DOCSLIB.ORG

Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Part 2: Im Part 2: Impplleemmeennttaattiioonn PPllaann PPrreeppaarreedd fffoorr::: NNeevvaaddaa DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn DDeecceemmbbeerr 22001133 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 319 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89119 TEL: 702.938.5400 FAX: 702.938.5454 Table of Contents 1.0. MANAGED LANES ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Prerequisite Conditions ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2. Operational Options for Managed Lanes ............................................................. 1-2 1.2.1. Concurrent-Flow Lanes ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1.1. Limited Access versus Continuous Access ................................................. 1-3 1.2.2. Reversible-Flow Lanes ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3. Contraflow Lanes .............................................................................................. 1-6 1.3. Queue Bypass Lanes ................................................................................................. 1-7 1.4. Access Options (At-Grade versus Direct-Access Ramps) ................................... 1-8 1.4.1. At-Grade Access ............................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.2. Direct-Access Ramps ........................................................................................ 1-8 1.4.2.1. Direct-Access Local Drop Ramps ............................................................... 1-8 1.4.2.2. Direct-Access Flyover Ramps (Direct Connectors) .................................. 1-9 1.4.3. Summary of Access Options .......................................................................... 1-10 1.5. Planning and Evaluation Process .......................................................................... 1-10 1.5.1. Operating Thresholds ...................................................................................... 1-11 1.5.2. Regional Level Planning and Evaluation ..................................................... 1-11 1.5.2.1. Regional Level Screening Criteria ............................................................. 1-12 1.5.3. Corridor and Project Level Planning and Evaluation ................................. 1-15 1.5.3.1. Corridor and Project Level Screening Criteria ......................................... 1-15 1.5.4. Design Plan ....................................................................................................... 1-21 1.5.5. Operation Plan ................................................................................................. 1-21 1.6. Establishing Eligibility ................................................................................................ 1-22 1.6.1. Occupancy ...................................................................................................... 1-22 1.6.1.1. HOV to HOT Lane Conversion.................................................................... 1-23 1.6.2. Vehicle Type Eligibility ..................................................................................... 1-24 1.7. Establishing Hours of Operation ............................................................................. 1-24 1.8. Performance Measurement ................................................................................... 1-25 1.8.1. Data Needs ...................................................................................................... 1-26 1.8.2. Agency Roles ................................................................................................... 1-26 1.8.3. Performance Measures .................................................................................. 1-28 Nevada Department of Transportation i Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Part 2: Implementation Plan 1.8.4. Reporting .......................................................................................................... 1-29 1.9. Pricing ........................................................................................................................ 1-30 1.9.1. Price Variability ................................................................................................ 1-30 1.9.2. Separation Treatments for Pricing ................................................................. 1-30 1.9.3. Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) ...................................................................... 1-31 1.10. Enforcement Considerations ................................................................................. 1-32 1.11. Incident Management ........................................................................................... 1-32 1.12. Resource Needs ....................................................................................................... 1-34 1.12.1. Funding ............................................................................................................. 1-35 1.13. Phasing ...................................................................................................................... 1-36 Section References .............................................................................................................. 1-38 2.0. RAMP METERING ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Ramp Metering Warrant Analysis ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1. Problem Analysis ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1.1. Safety .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1.2. Congestion ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2. Systematic Warrant Process ............................................................................. 2-2 2.1.2.1. Individual Warrants ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.2.2. Overall Ramp Metering Warrant ................................................................. 