National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic (2010)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Literature Review

« Previous: Chapter Two - Types of Transit Preferential Treatments
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13614.
×
Page 30

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 Several studies and research efforts have been completed describing the application of different transit preferential treat- ments in urban areas in North America. This includes various TCRP reports, reports documenting studies conducted and plans developed for transit agencies, and original research. A total of 20 documents were reviewed in this synthesis. Brief summaries of the content and major findings from these differ- ent reports are presented in this chapter. The review is grouped by type of transit preferential treatment. GENERAL NCHRP Report 143: Bus Use of Highways— State of the Art, 1973 (1) This report was the first comprehensive documentation of bus operations and priority treatments on urban freeways and arterial streets in the United States and internationally as of the early 1970s. More than 115 different concurrent-flow, curb side bus lane applications and 13 contraflow lane appli- cations in the United States and Canada were identified, with respect to their operating characteristics and signing and pavement markings provided. Another 86 concurrent-flow and 37 contraflow bus lane applications in other countries (particularly Great Britain, France, and Spain) were also profiled. In several cases, benefits to bus riders and motorists asso- ciated with bus lane applications were identified. At the time, most systematic measurements of bus lane effectiveness were limited to studies in European cities. The benefits associated with bus lanes were related to “bus service dependability.” There was no conclusive evidence at the time that there were transit ridership gains specifically associated with transit pri- ority treatments or of bus operators being able to reduce the number of buses in service as a result of increased bus speeds and operating effectiveness. However, studies did show mod- est time savings associated with bus lane application, with generally the larger the treatment the greater the benefit. In certain U.S. cities, travel time savings were found to permit reductions in number of buses operating along specific routes. Reported benefits of bus lanes in the United States included the following: 1. The bus lane on Washington Street in Chicago (2 miles in length) saved one bus run during peak periods. At the time, this corresponded to an operating cost savings of $25,000 per year to the Chicago Transit Authority. 2. The contraflow bus lanes on 2nd and 3rd Streets in Louisville (each 1.5 miles in length) reduced travel times by about 25%. 3. The Madison Avenue bus lanes in New York City between 86th and 135th Streets reduced midday bus travel times from 11 to 6.5 min. The report identified a minimum of 60 transit vehicles per peak hour using an exclusive bus lane to justify its designation. Also the number of transit riders using transit vehicles in an exclusive lane should equal or exceed 1.5 times the num- ber of drivers and passengers carried by other vehicles in a single lane during the peak hour. From the standpoint of lane enforcement, the report indicated 40 to 60 buses per hour should use an exclusive lane (resulting in about one bus in each block at any time on an urban street). NCHRP Report 155: Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines, 1975 (2) This report built on NCHRP Report 143 in presenting planning and design guidelines for bus operations and priority treat- ments on highways. This included for the first time pre- senting a set of warrants for the application of different bus priority treatments. The underlying principle in identifying warrants for priority treatments is whether an exclusive bus lane or other priority treatment would potentially benefit more transit riders than if the treatment were not provided and added general traffic capacity were available. Suggested values in peak-hour (one-way) bus volumes for exclusive bus lane facilities on arterials were identified as follows: • Curb bus lanes—within central business district (CBD)— 20–30. • Curb bus lanes—outside CBD—30–40. • Median bus lanes/transitway—60–90. • Contraflow bus lanes—extended length—40–60. • Contraflow bus lanes—short segment—20–30. These warrants reflect design-year conditions, with exist- ing conditions identified to be at least 75% of these volumes. Contraflow bus lane application was identified to be depen- dent on a significant directional imbalance of traffic volumes CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW

or application on a one-way street. Where arterial bus vol- umes of less than 60 per hour are present, the report identi- fied taxis being able to use designated bus lanes. Warrants were also identified for bus “preemption” (10 to 15 buses per peak hour) and special bus signal provisions (5 to 10 buses per peak hour). A broad set of planning and design guidelines were iden- tified related to different bus priority treatments. Some of the more pertinent guidelines included: • The prohibition of curb parking, at least during peak hours, should be a requirement to establishing bus lanes. This results in overall increased street capacity, reduces delays and marginal friction associated with parking maneuvers, and allows buses easier access to stops. • Bus routes should be restructured as needed to make full use of exclusive lanes or transitways. • Bus priority should reduce both mean and the variance in bus travel time. A 10% to 15% decrease in bus running times in a bus priority area was identified as a desirable objective. • An extended application of bus lanes in a corridor is required before bus speeds can increase significantly to produce a significant operating cost savings and/or have an impact on transit ridership. • Bus lanes should recognize the service needs of adja- cent land uses, including truck deliveries and passenger drop-off/pickup needs. • Bus lanes should be provided wherever possible with- out reducing the lanes available to through traffic in the prevailing direction of general traffic. • Effective enforcement of bus lanes is essential. Roadway plan and cross-section diagrams for different bus lane treatments were identified in the report, with guide- lines related to bus stop placement and signing and pavement markings. Guidelines were also identified for bus priority treatments in mixed traffic (identified in the report where buses share a lane with general traffic—in particular TSP, special turn phases, and curb extensions). The following conditions were identified to warrant such treatments: • Corridor capacity is extremely limited by topographical or other constraints. • Only one or two continuous streets exist in a corridor. • There are fewer than 20 buses in the peak direction in the peak hour. • Allocating an exclusive lane for buses would reduce total corridor capacity to general traffic to an unaccept- able level, particularly if oversaturated conditions were to arise. • Roadway widening is not feasible. 18 The information in this document served as an input into NCHRP Report 155. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, 2007 (5) This report summarizes research to assess the costs and impacts of different BRT components, including a variety of transit preferential treatments. Treatments along urban streets, includ- ing exclusive bus lanes, TSP, queue jump/bypass lanes, and curb extensions, are addressed. For each type of treatment, the following information is provided: • Basic description, • Scale of application (relative size, extent of treatment), • Conditions of application (physical environment, warrants), • Selected typical examples, • Estimated costs, • Likely impacts (on bus travel time, service reliability, operating costs, general traffic), and • Analysis tools. The report also identifies a “bottom-up” approach to rider- ship estimation for BRT in a corridor that accounts for travel time savings associated with transit preferential treatments and other factors. The report also presents examples of how to assess ridership, and the costs and impacts of different BRT scenarios, including four related to the packaging of different transit preferential treatments: 1. At-grade busway with median busway, 2. Bus lanes and TSP, 3. Bus lanes only, 4. TSP only. TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit—Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, 2003 (9) This report describes the range of BRT applications and pro- vides planning and implementation background through the assessment of 26 BRT projects throughout North America, Australia, Europe, and South America,. A common thread throughout all the case studies that was the main reason for implementing BRT systems rather than rail were their lower development costs and greater operating flexibility (p. 2). The evaluated performance of each BRT system varied because of the differing configurations of each system. The case studies measured performance by the number of passen- gers carried, travel speeds, and land development changes. Basically, ridership increases on BRT systems were sited to be attributable to expanded service, reduced travel times, improved identity, and population growth. BRT systems within exclusive ROW saw the most benefit. However, in

