DOCSLIB.ORG

TCRP Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TCRP Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity T RANSIT C OOPERATIVE R ESEARCH P ROGRAM SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Report 13 Rail Transit Capacity Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1996 SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIR ROD J. DIRIDON OFFICERS Int’l Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Study Chair: James W. VAN Loben Sels, Director, California Department of Transportation Vice Chair: David N. Wormley, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University MEMBERS Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board SHARON D. BANKS AC Transit LEE BARNES Barwood, Inc. MEMBERS GERALD L. BLAIR Indiana County Transit Authority EDWARD H. ARNOLD, Chair and President, Arnold Industries, Lebanon, PA MICHAEL BOLTON SHARON D. BANKS, General Manager, AC Transit, Oakland, CA Capital Metro BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor & Chair, Bruton Center for Development Studies, SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO The University of Texas at Dallas New Jersey Transit Corporation LILLIAN C. BORRONE, Director, Port Commerce, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Past SANDRA DRAGGOO Chair, 1995) CATA DWIGHT M. BOWER, Director, Idaho Department of Transportation LOUIS J. GAMBACCINI JOHN E. BREEN, The Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin SEPTA WILLIAM F. BUNDY, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation DELON HAMPTON DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, DC Delon Hampton & Associates E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation RICHARD R. KELLY RAY W. CLOUGH, Nishkian Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. JAMES C. DELONG, Director of Aviation, Denver International Airport, Denver, CO ALAN F. KIEPPER JAMES N. DENN, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation New York City Transit Authority DENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NY EDWARD N. KRAVITZ DAVID R. GOODE, Chair, President & CEO, Norfolk Southern Corporation The Flxible Corporation DELON HAMPTON, Chair & CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, DC PAUL LARROUSSE LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Virginia Madison Metro Transit System JAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, NY ROBERT G. LINGWOOD ROBERT E. MARTINEZ, Secretary, Virginia Department of Transportation BC Transit CHARLES P. O’LEARY, JR., Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation GORDON J. LINTON CRAIG E. PHILIP, President, Ingram Barge Co., Nashville, TN FTA WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Deparment of Transportation WILLIAM W. MILLAR LESLIE STERMAN, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, MO Port Authority of Allegheny County OfficialsJOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT MIKE MOBEY MARTIN WACHS, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Los Angeles Isabella County Transportation Comm. DON S. MONROE Pierce Transit EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PATRICIA S. NETTLESHIP The Nettleship Group, Inc. MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association ROBERT E. PAASWELL ROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads The City College of New York ANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers Association JAMES P. REICHERT THOMAS J. DONOHUE, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations Reichert Management Services FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation LAWRENCE G. REUTER DAVID GARDINER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WMATA JACK R. GILSTRAP, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association MICHAEL S. TOWNES ALBERT J. HERBERGER, Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Peninsula Transportation Dist. Comm. DAVID R. HINSON, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation FRANK J. WILSON T. R. LAKSHMANAN, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation New Jersey DOT GORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation EDWARD WYTKIND RICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation AFL-CIO JOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation EX OFFICIO MEMBERS DHARMENDRA K. SHARMA, Research and Special Programs Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation JACK R. GILSTRAP RODNEY E. SLATER, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation APTA ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RODNEY E. SLATER FHWA FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM AASHTO ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP TRB JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, California Department of Transportation (Chair) TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Capitol Dist. Transportation Authority, Albany, NY FRANK J. CIHAK LILLIAN C. BORRONE, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey APTA LESTER A. HOEL, University of Virginia SECRETARY GORDON J. LINTON, U.S. Department of Transportation ROBERT J. REILLY ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board TRB DAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University T RANSIT C OOPERATIVE RESEARCH P ROGRAM Report 13 Rail Transit Capacity TOM PARKINSON Transport Consulting Limited Vancouver B.C. Canada with IAN FISHER University of British Columbia Subject Area Public Transit Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation T RANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, TCRP REPORT 13 environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, Project A-8 FY ‘93 ISSN 1073-4872 and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is ISBN 0-309-05718-3 necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 96-60739 technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit Price $39.00 industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRBssful SpecialNational Cooperative Highway Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, itiesexecutedpublished byin 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transit Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need NOTICE for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative longstanding and succe Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activ approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research ittee.authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Board, the Transit Development Corporation, the National Research Council, or the Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel the three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy of according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. anditteehout thedefines Transit funding Development levels Corporation,and Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Your Paper's Title Starts Here
