DOCSLIB.ORG

Priority Treatment for High Occupancy Vehicles in the United States: a Review of Recent and Forthcoming Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Priority Treatment for High Occupancy Vehicles in the United States: a Review of Recent and Forthcoming Projects . 1 rrnr 18.5 10. UMTA-MA-06-0049-78-1 . A37 no [DUT- T o C - ] UMTA- 78-37 UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series Priority Treatment for High Occupancy Vehicles in the United States: a Review of Recent and Forthcoming Projects J IIB - Final Report WW B I —d— August 1978 Dept, of Transportation library Service and Methods Demonstration Program U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' : Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Transportation Systems Center . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1 . import No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Cotalog No. UMTA-MA- 06-0049-78-11 4. Title ond Subtitle 5. Report Date PRIORITY TREATMENT FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES August 1978 IN THE UNITED STATES: A REVIEW OF RECENT AND 6. Performing Organization Code FORTHCOMING PROJECTS 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) Ronald J. Fisher and Howard J. Simkowitz ITMTA- 78-37 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) U.S. Department of Transportation UM827/R8712 Research and Special Programs Administration 11. Contract or Grant No. Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA 02142 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Administration 1974-1980 Office of Transportation Planning Management and Demonstrations 14. Spomoring Agency Code Washington DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes or Transportation 0 * 7 U 16. Abitroct id) This report describes recent high oc cupfSncy TTTlU (UG i referential projects in the United States, summarizes the rc suits of Utj&llEy projects and draws outlines projects which are to be liii^ldlllhllLUd' the next few implications , and years. The report describes each of the following approaches to preferential treat- ment: non-separated concurrent-flow freeway HOV lanes, contra-flow freeway lanes, metered ramp bypass lanes and exclusive ramps, physically separated priority lanes, express bus service and park-and-r ide lots, lanes on arterials and CBD streets re- served for buses, bus priority signal systems on arterials and CBD streets, transit malls, and auto restricted zones. During the late 1960's and early 1970's a variety of priority treatments were attempted. Both capital intensive projects and non-capital intensive projects were implemented during this period. By the middle of the 1970' s, thinking within the transportation planning community had moved away from the costly capital intensive priority treatments that require extensive new construction to the more operationally oriented traffic management schemes that use existing facilities in a more efficient manner. Except for the non-separated concurrent flow projects, other non-capital intensive priority treatments on freeways have fared well. Nearly every HOV priority treatment on freeways has involved the use of new or expanded express bus service and the opening of new park-and-r ide lots. Arterial and CBD street bus lanes have been implemented in many cities and transit malls have grown in popularity. Four auto restricted zones are to be built during the next few years 17. Key Word. 18, Diztribution Statement Iligli Occupancy Vehicle, PUBLIC HOV, Preferential, Larpools, DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. Express Hus, Reserved [.anus. Concurrent- !' low Lanes, THFfOUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL Contra-Flow Lanes, Metered Rani]) Bypass Lanes, SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, Exclusive INFORMATION Ramps, Physically Separated Lanes, P.,rk- VIRGINIA 22161 and-ll ide Bus , Priority Signal Systems, Transit Malls, Auto Restricted Zones, ARZ Price 19. Security Clotsif. (of this report) 20. Security Claisif. (of thl • paga) 21* No. of Poge* 22. Unclass i f ied Unclass if ied 36 (8-72) Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized PREFACE The authors wish to thank Joseph Goodman of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Office of Service and Methods Demonstrations and David Rubin and Grant Paul of the Transportation Systems Center, Urban and Regional Research Division for their assistance in this study. Special acknowledgement is given to the many individuals who provided information about the projects under their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, a list of these persons would be too long to include herein. The research was sponsored oy UMTA ' s Office of Service and Methods Demonstrations. Finally, the authors wisn to thank Vera Ward and Terry McTague who were invaluable in preparing the manuscript. FACTORS CONVERSION 9 8 7 6 5 METRIC i \ "s 'r "V e 3 $ C u Bi a Ji £ IV CONTENTS Section Page 1 1 . Introduction 2. Non- Separated Con current- Flow Freeway ^ HOV Lanes 3. Contra-Flow Freeway Lanes 4. Metered-Ramp Bypass Lanes and Exclusive 10 Ramps 5. Physically Separated Priority Lanes H 6. Express Bus Service and Park-and-Ride Lots 12 7 . Lanes on Arterials and CBD Streets Reserved 14 for Buses 8. Fus Priority Signal Systems on Arterials 15 and CBD Streets 9. Transit Malls 17 10 . Auto Restricted Zones 21 References 27 v _ A LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Applications of Priority Treatments 2 for High Occupancy Vehicles in the United Stares 2 . Comparison of Four Non-3 eparated 6 Concurrent- Flow Preferential Lane Projects -3 m Characteristics of Four Transit Malls 18 1 . Characteristics of F our Proposed 