Click for next page ( 28

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
27 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- Operation with Buses Using Mixed Flow Lane Approaching Intersection (Figure 7, page 6) 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. Operation with Buses using the Bus-Only Lane to Approach the Intersection (Figure 9, page 7) CURB EXTENSIONS FIGURE 24 Queue jump with advance stop bar (27). TCRP Report 65: Evaluation of Bus Bulbs, 2001 (8 ). TCRP Report 65 is a continuation of TCRP Project A-10, mentation of the presented and other queue jumps were fea- which culminated with TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for sible (p. 12). 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- "Design of Transit Signal Priority at Intersections with Queue Jumper Lanes," TRB 2008 (28) fic, and nearby pedestrian movements. The report presents information about when bus bulbs should be considered This article evaluates the effectiveness of TSP on transit vehi- and lessons learned from bus bulbs implemented in other cles in mixed traffic versus the utilization of queue jumper cities. Using traffic simulation, vehicular and bus operations lanes. Design alternatives were studied using the VISSIM for bus bulbs located near side and far side along a corridor simulation tool. Under high traffic volumes, the use of queue are identified. Lastly, it provides information regarding the jumper lanes with TSP reduced bus delays more so than mixed- conditions in which the installation and use of bus bulbs is lane TSP. A queue jumper lane acts as an exclusive bus lane advisable. 700 veh/hr in curb-lane Bus Stop Uneven Lane Utilization at a Congested Intersection Approach (Figure 12, page 8) Bus Stop Bulbout Queue Relocation to Adjacent Lanes (Figure 12, page 8) FIGURE 25 Queue jump with queue relocation to the adjacent lane (27).