Transit Signal Priority (TSP): a Planning and Implementation Handbook

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook May 2005 4 Funded by the United States Department of Transportation Prepared by: Harriet R. Smith Brendon Hemily, PhD TransitMiomir Ivanovic, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook May 2005 Funded by the United States Department of Transportation Prepared by: Harriet R. Smith Brendon Hemily, PhD Miomir Ivanovic, Gannett Fleming, Inc. AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements The authors would like to thank a long list of Doug Maas, County of Sacramento, California professionals who have made this document Kathy Meyerkord, Civiltech possible. Volunteers from the transportation industry (both traffic and transit) have: Taqhi Mohammed, PACE, Chicago area, Illinois Richard J. Montanez, City of Philadelphia, 4 Made presentations and worked with partici- Pennsylvania pants in hands-on workshops that brought out Kornel Mucsi, City of Ottawa valuable information Paul Powell, 3M Traffic Safety Systems Division 4 Provided detailed information in writing and Eric Phillips, Pierce Transit, Tacoma, Washington through interviews to help create the case Cesar Pujol, AC Transit, Oakland, California studies 4 Reviewed the document several times and pro- Willie Rotich, City of Portland, Oregon vided detailed comments and/or Bob Sheehan, Virginia Department of Transportation 4 Actively participated in long conference calls Jim Sinikas, Toronto Transit Commission with the authors and other professionals debat- Sean Skehan, Los Angeles Department of ing issues and revisions to the document Transportation, California Gloria Stoppenhagen, PBS&J Sonja Sun, California Department of Transportation Industry Volunteers John Toone, King County (Seattle) Department of Ronald Atherley, King County (Seattle) Department Transportation, Washington of Transportation, Washington Jon Twichell, AC Transit, Oakland, California Michael Baltes, Mitretek Systems formerly Center Hansel Wang, TransLink, Vancouver, British for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) Columbia Thomas Bauer, PTV America, Inc. Joe Weesner, H.W. Lochner, Inc. James A. Bunch, Mitretek Systems Wei-Bin Zhang, California PATH John Collura, UMass/Amherst formerly VaTech James Dale, PTV America, Inc. William B. Finger, Charlotte Department of We thank Steve Kuciemba (ITS America) for his Transportation, North Carolina patient and positive support and accommodating Rex Gephart, Los Angeles County Metropolitan management of the project from start to finish. Transportation Authority Doug Hansen, Fairfax County, Virginia The U.S. Department of Transportation financed the Dennis Hinebaugh, Center for Urban Transportation entire TSP project including workshops, case stud- Research (CUTR) ies, and all document development. The authors Bob Huffman, PACE, Chicago area, Illinois would like to thank Sean Ricketson (Federal Transit James T. Jarzab, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Administration) for his support and presentations; Authority, California Yehuda Gross (Joint Program Office) for providing Peter Koonce, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. invaluable oversight and making the project possible Chris Larson, City of Tacoma (Washington) Public through financing; and Brian Cronin (Federal Transit Works Administration) for his unsurpassed professional Duana Love, Regional Transportation Authority, guidance and leadership, and unfailing ability to Chicago, Illinois understand the transportation industry’s needs and Jamie Lu, 3M Traffic Safety Systems Division to advocate for improvements. Jon Lutterman, TriMet, Portland, Oregon ii 4 Transit Signal Priority Handbook TableTable of ofContents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii PART I: TSP PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Objectives 3 1.2 Audience 4 2 BACKGROUND ON TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY (TSP) 4 2.1 What is TSP and What are its Objectives? 4 2.2 TSP Benefits and Costs 5 2.3 Key Components of TSP System 6 2.4 Potential TSP Control Strategies 7 2.4.1 Passive Priority 7 2.4.2 Active Priority 7 2.4.3 TSP Operating in Real-Time 8 2.4.3.1 TSP with Adaptive Signal Control Systems 8 2.4.3.2 Adaptive Signal Priority 9 3 A SYSTEMS ENGINEERING APPROACH TO TSP 9 3.1 Systems Engineering Approach 9 3.2 Simplified Process for TSP at Isolated Intersections 9 4 TSP PROJECT PLANNING 10 4.1 Introduction to TSP Project Planning 10 4.1.1 Regional and Corporate Goals 11 4.1.2 TSP as it Relates to the Regional ITS Architecture and Other Transit ITS Projects 13 4.1.3 Regional and National ITS Architecture Conformity 13 4.1.4 Standards (NTCIP and TCIP) 13 4.1.5 Relations between Transit and Traffic Staff 15 4.1.6 Traffic Engineering Support 15 4.2 TSP Project Planning 16 4.2.1 Needs Assessment [Why TSP?] 16 4.2.1.1 Potential Benefits: Traffic Signal Delay and its Impact on Transit Travel Times and Reliability 16 4.2.1.2 Transit and Traffic Data Collection 17 4.2.1.3 TSP Project/Program Costs - Preliminary Assessment 17 4.2.1.4 TSP Project/Program – Needs Assessment and Business Case 18 4.2.2 Stakeholders: Roles and Responsibilities [Who is to be involved?] 