DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Cooperative Research Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TRANSIT 2018 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal TCRP Transit Administration ANNUAL REPORT OF PROGRESS TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2018 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* SELECTION COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR CHAIR: Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research Scientist, Texas A&M Paul C. Jablonski San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Transportation Institute, College Station VICE CHAIR: Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and VICE CHAIR Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Doran J. Barnes Foothill Transit EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board SECRETARY TREASURER MEMBERS Mortimer L. Downey III Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock Mort Downey Consulting LLC Carlos Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Ginger Evans, President, Tower Consulting, LLC, Arlington, VA MEMBERS Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL Jeffrey Arndt A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority University, Tempe Jameson Auten Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Mallory R. Avis Worcester, MA Michigan Department of Transportation Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, CA Paul J. Ballard Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Fort Worth Transportation Authority Pittsburgh, PA Alva Carrasco Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, BMO Capital Markets, NY Sacramento Regional Transit District S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, Dorval Ronald Carter, Jr. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Chicago Transit Authority Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI Francis “Buddy” Coleman Clever Devices Ltd. Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Ryan I. Daniel Southern California, Los Angeles St. Cloud Metro Bus Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson Katharine Eagan Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City Hillsborough Area RTA Brian Ness, Director, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise Suzie Edrington James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington San Antonio VIA Leslie Richards, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg Betsy Kachmar Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global Health, Inc., Decatur, GA Citilink/Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX John Lewis Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United Parcel Service, Washington, D.C. (Retired) Charlotte Area Transit System James M. Tien, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Sherry Little Coral Gables, FL Cardinal Infrastructure Dean H. Wise, Consultant, Dean Wise LLC, Winchester, MA Kris Lyon Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul Lane Transit District W.H. (Bill) McCloud McCloud Transport Associates EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Jonathan H. McDonald Ronald Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation CH2M Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and Chair, E. Susan Meyer TRB Marine Board Spokane Transit Authority Daniel J. Raudebaugh Mark H. Buzby (Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy), Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department Center for Transportation and the Environment of Transportation T.J. Ross Steven Chalk, Deputy Assistant for Secretary for Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy PACE Steven Cliff, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento Vicki L. Shotland Howard R. Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department Greater Hartford Transit District of Transportation Gary Thomas Daniel K. Elwell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Dallas Area Rapid Transit Audrey Farley, Associate Administrator for Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Denise Tyler Delaware Transit Corporation Administration, Washington, D.C. Ed Watt LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Amalgamated Transit Union Washington, D.C. David C. Wilcock John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Washington, D.C. K. Jane Williams Brandye Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Federal Transit Administration Transportation EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Nikola Ivanov, Director of Operations, Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council Brandye Hendrickson Donald Jackson (Major General, U.S. Army), Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency FHWA Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Neil J. Pedersen TRB Heidi King, Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Richard A. White Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation APTA Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Frederick G. (Bud) Wright Keith Nelson, Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, AASHTO U.S. Department of Transportation Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Air Force Base, FL Arthur L. Guzzetti Karl Schultz (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard APTA Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Paul Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. SECRETARY Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Christopher J. Hedges Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis TRB K. Jane Williams, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. * Membership as of November 2017. * Membership as of October 2018. 2018 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT OF PROGRESS Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation 2018 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Com- environmental, and energy objectives place demands mittee to formulate the research program by identifying on public transit systems. Current systems, some of the highest priority projects. As part of the evalua- which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand tion, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and service area, increase service frequency, and improve expected products. efficiency to serve these demands. Research is nec- essary to solve operating problems, adapt appropriate Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert new technologies from other industries, and intro- panel appointed by TRB. The panels prepare project duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit statements (requests for proposals), select contrac- Coopera tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as tors, and provide technical guidance and counsel one of the principal means by which the transit indus- throughout the life of the project. The process for try can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet developing research problem statements and select- demands placed on it. ing research agencies has been used by TRB in man- aging cooperative research programs since 1962. As The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB in other TRB activities, project panels serve voluntarily Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: without compensation. New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration Because research cannot have the desired effect if (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation products fail to reach the intended audience, special Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recog- emphasis is placed on disseminating TCRP results nized the need for local, problem-solving research. to the intended users of the research: transit agen- TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop- cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), a series of research reports, syntheses of transit undertakes research and other technical activities in practice, and
Recommended publications
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet

    Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet

    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City

    CASE STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City In 2019, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) released a tender to Shared Mobility providers to develop a new scalable and sustainable on-demand transit proposal. At a glance Liftango was engaged by the MTA for a The MTA network comprises the nation’s simulation service to predict the uptake largest bus fleet and more subway and for an implemented on-demand service. commuter rail cars than all other U.S. Liftango’s simulation technology was transit systems combined. The MTA’s provided to MTA as a benchmark to operating agencies are MTA New York City measure the realism and efficiency of Transit, MTA Bus, Long Island Rail Road, tender proposals from shared mobility Metro-North Railroad, and MTA Bridges and providers. Essentially, enabling MTA to Tunnels. make an educated decision on whom they should choose as their on-demand provider. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America’s largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. 01 The Problem MTA needed to provide a one of the largest growing As MTA’s first time launching better transport solution sectors in the next five to ten this type of project, there to the people of New York years. The census shows was some risk surrounding City’s outer areas. Why? that a number of people are launch. By engaging Liftango, Existing bus services being leaving for work between 3-6 the aim was to mitigate risk, less frequent than a subway pm and therefore returning simulate possible outcomes service or completely during the overnight period.
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)

    Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)

    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With corresponding provisions of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Law Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority California Public Utilities Code Page 2 of 110 Introduction The Southern California Rapid Transit District, also known as the SCRTD or the “District” (1964-1993) was created by the State as the successor to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or “LAMTA” (1958-1964). LAMTA was the first publicly governed transit operator in Los Angeles and also responsible for the planning of a new mass transit system to replace the aging remnants of the transit systems built by Pacific Electric (1899-1953) and Los Angeles Railway (1895-1945). Unfortunately, the LAMTA had no ability to raise tax revenues or powers of eminent domain, and its board was appointed by the Governor, making the task building local support for mass transit improvements difficult at best. Dissatisfaction with the underpowered LAMTA led to a complete re-write of its legislative authority. While referred to in state legislation as a merger, the District law completely overwrote the LAMTA Act of 1957. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, also known as LACTC or the “Commission” (1977-1993) was created by the State in 1976 as a separate countywide transportation planning agency, along with transportation commissions in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. At the time the District was initially created, there were no transit or transportation grant programs available from the State or Federal governments. Once funding sources became available from the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit Administration, the California Transportation Commission, and others, the creation of county transportation commissions ensured coordination of multimodal transportation planning and funding programs.
  • Intercity Bus Planning Process

    Intercity Bus Planning Process

    The 2018 South Carolina Intercity Bus Program Evaluation Prepared for the South Prepared by: Carolina Department of RLS & Associates, Inc. Transportation, Office of Public Transit December, 2018 955 Park St, Room 201 –POBox 191 Columbia, SC 29202 (803) 737‐2146 https://www.scdot.org/inside/inside-PublicTransit.aspx#services Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Work Program ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 South Carolina Intercity Busy Service ........................................................................................................................ 1 State’s Intercity Bus Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 5311(f) Funding Recommendations........................................................................................................... 2 II. Project Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
  • Smart Cards Contents

    Smart Cards Contents

    Smart cards Contents 1 Smart card 1 1.1 History ................................................ 1 1.1.1 Invention ........................................... 1 1.1.2 Carte Bleue .......................................... 2 1.1.3 EMV ............................................. 2 1.1.4 Development of contactless systems ............................. 2 1.2 Design ................................................ 2 1.2.1 Contact smart cards ..................................... 3 1.2.2 Contactless smart cards .................................... 3 1.2.3 Hybrids ............................................ 4 1.3 Applications .............................................. 4 1.3.1 Financial ........................................... 4 1.3.2 SIM .............................................. 4 1.3.3 Identification ......................................... 4 1.3.4 Public transit ......................................... 5 1.3.5 Computer security ...................................... 6 1.3.6 Schools ............................................ 6 1.3.7 Healthcare .......................................... 6 1.3.8 Other uses .......................................... 6 1.3.9 Multiple-use systems ..................................... 6 1.4 Security ................................................ 6 1.5 Benefits ................................................ 6 1.6 Problems ............................................... 7 1.7 See also ................................................ 7 1.8 Further reading ...........................................
  • Ovidem Videlig Nitibus Dolupta Il Illacid Ut As Magniti Bus Daerspe Helping

