DOCSLIB.ORG

Tcrp Report 65

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tcrp Report 65 TCRP Report 65 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Washington, D.C. 20418 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. National Research Council TRANSPORTATION RESEARCHBOARD TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM REPORT 65 Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration Evaluation of Bus Bulbs Evaluation of Bus Bulbs TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL TRB TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2001 SELECTION COMMITTEE OFFICERS CHAIR LINDA S. WATSON Chair: John M. Samuels, Senior VP-Operations Planning & Support, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA Corpus Christi RTA Vice Chair: Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director, Utah DOT Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS DANNY ALVAREZ MEMBERS Miami-Dade Transit Agency GORDON AOYAGI WILLIAM D. ANKNER, Director, Rhode Island DOT Montgomery County Government THOMAS F. BARRY, JR., Secretary of Transportation, Florida DOT JEAN PAUL BAILLY JACK E. BUFFINGTON, Associate Director and Research Professor, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Union Internationale des Transports Publics Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas J. BARRY BARKER SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC Transit Authority of River City E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary of Transportation, Kansas DOT LEE BARNES JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America Barwood, Inc. JAMES C. CODELL, III, Transportation Secretary, Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY RONALD L. BARNES JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads Central Ohio Transit Authority ROBERT A. FROSCH, Sr. Research Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard GERALD L. BLAIR University Indiana County Transit Authority GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Oklahoma Transportation Center, Oklahoma State University ANDREW BONDS, JR. GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. LESTER A. HOEL, L. A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Depart. of Civil Engineering, University of ROBERT I. BROWNSTEIN Virginia Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. H. THOMAS KORNEGAY, Exec. Dir., Port of Houston Authority RONALD L. FREELAND BRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania DOT Maryland MTA MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of CONSTANCE GARBER Technology York County Community Action Corp. JEFFREY R. MORELAND, Exec. VP-Law and Chief of Staff, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., SHARON GREENE Fort Worth, TX Sharon Greene & Associates SID MORRISON, Secretary of Transportation, Washington State DOT KATHERINE M. HUNTER-ZAWORSKI JOHN P. POORMAN, Staff Director, Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, NY Oregon State University CATHERINE L. ROSS, Executive Director, Georgia Regional Transportation Agency ROBERT H. IRWIN WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Senior VP, Gresham Smith & Partners, Alpharetta, GA British Columbia Transit PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, CEO, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA JOYCE HOBSON JOHNSON MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Exec. Dir., Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, North Carolina A&T State University Hampton, VA CELIA G. KUPERSMITH MARTIN WACHS, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and JAMES A. WILDING, President and CEO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Transportation District M. GORDON WOLMAN, Prof. of Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University PAUL J. LARROUSSE National Transit Institute EX OFFICIO MEMBERS DAVID A. LEE Connecticut Transit MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association EVA LERNER-LAM EDWARD A. BRIGHAM, Acting Deputy Admin., Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.DOT The Palisades Consulting Group, Inc. BRUCE J. CARLTON, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT ROBERT H. PRINCE, JR. JULIE CIRILLO, Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S.DOT RICHARD J. SIMONETTA ROBERT B. FLOWERS (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Prima Facie, Inc. Engineers PAUL P. SKOUTELAS JANE F. GARVEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT Port Authority of Allegheny County EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads PAUL A. TOLIVER JOHN C. HORSLEY, Exec. Dir., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials King County Metro ANTHONY R. KANE, Exec. Dir., Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT HIRAM J. WALKER S. MARK LINDSEY, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT FTA JAMES M. LOY (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard AMY YORK WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association Amalgamated Transit Union MARGO OGE, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA EX OFFICIO MEMBERS VALENTIN J. RIVA, President and CEO, American Concrete Pavement Association WILLIAM W. MILLAR ASHISH K. SEN, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S.DOT APTA L. ROBERT SHELTON, Exec. Dir., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT ANTHONY R. KANE HIRAM J. WALKER, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT FHWA JOHN C. HORSLEY TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM AASHTO ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP TRB JOHN M. SAMUELS, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA (Chair) LESTER A. HOEL, University of Virginia TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILLIAM W. MILLAR, American Public Transportation Association LOUIS F. SANDERS ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board APTA PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, Hampton, VA SECRETARY MARTIN WACHS, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley ROBERT J. REILLY HIRAM J. WALKER, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT TRB THOMAS R. WARNE, Utah DOT TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 65 Evaluation