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 41
41 TABLE 7 METHODS OF PUBLIC INPUT Agency Public Input Method Capital District Transportation Open houses, meetings, mail outs, e-blast newsletters Authority Capital Metropolitan They will be part of the upcoming process (Rapid Bus--2011) Transportation Authority Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority Public meetings (LYNX) Connecticut Department of Meetings, mailings Transportation Fresno Area Express Meeting, mail out Greater Cleveland Regional Numerous public meetings and outreach Transit Authority Hillsborough Area Regional Meeting Transit Community meetings, direct contacts to affected King County Metro Transit individuals/businesses Lane Transit District Workshops, charrettes, and meetings Maryland Transit Administration Meetings Metro Transit Public meetings MiamiDade Transit Meetings, public announcements Montgomery County (MD) Generally meetings, mail outs, newsletters are proposed Transit--Ride On MTA New York City Transit Hearings, meetings Nashville MTA N/A--We don't currently have any transit preferential treatments In some cases we obtain public input/approval through public OC Transpo meetings; however, in many cases we do not obtain public approval before transit preferential treatments are implemented. PACE Meetings and handouts Regional Transportation Public meeting for the BRT study on Virginia Street Commission of Washoe County Regional Transportation District Meeting Sacramento Regional Transit Mail outs and meetings District San Francisco Municipal Depending on treatment we may have community meeting and Transportation Agency public hearing SEPTA City and/or township approval Sound Transit Meeting and mail out as well as website information Depends on the treatment--in some cases such as signal priority, no Toronto Transit Commission public input obtained; with any construction-related improvements such as median transit ways, extensive public process Transit Authority of River City Not applicable Public input is considered during the public meeting process for any project. There is also consideration given to ongoing public Utah Transit Authority comments provided to UTA and the various transportation departments. Valley Metro RPTA Meetings York Region Transit Public meetings, mail out the experience of transit riders. A list of the methods employed tionnaire is in Appendix B, with detailed responses for each by agencies to garner public input is provided in Table 7. The agency also provided in Appendix B. most common forms of public input are meetings/open houses and mailings. A total of 12 agencies responded to the traffic agency survey: TRAFFIC AGENCY SURVEY · Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Transit agencies were asked to provide contact information · City of Tacoma Public Works, Washington for traffic agencies with which they work, so that the agen- · City of Eugene, Oregon cies could verify information for the individual transit pref- · City of Bellevue, Washington erential treatments, as well as respond to a separate traffic · Los Angeles DOT, California agency survey. The following sections summarize the results · Utah DOT of the traffic agency survey. The traffic agency survey ques- · City of Everett, Washington
OCR for page 42
42 120% 100% 100% Percent of Agencies 80% 58% 58% 60% 42% 40% 33% 20% 0% 0% Identifying and Designing Constructing Operating and Monitoring No role locating treatments treatments maintaining performance treatments treatments of treatments Role FIGURE 33 Traffic agency roles. · Minnesota DOT (Mn/DOT) again appear to be shared functions. None of the responding · Sacramento County DOT, California agencies indicated they have no role whatsoever in transit pref- · City of Lynnwood, Washington erential treatment development and monitoring. · Philadelphia Streets Department, Pennsylvania · City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Traffic agencies were asked about their perceptions of the impacts of various transit preferential treatments on general Similar to the transit agencies, traffic agencies were asked traffic operations. These perceptions were qualified as major, to indicate what roles they played in the process of develop- mild, or negligible, as identified in Figure 34. Not surpris- ing the transit preferential treatments identified in Figure 33. ingly, the two treatments considered by many to have a major Generally, the traffic agencies verified the transit agency impact were median transitways and exclusive lanes. These responses in indicating they have been more involved in the two treatments take the most ROWs and have the greatest latter phases of implementation, in particular operations and impact on available general traffic capacity. Most remaining maintenance. Again, the traffic agencies rely on the transit treatments were considered to have minor impacts. This is agencies primarily for identifying and locating preferential consistent with the relatively slight timing modifications asso- treatments. In their responses to monitoring the performance ciated with TSP (and its typical application at intersections of treatments, the traffic agencies indicated a higher response operating under capacity), and the limited impact on through owing to their focus on monitoring impacts on general traffic traffic with queue jump/bypass lanes. Limited stops had a conditions of preferential treatments. Design and construction nearly equal perception of minor and negligible impacts, 80% 70% Percent of Agencies 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transitway Other (O) Limited Stops Transit Signal Lanes (EL) Signals (STS) Jump/Bypass Extension Priority (TSP) Lane (QJ/BL) Special Turn Exclusive Median Curb (CE) (MT) Queue (LS) Treatment Type Major Mild Negligible FIGURE 34 Traffic agency perception of transit preferential treatments.