19 general, non-exclusive BRT systems save about 1 to 2 min per mile and exclusive BRT systems save about 2 to 3 min per mile when compared with pre-BRT conditions (p. 6). Fur- ther, the land development benefits experience around BRT systems were similar to those experienced with rail transit investments. The case studies revealed key lessons learned (p. 7): • Early and continuous community support from elected leaders and citizens is essential. • It is important that state, regional, and local agencies work together in planning, designing, and implement- ing BRT. • Incremental development of BRT will often be desirable. • Parking facilities should often complement, not under- cut, BRT. • BRT and land use planning in station areas should be integrated as early as possible. • BRT should serve demonstrated transit markets. • It is essential to match markets with ROWs. • The key attributes of rail transit should be transferred to BRT, whenever possible. • BRT should be rapid. • Separate ROWs can enhance speed, reliability, safety, and identity. • Vehicle design, station design, and fare collection pro- cedures should be well coordinated. • Coordinated traffic engineering and transit service plan- ning is essential for BRT system design. • BRT services should be keyed to markets. Bus Rapid Transit Options for Densely Developed Areas, 1975 (10) This document provides guidelines for establishing BRT in densely developed areas without freeways. It includes an extensive discussion of the application of on-street bus lanes (curb lanes versus median lanes, concurrent-flow versus con- traflow), including planning and design guidelines. Specific conditions of application in CBD and non-CBD areas are iden- tified, including peak hour bus volume warrants and estimated travel time savings. Travel time savings ranging from 0.4 to 11.4 min per mile were identified associated with bus lane applications in 12 North American and eight European cities. The impact of stop spacing on bus travel time savings and thus the impact of limited stop provision is also assessed. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed., 2003 (3) This document presents a comprehensive overview of the tran- sit capacity and operating characteristics of different transit modes. Included in the report is information about bus oper- ations on urban streets, including travel time impacts associ- ated with different transit preferential treatments, and clear- ance times associated with bus zone areas. “Bus Semi-Rapid Transit Mode Development and Evaluation,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2002, pp. 71–95 (11) Upgrading from mixed-traffic bus service to priority treatment at intersections and/or providing buses in exclusive ROWs are cost-effective methods to increasing transit usage. Further- more, the upgrading or introduction of BRT in exclusive ROWs should have an overall benefit to other bus and rail lines. According to this report, there are three categories of transit ROWs: 1. ROW category C—urban streets with mixed traffic; 2. ROW category B—partially separated from traffic with at-grade intersection crossings; and 3. ROW category A—fully controlled and used exclu- sively by transit vehicles. The concept of bus semi-rapid transit was introduced in the 1970s, and has since gone through development that has met success and obstacles. Successes include its introduction as a system concept, running on exclusive lanes and busways, the definition through use of differentiating bus design, and applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Set- backs to learn from are the combination of transit with HOV lanes because of the congestion and degradation of service; bus lanes on streets have experienced the same degradation of service as HOV lanes because the lack of separation offers ease of introducing non-transit vehicles to the lane; and the dilution or elimination of priority measures that, again, degrade the performance of the transit system. The individual systems of the family have service over- lap that builds off of each other to provide a balanced trans- portation system. The successful application of bus semi-rapid transit includes “corridors with many overlapping bus lines; streets and avenues where separated bus lanes can be intro- duced; and political and civic support for transit in traffic reg- ulations are sufficiently strong that the bus priority measures can be introduced and maintained” (p. 93). “Toward a Systems Level Approach to Sustainable Urban Arterial Revitalization: A Case Study of San Pablo Avenue,” TRB 2006 (12) A sustainable corridor implies “developing a system that is economically viable, environmentally friendly, and equitable across income and racial spectrums, now and in the future” (p. 3). Principles of urban arterial revitalization and redevel- opment can be achieved through land use and transportation coordination, multimodal transportation operations, and street design within decision-making processes that rely on com- munity involvement. Applying these principles to San Pablo Avenue in San Francisco, California, provides insight on how to encourage sustainable urban arterial revitalization. San Pablo Avenue operates seven bus routes along at least part of the segment and during peak periods there are about

