DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts of Queue Jumpers and Transit Signal Priority on Bus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IMPACTS OF QUEUE JUMPERS AND TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY ON BUS RAPID TRANSIT by R. M. Zahid Reza A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of College of Engineering and Computer Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida August 2012 Copyright by R. M. Zahid Reza 2012 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am heartily thankful to my supervisor Dr. Aleksandar Stevanovic for his expertise and circumspective guidance and support all through my graduate studies at the Florida Atlantic University. I also want to thank Dr. Khaled Sobhan for giving me an opportunity to pursuing higher study and Dr. Evangelos Kaisar for his helpful suggestions and comments during my research work. I would like to expand my thanks to Dr. Milan Zlatkovic, from the University of Utah whose sincere judgment and recommendations helped me to carry out the study. Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to my family whose continuous supports and encouragement was constant source of stimulus for this work. iv ABSTRACT Author: R. M. Zahid Reza Title: Impacts of Queue Jumpers and Transit Signal Priority on Bus Rapid Transit Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Aleksandar Stevanovic Degree: Master of Science Year: 2012 Exclusive bus lanes and the Transit Signal Priority are often not effective in saturated peak-traffic conditions. An alternative way of providing priority for transit can be queue jumpers, which allows buses to bypass and then cut out in front of waiting queue by getting an early green signal. Utah Transit Authority deployed Bus Rapid Transit system at Salt Lake County, Utah along W 3500 S. This research evaluates the impacts of queue jumpers with TSP on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and private vehicular traffic. Four VISSIM models were developed for analysis: Basic scenario, no TSP with queue jumpers, TSP with no queue jumpers, and TSP with queue jumpers. In TQ scenario travel time was reduced between 13.2-19.82% with respect to basic scenario. At the same time, travel time of private traffic increased vary little 0.38-3.28%. Two TSP strategies: green extension and red truncation are implemented in this research work. v IMPACTS OF QUEUE JUMPERS AND TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY ON BUS RAPID TRANSIT LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 1 1.2. Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 4 1.3. Research Tasks ..................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Thesis Organization.............................................................................................. 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 6 2.1. Overview of Performance of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................. 6 2.2. Review of Performance of Preferential Treatments ........................................... 11 2.2.1. Overview of Performance of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) ....................... 11 2.2.2. Review of Performance of Exclusive Bus lanes ......................................... 18 2.2.3. Review of Performance of Queue Jumpers ................................................ 22 2.3. Overview on Calibration .................................................................................... 26 2.4. Summary of the Literature Review .................................................................... 27 3. MICROSIMULATION MODEL DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 28 3.1. Study Area .......................................................................................................... 28 vi 3.2. Simulation Network ........................................................................................... 30 3.3. Traffic Control.................................................................................................... 31 3.4. Transit Operations .............................................................................................. 31 3.5. Preliminary Model building ............................................................................... 32 3.6. Scenario Design.................................................................................................. 33 3.7. Queue Jumpers ................................................................................................... 34 3.8. Queue Jumper Bus Bay ...................................................................................... 35 3.9. Relocating Bus Stops ......................................................................................... 39 3.10. Transit Signal Priority Implementation .............................................................. 42 3.11. Queue Jumper Phase Implementation ................................................................ 43 3.12. Summary of Model Development ...................................................................... 44 4. CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF THE MODEL ...................................... 45 4.1. Why necessary to calibrate? ............................................................................... 45 4.2. Overview of VISSIM ......................................................................................... 46 4.2.1. VISSIM Car Following Parameters ................................................................... 47 4.2.2. Lane change........................................................................................................ 50 4.2.3. Driving Behavior Parameters for the Model ...................................................... 52 4.3. Model Calibration .............................................................................................. 53 4.4. Validation ........................................................................................................... 55 vii 4.4.1. Model Validation ........................................................................................ 55 4.4.2. Summary ..................................................................................................... 57 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 58 5.1. BRT Travel Times .............................................................................................. 58 5.2. Private Vehicular Travel Times ......................................................................... 61 5.3. Bus Travel Times ............................................................................................... 62 5.4. Overall Comparison of Travel Times................................................................. 65 5.5. Network Performance Evaluation ...................................................................... 68 5.5.1. Average Stopped Delay .............................................................................. 68 5.5.2. Average Speed ............................................................................................ 69 5.5.3. Network Wide Comparison of Average Delay ........................................... 70 5.6. Average Cross Street Delay ............................................................................... 70 5.7. Impacts on Intersections on Major Corridor ...................................................... 71 5.8. BRT Time-Space Diagrams ............................................................................... 73 5.9. Summary of Overall Result Analysis ................................................................. 74 6. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................... 75 6.1. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 75 6.2. Limitations of the study and future Research Work .......................................... 76 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 79 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................... 80 viii BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 81 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Communication technologies integrated with BRT [Courtesy: Implementation of BRT Transportation System] ..........................................................8 Figure 2 Queue jumpers at Charlotte, NC ........................................................................ 23 Figure 3 3500 South RT 35 and BRT route with BRT bus stop locations ....................... 30 Figure 4 Study Areas along W 3500 S.............................................................................. 30 Figure 5 Queue jumper lane (Ottawa) (Courtesy: Bus Rapid Transit service design guideline) ...................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures Future of MBTA Bus Operations

    Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures Future of MBTA Bus Operations

    Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures Future of MBTA Bus Operations Project Sponsored by Thursday, May 29, 2014 Executive Summary • Bus transit is a critical component of the MBTA services and will be for the foreseeable future • Corridor study demonstrated ability to increase reliability for multiple routes • Some fleet replacement and maintenance facility issues coming to a head • Opportunities exist to cost‐effectively reduce MBTA’s carbon footprint through fleet and infrastructure investments 2 Agenda • Why Bus Transportation Important • Operational Reliability through Bus Priority Measures • Alternative Propulsion for a Sustainable Future • Bringing it all together: Pilot Opportunities 3 Why is Bus Transportation Important • Large percentage of MBTA ridership (~30%) o Still Growing…11% growth in unlinked passenger trips from Jan 2007 to Mar 2012 • Environmental justice Minority Low Income English Proficiency* Bus 37% 21% 0.63% Rapid Transit 27% 13% 0.14% Commuter Rail 11% 2% 0.02% 4 Why is Bus Transportation Important • Mobility o 34% of bus users have no household vehicle • Service availability (Coverage) o % of street miles covered by transit market Bus Subway Commuter Rail Total 73% 7% 3% • Lower capital cost to implement bus improvements vs. rail • Public transportation’s role in global warming 5 Project Methodology • Researched bus priority best practices • Researched alternative propulsion systems • Fact finding mission – London, UK • Developed corridor selection criteria/methodology • Developed conceptual
  • Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)

    Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Part B)

    7UDQVLW&DSDFLW\DQG4XDOLW\RI6HUYLFH0DQXDO PART 2 BUS TRANSIT CAPACITY CONTENTS 1. BUS CAPACITY BASICS ....................................................................................... 2-1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 2-1 Types of Bus Facilities and Service ............................................................................ 2-3 Factors Influencing Bus Capacity ............................................................................... 2-5 Vehicle Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-5 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-13 Fundamental Capacity Calculations .......................................................................... 2-15 Vehicle Capacity................................................................................................... 2-15 Person Capacity..................................................................................................... 2-22 Planning Applications ............................................................................................... 2-23 2. OPERATING ISSUES............................................................................................ 2-25 Introduction..............................................................................................................
  • Framework for Transit Equity: Metrobus Service Guidelines

