparison of Initial Operating Segment Alternatives
Alternative 5: Combined Routes - Blue
Route - Garden State Plaza Mall to
Secaucus + Orange Route - Bergen
College to NJT Rutherford Station
Alternative 1: Blue Route - Ridgewood P&R Alternative 2: Blue Route - Garden State
to Secaucus
Plaza Mall to Secaucus
Alternative 3: Orange Route - Bergen
Community College to NJT Rutherford
Station
Alternative 4: Combined Routes - Blue
Route - Ridgewood P&R to Secaucus +
Orange Route - Bergen Community
College to NJT Rutherford Station
Type of route
Route length (miles)
Number of BRT Stations
Intra-county Express Route
26
13
Intra-county Express Route
17
8
Intra-county Limited Stop Route
18
15
Intra-county Express + Limited Stop System Intra-county Express + Limited Stop System
Blue Route: 26 / Orange Route: 18
Blue Route: 17 / Orange Route: 18
25
20
Areas served
Ridgewood, Paramus, Hackensack,
Secaucus
Paramus, Hackensack, Secaucus
Paramus, Hackensack, Hasbrouck
Heights, Wood-Ridge, Rutherford
Ridgewood, Paramus, Hackensack,
Hasbrouck Heights, Wood-Ridge,
Rutherford
Ridgewood, Paramus, Hackensack,
Hasbrouck Heights, Wood-Ridge,
Rutherford
Blue Route: Ridgewood Park & Ride,
Paramus Park Mall, Fashion Center Mall,
Bergen County Regional Medical Center,
Garden State Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall,
Hackensack University Medical Center,
and Secaucus Junction Station
Orange Route: Bergen Community
College, Ikea, Garden State Plaza Mall,
Bergen Mall, Fairleigh Dickinson University,
Hackensack Transit Center, Bergen
County Government Complex, Hackensack
University Medical Center, Downtown
Hasbrouck Heights, Downtown Woodridge,
Downtown Rutherford
Blue Route: Garden State Plaza Mall,
Bergen Mall, Hackensack University
Medical Center, and Secaucus Junction
Station
Orange Route: Bergen Community
College, Ikea, Garden State Plaza Mall,
Bergen Mall, Fairleigh Dickinson University,
Hackensack Transit Center, Bergen
County Government Complex, Hackensack
University Medical Center, Downtown
Hasbrouck Heights, Downtown Woodridge,
Downtown Rutherford
Peak: Every 15 minutes
Off Peak: Every 30 minutes
Peak: Every 15 minutes
Off Peak: Every 30 minutes
Ridgewood Park & Ride, Paramus Park
Mall, Fashion Center Mall, Bergen County
Regional Medical Center, Garden State
Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall, Downtown
Hackensack, Hackensack University
Medical Center, Secaucus Junction Station
Garden State Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall,
Downtown Hackensack, Hackensack
University Medical Center, Secaucus
Junction Station
Bergen Community College, office parks
along Century Road, Ikea, Garden State
Plaza Mall, Bergen Mall, Fairleigh
Dickinson University, Hackensack Transit
Center, Bergen County Government
Complex, Hackensack University Medical
Center, Downtown Hasbrouck Heights,
Downtown Woodridge, Downtown
Rutherford
Headways
Peak: Every 15 minutes
Off Peak: Every 30 minutes
Peak: Every 15 minutes
Off Peak: Every 30 minutes
Peak: Every 15 minutes
Off Peak: Every 30 minutes
Approximate one-way running time
(min)
67
43
67
Blue Route: 67 / Orange Route: 67
Blue Route: 43 / Orange Route: 67
BRT Vehicle Fleet (inc. spares)
13
11
15
31
29
Capital Cost ($ millions)
$45,507,930
$29,174,730
$43,701,580
$81,429,010
$71,335,810
Major activity centers served
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
21
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
B.
Selection of the Initial Operating Segment
Using the criteria described above, it is recommended that Alternative 1: Blue Route: Ridgewood
Park & Ride to NJT Secaucus Station (shown in Figure 4) be selected as the Initial Operating
Segment for the following reasons:

At a total capital cost of $45.5 million, Alternative 1 does not exceed the $50 million dollar
price cap.

Alternative 1 provides new regional, intermodal connections anchored by the Ridgewood
Park-and-Ride and the NJT Secaucus Junction. Serving the Secaucus Junction station
provides connections to NJT Pascack Valley Line, Main and Bergen Lines, MontclairBoonton Line, Morris and Essex Lines, Northeast Corridor Line, and North Jersey Coast
Line with service to New York City, Hoboken, Newark, Newark Airport, Princeton and
Trenton. If agreements can be made, then new park-and-ride facilities may be established
at Paramus Park Mall, Fashion Center Mall, Garden State Plaza Mall and Bergen Mall.

According to the “first cut” ridership estimates, the segment of the Blue Route with the
highest ridership is located between Hackensack and NJT Secaucus Junction.

Alternative 1 provides a new, fast, frequent, premium service connecting important retail
and employment destinations and other activity centers along the Route 17 Corridor that
are not currently well served by the existing transit system.

By utilizing parallel and connecting routes, Alternative 1 can provide said service while
also effectively bypassing congested sections of Route 17 mainline.

The Route 17 corridor is not currently served by rail service connecting it to the greater
regional rail network, nor will it ever, given the lack of land available to create such an
extensive right-of-way. The proposed Rapid Transit service would provide this missing
link (to Secaucus Junction and a number of interfaces with the rail network, as mentioned
above), and more efficiently tie Paramus and other regional activity centers into the reach
of the transit system.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
22
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Figure 4: Blue Route Initial Operating Segment – Ridgewood Park-and-Ride to NJT
Secaucus Junction
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
23
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
C.
Initial Operating Segment Cost Estimates
Capital costs were developed using the information formulated for the Full System Operating
Plan. These inputs were multiplied by unit costs to produce an order-of-magnitude capital cost
for the Initial Operating Segment as shown in Table 4. It is assumed that a maintenance facility
will be provided by the service provider.
All operating assumptions, statistics and unit costs are expected to be further refined during
subsequent phases as this project progresses into more detailed studies.
Table 4: Initial Operating Segment Capital Costs
BRT Component
Quantity
BRT vehicles
13
$1,200,000
BRT stations
Intermodal Transportation Center
Transportation Center
Park & Ride Station
Urban stations 1
1
3
3
11
$332,500
$2,660,000
$2,327,500
$332,500
0 miles
24
$562,500
$18,900
Priority treatments
Shoulder bus lane upgrade
Traffic pre-emption/priority
Costs by
Category
$15,600,000
Unit Cost
$18,952,500
$453,600
Subtotal:
Project contingency (30%)
$35,006,100
$10,501,830
$45,507,930
Total costs:
Annual order of magnitude O&M costs were developed for the Initial Operating Segment, and
are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Initial Operating Segment Operating and Maintenance Costs
Route
Blue Route IOS
Annual BRT
Vehicle Miles
894,608
Unit Cost
$8.81 per vehicle mile
Annual O&M
Cost
$7.9 million
A portion of the O&M costs could be offset by farebox and other system revenues (i.e.
advertising).
1
This quantity includes the locations where north and southbound trips stop on opposite sides of the street.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
24
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
A successful Initial Operating Segment could provide valuable “proof of concept” and help
influence local and Federal support for future phases of this project while simultaneously
generating public interest in the BRT as a possible mobility solution for Bergen County. An
Initial Operating Segment could also help expand the transit ridership base and serve as a
stepping stone to an expanded BRT system for the Route 17 corridor (operational characteristics
and cost estimates for the development of this expanded system are included in Appendix D).
The Initial Operating Segment concept has been successfully implemented in other cities and
areas of the country. In addition, this concept lends itself to the FTA’s Small Starts funding
program
There are various options for how the proposed BRT service could be operated, including
partnering with NJ Transit or seeking private vendors to operate and maintain the new service.
Additionally, the County could administer the BRT system and contract out its daily operations
by purchasing buses and leasing them to a private operator; this is similar to the framework that
Westchester County’s BeeLine service uses. The County could also choose to develop
maintenance facilities for the BRT system and include them in the lease package for the private
operator
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
25
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
V.
ELEMENTS OF THE BERGEN RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
A.
Station Design Components and Locations
Second only to the vehicle, the station is where customers will spend the most time. As bus rapid
transit stations are tangible representations of the BRT system it is critical to develop stations
that are attractive, provide shelter and information, and are an asset to the communities and
counties that they serve.
Four types of stations were proposed for the BRT system, each designed to meet a specific need.
In order of magnitude, from the largest to the smallest, the following station types are described
below:




Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC)
Transportation Center (TC)
Park & Ride Station
BRT Urban Station
1.
Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC)
Intermodal Transportation Centers provide
connections to other bus services
This type of station is the most elaborate BRT
station, and is intended to provide intermodal
connections to other modes such as commuter rail,
light rail, long distance buses, other regional buses,
local transit buses and shuttle buses. As allowed,
Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride drop-off areas would
be provided. When conditions permit, pedestrian and
bicycle access is
provided.
Examples
of
a
proposed Intermodal Transportation Center on the BRT include
the NJ Transit Ramsey-Route 17 Station, Essex Street Station,
Rutherford Station, the proposed Meadowlands Sports Complex
Station, and the Secaucus Junction Station.
2.
Transportation Center (TC)
This type of station is similar to the Intermodal Transportation
Center, except that it does not serve rail modes. The
Transportation Center is intended to provide connections to other
services such as long distance buses, other regional buses, local
transit buses, and shuttle buses. Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride
Transportation Centers provide
connections to other transit modes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
26
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
areas would also be provided. Where conditions permit, pedestrian and bicycle access is
provided.
Examples of Transportation Center stations on the proposed BRT include the Ridgewood Park &
Ride, the Hackensack Transit Center, and the major shopping centers along the route, including
Paramus Park Mall, Bergen Mall, Garden State Plaza Mall, and the Fashion Center.
3.
Park & Ride Station
This type of BRT station is intended to
primarily serve lower density, automobileoriented land use areas. As the name suggests,
Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride facilities would
be provided and, where conditions permit,
pedestrian and bicycle access would also be
provided.
Park & Ride Stations serve lower density,
automobile-oriented land use areas
4.
An example of a Park & Ride Station would be
the BRT station proposed for the northern
portion of Route 17, such as at Interstate
Shopping Center.
BRT Urban Station
This type of station is intended to primarily serve higher
density land use areas where the majority of the BRT
customers are expected to walk in or connect from other
transit services.
An example of a BRT Urban Station would be stations
proposed along Prospect Avenue in Hackensack, along
Boulevard in Wood-Ridge, or a station serving the Bergen
County Regional Medical Center.
5.
BRT Station Amenities
All BRT stations will feature the same basic amenities for
customers such as level (approximately 14 inches above the
pavement for low-floor vehicles) that match BRT vehicle
floor height and provide no-step, no-gap boarding, route
maps and schedules, electronic bus arrival/countdown signs,
etc.
Urban Stations serve higherdensity areas where most
customers arrive on foot or via
other transit services.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
27
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
The amenities provided in each station type are shown in Table 6. The type of station for each
Blue Route station is identified in Table 7, and the type of station for the Orange Route appears
in Table 8.
Table 6: BRT Station Amenities
Station Amenities
Level boarding area
Shelters
Ticket Vending Machine
Benches
Electronic bus
arrival/countdown sign
Route map/Schedule
board/BRT information panel
Trash receptacle
Payphones
Station landscaping
Public artwork
Bicycle rack
BRT branding (names, logos,
color schemes, design of
physical elements & marketing
materials)
Park & Ride and Kiss & Ride
facilities
Connections to other bus
services (long distance buses,
regional buses, local transit
buses and shuttle buses)
Connections to other rail
services (commuter rail & light
rail)
Intermodal
Transportation
Center (ITC)
●
●
●
●
Transportation
Center (TC)
Park & Ride
Station
BRT Urban
Station
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
28
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BRT Urban Station
Park & Ride
Station
Ramapo College
NJT Ramsey - Route 17 station
Interstate Shopping Center/Ramsey Square Shopping
Center
Ridgewood Park & Ride
Paramus Park Mall
Fashion Center Mall
Oradell Avenue Park & Ride
Bergen Regional Medical Center
Garden State Plaza Mall
Bergen Mall
Prospect Avenue & Passaic Street
Prospect Avenue & Central Avenue
Prospect Avenue & Beech Street
Hackensack University Medical Center
Polifly Road & Essex Street
Secaucus Junction
Transportation Center (TC)
Stop #
1
2
Intermodal Transportation
Center (ITC)
Table 7: Blue Route Stations - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
29
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
17
18
19
Murray Hill Parkway & Union Avenue
Meadowlands Sports Complex (centralized station
serving the stadium, Arena and racetrack)
Secaucus Junction
BRT Urban Station
Park & Ride
Station
Bergen Community College
Century Road & College Road
Ikea
Garden State Plaza Mall
Bergen Mall
Shops at Riverside
Bergen County Vocational School
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Hackensack Transit Center
County Buildings
Hackensack University Medical Center
Summit Avenue & Pleasantview Avenue
Boulevard & Williams Avenue
Boulevard & Windsor Road
Hackensack Street & Hoboken Road
NJT Rutherford train station
Transportation Center (TC)
Stop #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Intermodal Transportation
Center (ITC)
Table 8: Orange Route Stations - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
30
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
B.
Transit Priority Feasibility
Transit Priority refers to strategies and technologies that give preference to BRT vehicles.
Various Transit Priority Options and their applicability to the proposed BRT routes are explored
in this section. The options considered are:

