DOCSLIB.ORG

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Evaluation Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Evaluation Ii HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES EVALUATION II Traffic Impact, Safety Assessment, and Public Acceptance Dr. Peter T. Martin, Associate Professor University of Utah Dhruvajyoti Lahon, Aleksandar Stevanovic, Research Assistants University of Ut ah Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Utah Traffic Lab 122 South Central Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 November 2004 Acknowledgements The authors thank the Utah Department of Transportation employees for the data they furnished and their assistance with this study. The authors particularly thank the Technical Advisory Committee members for their invaluable input throughout the study. The authors are also thankful to the respondents who took the time to participate in the public opinion survey. The valuable contribution of those who helped collect data and conduct public opinion surveys is greatly appreciated. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Description ...................................................................................................3 1.3 Research Goal and Objectives .....................................................................................3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................5 2.1 California Success......................................................................................................5 2.2 Vancouver Evaluation.................................................................................................5 2.3 Seattle System............................................................................................................6 2.4 Houston System .........................................................................................................6 2.5 Dallas Evaluation .......................................................................................................6 2.6 Oregon System...........................................................................................................7 2.7 Florida Evaluation ......................................................................................................7 2.8 New Jersey Failure .....................................................................................................8 2.9 System Overview .......................................................................................................8 2.10 Overall Performance Summary....................................................................................8 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................9 3.1 Vehicle Volume ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Average Vehicle Occupancy ..................................................................................... 10 3.3 Modal Split .............................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Person Throughput ................................................................................................... 11 3.5 Travel Time ............................................................................................................. 11 3.6 Speed....................................................................................................................... 11 3.7 Accident Rate........................................................................................................... 11 3.8 Violation Rate .......................................................................................................... 12 4. DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................13 4.1 Vehicle Volume ....................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Average Vehicle Occupancy ..................................................................................... 13 4.3 Modal Split .............................................................................................................. 14 4.4 Person Throughput ................................................................................................... 14 4.5 Travel Time ............................................................................................................. 14 4.6 Speed....................................................................................................................... 16 4.7 Accident Rate........................................................................................................... 16 4.8 Violation Rate .......................................................................................................... 17 5. MARKET RESEARCH...................................................................................................19 5.1 Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs)............................................................................ 19 5.2 Sample Size Calculation............................................................................................ 20 5.3 Questionnaire Design................................................................................................ 20 5.4 Results and Discussion.............................................................................................. 21 6. RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................37 6.1 Vehicle Volume ....................................................................................................... 37 6.2 Average Vehicle Occupancy ..................................................................................... 39 6.3 Modal Split .............................................................................................................. 41 6.4 Person Throughput ................................................................................................... 42 iii 6.5 Travel Time ............................................................................................................. 44 6.6 Speed....................................................................................................................... 