    Framework for Transit Equity: Metrobus Service Guidelines

    Executive Committee Action Item IV-A December 10, 2020 Framework for Transit Equity: Metrobus Service Guidelines Page 36 of 105 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary MEAD Number: Resolution: Action Information 202236 Yes No TITLE: Framework for Transit Equity: Metrobus Guidelines PRESENTATION SUMMARY: Action item to request adoption of Metrobus Service Guidelines PURPOSE: Staff will recommend Board adoption of new Metrobus Service Guidelines. DESCRIPTION: This presentation will update the Board on changes to the draft Service Guidelines based on comments from Metro’s jurisdictional partners and local bus service providers. Summary results from the application of the guidelines to Metrobus Lines/Routes will be provided based on data from July 2019-February 2020. A discussion of how the results can be used to improve bus service and equity will be provided. Staff will recommend Board adoption of Metrobus Service Guidelines to inform future service plans. Contractors and Interested Parties Involved in the Service Guidelines and Annual Line Performance Work: AECOM, Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning, and IBI Group Key Highlights: • Metrobus Service guidelines are fundamental to ensuring equitable service across the region and are one of the main building blocks for service planning, budget decisions, and conducting a network redesign. Metrobus Service guidelines have not been updated since 2000. • Improving Metrobus directly helps address longstanding inequities in the region. • Updating Metrobus service guidelines was a Bus Transformation Project recommendation and was widely supported by our jurisdictional partners. The guidelines will create a clear and formalized approach to routing, service, and budget decisions. • Feedback from jurisdictions and local bus providers is incorporated into the service guidelines.
  • Public Transport Priority for Brussels: Lessons from Zurich, Eindhoven, and Dublin

    Public Transport Priority for Brussels: Lessons from Zurich, Eindhoven, and Dublin

    Public Transport Priority for Brussels: Lessons from Zurich, Eindhoven, and Dublin Peter G. Furth Visiting Researcher, Université Libre de Bruxelles* Report Completed Under Sponsorship of the Brussels Capital Region Program “Research in Brussels” July 19, 2005 *Permanent position: Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. Telephone +1.617.373.2447, email [email protected]. Acknowledgements Thank you to the many people who gave me time to share information about their traffic control and public transport systems: STIB: Alain Carle (Stratégie Clients), Christian Dochy (Dévelopment du Reseau), Jean-Claude Liekendael (Délegué Général à la Qualité), Louis-Hugo Sermeus and Freddy Vanneste (Définition et Gestion de l’Offre), Thierry Villers (Etudes d’Exploitation), Jean-Philippe Gerkens (Exploitation Métro). Brussels Capital Region: Michel Roorijck (A.E.D., program VICOM). Université Libre de Bruxelles: Martine Labbé (Service d’Informatique), my promoter during this research program. Zurich: Jürg Christen and Roger Gygli (City of Zurich, Dienstabteiling Verkehr DAV), A. Mathis (VBZ) Dublin: Margaret O’Mahony (Trinity University Dublin), Colin Hunt and Pat Mangan (Rep. of Ireland Department of Transport), Frank Allen and Jim Kilfeather (Railway Procurement Agency), Owen Keegan and David Traynor (Dublin City Council, Roads and Traffic Department). Peek Traffic, Amersfoort (NL): Siebe Turksma, Martin Schlief. 1 Introduction Priority for public transport is an objective of Brussels and other large cities. It is the key to breaking the vicious cycle of congestion that threatens to bring cities to gridlock. In that cycle, increasing private traffic makes public transport become slower and less reliable, especially because while motorists are free to seek less congested routes, public transport lines cannot simply change their path, and therefore suffer the worst congestion.
  • Transit Speed and Reliability Guidelines and Strategies

    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
  • 16Th Street Draft Alternatives

    16Th Street Draft Alternatives

    DRAFT ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 IMPROVEMENT Mixed Service and Service Focus Infrastructure Focus Infrastructure PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS Bus Stop Removal/Consolidation: - 4 southbound locations (Newton, Lamont, V Streets and Riggs Place) - 5 northbound locations (L , Q , V, Lamont and Newton Streets) Far-Side Bus Stop Expansion: 2 southbound locations (Harvard and M Streets) BASELINE Relocate southbound Spring Place bus stop north to Spring Road to IMPROVEMENTS improve pedestrian safety Upgrade bus stops to WMATA zone lengths Full length, extended peak period Full length, both peak direction: Bus Lanes directions - 7:00 am - 10:00 am southbound 7:00 am - 10:00 pm - 4:00 pm - 7:30 pm northbound Lane shift: - 2 lanes southbound and 1 lane Lane configuration changes between U and O Streets due to bus lanes Addition of center reversible lane northbound 7:00 - 10:00 am - 2 lanes northbound and 1 lane ADDITIONAL southbound 4:00 - 7:30 pm IMPROVEMENTS Queue Jump Lanes Intersection Reconfiguration at Harvard/Columbia/Mount Pleasant TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS (Any proposed service changes would require a future public involvement process led by WMATA) Headway-based service S2 Route patterns reduced to two in each direction S1 and S2 service eliminated along 14th Street between Northern Bus Garage and 16th Street BASELINE Running and recovery time added to schedule IMPROVEMENTS Fleet mix upgraded with low-floor and articulated buses Off-Board Fare Payment All buses, all stops SmarTrip Card top off only S9 buses
  • Traffic Methodologies for Bus Rapid Transit Corridors: Recommended Guidance September 2019

