DOCSLIB.ORG

Light Rail Transit / Street Grade Crossing Safety System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Light Rail Transit / Street Grade Crossing Safety System Transit IDEA Program Light Rail Transit / Street Grade Crossing Safety System Final Report for Transit IDEA Project 68 Prepared by: Carl E. Conti, SIL4 Systems, Inc. January, 2014 Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) Programs Managed by the Transportation Research Board This IDEA project was funded by the Transit IDEA Program. The TRB currently manages the following three IDEA programs: • The NCHRP IDEA Program, which focuses on advances in the design, construction, and maintenance of highway systems, is funded by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). • The Safety IDEA Program currently focuses on innovative approaches for improving railroad safety or performance. The program is currently funded by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The program was previously jointly funded by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the FRA. • The Transit IDEA Program, which supports development and testing of innovative concepts and methods for advancing transit practice, is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). Management of the three IDEA programs is coordinated to promote the development and testing of innovative concepts, methods, and technologies. For information on the IDEA programs, check the IDEA website (www.trb.org/idea). For questions, contact the IDEA programs office by telephone at (202) 334-3310. IDEA Programs Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 The project that is the subject of this contractor-authored report was a part of the Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) Programs, which are managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the oversight committee that monitored the project and reviewed the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The views expressed in this report are those of the contractor who conducted the investigation documented in this report and do not necessarily reflect those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the sponsors of the IDEA Programs. This document has not been edited by TRB. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the organizations that sponsor the IDEA Programs do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the investigation. Light Rail Transit / Street Grade Crossing Safety System Final Report Transit IDEA Project 68 Prepared for Transit IDEA Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council Prepared by Carl E. Conti SIL4 Systems, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA January 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following are the names and addresses of the participants of the Expert Review Panel for this project. The Regional Expert Review Panel consists of a select group of experts, comprised of technical specialists, within the Light Rail Transit Safety community. They will provide both technical product guidance, and facilitate transfer of IDEA results to practice. A list of members is presented here: Robert Huych Pam McCombe Safety Department Safety Engineering Consultant Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. Parsons Brinckerhoff 1240 West 6th Street 100 E. Pine St. Cleveland, OH, 44113-1331 Orlando, FL 32801 Carol A. Doering Walter Heinrich Safety Outreach Specialist Rail Safety Manager SOUND TRANSIT Metropolitan Transit Auth. – Harris County 401 S. Jackson Street 1900 Main St. Seattle, WA 98104 P.O. Box 61429 Houston, TX 77208-1429 Govind R. Sulibhavi Project Manager - MTA Edward Kramer Suite 602 Safety Auditor 6 St. Paul Street Metro Transit - St. Louis Baltimore, MD 21213 707 North First Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Included in the panel are Safety specialists from four (4) Transit Authorities as well as a person experienced public outreach/information programs and processes as this may be a key element in an overall “increased Hazard/Safety Awareness” program. This panel reviewed the previous Stage Reports and their input has been included in this report. This document is the Final Report documenting the results of this project. It includes the results of all stages of this project. This report is being sent to the Panel for review and comment/feedback. We held a teleconference with the Expert Panel and the feedback/recommendations gleaned from this teleconference as well as electronic commentary are incorporated in this Final Report in the pertinent sections. Transit IDEA PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIR CHAIR IDEA PROGRAMS STAFF FRED GILLIAM STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs Gilliam and Associates JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant MEMBERS GREGORY COOK Veolia Transportation EXPERT REVIEW PANEL JOHN FAYOS ROBERT HUYCH, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. Critical Link CAROL DOERING, Sound Transit PAUL E. JAMIESON, P.E. GOVIND SULIBHAVI, MTA Wabtec Passenger Transit PAM MCCOMBE, Parsons Brinckerhoff ANTHONY M. KOUNESKI WALTER HEINRICH, Metropolitan Transit Auth. – Harris County AMK& Associates EDWARD KRAMER, Metro Transit - St. Louis FRANK LONYAI L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority PAMELA MCCOMBE Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority PAUL MESSINA Port Authority Trans-Hudson KATHERINE F.TURNBULL Texas A&M University JOHN P. WALSH Clever Devices, Ltd. FTA LIAISON ROY WEI SHUN CHEN Federal Transit Administration HENY A. NEJAKO Federal Transit Administration APTA Liaison LOUIS F. SAnders American Public Transportation Association DHS Liaison BRUCE LOURYK Department of Homeland Security TRB LIAISON JAMES BRYANT, JR. Transportation Research Board TRB TCRP Staff STEPHAN A. PARKER, Senior Program Officer Transit Cooperative Research Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pg. Cover Page ......................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements – Expert Review Panel ...................................................................... ii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii 0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 4 1 Stage 1 Results ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 SURVEY.................