    Ovidem Videlig Nitibus Dolupta Il Illacid Ut As Magniti Bus Daerspe Helping

    NorthNorth American American Helping people, places EditionEdition IssueIssue 18 19 and economies thrive FebruaryFebruary 2018 2019 The Review Spotlight Infrastructure Movement Matters Integrated The future of transit Exciting new series modeling and infrastructure of inspirational policy implications investment in events The ReviewCanada The Review Spotlight Market Technology Ovidem videlig Pudignis quodit, Accabor sequiam, Understanding the corporpore eaquodi tem cum landis dite Transit Ecosystem: nitibus dolupta il dolupid molorpos consequiatem ut vel Where to Innovate maximus ciatures eum et ventia dolut illacid ut as magniti enihilicimin es porrum esed est, The Reviewseque diam, quiatus bus daerspe The Review steergroup.com Movement Matters A BURST OF FRESH THINKING To attend any of our Movement Matters events register at: steergroup.com/events 2 Movement Matters is a series of inspirational thought leadership events exploring new ideas about people, places and economies. Drawing on experience from leaders around the globe, these sessions provide a burst of fresh thinking and a great opportunity for industry networking. Read more about our international program of events in the U.S., Canada and U.K. BEYOND ALTERNATIVE CHANGING TRANSPORT DELIVERY TRAVEL MOBILITY MODELS BEHAVIOR Toronto, Canada New York, U.S. Los Angeles, U.S. Spring 2019 Spring 2019 Summer 2019 With soaring housing prices and a rise Industry experts will discuss alternative In Los Angeles, where funding is being in urban population, how can city and models for financing and delivering poured into transportation infrastructure, regional leaders plan for a livable, infrastructure projects. The panel is the moto ‘build it and they will come’ equitable and mobile future? Transport will consider private sector delivery, enough? Opportunities to take advantage investment can act as a catalyst to public involvement, and public-private of best practices such as personalized economic development and the creation partnerships (P3s).
  • CP's North American Rail

    CP's North American Rail

    2020_CP_NetworkMap_Large_Front_1.6_Final_LowRes.pdf 1 6/5/2020 8:24:47 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lake CP Railway Mileage Between Cities Rail Industry Index Legend Athabasca AGR Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway ETR Essex Terminal Railway MNRR Minnesota Commercial Railway TCWR Twin Cities & Western Railroad CP Average scale y y y a AMTK Amtrak EXO EXO MRL Montana Rail Link Inc TPLC Toronto Port Lands Company t t y i i er e C on C r v APD Albany Port Railroad FEC Florida East Coast Railway NBR Northern & Bergen Railroad TPW Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway t oon y o ork éal t y t r 0 100 200 300 km r er Y a n t APM Montreal Port Authority FLR Fife Lake Railway NBSR New Brunswick Southern Railway TRR Torch River Rail CP trackage, haulage and commercial rights oit ago r k tland c ding on xico w r r r uébec innipeg Fort Nelson é APNC Appanoose County Community Railroad FMR Forty Mile Railroad NCR Nipissing Central Railway UP Union Pacic e ansas hi alga ancou egina as o dmon hunder B o o Q Det E F K M Minneapolis Mon Mont N Alba Buffalo C C P R Saint John S T T V W APR Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions GEXR Goderich-Exeter Railway NECR New England Central Railroad VAEX Vale Railway CP principal shortline connections Albany 689 2622 1092 792 2636 2702 1574 3518 1517 2965 234 147 3528 412 2150 691 2272 1373 552 3253 1792 BCR The British Columbia Railway Company GFR Grand Forks Railway NJT New Jersey Transit Rail Operations VIA Via Rail A BCRY Barrie-Collingwood Railway GJR Guelph Junction Railway NLR Northern Light Rail VTR
  • Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods

    Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods

    T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Synthesis 31 Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1998 PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE OFFICERS CHAIRMAN Chairwoman: SHARON D. BANKS, General Manager, AC Transit, Oakland, California MICHAEL S. TOWNES Vice Chair: WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation Peninsula Transportation District Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Commission Washington, D.C. MEMBERS MEMBERS BRIAN J.L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University SHARON D. BANKS of Texas at Dallas AC Transit SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement Inc., Washington, D.C LEE BARNES E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation Barwood Inc JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland GERALD L. BLAIR JOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center. Lehigh University Indiana County Transit Authority GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO University New Jersey Transit Corporation DELON HAMPTON, Chairman & CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C., ROD J. DIRIDON LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Civil Engineering (Past Chair, International Institute for Surface 1986) Transportation Policy Study JAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York SANDRA DRAGGOO THOMAS F. LARWIN, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board CATA BRADLEY L.
  • DOT Is Committed to Ensuring That

