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.