    Traffic Methodologies for Bus Rapid Transit Corridors: Recommended Guidance September 2019

    Traffic Methodologies for Bus Rapid Transit Corridors: Recommended Guidance September 2019 Report prepared for FDOT Contract Number: C9N85 Task Work Order 34: Traffic Methodologies for Bus Rapid Transit Corridors Recommended Guidance September 2019 Prepared By: CDM Smith 101 Southhall Lane, Suite 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Prepared for: Gabrielle Mathews Chris A. Wiglesworth Florida Department of Transportation, Transit Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 26 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: (850) 414-4532 Email: [email protected].Ň.us TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Topic Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of This Guidance .................................................................................................................... 2 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................... 3 Understanding the Process and Key Concepts ........................................................................................ 5 The Transit Project Planning Process and Stages of Traffic Analysis ................................................... 5 Traffic Analysis During Programming and Alternatives Screening (TCAR Process).......................... 5 Traffic Analysis During Project Development and
  • Transit Priority Treatments for Improved Person Mobility Motivation

    Transit Priority Treatments for Improved Person Mobility Motivation

    Transit Priority Treatments for Improved Person Mobility Motivation 2017 Innovation & Tech Transfer Exchange 2 Background Priority in Space (Geometric) § Dedicated bus lanes § Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority § Queue jump lanes Viegas, 2007 Priority in Time (Transit Signal Priority (TSP)) § Passive priority strategies § Active priority strategies (e.g., phase extension/advance) § Real-time signal control strategies with priority www.mta.info www.mta.info Priority in Time and Space § Pre-signal www.umn.edu 2017 Innovation & Tech Transfer Exchange 3 Dedicated Bus Lanes h7p://combo2600.com/del-ayer-y-hoy/ commons.wikimedia.org www.mta.info www.mta.info 2017 Innovation & Tech Transfer Exchange 4 www.transportdeals.co.uk www.streetsblog.org Dedicated Bus Lanes New York City, NY § Reduction in travel time by: § 43% (express bus) § 34% (local bus) § Increased travel time reliability by 57% San Francisco, CA § Reduction in travel time by: § 39% (local bus) Source: www.sf.streetsblog.org 2017 Innovation & Tech Transfer Exchange Intermittent Bus Lanes (IBL) University Avenue, Lisbon, Portugal § Used for buses § Increased bus speeds by 15%-25% § No significant penalty to car traffic Toorak Avenue, Melbourne, Australia § Used for a streetcar Source: Viegas et al. (2007) § Increased streetcar speeds by 1%-10% 2017 Innovation & Tech Transfer Exchange Queue Jumper Lanes Portland, OR § Combination of queue jumper lane and Transit Signal Priority (TSP) § Reduction in bus travel time by 5-8% § Inconclusive impacts of TSP on traffic Atlanta, GA § On-time
  • Operating a Bus Rapid Transit System