    Dual Rated Speeds Escalator in Rapid Transit System with Extended Ramping Up and Down KC Gan, LF Cai, SC Cheah, Hadi Wijaya, Melvyn Thong Land Transport Authority, Singapore Keywords: Dual rated speeds, automatic switching, rapid transit system, acceleration, ramping up, ramping down, vibration, jerkiness. Abstract. To cater for different needs of escalator operating speeds in rapid transit systems (i.e. higher rated speed of 0.75m/s during peak hours is for effective discharging of passengers while slower rated speed of 0.50m/s during off-peak hours is for elderly passengers), we have introduced the dual rated speed escalator. Conventionally, the switching between 2 rated speeds can be done either manually through a key switch or automatically when no passengers are detected on the escalators at pre-set timing. However, there is a possibility of not being able to change speed if there are constant passengers coming into the rapid transit station, taking the escalators. Therefore, this shortcoming will be overcome by setting up a schedule timetable to do the safe switching of escalator rated speeds with passengers riding on the escalators with extended ramping up and down without comprising any safety requirements. This paper presents the case studies conducted on an existing station where a performance–based approach was adopted. The timing for the speed ramping up/down between the 2 rated speeds has been increased to 30 seconds in order to reduce the acceleration which results in minimizing the acceleration (vibration) and the rate of change of this acceleration (jerk). The objective is to ensure that the passenger’s perception are imperceptible and do not experience any abnormal and sudden change of vibration and jerk during the switching of dual rated speeds with extended ramping up and down.
    [Show full text]
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet
    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City
    CASE STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City In 2019, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) released a tender to Shared Mobility providers to develop a new scalable and sustainable on-demand transit proposal. At a glance Liftango was engaged by the MTA for a The MTA network comprises the nation’s simulation service to predict the uptake largest bus fleet and more subway and for an implemented on-demand service. commuter rail cars than all other U.S. Liftango’s simulation technology was transit systems combined. The MTA’s provided to MTA as a benchmark to operating agencies are MTA New York City measure the realism and efficiency of Transit, MTA Bus, Long Island Rail Road, tender proposals from shared mobility Metro-North Railroad, and MTA Bridges and providers. Essentially, enabling MTA to Tunnels. make an educated decision on whom they should choose as their on-demand provider. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America’s largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. 01 The Problem MTA needed to provide a one of the largest growing As MTA’s first time launching better transport solution sectors in the next five to ten this type of project, there to the people of New York years. The census shows was some risk surrounding City’s outer areas. Why? that a number of people are launch. By engaging Liftango, Existing bus services being leaving for work between 3-6 the aim was to mitigate risk, less frequent than a subway pm and therefore returning simulate possible outcomes service or completely during the overnight period.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Rail Design Criteria Section 10 Operations
    METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 OPERATIONS METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1 INTRODUCTION 1 10.2 DEFINITIONS 1 10.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 5 Metro Baseline 10- i Re-baseline: 06/15/10 METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS OPERATIONS 10.1 INTRODUCTION Transit Operations include such activities as scheduling, crew rostering, running and supervision of revenue trains and vehicles, fare collection, system security and system maintenance. This section describes the basic system wide operating and maintenance philosophies and methodologies set forth for the Metro Rail Projects, which shall be used by designer in preparation of an Operations and Maintenance Plan. An initial Operations and Maintenance Plan (OMP) is developed during the environmental phase and is based on ridership forecasts produced during this early planning phase of a project. From this initial Operations and Maintenance plan, headways are established that are to be evaluated by a rail operations simulation upon which design and operating headways can be established to confirm operational goals for light and heavy rail systems. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be developed in order to design effective, efficient and responsive transit system. The operations criteria and requirements established herein represent Metro’s Rail Operating Requirements / Criteria applicable to all rail projects and form the basis for the project-specific operational design decisions. They shall be utilized by designer during preparation of Operations and Maintenance Plan. Any proposed deviation to Design Criteria cited herein shall be approved by Metro, as represented by the Change Control Board, consisting of management responsible for project construction, engineering and management, as well as daily rail operations, planning, systems and vehicle maintenance with appropriate technical expertise and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas
    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas David P. Middendorf, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Kenneth W. Heathington, University of Tennessee The demand for publicly owned fixed-route. fixed-schedule bus service are used for work and business-related trips to and was compared with tho demand for privately owned shared-ride taxi ser­ within CBDs and for short social, shopping, medical, vice in Davenport. Iowa, and Hicksville, New York, through on-board and personal business trips. surveys end cab company dispatch records and driver logs. The bus and In many small cities and in many suburbs of large slmrcd·ride taxi systems in Davenport com11eted for the off.peak-period travel market. During off-peak hours, the taxis tended to attract social· metropol.il;e:H!:i, l.lus~s nd taxicabs operate within tlie recreation, medical, and per onal business trips between widely scattered same jlu·isclictions and may compete for the same public origins and destinations, while the buses tended 10 attract shopping and transportation market. Two examples of small commu­ personal business trips to the CBD. The shared-ride taxi system in Hicks· nities in which buses and ta.xis coexist are Davenport, ville, in addition to providing many-to·many service, competed with the Iowa, and Hicksville, New York. The markets, eco­ counlywide bus system as a feeder system to the Long Island commuter nomic characteristics, organization, management, and railroad network. In each study area, the markets of each mode of public operation of the taxicab systems sel'Ving these commu­ transportation were similar.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2006-88
    Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2006-88 Union Pacific Midas, CA November 9, 2006 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRA File # HQ-2006-88 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 1.Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Union Pacific RR Co. [UP ] UP 1106RS011 2.Name of Railroad Operating Train #2 2a. Alphabetic Code 2b. Railroad Accident/Incident N/A N/A N/A 3.Name of Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance: 3a. Alphabetic Code 3b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Union Pacific RR Co. [UP ] UP 1106RS011 4. U.S. DOT_AAR Grade Crossing Identification Number 5. Date of Accident/Incident 6. Time of Accident/Incident Month Day Year 11 09 2006 11:02: AM PM 7. Type of Accident/Indicent 1. Derailment 4. Side collision 7. Hwy-rail crossing 10. Explosion-detonation 13. Other (single entry in code box) 2. Head on collision 5. Raking collision 8. RR grade crossing 11. Fire/violent rupture (describe in narrative) 3. Rear end collision 6. Broken Train collision 9. Obstruction 12. Other impacts 01 8. Cars Carrying 9. HAZMAT Cars 10. Cars Releasing 11. People 12. Division HAZMAT Damaged/Derailed HAZMAT Evacuated 0 0 0 0 Roseville 13. Nearest City/Town 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison Between Bus Rapid Transit and Light-Rail Transit Systems: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach
    Urban Transport XXIII 143 COMPARISON BETWEEN BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS: A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS APPROACH MARÍA EUGENIA LÓPEZ LAMBAS1, NADIA GIUFFRIDA2, MATTEO IGNACCOLO2 & GIUSEPPE INTURRI2 1TRANSyT, Transport Research Centre, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain 2Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR), University of Catania, Italy ABSTRACT The construction choice between two different transport systems in urban areas, as in the case of Light-Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solutions, is often performed on the basis of cost-benefit analysis and geometrical constraints due to the available space for the infrastructure. Classical economic analysis techniques are often unable to take into account some of the non-monetary parameters which have a huge impact on the final result of the choice, since they often include social acceptance and sustainability aspects. The application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques can aid decision makers in the selection process, with the possibility to compare non-homogeneous criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, and allowing the generation of an objective ranking of the different alternatives. The coupling of MCDA and Geographic Information System (GIS) environments also permits an easier and faster analysis of spatial parameters, and a clearer representation of indicator comparisons. Based on these assumptions, a LRT and BRT system will be analysed according to their own transportation, economic, social and environmental impacts as a hypothetical exercise; moreover, through the use of MCDA techniques a global score for both systems will be determined, in order to allow for a fully comprehensive comparison. Keywords: BHLS, urban transport, transit systems, TOPSIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilevel Rail Car - Wikipedia
    Bilevel rail car - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car Bilevel rail car The bilevel car (American English) or double-decker train (British English and Canadian English) is a type of rail car that has two levels of passenger accommodation, as opposed to one, increasing passenger capacity (in example cases of up to 57% per car).[1] In some countries such vehicles are commonly referred to as dostos, derived from the German Doppelstockwagen. The use of double-decker carriages, where feasible, can resolve capacity problems on a railway, avoiding other options which have an associated infrastructure cost such as longer trains (which require longer station Double-deck rail car operated by Agence métropolitaine de transport platforms), more trains per hour (which the signalling or safety in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The requirements may not allow) or adding extra tracks besides the existing Lucien-L'Allier station is in the back line. ground. Bilevel trains are claimed to be more energy efficient,[2] and may have a lower operating cost per passenger.[3] A bilevel car may carry about twice as many as a normal car, without requiring double the weight to pull or material to build. However, a bilevel train may take longer to exchange passengers at each station, since more people will enter and exit from each car. The increased dwell time makes them most popular on long-distance routes which make fewer stops (and may be popular with passengers for offering a better view).[1] Bilevel cars may not be usable in countries or older railway systems with Bombardier double-deck rail cars in low loading gauges.