Traffic Signal Preemption – Signalized intersections where priority to transit vehicles is
provided via an advanced green signal or a delayed red signal.

Queue Jumpers – Special lanes that allow transit vehicles to cross an intersection, while
other vehicles must wait in line at a traffic signal.

Designated (Reserved) Arterial Lanes – Designated lanes along an existing arterial
street set aside for the operation of transit vehicles only.

Designated (Reserved) Vehicle On-ramps – Reserved vehicle on-ramps provide direct
access to busways and HOV lanes.
1.
Traffic Priority Options
a)
Traffic Signal Preemption
Traffic signal preemption is a
method for giving special treatment
to transit vehicles at signalized
intersections. Since transit vehicles
can transport many more people than
automobiles, giving priority to
transit vehicles can potentially help
reduce transit vehicle travel times
and encourage transit use. There are
two types of traffic signal priorities:
passive and active.
A passive priority strategy is
from King County Transit (Washington) demonstrating how
normally deployed on roads with Diagram
traffic signal priority for transit vehicles will function.
significant BRT use in conjunction
with an area-wide traffic signal
timing scheme. Timing coordinated signals at the average transit vehicle speeds as opposed to
the average automobile speeds can benefit transit vehicles.
An active priority strategy involves an intersection being able to detect the arrival of a BRT
vehicle, and depending upon the sophistication of the system and the existing traffic situation,
give the BRT vehicle special preference. Some special treatment options include giving an early
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
31
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
green signal (i.e. traffic preemption) to the BRT vehicle only, or holding a green signal longer
(i.e. extended green) so a transit vehicle can pass through the intersection.
Due to the unpredictability of traffic conditions, an active priority system must be able to both
detect the presence of a BRT vehicle and predict its arrival time at the intersection. Multiple
stops and near-side bus stops can complicate the prediction of
intersection arrival times.
There are many different options for signal priority logic.
Systems that are based on real-time technology can incorporate
information on traffic flow, flow coordination, transit vehicles
schedule adherence, and prior transit vehicle arrival times.
b)
Queue Jumpers
A queue jumper or queue jump lane is a short stretch of highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lane that is often combined with
traffic signal priority. The purpose of a queue jumper is to
enable a BRT vehicle to bypass a waiting traffic queue by
providing it with an early green signal, thus allowing it to cut
to the front of the line. Often, a special transit vehicle-only
signal may need to be installed along the queue jumper rightof-way. A queue jumper can be placed at an entrance to a
highway or a busy intersection.
This graphic illustrates how queue
jumpers will work on Lane Transit
District’s (Eugene, Oregon) new
BRT project.
A queue jumper can also be oriented in various directions. For
example, a queue jump lane can be located within a right turnonly lane, which permits straight-through movements for buses only. A queue jump lane can also
be installed between right-turn and straight-through lanes. Another application of queue jumpers
could be to allow a transit vehicle to cross multiple lanes of traffic to make a left turn
immediately after serving a curbside stop.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
32
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
c)
Designated (Reserved) Lanes
In corridors where the route alignment follows an
existing arterial roadway, designated transit lanes can
provide BRT vehicles with a fast, reliable alternative
to operating in the general (mixed traffic) lanes.
On surface streets, a traffic lane can be reserved for
the exclusive use of transit vehicles. Exclusive lanes
can be located either at the curb, in the median of a
roadway or along the shoulder of a highway.
d)
Example of a curbside transit vehicleonly lane in New York.
Exclusive Transit Vehicle On-ramps
Exclusive transit vehicle on-ramps allow easier,
faster merging onto arterials by providing direct
access to busways and HOV lanes. A ramp can be
a single lane and reversible to permit operation in
the peak direction during the AM and PM peak
periods or a two lane facility and therefore operate
bi-directional throughout the entire day.
C.
Benefits of Transit Priority Systems
Traffic priority systems provide the following
benefits:
On highways, the shoulder may be used
exclusively by transit vehicles.

Reduced Travel Time – Reducing travel times provide excellent “advertising” as BRT
vehicles speed by automobiles. This also helps reinforce customer decisions to use
transit.

Increased Reliability for Passengers – Systems that give transit vehicles priority over
general traffic, provide a faster and more reliable ride. As well, customers have increased
transportation options by having a choice between driving alone in congestion or
bypassing congestion in a transit vehicle.

Increased Transit Service Efficiency – Transit priority systems can increase transit
service efficiency by the increase in ridership per vehicle-hour and through the decrease
in fuel consumption per vehicle-mile.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
33
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report

D.
Travel-time and Operating Cost Savings – Transit priority systems provides traveltime savings requiring fewer vehicles to provide service resulting in operating cost
savings and increased travel reliability. These time and cost savings will vary from
system to system based on their physical and operating characteristics.
Signalized Intersection Survey
Continuing from the surveys conducted for Technical Memorandum 1, additional surveys of
signalized intersections were conducted for new route segments to determine whether they have
the physical capacity to support the recommended transit priority improvements included in the
BRT system.
Over 60 intersections were analyzed (18 intersections for the Blue Route; and 43 intersections
for the Orange route). The criteria used to assess opportunities for transit priority options
included:




Number of traffic lanes
Curbside parking
Space for a queue jumper
Adjacent land uses
Based on the results of the surveys, it was concluded that installation of queue jumpers would
not be feasible at most intersections as they would generally require property takings, which
would likely result in negative impacts to residences and businesses on the approaches to these
intersections. This is because Bergen County is densely developed, and most of arterial streets
are bracketed by built land uses. Detailed information on each intersection along the Blue and
Orange Routes (i.e. adjacent land uses, number of lanes) can be found in Appendix B.
The only possible candidates for queue jumpers lie along the Orange route in the Hasbrouck
Heights and Wood-Ridge CBDs. However, installing the queue jumpers would require removal
of parking spaces for approximately 100 feet along the intersection approaches.
The information collected during the field surveys is displayed in Appendix B.
E.
Transit Priority Findings
Since queue jumpers do not appear feasible, other transit priority strategies were evaluated for
their applicability to the BRT system. Given the high number of signalized intersections along
both routes, it is recommended that an active traffic signal priority strategy be implemented.
Under this strategy, BRT vehicles are given special treatment (i.e. giving an early green signal to
the transit vehicle only, or holding a green signal longer so a transit vehicle can pass through the
intersection).
A candidate for designated (or reserved) lanes is along Route 4 between Bergen Mall and the
Shops at Riverside on the Orange Route. In this segment, 1.5 miles of the highway shoulder may
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
34
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
be used exclusively by BRT vehicles. During peak hours, the level of service along Route 4 is
significantly reduced. Running BRT vehicles in the shoulder lanes is a simple, low-cost way to
avoid peak period delays.
F.
OPERATING PLAN
1.
Assumptions
In developing the operating plan, the following planning and operating principles were used:

The Bergen Rapid Transit service seeks to emulate the same features that make light rail
transit so highly attractive to new customers. These attractive features include:
 Offering simple, easy to follow and understand route alignments
 Providing frequent service throughout the day and evening
 Easy to remember service intervals (BRT service every 5, 10, 15 or 20 minutes)

The BRT service should offer new regional, intermodal transfer opportunities such as NJ
Transit Ramsey Route 17 station, Ridgewood Park & Ride, Rutherford Station, Essex
Street Station, and Secaucus Junction, where new regional connections may be made to
local and long-distance bus services as well as commuter rail service.

The Bergen Rapid Transit service should capture opportunities to serve new customers by
serving intra-county trips and major activity centers such as:
 Educational institutions (Ramapo College, Bergen Community College and Fairleigh
Dickinson University)
 Retail destinations (Paramus Park Mall, Fashion Center Mall, Garden State Plaza
Mall, Bergen Mall, and Shops at Riverside)
 Community service institutions (Bergen Regional Medical Center, Hackensack
University Medical Center, and County Government buildings)
 Employment destinations (offices along Century Road, University Plaza, and
throughout the route)
 Recreational destinations (Meadowlands Sports Complex)

