DOCSLIB.ORG

Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority January 2002 Final Report 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The checklist focuses on the most critical factors in BSP and recommends pursuing BSP if an area has enough characteristics in place to make BSP effective. A set of “Operational and Design Guidelines” for BSP were developed to assist an agency in choosing the most appropiate BSP method that complements the area characteristics. To establish how BSP can be most effective, ten transit professionals (planners and engineers) involved in installing BSP projects were interviewed. Five agencies utilizing BSP around the country were studied to determine which types of priority are used in certain conditions and what technology is being implemented. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Signal Priority Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Transit Signal Priority 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650, and through the Bus Signal Priority NCTR web site at http://www.nctr.usf.edu/ 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 40 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69) Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority Prepared by: Shireen Chada Research Associate Robert Newland Student Assistant National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Florida 33620-3120 813.974.3120 http://www.nctr.usf.edu/ Project Manager Gene Glotzbach, FDOT Contract Number BC 137-16 Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 850.414.4500 Research and Special Program Administration U.S. Department of Transportation RSPA/DIR-1, Room 8417 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 http://www.rspa.dot.gov/ The opinions, findings, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The document was prepared in cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. iii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2 TERMINOLOGY........................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WORK............................................................................................................. 3 BSP STRATEGIES......................................................................................................... 4 BSP SYSTEMS............................................................................................................. 6 PROS/CONS OF PRIORITY METHODS ............................................................................. 7 PROJECTS IN NORTH AMERICA ................................................................................... 10 WHEN IS NON-TRANSIT TRAFFIC LEAST AFFECTED? ....................................................... 16 CHARACTERISTICS OF AN IDEAL BSP SYSTEM ................................................................ 17 PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ON BSP.............................................................................. 18 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF BSP....................................................................................... 22 IMPLEMENTING BSP.................................................................................................. 24 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 29 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 31 APPENDIX A (BSP SPREADSHEET – SEE ATTACHED DISK) ..............................................A-1 iv List of Tables TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF BSP STRATEGIES ............................................................... 6 TABLE 2 Pros and Cons.................................................................................... 9 TABLE 3 PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS .................................................................... 18 TABLE 4 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST POINT SYSTEM .................................... 27 TABLE 5 RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON SATURATION LEVEL ............................... 27 TABLE 6 OPERATIONAL AND DESIGN GUIDELINES ............................................... 28 v EFFECTIVENESS OF BUS SIGNAL PRIORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Effectiveness of Bus Signal Priority (BSP) study was funded by the National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR). This 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 spreadsheet was developed to help an agency determine if signal priority is viable in a specific corridor. A set of guidelines was then developed to determine the most beneficial method of priority to pursue. To establish how BSP can be most effective, ten transit professionals (planners and engineers) involved in installing BSP projects were interviewed. Traffic engineers interviewed stated that agencies must develop control strategies that are appropriate for the given intersections in their area. Transit planners interviewed for this study explained that BSP did not create any significant delays to non-transit vehicles. A literature search also uncovered statements on the significant issues of BSP, such as considering the volume of bus passengers, degree of existing congestion level, and delay to non-transit vehicles. The literature search revealed the benefits of direct priority strategy in areas with low congestion and an indirect priority strategy for areas with a high degree of congestion. Agencies utilizing BSP around the country were studied to determine which types of priority are used in certain conditions and what technology is being implemented. It was determined that an effective bus priority system must ensure transit vehicles in all directions can be assisted without excess delay to non-transit vehicles. BSP offers fewer benefits in areas with extremely high bus volumes or very light traffic. The most appropriate priority method may be one that combines the various elements of existing priority techniques. Real-time control strategy offers the greatest benefits, although any system must be designed with the particular area needs in mind. As a result of the information gathered, a framework for an ideal bus priority system was developed. Based upon that information, the “Pre-Implementation Checklist” was designed. The checklist focuses on the most critical factors in BSP and recommends pursuing BSP if an area has enough characteristics in place to make BSP effective. The “Operational and Design Guidelines” for BSP assist an agency in choosing the most appropriate BSP method that complements the area characteristics. 1 EFFECTIVENESS OF BUS SIGNAL PRIORITY INTRODUCTION BSP is being more widely deployed in North America to address traffic congestion, caused by traffic signals, for on-street transit service. Signal priority for transit vehicles is expected to improve transit operations and service quality. In theory, an improvement