of Bus Bulbs KAY FITZPATRICK KEVIN M. HALL STEPHEN FARNSWORTH MELISA D. FINLEY Texas Transportation Institute College Station, TX SUBJECT AREAS Public Transit Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD — NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. — 2001 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 65 The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, Project A-10A FY’98 environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public ISSN 1073-4872 transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need ISBN 0-309-06665-4 of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, Library of Congress Control Number 00-136357 and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new © 2001 Transportation Research Board technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into Price $29.00 the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin- istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation NOTICE Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the longstanding and successful National Cooperative Highway approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan- Research Council. ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development the three
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 16Th Street Project Flyer ENGLISH
    16th Street Improvement Project We’re Moving Muni Forward As part of Muni Forward, SFMTA is adding transit and safety improvements along the 22 Fillmore route that will make it safer to walk and bike, increase the reliability of transit service and enhance the customer experience on and off the bus. Project Overview BENEFITS AT A GLANCE The 16th Street Improvement Project aims to improve transit reliability and Reduce travel travel time for the 18,000 customers who ride Muni along the corridor on time by almost an average weekday, while enhancing safety and accessibility. It will address transportation needs of current and future residents, workers and visitors to the southeastern portion of the 22 Fillmore route along 2.3 miles of 16th Street. The 25% project also features utility upgrades as well as new trees, sidewalks and bus shelters. To allow for zero-emission transit service into Mission Bay, the project includes extending the overhead contact system (OCS) that powers our trolley buses on 16th Street from Kansas to Third streets. Additionally, new bike lanes have been added to 17th Street to create a continuous route from Mission Bay to the Mission neighborhood. Wider sidewalks at intersections This project is part of Muni Forward, an ongoing initiative to create a safe, reli- and bus bulb outs for safer able and comfortable experience on and off transit. crossings for people walking and quicker bus boardings. Schedule Stay Connected Construction will occur in two phases. First will be Potrero Hill/ Sign-up to get project updates and alerts: Mission Bay, followed by the Mission neighborhood section.
    [Show full text]
  • Utica Avenue Select Bus Service Workshop Summary | November 13, 2014
    Utica Avenue Select Bus Service Workshop Summary | November 13, 2014 New York City Transit +selectbusservice , Utica Avenue On November 13, 2014, the New York City transit signal priority to improve the quality and Department of Transportation (DOT) and the performance of transit and, in turn, to improve Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) kicked mobility and access in the neighborhoods that off the public outreach process for the Utica it serves. SBS projects are designed to make it Avenue Select Bus Service (SBS) project. The MTA easier, safer, and more comfortable to travel by and DOT hosted a public workshop at PS 167 on bus, through features like bus bulbs, high-quality Eastern Parkway to gather initial feedback from passenger information, and overall attention to community members on plans to upgrade the B46 pedestrian and vehicular safety. limited bus to Select Bus Service. The project aims to improve bus service while maintaining traffic Utica Avenue Select Bus Service flow and curb access and to increase safety for all During the 2009 Bus Rapid Transit Phase II users along the Utica Avenue corridor in Brooklyn. Study, Brooklyn community members identified Utica Avenue as a corridor that could support The workshop brought together community and benefit from a Select Bus Service project. members, bus riders, transit advocates, Sixty-one percent of residents along the corridor representatives from elected offices, community commute to work on public transit. However, the boards, and police precincts to share their route is characterized by slow and crowded bus experiences as transit riders, drivers, and trips. The community ranked the Utica Avenue B46 pedestrians traveling along the Utica Avenue corridor as one of two corridors most in need of corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • SEPTA Bus Stop Design Guidelines
    The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is The symbol in our logo is adapted from the dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning official DVRPC seal professionals and the public with a common vision of and is designed as a making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we stylized image of the live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as improving transportation, promoting smart growth, a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, New Jersey. Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website (www.dvrpc.org) may be translated into multiple languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Speed and Reliability Guidelines and Strategies