It is proposed that the Bergen Rapid Transit service use an off-vehicle fare collection
system such as smart card technology and proof-of-purchase payment. These types of
fare collection systems speed customer boarding and delays resulting traditional, single
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
35
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
file, farebox and coin interaction during boarding. As a result, station dwell times are
reduced and overall trip times are improved.
2.
Operating Hours and Frequency of Service
The operating hours and service frequency (headways) of the BRT system would be based on
projected ridership demand. However, the following operating parameters were assumed for this
preliminary analysis.
The BRT system is proposed to operate from 6:00AM to 12 midnight, 7 days a week. During the
peak periods (weekdays, 6:00–9:00AM and 4:00–7:00PM), service on each route would operate
every 10 minutes. In the off-peak periods, the BRT would operate at 15-minute intervals on each
route.
3.
Running Times
The estimated running times for the Blue and Orange Routes are discussed in the following
sections. In developing the estimated running times, station dwell times of 10 and 20 seconds, for
smaller and larger stations (based upon expected ridership) respectively, were assumed.
a)
Blue Route
The running time for the 38 mile long Blue Route from Ramapo College at the northern route
terminus to Secaucus Junction Station at the southern route terminus is approximately 93
minutes. This route is characterized by a mixture of arterial street operation, express operation
over Route 17, suburban and urban operation in the Hackensack area and express operation over
I-80 and I-95 to Secaucus Junction Station.
In addition to the running time, it is prudent to provide extra time at both ends of each route to
allow for driver’s comfort break time and for schedule recovery time (in case of en-route
roadway delays or congestion related delays). Without a schedule recovery time, roadway
congestion could cut into—or even eliminate—the driver’s comfort break time, thereby reducing
the reliability of the BRT service. Given the long lengths of the Blue Route, these two factors are
consistent with industry practice. Factoring in both the driver’s break time of approximately 9
minutes and another 9 minutes for schedule recovery time (which can be used for driver’s break
time if there is no congestion), the roundtrip Blue Route running time is approximately 204
minutes.
b)
Orange Route
The running time for the 27 mile long Orange Route from Bergen Community College at the
northern route terminus to Secaucus Junction Station at the southern route terminus is
approximately 83 minutes in the southbound direction and 76 minutes in the northbound
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
36
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
direction. Unlike the Blue Route which has a mixture of express and arterial street operation, the
Orange Route is characterized by limited stop running over suburban and urban arterial streets
for most of its route. The portion of the Orange Route accessing the Meadowlands Sports
Complex and Meadowlands Parkway in Secaucus traverses limited access roads, such as Route
120 and Route 3.
The reason there is a 7 minute difference in running time between the southbound and
northbound Orange Route running times is due to the fact that the northbound Orange Route
accesses Bergen Community College in a more direct routing using Paramus Road, while the
southbound Orange Route detours east along West Century Road between Paramus Road and
Route 17 to serve various residential and office buildings located along Century Road, and also
to serve Ikea. An alternate routing under consideration directs the northbound Orange Route to
exit Ikea via Ikea Drive to eastbound Route 4 to northbound Route 17 to Century Road. This
routing would eliminate operations along Paramus Road.
As with the Blue Route, it is prudent to provide time at both ends of each route to allow for
driver’s comfort break time and for schedule recovery time (in case of en-route roadway delays
or congestion related delays. Factoring in both the driver’s break time of approximately 8
minutes and another 8 minutes for schedule recovery time (which can be used for driver’s break
time if there is no congestion), the roundtrip Orange Route running time is approximately 190
minutes.
4.
Ridership
Bergen Rapid Transit is specifically designed to offer a viable travel option for intra-county trips.
By offering a new, quicker, high-quality transit service with frequent headways this new system
could take Bergen County residents and visitors to work, to entertainment, cultural and
recreational venues, to medical care facilities, on shopping trips and to the myriad destinations
within the County. Bergen Rapid Transit is customized to Bergen County residents and visitors
alike by enticing people who currently drive alone from their cars by offering a fast, reliable, and
efficient transit service that can offer transit service competitive with the automobile.
Table 9 depicts the travel time savings as a result of using Bergen Rapid Transit, as compared to
using existing transit services—some which currently require multiple connections to complete
the trip. In some cases, such as from Ramapo College to Paramus Park Mall, the time savings are
dramatic—with today’s travel time falling from 1 hour 20 minutes to only 34 minutes, a savings
of 46 minutes!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
37
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Table 9: Bergen Rapid Transit Travel Time Savings
Today
# of
Transfers
Ramapo College to Paramus Park Mall
1 hr 20 min
2
34 min.
46 min.
Ramapo College to Garden State Plaza
Mall
1 hr 26 min
3
57 min.
29 min.
Secaucus Junction to Bergen Regional
Medical Center
1 hr 10 min
1
39 min.
40 min.
Secaucus Junction to Hackensack
University Medical Center
49 min
1
21 min.
28 min.
Fairleigh Dickinson University to
Meadowlands Sports Complex
55 min
2
43 min.
12 min.
Fairleigh Dickinson University to NJT
Secaucus Junction Station
55 min
1
40 min.
15 min.
Journey
With BRT
Time
Savings
Bergen Rapid Transit is designed to interchange with other existing and proposed rail and bus
services, such as NJ Transit’s Main Line, Bergen County Line, Pascack Valley Line rail services,
NJ Transit local and express buses as well as various private bus carriers such as Academy, Air
Brook Express, Red & Tan, and Short Line. The intent is to foster easy interchanges between
different modes and carriers so that customers can take whichever combination of modes and
carriers that best suits their needs—whether in terms of preference for speedy travel times, low
fares, modal preferences, etc.
For example, a faculty member, student or visitor might take the Blue Route from Ramapo
College to NJ Transit’s Ramsey Route 17 train station, where they may transfer to NJ Transit’s
Main Line trains to travel to a home in Rutherford. Even though this trip could be made by
taking the Blue Route and transferring to the Orange Route at Hackensack Medical Center, if
good connections (one that minimized waiting times) to the train are made at the Ramsey-Route
17 Station, the Blue Route to the NJ Transit train will offer a faster travel option. If there is a
long wait for the next train at Ramsey-Route 17 station, then customers could continue on their
journey using the Blue to Orange Route combination described above. Thus, customers will have
travel options, and such options helps encourage ridership.
To estimate projected Bergen Rapid Transit ridership, STV engaged the services of Urbitran
Associates Inc., who in turn obtained permission from NJ Transit to use the NJ Transit Demand
Forecasting Model. This is the same model used by NJ Transit to forecast future ridership for
various internal capital and operational projects and initiatives under their consideration. As the
NJ Transit Demand Forecasting Model is already a proven model with an extensive database of
travel demand information and ridership patterns, it is well suited for providing a quick
preliminary estimate of BRT ridership.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
38
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Based upon the Urbitran’s running of the NJ Transit Demand Forecasting Model, the first cut
ridership results were very favorable and indicated strong ridership, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10: First Cut Preliminary BRT Ridership
Weekday
Peak
Blue Route
Northbound Blue Route
1,500
750
Southbound Blue Route
2,700
1,300
4,200
2,050
Orange Route
Northbound Orange Route
1,800
950
Southbound Orange Route
1,400
700
3,200
1,650
7,400
3,700
Combined Routes
Total Daily Ridership
% of Peak Ridership to Total Ridership
50%
As can be seen, the longer Blue Route is projected to carry 4,200 weekday customer trips while
the Orange Route is projected carry 3,200 weekday customer trips, for a combined total of 7,400
weekday customer trips.
These projected ridership numbers are indicative of very strong demand.
To understand these projected ridership numbers in context, it is important to compare them to
ridership on other similar systems throughout the United States.
As part of the agreement to use NJ Transit’s Travel Demand Forecast Model, NJ Transit asked
for and was provided an opportunity to review the model results and to review the assumptions
used. A technical memorandum explaining the methodology and results is contained in
Appendix C. NJ Transit modeling staff reviewed the BRT proposal and they agreed with the
logic of the two BRT routes, but expressed concerns that: (1) the proposed 10-minute peak
period frequency and 15-minute off-peak frequency may be too frequent compared to their
services, and (2) certain walk to bus access times within certain model analysis zones (cells)
might be understated, which in turn may overestimate ridership at certain BRT stations. They
requested that additional modeling analysis and model runs, be performed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
39
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Ridership for other bus rapid transit lines in the United States

Las Vegas: 3,880 trips. This system features Civis vehicles which have a light rail-like
appearance, a mix of dedicated travel lanes and street running, traffic signal priority
treatments, stations with level boarding platforms, and proof-of-payment fare collection.

Kansas City: 4,500 trips. This system uses a dedicated lane with traffic signal priority
treatments within the downtown core and non-preferential street running outside of the
downtown area, new vehicles, upgraded shelters, and on-board fare collection.

Los Angeles Orange Line: 18,242 trips. Over 85% of the Orange Line route length is
on a newly constructed transit way (converted from a former railway right-of-way;
automobiles are excluded), using new NABI vehicles, traffic signal pre-emption, stations
with level boarding, and proof-of-payment fare collection with smart card payment
options.
Ridership for other light rail lines in the United States

San Jose Tasman West Line: 3,500 trips. Rail line linking Mountain View with northern
San Jose.

New Jersey River LINE: 6,100 trips. Diesel rail line linking Trenton and Camden.
As can be seen above, carrying over 18,000 weekday trips, Los Angeles’s 14-mile-long Orange
Line bus rapid transit system has the greatest number of riders using the above set of examples.
However, Los Angeles’s Orange Line also represents a highly capital-intensive investment
which includes converting a former railroad right-of-way to a 2-lane exclusive transitway (no
automobiles are allowed) with a parallel bikeway/pedestrian path, extensive landscaping, fairly
sizeable stations with proof-of-payment, smart card fare collection, artwork, extensive Park &
Ride lots and bicycle storage facilities, a fleet of new bus vehicles, and traffic preemption and
sound walls in selected locations. The Orange Line also feeds into the Red Line subway at its
eastern terminus (where free transfers are provided) and essentially serves as a lower cost
extension of the subway.
Another comparison is Las Vegas’s 7.5-mile-long MaxRide bus rapid transit which features
Civis vehicles, stations with level boarding platforms (convenient for wheelchairs, elderly and
those with small children in tow), proof-of-payment fare collection, dedicated travel lanes for 4.5
miles of the 7.5-mile route, and traffic preemption and priority treatments. MaxRide carries
almost 3,900 weekday trips.
In comparison, the 34-mile-long NJ Transit River LINE, a diesel light rail service between
Trenton and Camden, currently carries approximately 6,100 weekday trips.
In a presentation to NJ Transit upper management, NJ Transit was enthusiastic about the
proposed BRT service and indicated a desire to be a partner to help implement this project.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
40
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
5.
Peak Vehicle Requirements
The morning and afternoon peak periods are when the greatest number of Bergen Rapid Transit
vehicles will be operating. Thus, Bergen Rapid Transit fleet requirements are dictated by
maximum number of vehicles in demand, and that period is during the AM and PM peak periods
when the most frequent BRT service is operated.
For planning purposes, a 10 minute peak period headway was assumed, which provides very
frequent service and enables customers to simply show up at a BRT station without the need to
consult a schedule—as may be the case when transit services operate less frequently.
Because BRT vehicles, like any other transit vehicle require maintenance, it is prudent to allow
for a spare factor. A 15% spare factor allows for scheduled and preventive vehicle maintenance
to be undertaken. This spare factor also provides a “cushion” or reserve of BRT vehicles should
a BRT vehicle fail while in service and a replacement vehicle is required to take its place. It is
important that the appropriate spare factor is used. Too large a spare factor is wasteful, as too
many BRT vehicles are sitting idle and are not used. A large fleet also represents a greater outlay
not only for vehicle procurement, but also for the larger maintenance facility and staffing
required to maintain the larger vehicle fleet. On the other hand, too meager a spare factor, and
there are not enough vehicles to cover for unexpected breakdowns or to allow scheduled or
preventative maintenance to be performed. A 15% spare factor is appropriate for a fleet of this
size and this is consistent with industry benchmarks.
The Blue Route requires 22 vehicles to provide service for a 10-minute peak period headway,
while the Orange Route requires 19 vehicles to cover the same headways, for a total of 41
vehicles. The 15% spare factor adds another 6 BRT vehicles. Thus, the total BRT fleet required
to service both routes requires 47 vehicles.
As can be expected, adjusting the peak period headways will also increase or reduce the fleetwide number of vehicles required. For example, converting both the Blue and Orange Routes
from a 10-minute peak period headway to a 15 minute peak period headway will result in the
following lowered fleet requirements, as shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Peak Vehicle Requirements
10-minute
peak headways
15-minute
peak headways
Blue Route
22
15
Orange Route
19
13
6
4
47
32
Route
15% spare factor
Total fleet size
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
41
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
6.
Fare Collection Strategies
a)
Proof of Payment
To speed service and to improve customer convenience, a proof-of-payment system using both
smart cards and paper tickets is proposed for the Bergen Rapid Transit system. There are specific
advantages to using both proof of payment and smart cards in tandem.
Today, most traditional bus systems in North America collect fares via a farebox located near the
front door. These fareboxes require exact change, may or may not accept dollar bills and do not
accept credit or debit cards. This fare collection technique requires each customer to board only
through the front door of a vehicle and such a boarding process leads to extended boarding times,
which in turn slows travel times. Collectively, the extra time spent at each stop to collect fares
multiplied by the number of stops (which are often frequently spaced) leads to a considerable
amount of travel time simply spent waiting at stops.
By contrast, modern light rail systems almost universally use proof-of-payment fare collection
whereby tickets and passes are purchased prior to boarding the vehicle. To ensure fare
compliance, random ticket inspections, backed by fines for ticketless travel, take place. Proof of
payment has often been erroneously referred to as an “honor” system, but it is the potential for
punitive fines that gives customers an incentive to pay their fares. Proof of payment is not a new
system, as it has been used in Europe for decades and in the United States since 1981. For
motorists, this system is most analogous to paying for on street parking using a parking meter; it
is the prospect of parking tickets that deters motorists from not paying.
For the BRT system, ticket vending machines would be installed at each BRT station. Customers
could also purchase their tickets, passes and smart cards from a variety of other venues including
via the Internet, via mail, and from various off sales points that could be established such as
convenience stores and large corporate workplaces.
For occasional single rides, a paper ticket would be issued, to be retained by the customer for
proof of payment, or inspection should a roving ticket inspector check for tickets.
For more frequent customers, including multi-ride and monthly customers, payment would be
made by using a contactless smart card validated or read by a smart card reader located at BRT
stations. Again, roving ticket inspectors using hand held devices would check whether the
contactless smart card has been properly validated prior to travel.
There are several advantages with using Proof of Payment:

Time savings. All fare collection takes place before customers board the BRT vehicle,
which means that time consuming fare payment takes place off the vehicle.