20 buses per hour. The need to integrate land use and trans- portation planning along this corridor is essential to achieving the sustainable characteristics described. The study included an evaluation of the existing impediments to development and recommends improvements to the Oakland city code to alleviate land-use issues in context of the existing transporta- tion system. Another factor recommended to encourage revi- talization is sustainable street design that increases transit use through improvement of pedestrian access to transit stops and enhanced pedestrian amenities at stops. Also addressed is the calming of high-speed traffic, the implementation of priority treatments for transit to reduce the impacts of congestion, and the optimization of signal timing for transit vehicles. “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit Projects: An Overview,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2002, pp. 31–46 (13) BRT has been implemented in numerous cities throughout North America. This article provides a review of BRT proj- ects and a comparison of BRT to LRT to gain insight and provide definition to BRT. As discussed in this article, key characteristics of BRT systems are running ways, stations, vehicles, service, fare collection, and ITS; however, these are not exhaustive and not exclusive features to BRT. Many cities, such as Miami, Pittsburgh, and Ottawa, Ontario, use abandoned freight rail lines to provide exclusive busways. Although effi- ciencies are found when buses run in exclusive ROWs, it is not always financially feasible and BRT can function within mixed-traffic operation and experience similar efficiencies through the proper execution of, for example, AVL and traf- fic signal technology. Furthermore, with proper marketing and branding, the use of several of these elements can set BRT apart from other transit systems. This was found to be true through the review of implemented BRT projects, specif- ically the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Metro Rapid BRT system. Efforts to distin- guish BRT lines do not always accompany ROWs; however, the use of other distinguishing features such as simple routes throughout the area, frequent service, separated and differenti- ating stations, and color-coded buses help create pseudo- rail operations in mixed traffic. “Transit Corridor Evaluation and Prioritization Framework,” TRB 2006 (14) This report presents the evaluation methodology that was developed and used by Hillsborough Area Regional Tran- sit (HART) (Tampa, Florida) to evaluate and prioritize key transit corridors, or Transit Emphasis Corridors (TECs). This methodology is a planning-level tool to verify if specific improvements relating to bus service, preferential treatment, and/or facilities are warranted. Although it requires tailoring, the methodology developed is intended to be applied by any community establishing priority corridors. The methodology focuses on three categories of improve- ments: service improvements, bus preferential treatments, 20 and facility improvements. The authors created a series of worksheets that list potential improvements that can be applied to, for example, a corridor, bus stop, or intersection. The work- sheets are intended to be used to determine if a certain loca- tion meets the thresholds to warrant the improvement(s). If it is determined that all the thresholds are met, then the improve- ments for the corridor are weighted and summed for all evalu- ated corridors; the totals for the corridors provide prioritization of the corridors for needed improvement. The application of this tool to HART’s TECs was found to be “a technically sound, flexible, and objective evaluation methodology for prioritizing transit improvements and can serve as the foundation for subsequent policy discussions and decision-making” that can be applied to the planning- level evaluation and prioritization of corridors in any com- munity (p. 9). TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets, 1996 (15) This report addresses the operating characteristics and safety experience associated with light rail transit operating in shared (on-street or mall) ROWs, under slower speed con- ditions (under 35 mph). Nine LRT systems were surveyed (Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Los Angeles, Port- land, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco) to obtain information on their operating practices, safety concerns, accident experiences, innovative features, and enforcement and safety education programs. For LRT operations that physically operate on-street, both semi-exclusive and nonexclusive alignments are defined. Semi-exclusive alignments are characterized with limited grade crossings, and some physical separation of the LRT alignment from motor vehicle traffic is provided, ranging from raised curbs and fencing to mountable curbs, raised pavement markers, and/or striping. This concept is similar to the median transitway defined in chapter two. Operating speeds are typi- cally governed by vehicle speed limits where automatic cross- ing gates are not provided. Nonexclusive alignments allow for mixed traffic flow with motor vehicles or pedestrians, result- ing in a higher level of operating conflict and slower oper- ating speeds. Nonexclusive alignments are typically applied in downtown areas and for most streetcar applications. The research identified several problems associated with on-street operation of light rail, and identified potential solutions. The problems and solutions addressed include: • Pedestrian safety (trespass on tracks, jaywalk, station, and/or cross-street access) • Side-running alignment • Vehicles operating parallel to LRT ROW, turning left across tracks (illegal left turns, protected left-turn lanes with signal phases) • Traffic control observance (passive and active turn restriction sign violations, confusing traffic signal dis- plays, poor delineation of dynamic envelope)

21 • Motor vehicles on tracks • Crossing safety (right-angle accidents) • Poor intersection geometry. A set of planning guidelines are identified related to design- ing roadway geometry and traffic control devices for on- street LRT: • Attempt to maintain existing traffic and travel patterns. • Locate the LRT trackway in the median of a two-way street, if possible. • If operating on a one-way street, LRT should operate in the direction of motor vehicle traffic, with all unsignal- ized midblock access points closed if possible. • Two-way LRT operations on one-way streets should be avoided. • If LRT operates within the street ROW, separate LRT operations from motor vehicles by some physical device (e.g., raised pavement markets, rumble strips, contrast- ing pavement texture, or mountable curbs). • Provide LRT signals that are clearly different from motor vehicle traffic signals in their design and placement. • Coordinate traffic signal phasing and timing to preclude cross-street traffic stopping on and blocking tracks. • Apply traffic signal turn arrows to control left- and right-turn movements for motor vehicle traffic that might conflict with LRT operations. • Provide adequate storage lengths for left- and right-turn lanes for motor vehicle traffic, and provide separate turn phases. The motor vehicle left-turn phase should follow the LRT phase. • Use supplemental interior illuminated signs to supple- ment traffic signals to warn motorists making conflict- ing turns with LRT operations. • Properly channelize pedestrian crossings to minimize conflicts with LRT operations, using gates and/or barri- ers where appropriate. • For on-street operations, load or unload LRT passen- gers from or onto the sidewalk or a protected raised median platform and not into the roadway. EXCLUSIVE LANES TCRP Report 26: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials, 1997 (16) This research assessed the operation of buses in arterial street bus lanes. The focus was on identifying operating conditions in which buses have complete or partial use of adjacent lanes, estimating the impacts of adjacent lanes on bus speeds and capacities, and establishing relationships and procedures for assessing impacts. The research verified how increasing bus volumes in exclusive lanes can reduce speeds and how right turns from or across bus lanes can affect operations. Three types of bus lanes were analyzed: 1. Curb bus lane where passing is impossible or prohib- ited and where right turns are permitted or prohibited. The lane could operate either in concurrent flow or contra flow. 2. Curb bus lane where buses can use the adjacent general traffic lane for passing around stopped buses. Right turns by general traffic may or may not be prohibited from the curb bus lane. 3. Dual bus lanes with general traffic right turns prohibited. Adjustment factors were developed to reflect capacity increases resulting from skip stop operations and capacity losses from right-turn traffic conflicts. The relationship between bus speeds in the different bus lane configurations with stop frequency, stop duration, and traffic signal timing were addressed by use of both field observations and the TRAF-NETSIM model. A look-up table is presented identifying bus lane speeds for various stop fre- quencies and dwell times. Speed reduction factors based on the critical bus berth volume/capacity ratio is also presented. TCRP Research Results Digest 38: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials: Application and Refinement, Sep. 2000 (17) This digest presents the results of TCRP Project A-74, which used the bus operational analysis methodology presented in TCRP Report 26 to analyze the performance of six existing arterial bus lanes and recommends refinements to the method. The methodology of TCRP Report 26 (16) was incorporated into TCRP Web Document 6: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (18), and the 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (19). For this research, data gathered included bus speeds, phys- ical site conditions, traffic signal timing, and videotaping of bus travel along the arterial, from the following bus lane locations: 1. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon—Dual bus lanes on bus-only street. 2. Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon—Dual bus lanes on bus-only street. 3. Second Avenue, New York City, New York—Curb bus lane. 4. Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario—Curb bus lane. 5. Commerce Street, San Antonio, Texas—Curb bus lane. 6. Market Street, San Antonio, Texas—Curb bus lane. From the observed data the authors were able to suggest several refinements to the parameters and default values defined in TCRP Report 26 to produce estimates closer to actual bus operations. The authors found that the bus speeds fell within 20% of the estimated speeds. Slight modifications to the speed assumptions resulted in more accurate speed esti- mations. On Portland’s Fifth and Sixth Avenues, delays caused by intermediate traffic signals warranted increasing the incre- mental traffic delay from 1.2 to 2.0 min/mi; to account for blocking of the bus lanes, Second Avenue’s incremental traf- fic delay was increased from 2.0 to 3.0 min/mi; an adjusted

