DOCSLIB.ORG

“Transportation Strategies Toolbox” “Transportation Strategies Toolbox”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Transportation Strategies Toolbox” “Transportation Strategies Toolbox” “Transportation“Transportation StrategiesStrategies Toolbox”Toolbox” JackJack GonsalvesGonsalves P.E.P.E. BRTBRT NationalNational PracticePractice LeaderLeader ParsonsParsons BrinckerhoffBrinckerhoff [email protected]@pbworld.com 503-478-2359503-478-2359 5-County5-County TransportationTransportation Summit,Summit, KansasKansas CityCity DecemberDecember 20082008 EvolutionEvolution StageStage ofof TransitTransit ModesModes •• Heavy Heavy RailRail –– AlsoAlso wellwell establishedestablished inin largerlarger citiescities •LRT• LRT– – Proven Proven AcceptanceAcceptance twotwo decadesdecades ofof serviceservice nationwidenationwide •• Streetcar Streetcar –– Early Early RebirthRebirth –– Portland,Portland, SeattleSeattle •• Bus Bus RapidRapid TransitTransit- - Emerging Emerging -- Eugene, Eugene, Cleveland,Cleveland, LosLos Angeles,Angeles, LasLas VegasVegas •• Commuter Commuter RailRail– – well well establishedestablished -100-100 yearsyears operatesoperates overover partsparts ofof nationalnational railrail systemsystem MatchMatch correctcorrect landland useuse visionvision withwith ModeMode •• HeavyHeavy RailRail –– Most Most capacitycapacity useuse inin existingexisting highhigh urbanurban densitydensity settings;settings; mostmost expensive;expensive; justifiabljustifiablee onlyonly atat extremelyextremely highhigh volumesvolumes •• CommuterCommuter RailRail –Better–Better useuse ofof downtowndowntown landland (terminal)(terminal) throughthrough expansionexpansion ofof existingexisting stationsstations –– town town toto towntown journeyjourney •• mode mode chooseschooses thethe landland ratherrather ththanan thethe landland choosingchoosing thethe mode.mode. •• More More parkingparking andand moremore walkablewalkable uses uses atat suburbansuburban locationslocations •• LightLight RailRail –– median median capacity;capacity; justifiablejustifiable costcost forfor manymany corridorscorridors forfor largelarge andand mediummedium citiescities withwith existingexisting urbanizationurbanization oror largelarge destinationdestination nodenode •• BRTBRT –– median median capacity;capacity; mostmost flexibleflexible forfor cost;cost; connectsconnects suburbansuburban toto urbanurban density;density; oftenoften cancan serveserve samesame lineslines ofof corridorcorridor demanddemand asas LightLight railrail •• StreetcarStreetcar –– Downtown Downtown circulator,circulator, oror crcross-townoss-town service,service, servesserves mostmost intenseintense landland use,use, reducesreduces secondarysecondary autoauto tripstrips BusBus RapidRapid TransitTransit •• Engineering Engineering BRTBRT –– wide wide spectrumspectrum ExpressExpress BusBus ------------------------------------ LRT LRT onon rubberrubber tirestires BRTBRT -- System System ofof ComponentsComponents Vehicles Running Ways Stations & Stops ITS & Fare Payment Service Plan ForFor BRTBRT toto bebe -- “Rapid“Rapid Transit”Transit” •• Minimum Minimum AttributesAttributes –– Reliability Reliability –– All All dayday serviceservice –– Corridor Corridor speedspeed AverageAverage (12(12 mph+)mph+) –– 8-12 8-12 minutesminutes headwaysheadways @@ peakpeak –– Capacity/Throughput Capacity/Throughput –– Unique Unique IdentityIdentity QualityQuality ImageImage –– Context Context SensitiveSensitive StationStation DesignDesign 22 BasicBasic BRTBRT CategoriesCategories ExclusiveExclusive Lane?Lane? BRTBRT “Lite“Lite”” “True”“True” BRT BRT •• Mixed Mixed TrafficTraffic •• Center Center medianmedian runningrunning •• Queue Queue jumpsjumps ways,ways, dedicateddedicated R/WR/W •• Skip Skip StopsStops •• Larger Larger fixedfixed StationsStations •• New New paintpaint onon StdStd BusBus •• Guidance Guidance systemsystem •• Onboard Onboard FareboxFarebox •• Unique Unique imageimage •• Prefab Prefab sheltersshelters •• Sleek Sleek HybridHybrid VehiclesVehicles •• Signal Signal