Exact change is not necessary. Because tickets and passes can be purchased from ticket
vending machines at stations, paper currency, coins, credit cards, debit cards and other
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
42
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
stored value media can be used for payment. Ticket vending machines will also provide
change as required.

Convenience. Customers can board through all doors of the BRT vehicle—not just the
front door.

Reduces disputes. Fare collection disputes between the vehicle driver and customers are
eliminated because the BRT vehicle operator is removed from the fare collection process.
Fare enforcement is shifted to Police, security personnel or specially trained staff
members.

Speeds trip times. BRT vehicle dwell times are dramatically reduced as customers
prepay before boarding and board the BRT vehicle through all doors.
The time savings for a proof-of-payment system can be seen when one compares fare collection
in New York City using the MetroCard system and the Orange Line bus rapid transit system in
Los Angeles. In New York, it takes approximately 60 seconds for 14 passengers to pay their
fares on a bus using MetroCard, as each passenger must correctly insert their farecard into the
bus farebox, wait for the farebox to grab the farecard, process it, and eject the farecard. If
someone unfamiliar with the process should board, such as an out-of-town tourist, and
incorrectly insert their MetroCard, then the bus boarding process is further slowed as the card is
rejected for a second attempt.
On the newly opened Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles, the same 14 customers can board the
Metroliner buses using any of the three doors in each bus, cutting the boarding time to only 7
seconds. That’s a 53-second savings, or only 12% of the traditional bus boarding time. Because
passengers are not funneled by the front door, all doors on the proposed BRT Transit can be built
wider to allow for simultaneous streams of passengers to board and alight instead of filing by the
farebox in single file.
As mentioned above, multiplying faster bus boarding time
savings by the number of proposed stops for the BRT
yields considerable time savings along the length of each
BRT route.
b)
Smart Cards
A second component of the BRT system fare collection
strategy is to use “contactless smart cards” to supplement
traditional paper tickets and passes.
Before smart cards were developed, transit fares were
either paid by paper currency, coins, tokens or using
PATH’s SmartLink contactless smart card
is currently under test. the eventual goal
is to have one contactless smart card for
fare payment on the Tri-State region’s
public transit providers—akin to how E-Z
Pass is accepted in 11 states for
electronic toll payments.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
43
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
magnetic striped farecards. Contactless smart cards have revolutionized fare collection. They
offer a number of exciting advantages:

Contactless smart cards do not need to be removed from a wallet or purse. Unlike
cash, coins, tokens or magnetic striped cards, contactless smart cards can be read while
remaining securely inside a wallet or handbag. This improves customer security and
reduces the risk of loss.

Smart cards are easier and faster to use. By merely waving the smart card over the
reader, a contactless smart card can be read faster and more accurately than a magnetic
card. Because it does not need to be inserted into a farebox, paying by contactless smart
card can be almost as fast the time it takes to walk by a
reader, which would be located at BRT stations.

Automatic reloading of value. If linked to a credit card
or bank account, smart cards can be automatically
reloaded with value once a replenishment threshold is
reached (just like a linked E-Z Pass).

Daily, weekly or even monthly price capping. Smart
cards can be set up to function as a time based pass (with
daily, weekly, monthly or even annual durations), or as a
pay per ride card—or both via price capping. For smart
cards used for pay per ride transactions, the price can be
capped to charge no more than the price of a daily,
weekly or monthly pass. This offers great flexibility if
one’s travel plans should suddenly change during the day.

SmartLink card reader
installed on a PATH
turnstile
Smart cards can provide seamless transfers to other transit services. If the same
smart card standards are adopted by other transit systems regionally (i.e., NJ Transit,
PATH, LIRR, NYCT bus and subways, New York Waterways, etc.), then one smart card
could serve as a regional ticket valid for these other connecting services. Using one smart
card would replace the need to purchase a separate NJ Transit ticket, a separate subway
and bus MetroCard, or a separate ferry ticket.
If free transfers or discounted fares were agreed upon by these transit providers, then
smart card users would automatically receive such discounts when using their smart card.
Just as the consortium of highway, bridge and tunnel providers accept E-Z Pass from
Maine to Illinois to Virginia, a regional transit smart card work along similar lines. NJ
Transit, PATH and the New York MTA have agreed that a regional smart card system
would be highly desirable. PATH is currently testing their SmartLink contactless smart
card system among a select group of PATH customers, with an aim towards system wide
deployment.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
44
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
7.
Pre-Trip Information Systems
Pre-trip information systems provide travelers with pertinent information before they begin their
trip. Most often, this consists of transit routes, schedules, fares and other useful information
related to their trip. Trip planning websites, which allow a potential transit user to plan door-todoor trips using transit are being used extensively in Europe and beginning to be introduced in
the United States.
Conventional pre-trip information systems, such as automated systems or human operators to
assist travelers have been in service for many years. Recent advances in technology have brought
newer and more advanced pre-trip information systems. Most systems use computers, often in
conjunction with the Internet, which has made it possible for most people to retrieve fast and
reliable transit information. Also increasing in popularity is retrieving transit information via a
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) or via web enabled cell phones.
Currently, transit agencies are operating pre-trip information systems to answer information
inquires. An Internet Home Page, either linked to the Bergen County website or to the service
provider’s website, is convenient method of providing pre-trip information such as route maps,
frequency, fares, schedules, schedule updates, transfer information to travelers, news updates.
Some websites even feature the ability for users to provide comments. The website may also be
used for both promotional and educational purposes, i.e. information on vehicle features and
“how to ride.”
Most transit agencies, including the Los Angeles MTA Orange Line (above), use the Internet to provide pre-trip
information
such as schedules and route maps.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
45
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
The interactive website of the York Rapid Transit Corporation features a virtual tour of how to ride their
system. This page depicts a “vehicle tour” that presents the customer-friendly features of the vehicle to
website visitors. Other pages show how to purchase a ticket from their Ticket Vending Machines.
Trip planning websites offer the same information as transit agency websites with an added
feature, the ability to plan door-to-door trips via various modes of transportation. Currently, none
of the transit providers serving Bergen County offer route maps via the internet. A trip planning
website can integrate information regarding the Bergen Rapid Transit system with other existing
transit services, providing a “one-stop” intermodal, multi-carrier information source for potential
transit users.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
46
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
The German Federal Railroad uses a trip planning software that allows the user to plan a door to door trip
using public and intercity transportation. Once the schedule information has been displayed, the user can
click on tabs to get information on mobility benefits and environmental benefits.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
47
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
VI.
FUNDING SOURCES
There are a number of potential funding sources that may be used for the construction and
operation of the proposed improvements identified as part of this study. This section provides a
general overview of potential funding sources.
A.
Funding the Initial Operating Segment: FTA Small Starts Program
Bergen Rapid Transit will look toward multiple funding sources, including local, State, and
public/private funding mechanisms. Federal funding, available in a more competitive basis, may
flow most readily through the FTA’s Small Starts funding program.
Small Starts is a new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) capital investment program for
projects requesting Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant funding of less than $75 million with
a total project cost of less than $250 million in year of expenditure dollars. The following is
based on the FTA’s Interim Guidance and Instructions for Small Starts projects.
Eligibility
Any public body is eligible to apply for Small Starts funds, as long as it has the legal, technical
and financial capability to carry out the project. If the applicant is not expected to be the
operator of the project, the applicant must demonstrate how the project will be operated and
maintained and provide an executed agreement before a Project Construction Grant Agreement
can be finalized.
In addition, a Small Starts project must either (a) meet the definition of a fixed guideway for at
least 50% of the project length in the peak period, (b) be a fixed guideway project, or (c) be a
corridor-based bus project with the following minimum elements:

Substantial transit stations,

Traffic signal priority/preemption,

Low-floor vehicles or level boarding,

Branding for the proposed service,

10 minute peak/15 minute off peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours
per day
In addition, Very Small Starts, simple low risk projects that based on their characteristics and the
context in which they are proposed to operate, qualify for a highly simplified project evaluation
and rating process. Very Small Starts projects must include the features described above, and in
addition, must have the following elements:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
48
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report

Are in corridors with existing riders who will benefit from the proposed project that will
exceed 3,000 per weekday, and

Have a total capital cost less than $50 million (including all project elements) and less
than $3 million per mile, exclusive of rolling stock.
Projects that otherwise qualify for New Starts funding may not be subdivided into several Small
Starts projects. Projects may be built in phases or a series of minimal operable segments, but all
potential Small Starts projects envisioned for a single corridor will be evaluated as a single
project. If the combined cost or total requested funding amount is over the Small Starts limits,
the projects will be evaluated as traditional New Starts projects.
Submission Requirements to Prove Eligibility
To prove that the proposed project qualifies as a Small Start project based on project costs,
sponsors must submit a detailed cost estimate using the FTA’s Standardized Cost Categories, and
document the funding strategy for the project. Sponsors may request up to 80% of the project
cost up to $75 million, but are encouraged to request the smallest amount required necessary to
complete the project, due to the competitive nature of the program.
Planning Requirements
The FTA envisions that a simplified Alternatives Analysis process will be possible for Small
Starts projects as long as one of the alternatives is not a potential New Starts project (i.e.
requesting funding over $75 million with a total cost over $250 million).
The measures of mobility that support project justification are based on a comparison between
the Small Starts project and a baseline alternative (typically a Transportation Systems
Management Alternative, a low-cost improvement providing comparable levels of service as the
Small Start project).
Evaluation Criteria and Measures
Until issuance of the Final Rule, the Small Starts evaluation framework and measures will be
consistent with those used to evaluate New Starts projects with some differences. Project cost
effectiveness will be rated based on a shorter timeframe, other technically acceptable ridership
forecasting procedures other than the traditional “4-step” travel demand model will be allowed
with FTA concurrence, the opening estimate for user benefits will be adjusted upwards, and
simplified financial and land use reporting requirements. SAEFTEA-LU requires that the FTA
consider economic development and the reliability of cost and ridership forecasts in its
evaluation of New Starts projects. The measures for these criteria and how they apply to Small
Starts projects is the subject of a formal rulemaking. Until issuance of this Final Rule, FTA will
consider economic development by evaluating this criterion as an “Other Factor”. Project
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
49
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
sponsors are encourage to provide any documentation that supports the finding that the project
will result in economic development benefits.
Small Starts projects will have a separate rating for project justification, which will include land
use, cost effectiveness and other factors (including economic development).
Local Financial Commitment
For all Small Starts projects FTA will evaluate the financial capability of the sponsor to construct
and operate the proposed investments. To receive a “medium” rating, the project sponsor must
demonstrate the following:

A reasonable plan to secure funding for the local share of capital funds or sufficient
available funds for the local share.