18 4.2.2.1 Identifying Stakeholders 18 4.2.2.2 Managing Stakeholders 19 4.2.2.3 Project Management 20 4.2.3 Concept of Operations (ConOps) and Requirements Document [What will TSP do?] 20 4.2.3.1 TSP Project Goals, Objectives, and Vision 20 4.2.3.2 Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) Resulting from Objectives 21 Transit Signal Priority Handbook 4 iii 4.2.3.3 TSP Concept of Operations (ConOps) 22 4.2.3.4 Requirements Document 25 4.2.4 Corridors and Intersections [Where will TSP be implemented?] 26 4.2.5 Technology Alternatives Analysis and System Architecture [How will TSP work?] 27 4.2.5.1 Definition of TSP System Architecture 27 4.2.5.2 TSP Technology Alternatives Analysis 27 5 TSP PROJECT DESIGN 28 5.1 Detailed Data Collection and Inventory of Traffic Control System 28 5.2 Detailed Design and Engineering for Central Control and Communications Systems Components 29 5.3 Detailed Design and Engineering by Intersection 29 5.4 Detailed Design and Engineering of On-Board Equipment 29 5.5 Optimization and Preparation of Timing Plans 30 5.6 Use of Micro-Simulation Model to Design TSP Control Strategy in Special Cases 30 5.7 Special Considerations 30 5.7.1 Developing and Deploying New or Enhanced TSP Technologies 30 5.7.2 Integration with Planned Transit ITS Project 30 5.7.3 Integration with EMS Pre-emption 31 6 TSP PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 31 6.1 Procurement 31 6.1.1 Project Management – Procurement and Deployment 31 6.1.2 Procurement Strategy 31 6.1.3 Preparation of RFP’s and/or Bids (procurement documents) 32 6.1.4 Vendor Selection Process 33 6.2 Installation 34 6.2.1 Equipment Installation 34 6.2.1.1 Installation of Bus Equipment 34 6.2.1.2 Installation of Field Equipment 34 6.2.2 Training 35 6.2.3 Internal Communications 35 6.2.4 Publicity 36 6.3 Verification and Validation 36 6.3.1 Testing of Equipment 36 6.3.2 Testing of System 36 6.3.3 Validation of Detection Distances and Accuracy 36 7 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 36 7.1 Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Management 36 7.2 Procedures to Ensure System is Operating 37 7.3 Maintenance 38 8 EVALUATION,VERIFICATION,VALIDATION AND BUILDING ON TSP 38 8.1 Evaluation Study 38 8.2 Ongoing Data Collection 39 8.3 Building on TSP Benefits through Transit Scheduling 40 8.4 Fine-Tuning TSP Design 40 iv 4 Transit Signal Priority Handbook 9 KEYS TO SUCCESS 41 PART II – STATE OF THE PRACTICE 45 10 SURVEY ON TSP STATE OF THE PRACTICE 45 10.1 Introduction 45 10.1.1 Identification of Agencies/Cities with TSP and Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption 45 10.1.2 Inventory and Classification of TSP Systems 45 10.2 Summary of Findings on State of the Practice 48 10.2.1 General Findings 48 10.2.1.1 Type of Transit Application 48 10.2.1.2 Year of Deployment 48 10.2.2 Route Characteristics of TSP Applications 49 10.2.2.1 Route Type 49 10.2.2.2 Number of Routes 49 10.2.2.3 Number of Signalized Intersections 50 10.2.2.4 Location of Bus Stops 50 10.2.2.5 Peak Hour Headways 50 10.2.3 Hardware for TSP Deployments 50 10.2.3.1 Traffic Signal Controllers 50 10.2.3.2 Vehicle Detection Systems 50 10.2.4 Software for TSP Deployments 50 10.2.5 TSP Strategies 53 10.2.6 Challenges and Lessons Learned 54 10.2.6.1 Use of Existing Signal Controller Systems 54 10.2.6.2 Coordination with Traffic Engineers 54 10.2.6.3 Measures of Success 54 10.2.6.4 Traffic Signal Warrants for Busways 54 11 CASE STUDIES SUMMARY54 12 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 55 PART III – TECHNICAL SUPPORT 59 13 TSP SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE, EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE, AND COMMUNICATIONS 59 13.1 TSP System Architecture 60 13.1.1 Priority Request Generator 61 13.1.2 Communications System 61 13.1.3 Traffic Signal Control System 61 13.2 Traffic Control System Components and TSP 62 13.2.1 Traffic Signal Controller Hardware 62 13.2.1.1 Electromechanical Controllers 63 13.2.1.2 NEMA Controllers 63 13.2.1.3 Type 170 Controllers 63 13.2.1.4 Advanced Transportation Controllers 63 13.2.2 Traffic Signal Controller Software (with TSP functionality) 64 13.2.2.1 Software for NEMA Controllers 64 13.2.2.2 Software for Type 170 and 2070 Controllers 64 13.2.3 Transit Vehicle Detection Systems 66 Transit Signal Priority Handbook 4 v 13.2.3.1 Hard-wired loop Detection 67 13.2.3.2 Light-based (infrared) Detection 67 13.2.3.3 Sound-based Detection 68 13.2.3.4 Radio-based Detection 68 13.2.3.5 Satellite (GPS)-based Detection 68 13.2.4 Communications Systems 69 14 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMINOLOGY 70 14.1 Key Traffic Engineering and TSP-Related Concepts 70 14.1.1 General Traffic Engineering Terminology 70 14.1.2 Traffic Signal Timing Terminology 72 14.1.3 Signal Coordination Terminology 73 14.2 Basic TSP Terminology 74 14.3 Key Traffic Engineering and TSP Concepts 75 14.3.1 Coordinated vs.
Recommended publications
  • Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS

    Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS

    AccessAccess ManagementManagement ManualManual T E X A S Prepared by the City of Irving Public Works/Traffic and Transportation Department Adopted September 5, 2019 Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction Page 1.0 Purpose 1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Definitions 3 1.3 Authority 10 Section 2 Principles of Access Management 2.1 Relationship between Access and Mobility 11 2.2 Integration of Land Use and Transportation 11 2.3 Relationship between Access and Roadway Efficiency 12 2.4 Relationship between Access and Traffic Safety 12 Section 3 Access Management Programs and Policies 3.1 Identifying Functional Hierarchy of Roadways 14 3.1.1 Sub-Classifications of Roadways 14 3.1.1.1 Revising the “Master Thoroughfare Plan” 15 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan 15 3.1.3 Discretionary Treatment by the Director 15 3.2 Land Use 15 3.3 Unified Access Planning Policy 16 3.4 Granting Access 16 3.4.1 General Mutual Access 17 3.4.2 Expiration of Access Permission 17 3.4.3 “Grandfathered” Access and Non-Conforming Access 17 3.4.4 Illegal Access 19 3.4.4.1 Stealth Connection 19 3.4.5 Temporary Access 19 3.4.6 Emergency Access 19 3.4.7 Abandoned Access 20 3.4.8 Field Access 20 3.4.9 Provision for Special Case Access 20 3.4.10 Appeals, Variances and Administrative Remedies 20 3.5 Parking and Access Policy 20 3.6 Access vs Accessibility 21 3.7 Precedence of Access Rights Policy 21 3.8 Right to Access A Specific Roadway 22 3.9 Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA’s) 22 3.9.1 Level of Service (LOS) 22 3.9.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Requirements
  • U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway

    U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway

    S U B K B S 3 CULLER ANITA A S 10 ' D C K ON 22 SHENTON WILLIAM T B C ' S CULLER RUSSELL OVID B FERGUSON 2 9 BOWSER JENNY B S ' BS BELL CHRISTOPHER T SHENTON MARILYN A T CUS 64 17300 Lake 12 ENTERPRISES INC v " L 2016 B BELL MELISSA SUE DUCHE v S T SORRELL LOYD V Pine Dr. 3 ADT 1 B 6 v 33300 0 L " ' K C W O A Laura D 11300 N LL SORRELL DENISE B C v SF 2040 2 2016 RESERVE AT MILLS FARM LLC Duncan Rd. ADT 26500 TOWN & COUNTRY v T 2040 KENNELS S 10' 6' 18' 10' 12' 12' EXIST 12' EXIST 4' 19' 19' 4' 12' EXIST 12' EXIST 12' 10' 18' 6' 10' B ' 9 v PAVED AUX EXIST EXIST AUX PAVED 3200 7200 SHOULDER LANE PS PS LANE SHOULDER T S B ' 9 9600 13800 2700 4400 TT v 38400 42700 11300 8600 v C N 71700 D 75400 K O C C N B O 41600 D 40000 K S " C SALEM STREET ARBORETUM CONDO 2 8 B 4 CLARK HAROLD R CLARK JENNIFER C 1S F 72300 71700 HINSON TIMOTHY M US HWY 64 ALLARD JONATHAN W 12 HINSON LAURA C ' C O ALLARD ERIN F N P C C R 0.02 0.02 0.02 " 0.02 0.02 12 0.02 0.04 2 0.04 . 1 US HWY 64 F :1 .08 08 2: 6:1 6:1 3500 1 F 4 1 0 :1 4: 3200 ' C 6 1 ON :1 6: P C C R 1 6 P VARIABLE 6: :1 VARIABLE C " 4500 R 12 2 2400 " SLOPES :1 :1 SLOPES 500 D 12 2500 2 v R v 6300 F ORIGINAL VARIABLE VARIABLE ORIGINAL C 4200 O GROUND SLOPES SLOPES GROUND N C X T O S R B 13600 PP A TYPICAL SECTION NO.
  • MDOT Access Management Guidebook

    MDOT Access Management Guidebook

    ReducingTrafficCongestion andImprovingTrafficSafety inMichiganCommunities: THE ACCESSMANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK COMMUNITYA COMMUNITYB Cover graphics and ROW graphic by John Warbach, Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Photos by Tom Doyle, Michigan Department of Transportation. Speed Differential graphic by Michigan Department of Transportation. Road Hierarchy graphic by Rossman Martin & Associates, Inc. Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Communities: THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK October, 2001 Prepared by the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 715 N. Cedar Street Lansing, MI 48906-5206 517/886-0555 (tele), www.pzcenter.com Under contract to the Michigan Department of Transportation With the assistance of three Advisory Committees listed on the next page The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Michigan State Transportation Commission or the Michigan Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. Dedication This Guidebook is dedicated to the countless local elected officials, planning and zoning commissioners, zoning administrators, building inspectors, professional planners, and local, county and state road authority personnel who: • work tirelessly every day to make taxpayers investment in Michigan roads stretch as far as it can with the best possible result; and • who try to make land use decisions that build better communities without undermining the integrity of Michigan's road system. D:\word\access\title
  • Corner Clearance Criteria

    Corner Clearance Criteria

    Technical Update Corner Clearance Criteria A PRIMER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES AS THEY CONSIDER APPROVING SITE PLANS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON OR NEAR A STREET CORNER Corner clearances represent the Frontage roads and connectors minimum distances that should be required between intersections and Inadequate corner clearances can driveways along arterial and collector result in traffic-operation, safety, and streets. As stated in AASHTO’s A Policy capacity problems. These problems on Geometric Design of Highways and can be caused by blocked driveway Streets: “Driveways should not be ingress and egress movements, situated within the functional conflicting and confusing turns at boundary of at-grade intersections. intersections, insufficient weaving This boundary would include the distances, and backups from far-side longitudinal limits of auxiliary lanes.” driveways into intersections. Also, Corner Clearance is discussed in FHWA’s Office of Operations website Specific operational and safety titled, “Access Management Principles problems include: Presentation”. Through traffic is blocked by (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgm vehicles waiting to turn into a t/presentations/am_principles_intro/i driveway. ndex.htm) It is listed among the main Right or left turns into or out of methods that are utilized as part of an a driveway (both on artery and agency’s Access Management crossroad) are blocked. Program. These methods include: Driveway traffic is unable to Permits, legislation, and corridor enter left-turn lanes. planning Driveway exit movements are Medians impacted by stopped vehicles in Auxiliary lanes left-turn lanes. Signals and signal spacing Traffic entering an arterial road Driveway location, spacing, and from the intersecting street or design road has insufficient distance.
  • Neighborhood Road Design Guidebook a Massachusetts Guide to Sustainable Design for Neighborhood Roads

