Click for next page ( 88


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 87
87 APPENDIX A Transit Agency Survey and Responses

OCR for page 87
88 TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY TCRP J-7/SA-22 - Bus and Rail Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic Environments This page shows all the questions on a single page to help your agency determine who should answer the survey. When you are ready to begin the survey, use the link here or at the bottom to go back to the start page Page 1 1. Has your agency been involved with implementin g any of the followin g preferential treatments for bu s or LRT/streetcar operation s on the street system in your urban area? (Check all that apply) Median Transitway (MT) Exclusive Lanes (EL) Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Special Turn Signals (STS) Queue Jump/Bypass Lane (QJ/BL) Curb Extension (CE) Limited Stops (LS) Other (O) Identify: Page 2 Tran sit Preferential Treatment Application s You will be asked to complete a table of all transit preferential treatments your agency has implemented. The following questions apply to each transit preferential treatment. Add a new treatment: Please fill in the information below. You may only add one treatment type per entry, but please group similar treatments along a corridor if the are in proximity to one another. You are also asked to locate each treatment on a map. Use pins for point treatments (e.g. intersections) and lines for linear treatments (e.g. exclusive transit lanes). For example, if your agency employs TSP along a corridor, please draw pins at each intersection along the corridor for which TSP is applied. To draw point treatments, click the pin icon, then click the map on the point where the treatment is located. For linear treatments, click the polyline button and draw the line on the map, clicking once for each point in the line. Double-click to stop drawing the line. It you make a mistake, click the 'Clear Map' link to clear the map. You can pan (move) the map while drawing treatments by holding the mouse button down while dragging the mouse.

OCR for page 87
89 Answer the questions you know - traffic/roadway Enter the treatment location(s) on the map. Use pins agencies will be asked later to provide answers to for point treatments (e.g. intersections) and lines for those you do not know. linear treatments (e.g. exclusive transit lanes). Transit Type: Clear Map Treatment Type: If other, Identify: Street: Year Built: Direction of Treatment: Please answer the remaining questions with respect to the number of directions indicated above. Peak Hour Transit Volume: Transit vph Off-Peak Transit Volume: Transit vph Daily Traffic Volume: Peak Hour LOS: Captial Cost: $ Annual O & M Cost: $ Map data 2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of Use Travel Time Savings: % Reduction in Travel Time Variability: % Average Daily Ridership: Impact on General Traffic Operations: Page 3 2. What warrants have you applied in identifyin g the need for different tran sit preferential treatments for bu s or LRT/streetcar operation s on your street system? (e.g. particular tran sit service headway, ridership, delay, reliability, traffic volumes, level of service, other) Bus Operations Median Transitway (MT) Exclusive Lanes (EL) Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Special Turn Signals (STS) Queue Jump/Bypass Lane (QJ/BL) Curb Extension (CE) Limited Stops (LS) Other (O)

OCR for page 87
90 LRT/Streetcar Operations Median Transitway (MT) Exclusive Lanes (EL) Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Special Turn Signals (STS) Queue Jump/Bypass Lane (QJ/BL) Curb Extension (CE) Limited Stops (LS) Other (O) Page 4 3. What types of priority are applied at your tran sit signal priority preferential treatments? (Check all that apply) Active Treatments: Unconditional Conditional - Vehicle behind schedule Conditional - Vehicle with certain on-board volume Conditional - Other Identify: Passive Treatments: Signal Coordination Other Identify: 4. What is the role of your agency related to tran sit preferential treatment development in your service area? (Check all that apply) Identifying and locating treatments Designing treatments Constructing treatments Operating and maintaining treatments Monitoring performance of treatments No role

OCR for page 87
91 Page 5 5. Does your agency have a comprehen sive tran sit preferential treatment program in place which guides the development and implementation of different treatments associated with bu s and LRT/streetcar operation s? Yes No 6. Is there an agreement in place with the local traffic en gineerin g jurisdiction related to the development, operation, and/or maintenance of tran sit preferential treatments? Yes No 7. Do you obtain public input/approval before tran sit preferential treatments are implemented? Yes No If yes, what public forum? (e.g. meeting, mailout) 8. Please provide a contact e-mail address for each traffic agency with which you cooperate on tran sit preferential treatments. Choose someone who is likely to be able to an swer any blank section s in the table you filled out for each treatment. Please separate each address with a comma. << Back to the start page