    TRANSIT SPEED & RELIABILITY GUIDELINES & STRATEGIES AUGUST 2021 II KING COUNTY METRO SPEED AND RELIABILITY GUIDELINES AND STRATEGIES AUGUST 2021 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1 5. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................ 99 2. OVERVIEW OF SPEED AND RELIABILITY ���������������������������������������3 5.1 RENTON, KENT, AUBURN AREA MOBILITY PROJECT ............... 100 2.1 WHAT ARE SPEED AND RELIABILITY? ........................................4 5.1.1 FORMING PARTNERSHIP .........................................................100 2.2 TYPES OF PROJECTS ..................................................................8 5.1.2 TOOLS IMPLEMENTED ............................................................101 2.3 BENEFITS OF SPEED AND RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS ...........12 5.1.3 LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................103 2.3.1 MEASURED BENEFITS .............................................................. 12 5.2 98TH AVENUE NE AND FORBES CREEK DRIVE QUEUE JUMP . 104 2.3.2 ACHIEVE REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOALS .................................. 14 5.2.1 FORMING PARTNERSHIP ........................................................104 2.3.3 SCALABLE SOLUTIONS ............................................................. 17 5.2.2 TOOLS IMPLEMENTED ............................................................106 2.3.4 BENEFITS TO OTHER MODES .................................................... 17
    [Show full text]
  • Page. CLAIMS of the PRINCIPLE of RPTATION of TURBINE ONE
    Page. CLAIMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RPTATION OF TURBINE ONE. What to claim is: 1. Rotation is obtained of the cross axial and axial bearing mounted turbine rotors, by shielding the returnblades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely. 2. Rotation of horizontal and vertical mounted rotor operable in bearings comprising at least three rotor blades radial and axially projecting its form expending from the hub. Cross-axial rotation of turbine rotors by means of shielding vane, or wind screen shielding the return blades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely for fluid to be channelled cross axially trough the intakes and impact coaxial and horizontally on the transverse projecting turbine rotor blades causing rotation of the prime mover, drivetrain by the converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy and into electric energy by means of a constant transmission turbine gearbox and lubricant system mechanical coupled in rotational mode with the electric generator rotor, comprising a cylindrical permanent or electromagnet coupled electrically to the exciter electrically connected with the disk magnet and axially opposing stator coils or disk or plates or massive electric conductive material disk or cylinder. 3. Rotation of the horizontal and vertical turbine rotor is obtained in clockwise direction and in counterclockwiswise direction. Generating AC current or dc current. Defines the rotor by at least two axial halves exposed axially for cross-axial flow axial flow and/or for perpendicularly flow turbine rotors. A left and right axial halve, or upper and lower axial halve which form the returnblades section and the pushblades intake and exhaust sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Improvements – Faster and More Reliable Service PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES – SPRING 2014
    TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS – FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE SERVICE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES – SPRING 2014 LINE 1 & 1R MINIMIZING ROAD USER CONFLICTS, MAXIMIZING SPEED & EFFICIENCY STATION #6 CONSOLIDATION BENEFITS OF THE ROAD DIET, CONSOLIDATION & TREATMENT OPTIONS EXAMPLES OF BUS BULBS AND TRANSIT ISLANDS § Minimize bus-bicycle conflict in roadway: A road diet provides sufficient space for separate bicycle BUS BULB-OUT CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION OPTION lanes or cycle tracks so that buses do not have to share the vehicle travel lane with cyclists. § Minimize bus-bicycle conflict at bus stops: Bus bulbs provide opportunities to physically separate BERKELEY Sacramento St bicycles and buses at bus stops by routing bicycles behind the bulb (creating a “transit island”). Alcatraz Ave College Ave 62nd St Adeline St § Enable more efficient transit service: Bus bulbs provide a more convenient and efficient transit Shattuck Ave 60th St facility for bus operators to access and egress; 59th St Claremont Ave § 58th St Improve transit passenger waiting environment: Bus bulbs provide space for shelters, benches LIFORN CA IA 24 Stanford Ave and signs, while freeing space from existing sidewalks for landscaping, bike parking, seating and other Aileen St 56th St furnishings; 55th St Transfer: AC Transit Transfer: Line 12 Broadway AC Transit § Improve bus speed and reliability: Transit Signal Priority (TSP) combined with bus stop relocation to Line 12 Broadway Ter the far-side of signals, and queue bypass lanes improve service speed and reliability. 49th St 51st St EMERYVILLE 48th St LIFORN CA IA 47th St OAKLAND 123 45th St 46th St San Pablo Ave BERKELEY Sacramento St Transfer: AC Transit 44th St 43rd St Alcatraz Ave Lines 31, 57 Pleasant Valley Ave INCREASE TRANSIT SPEED WHILE IMPROVING THE TRANSIT RIDER EXPERIENCE College Ave 62nd St Adeline St 41st St TRANSIT ISLAND WITH BIKE LANE BEHIND: 40th St Shattuck Ave 60th St West St NORTHBOUND BUS SPEED SOUTHBOUND BUS SPEED SEATTLE, WA 59th St Claremont Ave MLK Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures the City of Boston Context
    Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures The City of Boston Context March 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SPECIAL THANKS TO: Rick Dimino Tom Nally Charles Planck David Carney Erik Scheier Greg Strangeways Joshua Robin Angel Harrington David Barker Melissa Dullea Vineet Gupta i | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Exhibits............................................................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 MBTA Operations and Initiatives ................................................................................................................................... 3 Current MBTA Operational Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 4 Recent MBTA Initiatives............................................................................................................................................. 9 Current MBTA Initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Bus Priority Best Practices ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making