decrease from 1.2 to 0.6 min/mi was provided for Ottawa’s Albert Street to reflect the preferential traffic signal timing for buses; and to reflect the platooning effect from an upstream bus stop, the berth efficiency factor was increased from 2.50 to 2.75 on Albert Street. From this analysis, the authors suggest several refinements to the parameters and default values used in TCRP Report 26. 1. Consideration should be given to increasing the effi- ciency of multiple, on-line berths and recognizing the increased efficiency of platooned operations. 2. Single values of incremental traffic delay for various types and locations of bus lanes, as presented in Table 3-3 of TCRP Report 26, may not fully reflect specific operating conditions. Further latitude is sug- gested to better reflect the effects of (1) traffic signals set to favor buses, (2) traffic signals located between (as well as at) bus stops, and (3) bus lane blockage. “A New Methodology for Optimizing Transit Priority at the Network Level,” TRB 2008 (20) This report proposes a methodology to defining the optimal number of exclusive lanes in an existing operational transport network. This study found that most other similar studies focus only on select arterials when analyzing exclusive lane integra- tion and that there is no approach that addresses a network- level analysis. Using bi-level programming that minimizes the total travel time, the optimal solution for exclusive lanes within a transportation network can be found. TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY AND SPECIAL SIGNAL PHASING An Overview of Transit Signal Priority, ITS America, 2002 (21) This report was the first comprehensive documentation on what is transit signal priority (TSP), its different compo- nents and applications, and the costs and benefits associated with TSP. Strategies for planning for deployment of TSP and addressing TSP design, operations, and maintenance issues are included. Case studies in eight North American cities [Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Pierce County (Washington), Portland, (Oregon), San Francisco, Seattle, and Toronto] and cities in Europe and Japan were analyzed to identify the benefit and impact of TSP on both transit and traffic operations. The results of these case studies are pre- sented in chapter six. Improving Transportation Mobility, Safety, and Efficiency: Guidelines for Planning and Deploying Traffic Signal Priority Strategies, 2007 (22) This report was assembled to assist local, regional, and state jurisdictions in Vermont when considering the use of traffic 22 signal systems and technologies to implement TSP strategies for buses. Through a literature review and case studies a greater understanding of the state of TSP and how it is employed was gained. In addition, a VISSIM (VISual SIMulation) analysis was undertaken to evaluate alternative transit priority strategies along two major bus routes in Burlington, Vermont: Route 15 and the Old North Route. VISSIM Results: Route 15 The following evaluation measures were employed in the Route 15 simulation analysis: bus and car travel time, delay, outbound bus waiting time, and side street queue length. Two TSP scenarios were evaluated: (1) under existing con- ditions with a 10-s green extension for the inbound 30 min headway a.m. buses, and (2) the headways were changed to 15 min. Travel time for both buses and autos improved with the simulated implementation of TSP, as did delay. However, the bus travel time and auto delay reductions did not prove to be statistically significant. Bus waiting time represents all the times that a bus vehicle is stopped in traffic delay. Outbound buses travel in the non-peak direction and do not get priority. Although increases in stopped time were seen with the imple- mentation of TSP, it was not found to be significant. The inbound buses are in the peak direction and receive priority treatment. There were significant reductions in the bus wait- ing time, in the inbound direction, with the implementation of TSP. The analysis of the side-street queue length showed that there was no significant difference with the implementa- tion of TSP. The authors arrived at the following conclusions based on these results (p. 28): • A 10-s green extension may reduce bus travel time along Route 15 from 4.6% to 5.8%. • A 10-s green extension may also reduce bus delay along Route 15 from 14.2% to 16.5%. • A 10-s extension may also reduce bus waiting time ranging from 27.3% to 27.9%. • The other vehicular traffic that moves in the same direc- tion as the buses may also experience travel time sav- ings from 0.3% to 6.3% and a reduction in delay from 1.1% to 9.5%. • These reductions in bus travel time, bus delay, and bus waiting time may occur without adversely affecting other traffic. VISSIM Results: Old North Route The following evaluation measures were employed in the Old North Route simulation analysis: bus travel time and