OCR for page 43
43 TABLE 8 LANE WIDTH AND LENGTH TREATMENT Minimum Median Minimum Queue Transitway Width (ft) Jump/Bypass Lane Agency One-Way Two-Way Length (ft) City of Eugene, OR 120 City of Everett, WA 11 22 100 City of Lynnwood, WA 9 20 80 City of Ottawa, ON 14 32 70 Los Angeles DOT 10 14 Mn/DOT 10 300 Philadelphia Streets Department 12 24 Utah DOT 30 which is not surprising given that this treatment has the least the Utah DOT applies activated transit phases and phase rota- impact on general traffic operations. tion and insertion for LRT/streetcars, but not for buses. Traffic agencies were asked to provide geometric informa- Tables 13 and 14 identify the detection methods used tion concerning the minimum width of median transitway lanes for TSP calls for buses and LRT/streetcars, respectively. The and the minimum length of queue jump/bypass lane lengths. most common method is optical/infrared, followed by induc- These data are presented in Table 8. One-way median transit- tive loop sensors. No agency reported using GPS despite its way minimum widths are for the most part between 10 and increasing affordability; however, there are GPS applications 12 ft, whereas for two-way transitways the range is generally in certain cities that did not respond to the survey. greater by a factor of 2 or more. Minimum queue jump/bypass lane lengths varied greatly, but centered mostly around 100 ft. Continuing with TSP data collection, traffic agencies were asked whether they monitor and record TSP events or not. Only Traffic agencies were asked to provide details concerning one-third of the agencies collect such information. When asked their TSP operations. Tables 9 and 10 present the controller further about which events are monitored, all agencies that hardware and TSP software used, if identified, for bus and monitor events collect data concerning proper vehicle detection LRT/streetcar applications, respectively. Generally, cities that and equipment function, as displayed in Figure 35. Only one of have both bus and LRT/streetcars employ the same controllers the four agencies monitoring data indicated that they monitor for both. It is clear that there are a variety of hardware and soft- use of queue jump/bypass lanes. However, this could in part be ware providers to choose from. the result of other agencies not having any queue jump/bypass lanes to monitor. Furthermore, of the agencies that record data, Tables 11 and 12 indicate the types of TSP applied for both all record the number of possible and actual TSP events, as well bus and LRT/streetcar, respectively. All responding agencies as their duration. This is promising as it demonstrates a contin- with TSP use early green and green extension to provide pri- ued desire to maintain and improve TSP by these agencies. ority. Few agencies implement the other approaches, which may tend to be more disruptive, especially when considering Traffic agency respondents were also asked about special coordinated signal systems. It is also interesting to note that actions taken for any of the transit preferential treatments, such TABLE 9 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY EQUIPMENT--BUS Agency Controller Software WSDOT Traconex TMP 390 J8 City of Tacoma Public Works LMD9200 City of Eugene, OR 170 McCain City of Bellevue, WA Econolite ASC/2 35906v1.04 Los Angeles DOT 2070 Los Angeles TPS Module software Utah DOT Econolite ASC/3 ASC/3 City of Everett, WA Currently Multisonic; will be Opticom ID tag will be used upgraded this year to a new for bus priority controller and central system Sacramento County DOT 3M pre-emption with ACTRA signal system City of Lynnwood, WA Naztec 2070 Apogee Philadelphia Streets Dept. 170 Bitrans City of Ottawa, ON Multilek DirX
OCR for page 44
44 TABLE 10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY EQUIPMENT--LRT/STREETCAR Agency Controller Software City of Ottawa, ON Multilek City of Philadelphia Streets Department 170 Bitrans Los Angeles DOT 2070 Minnesota DOT Don't know Don't know Utah DOT Eagle M50 family Siemens NextPhase TABLE 11 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TIMING MODIFICATIONS--BUS Activated Early Green Transit Phase Phase Agency Green Extension Phases Insertion Rotation City of Bellevue, WA x x City of Eugene, OR x x City of Everett, WA x x City of Lynnwood, WA x x City of Ottawa, ON x x x x x City of Philadelphia Streets x x Department City of Tacoma, WA Public Works x x Los Angeles DOT x x x Sacramento County DOT x x Utah DOT x x TABLE 12 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TIMING MODIFICATIONS--LRT/STREETCAR Activated Early Green Transit Phase Phase Agency Green Extension Phases Insertion Rotation City of Philadelphia Streets x x Department Utah DOT x x x x x TABLE 13 TYPE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY DETECTION--BUS Optical/ Inductive Wayside Agency Infrared GPS Loop Wi-Fi Reader Other City of Bellevue, WA x City of Eugene, OR x City of Everett, WA x City of Lynnwood, OR x City of Ottawa, ON x x City of Philadelphia Streets x Department City of Tacoma, WA Public Works x Los Angeles DOT x x Sacramento County DOT x Utah DOT x WSDOT x TABLE 14 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY DETECTION TYPE--LRT/STREETCAR Optical/ Inductive Wayside Agency Infrared GPS Loop Wi-Fi Reader Other City of Philadelphia Streets x Department Utah DOT x x