23 Aufo Restricted Zone Demonstration Projec ts vi 1 . INTRODUCTION The purposes of this report are threefold: to describe recent high occupancy vehicle (HOV) preferential projects in the United States; to summarize the results of these projects and draw implications; and to outline projects which are to be implemented over the next few years. The report describes each of the following approaches to preferential treatment: non- separated concurrent-flow freeway HOV lanes, contra- flow freeway lanes, metered-ramp bypass lanes and exclusive ramps, physically separated priority lanes, express bus service and park-and-ride lots, lanes on arterials and central business district (CBD) streets reserved for buses, bus priority signal systems on arterials and CBD streets, transit malls, and auto restricted zones. Table 1 lists most of the HOV preferential projects that have been implemented or are being planned. Projects in all areas are well represented, but during the past decade the thrust of the preferential program has undergone several fundamental changes. During the late 1960's and early 1970's a variety of priority treatments were attempted. Both capital intensive projects (such as the Shirley Highway reversible bus and carpool lanes and the El Monte Busway) and non-capital intensive projects (such as the contra-flow lanes on 1-495 in New York and metered ramp bypass lanes on Los Angeles freeways) were implemented during this period. By the middle of the 1970's, thinking within the transportation planning community had moved away from the costly capital intensive priority treatments that require extensive new construction to the more operationally oriented traffic management schemes that use existing facilities in a more efficient manner. As an example, the implementation of a concurrent- flow lane utilizing an already existing freeway lane can oe accomplished literally overnight compared to the time it takes to construct a new lane or a completely new facility. Boston spent a total of $53,000 and very little time for signing, drilling holes, and purchasing plastic inserts to implement the eight mile (12.8 km) Southeast Expressway concurrent- flow reserved lane, while the eleven mile (17.6 km) Shirley Highway with reversible lane cost $43 million to implement over a period of six years. However, as is pointed out in Section 2, the concurrent- flow " take- a- lane- away" projects on the Southeast Expressway and Los Angeles' Santa Monica Freeway have been terminated. While the other non-separated concurrent-flow freeway projects are still operating, they are experiencing high violation rates. In summary, non-separated concurrent- flow freeway HOV lanes have proven to be difficult to 1 t 1 u !1! s :i ! ,4 s *1 If f| (1983) <1) O I, sis !:! ill I 4-1 00 -= II = ir ir ii i. M-l ON 5 = •<} 1— I - 1 i o 111 1 !: 00 if! CT\ III I II THE CT> Pi CTN L :3 IN Ml IE I? 00 ctn VEHICLES Is! Ills - So -s II 2“ V. < U. 04 il L; ! < “oSS'' n £ ills JIIsII OCCUPANCY * ~ vO i !E2 F *= CTN Jf 1 I’ll = - -s F i m i! inI I! in n HIGH ; -- m 1 - = ? - „ j i F it is~ 1" •=“< I 2 G\ : s5 i FOR ilit 5 ! ! li i2 il: So - - I E-3. ; F I f?l ! ON is;: in Is <f; H » in ill ill ill li mi 1 TREATMENTS .11 i_ 22 CO !: a e <Js II li PRIORITY OF STATES APPLICATIONS UNITED 1. TABLE u <D o 00 f ON < r-l Plaza o 00 Broadway ON VEHICLES OCCUPANCY S-8 z z HIGH FOR NO ON TREATMENTS ON PRIORITY STATES OF on ON UNITED APPLICATIONS THE IN . (continued) 1 TABLE 3 i enforce, subject to accidents, and, wnen an already existing lane is re-dedicated for HCV's, unacceptable to the public. By contrast, the Shirley Highway (which was opened to four or more person carpools in 1973) and the El Monte Busway (which was opened to three or more person carpools in 1975) have teen highly successful in attracting bus riders and carpoolers, while experiencing none of the enforcement and safety problems encountered by the non-separated treatments. Several activities indicate a resurgence of interest in physically separated priority lanes: planners in both Boston and Los Angeles are investigating designs similar to Shirley and El Monte for their troubled corridors; new physically separated facilities were opened during 1977 in San Francisco and Pittsourg, and both are schedule! to be expanded; and a Virginia freeway (1-66) reserved for buses and four or more person HOV's during peak periods is scheduled to open in the early 1980's.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyses of Bus Travel Time Reliability and Transit Signal Priority at the Stop-To-Stop Segment Level
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-2-2014 Analyses of Bus Travel Time Reliability and Transit Signal Priority at the Stop-To-Stop Segment Level Wei Feng Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Transportation Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Feng, Wei, "Analyses of Bus Travel Time Reliability and Transit Signal Priority at the Stop-To-Stop Segment Level" (2014). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 1832. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.1831 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyses of Bus Travel Time Reliability and Transit Signal Priority at the Stop-To-Stop Segment Level by Wei Feng A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil and Environmental Engineering Dissertation Committee: Miguel Figliozzi, Chair 1 Robert Bertini Christopher Monsere James Strathman Portland State University 2014 1 © 2014 Wei Feng 2 2 i ABSTRACT Transit travel time is affected by many factors including traffic signals and traffic condition. Transit agencies have implemented strategies such as transit signal priority (TSP) to reduce transit travel time and improve service reliability. However, due to the lack of empirical data, the joint impact of these factors and improvement strategies on bus travel time has not been studied at the stop-to-stop segment level.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Evaluation on Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic Data