2-3 2.1.3. Warrant Analysis Example ................................................................................ 2-6 2.2. Location Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.1. Single Ramp versus System Approach ........................................................... 2-7 2.3. Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.1. Diversion .............................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2. Equity ................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.3.3. Public Perception .............................................................................................. 2-8 2.4. Ramp Metering Approach ....................................................................................... 2-9 2.4.1. Local versus Coordinated/System-Wide Control .......................................... 2-9 2.4.1.1. Local Control .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.4.1.2. Coordinated/System-Wide Control ............................................................ 2-9 2.4.2. Pretimed versus Traffic Responsive Control ................................................. 2-10 2.4.2.1. Pretimed Control ......................................................................................... 2-10 2.4.2.2. Traffic Responsive Control .......................................................................... 2-11 Nevada Department of Transportation ii Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Part 2: Implementation Plan 2.4.3. Summary of Ramp Metering Approaches ................................................... 2-11 2.4.4. Operator Control ............................................................................................. 2-13 2.5. Ramp Metering Algorithms .................................................................................... 2-13 2.6. Flow Control Scheme .............................................................................................. 2-14 2.6.1. Metering Release Rate ................................................................................... 2-14 2.6.1.1. One Car per Green ..................................................................................... 2-14 2.6.1.2. Two Cars per Green .................................................................................... 2-14 2.6.2. Number of Storage Lanes .............................................................................. 2-15 2.6.2.1. Single-Lane Metering .................................................................................. 2-15 2.6.2.2. Multi-Lane Metering .................................................................................... 2-15 2.7. HOV Bypass Lane .................................................................................................... 2-15 2.8. Determining Number of Lanes to Meter .............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TOLL ROAD SIGNS Section 2F.01 Scope Support: 01 Toll Highways Are Typically Limited-Access Freeway Or Expressway Facilities
    2009 Edition Page 237 CHAPTER 2F. TOLL ROAD SIGNS Section 2F.01 Scope Support: 01 Toll highways are typically limited-access freeway or expressway facilities. A portion of or an entire route might be a toll highway, or a bridge, tunnel, or other crossing point might be the only toll portion of a highway. A toll highway might be a conventional road. The general signing requirements for toll roads will depend on the type of facility and access (freeway, expressway, or conventional road). The provisions of Chapters 2D and 2E will generally apply for guide signs along the toll facility that direct road users within and off the facility where exit points and geometric configurations are not dependent specifically on the collection of tolls. The aspect of tolling and the presence of toll plazas or collection points necessitate additional considerations in the typical signing needs. The notification of the collection of tolls in advance of and at entry points to the toll highway also necessitate additional modifications to the typical signing. 02 The scope of this Section applies to a route or facility on which all lanes are tolled. Chapter 2G contains provisions for the signing of managed lanes within an otherwise non-toll facility that employ tolling or pricing as an operational strategy to manage congestion levels. Standard: 03 Except where specifically provided in this Chapter, the provisions of other Chapters in Part 2 shall apply to toll roads. Section 2F.02 Sizes of Toll Road Signs Standard: 01 Except as provided in Section 2A.11, the sizes of toll road signs that have standardized designs shall be as shown in Table 2F-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramp Metering
    Ramp Metering The application of control devices to regulate the number of vehicles entering or leaving the freeway, in order to achieve operational objectives. Brief History • 1963: First use – Chicago; Eisenhower Expressway – traffic officers would stand on ramp and release vehicles • 1964 – 1967: Detroit and Los Angeles – (although no permanent meters were installed for a number of years thereafter) • 1970: Minneapolis area – “fixed time, permanent” (including a bus bypass on some ramps to encourage transit use) • 1972: Minneapolis area – the first “coordinated” meters were installed on multiple ramps on facilities • 1980’s and 90’s: advancements towards “traffic responsive, dynamic” meters that would “self-regulate” • 2000: Minnesota’s public “push-back” against meters • Circa 2006: CALTRANS District 7 advanced “System Wide Adaptive Ramp Metering (SWARM)” to control whole freeway corridors automatically Types of Ramp Metering • Stand-alone (i.e., “time of day”) 1960-70 – Often manually operated (switch on, switch off) or simple “traffic cop” management – An isolated, pre-timed location. Not much capability to adjust to traffic demand. – Problems: no way to clear congested queues; not responsive to upstream demand • Local Control 1970-80 – Fixed segments of ‘upstream+ramp+downstream’ sections of highway using detectors to verify success – Problems: not responsive to downstream bottlenecks that would back up • Coordinated 1980-1990 – Improvements on local control; use of TMC’s; greater sophistication – First use of algorithms (beyond just “timing patterns”) • Responsive (i.e., “adaptive”) 2000’s – At the most-congested MPO’s; can understand multiple and dynamic bottlenecks. – Uses real-time data in 30-sec or 5-min intervals to readjust the algorithms • Predictive Future? – In theory, would use upstream changes in traffic density to predict conditions and “forewarn” the meters how to operate Where are R-Meters used today? Representative (not all-inclusive) as of 2012 • Most Robust: (i.e., have the most installations, largest deployment) – So.