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.1 LRV and Cars Running Parallel ................................................................. 9 1.1.2 Cars and LRV at Perpendicular Intersections ............................................. 10 1.1.3 Pedestrian Safety ........................................................................................ 12 2 Stage 2 Results ............................................................................................................ 14 2.1 Component Procurement and System Build ............................................................ 14 2.2 Component Selection and Procurement ................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Carborne Components and System Build .................................................. 15 2.2.2 Highway-Rail Crossing (HRC) Components ............................................. 17 2.3 Task 6: Software Development ............................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Vehicle Monitoring Platform (VMP) Software ......................................... 19 2.3.2 On-Board Comms Module (VCP) Software .............................................. 19 2.3.3 Digital Video recorder (DVR) Software ................................................... 19 2.3.4 Human Machine Interface (HMI) Software ............................................... 19 2.3.5 Vehicle Simulator Software ........................................................................ 19 2.4 Task 7: Field Trial Prep II ...................................................................................... 20 2.5 Task 8: Test Planning ............................................................................................. 20 2.6 Task 9: Component and System testing, Data Collection and Analysis ................. 23 2.6.1 Static Testing – Communications and Streaming Video ...................... 23 2.6.2 Antenna Static Range Testing (Streaming Video) ................................ 25 2.6.3 Static Testing Summary ........................................................................ 26 2.6.4 Dynamic Testing – Communications and Streaming Video ................. 27 2.6.5 Dynamic Testing Summary .................................................................. 30 2.7 Conclusions of Stage 2 .......................................................................................... 30 3 Stage 3 Results ............................................................................................................ 34 3.1 Task 10: Pre-Trail Test Plan .................................................................................... 34 3.2 Task 11: Field Trial Preparation — Stage 3 ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis
    RURAL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE AND CRASH ANALYSIS Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Transportation (CTRE Project 03-157) Final Report October 2004 Disclaimer Notice The opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Iowa Department of Transportation. The sponsor(s) assume no liability for the contents or use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. The sponsor(s) do not endorse products or manufacturers. About CTRE/ISU The mission of the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State Uni- versity is to develop and implement innovative methods, materials, and technologies for improv- ing transportation effi ciency, safety, and reliability while improving the learning environment of students, faculty, and staff in transportation-related fi elds. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. CTRE Project 03-157 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis October 2004 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. T. H. Maze, Neal R. Hawkins, and Garrett Burchett 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, IA 50010-8634 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Iowa Department of Transportation Final Report 800 Lincoln Way 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Ames, IA 50010 15.
    [Show full text]
  • American Title a Sociation ~ ~
    OFFICIAL PUBLICATION AMERICAN TITLE A SOCIATION ~ ~ VOUJME XXXVI JUNE, 1957 NUMBER 6 TITLE NEWS Official Publication of THE AMERICAN TITLE ASSOCIATION 3608 Guardian Building-Detroit 26, Michigan Volume XXXVI June, 1957 Number 6 Table of Contents Introduction-The Federal Highway Program ......... ... ................ .. .................... 2 J. E. Sheridan Highway Laws Relating to Controlled Access Roads ..... .. ....... ........... 6 Norman A. Erbe Title Companies and the Expanded Right of Way Problems ...... ............. .. 39 , Daniel W. Rosencrans Arthur A. Anderson Samuel J. Some William A . Thuma INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Program J. E. SHERIDAN We are extremely grateful to Nor­ veloped its planning sufficiently to man A. Erbe, Attorney General of the show to the satisfaction of the dis­ State of Iowa, for permission to re­ trict engineer the effect of the pro­ print his splendid brief embracing posed construction upon adjace.nt the highway laws of various states property, the treatment of access con­ relating to the control in access roads. trol in the area of Federal acquisi­ Mr. Erbe originally presented this m tion, and that appropriate arrange­ narrative form before the convention ments have been made for mainte­ of the Iowa Title Association in May nance and supervision over the land of this year. As is readily ascertain­ to be acquired and held in the name able, this is the result of a compre­ of the United States pending transfer hensive study of various laws touch· of title and jurisdiction to the State ing on the incidents of highway regu­ or the proper subdivision thereof." lations. Additionally, we are privi­ It is suggested that our members leged to carry the panel discussion bring this quoted portion to the at­ of the American Right of Way Asso­ tention of officers of the Highway ciation Convention held in Chicago, Department and the office of its legal May 16 and 17, dealing with "Title division, plus the Office of the Attor­ Companies and the Expanded Right ney General within the members' ju­ of Way Problems".