    Final Technical Report TNW2007-06 TransNow Budget No. 61-4161 Comprehensive Evaluation on Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic Data by Yinhai Wang Mark Hallenbeck Jianyang Zheng Guohui Zhang Assistant Professor Director, TRAC Graduate Research Graduate Research Assistant Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195-2700 Sponsored by Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Washington State Department of University of Washington Transportation (WSDOT) 135 More Hall, Box 352700 310 Maple Park Avenue SE Seattle, Washington 98195-2700 PO Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Report prepared for: Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 129 More Hall University of Washington, Box 352700 Seattle, Washington 98195-2700 June 15, 2007 Comprehensive Evaluation on Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic Data Page 1 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG TNW2007-06 NO. 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Comprehensive Evaluation on Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic June 15, 2007 Data 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT Yinhai Wang, Mark Hallenbeck, Jianyang Zheng and Guohui Zhang NO. TNW2007-06 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Transportation Northwest Regional Center X (TransNow) Box 352700, 129 More Hall University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-2700 11. CONTRACT GRANT NO. DTRS99-G-0010 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED United States Department of Transportation Final Research Office of the Secretary of Transportation Report 400 Seventh St.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bus Signal Priority Model at Oversaturated Intersection Under Stochastic Demand
    Hindawi Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume 2021, Article ID 2741094, 13 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2741094 Research Article A Bus Signal Priority Model at Oversaturated Intersection under Stochastic Demand Bin-bin Hao , Bin Lv , and Qixiang Chen School of Traffic and Transportation, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China Correspondence should be addressed to Bin Lv; [email protected] Received 4 August 2020; Revised 14 January 2021; Accepted 11 May 2021; Published 30 May 2021 Academic Editor: Sitek Paweł Copyright © 2021 Bin-bin Hao et al. /is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. /is paper focuses on the optimization of bus signal priority with the consideration of the stochastic traffic demand. Based on a situation of the variability of traffic composition, the phase clearance reliability (PCR) value of each phase and traffic composition ratio is introduced to reflect the traffic condition at intersection. /en, a bus signal priority optimization model is proposed with the purpose of the maximum of the total vehicular departure as the optimization goal. In order to obtain the optimal solution, an improved algorithm is designed by introducing the PCR value search strategy. Finally, two cases’ study is exhibited to demonstrate the reasonability of the model, theory, and algorithm. /e result shows that the model can not only clear the queue under the condition of continuous dynamic traffic flow but also reduce the vehicle queuing and passenger delay. 1. Introduction the development of intelligent public transport systems is essential to improve the level of public transport service and /e acceleration of urbanization and the increasing urban operational efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Performance Evaluation at Signalized Intersections of Bus Rapid Transit Corridors
    Transit Performance Evaluation at Signalized Intersections of Bus Rapid Transit Corridors Robel Desta1 a, Tewodros Dubale2 and János Tóth1 1Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Muegyetem rkp. 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary 2Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, Hawassa University, P.O. Box 1528, Hawassa, Ethiopia Keywords: Bus Rapid Transit, Delay, ITS, PTV VISSIM, Transit Signal Priority. Abstract: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is one of the mass transportation solutions consisting of infrastructures integrating dedicated bus lanes and smart operational service with different ITS technologies like Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Delay at an intersection is among the major factors for poor transit performance. This study examines the performance of buses at intersections of BRT corridors, which are privileged with Signal Priority on the dedicated lane. Simulation models were developed for the selected intersection together with the real-time calibration and validation. Statistical comparisons were conducted to test the alternative scenarios aimed at visualizing the deployment advantages. TSP options were evaluated by using PTV VISSIM with VisVAP add-on simulation tool. Alternative scenarios with and without TSP were tested to measure the performance of BRT buses along with impact assessment on the general traffic. TSP reduces travel time and control delay, improves travel speed and the results depicted a reduction in average passenger delay by 10–20%. The improvement on travel speed at an intersection of BRT vehicles were determined to be 6–8%. Prioritizing buses has diminutive impact on the general traffic, nonetheless, it is the easiest way of improving transit performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Buses with H Igh Level of Service