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide for HOT Lane Development FHWA
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT BY WITH IN PARTNERSHIP WITH U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration PRINCIPAL AUTHORS Benjamin G. Perez, AICP PB CONSULT Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM T. Brent Baker Stephanie MacLachlin PB CONSULT PB CONSULT Kiran Bhatt Carol C. Martsolf KT ANALYTICS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF James S. Bourgart Hameed Merchant PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF HOUSTON METRO James R. Brown John Muscatell PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Ginger Daniels John O’Laughlin TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Heather Dugan Bruce Podwal COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Charles Fuhs Robert Poole PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF REASON PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE Ira J. Hirschman David Pope PB CONSULT PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF David Kaplan Al Schaufler SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Hal Kassoff Peter Samuel PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF TOLL ROADS NEWSLETTER Kim Kawada William Stockton SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Tim Kelly Myron Swisher HOUSTON METRO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen Lockwood Sally Wegmann PB CONSULT TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Chapter 1 Hot Lane Concept And Rationale........................................................................2 1.1 HOT lanes Defined .................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • South Bay Expressway (Sr 125 Toll Road) Fact Sheet
    Transportation SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY (SR 125 TOLL ROAD) FACT SHEET The Project Lower Tolls Opened in 2007, South Bay Expressway (SBX) In December 2011, after a thorough due toll road is a ten-mile stretch of State Route diligence process and public review, SANDAG 125 (SR 125) that runs from Otay Mesa Road completed the acquisition of the lease to near State Route 905 to SR 54. The highway operate the toll road. To improve mobility provides quick and convenient travel choices in the South Bay, SANDAG implemented a between eastern Chula Vista, Downtown San business plan that reduced tolls by as much Customer Service Center Hours of Operation Diego, East County, Sorrento Valley, Interstate as 40 percent on June 30, 2012. Phone: Monday – Friday 8, State Route 94, Otay Mesa, and Mexico. Tolls now range from 50 cents to $2.75 for 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. On- and off-ramps are available at Birch Road, Walk-In: Monday – Friday FasTrak users and from $2 to $3.50 for cash/ 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, East H credit card users. Previously, tolls were 85 (619) 661-7070 Street, and San Miguel Ranch Road. 1129 La Media Road cents to $3.85 for FasTrak users and $2.50 San Diego, CA 92154 Travelers who use South Bay Expressway have to $4 for cash/credit card users. FasTrak account several payment options. FasTrak customers management is available Also effective June 30, 2012, the minimum online at SBXthe125.com do not need to stop at toll booths; tolls monthly toll usage requirement was lowered are automatically deducted from a prepaid from $7 to $4.50 for FasTrak customers with account using a transponder mounted one transponder ($3.50 per FasTrak account inside the vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 5. Ramp Control
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 5. RAMP CONTROL TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 5-5 DEFINITION OF RAMP CONTROL .................................... 5-5 APPLICATION OF RAMP CONTROL .................................. 5-6 Entrance Ramp Metering ........................................... 5-6 Entrance Ramp Closure ............................................ 5-6 Exit Ramp Closure ................................................ 5-6 Systemwide Ramp Control .......................................... 5-6 RELATION TO OTHER FREEWAY MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS .......... 5-6 Surveillance ..................................................... 5-7 Vehicle Detection .............................................. 5-7 Closed-Circuit Television ........................................ 5-7 Environmental Sensors .......................................... 5-7 HOV Treatments ................................................. 5-7 Information Dissemination .......................................... 5-7 Communication .................................................. 5-7 Control Center ................................................... 5-7 BENEFITS OF RAMP CONTROL ...................................... 5-8 Improved System Operation ......................................... 5-8 Improved Safety .................................................. 5-8 Reduced Vehicle Operating Expense .................................. 5-8 Means for Positive Freeway Traffic Control/Management ..................