    Project No: FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1 Federal United States Transit Department of August 2004 Administration Transportation CharacteristicsCharacteristics ofof BusBus RapidRapid TransitTransit forfor Decision-MakingDecision-Making Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES August 2004 COVERED BRT Demonstration Initiative Reference Document 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making 6. AUTHOR(S) Roderick B. Diaz (editor), Mark Chang, Georges Darido, Mark Chang, Eugene Kim, Donald Schneck, Booz Allen Hamilton Matthew Hardy, James Bunch, Mitretek Systems Michael Baltes, Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Lawrence Wnuk, Fred Silver, Weststart - CALSTART Sam Zimmerman, DMJM + Harris 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan (PDF)
    Short Range Transit Plan FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Adopted May 2021 FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors Cindy Parra Rueben Pascual Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern Carlos Bello Leasa Engel Erika Dixon Director Director Director City of Bakersfield At-Large County of Kern A five-member Board of Directors governs Golden Empire Transit District. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members. GET coordinates with City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, and the Kern Council of Governments. Karen King Chief Executive Officer Short Range Transit Plan FY 20/21 – 24/25 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 CHAPTER 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................... 29 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS ........................................ 79 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ...................................... 83 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................ 95 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY .................................................................... 100 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................... 115 GET was formed in July 1973 and is the primary public transportation provider for the Bakersfield Urbanized Area. It is the largest public transit system within a 110 mile radius. The District’s legal boundary includes all of the area within the Bakersfield city limits as well as adjacent unincorporated areas. GET serves 16 routes, operating 7 days a week and transporting more than 6 million passengers each year with its fixed-route buses. In addition, GET operates 21 compressed natural gas GET-A-Lift buses.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Glossary
    KANE COUNTY LONG RANGE TRANSIT PLAN APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY A-1 Accessibility The extent to which facilities, including transit vehicles, are barrier-free and can be used by people who have disabilities, including wheelchair users. Accessible Vehicle Public transportation revenue vehicles which do not restrict access, are usable, and provide allocated space and/or priority seating for individuals who use wheelchairs. Administrative assistance Funding that supports the administrative costs related to a program activity, such as office expenses, insurance, legal expenses, bookkeeping, and administrative staff expenses. ADA Americans with Disabilities Act: Passed by the Congress in 1990, this act mandates equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, transportation, communications and public accommodations. Under this Act, most transportation providers are obliged to purchase lift-equipped vehicles for their fixed-route services and must assure system-wide accessibility of their demand-responsive services to persons with disabilities. Public transit providers also must supplement their fixed-route services with paratransit services for those persons unable to use fixed-route service because of their disability. ADA Eligible ADA Eligible refers to eligibility for complementary fixed route paratransit. Individuals who qualify must be unable to used fixed route due to a disability. AoA Administration on Aging. The agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that oversees the implementation of the Older Americans Act, including senior nutrition programs, senior centers and supportive services for elders. Ad-hoc Trips The total number of trip requests received by an organization that go beyond the organization’s normal transportation program design and fulfilled by a different agency, company, or organization (i.e., by a private taxi service).
    [Show full text]
  • Denver Moves Transit Plan State of the System Executive Summary
    APPENDIX A GLOSSARY JANUARY 2019 DENVERMOVES Transit DENVER MOVES: TRANSIT PLAN APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ACRONYMS AARP American Association of Retired Persons DFD Denver Fire Department MPH Miles per hour ACS American Community Survey (U.S. DHS Denver Human Services NACTO National Association of City Transportation Census) Officials DMT Denver Moves: Transit ADA Americans with Disabilities Act NPI Neighborhood Planning Initiative DOF Denver Department of Finance AV Autonomous vehicle OCA Denver Office of Children’s Affairs DPD Denver Police Department BAT Business access and transit (lane) OED Denver Office of Economic Development DPR Denver Parks and Recreation Department BID Business improvement district RNO Registered Neighborhood Organization DPS Denver Public Schools BRT Bus rapid transit RTD Regional Transportation District DPW Denver Public Works Department CBD Central business district SOV Single-occupant vehicle DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments CCD City and County of Denver (the City) SRTS Safe Routes to School FHWA Federal Highway Administration CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation TAC Technical advisory committee FTA Federal Transit Administration CIP Capital Improvement Program TDM Transportation demand management FTN Frequent Transit Network CPD Denver Community Planning and TMA Transportation management association GTFS General transit feed specification Development Department TNC Transportation network company HIN High injury network (Vision Zero) CPTED Crime Prevention Through TOD Transit-oriented Development
    [Show full text]