PriorityPriority •• High High capacitycapacity •• 8-10 8-10 minmin headwaysheadways •• Signal Signal PriorityPriority TypesTypes ofof BRTBRT SystemsSystems •• BRT BRT “Lite”“Lite” – – mixed mixed traffictraffic –– $0.8M $0.8M perper milemile •• BRT BRT ModerateModerate (hybrid)(hybrid) –– mostly mostly dedicateddedicated –– $4-8M $4-8M perper milemile •• BRT BRT FullFull FledgedFledged –– exclusive exclusive lanelane –– $9-22 $9-22 MM perper milemile (curb(curb toto curbcurb rebuild)rebuild) –– LRT LRT $50-60M$50-60M perper milemile BRTBRT PlanningPlanning StepsSteps WhatWhat doesdoes anan AlternativeAlternative include?include? AlignmentAlignment TechnologyTechnology ServiceService planplan 1)1) MarketMarket –– Where Where areare thethe “customers’“customers’ 2)2) Service Service && operationsoperations planplan –– Transfers Transfers && connectsconnects withwith fixedfixed busbus overlayoverlay routesroutes 3)3) Station Station PlacementPlacement –– Station Station areaarea planning,planning, nearnear workwork nodesnodes 4)4) Link/connect Link/connect statistationsons withwith runningrunning wayway –– The The alignmentalignment andand designdesign IntegratedIntegrated ServiceService StructureStructure • Line haul, high frequency • Local / feeder • Feeder / express Looking for that “One seat ride” BRTBRT sideside runningrunning Exclusive lane separated running way Independent alignment - Provides best design flexibility to avoid site constraints Approx 30 feet required width Most flexible design for Running way maintenance CurbCurb runningrunning arterialarterial CenterCenter runningrunning medianmedian Contra-flowContra-flow runningrunning wayway A single bi-directional lane may perform with better headways than that of two mixed traffic running ways LasLas VegasVegas MAXMAX ExclusiveExclusive CurbCurb LaneLane Mostly exclusive BRT curb lane - but also used as driveway access to Businesses - “BAT” Lane Bi-DirectionalBi-Directional LaneLane Eugene,Eugene, OregonOregon RouenRouen –– BRT BRT mixedmixed traffictraffic BusBus OnOn ShoulderShoulder (BOS)(BOS) SqueezeSqueeze outout useuse ofof entireentire existingexisting assetsassets •• TRCP TRCP StudyStudy D-13D-13 “draft”“draft” •• Minneapolis Minneapolis –– originator originator 1010 years,years, 250250 milesmiles •• Cleveland Cleveland OhioOhio -- I-90 I-90 •• Miami Miami -- 20 20 busesbuses perper hourhour •• Georgia Georgia •• San San DiegoDiego -- I-805 I-805 •Ottawa•Ottawa MinneapolisMinneapolis BOSBOS •• Mutual Mutual DilemmaDilemma MnDOTMnDOT –– increased increased freewayfreeway congestion,congestion, NoNo MoneyMoney MetroMetro -- increased increased ridership,ridership, BudgetBudget cutscuts •• MnDOT MnDOT –– taking taking mymy brake-downbrake-down lane,lane, safetysafety •• Metro Metro TransitTransit –– using using itit toto reducreducee OverloadOverload onon GPGP lanes,lanes, betterbetter serviceservice reliabilityreliability •• I-35 I-35 demodemo projectproject •• Do Do notnot callcall itit aa “lane”“lane” – – FHWA FHWA •• Passed Passed statestate legislationlegislation toto enableenable BOSBOS •• To To bebe usedused atat speedspeed lowerlower -- 35 35 mphmph •• Splitting Splitting costscosts ofof constructionconstruction •• Up Up toto 250250 busesbuses perper dayday I-35I-35 2121 mi,mi, •• 15,000 15,000 passengerspassengers perper dayday •• 87 87 busesbuses perper hourhour peak;peak; 3,0003,000 perper hrhr •• Good Good safetysafety recordrecord BusBus onon ShouldersShoulders •• 10-12 10-12 ftft shouldershoulder -- not not aa “lane”“lane” •• Operational Operational protocolprotocol –– 35 35 mphmph thresholdthreshold –– 15 15 mphmph differentialdifferential “side“side friction”friction” •• Operator’s Operator’s optionoption toto initiateinitiate –– riders riders demanddemand itit BusBus OnOn LeftLeft ShoulderShoulder -- StructureStructure •• Left Left shouldershoulder useuse –– testingtesting inin processprocess •• Lane Lane guidanceguidance technologytechnology •• Use Use forfor ExpressExpress routesroutes •• no no needneed forfor newnew structurestructure