The additional operating and maintenance cost to the agency of the proposed Small Starts
project is less than 5 percent of the agency’s operating budget.

The agency is in reasonably good financial condition.
FTA Funding Recommendations
FTA may recommend proposed Small Starts projects for funding after they have been approved
to enter project development, are “ready” to implement their proposed project and continue to be
rated at least “medium” for both project justification and local financial commitment. Projects
that meet these conditions may be recommended for funding, based on funding availability.
The Initial Operating Segment for the Bergen Rapid Transit system would provide new mobility
options for Bergen County residents, workers and visitors via a new high-quality rapid service
linking major intra-county destinations.
B.
Full System Capital Funding Sources
Capital costs represent the costs of long-term assets such as transit priority improvements and
vehicles.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) – STP is a federal funding source used for highway
and transit capital and planning activities. Activities include:





Construction/rehabilitation of roads and bridges.
Transit capital improvements.
Car and vanpool projects.
Park-and-ride and corridor parking facilities.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
50
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
STP provides the best opportunity for flexing Federal highway funds to pay for transit projects.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) – CMAQ funds may only be used for
projects that reduce congestion and/or vehicular emissions. Projects eligible for CMAQ funding
include:





Transit system capital expansion.
Travel demand management strategies and shared ride services.
HOV facilities.
Pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Automobile inspection and maintenance programs.
FTA Section 5307 – This is a federal funding source primarily used to assist in the acquisition,
financing, construction, cost-effective leasing, planning and improvement of facilities. FTA
Section 5307 funds are also used to purchase or lease equipment for use by mass transportation
services in urbanized areas.
FTA Section 5309 – This is a federal funding source that provides assistance in three categories:
fixed guideway modernization; new and extended fixed guideways under New Starts; and the
replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction of
bus related facilities. Funds for bus and bus-related facilities are allocated on a discretionary
basis. The federal share on projects that use Section 5309 funds has typically been around 50%,
with a “local match” required to cover the remainder.
Impact Assessment Fees – An impact assessment fee is a new tax or fee (or a rate increase in an
old one) levied on development which occurs after the transportation improvement is committed.
Transportation Enhancement District – A Transportation Enhancement District (TED) is a
new planning mechanism for local governments in New Jersey to address transportation
problems at the local level. The TED process establishes a voluntary and cooperative partnership
to look at solutions, costs and the sharing of expenses through a long-term comprehensive
planning approach. Fees could be assessed on existing traffic generating properties to correct
existing transportation problems and on future development to ensure that adequate
transportation infrastructure is in place.
NJDOT County Aid – County Aid funds are appropriated by the Legislature annually for the
improvement of public roads and bridges under county jurisdiction as well as public
transportation and other transportation projects.
Joint Development – Federal funds may be used for a variety of joint development activities,
however the activities must be physically or functionally related to a transit project, and must
enhance the effectiveness of the transit project.
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the FTA interprets the
Capital Program and the federal transit laws to allow such joint development projects under the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
51
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
Urbanized Area Formula Program and CMAQ Program when these funds are transferred to FTA
for a transit project. Similarly, the FTA is also alerting its grantees to the fact that assets
previously acquired with FTA funds may be used for such joint development purposes. For
example, land now used for station parking and no longer needed for transit purposes may be
converted to use in a transit-related development project.
General Obligation Bonds – These are securities which are backed by the full faith and credit
of the issuing state and/or local governments. General Obligation Bonds usually require voter
approval. Two types of General Obligation Bonds are typically issued. The first is an unlimited
tax general obligation bond that is secured by a tax source that is not limited in rate or amount.
The second is a limited tax general obligation bond which is only secured by taxes from specific
sources such as a sales, motor fuels, or property tax.
C.
Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are directly related to the operation and maintenance
transportation and streetscape improvements. O&M costs typically include shuttle bus driver
wages, fuel, maintenance crew wages and materials, and administrative costs.
Flexible Funds for Highway and Transit Flexible Funds - Flexible funds are certain
legislatively specified funds that may be used either for transit or highway purposes. This
provision was first included in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1999 and
was continued with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
The idea of flexible funds is that a local area can choose to use certain Federal surface
transportation funds based on local planning priorities, not on a restrictive definition of program
eligibility. Flexible funds include Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Surface
Transportation Program funds and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
and Federal Transit Administration Urban Formula Funds.
Direct Developer Contributions – In addition to providing or contributing to the provision of
infrastructure or services necessary to serve a new development, direct developer contributions
may be used to fund the operation and maintenance of infrastructure or services.
Retail Concessions and Advertising Revenues – Transit agencies lease space to retail
companies and independent vendors. At a minimum this involves the lease of excess space to
newspaper stands and convenience centers. A more aggressive approach includes the cooperative
design and development, or renovation or rehabilitation of station space.
Advertising can be an attractive source of revenue for transit agencies. Transit agencies can sell
spots for interior and exterior advertisements on buses and trains, as well as for bus shelters, in
transit stations, and at transfer points.
Adopt a station/street/corridor or station/street/corridor sponsorship – An Adopt-a-Station
(or street or corridor) program provides businesses and community groups, an opportunity to
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
52
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
partner with the transit agencies to make rail stations more inviting and attractive. Program work
may consist of picking up litter and/or light landscaping and/or planting/caring for flowers,
shrubs, small trees and/or other ideas.
Fare Revenues – Fare revenue is comprised of the income generated by the provision of transit
service. Fare revenue is typically used to fund a portion of a transit system’s operating cost.
Job Access Reverse Commute Program – Job Access grants are intended to provide new
transit service to assist welfare recipients and other low-income individuals in getting to jobs,
training, and child care. Reverse Commute grants are designed to develop transit services to
transport workers to suburban job sites.
Eligible activities for Job Access grants include capital and operating costs of equipment,
facilities, and associated capital maintenance items related to providing access to jobs. Also
included are the costs of promoting the use of transit by workers with nontraditional work
schedules, promoting the use of transit vouchers, and promoting the use of employer-provided
transportation including the transit benefits. For Reverse Commute grants, the following
activities are eligible—operating costs, capital costs and other costs associated with reverse
commute by bus, train, carpool, vans or other transit service.
Additional operating revenue for transportation improvements may be derived from parking
ticket revenues and parking meter and parking lot revenues. Parking revenues are used by some
transit systems to help fund a portion of their operating costs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
53
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
VII.
CONCLUSIONS
The Bergen Rapid Transit (BRT) system is designed to offer a viable, new option for intracounty trips. By offering a rapid, high-quality transit service with frequent headways, this new
system could serve a variety of trip purposes for Bergen County residents and visitors including
work, entertainment, recreational and shopping trips. The BRT system is intended to offer
options to Bergen County residents and visitors by enticing people who currently drive alone out
of their cars by offering a reliable, efficient transit service connecting major intra-county
destinations. Major Bergen County corridors such as Route 17, Route 3 and Route 4 experience
heavy congestion even during the middle of the day. Part of this is due to traffic that originates
and ends outside of Bergen County, part due to Bergen County’s population and employment
gains over the past few decades. Even so, increasing roadway capacity is not a viable solution
because available land is at a premium, highway expansion carries high societal costs and the
attendant financial costs are prohibitive.
Although the proposed Blue Route will primarily run express along highways and the proposed
Orange Route will be more of an urban route, they are designed to interconnect at major stops,
thus allowing transfers between them. The BRT system will also interchange with other existing
and proposed transit services to foster easy interchanges between modes and carriers so
customers can take whichever combination best suits their needs.
The BRT system will feature attractive, state-of-the art, modern stations with amenities designed
to enhance the experience for customers such as ticket vending machines, electronic bus
arrival/countdown signs, and public artwork. Larger stations will also feature Park & Ride and
Kiss & Ride facilities.
The BRT system is expected to operate seven days a week with 10-minute headways during peak
periods and 15 minute headways in the off-peak. Initial “first cut” ridership projections indicate a
relatively robust demand for a new transit system – 4,200 daily riders on the Blue Route and
3,200 daily riders on the Orange Route.
If the full BRT system is implemented, it would provide the following benefits:

New mobility options for Bergen County residents, workers and visitors.

A new high-quality rapid service linking major intra-county destinations.

A system designed to appeal to non-transit customers.

A system designed to serve a variety of trip purposes including work, entertainment,
recreational and shopping trips.

BRT stations which could be a focal point for Transit Oriented Development.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
54
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report

A service which operates seven days per week with more frequent headways than
existing transit services.

Reduced travel times between many major County destinations.

A system flexible enough to grow and evolve as demand increases.
Beyond the Initial Operating Segment: FTA New Starts Process
Should Bergen County and its partners wish to seek out greater Federal funding for the overall
Rapid Transit system – and meet the criteria for Federal Transit Administration New Starts
Funding—there are three steps in the process that must be followed:



Alternatives Analysis
Preliminary Engineering
Final Design
The requirements for completing each of these three steps as part of a multi-year planning
process that could span five or more years, is described below.
Alternatives Analysis
Project applicants (sponsors) applying for Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 New
Starts funding must perform an Alternatives Analysis of mode and alignment options within the
corridor(s) in which a project is proposed. In the Alternatives Analysis phase, applicants must
provide information on the benefits, costs, ridership, time savings, and impacts of various
alternative transportation strategies, leading to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative to
meet the region’s mobility needs.
The Federal Transit Administration will require an objective analysis of a range of transportation
alternatives and improvements that may effectively serve the Route 17 corridor. It is during this
study phase that detailed ridership projections are undertaken, along with detailed route
alignments, operating concepts, operating costs, and construction costs for each promising or
feasible study alternative. Project evaluation criteria to determine which alternatives are viable
must be developed.
During the Alternatives Analysis, a proactive public involvement program is essential, as Federal
Transit Administration wants clear evidence of public support for the selected alternative. All
potential local funding sources required for the implementation and operation of the proposed
investment(s) need to be identified and studied.
The Alternatives Analysis phase is considered complete when a Locally Preferred Alternative is
selected by local and regional decision-makers and adopted by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization in its financially-constrained metropolitan transportation plan.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
55
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report
As Bergen County’s project will compete against a number of other projects seeking federal
funding, the Federal Transit Administration will rate each project for cost effectiveness and
assign a project rating. Only those projects that receive either a “Highly Recommended” or
“Recommended” rating from the Federal Transit Administration will advance to the next step.
Preliminary Engineering
After the Locally Preferred Alternative is selected, the project applicant must submit to the
Federal Transit Administration the New Starts project justification and local financial plan to
gain approval to move into the Preliminary Engineering phase. During Preliminary Engineering,
the project is refined and improved to meet changing requirements, project costs are more
accurately estimated, and project management plans are completed. In addition, requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are addressed at this stage, including the
development of strategies to mitigate any environmental impacts. Local funding sources also
need to be committed at this stage.
The Preliminary Engineering phase is considered complete when Federal Transit Administration
issues a Record of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact.
Final Design
After completing Preliminary Engineering phase, the project applicant must obtain Federal
Transit Administration approval before entering into the Final Design phase of the project. Tasks
that must be completed during Final Design include determination of right-of-way acquisition, if
required, and development of utility relocation plans, final construction plans, detailed
specifications, and construction and operating cost estimates.
This phase is complete when the Federal Transit Administration is satisfied with the completed
work and signs a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the project sponsor. Following the
execution of the Full Funding Grant Agreement and appropriation of funds, project construction
can begin. It should be noted that the Full Funding Grant Agreement provides a construction and
project budget that must be adhered to. Any cost overruns become the applicant’s responsibility.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
56
APPENDIX A
Technical Memorandum 1
Left blank intentionally
APPENDIX B
Signalized Intersection Surveys
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-1: Blue Route Signalized Intersections - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction
Blue Route (north to
south)
Intersection
Route 202 & Magnolia
Rd
Ridgewood Ave &
Fashion Center Exit
Oradell Ave &
Pascack Rd
Fairview Ave &
Ridgewood Ave
Fairview Ave &
Sweetbriar
Fairview Ave &
Midland Avenue
Fairview Ave &
Century Road
Fairview Ave & Spring
Valley
Garden State Plaza
Way & Farview Ave
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Street 1
1 (NB)
1+ lf turn
(SB)
Curbside Parking?
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Street 2
Street 1
Street 2
1 + 1 lf turn
(WB)
No
No
1 + 1 lf
turn/thru
(EB)
2 (WB)
No
2
2
No
No
No
2 + lt turn
(SB)
2 (NB)
2
No
No
No
2
1 (EB)
2
No
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
Park or
vacant
Baseball field
Tennis courts
College building
Parking for
commercial
building
Parking for
commercial
building
Parking for
Fashion Center
mall
Vacant land
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Commercial
Residential
Single family
residence
Bergen
Medical
Center
Paramus
Recreation
Center
Residential
Parkland
Paramus
Recreation
Center
Woods
Gas Station
Residential
Residential
Church
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Columbia
Savings
Bank
Single family
residence
Commercial
(dry cleaner, 711)
Commercial
(Haircraft)
Vacant
1 + rt turn
(SB)
2 + rt turn
(NB)
2
1 + 2 turn
1 + 2 turn
1 + rt turn
(NB)
1
+ lf turn
(SB)
1 + 1 rt
turn (EB)
1 + 1 rt
turn (WB)
No
No
Land Uses
1 + rt turn
(WB)
1 + 1 lf turn
(NB)
2 + 1 rt
turn (SB)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Private Property
SW Corner
Comments
No
No
No
No
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-1
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-1: Blue Route Signalized Intersections - Mahwah to Secaucus Junction
Blue Route (north to
south)
Intersection
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Curbside Parking?
Street 1
Street 2
Street 1
Spring Valley Ave &
Spring Valley Rd
1 +1 lf
turn (EB)
1 +1 lf
turn (WB)
1 (NB)
1 + rt turn
(SB)
No
Spring Valley Ave &
Maywood Ave
1 +1 lf
(EB)
1 + 2 turn
(WB)
Spring Valley Ave &
Summit Ave
1 + 1 lf
turn/thru
(EB)
1 (WB)
Summit Ave &
Passaic Ave
1 + 1 lf turn
(NB)
1 + 2 turn
(SB)
lf turn + 1
thru/right
(NB)
rt turn + 1
lf turn/thru
Street 2
Yes on
south side
apprx. 100'
from
intersection
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Land Uses
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
No
Dental
office/small
office
building
Office building
(vacant?)
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
No
No
No
Office
building
Parking lot for
Bergen Mall
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Yes
Yes
No
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
1
1
Yes
No
No
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Church
Single family
residence
1 + lf turn
(EB)
1 (WB)
1
No
Yes
No
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Multi-family
residence (5
story)
Multi-family
residence (2
story)
1
2
No
No
No
Vacant
Arena Diner
Commercial
Vacant (former
gas station)
Passaic St & Prospect
Ave
1
1 (NB)
2 (SB)
No
Yes
No
4 story
apartment
building
Medical Arts
building
Commercial
Commercial
Polifly Rd & Lodi St
2
1
No
No
No
Multi-family
residence (2
story)
Single family
residence
Sunoco gas
station
Multi-family
residence (2
story)
South Rd & Seaview
Drive
1
2 (WB)
No
No
No
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Secaucus
Junction rail
station
Passaic St & Prospect
Ave
Essex St & Polifly
Road
Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-2
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-2: Orange Route Signalized Intersections - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction
Orange Route (north
to south)
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Intersection
E. Saddle River Rd &
E. Glen Ave
Street 1
E. Saddle River Rd &
Linwood Ave
E. Saddle River Rd &
Ridgewood Ave
Paramus Rd & Grove
St/Midland Ave
Paramus Rd & Bergen
Community College
Paramus Rd/Bergen
Community College
Main Entrance
Curbside Parking?
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Street 2
2 (WB
only)
Street 1
Street 2
No
No
No
1 + lf turn
1 + lf turn
No
No
No
1 + lf turn
1 + 2 turn
No
No
No
1 + 2 turn
(NB)
2 + lf turn
(SB)
1 + 1 turn
No
No
No
1 + 2 turn
(NB)
2 (SB)
1 + 2 turn
(EB)
1
+ 1 turn
(WB)
No
2
No
2
No
No
2 (NB)
2 + rt turn
(SB)
2 + lf turn
(NB)
2 + lf turn
(SB)
2 + 1 turn
(EB)
2 + 2 turn
(WB)
No
1 + 2 turn
1 + 2 turn
No
No
No
Paramus Rd &
Garden State Plaza
Way
2 (NB)
1 + 2 turn
(SB)
1 +3 turn
(EB)
3 turn
(WB)
No
No
No
Century Rd & Plaza
Country Club office
park entrance
2
1 (NB)
2 turn (SB)
No
No
No
Paramus Rd &
Century Rd
Paramus Rd & Red
Mill Rd
No
No
Land Uses
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
Residential
Woods
Route 17
Route 17
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Paramus
H.S...
Community
College
Residential
Residential
Residential
Community
College
Community
College
Community
College
Geo.
Washington
Mem. Park
Saddle River
County Park
Residential
Saddle River
County Park
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commerce
Bank
GSP
overpass
Country Club
Plaza office
park
Single family
residential
Yes
No
Empty parcel
except for GSP
Mall sign
Office parks
(one is
vacant/another
under
construction)
Comments
Commercial
(restaurant)
Townhouse
residences
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-3
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-2: Orange Route Signalized Intersections - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction
Orange Route (north
to south)
Intersection
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Street 1
Street 2
Curbside Parking?
Street 1
Street 2
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
No
Office
(NAPL)
Hilcrest
Garden Inc.
Office (West 80
Century Rd)
Office (West 80
Century Rd)
No
No
IBEW Local
Union 164
building
Office (NAPL)
Vacant office
(70 W Century)
Office (West 80
Century Rd)
No
No
No
Columbia
Savings
Bank
Single family
residence
Commercial
(dry cleaner, 711)
Commercial
(Haircraft)
No
No
No
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
No
Dental
office/small
office
building
Office building
(vacant?)
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
2
2 (SB only)
No
No
Century Rd & Essex
St
2
1
No
1 + 1 rt
turn (EB)
1 + 1 rt
turn (WB)
1 + 1 rt
turn (NB)
1 + 1 lf
turn (SB)
1 + 1 lf turn
(NB)
2 + 1 rt
turn (SB)
1 + rt turn
(WB only)
Farview Ave & Spring
Valley Ave
Land Uses
NE Corner
Century Rd & College
Rd
Garden State Plaza
Way & Farview Ave
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Spring Valley Ave &
Spring Valley Rd
1 +1 lf
turn (EB)
1 +1 lf
turn (WB)
1 (NB)
1 + rt turn
(SB)
No
Yes on
south side
apprx. 100'
from
intersection
Spring Valley Ave &
Maywood Ave
1 +1 lf
(EB)
1 + 2 turn
(WB)
1 + 1 lf turn
(NB)
1 + 2 turn
(SB)
No
No
No
Office
building
Parking lot for
Bergen Mall
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Hackensack Ave &
Shops at Riverside
entrance
3 + rt turn
(NB)
2 (SB)
1 + 2 turn
(WB only)
No
No
Yes NB only
Best
Western
Hotel
Continental
Plaza office
building
Shops at
Riverside
n/a
Hackensack Ave &
Terehune Pl
2 (NB)
2 + 2 turn
(SB)
2
No
No
No
Burger King
Dunkin
Donuts
Commerce
bank
Firestone
River St & E.
Anderson St
2 + 2 turn
(NB)
3 (SB)
2 + 1 turn
(EB)
2 + 2 turn
(WB)
No
Johnson
Park
Sears and
Roebuck
Driver thru oil
change & lube
Enterprise
rental car/2
story multifamily
residence
No
No
Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-4
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-2: Orange Route Signalized Intersections - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction
Orange Route
(north to south)
Intersection
River St & Passaic
St
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Street 1
2
Street 2
Curbside Parking?
Street 1
Street 2
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Land Uses
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
YMCA
Good Year
McDonalds
2 turn
(EB)
No
No
No
White
Mamma
hamburger
Yes, on
River St
No
Toyota
dealer
Tennis Court
Toyota dealer
parking lot
Office parking lot
River St & Camden
2
1
Yes, on
north
side of
Camden
River St & Court St
2 + rt
turn (NB)
2 (SB)
2 (EB
only)
1 (WB)
No
No
No
2 story office
(60 Court
Street)
Single family
residence
Pep Boys
County parking lot
2+2
turn (NB)
2 + 1 rt
turn (SB)
1 + lf turn
(EB)
1+2
turn
(WB)
1 + 2 turn
(EB)
1 + lf turn
(WB)
No
No
No
Costco
parking lot
One Bergen
County Plaza
parking
garage
County
parking lot
Junkyard
2
No
No
No
One Bergen
County
Plaza
77 Hudson 2
story
commercial
One story
office building
n/a
River St & Kansas St
Kansas St & Hudson
St
Essex St & South
State Street
2
lf turn + 2
rt turn
