DOCSLIB.ORG

Busshållplatser I Tätort - Effekter På Framkomlighet Och Säkerhet Vid Olika Utformning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Busshållplatser I Tätort - Effekter På Framkomlighet Och Säkerhet Vid Olika Utformning 3XEOLNDWLRQ Ã %XVVKnOOSODWVHU L WlWRUW HIIHNWHU Sn IUDPNRPOLJKHW RFK VlNHUKHW YLG ROLND XWIRUPQLQJ 9lJYHUNHW KDU VHNWRUVDQVYDU I|U NROOHNWLYWUDILN Sn YlJ Vägverket har ett övergripande ansvar för att utveckla ett miljöanpassat vägtransportsystem som klarar höga krav på trafiksäkerhet med hänsyn tagen till tillgänglighet och regional utveckling. Vägverket ska bl a särskilt verka för att kollektivtrafikens konkurrenskraft stärks och att andelen funktionshindrade som kan utnyttja kollektivtrafiken ökar. Sektorsansvaret innebär att verket har en samlande, stödjande och pådrivande roll inom kollektivtrafikområdet. Ett sätt att utöva sektorsansvar är att bedriva och stödja forsknings- och utvecklingsprojekt. Denna rapport redovisar ett forskningsprojekt genomfört med stöd av Vägverket. Publiceringen innebär inte att Vägverket tar ställning till framförda åsikter, slutsatser eller resultat. Rapporten finns till gänglig via Vägverkets webbplats www.vv.se 7LWHO Busshållplatser i tätort - effekter på framkomlighet och säkerhet vid olika utformning. )|UIDWWDUH Tekn dr Leif Linderholm m fl, Trivector Traffic AB. .RQWDNWSHUVRQ Anders Arvelius, Enhet Samhälle och Trafik, Vägverket 'RNXPHQWEHWHFNQLQJ Publikation 2004:36 8WJLYQLQJVGDWXP 2004-03 ,661 1401-9612 'LVWULEXW|U Vägverket, Butiken, 781 87 Borlänge. Telefon 0243-755 00. Telefax 0243-755 50. Epost YDJYHUNHWEXWLNHQ#YYVH Förord Trivector Traffic AB från Lund har med stöd från Vägverket bedrivit före- liggande forskningsprojekt. Projektet belyser framkomlighets- och trafiksä- kerhetseffekter av olika utformning på busshållplatser i tätort. Tekn dr Leif Linderholm från Trivector Traffic har varit projektledare. Ett flertal personer från Trivector Traffic har deltagit i arbetet på olika sätt. Det är bl a mätteknikerna Daniel Zeleznik och Mikael Winqvist, civilingenjö- rerna Lovisa Bengtsson och Jonas Andersson samt docent Ola Hagring. Ett särskilt tack till Anders Arvelius från Vägverket i Borlänge som varit uppdragsgivarens representant i projektet. Tack även till Dick Andersson från Västtrafik AB, Lennart Adolfsson, Beata Löfmarck och Ingvar Johan- nison från Trafikkontoret i Göteborg, Stefan Krii från Malmö Gatukontor, Wolfgang Liepack från Skånetrafiken, för synpunkter och stöd i arbetet. Ett tack också till alla på respektive inblandad kommun som skickat oss olika typ av underlagsmaterial, ingen nämnd, ingen glömd. Trivector Traffic AB Innehållsförteckning Förord Innehållsförteckning Sammanfattning ................................................................................................1 Summary ............................................................................................................5 1. Inledning........................................................................................................9 1.1 Bakgrund och syfte................................................................................9 1.2 Definitioner .........................................................................................11 1.3 Använda beteckningar.........................................................................12 2. Metod och genomförande ........................................................................15 2.1 Litteraturstudie och kontakter .............................................................15 2.2 Urval av studieplatser..........................................................................16 2.3 Funktionsstudie med videoteknik........................................................18 2.4 Framkomlighet ....................................................................................19 2.5 Trafiksäkerhet......................................................................................20 2.6 Beräkning av kapacitet........................................................................21 3. Körbanehållplats ......................................................................................27 3.1 Inledning..............................................................................................27 3.2 Tidigare studier...................................................................................27 3.3 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp A...................................................................28 3.4 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp B...................................................................36 3.5 Kapacitetsstudier .................................................................................41 3.6 Slutsatser och kommentarer ................................................................41 4. Fickhållplats..............................................................................................43 4.1 Inledning..............................................................................................43 4.2 Tidigare studier...................................................................................43 4.3 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp A...................................................................45 4.4 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp B...................................................................52 4.5 Kapacitetsstudier .................................................................................58 4.6 Slutsatser och kommentarer ................................................................65 5. Klackhållplats...........................................................................................67 5.1 Inledning..............................................................................................67 5.2 Tidigare