    [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]
  • Comparison Between Bus Rapid Transit and Light-Rail Transit Systems: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach
    Urban Transport XXIII 143 COMPARISON BETWEEN BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS: A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS APPROACH MARÍA EUGENIA LÓPEZ LAMBAS1, NADIA GIUFFRIDA2, MATTEO IGNACCOLO2 & GIUSEPPE INTURRI2 1TRANSyT, Transport Research Centre, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain 2Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR), University of Catania, Italy ABSTRACT The construction choice between two different transport systems in urban areas, as in the case of Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solutions, is often performed on the basis of cost-benefit analysis and geometrical constraints due to the available space for the infrastructure. Classical economic analysis techniques are often unable to take into account some of the non-monetary parameters which have a huge impact on the final result of the choice, since they often include social acceptance and sustainability aspects. The application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques can aid decision makers in the selection process, with the possibility to compare non-homogeneous criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, and allowing the generation of an objective ranking of the different alternatives. The coupling of MCDA and Geographic Information System (GIS) environments also permits an easier and faster analysis of spatial parameters, and a clearer representation of indicator comparisons. Based on these assumptions, a LRT and BRT system will be analysed according to their own transportation, economic, social and environmental impacts as a hypothetical exercise; moreover, through the use of MCDA techniques a global score for both systems will be determined, in order to allow for a fully comprehensive comparison. Keywords: BHLS, urban transport, transit systems, TOPSIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Safety
    5 Safety 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Conflicts 104 5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 105 5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts 108 5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts 110 5.3 Crash Statistics 111 5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment 111 5.3.2 Collision types 113 5.3.3 Pedestrians 117 5.3.4 Bicyclists 120 5.4 Crash Prediction Models 122 5.5 References 125 Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for “T” Intersections with single-lane approaches. 105 Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections with single-lane approaches. 106 Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107 Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108 Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections. 109 Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109 Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two left-turn options). 110 Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111 Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts. 112 Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash reductions in various countries. 112 Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. 113 Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114 Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115 Exhibit 5-14. Crash percentage per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns in western France. 116 Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 117 Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus/Light Rail Integration Lynx Blue Line Extension Reference Effective March 19, 2018
    2/18 www.ridetransit.org 704-336-RIDE (7433) | 866-779-CATS (2287) 866-779-CATS | (7433) 704-336-RIDE BUS/LIGHT RAIL INTEGRATION LYNX BLUE LINE EXTENSION REFERENCE EFFECTIVE MARCH 19, 2018 INTEGRACIÓN AUTOBÚS/FERROCARRIL LIGERO REFERENCIA DE LA EXTENSIÓN DE LA LÍNEA LYNX BLUE EN VIGOR A PARTIR DEL 19 DE MARZO DE 2018 On March 19, 2018, CATS will be introducing several bus service improvements to coincide with the opening of the LYNX Blue Line Light Rail Extension. These improvements will assist you with direct connections and improved travel time. Please review the following maps and service descriptions to learn more. El 19 de marzo de 2018 CATS introducirá varias mejoras al servicio de autobuses que coincidirán con la apertura de la extensión de ferrocarril ligero de la línea LYNX Blue. Estas mejoras lo ayudarán con conexiones directas y un mejor tiempo de viaje. Consulte los siguientes mapas y descripciones de servicios para obtener más información. TABLE OF CONTENTS ÍNDICE Discontinued Bus Routes ....................................1 Rutas de autobús discontinuadas ......................1 54X University Research Park | 80X Concord Express 54X University Research Park | 80X Concord Express 201 Garden City | 204 LaSalle | 232 Grier Heights 201 Garden City | 204 LaSalle | 232 Grier Heights Service Improvements .........................................2 Mejoras al servicio ...............................................2 LYNX Blue Line | 3 The Plaza | 9 Central Ave LYNX Blue Line | 3 The Plaza | 9 Central Ave 11 North Tryon | 13 Nevin
    [Show full text]
  • What Are the Advantages of Roundabouts?