IntermittentIntermittent BusBus LanesLanes (IBL)(IBL) •• The The conceptconcept ofof consistsconsists ofof creatingcreating aa specialspecial lanelane inin aa roadroad section,section, thethe statusstatus ofof whichwhich cancan bebe changedchanged fromfrom aa regularregular lanelane mostmost ofof thethe time,time, toto aa BUSBUS lanelane onon demanddemand forfor aa limitedlimited time,time, duringduring whichwhich aa busbus isis movesmoves through.through. •• Demonstration Demonstration projectsprojects –– Lisbon Lisbon PortugalPortugal –– Brisbane Brisbane AustraliaAustralia Intermittent Bus Lane in “off” status – LED signals are “off” and any vehicle can use the rightmost lane Bus approaching the Intermittent Bus Lane – the LEDs are flashing and general traffic vehicles are not allowed to enter the rightmost lane Bus flowing in the Intermittent Bus Lane - The LEDs are flashing and still no cars can enter the rightmost lane Car entering the Intermittent Bus Lane while the LED signals are flashing – driver behaviour is not allowed Car entering the Intermittent Bus Lane while the LED signals are off – driver behaviour is allowed NuggetsNuggets forfor SuccessSuccess •• New New conceptconcept –– Communicate Communicate visionvision withwith simulationssimulations •• All All politicspolitics areare locallocal –– need need aa Champion,Champion, anyany ChampionChampion •• Make Make thethe TrafficTraffic EngineerEngineer youryour friendfriend •• Choose Choose aa busybusy existingexisting serviceservice corridorcorridor •• Preserve Preserve thethe RightRight ofof WayWay –– “permanence” “permanence” •• “Plagiarism” “Plagiarism” is is goodgood •• Capital Capital costingcosting –– early early andand oftenoften •• Emphasize Emphasize serviceservice integrationintegration && flexibilityflexibility •• Do Do notnot overselloversell BRTBRT ThankThank YouYou –– Questions? Questions? Pioneer Parkway (existing) Pioneer Parkway (with transit lanes) Grass Filter, Low Noise Curbed Transit Lanes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City
    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
    [Show full text]
  • 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..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design
    Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design by Michael David Eichler B.S. (The George Washington University) 1996 A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of City Planning In City and Regional Planning in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Martin Wachs, Chair Professor Robert Cervero Professor Carlos F. Daganzo Fall, 2005 Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design Copyright 2005 by Michael David Eichler 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Conceptual Overview 3 2 CONTEXT AND PRECEDENTS 7 2.1 Advanced Public Transit Systems 7 2.2 Transportation Planning Context 7 2.3 Bus Lanes 11 2.4 Temporal Vehicle Regulations 12 2.5 Dynamic Lane Assignment 13 2.6 In-pavement Lighting Systems 15 2.7 Conclusion 16 3 DESIGN 17 3.1 Technology 17 3.2 Bus Stop Design and Placement 18 3.3 Signage standards 22 3.4 BLIP and TSP 25 3.5 Conclusion 27 4 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 28 4.1 General Institutional Issues 28 4.2 Liability 32 4.3 Enforcement 35 4.4 Funding 37 4.5 Marketing 38 4.6 Inter-jurisdictional Coordination 38 4.7 User Acceptance & Human Factors 40 4.8 Equity 42 4.9 Conclusion 45 5 FEASIBILITY DISCUSSION 46 5.1 Overview 46 5.2 Basic Analysis 48 5.3 Impacts Constrained in Time 50 5.4 Impacts Constrained in Space 51 6 BENEFITS & COSTS 52 6.1 Benefits 52 6.2 Costs 57 7 CONCLUSION 60 7.1 Recommendations for Implementation 61 7.2 Recommendations for Further Research 61 APPENDIX: TECHNICAL FORMULATIONS 63 System Inputs 63 Supporting Concepts 63 Relaxation Time Constraint Calculation 68 Queue Length Constraint Calculation 70 Reduced Signal Delay 73 Reduced Stop Delay 79 REFERENCES 81 FURTHER READINGS 86 i Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport for providing research funding for this project.