    Buses with High Level of Service Fundam ental characteristics and recom m endations for decision-making and research Results from 35 European cities Final report ± COST action TU 0603 (October 2007 ± October 2011) Edited by: Brendan Finn (ETTS Ltd), Odile H eddebaut (IFSTTA R DEST), Arno Kerkhof (UITP), François Ram baud (CERTU), O scar Sbert Lozano (C onsultant), Claude Soulas (IFSTTA R GRETTIA). The participants of this COST action, from 14 EU countries, are contributors - list page 4. COST is supported by the EU RTD Fram ew ork program m e ESF provides the COST Office through an EC contract. Forew ord This publication is supported by COST COST- the acronym for European COoperation in Science and Technology- is the oldest and widest European intergovernm ental network for cooperation in research. Established by the Ministerial Conference in N ovem ber 1971, COST is presently used by the scientific com m unities of 35 European countries to cooperate in com m on research projects supported by national funds. The funds provided by COST - less than 1% of the total value of the projects - support the COST cooperation networks (COST Actions) through which, with EUR 30 million per year, more than 30 000 European scientists are involved in research having a total value which exceeds EUR 2 billion per year. This is the financial worth of the European added value which COST achieves. A "bottom up approach" (the initiative of launching a COST Action com es from the European scientists them - selves), "à la carte participation" (only countries interested in the Action participate), "equality of access" (par- ticipation is open also to the scientific com m unities of countries not belonging to the European U nion) and "flexible structure" (easy implem entation and light m anagem ent of the research initiatives) are the main charac- teristics of COST.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 23 Traffic Management Plan the Master Plan for Lima and Callao Metropolitan Area Urban Transportation in the Republic of Peru (Phase 1) Final Report
    CHAPTER 23 Traffic Management Plan The Master Plan for Lima and Callao Metropolitan Area Urban Transportation in the Republic of Peru (Phase 1) Final Report 23. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 23.1. TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This section discusses a traffic signal control improvement plan by introducing the area traffic signal control system on near-saturated conditions in specified areas, this includes the synchronized system of traffic signals on major streets, the improvement plan of the signal phasing system with a green arrow for left-turn vehicles including the improvement of the intersections, the installation of traffic signal lights at non-signalized intersections with channelization systems, and the bus priority signal control system plan on the trunk busways. 23.1.1. NECESSITY AND OBJECTIVES The necessity and objectives of the traffic signal control improvement plan are as follows: a) The improvement of signal control is one of the ways in which the maximum use of existing road facilities and the increase of road capacities can be achieved. It is a cost effective method. b) At present, during peak periods, traffic policemen manually control the signalized intersections on the major roads while the efficiency of traffic signal control can be elevated by the improvement of the traffic signal control system. c) In order to achieve a smooth traffic flow along the major roads and in the specified heavy congested area, the technical improvement of the signal control system will be necessary through the introduction of a real time control system with traffic sensors in order to respond to unstable traffic fluctuations by time periods.
    [Show full text]
  • At-Grade Busway Planning Guide
    At-Grade Busway Planning Guide At-Grade Busway Planning Guide L. David Shen, Hesham Elbadrawi, Fang Zhao and Diana Ospina Principal Investigators Florida International University December 1998 FIU Lehman Center for Transportation Research College of Engineering and Design Florida International University The State University of Florida at Miami Miami, FL 33199 TEL: (305) 348-3055 FAX: (305) 348-4057 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. file:////moscow/cutr_web/CUTR/research/nuti/busway/Busway.htm[7/31/2012 2:58:00 PM] At-Grade Busway Planning Guide NUTI95FIU1.2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date At-Grade Busway Planning Guide December 1998 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. L. David Shen, Hesham Elbadrawi, Fang Zhao and Diana Ospina 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. National Urban Transit Institute Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University 11. Contract or Grant No. University Park, Miami, FL 33199 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Research and Special Programs Sept. 1997 through December 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20690 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program 16. Abstract At-grade busways can be a major component of strategies designed to make better use of existing transit facilities with relatively low capital expenditures. The objective of at-grade busways is to attract auto drivers or other transit users from major traffic corridors by improving comfort, economy, travel time, and quality of transit services and providing express services that collect transit riders from residential neighborhoods and parking facilities.