    DOT Is Committed to Ensuring That

    Signed and Anticipated Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Funding Agreements Since 1/20/2017 FTA has advanced funding for 41 new CIG projects throughout the nation under this Administration since January 20, 2017, totaling approximately $10.7 billion in funding commitments. Date Signed by CIG Funding Project Name Project Sponsor Mode Total Project Cost FTA Commitments 1 Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (CA) Caltrain Commuter rail 5/23/2017 $1,930,670,934 $647,000,000 2 Purple Line LRT (MD) Maryland Transit Administration Light rail 8/22/2017 $2,407,030,286 $900,000,000 3 Laker Line BRT (MI) Interurban Transit Partnership BRT 2/9/2018 $72,761,922 $56,189,668 4 Jacksonville First Coast Flyer BRT East Corridor (FL) Jacksonville Transportation Authority BRT 2/23/2018 $34,009,455 $16,930,000 5 Prospect MAX BRT (MO) Kansas City Area Transportation Authority BRT 4/9/2018 $55,810,330 $29,890,000 6 Everett Swift II BRT (WA) Community Transit BRT 4/9/2018 $73,631,772 $43,190,000 7 SMART Regional Rail - San Rafael to Larkspur Extension (CA) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Commuter rail 4/9/2018 $55,435,057 $20,032,873 8 IndyGo Red Line (IN) Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation BRT 5/14/2018 $96,329,980 $74,989,685 9 Tacoma Link Extension (WA) Sound Transit Light rail 5/15/2018 $214,613,395 $74,999,999 10 Albuquerque Rapid Transit (NM) ABQ Ride BRT 8/30/2018 $133,671,298 $75,035,549 11 Santa Ana Streetcar (CA) Orange County Transportation Authority Streetcar 11/30/2018 $407,759,966 $148,955,409 12 Lynnwood Link (WA) Sound
  • Delegate List (Congress Participants) 6/06/2019

    Delegate List (Congress Participants) 6/06/2019

    Delegate List 6/06/2019 (Congress participants) Company Country Position 9292 - REISINFORMATIEGROEP B.V. Netherlands Top Manager A+S TRANSPROEKT Russian Federation Top Manager AARGAU VERKEHR AG Switzerland Top Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Expert/Engineer AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Senior Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Senior Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden Manager AB STORSTOCKHOLMS LOKALTRAFIK - STOCKHOLM PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sweden
  • TCQSM Part 8

    TCQSM Part 8

    Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual—2nd Edition PART 8 GLOSSARY This part of the manual presents definitions for the various transit terms discussed and referenced in the manual. Other important terms related to transit planning and operations are included so that this glossary can serve as a readily accessible and easily updated resource for transit applications beyond the evaluation of transit capacity and quality of service. As a result, this glossary includes local definitions and local terminology, even when these may be inconsistent with formal usage in the manual. Many systems have their own specific, historically derived, terminology: a motorman and guard on one system can be an operator and conductor on another. Modal definitions can be confusing. What is clearly light rail by definition may be termed streetcar, semi-metro, or rapid transit in a specific city. It is recommended that in these cases local usage should prevail. AADT — annual average daily ATP — automatic train protection. AADT—accessibility, transit traffic; see traffic, annual average ATS — automatic train supervision; daily. automatic train stop system. AAR — Association of ATU — Amalgamated Transit Union; see American Railroads; see union, transit. Aorganizations, Association of American Railroads. AVL — automatic vehicle location system. AASHTO — American Association of State AW0, AW1, AW2, AW3 — see car, weight Highway and Transportation Officials; see designations. organizations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. absolute block — see block, absolute. AAWDT — annual average weekday traffic; absolute permissive block — see block, see traffic, annual average weekday. absolute permissive. ABS — automatic block signal; see control acceleration — increase in velocity per unit system, automatic block signal.
  • Bois-Franc Station — Rail Shuttle and Trainbus Shuttle 964 of the Société De Transport De Montréal (STM)

    Bois-Franc Station — Rail Shuttle and Trainbus Shuttle 964 of the Société De Transport De Montréal (STM)

    Frequently asked questions Bois-Franc station — rail shuttle and Trainbus shuttle 964 of the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) ....... 3 1. How frequent will rail shuttle departures be? ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Will bus departures from the Bois-Franc station be coordinated with the arrival of rail shuttles? ................................................................... 3 3. How will boarding bus shuttles work at the Bois-Franc Station? ..................................................................................................................... 3 4. Will a bus boarding platform be built at the Bois-Franc station? ..................................................................................................................... 3 5. How long will bus shuttle 964 need to reach the Côte-Vertu metro station? ................................................................................................... 3 6. How will evening rush hours work, given that the rail shuttle will depart every 30 minutes? ........................................................................... 3 7. Can we park at the Bois-Franc station to use bus shuttles during the work? .................................................................................................. 4 8. Major work is planned at the Côte-Vertu metro station. How will users be impacted by the work? ...............................................................