OCR for page 45
45 120% Percent of Agencies Monitoring Events 100% 100% 100% 80% 60% 40% 25% 20% 0% Proper detection of transit Equipment functioning Use of queue jump/bypass vehicles properly lanes Event FIGURE 35 Traffic agencies monitoring events. as special signing, striping, or design. Table 15 provides a list Clarification of, or the desired enhancements to, existing of these special treatments by agency. transit preferential treatment intergovernmental agreements for the remaining eight agencies are provided in Table 16. Interesting treatments include rail-type signals being used in a block operation for the Eugene BRT and painting of exclu- Finally, traffic agencies were asked to indicate their sive bus lanes in Ottawa. level of support for each of the transit preferential treat- ment types. The results are provided in Figure 36. In gen- Traffic agencies were asked whether there is an inter- eral, most types enjoy major support. Similar to the level governmental agreement with the transit agency concerning of impact, median transitways and exclusive lanes have transit preferential treatments and, if so, whether there are lower levels of major support than the other types. It is any enhancements that would be desirable. Four agencies interesting to note that both curb extensions and special indicated there was no agreement: turn signals have higher levels of "no support" than exclu- sive lanes, even though exclusive lanes generally have · WSDOT greater impacts and cost more. Both TSP and limited stops · Los Angeles DOT did not receive a single vote of "no support" from the · City of Everett, Washington respondents, indicating a high level of acceptance of these · Sacramento County DOT, California approaches. TABLE 15 SPECIAL SIGNING/STRIPING/DESIGN TREATMENTS Agency Treatment City of Bellevue A signal priority loop is marked as "Bus Detector" with a blue light to let operator know the bus has been detected. City of Eugene Queue jumps have separate signal heads and lanes. Exclusive bus lanes are signed appropriately. Rail type signals are used in block protected bi-directional exclusive lanes. City of Lynnwood Signs indicate: Right Lane Must Turn Right Except for Bus City of Ottawa Bus signal signing, experiment with painting lanes red Los Angeles Signing and striping modifications to accommodate for far-side bus stops DOT Minnesota DOT Signs for the bus shoulders and for HOV bypasses. Special diamond striping and overhead changeable message signs for the HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes Philadelphia Streets Only where there is a separate marked area in the center of Girard Avenue for Department the Route 15. Utah DOT At all sites where left turns are allowed from a parallel movement across LRT tracks there are blank-out warning signs that are lit with an image of a train when a train is approaching the intersection. Additionally, at sites where one of two dual left-turn lanes is shared with the LRT trackway, there are blank-out signs warning motorists to stay off the track when a train is approaching from the rear. The signs are not lit if vehicles are already in the lane.
OCR for page 46
46 TABLE 16 TRANSIT AGENCY AGREEMENT ENHANCEMENTS Agency Intergovernmental Agreement Enhancements City of Bellevue Each agreement is more project-specific, and longer ranging and lacking consistency. They appear to be highly variable depending on capital funding available and project manager. City of Eugene The agreement is informal and based on mutual benefit. City of Lynnwood The only comment is that the city has not had any discussions to determine agency-wide desires. There is some desire to add training for central software operation to include analysis and reporting. City of Ottawa Define the number of buses required for treatment levels. City of Tacoma Not sure Public Works Minnesota DOT The real answer is "no," not a written agreement. However, there is an (Mn/DOT) interagency working group called Team Transit that develops ideas and is chaired by Mn/DOT. The working group has developed nearly 300 miles of bus shoulders and many other transit advantages and appears to work well. There is a written policy to provide transit advantages applied to freeways and expressways as appropriate (also in statute). Philadelphia Streets For each project there is an agreement. These three were pilots. Department Utah DOT The agreement at present is informal but is undergoing review with the transit agency and other traffic agencies. It will then be formalized. One enhancement desired by all the participating agencies (traffic and transit) is that no more sites will be constructed with shared trackway/left-turn lanes, because they have been problematic. 80% 70% Percent of Agencies 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transitway Other (O) Limited Stops Transit Signal Lanes (EL) Signals (STS) Jump/Bypass Extension Priority (TSP) Lane (QJ/BL) Special Turn Exclusive Median Curb (CE) (MT) Queue (LS) Treatment Type Major Support Mild Support No Support FIGURE 36 Traffic agency support for transit preferential treatments.