studier...................................................................................67 5.3 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp A...................................................................69 5.4 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp B...................................................................75 5.5 Kapacitetsstudier .................................................................................82 5.6 Slutsatser och rekommendationer .......................................................86 6. Enkel stopphållplats.................................................................................89 6.1 Inledning..............................................................................................89 6.2 Tidigare studier...................................................................................89 6.3 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp A...................................................................89 6.4 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp B. ..................................................................96 6.5 Kapacitetsstudier ...............................................................................102 6.6 Olycksanalys .....................................................................................103 6.7 Slutsatser och rekommendationer .....................................................104 7. Dubbel stopphållplats ............................................................................107 7.1 Inledning............................................................................................107 7.2 Tidigare studier.................................................................................107 7.3 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp A.................................................................108 7.4 Fältstudier, hållplatstyp B.................................................................114 7.5 Kapacitetsstudie ................................................................................121 7.6 Olycksanalys .....................................................................................126 7.7 Slutsatser och rekommendationer .....................................................127 8. Slutsatser och rekommedationer ..........................................................129 9. Litteraturreferat.....................................................................................139 Referenser ......................................................................................................171 Sammanfattning Projektet är finansierat av Vägverket. Det påbörjades i oktober 2001 och avslutades i december 2003. Syftet har varit att ta fram underlag för nya riktlinjer och rekommendationer vid val av utformning av busshållplatser i tätortsmiljö. De olika trafikantkategoriernas framkomlighet och trafiksäker- het har varit de viktigaste aspekterna. Fem olika hållplatstyper ingår i studi- erna: a) Körbanehållplats (kantstenshållplats) b) Fickhållplats c) Klackhållplats d) Enkel stopphållplats (buss-stopphållplats) e) Dubbel stopphållplats (timglashållplats) En inledande litteraturstudie om busshållplatser och effekter av olika ut- formningar gav ca 30 olika referenser. Rapporterna finns sammanfattade i ett eget kapitel. Omfattande fältstudier har utförts i projekt på tio platser, två platser av vardera hållplatstyp. Platserna har videofilmats under två dagar från en 15 meter hög mast och genom analyser har olika typ av data tagits fram. Insamlad data har legat till grund för uppbyggnad och validering av ett antal modeller, där olika parametrar har kunnat förändras för att studera konsekvenserna, framför allt från framkomlighetssynpunkt. Trafiksäkerhe- ten har dels analyserats genom olycksanalyser, dels indirekt genom insam- lad data om trafikanternas beteenden och uppkomna risksituationer. Utgångspunkterna för val av hållplatstyp kan vara flera. På viktiga busslin- jer, s k stombusslinjer, utgår man normalt från framkomligheten för bussar- na. På platser där många barn och/eller äldre personer stiger på och av bus- sen är trafiksäkerheten en prioriterande faktor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 16Th Street Project Flyer ENGLISH
    16th Street Improvement Project We’re Moving Muni Forward As part of Muni Forward, SFMTA is adding transit and safety improvements along the 22 Fillmore route that will make it safer to walk and bike, increase the reliability of transit service and enhance the customer experience on and off the bus. Project Overview BENEFITS AT A GLANCE The 16th Street Improvement Project aims to improve transit reliability and Reduce travel travel time for the 18,000 customers who ride Muni along the corridor on time by almost an average weekday, while enhancing safety and accessibility. It will address transportation needs of current and future residents, workers and visitors to the southeastern portion of the 22 Fillmore route along 2.3 miles of 16th Street. The 25% project also features utility upgrades as well as new trees, sidewalks and bus shelters. To allow for zero-emission transit service into Mission Bay, the project includes extending the overhead contact system (OCS) that powers our trolley buses on 16th Street from Kansas to Third streets. Additionally, new bike lanes have been added to 17th Street to create a continuous route from Mission Bay to the Mission neighborhood. Wider sidewalks at intersections This project is part of Muni Forward, an ongoing initiative to create a safe, reli- and bus bulb outs for safer able and comfortable experience on and off transit. crossings for people walking and quicker bus boardings. Schedule Stay Connected Construction will occur in two phases. First will be Potrero Hill/ Sign-up to get project updates and alerts: Mission Bay, followed by the Mission neighborhood section.