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]
  • Transit Element
    Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Pllan Chapter 6 – Introduction At the time of the 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Town of Cary had no bus service other than Route 301 operated by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Since then, Cary has expanded its transit Transit services considerably, with a new local fixed-route service for the public and demand-responsive paratransit for seniors and persons with disabilities. TTA has added routes as well. As the Town’s Element population continues rising and travel demand increases, the Town plans to expand its local service, capturing riders coming from and going to planned residential and commercial developments. Situated amidst the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, Cary is served today by multiple transit providers. Fixed route bus services within Cary are provided by C-Tran and TTA. C-Tran, Wake Coordinated Transportation Services (WCTS), and the Center for Volunteer Caregiving provide demand-responsive paratransit services. WCTS also provides rural general public transit via its TRACS service program; however, services are not provided for urban trips within Cary. Amtrak operates daily train service. This chapter describes current fixed-route transit and paratransit conditions, projected growth in the Town, and proposed future service changes. C-Tran Overview C-Tran is the Town of Cary’s sponsored transit service which originated as a door-to-door service for seniors and disabled residents in 2001. In July 2002, door-to-door services were expanded
    [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]
  • Advanced Urban Transit Technologies Market Testing Final Report
    Advanced Urban Transit Technologies – Worldwide Market Testing Report summarising the feedback received through the Market Testing March 2020 £69.6 Billion GVA A region packed with ambition and untapped potential In partnership with: Institute for Transport Studies Table of Contents 1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................................. 4 Who is undertaking the Market Testing? .................................................................................................................. 5 What Happens Next? ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................... 6 This report ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3. SUMMARY OF KEY MESSAGES ........................................................................................................................... 8 4. FEEDBACK ON DISCUSSION AREA 1A ................................................................................................................12 Illustrative Quotes from Respondents ..................................................................................................................... 12 Points raised
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Light Rail Transit with Bus Semirapid Transit
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ESE) Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering 10-2000 Comparison of Light Rail Transit With Bus Semirapid Transit Vukan R. Vuchic University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, Systems Engineering Commons, and the Transportation Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Vukan R. Vuchic, "Comparison of Light Rail Transit With Bus Semirapid Transit", 5th UITP Light Rail Conference . October 2000. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/741 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparison of Light Rail Transit With Bus Semirapid Transit Abstract Selection of transit modes is one of the most important decisions in the transit planning process. A particularly important decision is the selection between bus and rail modes, because it influences the type of service that will be offered and, more importantly, the role transit will play in the city. Ultimately, such a decision has an impact on the quality of life in the city. It is therefore necessary to include in the selection process the physical and economic characteristics of modes, as well as the quality of service, attraction of passengers and the impacts of the transit system on its served area and the entire city or suburb. Disciplines Civil Engineering | Engineering | Systems Engineering | Transportation Engineering This conference paper is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/741 Vukan R. Vuchic 5th UITP Light Rail Conference University of Pennsylvania Melbourne, Australia 9 October 2000 COMPARISON OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT WITH BUS SEMIRAPID TRANSIT Selection of transit modes is one of the most important decisions in the transit planning process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit
    Demand Performance of BRT The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit Graham Currie, Monash University Abstract This article uses a trip attribute approach to examine the relative passenger attrac- tiveness of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems compared to other transit modes. It examines how passengers value trip attributes for on-street bus, BRT, and light rail and heavy rail systems in passenger behavior research. Empirical data is presented which suggests that passengers value trip attributes for BRT and rail modes in a broadly similar manner. All of these transit modes are favored relative to on-street bus. These findings suggest that BRT systems should be as effective as rail in generat- ing patronage when developed to replace on-street bus services. This conclusion, in association with research demonstrating lower costs for BRT systems compared to rail, may be used to claim cost effectiveness advantages for BRT. However, a number of limitations in the evidence are identified and additional research suggested. Con- clusions of the research are also used to suggest ways to improve BRT system design to enhance demand performance. Introduction Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is now a major trend in the development of public trans- port systems worldwide. While BRT has been shown to have lower implementa- tion costs compared to other transit modes (General Accounting Office 2001), its cost effectiveness can only be assessed by examining its relative performance in generating demand compared to other transit modes. 41 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005 This article explores the relative passenger attractiveness of BRT systems compared to other transit modes by studying trip attribute research evidence.