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q1 - Q2 - Bus Treatment Warrants ID Agency Name Service Treatments Q1 - Other MT EL TSP 1 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. James Mathien lrt mt, tsp, 2 Fresno Area Express Jeff Long bus o Bus only turn lanes Capital District Kristina 3 bus tsp, qj, ce, ls, Ridership, reliability, headway Transportation Authority Younger Halifax Regional 4 Dave Reage bus tsp, sts, qj, ls, Municipality - Metro Transit Charles mt, el, tsp, sts, qj, 5 Metro Transit both Carlson ce, ls, Delay due Red Signal, Number of times Bus Stops due to Taqhi redlight. Travel time saving 6 Pace bus tsp, qj, ls, o Shoulder Lanes Mohammed Potential including frequency of bus as mojor factor, schedule adherence and Bus occupancy 7 Lane Transit District Graham Carey bus mt, el, tsp, qj, ls, Some short bus lanes have No warrants required - TSP is Neil Bus Only 8 Calgary Transit both el, tsp, sts, qj, ls, o been constructed on a case implemented on longer high McKendrick Crossings by case basis. volume bus routes Jim Book / Unique Station 9 Valley Metro RPTA Ratna bus tsp, qj, ls, o Delay Design Korepella Central Florida Regional traffic LOS, individual 10 Transportation Authority Doug Jamison bus el, tsp, passenger trips (dba LYNX)

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q2 - Bus Treatment Warrants ID Agency STS QJ/BL CE LS OTHER 1 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. 2 Fresno Area Express Capital District 3 bus volume ridership, reliability Transportation Authority Halifax Regional 4 Municipality - Metro Transit 5 Metro Transit Queue Length, Cycle failures to buses,Delay due Red Signal, Number of times Bus Stops due to redlight. On & offs, dwell time, bus 6 Pace Travel time saving Potential including travel time, density and frequency of bus as major factor, walk time. schedule adherence and Bus occupancy 7 Lane Transit District Bus only crossings - physical barriers or gates Limited stop routes are that allow bus passage No warrants required - No warrants required - case by case provided on an as required 8 Calgary Transit between communities is case by case application application basis in response to established at the demand community road network planning stage 9 Valley Metro RPTA Delay Central Florida Regional 10 Transportation Authority (dba LYNX)

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q2 - LRT/Streetcar Treatment Warrants ID Agency MT EL TSP STS QJ/BL CE LS OTHER 1 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. 2 Fresno Area Express Capital District 3 Transportation Authority Halifax Regional 4 Municipality - Metro Transit 5 Metro Transit 6 Pace 7 Lane Transit District LRT operates within a 7th Ave S is a transit mall protected, exclusive right LRT has preemption over with access restricted to 8 Calgary Transit of way except in the traffic signals outside of LRT, buses and downtown (see exclusive the downtown core. emergency vehicles lanes) 9 Valley Metro RPTA Central Florida Regional 10 Transportation Authority (dba LYNX)

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q3 - Passive - Q4 - Agency Q7 - Public Forum? ID Agency Q3 TSP Types Q3 Active - Other Other Role Q5 Q6 Y/N If Yes, Type predictive priority; early design, construct, 1 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. a_cond-other, green, green extension, No No No o/m, phase insertion planning, design, 2 Fresno Area Express no_tsp No No Yes meeting, mailout o/m, Capital District a_cond-behind, planning, design, open houses, meetings, mailouts, e-blast 3 No Yes Yes Transportation Authority p_sgnl_coord, performance, newsletters Halifax Regional a_uncond, a_cond- Red truncation/green 4 planning, No Yes No Municipality - Metro Transit other, extension 5 Metro Transit a_uncond, planning, No Yes Yes Public Meetings a_cond-behind, planning, design, Signal Timming 6 Pace p_sgnl_coord, construct, o/m, Yes Yes No Optimization p_other performance, planning, design, 7 Lane Transit District a_uncond, No Yes Yes workshops, charrettes and meetings construct, a_uncond, planning, design, 8 Calgary Transit No Yes No p_sgnl_coord, performance, planning, design, a_cond-behind, 9 Valley Metro RPTA construct, No Yes Yes meetings p_sgnl_coord, performance, Central Florida Regional a_uncond, a_cond- addition of transit phase is 10 Transportation Authority none No Yes Yes public meetings other, vehicle present (dba LYNX)