    Neighborhood Road Design Guidebook a Massachusetts Guide to Sustainable Design for Neighborhood Roads

    NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD DESIGN GUIDEBOOK A MASSACHUSETTS GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS A joint project of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association Home Builders Association of Massachusetts Prepared for the Citizen Planner’s Training Collaborative March 14, 2012 Overview 2 1. Why a new Guidebook now? 2. Who will use this? 3. What is the general approach 4. Examples of recommended design standards 5. Cross Sections 6. Implementation Why Now? 3 1. Road design for whom? 2. Change in vehicle types 3. What is a win-win approach? 4. Length of time to change rules and regulations Why a new Guide now? 4 Massachusetts guide for Neighborhood Roads to create model guidelines and match local settings. This is called “context sensitive” design. Other road design manuals don’t get at local streets very well Who might use the Guidebook? 5 There are many “actors” in Transportation Design Engineers and designers (private and public sectors) Applicants who are building new infrastructure as part of their projects; Planning Directors/Planners; Planning Boards, Board of Selectmen, Fire and Emergency Service providers; Regional Planning Associations – link to state funding and state projects; Abutters; Land use and environmental advocates; and Finally –build roads that benefit the USERS What kind of Guidebook? 6 Project Goals Reduce environmental impacts of roadway development, operation and maintenance; Encourage Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) in residential roadway design; Provide specific guidelines and references for municipal application; Promote innovative techniques for stormwater management; and Reduce maintenance costs of roadways and stormwater systems. What kind of Guidebook? 7 Project Goals (contin.) Encourage consistency in approach and rationale in residential roadway design across Massachusetts; Promote inter-connectivity of roads; Promote pedestrian and non- motorized access; Promote universal accessibility; and Provide guidance for the design of neighborhood scale residential roads.
  • Driveway Guidelines for Residents

    Driveway Guidelines for Residents

    The City of Plantation Engineering Department 401 Northwest 70th Avenue, Plantation FL 33317 Engineering Department guidelines for driveway permit applications. 1. New and replacement driveways require a Building permit. Seal coating a single-family driveway does not require a permit. 2. Application Process: a. Applicant will submit application to the Building Department. Building permit application shall be completed in full with the following: ჿ Provide (3) three sets of plans on original survey with proposed driveway improvements. ჿ If the residential property resides in an HOA community an approval letter from the HOA is required. b. Upon submission of the Building permit application city staff will prepare a notice of findings/corrections that will be provided to the applicant for review and revision. If the applicant has Engineering related questions they can contact the Engineering Department at (954) 797-2282 to discuss. c. Once staff comments have been addressed the applicant will resubmit the changes for review. Identical plan changes must be provided on all three plan sets. d. If application is complete and the request meets the requirements the permit will be approved and the applicant will be notified that the permit is ready for pick-up. 3. The typical requirements for all single residence driveways are as follows: a. The allowable driveway surface material can be constructed of asphalt, concrete or paver brick. Refer to the City’s Engineering detail for “Standard Driveway Detail” minimum requirements. b. The maximum allowable impervious area for any property is 65% of the overall lot area. If a driveway is to be expanded it must meet this criterion.
  • 214 Driveways 214.1 General