46 6.7 Accident Rate........................................................................................................... 48 6.8 Violation Rate .......................................................................................................... 53 6.9 Average Time Headway............................................................................................ 55 6.10 Level of Servic e ....................................................................................................... 56 7. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................59 8. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................61 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX A........................................................................................................................65 DATA COLLECTION LOCATIONS................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................67 PEAK PERIOD MEAN SPEED AND PEAK HOUR VOLUME.......................................... 67 APPENDIX C........................................................................................................................81 PEAK PERIOD MODAL SPLIT........................................................................................ 81 APPENDIX D........................................................................................................................93 PEAK PERIOD VOLUME & PERSON THROUGHPUT.................................................... 93 APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................................97 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES PUBLIC SURVEY.................................. 97 APPENDIX F.......................................................................................................................101 RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS...................................................................................... 101 APPENDIX G......................................................................................................................103 PERSONS INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT................................................................ 103 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Calculation of number of test runs......................................................................................15
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Power of Small State of Main Is Published As a Membership Benefi T of Main Street America, a Program of the National Main Street Center
    A PUBLICATION OF MAIN STREET AMERICA WINTER 2018 The Power of Small State of Main is published as a membership benefi t of Main Street America, a program of the National Main Street Center. For information on how to join Main Street America, please visit mainstreet.org/main-street/join/. National Main Street Center, Inc. Patrice Frey President and CEO Board of Directors: Editorial Staff: Social Media: Ed McMahon, Chair Rachel Bowdon TWITTER: @NatlMainStreet Darryl Young, Vice Chair Editor in Chief Senior Manager of Content David J. Brown Development FACEBOOK: Kevin Daniels @NationalMainStreetCenter Emily Wallrath Schmidt Samuel B. Dixon Editor Joe Grills Associate Manager of INSTAGRAM: @NatlMainStreet Irvin M. Henderson Communications Laura Krizov Hannah White Contact: Mary Thompson Editor Tel.: 312.610.5611 Director of Outreach and Engagement Email: [email protected] Design: Website: mainstreet.org The Nimble Bee Main Street America has been helping revitalize older and historic commercial districts for more than 35 years. Today it is a network of more than 1,600 neighborhoods and communi- ties, rural and urban, who share both a commitment to place and to building stronger communities through preservation-based economic development. Main Street Ameri- ca is a program of the nonprofi t National Main Street Center, a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. © 2018 National Main Street Center, All Rights Reserved WINTER Table of contents 2018 3 President’s Note By Patrice Frey 5 Editor’s Note By Rachel Bowdon
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing
    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
    [Show full text]
  • "2. Sidewalks". "Boston Complete Streets Design Guide."
    Sidewalk Zone Widths The width of the sidewalk contributes to the degree of When making decisions for how to allocate sidewalk space, comfort and enjoyment of walking along a street. Narrow the following principles should be used: sidewalks do not support lively pedestrian activity, and may create dangerous conditions where people walk in the Frontage Zone street. Typically, a five foot wide Pedestrian Zone supports > The Frontage Zone should be maximized to provide space two people walking side by side or two wheel chairs passing for cafés, plazas, and greenscape elements along build- each other. An eight foot wide Pedestrian Zone allows two ing facades wherever possible, but not at the expense of pairs of people to comfortably pass each other, and a ten reducing the Pedestrian Zone beyond the recommended foot or wider Pedestrian Zone can support high volumes of minimum widths. pedestrians. Pedestrian Zone Vibrant sidewalks bustling with pedestrian activity are not > The Pedestrian Zone should be clear of any obstructions only used for transportation, but for social walking, lingering, including utilities, traffic control devices, trees, and furniture. and people watching. Sidewalks, especially along Downtown When reconstructing sidewalks and relocating utilities, all Commercial, Downtown Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Main utility access points and obstructions should be relocated Streets, should encourage social uses of the sidewalk realm outside of the Pedestrian Zone. by providing adequate widths. > While sidewalks do not need to be perfectly straight, the SIDEWALKS Pedestrian Zone should not weave back and forth in the When determining sidewalk zone widths, factors to consider right-of-way for no other reason than to introduce curves.
