5.1 Bus Stops
Design and Provision of Bus Stops
Existing guidance on the design and provision of bus stops, including their location, will be found in the Traffic Management Guidelines, and the Department of Transport Sectoral Plan prepared in response to the Disability Act, 2005.
-
5.1.1 Traffic Management Guidelines
As noted in the Traffic Management Guidelines (ref. Chapter 15: “Public Transport”) buses must not only be able to move around the road network with minimum delay, but must also be able to pick up and set down passengers quickly and conveniently, if their full potential is to be achieved.
Section 15.5 of the Traffic Management Guidelines deals specifically with bus stop design, and sets out advice under a number of headings, including location, layout, passenger access arrangements, street furniture and adjacent parking.
-
5.1.2 Disability Act, 2005
Bus stations and bus stop design are included among the areas listed for action in the Sectoral Plan prepared by the Department of Transport as part of its response to the Disability Act, 2005. The plan requires that the needs of mobility-impaired persons must be taken into account when designing bus stops.
For the purposes of the plan, mobility-impaired persons include:- Persons who are visually impaired, or blind
- Persons who are hard of hearing, or deaf
- Persons with children in buggies
- Wheelchair users and people with crutches
While it is recognised that it will not always be possible to provide conflict-free access for all users to and from buses and/or bus stops, there is an onus on the designer, nevertheless, to ensure in respect of mobility-impaired persons that access is facilitated, and that the highest degree of convenience is afforded them, insofar as is reasonably practicable.
-
5.1.3 Conflicts
Cyclists must yield
As noted above, a certain level of conflict with other transport modes is generally unavoidable at bus stop locations. From the cyclist’s perspective, possible sources of conflict might include
- passengers waiting at the bus stop
- passengers alighting from or entering the bus
- buses pulling into or away from the bus stop,
- interaction between waiting passengers and other pedestrians
- pedestrians on an adjacent crossing point, especially if these are obscured by other traffic, including a stationary bus
- general traffic movements in the adjacent carriageway
In this regard, bus stops are no different from other potential conflict locations such as junctions and pedestrian crossings. Like these, the conflicts can be addressed and managed by careful design consideration, and specifically by reference to the Principles of Managing Conflict.
-
5.1.4 Design Checklist
Regardless of which design is chosen, the bus stop arrangement should at least meet the following requirements.
- The design should comply with the requirements of the Disability Act 2005
- Bus/cycle interchange facilities (including secure cycle parking bays) should be provided at bus stops where the demand exists, or where it is felt it can be developed.
- Has the design addressed cyclists’ conflicts with:
- Pedestrian access to/from the bus stop?
- Passengers boarding/alighting from a bus?
- Passengers waiting for a bus?
- Buses pulling in and out from the kerb?
- Adjacent parking including passenger set-down/collection (kiss-and-ride)?
-
5.1.5 Design Options for Bus Stops
The choice of bus options and the design issues associated with each are included below. There are three basic design-types.
5.1.5.1 In-Line Bus Stops
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- Low to Medium Bus Flows (Headway 5 minutes or greater)
- Where it is necessary to provide conflict-free bus passenger movement
Space Efficiency
- 7m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Bike yields priority when bus stops.
- Bike may have to stop and wait if multiple buses arrive at the same time
- Bike may be able to overtake stopped bus
Main Conflicts
- Bus vs bike, as bus weaves left into bus stop
- Bike vs general traffic, as bike overtakes stopped bus
- Bus vs overtaking bike, as bus pulls out
Design Notes
- Clearly establish the bike in position 20m before conflict point with bus
- Ensure enough room exists for the bike to rejoin the lane / track in front of bus without sharp turns
- Bus stop surface prone to deterioration.
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- Low Bus Flows (Headway 10 minutes or greater)
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
- Predominantly bus passenger drop-off location
- Where bicycles are intended to be separated from bus flows (e.g. BRT)
Space Efficiency
- 7 m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Cyclists yield priority to pedestrians, waiting passengers and boarding / alighting passengers
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Pedestrian, Waiting Passenger and Boarding / alighting passenger in a shared space.
- If a) cycle approach speeds are high, b) there are too many pedestrians, or c) there is simply insufficient shared space, the quality of provision for both cyclists and pedestrians / passengers will be affected.
Design Notes
- Establish likely bus patronage profile at stop in advance of design choice
- Not suitable for dense pedestrian / passenger activity
- Clearly sign that cyclists yield to pedestrians
- Consider cycle calming if cycle approach speeds high
- Consider bus driver training on this route, to manage cyclist / alighting passenger conflict
- Consider relocating pole and / or bus information to back of footpath, if they constitute obstacles to cycling
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- Low Bus Flows (Headway 10 minutes or greater)
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic
- Predominantly bus passenger drop-off location
- Where bicycles are segregated from bus flows, but where bus speeds are low (30km/h)
Space Efficiency
- 7 m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Cyclists yield priority to pedestrians, waiting passengers and boarding / alighting passengers
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Pedestrian, Waiting Passenger and Boarding / alighting passenger in a shared space.
- If a) cycle approach speeds are high, b) there are too many pedestrians, or c) there is simply insufficient shared space, the quality of provision for both cyclists and pedestrians / passengers will be affected.