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q1 - Q2 - Bus Treatment Warrants ID Agency Name Service Treatments Q1 - Other MT EL TSP Los Angeles County Traffic Signal Bruce 11 Metropolitan Transportation both tsp, o Priority = Shelburne Authority Synchronization Transit Signal delay greater 12 Pierce Transit Tina Lee bus tsp, qj, than 10 sec. bus volumes; loads; 13 TriMet Young Park both el, tsp, qj, ce, ls, location of supporting bus bus volumes; delay factors stops Delay, level of service, need New Orleans Regional Edward J. Delay, level of service, need to 14 both mt, el, sts, ce, to maintain on time Transit Authority Bayer maintain on time performance performance Transit Authority of River 15 Carrie Butler bus City benefit to transit on busy routes was sufficient to remove a pro-transit policy, assisted pro-transit policy, assisted vehicle and still provide same Toronto Transit mt, el, tsp, sts, qj, by the fact that transit lanes by the fact that transit lanes 16 Gary Carr both no. of vehicle passes per hour, Commission ls, carry as many people as a carry as many people as a justifying the cost was the intial full auto lane full auto lane justificaiton - later it was simply seen as a proper pro-transit tool 17 Nashville MTA Jim McAteer bus Central Arkansas Transit 18 Eric Meyerson both tsp, none none none Authority San Francisco Municipal mt, el, tsp, sts, qj, Boarding Island, Transit ridership, Street Transit ridership, Street 19 Javad Mirabdal both Signal delay, Ridership Transportation Agency ce, ls, o Turn Restriction width, Traffic volume width,Traffic volume Benefit/Cost Analysis, LOS Benefit/Cost Analysis, Delay Ellen HOV lane, Parking 20 King County Metro Transit both el, tsp, qj, ce, ls, o Study, transit headways 10 Study, LOS Analysis (LOS Bevington Restrictions bus/hr or greater B-E)

OCR for page 87
Transit Agency Responses Q2 - Bus Treatment Warrants ID Agency STS QJ/BL CE LS OTHER Los Angeles County 11 Metropolitan Transportation Authority 12 Pierce Transit None bus volumes; loads; location of bus volumes; stop activity - 13 TriMet type of service supporting bus stops ons/offs New Orleans Regional 14 Transit Authority Transit Authority of River 15 City just a transit agency Toronto Transit decision given that a 16 a good pro-transit tool justified on case-by-case basis Commission parallel local service also provided 17 Nashville MT A Central Arkansas Transit 18 none none none travel time Authority San Francisco Municipal Accomodate special Change from exclusive to mix flow, Before and after loading 19 Closely located stops Transportation Agency transit movement Accomodate special transit movement delay, Access to bus stop Delay Study, City's LT Delay Study, Benefit/Cost Analysis, Delay Study, Pilot project Delay Study, Parking 20 King County Metro Transit signalization warrant, LOS Analysis with before/after study Utilization Study LOS Analysis