    [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]
  • Longmont Bus Rapid Transit Alignment Analysis June 2016
    Longmont Bus Rapid Transit Alignment Analysis June 2016 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG LONGMONT BUS RAPID TRANSIT ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS Prepared for: City of Longmont Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 FHU Reference No. 112455-01 June 2016 State Highway 119 Bus Rapid Transit City of Longmont Alignment Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 A. Background ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 B. Purpose of Study --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 C. BRT Definition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 II. CONNECTION FROM THE SOUTH ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 A. Existing and Future Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6 B. Lane Configuration Alternatives ------------------------------------------------------------- 10 C. Traffic Operational Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 D. Lane Configuration Alternatives Assessment -------------------------------------------- 12 E. Alignment Alternatives ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13 F. Bus Travel Time Comparison---------------------------------------------------------------- 14 G. Alignment Alternatives Assessment -------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines Is Offered As a Guide to Transit Infrastructure Design Best Practices, Rather Than As a Set of Strict Design Standards
    Revision 2018.01 (September 2018) USING THIS GUIDE The Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines is offered as a guide to transit infrastructure design best practices, rather than as a set of strict design standards. Design matters requiring the approval of TransLink/CMBC will continue to be reviewed in previous manner. Municipal and provincial road design standards will continue to be applied. The design parameters and criteria presented in this Guide are suitable for typical applications and will provide operational efficiency, safety and customer comfort. As every project is different with unique site context, Designers should consider site specific context and recommend appropriate design solutions on a case by case basis. For new projects that have specific considerations and/or constraints that may lead to designs deviating from the guidelines, Designers should provide rationale to support any deviations and consult with TransLink at the onset of a project to verify the assumptions and criteria to be followed. This Guide is a living document. As technology, operational practice and customer expectation evolve, the document will be updated as needed. The information presented in the current version represents the best information available at the time of writing. Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines SOP: Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines SOP # INM-002 (Rev 01) TransLink Infrastructure Program Management Department – Transportation Owner Engineering Group The purpose of this Standard Operating Procedure is to provide guidance on making updates and changes to TransLink’s Bus Infrastructure Design Guidelines (“BIDG”) following an update to the previous 2013 document. Purpose of The BIDG provides guidance on design practices to accommodate buses and the SOP passengers, and promote safe and efficient bus operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority January 2002 Final Report 6
    EFFECTIVENESS OF B US SIGNAL PRIORITY FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2002 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NCTR-416-04 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority January 2002 Final Report 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Chada, Shireen and Newland, Robert 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. National Center For Transit Research (NCTR) 11. Contract or Grant No. University of South Florida CUT 100 DTRS98-G-0032 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Research and Special Programs Florida DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Washington, DC 20590 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Supported by a Grant from the USDOT Research and Special Programs Administration, and the Florida Department of Transportation 16. Abstract Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority (BSP) study evaluates BSP’s impact on traffic operations. The goal was to examine how different situations, such as the level of congestion, placement of bus stops, presence of express bus service, and number of transit vehicles on route, require different techniques of BSP such as real-time or fixed-time based control. Those techniques also utilize a variety of different control strategies such as phase suppression, synchronization, compensation, and green recall. In order to guide transportation agencies in this decision-making process, a framework for an ideal bus priority system was developed. Based upon that information, the “Pre-Implementation Checklist” was designed.
    [Show full text]
  • FTA Report 0006
    Peer-to-Peer Information Exchange on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Bus Priority Best Practices MAY 2012 FTA Report No. 0009 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Marta Panero, Hyeon-Shic Shin, Allen Zedrin, and Samuel Zimmerman, Authors Marta Panero, Principal Investigator Emily Dowdall, Editor New York University/Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is intended as a technical assistance product. It is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 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 of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Peer-to-Peer Information Exchange on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Bus Priority Best Practices MAY 2012 FTA Report No. 0009 PREPARED BY Marta Panero, Hyeon-Shic Shin, Allen Zedrin, and Samuel Zimmerman, Authors Marta Panero, Principal Investigator Emily Dowdall, Editor New York University/Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10012 http://amer.nvu.eduhudincenter National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #350 Washington, DC 20004 http://nacto.org SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration
    [Show full text]