    [Show full text]
  • Articulating the Power of the Main Street and Special Assessment District Collaboration
    Articulating the Power of the Main Street and Special Assessment District Collaboration Sydney Prusak University of Wisconsin–Madison Department of Urban and Regional Planning & University of Wisconsin–Extension Local Government Center Spring 2017 2 Acknowledgments This work would be not possible without the support and guidance from Dr. Chuck Law, UW- Extension’s Local Government Center Director. Additional acknowledgments go to my resourceful advisor Professor Brian Ohm and supportive committee member Dr. Yunji Kim. Executive Summary Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are an increasingly popular economic development and revitalization tool for downtown communities. This special assessment creates a unique public private partnership to support municipal improvements ranging from streetscape beautification to annual community events and festivals. This report examines the relationship of these districts with the Main Street America, in terms of funding and leadership dynamics. While the relationship between the two entities can often be contentious, this report determines the characteristics that are needed for both downtown groups to thrive. Through series of interviews with BID managers and key economic development leaders in Wisconsin, solutions and key findings for a successful downtown relationship are realized. These include organizational formation, one Board of Directors to govern both groups, continued stakeholder involvement and communication, and a dedicated envisioning process. With these practices in place, BIDs are a reliable funding source for Main Street Programs. This revitalization partnership gives property owners a direct stake in economic development planning and programming for their community. This report is meant to serve as an informational document for Main Street communities looking to create a BID as well as for BIDs interested in the Main Street Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Mainline & Streetscape
    EXISTING MAINLINE & STREETSCAPE Features Village of Hillside Village of Westchester Village of Bellwood Village of Broadview Village of Maywood Village of Forest Park Village of Oak Park City of Chicago www.eisenhowerexpressway.com HILLSIDE I-290 MAINLINE I-290 Looking West North Wolf Road I-290 East of Mannheim Road - Retaining Walls Underpass at I-290 - Noise Wall I-290 I-290 Looking West IHB R.R, Crossing I-290 Westbound approaching I-88 Interchange EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES I-290 Looking West I-290 East side of Mannheim Road Interchange 2 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSS ROADS OTHER FEATURES HILLSIDE Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Welcome Signage Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Marker at I-290 Mannheim Road Northbound - Hillside Markers at I-290 EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 3 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com WESTCHESTER I-290 MAINLINE I-290 EB CD Road I-290 EB CD Road Entrance I-290 Looking East - Westchester Boulevard Overpass Noise walls along Wedgewood Drive EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 4 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSSROADS/FRONTAGE ROADS WESTCHESTER Bellwood Avenue Westchester Boulevard Bridge, sidewalk, wall and fencing over I-290 Looking North towards I-290 overpass Westchester Boulevard Mannheim Road Looking South Looking Southeast EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Main Street
    Oklahoma Main Street Program Guide and Handbook Restore, Restructure, Revitalize, Results OMSC Program Guide and Handbook 1 Welcome Welcome to the Oklahoma Main Street network! You are now part of a group of dedicated and knowledgeable Main Street directors, volunteers and board members statewide, who have also decided to take on the challenge of working to revitalize their communities’ commercial historic districts. The Main Street Approach is part of a national movement whose primary focus is creating a positive economic impact. The Oklahoma Main Street Program, established in 1985, is overseen by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce. Main Street work can be both rewarding and challenging. Keeping that in mind, we have designed this resource guide to provide you with an introduction to your new responsibilities – whether as board member, volunteer or paid director. I, along with the Buffy Hughes rest of the Oklahoma Main Street Center staff, am dedicated State Main Street Director to helping your program grow while you help your downtown become a positive catalyst for change. I encourage you to take this opportunity to learn as much as you can about your downtown and the Main Street Approach. Again, welcome! We look forward to assisting you with the revitalization of your downtown. Sincerely, 2 Contents NATIONAL MAIN STREET PROGRAM History of the Main Street Program.....................................4 The Four Point Approach......................................................6 Eight Guiding Principles.......................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents
    PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Ramp Design Procedures for Facilities Without Frontage Roads
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4538-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDED RAMP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR September 2004 FACILITIES WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROADS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. Bonneson, K. Zimmerman, C. Messer, and M. Wooldridge Report 0-4538-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4538 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2002 - August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities without Frontage Roads 16. Abstract Based on a recent change in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) policy, frontage roads are not to be included along controlled-access highways unless a study indicates that the frontage road improves safety, improves operations, lowers overall facility costs, or provides essential access. Interchange design options that do not include frontage roads are to be considered for all new freeway construction. Ramps in non- frontage-road settings can be more challenging to design than those in frontage-road settings for several reasons. Adequate ramp length, appropriate horizontal and vertical curvature, and flaring to increase storage area at the crossroad intersection should all be used to design safe and efficient ramps for non-frontage-road settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Rose Cottage, Main Street, Melbourne, YO42