- Design of permeable segregation allows for confident cyclists to avoid the shared space by entering the bus lane before the stop and re-entering the cycle lane after the stop
Design Notes
- Establish likely bus patronage profile at stop in advance of design choice – not suitable for dense pedestrian / passenger activity
- Clearly sign that cyclists yield to pedestrians
- Consider cycle calming if cycle approach speeds high
- Consider bus driver training on this route, to manage cyclist / alighting passenger conflict
- Consider relocating pole and / or bus information to back of footpath, if they constitute obstacles to cycling
5.1.5.2 Island Type Bus Stop
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- High Bus Flows (Headway up to 2 minutes)
- Where bicycles are intended to be separated from bus flows (High frequency QBC) in vicinity of bus stop
- Where pedestrian access to the bus stop can include ramps, uncontrolled crossing
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
- Where cycle priority is important
Space Efficiency
- 7m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- High cycle priority.
- Pedestrians yield to cyclists crossing between bus stop island and footpath
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Crossing Pedestrian.
- The location of the shelter on the island requires more space.
- Waiting passengers may spill over or stand on the crossing point with the cycle track – the shelter may block the cyclists view and conflicts with passengers may not be as legible
Design Notes
- Ensure sufficiently wide cycle lane on bend as cyclists reposition beside bus lane, to ensure cyclists do not encroach into bus lane.
- Bus stop island width may need to increase depending on size of shelter, slope of ramps, presence of Kassell kerbs etc.
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- High Bus Flows (Headway up to 2 minutes)
- Where bicycles are segregated entirely from bus flows (e.g. BRT, High frequency QBC) by cycle track
- Where pedestrian access to the bus stop can include ramps, uncontrolled crossing
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
- Where cycle priority is important
Space Efficiency
- 7m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- High cycle priority.
- Pedestrians yield to cyclists crossing between bus stop island and footpath
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Crossing Pedestrian.
- The location of the shelter on the island requires more space.
- Waiting passengers may spill over or stand on the crossing point with the cycle track
- The shelter may block the cyclists view and conflicts with passengers may not be as legible
Design Notes
- Ensure sufficiently wide cycle track on bend as cyclists re-emerge after bus shelter, to ensure cyclists do not fall into bus lane.
- Bus stop island width may need to increase depending on size of shelter, slope of ramps, presence of Kassell kerbs etc
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- High Bus Flows (Headway up to 2 minutes)
- Where bicycles are intended to be separated from bus flows (e.g. BRT, High frequency QBC)
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
Space Efficiency
- 9m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Cyclists yield priority to pedestrians crossing between bus stop island and bus shelter / footpath
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Crossing Pedestrian.
- By virtue of locating the shelter at the footpath, the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians may reduce (somewhat) to the times when the bus is actively at the bus stop.
Design Notes
- Important that design and markings ensure that cyclists slow down and yield to crossing pedestrians on shared space.
- Ensure sufficiently wide cycle lane on bend as cyclists reposition beside bus lane, to ensure cyclists do not encroach into bus lane.
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- High Bus Flows (Headway up to 2 minutes)
- Where bicycles are intended to be separated from bus flows (e.g. BRT, High frequency QBC)
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
Space Efficiency
- 9m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Cyclists yield priority to pedestrians crossing betrween bus stop island and footpath
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs Crossing Pedestrian.
- The location of the shelter on the island requires more space.
- Waiting passengers may spill over or stand on the crossing point with the cycle track.
- The shelter may block the cyclists view and conflicts with passengers may not be as legible
Design Notes
- Important that design and markings ensure that cyclists slow down and yield to crossing pedestrians on shared space.
- Ensure sufficiently wide cycle lane on bend as cyclists reposition beside bus lane, to ensure cyclists do not encroach into bus lane.
5.1.5.3 Bus Stops using Kneeling Bus Facility
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- Low to Medium Bus Flows (Headway 5 minutes or greater)
- Where it is necessary to provide conflict-free bus passenger movement, but where Kassel kerbs are not necessary
- Where there are multiple bus services, and where a bus bay will allow other buses to pass by the stopped bus
- Where cycle priority is important
Space Efficiency
- 10m min to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- Bike may have to stop and wait if multiple buses arrive at same time and block the cycle lane
- Bike intended to overtake stopped bus
Main Conflicts
- Bus vs bike,as bus weaves across cycle lane into and out of bus bay
Design Notes
- Clearly establish bike 20m before conflict point with bus
- Ensure enough room for bike to rejoin lane / track in front of bus without sharp turns
- Bus stop surface prone to deterioration.
- Drainage channel / construction joints between road and bus bay should be located entirely in bus bay, not at inner edge of cycle lane
- Bus bay design not suitable for articulated buses or Kassel kerbs.
- Risk of footpath obstruction where bus shelter is located on narrow footpath.
Normal Use / Design Objectives
- Low to Medium Bus Flows (Headway 5 minutes or greater)
- Where bicycles are segregated entirely from bus flows (e.g. BRT, High frequency QBC) by cycle track
- Where Kassel kerbs are not necessary, and where a small step down from footpath onto cycle track is acceptable for access / egress to waiting bus.
- To preclude conflict between the bicycle and road traffic.
- Where cycle priority is important
Space Efficiency
- 7 m to accommodate bus, bike, pedestrian
Cycle Priority Notes
- High cycle priority.
- Pedestrians yield to cyclists crossing between stopped bus and footpath
Main Conflicts
- Bike vs. Passenger, when bus is present or approaching.
Design Notes
- The stepped arrangement requires that bus passengers board and alight from the cycle track, a small step down from the footpath.
- The step between footpath and cycle track should be obvious.
- A small bevel or dishing onto the cycle track may be possible.
- Establish likely bus patronage profile at stop in advance of design choice
- Not suitable for dense pedestrian / passenger activity
- Clearly sign that cyclists yield (or stop) when bus is present.
- Consider cycle calming if cycle approach speeds are high
- Consider bus driver training on this route, to manage cyclist / alighting passenger conflict