    [Show full text]
  • End Traffic-Related Deaths and Injuries in New York City Causes of Fatal Crashes
    nyc.gov/visionzero Vision Zero Goal End traffic-related deaths and injuries in New York City Causes of Fatal Crashes 17% Dangerous Driver & Pedestrian Choices 53% Dangerous Driving Choices 30% Dangerous Pedestrian Choices 70% of pedestrian deaths involved dangerous driver choices Role of Taxi & FHV Drivers Taxis and for-hire vehicles but account for 14% of make up 5% of vehicles on fatal crashes the road Vision Zero Components Enforcement Engineering Education Engineering: Redesigning Streets Before After Better Street Design: Smart, Simple, Safe Education: Safe Driver Actions • Slow down • Turn safely • Watch for pedestrians & cyclists • Stay alert Speeding • More people are killed by speeding drivers than drunk drivers and drivers on cell phones combined • NYC speed limit is 25 MPH unless otherwise posted • State law requires all TLC- licensed drivers to wear seatbelts Failure to Yield to Pedestrians • Pedestrians in the crosswalk always have the right of way • Over 25% of pedestrian deaths and serious injuries are caused by a turning driver striking a pedestrian • Left turns are 3 times more likely to kill or seriously injure a pedestrian than right turns Left Turns • 5 MPH is a safe speed to turn • Always watch for pedestrians and bicyclists • Avoid short turns Dusk & Darkness Distracted Driving • Driver inattention, including using cell phones and other devices, contributes to 22% of pedestrian deaths and serious injuries in NYC • TLC-licensed drivers are not allowed to use phones, even hands-free, while operating a taxi or for-hire
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures the City of Boston Context
    Surface Transportation Optimization and Bus Priority Measures The City of Boston Context March 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SPECIAL THANKS TO: Rick Dimino Tom Nally Charles Planck David Carney Erik Scheier Greg Strangeways Joshua Robin Angel Harrington David Barker Melissa Dullea Vineet Gupta i | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Exhibits............................................................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 MBTA Operations and Initiatives ................................................................................................................................... 3 Current MBTA Operational Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 4 Recent MBTA Initiatives............................................................................................................................................. 9 Current MBTA Initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Bus Priority Best Practices ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit and Managed Lanes: Low-Cost, High-Quality Transportation Solutions for the 21St Century
    BUS RAPID TRANSIT & MANAGED LANES: Low-Cost, High-Quality Transportation Solutions for the 21st Century By Baruch Feigenbaum REASON FOUNDATION Policy Study 432 January 2014 Reason Foundation Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individu- als and voluntary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees. Copyright © 2014, Reason Foundation. All rights reserved. Reason Foundation Bus Rapid Transit and Managed Lanes: Low-Cost, High-Quality Transportation Solutions for the 21st Century By Baruch Feigenbaum Executive Summary Transit is important to the economic performance of America’s metropolitan regions because it affects the number of jobs a person can access within a certain period of time. The greater the number of accessible jobs, the better labor markets can match people to opportunities, and the more productive a region’s economy will be.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.0 Transit Technology Assessment
    6.0 Transit Technology Assessment 6.1 Introduction One of the first steps in the Southeast Corridor High Performance Transit Alternatives Study was to create a summary of the many different types of transit that could be used in the southeast corridor. This chapter provides a thorough listing of the various types of transit technology and their descriptions and operating characteristics. The intent of this chapter is to provide a general understanding of the various transit technologies, including some of the more recently developed technologies, and to provide a very broad overview of some of the costs associated with each technology. Transit technologies can be placed into several categories with each category serving different types of communities or providing different levels of service. For example, the local bus category is generally considered to be best suited for short distance travel in compact developments. Automated guideway transit (AGT), also called “people movers”, is best suited for short-distance travel in areas like airports that handle large numbers of people and require lots of walking. For medium and long distance travel, express buses, busways, light rail transit (LRT), and heavy rail can be solutions depending on the character of the corridor. For longer distances, commuter rail or high-speed rail may work best. Some of these technologies and applications will not be appropriate for providing efficient and convenient high performance transit throughout the southeast corridor. A potential transit system for the corridor should provide the capacity and flexibility required to connect activity centers, penetrate and serve the core of community centers, and circulate passengers to and from multiple urban cores.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Safety Impacts of Bus Priority Routes in Major Israeli Cities