(NB) 2 + lf
turn (SB)
No
No
No
4 story office
(Court
Plaza)
2 story retail
Pizza Hut
75 Essex - 4 story
commercial
Essex St & Main
St/S. Newman St
2
1
No
No
No
Eastern
Service
Center
Bergen Fire
Equipment
Company
McDonalds
2 story mixed use
building
(commercial/residential)
Essex St & Polifly St
2 + rt
turn (NB)
2 (SB)
2
No
No
Yes on
Essex; No
on Polifly
Vacant lot:
public
housing
Arena Diner
Vacant (former
gas station)
Rite Aid
Essex St & Prospect
St
1
1 (NB)
2 (SB)
No
Yes, on
Prospect
Ave
No
4 story
apartment
building
Medical Arts
building
Commercial
Commercial
Comments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-5
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-2: Orange Route Signalized Intersections - Bergen Community College to Secaucus Junction
Orange Route (north
to south)
Intersection
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Street 1
Street 2
Summit Ave &
Pleasantview Ave
2 + lf turn
(NB)
2 (SB)
Summit Ave &
Baldwin Ave
Blvd & Union
St/Williams Ave
Curbside Parking?
Street 1
Street 2
1 (EB)
1 + lf turn
(EB)
No
No
1 + lf turn
(NB)
1 + lf turn
(SB)
1
No
1 + turn
lane
1 + turn
lane
No - SB
Yes - NB
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Land Uses
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
Comments
No
Commercial
Pleasantview
Auto Service
Washington
Mutual bank
Commercial
No
No
SF
Residential
SF
Residential
No
No
MXD
Dunkin'
Donuts
BP Gas Station
Multi-Family
w/ groundfloor retail
Yes
SF
Residential
Hasbrouck
Heights
Middle School
and High
School
Medical Offices
Office
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Yes
Church
Office
MXD
MXD
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Boulevard & LaSalle
Ave
1
1
Yes
Boulevard & Kipp Ave
1
1
Yes
Boulevard & Franklin
Ave
1
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
MXD
MXD
MXD
MXD
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Boulevard & Raymond
St
1
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bank of
America
Commercial
SF Residential
SF Residential
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Valley Blvd & Windsor
Rd
1
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
MXD
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Valley Blvd &
Highland Ave
1
1
Yes
No
Park
SF Residential
Multi-Family
MXD
Multi-Family
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away
Yes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-6
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix B
Table B-2: Orange Route Signalized Intersections - Bergen Community College (Ridgewood Park & Ride) to Secaucus Junction
Orange Route
(north to south)
# of Traffic Lanes in
Each Direction
Curbside Parking?
Street 1
Street 2
Street 1
Street 2
Hackensack St &
Hoboken Rd
1
1
Yes
No
Hackensack St &
Paterson
Av/Paterson Plank
Rd
1
1
No
Hackensack St &
Union Ave
1 (NB)
1 + lf turn
(SB)
1 + turn
lane (EB)
2 turn
lanes (WB)
Union Ave & Route
17
2 + rt
turn (EB)
2
thru/turn
+ lf turn
(WB)
Murray Hill
Parkway & Route
120
South Rd &
Seaview Drive
Space for
Queue
Jumper?
Land Uses
NE Corner
NW Corner
SE Corner
SW Corner
Yes
SF
Residential
Medical
Offices
Church
Park/playground
No
No
Bank of NY
Candlewyck
Diner
MXD
Diner parking lot
No
No
No
Commercial
building
parking lot
Park
Baseball field
Commercial
4
No
No
No
Park
Industrial
building
parking lot
Industrial
building parking
lot
Football Stadium
2 (NB)
1 (SB)
2 + turn
lane (EB)
2 (WB)
No
No
No
Vacant
Restaurant
grass area of
highway
interchange
Industrial building
1
2 (WB)
No
No
No
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Secaucus Junction rail
station
Comments
Room for queue
jumper if parking
taken away, but
bus turns west
onto Hoboken Rd
at this intersection
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
B-7
APPENDIX C
Year 2015 Demand Forecasting Using NJTDFM
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
Introduction
This report describes the methodology used to forecast the future (2015) demand for the
proposed Bergen Rapid Transit (BRT) system using NJTDFM, New Jersey Transit’s
Demand Forecasting Model.
The planned BRT service would consist of two routes, one running between Ramapo
College, in Mahwah and, NJT’s Secaucus Junction rail station, and the other running
between Bergen County Community College, in Paramus and, NJT’s Secaucus Junction
rail station. BRT is proposed to run 7 days a week. On weekdays, service would be
offered between 5:30 AM to 11:30 PM. During Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, the
hours of service would be 6 AM to midnight. Service on each route would be provided
every 10 minutes during the peak periods (weekdays, 6 AM–9 AM and 4 PM–7 PM), and
every 15 minutes during the off-peak periods. However, depending on the ridership
levels, adjustments to this operating plan might be required.
The next section provides a brief overview of the NJTDFM. This is followed by a
description of how the proposed BRT routes were represented in the model. Main results
and discussions are given in the last section.
An addendum to this report summarizes comments received from NJ Transit’s technical
staff at a meeting held on June 5, 2006.
Overview of the NJT Model (NJTDFM)
The NJTDFM was designed and developed to forecast the demand for transit travel
within northern New Jersey and between northern New Jersey and adjacent portions of
New York and Pennsylvania. The model includes an extensive study area (37 counties)
and a detailed zone system (2053 zones). The latest version of the model, Version D, was
used for the current analysis.
The NJTDFM is a modified 4-step model in which Steps 1 and 2 (Trip Generation and
Distribution) are replaced by a process that develops the person trip table from survey
and model-derived data. This person trip table includes estimates of the total number of
trips for each zone-to-zone combination in the modeling area. The model generates
separate tables for peak and off-peak periods, and for four trip purposes – home-based
work, home-based shop, home-based other, and non-home based.
Step 3, Mode Choice, estimates the share of travel occurring on each mode for each zoneto-zone combination in each trip table. The modes considered in the model are commuter
rail, long distance ferry (exceeding 25 minutes), PATH, NYC subway, Newark subway,
local bus, express bus, park-and-ride bus, ferry, LRT, and auto. For the transit modes, the
choice of access mode (walk vs. drive) is also considered.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-1
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
In Step 4, Assignment, the zone-to-zone transit person-trips and highway vehicle-trips are
assigned to paths consistent with the travel modes determined in the mode choice. Trips
for each transit mode are all assigned to the best path established for that mode.
Assignment uses network representations of the highway and transit networks. A
complementary network analysis process reads these same networks prior to mode choice
to develop level-of-service (also known as skim) matrices (e.g., time and cost) to
characterize each mode for each zone-to-zone combination. (NJT, 2005).
Table 1 below summarizes some specifications of the NJTDFM related to transit path
building and assignment.
Table 1. Summary of NJTDFM Specifications
Time Periods
Weekday Peak (6:00 AM-10:00 AM or 3:30 PM-7:30
PM)
Weekday Off-Peak (all other times)
Trip Purposes
Home-based work (HBW)
Home-based shop (HBS)
Home-based other (HBO)
Non-home-based (NHB)
Fare System
Distance based, for each transit mode
Walk Access Distances
Maximum Walking
Distance
Assumes an average walking speed of 3 mph
1.25 miles for commuter rail
1 mile for all other transit modes
Transfer Penalty
5.3 minutes for the 1st transfer
6.9 minutes for the 2nd transfer
7.6 minutes for the 3rd transfer
8.2 minutes for the 4th transfer
8.6 minutes for the 5th transfer
Initial Wait Factor
2 for commuter rail
1.5 for all other transit modes
Transfer Wait Factor
2 for commuter rail
1.5 for all other transit modes
Maximum Impedance
120 minutes
Representation of the Proposed Bergen Rapid Transit Service
in the NJTDFM
Based on the route descriptions and operating plan obtained from STV Group on April 7,
2006, the proposed BRT system (Blue route and Orange route) was added to the year
2015 transit network provided by NJT. The process of adding the BRT system to the
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-2
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
network involved adding three additional transit lines (two one-way lines were used to
represent the Orange route), as well as adding a few links to the highway network as
needed to allow the BRT routes to be properly represented.
BRT was coded in the model as Mode 5 (“Local Bus”), the mode used in the NJTDFM to
represent roadway-based transit routes that operate within New Jersey. A 10-minute peak
period headway and 15-minute off-peak period headway were assumed.
In order to avoid extensive modifications to the highway network, a few minor
simplifications were applied to the proposed BRT routes. As the NJTDFM zone system is
not extremely detailed, in no case was it expected that these simplifications would
significantly change the model model-estimated patronage.
The simplifications that were applied to the Blue Route are as follows:
1. (Refer to Figure 1) In the vicinity of the Paramus Park and Fashion Center Malls, the
NJTDFM highway network includes only Route 17, the Garden State Parkway
(GSP), Ridgewood Avenue, and Midland Avenue. Rather than add all of the
additional roadways in between Route 17 and the GSP that would be used by the
BRT to access the malls, it was decided to have the route follow Ridgewood Avenue
from Route 17 to the GSP, with a station located at a new node (Node 21921) about
40 percent of the way from Route 17 to the GSP.
In the NJTDFM, there is a single zone (Zone 109) representing the portion of
Paramus that contains the two malls. A new 0.25-mile connector from the centroid of
this zone to the station node was added. Thus, the model assumes that the average
walking time from the station to any location in this zone is 5 minutes.
2. The portion of the route along Prospect Avenue in Hackensack was assumed to run
along Summit Avenue (one block west), which is in the NJTDFM highway network
(whereas Prospect Avenue is not). This should not have a significant impact on
model-estimated usage of the route.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-3
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
21921
109
Proposed
Modeled
Zone
Centroid
Node representing
the BRT stations for
the malls
Figure 1. Blue Route near Paramus Park Mall
The simplifications that were applied to the southbound Orange Route are as follows:
1. (Refer to Figure 2) In the vicinity of Hackensack Transit Center, the NJTDFM
highway network includes River Street, Court Street, and Hudson Street, but does not
include Camden Street, Moore Street, and Kansas Street that would also be used by
the BRT to make the proposed route maneuvers to serve the Hackensack Transit
Center and the County buildings. Rather than add all of these additional roadways, it
was decided to have the route follow River Street south to Court Street, and then
continue west on Essex Street directly. This should not have a significant impact on
model-estimated usage of the route, since the proposed stations can very well be
served with this latter route configuration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-4
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
2. North Avenue in Wood-Ridge is not in the NJTDFM highway network. Therefore,
the route was coded as continuing south on Fourth Street and Monroe Street (in
Carlstadt) to Hoboken Road, and then east on Hoboken Road to Hackensack Street.
This simplification does not affect the location of either the Valley Boulevard and
Windsor Street station in Wood-Ridge or the Hackensack Street and Hoboken Road
station (on the border between Carlstadt and East Rutherford).
3. (Refer to Figure 3) In the vicinity of NJT’s Secaucus Junction Rail Station, the
NJTDFM highway network includes Secaucus Road and County Avenue, but does
not include Seaview Avenue and Castle Road that would be used by the BRT to make
the proposed route maneuvers to reach its final station near NJT’s Secaucus Junction
rail station. Rather than add these additional roadways, it was decided to have the
Proposed
Modeled
Hackensack Transit
Center
County Buildings
Figure 2. Orange Route near Hackensack Transit Center
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-5
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
route follow Secaucus Road to County Avenue, and then continue south on County
Avenue.
In addition to the modifications and simplifications considered for the transit route
representation, some assumptions were also used in the model to properly account for the
potential time savings attributable to the improved vehicle and station design, and
operational characteristics of the BRT system, over the traditional buses, namely:







Proof of payment/off-board fare collection to permit all door boarding
Low-floor bus design
Level boarding platforms
Provision of real time message signs
Use of smart cards
Traffic preemption at signalized intersections
Exclusive lanes
Proposed
Modeled
Secaucus
Junction Rail
Station
Figure 3. Orange Route near NJT’s Secaucus Junction Rail Station
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-6
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
It has been shown in the previous studies (e.g. Levine, 1994; FTA, 2004) in the literature
that, as well as the quantitative benefits in terms of time savings, such improved
characteristics of the bus rapid transit systems also produce qualitative benefits in terms
of serving the population of transit passengers with disabilities, improving the reliability
of fare collection and the recording of boarding data, to name a few.
In the model, a multiplicative time factor was incorporated in the transit line file to
account for all these aforementioned time-saving components collectively. The
magnitude of this factor was determined based on the results of the analysis carried out
by the STV Group, which relied on several assumptions given below:






For traditional bus boarding, a 30-second dwell time was assumed for all stations
BRT stops at each BRT station en route
15 seconds of travel time savings will accrue at each signalized intersection due to
traffic preemption
50% of the traffic lights will be red when the BRT vehicle arrives at the
intersection
South Road and Seaview Drive intersection (ramp to Secaucus Junction station
bus transfer center) is included in the southbound Blue Line and northbound
Orange Line. Because of the unique characteristics of this intersection, a red light
controls turning movements in and out of the station. With preemption, it is
assumed that 75 seconds of travel time savings will accrue
The Orange Line will utilize the shoulder of Route 4 for about 1.5 miles between
the intersections for Riverside Square Mall and Bergen Mall, resulting in 60
seconds of travel time savings.
Based on these assumptions, total time savings as calculated by the STV Group compared
to the operation of a traditional local (or limited stop) bus with front door
loading, fare-box fare collection, high-floor bus design, and no bus priority
on the streets, are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Total Time Savings for the BRT System
Travel Time Savings (sec)
Dwell Time Savings
Total Time Total Time
(sec)
Preemption On-Shoulder Operation Savings (sec) Savings (min)
Blue Route SB
190
203
0
393
6.6
Blue Route NB
190
128
0
318
5.3
Orange Route SB
250
323
60
633
10.6
Orange Route NB
250
405
60
715
11.9
Transit Line
The model results without taking into consideration any of these time savings indicated
that the total runtime on the Blue route is 84.6 minutes, on the southbound Orange route
it is 101.8 minutes, and on the northbound Orange route it is 103.3 minutes. Using these
values along with the total time savings estimated by the STV Group as shown in Table
2, the time factor to be used in the model was determined as 0.92 (resulting in an 8%
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-7
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
reduction in running time) for the Blue route, and as 0.89 (resulting in an 11% reduction
in running time) for the Orange Route.
Results and Discussion
Using the NJTDFM, NJ Transit’s Demand Forecasting Model, two runs were performed
to forecast the year 2015 transit demand for the proposed BRT system. The first run did
not take into consideration the travel time savings mentioned in the previous section,
whereas the second run incorporated those savings. In this section, results from each
model run are presented and a discussion of results on a comparative basis is provided.
The results pertaining to the number of linked trips by trip purpose and time period for
the bus mode only (express, local, and park-and-ride buses) are given in Table 3, for the
two model runs. As can be seen, majority of the trips taken by bus were work trips.
Incorporating the potential time savings in the model resulted in a slight increase in the
overall bus trips both in peak and off-peak periods.
Table 3. Linked Trips
Trip
Model without Time Savings Model with Time Savings
Purpose
Peak
Off-Peak
Peak
Off-Peak
Home-Based Work
366,006
124,217
365,968
124,207
Home-Based Shopping
5,730
10,783
5,733
10,780
Home-Based Other
39,147
56,209
39,156
56,223
Non Home-Based
29,733
30,499
29,763
30,521
TOTAL
440,616
221,708
440,620
221,731
The model also reports line-level results of running time, distance and boardings for each
transit line. A portion of these results are given in Tables 4 and 5 for the BRT system
only, for the two model runs. For the model without the time savings, after filtering out
the lines with zero boardings and the lines terminating at Port Authority Bus Terminal in
NY, the overall average boardings per mile was calculated as 84, and the median was
determined to be 29. Given these statistics, the “per mile boarding” results obtained for
the BRT system routes given in Table 4 seem to be within reasonable ranges.
Similarly, for the model with the time savings, after filtering out the lines with zero
boardings and the lines terminating at Port Authority Bus Terminal in NY, the overall
average boardings per mile was calculated as 84, and the median was found to be 29.
Given these statistics, the “per mile boarding” results obtained for the BRT system routes
given in Table 5 are also within reasonable ranges.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-8
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
Table 4. Line-Level Results for the Model without Time Savings
Peak
Dist
Time
Speed
Off-Peak
Boardings
Dist
Time
Speed
Daily
Boardings
Boardings
Line
(miles)
(min)
(mph)
A->B
B->A
Total
(miles)
(min)
(mph)
A->B
B->A
Total
A->B
B->A
Total
BRT Blue
31.7
84.6
22
1087
653
1740
31.7
72.5
26
1246
735
1981
2333
1388
3721
Per Mile
58.69
BRT Orange (NB)
21.9
103.3
13
800
0
800
21.9
90.7
14
746
0
746
1546
0
1546
70.59
BRT Orange (SB)
22.3
101.8
13
610
0
610
22.3
89.5
15
576
0
576
1186
0
1186
53.18
Table 5. Line-Level Results for the Model with Time Savings
Peak
Dist
Time
Speed
Off-Peak
Boardings
Dist
Time
Speed
Daily
Boardings
Boardings
Line
(miles)
(min)
(mph)
A->B
B->A
Total
(miles)
(min)
(mph)
A->B
B->A
Total
A->B
B->A
Total
BRT Blue (NB)
31.7
79.1
24
743
0
743
31.7
67.7
28
793
0
793
1536
0
1536
48.45
BRT Blue (SB)
31.7
77.8
24
1302
0
1302
31.7
66.7
29
1384
0
1384
2686
0
2686
84.73
BRT Orange (NB)
21.9
92
14
938
0
938
21.9
80.7
16
880
0
880
1818
0
1818
83.01
BRT Orange (SB)
22.3
90.6
15
713
0
713
22.3
79.7
17
705
0
705
1418
0
1418
63.59
Using the results reported in Tables 4 and 5, we can calculate the percent increase in
daily boardings in response to the time savings considered, and hence estimate the
elasticity of demand, , as follows:
= (% ChangeinBoardings / %Time Savings)
For the Blue route;
= (13.5% / -8%) = -1.69
For the Orange route;
= (18.5% / -11%) = -1.68
These results indicate that both routes exhibit an elastic behavior with respect to the
changes in travel and dwell times.
Finally, the total trips on the BRT system by access type are given in Tables 6 and 7, for
the two models. As can be seen in both tables, the model predicts that the majority of the
passengers access the BRT system by walking. This is typical of Mode 5 routes in the
NJTDFM.
Table 6. Trips by Access Type for the Model without Time Savings
Peak
Off-Peak
Drive Access Walk Access Total Drive Access Walk Access Total
Line
Board Alight Board Alight Board Board Alight Board Alight Board
BRT Blue
271
272 1,469 1,468 1,740 165
163 1,816 1,813 1,981
800
746
BRT Orange NB 26
27
774
773
5
4
741
741
610
576
BRT Orange SB 20
20
590
590
5
6
571
570
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-9
Per Mile
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
Table 7. Trips by Access Type for the Model with Time Savings
Peak
Off-Peak
Drive Access Walk Access Total Drive Access Walk Access Total
Line
Board Alight Board Alight Board Board Alight Board Alight Board
743
793
BRT Blue NB
203
203
540
539
92
91
701
702
BRT Blue SB
93
93
1,209 1,207 1,302 81
81
1,303 1,304 1,384
938
880
BRT Orange NB 36
36
902
900
7
8
873
870
713
705
BRT Orange SB 25
24
688
688
7
9
698
697
References
New Jersey Transit. (2005). “Access to the Region’s Core New Jersey Transit Demand
Forecasting Model for Base Year 2000 – Version D”, October 21, 2005.
STV Group. (2006). “Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study-Technical Memorandum 2”
March, 2006.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-10
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix C
ADDENDUM
Comments Received from NJ Transit Technical Staff at June 5, 2006 Meeting
Urbitran and STV staff met with Tom Marchwinski, NJT’s Director of Transportation Modeling
and Air Quality, and Terrence Sobers, Manager of Research and Forecasting, both of NJ
Transit’s Business Planning unit. This meeting took place on June 5, 2006 at NJ Transit
headquarters in Newark. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the methodology used by
Urbitran to generate demand forecasts for the proposed Bergen Rapid Transit system, as
described in the body of this report.
At this meeting, Misters Marchwinski and Sobers made the following comments:

A 10-minute headway during peak periods and 15 minutes during off-peak periods are
unusual for intra-New Jersey bus routes. They suggested that more “normal” service
frequencies would be at least 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during offpeak periods.

The running time for the Blue Route does not currently reflect the time that it would take
the BRT vehicle to circulate to, around, and from the Paramus Park Mall.

The normal NJTDFM assumption of a 5-minute walk time on a zone centroid may not be
applicable for estimating average walk-access time for a limited-stop system such as the
proposed BRT. This would need to be looked at on a station-by-station basis.

The coding of the Ridgewood Park-and-Ride station should be checked to ensure that
walk access to this station is properly represented.
In addition, Misters Marchwinski and Sobers pointed out that, according to the model, the BRT
is drawing some riders away from the Pascack Valley Line between Hackensack and Secaucus.
Also, all meeting participants agreed that there are some questions regarding the fare structure
for the BRT, and the policy regarding charges for transfers between the BRT and regular NJT
bus service that need to be worked out.
It has been agreed for now among the project team that these comments and issues would be
addressed in a later stage of the BRT planning process.
______________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
C-11
APPENDIX D
Full System Capital and O&M Costs
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix D
COSTING THE FULL SYSTEM
There are various options for how the proposed BRT service could be operated, including
partnering with NJ Transit or seeking private vendors to operate and maintain the new service.
Additionally, the County could administer the BRT system and contract out its daily operations
by purchasing buses and leasing them to a private operator; this is similar to the framework that
Westchester County’s BeeLine service uses. The County could also choose to develop
maintenance facilities for the BRT system and include them in the lease package for the private
operator.
Capital Costs
Capital costs were developed using the information formulated in Section F Operating Plan.
These inputs were multiplied by unit costs to produce an order-of-magnitude capital cost for the
Bergen BRT system, which are shown in the following tables.
Table D-1 shows the capital costs for the Full BRT System assuming a maintenance facility for
the BRT vehicles will be developed. Table D-2 illustrates the capital costs for the Full BRT
System without a maintenance facility. Depending on the operator selected for the Bergen BRT
system, a new maintenance facility may not be necessary if the operator currently runs a transit
service in Bergen County. In that case, the BRT vehicles could be serviced at an existing facility
that would likely require a relatively minor addition to accommodate them.
The unit costs for BRT vehicles, stations and system elements were derived from the Federal
Transit Administration’s Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (August
2004) and the Nassau Hub Major Investment Study (December 2005). Due to the conceptual
level of detail for the proposed BRT system, a 30% unallocated contingency cost has been
added.
All operating assumptions, statistics and unit costs are expected to be further refined during
subsequent phases as this project progresses into more detailed studies.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
D-1
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix D
Table D-1: Full BRT System Capital Costs
BRT Component
BRT vehicles
BRT maintenance facility
BRT stations
Intermodal Transportation Center
Transportation Center
Park & Ride Station
Urban stations 2
Priority treatments
Shoulder bus lane upgrade
Traffic pre-emption/priority
47
$1,200,000
Costs by
Category
$56,400,000
1
$23,095,800
$23,095,800
4
3
5
30
$332,500
$2,660,000
$2,327,500
$332,500
3 miles
61
$562,500
$18,900
Quantity
Unit Cost
$30,922,500
$2,840,400
Subtotal:
Project contingency (30%)
$113,258,700
$33,977,610
$147,236,310
Total costs:
Table D-2: Full BRT System Capital Costs without Maintenance Facility
BRT component
Unit Cost
BRT vehicles
47
$1,200,000
BRT stations
Intermodal Transportation Center
Transportation Center
Park & Ride Station
Urban stations1
4
3
5
30
$332,500
$2,660,000
$2,327,500
$332,500
3 miles
61
$562,500
$18,900
Priority treatments
Shoulder bus lane upgrade
Traffic pre-emption/priority
Subtotal:
Project contingency (30%)
Total costs:
2
Quantity
Costs by
Category
$56,400,000
$30,922,500
$2,840,400
$90,162,900
$27,048,870
$117,211,770
This quantity includes the locations where north and southbound trips stop on opposite sides of the street.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
D-2
Route 17 Bergen Rapid Transit Study
Final Report: Appendix D
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Annual order of magnitude O&M costs were developed for the BRT system, and are shown in
Table D-3.
Table D-3: Full BRT System Operating and Maintenance Costs
Route
Blue Route
Orange Route
Total
Annual BRT
Vehicle Miles
2,308,234
1,222,749
3,530,983
Unit Cost
$8.81 per vehicle mile
$8.81 per vehicle mile
Annual O&M
Cost
$20.3 million
$10.8 million
$31.1 million
A portion of the O&M costs could be offset by farebox and other system revenues (i.e.
advertising).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
STV Incorporated
D-3