23 delay to non-transit vehicles. Two TSP scenarios were eval- uated: (1) under existing conditions with a 10-s green exten- sion for the inbound a.m. buses; and (2) all near-side bus stops were relocated to the far side. Both scenarios provided reduced travel time as compared with the base scenario; however, the reduction found between Scenarios 1 and 2 was not statistically significant. Although slight delay decreases were incurred, they also were not found to be significant. The authors report the following conclusions based on these results (p. 33): • A 10-s green extension may reduce bus travel time along the Old North Route by up to 7%. • A 10-s green extension coupled with the relocation of all near-side bus stops to the far side suggests that travel time may diminish, although the results did not prove to be significant. Comprehensive Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic Data, June 2008 (23) This study discusses the impacts of the South Snohomish Regional Transit Signal Priority (SS-RTSP) project on transit and local traffic operations by evaluating quantitative field- observed data and simulation models used to compute mea- sures of effectiveness that could not be obtained from the field-observed data. The study was conducted on two corri- dors with the TSP hardware and software already installed. Early green and extended green active TSP strategies are used in the SS-RTSP system. To measure the effectiveness of the TSP system, primary data were gathered on the follow- ing criteria: transit time match, transit travel time, traffic queue length, signal cycle failures, and frequency of TSP “calls”; secondary measures included average person delay and vehicle delays and stops. Data were collected by means of TSP logs, GPS data, traffic controller logs, traf- fic video data, and a transit driver log to record reasons for unusual delays; however, the transit driver logs were found to not be accurate in Phase One and eliminated from Phase Two testing. The study used Structured Query Language (SQL) for data management and was implemented in Microsoft SQL Server 2000. VISSIM Version 4.30 was utilized to simulate traffic operations along both corridors. It was an essential tool used to measure average person and vehicle delays and stops that were not calculable from the field- observed data. Two tests were conducted where TSP was turned off dur- ing week one and on during week two. Phase One was pre- formed on a test corridor approximately 3,600 ft long with three transit routes, four signalized intersections, and seven bus stops including three near-side stops. The Phase Two cor- ridor was approximately 5.3 miles long with 2 transit routes, 13 signalized intersections, and 33 far-side bus stops (none were near side). The Phase One and Two tests found that transit bus stop arrival was more reliable with less variability with the use of the TSP system. Transit Travel Time In Phase One, eastbound trips experienced shorter travel times when TSP was operational, whereas westbound trips experienced longer travel times. This was contributed to by the near-side bus stops, which may have had negative impacts on trips with granted priority. In Phase Two, on average, TSP saved transit travel time per trip; however, the average tran- sit travel time was longer when TSP was turned off. This is explained because TSP is only granted for late trips. Average Person Delay Average person delay was reduced by the SS-RTSP system during Phase One and Two. Vehicle Delays and Stops In Phase One, the TSP system was found to decrease average intersection control delay and number of stops at three of the four intersections; the fourth intersection, although it experi- enced a negative impact, was not found to be significant and did not offset the benefits of the positive impacts at the other intersections. In Phase Two, the t-test concluded that with TSP implementation there were no significant changes to average vehicle delay or number of vehicle stops. Traffic Queue Length In Phase One, the traffic queue length increased in vehicles per cycle; however, the median value remained constant. In Phase Two, the average queue lengths with TSP implemented was not significantly changed. Signal Cycle Failure Implementation of TSP did not have a significant impact on signal cycle failure in either phase. The authors found that the SS-RTSP system provided significant benefits to transit vehicles, whereas the impacts to local traffic were not significant. The study revealed that with the TSP on, transit vehicles had a higher adherence to their established schedules and the TSP corridors provided decreased overall person delays. The authors assert that “Given that the negative impacts of the SS-RTSP system on local traffic was not statistically significant, more transit trips could be given proper TSP treatment, and the frequency of TSP requests could be increased to generate more benefits from the SS-RTSP system” (p. 79).

“Active Transit Signal Priority for Streetcars— Experience in Melbourne and Toronto,” Nov. 2007 (24) This report discusses the application of TSP to streetcar sys- tems in Toronto, Canada, and Melbourne, Australia. (Because Synthesis Report J-7/SA-22 focuses on preferential treat- ments in North America, this report relied on the application of TSP in Toronto.) The Toronto streetcar system utilizes a detection system consisting of vehicle-mounted transpon- ders and two pavement-embedded detector loops, one for “requests” and another to “cancel.” There are two types of signal priority request that are initiated depending on the timing of the request. They are either transit-corridor green extension or side-street green truncation. The Toronto streetcar system with TSP experienced “delay reduction of 12 to 16 seconds per intersection and streetcar travel time savings of 7 to 11 minutes per route” (p. 9). These travel time savings provide the Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC) with a “reported annual operating cost savings of more than $200,000 CAD per route per year, which is the direct result of lower fleet requirements (1 to 2 streetcars) and the associated reduction in hours of labor and mileage. The TTC found the payback on TSP invest- ments to be achieved in less than 5 years” (p. 9). Although the benefits were noted from the implementation of TSP, other issues were not resolved owing to the characteristics of the streetcar system, its riders, and its operational charac- teristics. These issues included frequent bunching of the streetcars or excessive gaps, overcrowding of streetcars, and instances where passengers were left behind owing to inadequate capacity, and the worst conditions occurred at stops along high-frequency routes that were located on the nearside of the signalized intersections without dedicated ROW that had varying passenger demand. “Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority Benefits Along a Fixed-Time Signalized Arterial,” 2002 (25) This report looks at implementing TSP along an arterial with a coordinated signalized system. Using the INTEGRATION microscopic traffic simulation model, five alternative prior- ity strategies were evaluated on prioritized buses and general traffic during the a.m. peak and midday traffic periods along Columbia Pike in Arlington, Virginia. The Columbia Pike corridor is a relatively straight, hilly four-mile alignment comprised of 20 signalized intersec- tions, a pedestrian crossing and a freeway-type interchange; 6 of the 22 intersections are with major cross streets. Obser- vations revealed that the corridor has directional flow in the a.m. and p.m. peaks, which are between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., respectively, and maintains more balanced traffic during the midday. For evaluation, fixed- time operation was assumed for the length of the corridor, 24 although there is a short length that is normally controlled by a SCOOT System. Evaluation of simple green extensions and green recalls on a 5-s-increment basis within a fixed-time traffic signal control environment were conducted on the following tran- sit priority strategies. Transit operations within the corridor were modeled to keep as close to the published schedules as possible. • Base Scenario: No priority. • Scenario 1: Priority to express buses traveling along Columbia Pike between Dinwiddie and Quinn Streets (Route 16J). • Scenario 2: Priority to regular buses traveling along Columbia Pike between Dinwiddie and Quinn Streets (Routes 16 and 24, except route 16J). • Scenario 3: Priority to all buses traveling along Colum- bia Pike between Dinwiddie and Quinn Streets (Routes 16 and 24). • Scenario 4: Priority to buses traveling along cross streets between Dinwiddie and Quinn Streets (Routes 10, 22, 25, and 28). • Scenario 5: Priority to all buses traveling between Dinwiddie and Quinn Streets (p. 8). This study concluded that, depending on the specific char- acteristics of each transportation network, transit priority systems can provide significant benefits to transit vehicles while not significantly impacting traffic in the network. How- ever, in most cases in this simulation the benefits did not offset the negative impacts to the general traffic. The most benefit was found during the midday period and was attrib- utable to lower volumes of traffic and reduced number of buses requesting fewer priority calls. “Critical Factors Affecting Transit Signal Priority,” TRB 2004 (26) This article presents a framework for an ideal TSP system and reviews its impact on traffic operations. Through interviews of transit engineers and planners and examination of different transit operating conditions, including congestion levels, bus stop location, and bus service level, the different techniques of TSP required under each condition were revealed. These TSP techniques are real-time or fixed-time based control, which used control strategies such as phase suppression, synchro- nization, compensation, and green recall. Basic findings of this research were that a real-time control strategy has the most potential to reduce delays to non-transit traffic and is the preferable TSP system treatment. Further- more, constraints to minimum and maximum greens at the intersection level, using software with a weighing system, and the implementation of priority to late buses only have