    [Show full text]
  • Headway and Speed Data Acquisition Using Video
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1225 Headway and Speed Data Acquisition Using Video M. A. P. TayroR, W. YouNc, eNp R. G. THonlpsoN Accurate knowledge of vehicle speeds headways and on trallÌc ment (such as a freeway) before this study, so there was an networks is a fundamental part of transport systems modelling. excellent opportunity to evaluate the system and suggest mod- Video and recently developed automatic data-extraction tecñ- ifications to it. This equipment also made niques have the potential to provide a cheap, quick, easy, and it feasible to inves- accurate method of investigating traflic systems. This paper pre- tigate the relationship between vehicle speeds and location in sents two studies that use video-based equipment to investigate the car parks. character of vehicle speeds and headways. Investigation oÌ head- rvays on freeway traffic allows the potential of this technology in a high-speed environment to be determined. Its application to the THE VIDEO SYSTEM study ofspeeds in parking lots enabled its usefulneis in low-speed environments to be studied. The data obtained from the video was Using film equipment compared to traditional methods of collecting headway and speed to obtain a permanent record of vehicle data. movements is not a new concept. However, considerable recent developments have occurred in collecting data using video. Digital image-processing applications offer the potential to In particular, ARRB has developed a trailer-mounted video automate a large number of traffic surveys. It is, therefore, recording system (3). This relatively new equipment has until not surprising that considerable interest has been directed at recently experienced only a limited range of applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Headway Adherence. Detection and Reduction of the Bus Bunching Effect
    HEADWAY ADHERENCE. DETECTION AND REDUCTION OF THE BUS BUNCHING EFFECT Josep Mension Camps Director Central Services and Deputy Chief Officer of Bus Network. Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (TMB). Miquel Estrada Romeu Associate Professor. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya- BarcelonaTECH. 1. INTRODUCTION Transit systems should provide a good performance to compete against the wide usage of cars in metropolitan areas. The level of service of these systems relies on a proper temporal and spatial coverage provision (high frequencies, low stop spacings) as well as significant regularity and comfort. In this way, bus systems in densely populated cities usually operate at short headways (10 minutes or less). However, in these busy routes, any delay suffered by a single bus is propagated to the whole bus fleet. This fact causes vehicle bunching and unstable time-headways. In real bus lines, we usually see that two or more vehicles arrive together or in close succession, followed by a long gap between them. There are many sources of potential external disruptions in the service of one bus: illegal parking in the bus lane, failure in the doors opening system, traffic jams, etc. However, some intrinsic characteristics of transit systems and traffic management may also induce delays at specific vehicles such as traffic signal coordination and irregular passenger arrivals at stops. These facts make the bus motion unstable. Therefore, bus bunching is a common problem in the real operation of buses all over the world that must be addressed. The crucial issue is that bus bunching has a great impact on both users and agency cost. From a passenger perspective, the bus bunching phenomena increases the travel time of passengers (riding and waiting time) and worsens the vehicle occupancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]