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area DESCRIPTION
    High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area DESCRIPTION Communities in the United States use high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes as a way to maximize the capacity of existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The attached paper describes the concepts and benefits of HOT lanes. ISSUES The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) has approached the department with a request to operate HOT lanes on portions of five existing HOV lanes in the Houston/Harris County area. REFERENCES See attached description and background information. DESIRED ACTIONS The Commission will be asked to act on a proposed Minute Order authorizing the operation of HOT lanes on approximately 83 miles of existing HOV lanes in Harris County at the January 27th meeting. OTHER None. High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area Under agreement with the department, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) currently operates six high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Houston area. These traditional HOV lanes expand the ability of these highways to move more people through the corridor by providing dedicated lanes to carpools, vanpools, and transit vehicles. Currently, the HOV lanes in Houston require a minimum of two or three passengers1 before a vehicle is eligible to use the lane. METRO has approached the department with a request that METRO be allowed to begin operating five of the HOV facilities as high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes: I-45 North Freeway: From downtown Houston to north of FM 1960 (19.9 miles); I-45 Gulf Freeway: From downtown Houston to Dixie Farm Road (15.5 miles); US 59 Eastex Freeway: From downtown Houston to Loop 494 (20.2 miles); US 59 Southwest Freeway: From downtown Houston to West Airport Boulevard (14.3 miles); and US 290 Northwest Freeway: From Northwest Transit Center to south of FM 1960 (13.5 miles).
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Harris County, Texas
    RULES OF HARRIS COUNTY, INCLUDING THE HARRIS COUNTY TOLL ROAD AUTHORITY, A DIVISION OF HARRIS COUNTY, AND THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY AND THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RIGHTS-OF-WAY JOHN R. BLOUNT, P.E. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER GARY K. TRIETSCH, P.E. HCTRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RUSSELL A. POPPE, P.E. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Formatted: Normal, Left, Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right: (No border) Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by 1 AS AMENDED: EFFECTIVE: 2 I N D E X SECTION 1 AUTHORITY SECTION 2 JURISDICTION SECTION 3 PURPOSE SECTION 4 CONSTRUCTION OF RULES SECTION 5 DEFINITIONS SECTION 6 RIGHT-OF-ENTRY TO COUNTY OR HCFCD ROW SECTION 7 CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SUBMITTALS SECTION 8 TRAFFIC CONTROL SECTION 9 SEALING OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SECTION 10 CERTIFICATES, FEES AND BONDS SECTION 11 EMERGENCY REPAIRS SECTION 12 INTERFERENCE WITH USE OF THE ROW SECTION 13 TRENCHING SECTION 14 USE OF THE ROADWAY SECTION 15 NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO WORK SECTION 16 UTILITIES SECTION 17 UTILITY POLES SECTION 18 PERMANENT UTILITIES SECTION 19 HIGH PRESSURE PIPELINES SECTION 20 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SECTION 21 PAVING SECTION 22 MONUMENTS SECTION 23 SOIL BORING AND MONITORING WELL REQUIREMENTS SECTION 24 DAMAGE TO HARRIS COUNTY OR HCFCD ROW SECTION 25 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SECTION 26 LIABILITY SECTION 27 VARIANCES SECTION 28 CONSTRUCTION PER DRAWINGS SECTION 29 INSPECTIONS SECTION 30
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation
    Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report December 2011 i Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Project Manager: Amy Datz Prepared by: Victoria A. Perk Joseph S. DeSalvo, Ph.D. Tara A. Rodrigues Nina M. Verzosa Steven C. Bovino Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 December 2011 i DRAFT October 2011 ii DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. iii iv Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More December 2011 Effective Transportation Project Evaluation 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Victoria A. Perk, Joseph S. DeSalvo, Tara A. Rodrigues, Nina M. Verzosa, Steven C. Bovino 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 11. Contract or Grant No. Tampa, FL 33620 BDK85 977-21 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Center March 2010 – December 2011 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Coronavirus on U.S. Toll Roads I. Introduction II. Data And