25 the potential to minimize delay to non-transit vehicles. Also, using AVL technology to anticipate bus arrival time at inter- sections and extend green time can help to clear congestion before bus arrival. Chada proposes the following as some of the ideal elements of a priority system: • Ability to track bus movements accurately; • Ability to measure and record statistics on the bus routes to form transit plans based on statistical analysis. Also consider traffic volume, passenger occupancy, and other related figures; • Ability to offer a wide variety of priority techniques for different situations; • Ability to minimize delay to non-transit traffic; and • Ability to estimate cost to both passenger and transit agency (based on average delay) associated with enact- ing any given priority method. Chada designed a “Pre-Implementation Checklist” to help local transit agencies find the optimal locations for TSP imple- mentation within the transportation network. Furthermore, the “Operational and Design Guidelines” provides strategies for choosing the most appropriate TSP method for any given area. These guidelines include a series of yes or no questions about TSP characteristics that would require possibly chang- ing the current operating characteristics of a transit system. Dependent on the yes or no answer, a recommendation is given for how to proceed under the current or proposed condition. QUEUE JUMP/BYPASS LANES The Tail of Seven Queue Jumps, 2004 (27) The effectiveness of TSP is reduced when traffic congestion increases. In this report, The Tail of Seven Queue Jumps, the implementation and operation of seven different queue jumps built within the existing ROWs in the city of Ottawa, Ontario, is discussed. Queue Jump #1: Queue Jump at “T” Intersection Without Special Transit Signal Display This queue jump was implemented because the left-turning vehicles would delay transit vehicles. Implementation required signage and driver training (see Figure 21). Queue Jump #2: Queue Jumps at “T” Intersection with Transit Priority Signal Indication (TPSI) This queue jump was complex because of the short receiv- ing lane at the far side of the intersection, which requires more separation time between when the transit vehicle enters the intersection and when general traffic receives the green light (see Figure 22). Queue Jumps #3 and #4: Multiple Queue Jumps at a Four-Legged Intersection This example implemented queue jumps at the left-turning and straight-through intersection approach. The left turn is a regular actuated phase without timing priority. By chang- ing the lane designations both queue jumps were imple- mented within the existing ROW (see Figure 23). Queue Jump #5: Queue Jump with Advance Stop Bar This queue jump was implemented at an intersection leav- ing the Ottawa CBD. Approximately 20 buses each hour move straight through the intersection during the peak period, whereas another 160 buses use the dedicated bus lane to turn right. Before implementation, the buses that would move straight through the intersection would have No Queue Jump (Figure 1, page 2) With Transit Queue Jump (Figure 2, page 2) FIGURE 21 Queue jump at “T” intersection without special transit signal display (27).

26 B: Bus enters intersection C: General traffic enters intersection A: Nobody moves at the side street FIGURE 22 Operation of a queue jump with TPSI (27). No Queue Jumps (Figure 5, page 5) Double Queue Jumps (Figure 6, page 5) FIGURE 23 Multiple queue jumps at a four-legged intersection (27). to merge into heavy traffic, which would often block right-turning buses as a result of merging congestion. The implementation of this queue jump moved the stop bar back by 25 m, allowing transit vehicles that needed to proceed straight through the intersection to enter the “restricted space” in front of the vehicular queue (see Figure 24). Queue Jump #6: Queue Jump with Queue Relocation to the Adjacent Lane To better use the ROW at this bottleneck intersection, up to the near-side bus stop, the curb side lane was converted from mixed-traffic to an exclusive bus lane. The bus stop was converted to a bulb out to provide merging for the bus and lane definition of the right-turning vehicles. This change reduced variability and transit travel times along the corridor (see Figure 25). Queue Jump #7: Queue Jump with Lane Control Signals (Heron/Bronson Type) This queue jump was installed to provide a strategic tran- sit stop that would allow for transfers between buses and a grade-separated light rail line; the location would have been unsafe without the queue jump because of the highly utilized right-turn lane. With this queue jump, the transit vehicle movement through the intersection is protected through the use of special TSP (see Figure 26). Although the seven queue jumps were implemented under differing conditions, they all resulted in a more efficient TSP system and transit travel time savings with relatively inexpen- sive capital improvement costs. The author notes that because of the transportation policy in the city of Ottawa that supports measures that selectively improve transit operations (i.e., pol- icy and planning objectives are focused on increasing future transit modal share rather than moving vehicles), the imple-