    [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]
  • Integrated Transport: a New Generation of Interchanges
    Integrated transport A new generation of interchanges www.bettertransport.org.uk Contents Executive summary Executive summary 3 Transport networks should be efficient, affordable, Funding and support accessible and comprehensive. Good modal Introduction 4 A Bus and Coach Investment Strategy is long overdue. interchanges are central to creating such networks. The Government should develop a multi-year bus Planning and interchanges 6 and coach investment strategy to sit alongside other That much of the country lacks such systems is the Case study - Thurrock 12 transport investment, such as the Road Investment result of disjointed and reductive transport planning Strategy and rail’s High Level Output Specification. Case study - Catthorpe Interchange 16 and investment. Despite in-principle support and a number of small national initiatives, there has been Case study - Luton North 19 A joint Department for Transport (DfT), Department a widespread and ongoing failure to link transport for Housing, Communities and Local Government Other opportunities for improved connectivity 23 networks and modes. The resulting over-reliance on fund should be established to support the delivery cars is engendering negative social, economic and Conclusions and recommendations 26 of national priority interchanges and to fund regional environmental ramifications. These consequences assessment of interchange opportunities. Cross- References and image credits 30 unfairly disadvantage those who do not have a car government working should also examine how better and lead to perverse spending decisions to address interchanges can contribute to policies such as the the resulting congestion. Industrial Strategy. We need a better way forward. This report makes the Infrastructure schemes funded via the Road Investment case for a new generation of transport interchanges.
    [Show full text]
  • Tram, Trolley Or Guided Bus: What Are the Best Choices for London? Proceedings of a Seminar Held by the Transport Committee April 2004 Transport Committee
    Transport Committee Tram, trolley or guided bus: what are the best choices for London? Proceedings of a seminar held by the Transport Committee April 2004 Transport Committee Tram, trolley or guided bus: what are the best choices for London? Proceedings of a seminar held by the Transport Committee April 2004 copyright Greater London Authority April 2004 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 1 85261 585 0 Cover photographs Tram and guided bus ©Robert Bain Trolley bus ©Lars Freund This publication is printed on recycled paper Chair’s foreword One of the most useful and positive parts of the London Assembly’s work is to host seminars where leading experts in particular fields can inform and debate with stakeholders, politicians and local government officers. The publication of these contributions will help Londoners and their representatives to develop opinions based on well-researched information instead of speculation and prejudice. It was in this spirit that the Transport Committee of the Assembly hosted a seminar into trams, trolley buses and guided busways, with a view to informing ourselves and London about the proposals for tram and bus schemes that the Mayor is promoting through Transport for London. Peter Hendy provided a rapid but thorough overview of Transport for London’s policies, plans and programme in this area. Carmen Hass-Klau contrasted this with what is going on in continental Europe, looking at what London has to learn. She gave us a glimpse of tram projects in Nantes, Paris and Orleans, the Translohr rubber-tyred tram, and bus trains in Utrecht and Hamburg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trackless Tram: Is It the Transit and City Shaping Catalyst We Have Been Waiting For?
    Discussion paper issued without formal editing FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY 28 October 2019 ENGLISH ONLY UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT In collaboration with Ministry of Transport, Government of Viet Nam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Viet Nam Ministry of Construction, Government of Viet Nam Hanoi People's Committee, Government of Viet Nam Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific INTERGOVERNMENTAL TWELFTH REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT (EST) FORUM IN ASIA 28-31 OCTOBER 2019, HANOI, VIET NAM The Trackless Tram: Is it the Transit and City Shaping Catalyst we have been waiting for? (Background Paper for Mayor Policy Dialogue -2) Final Draft ------------------------------------- This background paper has been prepared by Prof. Peter Newman, Dr. Karlson Hargroves, Mr. Sebastian Davies-Slate, Mr. Daniel Conley, Ms. Marie Verschuer, Mr. Mike Mouritz and Mr. Dorji Yangka, for the 12th Regional EST Forum in Asia. The views expressed herein are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the UNCRD, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. The Trackless Tram: Is it the Transit and City Shaping Catalyst we have been waiting for? Peter Newman,1 Karlson Hargroves,1 Sebastian Davies-Slate,1 Daniel Conley,2 Marie Verschuer,3 Mike Mouritz,1 Dorji Yangka1 1 Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP), Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
    [Show full text]