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations 110 King County Metro Transit 8,150 111 King County Metro Transit 1,360 112 King County Metro Transit 9,150 Bus turns left from Right Turning Lane at T-intersection; Minimal impact on other traffic; Travel Time 113 OC Transpo $0 540 5 5 Savings and Reduction in Travel Time Variability are in minutes (not percentage)for each time bus recieves priority 114 OC Transpo 2,912 75 70 Minimal impact on other traffic; Bus exists from highway only when signalled by waiting passengers Daily traffic volume shown is for EB direction; Buses recieve priority using Transit Priority Signal 115 OC Transpo $0 604 3 3 Indicator (TPSI) or White Vertical Bar; Travel Time (TT) Savings and Reduction in TT Variability shown are in minutes; Minimal impact on other traffic Traffic volume shown is for WB direction; Travel Time (TT) Savings and Reduction in TT Variability 116 OC Transpo $0 1,347 4 8 shown are in minutes; Stop bar for general traffic relocated allow buses to merge in front of queue; No impact on general traffic Traffic Volume shown is for WB direction Travel Time Savings & Reduction in TT Variability shown are in minutes and for each time bus recieve priority Curb Lane designated as Bus Lane. Buses 117 OC Transpo 3 3 recieve priority using Transit Priority Signal Indicator (TPSI) or White Vertical Bar Some capacity removed from general traffic Daily Traffic Volume shown is for SB direction; LOS shown is for SB approach; Bus continues in 118 OC Transpo 1,618 3 3 Right Turn laneto bypass congested Left Turn + Straight lane; Minimal impact on other traffic Traffic volume shown is for WB direction; Travel Time (TT) Savings and Reduction in TT Variability 119 OC Transpo 819 3 3 shown are in minutes and for each time bus recieves priority; bus has seperate lane with Transit Signal Priority Indicator (TPSI) or White Vertical Bar; minimal impact on other traffic Traffic volume shown is for EB direction; LOS service is for EB approach; Travel Time (TT) Savings 120 OC Transpo 1,751 5 5 and Reduction in TT Variability shown are in minutes each time bus recives priority; Right Turn traffic queue relocated to centre lane; None for traffic. This is part of a "pull-off lane" that was constructed adjacent to Metro-Rail's Capital Metropolitan Crestview station to allow train to bus transfers. The lane is coordinated with a traffic signal to allow 121 7,500 5 Transportation Authority buses to proceed ahead of SB traffic. For some inputs above, I do not have the exact figures (LOS, Capital, Annual O&M, Travel Variability). 122 York Region Transit $0 15,500 No impact 123 York Region Transit 10,000 No impact These were put in along with the lane previously described. The paving was on 586 from Twinbrook Mountgomery County [MD] 124 7,500 Parkway south. While the lane is SB, the bypass lanes (one of which is shared, but striped in a way Transit aka Ride On that does effectively keep most cars out) are NB.

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications Treat- Peak Hour Offpeak Average Peak ment Description Year Transit Hourly Daily Hour ID Agency Service Type (if Other) Street Built Direction Volume Volume Traffic LOS Capital Cost regional transportation 125 bus qj Virginia Street 2009 two-way 12 6 E commission of Washoe County Regional Transportation E Alameda Ave & Colorado 126 bus qj 1998 one-way 12 4 District Blvd Regional Transportation E Colfax Ave & Colorado 127 bus qj 1990 two-way 32 20 District Blvd 128 Metro Transit bus sts Cedar Avenue 2008 one-way 20 129 Lane Transit District bus sts East 11th/Mill 2006 two-way 12 12 130 King County Metro Transit bus sts Grady Way 2004 one-way 52 39 43,000 131 King County Metro Transit bus sts Winona Ave N 2005 one-way 8 4 132 King County Metro Transit bus sts SR-900 2008 one-way 20 13 133 OC Transpo bus sts Richmond & DuMaurier 1999 one-way 2 2 D $3,000 Capital District Transportation 134 bus tsp NY5 2004 two-way 12 10 35,000 D Authority Halifax Regional Municipality - North Street to MacDonald 135 bus tsp one-way 42 19 Metro Transit Bridge Halifax Regional Municipality - Mumford Road @ Terminal 136 bus tsp one-way 46 22 Metro Transit Exit Halifax Regional Municipality - Beaverbank Connector/Old 137 bus tsp 2005 one-way 6 2 Metro Transit Sackville Rd Halifax Regional Municipality - 138 bus tsp Windmill Rd./Akerley Bl. 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 139 bus tsp Windmill Rd./Wright Av 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 140 bus tsp Windmill Rd/Victoria Rd 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - Portland @ Spring / 141 bus tsp 2005 two-way 16 4 Metro Transit Portland Estates Bl Halifax Regional Municipality - 142 bus tsp Portland @ Carver/Eisener 2005 two-way 16 4 Metro Transit