    214 Driveways 214.1 General

    Topic #625-000-002 FDOT Design Manual January 1, 2019 214 Driveways 214.1 General This chapter provides driveway design criteria and requirements for connections to the State Highway System. The FDOT Access Management Guidebook provides further guidance and information on driveways and medians. For additional information and definitions, including Connection Categories, and requirements for obtaining access to the State Highway System, refer to: • Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Rule 14-96 (State Highway Connection Permits) and • Rule 14-97, F.A.C. (State Highway System Access Control Classification System and Access Management Standards). This criteria applies to new construction, reconstruction, and Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) projects. New Construction criteria must be met for new and reconstruction projects, and for proposed improvements included within RRR projects. For RRR Projects, unaltered driveways that are not in compliance with the new construction criteria in this chapter, Standard Plans, or ADA requirements are not required to be reconstructed. The terms “driveway”, “connection”, and “turnout” are used in various FDOT manuals, handbooks, and guides. A driveway is an access constructed within a public R/W connecting a public road with adjacent property. The intent is to provide vehicular access in a manner that will not cause the blocking of any sidewalk, border area, or roadway. The term “connection” encompasses a driveway or side road and its appurtenances: • islands, • curb cut ramps, • separators, • signing, • transition tapers, • pavement marking, • auxiliary lanes, • required signalization, • travel way flares, • maintenance of traffic or • drainage pipes and structures, • other means of access to or from controlled access facilities.
  • U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway

    U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway

    NEAL DAVID C BATTLE WILLIAM MICHAEL NEAL HOLLY GETMAN BATTLE LISA ANNE DELAIR SHANE K DELAIR KERRI E CAMBERATO JOSEPH A FULTON WILLIAM H WARM JAN K FULTON BARBARA E 2200 C N O 2016 2016 C WORSHAM JULIUS BERRYE III Chalon Dr. ' 5 2700 WORSHAM DONNA WESTON 2300 ADT ADT Edinburgh Dr. 2040 2040 MINIMUM 800 FT.* 3300 CUS 64 DESIRABLE 1,000 FT. TO 1,300 FT.* L FULL CONTROL OF ACCESS* 500 1200 C 500 1300 A 600 1800 14' 6' 18' 12' 12' 12' 12' 17.5' 17.5' 12' 12' 12' 12' 18' 6' 14' 43300 45700 45700 50300 C P 700 2200 C 15' W/GR 20 15' W/GR ' BS R T 50300 " A 8 1 75800 78900 78900 83900 WILKES JOELLEN H 10' 10' 83900 FDPS FDPS US HWY 64 US HWY 64 US HWY 64 3500 6300 .75' .75' 1800 1700 5000 .02 .02 4300 7500 500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 2: .08 .04 .02 .04 .08 :1 2000 2500 1 2 6000 6:1 6:1 4:1 :1 600 MP 4 " C 6:1 :1 96 6 (2) GRADE VARIABLE 6:1 6:1 VARIABLE POINT 2 C SLOPES :1 :1 SLOPES 2 24' 46' 24' 5800 8000 SCHMIDT FREDERICK K A SCHMIDT SUSANORIGINAL BVARIABLE EXIST PAVEMENT EXIST MEDIAN EXIST PAVEMENT VARIABLE ORIGINAL 5800 GROUND SLOPES SLOPES GROUND 6800 Mackenan Dr. 10000 Gregson Dr. C 4' 12' 12' 4' A 7000 Edinburgh Dr. LEFT OR U-TURN LEFT OR U-TURN FULL CONTROL OF ACCESS* MINIMUM 800 FT.* ORIGINAL ORIGINAL GROUND 30' 0.75' 0.75' 30' GROUND DESIRABLE 1,000 FT.
  • Purpose and Need Statement

    Purpose and Need Statement

    Purpose and Need Statement South Halsted Bus Corridor Enhancement Project November 2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: g PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK d PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Table of Contents Introduction 2 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Introduction The South Halsted Bus Corridor Enhancement Project was initiated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in partnership with Pace Suburban Bus to improve transit along approximately 11 miles of South Halsted Street, from the Pace Harvey Transportation Center to 79th Street. The corridor also includes segments of 79th and 95th Streets that provide connections to the CTA Red Line 79th and 95th Street Stations. For study purposes, the project area includes a half mile catchment area around the corridor as shown in Figure 1.1. The Purpose and Need Statement provides a foundation and justification for the project and is required for all projects going through the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.1 The South Halsted Bus Corridor serves the communities of Harvey, Phoenix, Dixmoor, Riverdale, Calumet Park, and the City of Chicago neighborhoods of West Pullman, Morgan Park, Roseland, Washington Heights, and Auburn Gresham. The project corridor aligns or intersects with multiple east-west and north-south arterial roadways, CTA and Pace bus routes, CTA and Metra rail stations, and shared-use paths. Transit improvements would complement CTA’s planned extension of the Red Line from 95th Street to 130th Street, as the preferred alignment is located a half mile or more from the Halsted Corridor. The Red Line Extension is currently undergoing the federal environmental review and planning process. The corridor is populated with mainly commercial businesses, surrounded by residential communities.
  • Access Control