    The Impact of Coronavirus on U.S. Toll Roads I. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered the ways people work and travel. This is partly in response to state governments’ restrictions to reduce the spread of the virus. In fall 2020, a domestic capstone team of four Master of Public Administration (M.P.A.) fellows at Cornell Institute for Public Affairs, working in consultation with Fitch Ratings, researched the impact of the pandemic on the use of toll roads in the U.S. We organized the study as follows: Section II examines data and research approaches, Section III presents the results, and Section IV includes observations. II. Data and Methodology We were interested in three questions: ● Did the pandemic impact the usage of all public roads and toll roads differently in states that had varying levels of pandemic-related travel restrictions? ● Did the pandemic similarly impact the use of toll roads by passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles? ● Did the pandemic impact the average length of trips on toll roads? We attempted to answer these questions using statewide monthly vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation and monthly toll transaction data collected by toll road operators. We compared 2020 data with 2019 data (with 2019 being our baseline year). Our study included five U.S. states; California, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We selected these states because they imposed varying levels of travel restrictions, with California and New Jersey implementing the more restrictive policies, Florida and Texas with less restrictive policies, and Pennsylvania implementing moderate policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook
    Office of Operations 21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technology Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration June 2007 Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Conversions Guidebook Prepared for the HOV Pooled-Fund Study and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Prepared by HNTB Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Under contract to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) June 2007 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accu- racy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-08-034 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Consideration for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll June 2007 (HOT) Lanes Study 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Martin Sas, HNTB. Susan Carlson, HNTB Eugene Kim, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Financial Analysis of Toll System Revenue: Who Pays & Who Benefits
    A Financial Analysis of Toll System Revenue: Who Pays & Who Benefits January 2020 A Financial Analysis of Toll System Revenue: Who Pays & Who Benefits January 2020 Jeffrey Short Vice President American Transportation Research Institute Atlanta, GA Jonathan R. Peters, PhD Professor of Finance The Lucille and Jay Chazanoff School of Business College of Staten Island – The City University of New York New York, NY 950 N. Glebe Road, Suite 210 Arlington, Virginia 22203 TruckingResearch.org ATRI BOARD OF DIRECTORS Judy McReynolds Benjamin J. McLean Chairman of the ATRI Board Chief Executive Officer Chairman, President and Chief Executive Ruan Transportation Management Officer Systems ArcBest Corporation Des Moines, IA Fort Smith, AR Dennis Nash Andrew Boyle Executive Chairman of the Board Co-President Kenan Advantage Group Boyle Transportation North Canton, OH Billerica, MA James D. Reed Hugh Ekberg President and CEO President and CEO USA Truck CRST International, Inc. Van Buren, AR Cedar Rapids, IA Annette Sandberg Darren D. Hawkins President and CEO Chief Executive Officer Transsafe Consulting, LLC YRC Worldwide Davenport, WA Overland Park, KS John A. Smith Dave Huneryager President and CEO President and CEO FedEx Freight Tennessee Trucking Association Memphis, TN Nashville, TN Rebecca Brewster Derek Leathers President and COO President and CEO ATRI Werner Enterprises Atlanta, GA Omaha, NE Chris Spear Robert E. Low President and CEO President and Founder American Trucking Associations Prime Inc. Arlington, VA Springfield, MO Rich McArdle President UPS Freight Richmond, VA ATRI RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE Karen Rasmussen, RAC Stephen Laskowski Steven Raetz Chairman President Dir. Research & Market Senior Executive Advisor Canadian Trucking Alliance Intelligence Prepass Safety Alliance C.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramp Metering Status in North America, 1995 Update
    U.S. Department Ramp Metering Status of Transportation in North America 1995 Update June 1995 Ramp Metering Status in North America 1995 Update Final Report June 1995 Prepared by Gary Piotrowicz Federal Highway Administration and James Robinson Federal Transit Administration Prepared for Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-95-17 RAMP METERING STATUS IN NORTH AMERICA - 1995 Update SECTION PAGE FORWARD 1 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Entrance Ramp Metering Case Studies 3 2.1 Portland, Oregon 4 2.2 Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota 4 2.3 Seattle, Washington 5 2.4 Denver, Colorado 6 2.5 Detroit, Michigan 8 2.6 Austin, Texas 8 2.7 Long Island, New York 8 2.8 San Diego, California 9 2.9 Summary of Entrance Ramp Benefits 9 3.0 Connector Metering Case Studies 10 3.1 San Diego, California 10 3.2 Los Angeles, California II 3.3 Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota 12 3.4 Summary of Connector Metering Benefits 12 4.0 Mainline Metering Case Studies 13 4.1 Oakland, California 13 4.2 Hampton Roads Tunnel 14 4.3 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel 14 4.4 Summary of Mainline Metering 14 5.0 Ramp Metering Considerations 15 5.1 Applications for Ramp Metering 15 5.2 Types of Ramp Metering Systems 15 5.3 Metering Rates 17 5.4 Ramp Geomtrics 17 5.5 HOV By-Pass Lanes 19 5.6 Ramp Meter Signal Heads 19 5.7 Enforcement 20 5.8 Diversion 20 5.9 Public
    [Show full text]