    Operating a Bus Rapid Transit System

    APTA STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM APTA-BTS-BRT-RP-007-10 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Approved October, 2010 American Public Transportation Association APTA BRT Operations Working 1666 K Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20006-1215 Group Operating a Bus Rapid Transit System Abstract: This Recommended Practice provides guidance for operational considerations for bus rapid transit systems. Keywords: bus rapid transit (BRT), operations Summary: BRT is a suite of elements that create a high-quality rapid transit experience using rubber-tired vehicles. This experience often includes a high degree of performance (especially speed and reliability), ease of use, careful attention to aesthetics and comprehensive planning that includes associated land uses. BRT seeks to meet or exceed these characteristics through the careful application of selected elements. Scope and purpose: The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to planners, transit agencies, local governments, developers and others interested in operating a BRT systems or enhancing existing BRT systems. This Recommended Practice is part of a series of APTA documents covering the key elements that may comprise a BRT system. Because BRT elements perform best when working together as a system, each Recommended Practice may refer to other documents in the series. Agencies are advised to review all relevant guidance documents for their selected elements. This Recommended Practice represents a common viewpoint of those parties concerned with its provisions, namely, transit operating/planning agencies, manufacturers, consultants, engineers and general interest groups. The application of any standards, practices or guidelines contained herein is voluntary. In some cases, federal and/or state regulations govern portions of a rail transit system’s operations.
  • Implementation of Bus Priority with Queue Jump Lane and Pre-Signal at Urban Intersections with Mixed Traffic Operations

    Implementation of Bus Priority with Queue Jump Lane and Pre-Signal at Urban Intersections with Mixed Traffic Operations

    Research Article Transportation Research Record 1–12 Ó National Academy of Sciences: Implementation of Bus Priority with Transportation Research Board 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Queue Jump Lane and Pre-Signal at DOI: 10.1177/0361198119835810 Urban Intersections with Mixed Traffic journals.sagepub.com/home/trr Operations: Lessons Learned? Kinjal Bhattacharyya1, Bhargab Maitra1, and Manfred Boltze2 Abstract In mixed traffic streams, especially near the intersections, buses suffer significantly due to congestion and excessive delays compared with other modes as they operate on fixed routes. To increase the attractiveness of bus journeys by improving schedule-reliability and reducing journey times, it is necessary to give priority to buses by segregating them from the main traffic stream. However, the road space is generally constrained in the cities and dedicated bus lanes are not a feasible solu- tion in the majority of urban centers. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of queue jump lanes (QJL) with and without pre-signal for non-priority traffic. The impacts on traffic and bus operations are analyzed based on implementations at two signalized approaches with distinct traffic and roadway characteristics in the Kolkata city, India. The field implementa- tion indicated travel time savings to passengers as a whole with variations with respect to different scenarios. Impacts on travel time and vehicle discharge yielded the effective benefits of the bus priority implementation. It was also meaningful and interesting to investigate the impacts on driver behavior in terms of bus stop manuevres, and the social acceptability of such implementation. The changes in safety-related aspects and driver violations are some of the aspects which could not be directly investigated in an analytical or micro-simulation platform, but needed a field implementation.
  • TCQSM Part 8

    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.
  • Transit Design Guidelines

    Transit Design Guidelines

    TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES 10. sbX ROADWAY DESIGN ELEMENTS use center running lanes with a single platform, due to door configuration of local bus vehicles. sbX roadway elements, such as running ways and queue jump • lanes, are major factors that allow sbX vehicles to maintain high Dedicated Bus-Only Lanes – Similar to a converted bus- operating speeds and service reliability, and help make the sbX only lane, either at the curb or the median that are service more competitive with the automobile than typical local purpose-built for transit and are physically separated bus service. Combined with Transit Signal Priority (TSP) as from mixed traffic by barriers, bollards, or raised described in Section 11, these elements can achieve significant medians/ curbs. As such, physical implementation and increases in the reliability and the level of service provided. capital costs are somewhat higher for dedicated bus-only lanes compared to converted ones. The sbX Green Line E 10.1 sbX Design Speeds Street corridor operates in portions of center running dedicated bus-only lanes. sbX vehicles and local buses Maximum operating speed in the sbX exclusive lanes shall be no would be allowed to enter curb running dedicated bus more than 10 mph greater than the posted speed limit of parallel only lanes, however local buses would not be able to use traffic. Design speed of parallel traffic and for sbX in mixed flow center running lanes with a single platform, due to door shall be the posted speed limit. configuration of local bus vehicles. 10.2 sbX Running Ways In all three types of running way, the local bus stops would be sbX vehicles operate in running ways, which serve as the major located at separate stop locations from the sbX service.