    [Show full text]
  • Utica Avenue Select Bus Service Workshop Summary | November 13, 2014
    Utica Avenue Select Bus Service Workshop Summary | November 13, 2014 New York City Transit +selectbusservice , Utica Avenue On November 13, 2014, the New York City transit signal priority to improve the quality and Department of Transportation (DOT) and the performance of transit and, in turn, to improve Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) kicked mobility and access in the neighborhoods that off the public outreach process for the Utica it serves. SBS projects are designed to make it Avenue Select Bus Service (SBS) project. The MTA easier, safer, and more comfortable to travel by and DOT hosted a public workshop at PS 167 on bus, through features like bus bulbs, high-quality Eastern Parkway to gather initial feedback from passenger information, and overall attention to community members on plans to upgrade the B46 pedestrian and vehicular safety. limited bus to Select Bus Service. The project aims to improve bus service while maintaining traffic Utica Avenue Select Bus Service flow and curb access and to increase safety for all During the 2009 Bus Rapid Transit Phase II users along the Utica Avenue corridor in Brooklyn. Study, Brooklyn community members identified Utica Avenue as a corridor that could support The workshop brought together community and benefit from a Select Bus Service project. members, bus riders, transit advocates, Sixty-one percent of residents along the corridor representatives from elected offices, community commute to work on public transit. However, the boards, and police precincts to share their route is characterized by slow and crowded bus experiences as transit riders, drivers, and trips. The community ranked the Utica Avenue B46 pedestrians traveling along the Utica Avenue corridor as one of two corridors most in need of corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • SEPTA Bus Stop Design Guidelines
    The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is The symbol in our logo is adapted from the dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning official DVRPC seal professionals and the public with a common vision of and is designed as a making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we stylized image of the live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as improving transportation, promoting smart growth, a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, New Jersey. Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website (www.dvrpc.org) may be translated into multiple languages.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Page. CLAIMS of the PRINCIPLE of RPTATION of TURBINE ONE
    Page. CLAIMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RPTATION OF TURBINE ONE. What to claim is: 1. Rotation is obtained of the cross axial and axial bearing mounted turbine rotors, by shielding the returnblades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely. 2. Rotation of horizontal and vertical mounted rotor operable in bearings comprising at least three rotor blades radial and axially projecting its form expending from the hub. Cross-axial rotation of turbine rotors by means of shielding vane, or wind screen shielding the return blades partially or completely and uncovering the pushblades partially or completely for fluid to be channelled cross axially trough the intakes and impact coaxial and horizontally on the transverse projecting turbine rotor blades causing rotation of the prime mover, drivetrain by the converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy and into electric energy by means of a constant transmission turbine gearbox and lubricant system mechanical coupled in rotational mode with the electric generator rotor, comprising a cylindrical permanent or electromagnet coupled electrically to the exciter electrically connected with the disk magnet and axially opposing stator coils or disk or plates or massive electric conductive material disk or cylinder. 3. Rotation of the horizontal and vertical turbine rotor is obtained in clockwise direction and in counterclockwiswise direction. Generating AC current or dc current. Defines the rotor by at least two axial halves exposed axially for cross-axial flow axial flow and/or for perpendicularly flow turbine rotors. A left and right axial halve, or upper and lower axial halve which form the returnblades section and the pushblades intake and exhaust sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Improvements – Faster and More Reliable Service PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES – SPRING 2014
    TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS – FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE SERVICE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES – SPRING 2014 LINE 1 & 1R MINIMIZING ROAD USER CONFLICTS, MAXIMIZING SPEED & EFFICIENCY STATION #6 CONSOLIDATION BENEFITS OF THE ROAD DIET, CONSOLIDATION & TREATMENT OPTIONS EXAMPLES OF BUS BULBS AND TRANSIT ISLANDS § Minimize bus-bicycle conflict in roadway: A road diet provides sufficient space for separate bicycle BUS BULB-OUT CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION OPTION lanes or cycle tracks so that buses do not have to share the vehicle travel lane with cyclists. § Minimize bus-bicycle conflict at bus stops: Bus bulbs provide opportunities to physically separate BERKELEY Sacramento St bicycles and buses at bus stops by routing bicycles behind the bulb (creating a “transit island”). Alcatraz Ave College Ave 62nd St Adeline St § Enable more efficient transit service: Bus bulbs provide a more convenient and efficient transit Shattuck Ave 60th St facility for bus operators to access and egress; 59th St Claremont Ave § 58th St Improve transit passenger waiting environment: Bus bulbs provide space for shelters, benches LIFORN CA IA 24 Stanford Ave and signs, while freeing space from existing sidewalks for landscaping, bike parking, seating and other Aileen St 56th St furnishings; 55th St Transfer: AC Transit Transfer: Line 12 Broadway AC Transit § Improve bus speed and reliability: Transit Signal Priority (TSP) combined with bus stop relocation to Line 12 Broadway Ter the far-side of signals, and queue bypass lanes improve service speed and reliability. 49th St 51st St EMERYVILLE 48th St LIFORN CA IA 47th St OAKLAND 123 45th St 46th St San Pablo Ave BERKELEY Sacramento St Transfer: AC Transit 44th St 43rd St Alcatraz Ave Lines 31, 57 Pleasant Valley Ave INCREASE TRANSIT SPEED WHILE IMPROVING THE TRANSIT RIDER EXPERIENCE College Ave 62nd St Adeline St 41st St TRANSIT ISLAND WITH BIKE LANE BEHIND: 40th St Shattuck Ave 60th St West St NORTHBOUND BUS SPEED SOUTHBOUND BUS SPEED SEATTLE, WA 59th St Claremont Ave MLK Jr.
    [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]
  • Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making
    Project No: FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1 Federal United States Transit Department of August 2004 Administration Transportation CharacteristicsCharacteristics ofof BusBus RapidRapid TransitTransit forfor Decision-MakingDecision-Making Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES August 2004 COVERED BRT Demonstration Initiative Reference Document 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making 6. AUTHOR(S) Roderick B. Diaz (editor), Mark Chang, Georges Darido, Mark Chang, Eugene Kim, Donald Schneck, Booz Allen Hamilton Matthew Hardy, James Bunch, Mitretek Systems Michael Baltes, Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Lawrence Wnuk, Fred Silver, Weststart - CALSTART Sam Zimmerman, DMJM + Harris 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan (PDF)
    Short Range Transit Plan FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Adopted May 2021 FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors Cindy Parra Rueben Pascual Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern Carlos Bello Leasa Engel Erika Dixon Director Director Director City of Bakersfield At-Large County of Kern A five-member Board of Directors governs Golden Empire Transit District. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members. GET coordinates with City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, and the Kern Council of Governments. Karen King Chief Executive Officer Short Range Transit Plan FY 20/21 – 24/25 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 CHAPTER 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................... 29 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS ........................................ 79 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ...................................... 83 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................ 95 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY .................................................................... 100 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................... 115 GET was formed in July 1973 and is the primary public transportation provider for the Bakersfield Urbanized Area. It is the largest public transit system within a 110 mile radius. The District’s legal boundary includes all of the area within the Bakersfield city limits as well as adjacent unincorporated areas. GET serves 16 routes, operating 7 days a week and transporting more than 6 million passengers each year with its fixed-route buses. In addition, GET operates 21 compressed natural gas GET-A-Lift buses.