27 mentation of the presented and other queue jumps were fea- sible (p. 12). “Design of Transit Signal Priority at Intersections with Queue Jumper Lanes,” TRB 2008 (28) This article evaluates the effectiveness of TSP on transit vehi- cles in mixed traffic versus the utilization of queue jumper lanes. Design alternatives were studied using the VISSIM simulation tool. Under high traffic volumes, the use of queue jumper lanes with TSP reduced bus delays more so than mixed- lane TSP. A queue jumper lane acts as an exclusive bus lane in the vicinity of an intersection. This design promotes the ease of transit movement through congested intersections without affecting general traffic lanes because it makes full use of existing right-turn bays that often operate under low-saturation conditions, even during the most congested traffic periods. The VISSIM simulation was preformed with near-side and far-side bus stops under both mixed-lane TSP and jump- lane TSP. All scenarios were evaluated under varying traffic volume levels, from low to high. It was found that the most beneficial and optimally performing alternative included jump- lane TSP and near-side bus stops that reduced bus delay by up to 25% when compared with far-side bus stops with jump-lane TSP. It was also found that “jump-lane TSP with a near-side bus stop can reduce bus delay by 3% to 17% when compared with mixed-lane TSP with a far-side bus stop” (p. 14). Fur- thermore, in high traffic volumes, the benefits of queue jump lanes with TSP are more pronounced. CURB EXTENSIONS TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs, 2001 (8). TCRP Report 65 is a continuation of TCRP Project A-10, which culminated with TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (29). This report evaluated bus bulbs in several North American cities to determine the effect of bus bulbs on transit operations, vehicular traf- fic, and nearby pedestrian movements. The report presents information about when bus bulbs should be considered and lessons learned from bus bulbs implemented in other cities. Using traffic simulation, vehicular and bus operations for bus bulbs located near side and far side along a corridor are identified. Lastly, it provides information regarding the conditions in which the installation and use of bus bulbs is advisable. Operation with Buses Using Mixed Flow Lane Approaching Intersection (Figure 7, page 6) Operation with Buses using the Bus-Only Lane to Approach the Intersection (Figure 9, page 7) Uneven Lane Utilization at a Congested Intersection Approach (Figure 12, page 8) Queue Relocation to Adjacent Lanes (Figure 12, page 8) Bus Stop Bulbout Bus Stop 700 veh/hr in curb-lane FIGURE 24 Queue jump with advance stop bar (27). FIGURE 25 Queue jump with queue relocation to the adjacent lane (27).

Data were collected including pedestrian volumes, bus dwell times, bus and vehicle speeds near a bus stop, bus and vehicle speeds for the corridor, the length of queue behind a bus, and driver behavior near the bus stop. As part of this research, two before-and-after studies were conducted. The first was curbside analysis to determine if there were improvements to pedestrian mobility and operations around a newly installed bus bulb. The second was a roadway analysis to determine the advantages or disadvantages to traf- fic and bus operations from the implementation of bus bulbs at far-side and near-side bus stops. In general, pedestrians ben- efited from the additional sidewalk capacity by providing addi- tional room for queuing, which reduced conflicts between wait- ing and walking pedestrians. It was found that the additional space provided by the bus bulb improved pedestrian flow along the adjacent sidewalk by 11%. The roadway before- and-after study determined that the average vehicle and bus speed along the corridor and the block increased when the bus bulbs were installed. Specifically, in studying San Fran- cisco’s replacement of several bus bays with bus bulbs, it was found that vehicle and bus speeds on the block and cor- 28 ridor increased between 7% and 46%. Before installation of the bus bulb, buses would often stop partially or fully within the travel lane and would also use both travel lanes when maneuvering away from the bay stop. Once the bus bulbs were installed, buses reduced their use of both travel lanes to leave the bus bulb stop, resulting in the increased bus and vehicle speeds. In conclusion, this report found that bus bulbs are appropri- ate in areas with high-density developments and in which the percentage of people moving through the corridor as pedestri- ans or in transit vehicles is relatively high in comparison with the percentage of people moving in automobiles. Furthermore, the average flow rate of pedestrians traveling along the side- walk adjacent to the bus stop improved when the bus bay was replaced with a bus bulb. SUMMARY Table 1 highlights the major features and conclusions of the documents related to transit preferential treatments reviewed in this literature search. Operational Issues with the Installation of the New Transfer Stop (Figure 18, page 10) Queue Jump Operation with Lane Control Signals (Figure 19, page 11) New transfer stops New transfer stops A B C D Lane Control Signals FIGURE 26 Queue jump with lane control signals (Heron/Bronson Type) (27).