    sustainability Article An Examination of the Safety Impacts of Bus Priority Routes in Major Israeli Cities Victoria Gitelman 1,* , Anna Korchatov 1 and Wafa Elias 2 1 Transportation Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel; [email protected] 2 Department of Civil Engineering, Shamoon College of Engineering, 84 Jabotinsky st., Ashdod 84100, Israel; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 August 2020; Accepted: 14 October 2020; Published: 17 October 2020 Abstract: Bus priority routes (BPRs) promote public transport use in urban areas; however, their safety impacts are not sufficiently understood. Along with proven positive mobility effects, such systems may lead to crash increases. This study examines the safety impacts of BPRs, which have been introduced on busy urban roads in three major Israeli cities—Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. Crash changes associated with BPR implementation are estimated using after–before or cross-section evaluations, with comparison-groups. The findings show that BPR implementation is generally associated with increasing trends in various crash types and, particularly, in pedestrian crashes at junctions. Yet, the results differ depending on BPR configurations. Center lane BPRs are found to be safer than curbside BPRs. The best safety level is observed when a center lane BPR is adjacent to a single lane for all-purpose traffic. Local public transport planners should be aware of possible negative implications of BPRs for urban traffic safety. Negative safety impacts can be moderated by a wider use of safety-related measures, as demonstrated in BPRs’ operation in Haifa. Further research is needed to delve into the reasons for the negative safety impacts of BPRs under Israeli conditions relative to the positive impacts reported in other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Signs Manual C5
    REGULATORY SIGNS CHAPTER 5 August 2019 Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 – Regulatory Signs Contents Page 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 General ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Design of Regulatory Signs ............................................................................................................ 6 Sign Size and Location .................................................................................................................. 7 5.2 The Stop Sign ............................................................................................................................... 8 5.3 The Yield Sign ............................................................................................................................... 9 5.4 Mandatory Movement Signs .....................................................................................................11 5.5 Keep Left, Keep Right, Pass Either Side..................................................................................12 5.6 Ahead Only, Turn Left, Turn Right, Mini-Roundabout ............................................................13 5.7 Turn Left Ahead, Turn Right Ahead .........................................................................................14 5.8 Prohibitory Signs – Manoeuvres ..............................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP RRD 38: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials
    Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST September 2000—Number 38 Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: B. Ray Derr Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials: Application and Refinement This TCRP digest provides the results of TCRP Project A-7A, “Field Evaluation of Bus Lanes on Arterials,” conducted by Kevin R. St. Jacques, of Wilbur Smith Associates, in association with Herbert S. Levinson, Transportation Consultant. TCRP Report 26, “Operational Analysis of 4. Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario—Curb bus lane; Bus Lanes on Arterials,” presented a new method 5. Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas—Curb of analyzing the operational performance of arte- bus lane; and rial bus lanes. This method was incorporated into 6. Market Street, San Antonio, Texas—Curb bus TCRP Web Document 6, “Transit Capacity and lane. Quality of Service Manual,” and the Year 2000 edition of the “Highway Capacity Manual.” This In addition, data on the bus speeds observed in bus digest shows how the method was applied to six lanes on Third Avenue and on Broadway in New existing bus lane study sites and recommends York City were obtained from the local transit refinements to the method. Readers will be better agency. able to apply the TCRP Report 26 method by see- Physical conditions at each site (e.g., street ing how its developers used it in the real world. widths, travel lanes, bus stops, and berths) and traffic signal timing were observed. Where possible, bus travel along the arterial was videotaped from one SUMMARY location between checkpoints.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit on City Streets How Does It Work
    Levinson 1 Bus Rapid Transit on City Streets How Does It Work Prepared for Second Urban Street Symposium Anaheim, CA July 28-30, 2003 Prepared by Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant 40 Hemlock Road New Haven, CT 06515 203-389-2092 [email protected] UTRC Icon Mentor City College New York 2nd Urban Street Symposium (Anaheim, California) — July 28-30, 2003 Levinson 2 ABSTRACT Bus rapid transit systems have grown in popularity. Most existing and proposed BRT lines operate on city streets for all or a portion of their routes. They may run in mixed traffic; normal or contra-flow curb bus lanes, and/or arterial median busways. This paper describes the design, operations, and effectiveness of each; and identifies the key issues and tradeoffs. Drawing on ongoing research (TCRP Project A-23), it gives illustrative examples of usage, costs and benefits. It shows that with proper design, BRT can improve bus speeds, reliability and identity, while minimizing adverse impacts to street traffic, pedestrian and property access. INTRODUCTION Bus rapid transit (BRT) is growing in popularity throughout the world. In the United States its development has been spurred by the Federal Transit Administration’s BRT initiatives. BRT is perceived as an environmentally responsive and cost effective means of urban mobility. It provides more operating flexibility, adapts better to stage development and generally costs less than rail transit. The general perception of bus rapid transit is one of buses operating on their own running ways generally unimpeded by the general traffic flow – such as in Brisbane, Miami, Ottawa and Pittsburgh. But there are a growing number of systems that operate totally or mainly on city streets – such as those found in Cleveland, Los Angeles and Vancouver in North America, and in Bogota, Curitiba, and Quito in South America.
    [Show full text]