    [Show full text]
  • TCQSM Part 8
    Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual—2nd Edition PART 8 GLOSSARY This part of the manual presents definitions for the various transit terms discussed and referenced in the manual. Other important terms related to transit planning and operations are included so that this glossary can serve as a readily accessible and easily updated resource for transit applications beyond the evaluation of transit capacity and quality of service. As a result, this glossary includes local definitions and local terminology, even when these may be inconsistent with formal usage in the manual. Many systems have their own specific, historically derived, terminology: a motorman and guard on one system can be an operator and conductor on another. Modal definitions can be confusing. What is clearly light rail by definition may be termed streetcar, semi-metro, or rapid transit in a specific city. It is recommended that in these cases local usage should prevail. AADT — annual average daily ATP — automatic train protection. AADT—accessibility, transit traffic; see traffic, annual average ATS — automatic train supervision; daily. automatic train stop system. AAR — Association of ATU — Amalgamated Transit Union; see American Railroads; see union, transit. Aorganizations, Association of American Railroads. AVL — automatic vehicle location system. AASHTO — American Association of State AW0, AW1, AW2, AW3 — see car, weight Highway and Transportation Officials; see designations. organizations, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. absolute block — see block, absolute. AAWDT — annual average weekday traffic; absolute permissive block — see block, see traffic, annual average weekday. absolute permissive. ABS — automatic block signal; see control acceleration — increase in velocity per unit system, automatic block signal.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Glossary
    KANE COUNTY LONG RANGE TRANSIT PLAN APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY A-1 Accessibility The extent to which facilities, including transit vehicles, are barrier-free and can be used by people who have disabilities, including wheelchair users. Accessible Vehicle Public transportation revenue vehicles which do not restrict access, are usable, and provide allocated space and/or priority seating for individuals who use wheelchairs. Administrative assistance Funding that supports the administrative costs related to a program activity, such as office expenses, insurance, legal expenses, bookkeeping, and administrative staff expenses. ADA Americans with Disabilities Act: Passed by the Congress in 1990, this act mandates equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, transportation, communications and public accommodations. Under this Act, most transportation providers are obliged to purchase lift-equipped vehicles for their fixed-route services and must assure system-wide accessibility of their demand-responsive services to persons with disabilities. Public transit providers also must supplement their fixed-route services with paratransit services for those persons unable to use fixed-route service because of their disability. ADA Eligible ADA Eligible refers to eligibility for complementary fixed route paratransit. Individuals who qualify must be unable to used fixed route due to a disability. AoA Administration on Aging. The agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that oversees the implementation of the Older Americans Act, including senior nutrition programs, senior centers and supportive services for elders. Ad-hoc Trips The total number of trip requests received by an organization that go beyond the organization’s normal transportation program design and fulfilled by a different agency, company, or organization (i.e., by a private taxi service).
    [Show full text]
  • Denver Moves Transit Plan State of the System Executive Summary
    APPENDIX A GLOSSARY JANUARY 2019 DENVERMOVES Transit DENVER MOVES: TRANSIT PLAN APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ACRONYMS AARP American Association of Retired Persons DFD Denver Fire Department MPH Miles per hour ACS American Community Survey (U.S. DHS Denver Human Services NACTO National Association of City Transportation Census) Officials DMT Denver Moves: Transit ADA Americans with Disabilities Act NPI Neighborhood Planning Initiative DOF Denver Department of Finance AV Autonomous vehicle OCA Denver Office of Children’s Affairs DPD Denver Police Department BAT Business access and transit (lane) OED Denver Office of Economic Development DPR Denver Parks and Recreation Department BID Business improvement district RNO Registered Neighborhood Organization DPS Denver Public Schools BRT Bus rapid transit RTD Regional Transportation District DPW Denver Public Works Department CBD Central business district SOV Single-occupant vehicle DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments CCD City and County of Denver (the City) SRTS Safe Routes to School FHWA Federal Highway Administration CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation TAC Technical advisory committee FTA Federal Transit Administration CIP Capital Improvement Program TDM Transportation demand management FTN Frequent Transit Network CPD Denver Community Planning and TMA Transportation management association GTFS General transit feed specification Development Department TNC Transportation network company HIN High injury network (Vision Zero) CPTED Crime Prevention Through TOD Transit-oriented Development
    [Show full text]