    What is a roundabout? A roundabout is an intersection where traffic travels around a Circulatory central island in a counter- Truck Apron Roadway clockwise direction. Vehicles entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Figure 1 presents the elements of a roundabout. Yield Line Splitter Island Figure 1: Elements of a Roundabout What are the advantages of roundabouts? • Less Traffic Conflict: Figure 2 compares the conflict points between a conventional intersection and a modern roundabout. The lower number of conflict points translates to less potential for accidents. • Greater safety(1): Primarily achieved by slower speeds and elimination of left turns. Design elements of the roundabouts cause drivers to reduce their speeds. • Efficient traffic flow: Up to 50% increase in traffic capacity • Reduced Pollution and fuel usage: Less stops, shorter queues and no left turn storage. • Money saved: No signal equipment to install or maintain, plus savings in electricity use. • Community benefits: Traffic calming and enhanced aesthetics by landscaping. (1) Statistics published by the U.S. Dept. of transportation, Federal Highway Administration shows roundabouts to have the following advantages over conventional intersections: • 90% reduction in fatalities • 76% reduction in injuries • 35% reduction in pedestrian accidents. Signalized Intersection Roundabout Figure 2: Conflict Point Comparison How to Use a Roundabout Driving a car • Slow down as you approach the intersection. • Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. • Watch for signs and pavement markings. • Enter the roundabout if gap in traffic is sufficient. • Drive in a counter-clockwise direction around the roundabout until you reach your exit. Do not stop or pass other vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Movingforward
    FORWARD movingfAll 2010 A quarterly review of news and information about Pennsylvania local roads. When to Use Stop Signs in Alleys A Guide to Understanding the State’s Requirements Related to Traffic-Control Devices at Alley Intersections by Patrick Wright, Pennoni Associates When deciding whether to use stop signs and other An alley is considered a “highway” in the Vehicle traffic-control devices in alleys, municipalities Code because it is a “roadway open to the use of the should be familiar with two major issues. The first public.” Following this logic, the junction of an alley is whether traffic control is even required, and the with another highway (including another alley) is con- second is how to properly place the signs especially sidered an “intersection” under the Vehicle Code, and within the space constraints found in most alleys. thus crosswalks (whether marked or unmarked) exist. Understanding Alleys What Traffic-Control and Intersections Devices Are Required? Alleys are defined separately in both the Now that the definitions of alleys and intersec- Pennsylvania Vehicle Code (Title 75) and the tions have been clarified, the next step is to deter- Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices mine what traffic-control devices are required for (MUTCD). According to the Vehicle Code (Title alleys. As at any intersection, the Vehicle Code does 75, Section 102) as well as the MUTCD, an alley not necessarily require stop signs or other traffic-con- is “a street or highway intended to provide access to trol devices. Instead, the code has specific “rules of the rear or side of lots or buildings in urban districts the road” that govern driving behavior and the right- and not intended for the purpose of through of-way at intersections depending on the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System
    ARIELI ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING Report No. 1302 ELECTRIC TROLLEYBUSES FOR THE LACMTA’S BUS SYSTEM PREPARED FOR THE ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUM UNDER CONTRACT NO. OP 3320661 - 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California Air Resources Board (CARB) Adopted Urban Bus Transit Rule for 2010 Emission Standards requires that MTA, starting in 2010, set aside 15% of all bus purchases to acquire Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). Currently, none of the buses in the MTA’s inventory can be classified as ZEV, nor there are any transit buses [defined as propelled by an internal combustion engine (ICE) powered by either diesel or alternate fuels] available on the market that can be classified as ZEV. The California emission standards are well ahead of those for the rest of the United States and the manufacturers will not develop suitable vehicles on their own unless incentivized by large customers such as LACMTA. Failure to meet the 2010 Emission Standards will result in regulatory punitive fines and potentially litigation. It is important to note here that this is not the first time that the subject of incorporating electric trolleybuses into the MTA’s bus system comes before the MTA Board of Directors. In the 1992 30-Year Integrated Transportation Plan, electric trolleybuses were the preferred solution to meet CARB air regulations. The Plan provided for 18 routes, 300 miles of overhead wires and 400 peak electric trolleybuses by 2004 to be increased to 1,100 peak electric trolleybuses by 2010. Eventually, the Board voted to terminate the project. After reviewing the various technologies that might qualify as zero emissions under CARB rule, the report focuses on electric trolleybuses as the technology of choice.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENCY PROFILE and FACTS RTD Services at a Glance