Manual—2nd ed. (2003) procedures. documented in TCRP Report 26). TCRP Report 118: BRT Practitioner’s Guide (2007) Information on different bus priority treatments including exclusive lanes, signal priority, curb extensions, and limited stop spacing on arterial streets. Presents examples of calculations to identify the cost and impact of different BRT component packages associated with a route or corridor, including integration of bus priority treatments. TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit—Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit (2003) Assessment of 26 BRT projects throughout the world. Identified travel time, on-time performance, and other benefits associated with bus priority treatments. Bus Rapid Transit Options in Densely Developed Areas (1975) Guidelines for providing BRT in densely developed areas without freeways, focusing on arterial bus lanes. Input to NCHRP Report 155. Identified travel time savings ranging from 0.4 to 11.4 min per mile for 20 North American and European bus lane applications. ìB us Semi-Rapid Transit Mode Development and Evaluation” (2002) Presentation of “semi-rapid” concept for BRT. Identification of three right-of-way categories (A, B, C) for BRT operation on urban streets. “Bus Semi-Rapid Transit Mode Development and Evaluation” (2002) Presentation of “semi-rapid” concept for BRT. Identification of three right-of-way categories (A, B, C) for BRT operation on urban streets. “Toward a Systems Level Approach to Sustainable Urban Arterial Revitalization: a Case Study of San Pablo Avenue” (2006) A review of the operation of the San Pablo Avenue BRT line in Oakland. Identified effectiveness of bus priority treatments and signal timing optimization. “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit Projects: an Overview” (2002) Description of BRT characteristics, including priority treatments, and comparison with LRT. Tradeoffs identified between investing in bus priority treatments vs. other BRT features. Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit Projects: An Overview (2002) Description of BRT characteristics, including priority treatments, and comparison with LRT. Tradeoffs identified between investing in bus priority treatments vs. other BRT features. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets (1996) Assessment of operating characteristics and accident experience for different LRT alignment options on urban streets. Set of solutions to address potential conflicts between LRT and general traffic and pedestrians. Location criteria identified for placement/design of LRT alignments along urban streets. Exclusive Lanes TCRP Report 26: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials (1997) Guidelines for calculating the capacity and bus speeds for different bus lane configurations in urban areas. Look-up tables and adjustment factors to account for different bus and adjacent traffic volumes, stop frequency, and dwell times, for single and dual bus lanes. Document Focus/Objectives Major Findings/Conclusions General NCHRP Report 143— Bus Use of Highways— State of the Art (1973) First comprehensive documentation of bus operations and priority treatments in U.S. and internationally. 165 treatments evaluated. Identified bus travel time savings with different treatments. Minimum of 60 buses per peak hour to justify use of exclusive bus lane, and lane should carry at least 1.5 times the number of general traffic vehicle occupants. NCHRP Report 155— Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines (1975) Extension of NCHRP Report 143. Presents planning and design guidelines for bus operations and priority treatments. Suggested values for one-way peak hour volumes for priority treatments: curb bus lanes (within CBD)—20–30, curb bus lanes—outside CBD—40–60, median bus lanes/transitway—60–90, contraflow lanes—extended length—40–60, short segment—20–30, bus “preemption”—10– 15, special bus signal—5–10 TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service First comprehensive manual documenting transit capacity and quality of service principles and Presents bus capacity calculation procedures for mixed traffic and bus lane applications (integrating results 29 TABLE 1 SUMMARY FEATURES AND CONCLUSIONS FROM DOCUMENTS IN LITERATURE REVIEW (continued on next page)

30 Level” (2007) Transit Signal Priority/Special Signal Phasing “An Overview of Transit Signal Priority” (2002) First comprehensive document describing the transit signal priority concept and applications, benefits, and costs. Provided strategies for deployment of TSP, including desired intergovernmental arrangements, and addressing TSP design and operations/maintenance issues. Case studies of TSP impact in eight North American cities. Improving Transportation Mobility, Safety, and Efficiency: Guidelines for Planning and Deploying Traffic Signal Priority Strategies (2008) VISSIM simulation analysis to evaluate alternate transit signal priority strategies along two bus routes in Montpelier, VT. A 10-s green extension was evaluated for headways of 15 and 30 min. Bus travel times were found to be reduced by up to 5.8%, bus delays reduced by up to 16.5%, and on-time performance improved by up to 27.9%. Comprehensive Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority System Impacts Using Field Observed Traffic Data (2008) Study to assess the impacts of a regional TSP strategy in South Snohomish County, WA. Two corridors evaluated. TSP effectiveness measures applied included transit time match, transit travel time, traffic queue length, signal cycle failures, and frequency of TSP calls. Evaluation found improved on-time performance and less total person trip delay with TSP implementation. “Active Transit Signal Priority for Streetcars— Experience in Toronto and Melbourne” (2007) Reviews the application of TSP to streetcar systems in Toronto and Melbourne, Australia. Toronto streetcar system has seen dalay reduction of 12 to 16 s per intersection and travel tiume savings of 7 to 11 min per route. “Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority Benefits along a Fixed-Time Signalized Arterial” (2001) Presents results of simulation analysis of implementing five alternative TSP strategies along Columbia Pike in Northern Virginia. Evaluation of green extensions and recalls on a 5-s-increment basis within a fixed- time traffic control environment. Greatest benefit associated with TSP was found during mid-day period owing to lower traffic volumes and fewer TSP calls. “Critical Factors Affecting Transit Signal Priority” (2003) Presents framework for an ideal transit signal priority system and its impact on traffic operations. A real-time control strategy has the most potential to reduce delays to non-transit traffic Queue Jump/Bypass Lanes The Tail of Seven Queue Jumps (2008) Describes seven different types of queue jump treatments at intersections Al identified queue jump treatments resulted in more efficient TSP operation and transit travel time savings. “Design of Transit Signal Priority at Intersections with Queue Jumper Lanes” (2007) Comparison of the effectiveness of TSP in mixed traffic vs. use of queue jump lanes. VISSIM simulation was performed for near and far side bus tops under both mixed-lane TSP and jump-lane TSP. Analysis showed the greatest bus delay reduction (3% to 17%) with jump-lane TSP and near-side stops. Curb Extensions TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs (2001) Evaluated bus bulbs in several North American cities to estimate the effect of such treatments on transit operations, vehicular traffic, and pedestrian movements. Two before-and-after studies conducted in San Francisco involving curbside and roadway analysis. With bus bulbs, pedestrian flow adjacent to stops improved by 11%. CBD = central business district; HART = Hillsborough Area Regional Transit; VISSIM = VISual SIMulation model. Application and Refinement (2000) (OR); New York City; Ottawa, (ON); and San Antonio operations and incremental traffic delay. “A New Methodology for Optimizing Transit Priority at the Network Methodology for defining optimal number of exclusive transit lanes in transport network. Use of bi-level programming to minimize total travel time in assessment. Document Focus/Objectives Major Findings/Conclusions TCRP Research Results Digest 38: Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials: Applied methodologies from TCRP Report 26 to evaluate the performance of six existing arterial bus lanes in Portland Data collected on bus speeds, site conditions, and traffic signal timing. Adjustments in procedures from TCRP Report 26 to reflect bus platooned TABLE 1 (continued)

Next: Chapter Four - Survey Responses »
Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 83: Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic explores the application of different transit preferential treatments in mixed traffic. The report also examines the decision-making process that may be applied in deciding which preferential treatment might be the most applicable in a particular location.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!