Click for next page ( 5

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 4
4 Funding sources of different treatments; supplemental survey of traffic engineering jurisdictions in Design and operational criteria for different treatments; these urban areas was conducted to obtain traffic engineers' Impacts of different treatments on transit operations-- insights on transit preferential treatments. An added 12 juris- travel time savings, improved service reliability, reduc- dictions responded to this survey. A total of 64 responses tion in number of operating vehicles--specific perfor- were received, an 80% response rate. mance measures applied; Factors that led to the decision to apply certain prefer- In addition, to probe further into the issues, opportunities, ential treatments; and and constraints associated with the development of transit Agreements in place with local traffic agencies related preferential treatments, selected urban areas known to have to preferential treatment application. established transit preferential treatment programs were fur- ther studied. In these cases, the transit agency already had an The intent was to have the survey completed by the transit established working relationship with the traffic engineering agency staff responsible for the development and monitoring jurisdiction, and the level and type of partnering between the of transit preferential treatments within the agency. The tran- two agencies could be probed in more detail. sit agencies surveyed were asked for copies of reports docu- menting their preferential treatment programs and the costs and impacts of different treatments. REPORT ORGANIZATION The traffic agency survey provided an opportunity to ask This report is divided into six remaining chapters: questions of traffic engineers on their perceptions on the applicability and success of transit preferential treatments on Chapter two--Types of Transit Preferential Treatments the street system under their jurisdiction. This survey was Chapter three--Literature Review structured to obtain some added data related to the impact of Chapter four--Survey Responses transit preferential treatments; particularly those related to Chapter five--Case Studies O&M costs and general traffic impacts, and to assess overall Chapter six--Warrants, Costs, and Impacts of Transit traffic agency acceptance of such treatments. Preferential Treatments Chapter seven--Conclusions. The survey was intended to be comprehensive--a total of 80 urban areas in the United States and Canada were Three appendices are also provided: Appendix A presents targeted--including 50 transit agencies operating just bus the transit agency survey questionnaire and responses, Appen- and another 30 operating bus and streetcar and/or light rail. dix B presents the traffic agency survey questionnaire and The transit survey responses received (a total of 52) were responses, and Appendix C includes sample intergovernmental helpful in identifying overall trends with respect to transit agreements that agencies have developed to implement transit preferential treatment application. As part of the survey, a preferential treatments.