    AGENCY PROFILE AND FACTS RTD Services at a Glance Buses & Rail SeniorRide SportsRides Buses and trains connect SeniorRide buses provide Take RTD to a local the metro area and offer an essential service to our sporting event, Eldora an easy RTDway to Denver services senior citizen at community. a glanceMountain Resort, or the International Airport. BolderBoulder. Buses and trains connect and the metro trainsarea and offer an easy way to Denver International Airport. Access-a-Ride Free MallRide Access-a-RideAccess-a-Ride helps meet the Freetravel MallRideneeds of passengers buses with disabilities.Park-n-Rides Access-a-RideFlexRide helps connect the entire length Make connections with meet theFlexRide travel needsbuses travel of within selectof downtown’s RTD service areas.16th Catch FlexRideour to connect buses toand other trains RTD at bus or passengerstrain with servies disabilities. or get direct accessStreet to shopping Mall. malls, schools, and more.89 Park-n-Rides. SeniorRide SeniorRide buses serve our senior community. Free MallRide FlexRideFree MallRide buses stop everyFree block onMetroRide downtown’s 16th Street Mall.Bike-n-Ride FlexRideFree buses MetroRide travel within Free MetroRide buses Bring your bike with you select RTDFree service MetroRide areas. buses offer convenientoffer convenient connections rush-hour for downtown commuterson the bus along and 18th train. and 19th Connectstreets. to other RTD connections for downtown SportsRides buses or trains or get direct commuters along 18th and Take RTD to a local sporting event, Eldora Mountain Resort, or the BolderBoulder. access toPark-n-Rides shopping malls, 19th streets. schools, Makeand more.connections with our buses and trains at more than 89 Park-n-Rides.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County Pavement Marking Specifications
    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ARLINGTON COUNTY PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIFICATIONS MAY 2017 T-1.1 PAVEMENT MARKINGS Table of Contents 1. General ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Marking Plan Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 MK – 1 Typical Crosswalk ......................................................................................................................... 5 MK – 1a Typical Crosswalk Details .............................................................................................................. 6 MK – 2 Typical Cross Section ..................................................................................................................... 7 MK – 3 Typical Speed Hump Markings ...................................................................................................... 8 MK – 4 Typical Speed Table ...................................................................................................................... 9 MK – 4a Typical Speed Hump Details .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Access Control
    Access Control Appendix D US 54 /400 Study Area Proposed Access Management Code City of Andover, KS D1 Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose D3 Section 2: Applicability D4 Section 3: Conformance with Plans, Regulations, and Statutes D5 Section 4: Conflicts and Revisions D5 Section 5: Functional Classification for Access Management D5 Section 6: Access Control Recommendations D8 Section 7: Medians D12 Section 8: Street and Connection Spacing Requirements D13 Section 9: Auxiliary Lanes D14 Section 10: Land Development Access Guidelines D16 Section 11: Circulation and Unified Access D17 Section 12: Driveway Connection Geometry D18 Section 13: Outparcels and Shopping Center Access D22 Section 14: Redevelopment Application D23 Section 15: Traffic Impact Study Requirements D23 Section 16: Review / Exceptions Process D29 Section 17: Glossary D31 D2 Section 1: Purpose The Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual 2003 defines access management as “the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operations of driveways, median opening, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Along the US 54/US-400 Corridor, access management techniques are recommended to plan for appropriate access located along future roadways and undeveloped areas. When properly executed, good access management techniques help preserve transportation systems by reducing the number of access points in developed or undeveloped areas while still providing “reasonable access”. Common access related issues which could degrade the street system are: • Driveways or side streets in close proximity to major intersections • Driveways or side streets spaced too close together • Lack of left-turn lanes to store turning vehicles • Deceleration of turning traffic in through lanes • Traffic signals too close together Why Access Management Is Important Access management balances traffic safety and efficiency with reasonable property access.
    [Show full text]