    Access Control

    Access Control Appendix D US 54 /400 Study Area Proposed Access Management Code City of Andover, KS D1 Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose D3 Section 2: Applicability D4 Section 3: Conformance with Plans, Regulations, and Statutes D5 Section 4: Conflicts and Revisions D5 Section 5: Functional Classification for Access Management D5 Section 6: Access Control Recommendations D8 Section 7: Medians D12 Section 8: Street and Connection Spacing Requirements D13 Section 9: Auxiliary Lanes D14 Section 10: Land Development Access Guidelines D16 Section 11: Circulation and Unified Access D17 Section 12: Driveway Connection Geometry D18 Section 13: Outparcels and Shopping Center Access D22 Section 14: Redevelopment Application D23 Section 15: Traffic Impact Study Requirements D23 Section 16: Review / Exceptions Process D29 Section 17: Glossary D31 D2 Section 1: Purpose The Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual 2003 defines access management as “the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operations of driveways, median opening, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Along the US 54/US-400 Corridor, access management techniques are recommended to plan for appropriate access located along future roadways and undeveloped areas. When properly executed, good access management techniques help preserve transportation systems by reducing the number of access points in developed or undeveloped areas while still providing “reasonable access”. Common access related issues which could degrade the street system are: • Driveways or side streets in close proximity to major intersections • Driveways or side streets spaced too close together • Lack of left-turn lanes to store turning vehicles • Deceleration of turning traffic in through lanes • Traffic signals too close together Why Access Management Is Important Access management balances traffic safety and efficiency with reasonable property access.
  • HOV Brochure

    HOV Brochure

    P F 3 e O 3 d 5 e B 3 r o 0 a x l F 9 W i r Contact Us! 7 s t a 1 W y 8 , a W y A S o PUBLIC WORKS 9 u 8 t h 0 “What Your 6 253-661-4131 3 - 9 Washington 7 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 8 Driver Guide Does Not 253-661-4707 Teach E-MAIL This guide will You.” [email protected] ex p la in t o dr iv er s WEB SITE t he b est wa y t o cityoffederalway.com n a v iga t e o ur C it y usin g H O V la n es a n d U-t ur n s sa f ely , lega lly , a n d ef f ic ien t ly . BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT As you may have USING HOV MYTH: When exiting business driveways and LEGAL noticed, Federal entering the roadway, I must drive through the HOV lane and enter traffic directly in the general Way is now home LANES U-TURNS purpose or ”through” lane to HOV lanes The City is along many of our The most common FACT: NO! The HOV lanes are intended as encouraging use of major roadways. question drivers of a single- acceleration lanes for vehicles entering the LEGAL U-turns HOV lanes have been installed on S 348th occupancy vehicle ask is: roadway. Enter the HOV lane to accelerate, and where appropriate. Street, on SR 99 (S 312th to S 324th), and on “When and where am I change lanes at your first safe opportunity.
  • City Commission

    City Commission

    City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:00 AM REGULAR City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomás Regalado, Mayor Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Chair Keon Hardemon, Vice Chair Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Méndez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes May 14, 2015 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS AM - APPROVING MINUTES MV - MAYORAL VETOES CA - CONSENT AGENDA PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES RE - RESOLUTIONS BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM (S) MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 6/8/2015 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 14, 2015 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chair Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Vice Chair Hardemon On the 14th day of May 2015, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Gort at 9:04 a.m., recessed at 12:16 p.m., reconvened at 3:44 p.m., and adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Sarnoff entered the Commission chamber at 9:05 a.m., Vice Chair Hardemon entered the Commission chamber at 9:07 a.m., Commissioner Suarez entered the Commission chamber at 9:13 a.m., and Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chamber at 9:38 a.m.