    Rose Cottage, Main Street, Melbourne, YO42 4QJ • BEAUTIFULLY PRESENTED COTTAGE DATING BACK TO LATE 1700's • LIVING ROOM • DINING ROOM • GARDEN ROOM WITH Location EXPOSED WELL • DINING KITCHEN, UTILITY AND DOWNSTAIRS WC • FOUR DOUBLE BEDROOMS AND ONE LARGE SINGLE • MASTER WITH ENSUITE BATHROOM & FAMILY BATHROOM WITH SEPARATE SHOWER • OIL CENTRAL HEATING AND uPVC Melbourne has a thriving community spirit and holds DOUBLE GLAZING • DOUBLE GARAGE PLUS DOUBLE CAR PORT WITH PLENTY OF ADDITIONAL PARKING • MAGICAL GARDEN many activities within the village hall and chapel. It is WITH POND AND SEATING AREAS • EPC RATING = D • situated approx. 5 miles south west of Pocklington and approx. 9 miles south east of York. Within the village are an infant & primary school, local village shop and public Asking Price £485,000 house. There is also an outreach Post Office that visits. Recreational facilities ae located on the edge of the This delightful yet spacious cottage dating back to the late 1700’s is full of surprises. Having been upgraded to a high village. Pocklington Canal has SSSI status. The canal standard by the current owners, the size of the accommodation is not what you would expect in a cottage of this age. basin provides boat trips and is a lovely area for families The hidden gem of this property is the garden to the rear that is full of the ‘wow’ factor. to walk and enjoy the countryside. Melbourne is ideally To the front is the entrance hall, with boot room, and then leads into the good sized living room with log burner and placed to enjoy village life, yet be within easy reach of feature brick wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Main Street's Reach: an Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Elm Street Program
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2021 Extending Main Street's Reach: An Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Elm Street Program Hanna Stark Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Stark, Hanna, "Extending Main Street's Reach: An Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Elm Street Program" (2021). Theses (Historic Preservation). 721. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/721 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/721 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Extending Main Street's Reach: An Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Elm Street Program Abstract Many residential neighborhoods of Pennsylvania's older cities and towns have seen disinvestment and outmigration, which prompted Representative Robert Freeman to develop the Elm Street program. This program recognizes the interdependence of healthy residential neighborhoods and robust downtown commercial districts and shares the Main Street Four-Points Approach's principle of comprehensive, community-based strategies for revitalization. Presently, there is one designation Elm Street community with seven other "practicing" organizations that were formerly designated. This study fills a literature gap on the Elm Street program by detailing its development while evaluating Elm Street organizations' characteristics to provide recommendations to broaden and enrich the program's utilization. Interviews were held with many involved in the program's creation to understand how the program has evolved since enactment. Elm Street managers who implement the program were also interviewed. It was apparent that specific characteristics contributed to organizations' sustainability, such as mission, organizational partnerships, funding sources, size: area and population, CLG status, and redesignation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sidewalk Construction Standards
    OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP SIDEWALK/SHARED-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Approved August 28, 2018 CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION The construction of Sidewalks and Shared-Use Paths within Oshtemo is managed through the Township’s issuance of a Sidewalk/Non-Motorized Path Permit. The permitting process includes both a pre-pour inspection of the base and concrete forms, and a final project inspection for acceptance of the work. Concrete sidewalk shall conform to MDOT 2012 (or current edition) Standard Specifications for Construction Section 803, "Concrete Sidewalks, Sidewalk Ramps and Steps" and shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide unless a different width is required by other Township ordinances or regulations. Driveway Sidewalk Crossings Where public sidewalks (AKA pedestrian route) cross residential driveways, the sidewalk shall be constructed of concrete through the driveway. Where a curb-line concrete gutter pan begins the driveway, the driveway apron between the curb and sidewalk shall also be constructed of concrete. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) commercial driveways that lack a concrete roadway gutter, and which have greater than two lanes or heavy traffic may seek administrative approval to establish a pedestrian route over the driveway in lieu of placing a concrete walkway through the HMA material. When new sidewalks are extended through existing driveways, it shall be administratively determined by the Township to what extent the existing driveway pavements will need to be reconstructed in lieu of providing a pedestrian route over the pavement. Grade The sidewalk shall be constructed to match the existing grade, or as noted on the construction drawings. The sidewalk will have a transverse slope either toward or away from the road to maintain existing drainage patterns.
    [Show full text]