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations both the TSP and QJ/BL on Virginia is in the planning stage. The planning will be completed by the end of 2009. Implementation will take place when funding is available, 2010-2012? The form above regional transportation 125 would not allow a future year for "year built". Also the AADT for this street is 32,000. When I entered commission of Washoe County that number in the daily traffic volume it gives me an error message of "please enter a valid integer", so I left it blank. Regional Transportation 126 2,000 District Regional Transportation 127 22,000 District Bus only left turn to WB TH62. Buses not subject to queue for congested loop from NB Cedar. 128 Metro Transit Minimal impact on SB traffic from Cedar Ave. 129 Lane Transit District Minimal impact on traffic operations. 130 King County Metro Transit 3,443 131 King County Metro Transit 2,810 LT signal can be used by general traffic. 132 King County Metro Transit 1,240 New Construction. LOS shown is for the approch road. Double Loops installed for 1/2 signal operation. Minimal impact 133 OC Transpo $0 216 50 50 on general traffic Forced entries above do not present an accurate picture. The 17-mile corridor varies in traffic volume Capital District Transportation 134 9,500 from 12000 to 45000 ADT; some intersections are at A, some are at F. 0's on benefits because we Authority don't know. Issues with our AVL system reliability have stymied the data collection. Halifax Regional Municipality - 135 19,575 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 136 13,438 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 137 762 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 138 1,524 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 139 1,524 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 140 1,524 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 141 1,429 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 142 1,429 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications Treat- Peak Hour Offpeak Average Peak ment Description Year Transit Hourly Daily Hour ID Agency Service Type (if Other) Street Built Direction Volume Volume Traffic LOS Capital Cost Halifax Regional Municipality - Portland @ Highway 111 143 bus tsp 2005 two-way 16 4 Metro Transit NB Ramp Halifax Regional Municipality - Portland @ Sears 144 bus tsp 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Driveway/Evergreen Halifax Regional Municipality - 145 bus tsp Portland @ Gaston 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 146 bus tsp Portland @ Pleasant 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - Portland @ Prince 147 bus tsp 2005 two-way 12 4 Metro Transit Albert/Alderney 148 Metro Transit lrt tsp Hiawatha Ave 2003 two-way 8 6 32,000 East 10th, East 11th, 149 Lane Transit District bus tsp 2005 two-way 12 12 Franklin Boulevard 150 Valley Metro RPTA bus tsp Main Street, Arizona Ave 2009 two-way 4 2 35,000 D $37,000,000 Los Angeles County Synchronizatio 151 Metropolitan Transportation lrt tsp Marmion Way 2003 two-way 16 8 n Authority Los Angeles County Synchronizatio Washington Blvd. - Flower 152 Metropolitan Transportation lrt tsp 1990 two-way 24 10 n St. Authority 153 Pierce Transit bus tsp Pacific Avenue 2003 two-way 154 Pierce Transit bus tsp 19th Street 2003 two-way 155 Pierce Transit bus tsp 6th AVenue 2004 two-way 156 Pierce Transit bus tsp South Tacoma Way 2004 two-way 157 Pierce Transit bus tsp 56th Street 2004 two-way

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations Halifax Regional Municipality - 143 1,429 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 144 1,283 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 145 1,283 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 146 1,283 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit Halifax Regional Municipality - 147 1,283 MetroLink BRT Only Metro Transit TSP not running on Hiawatha due to unresolved issues. LRT now uses preemption at all signals along Hiawatha (except at Lake Street due to grade seperation). Traffic operations have been 148 Metro Transit $0 suffering due to preemption every 3 1/2 minutes during peak hours. Some movements can wait up to 7 minutes before they get a green. 149 Lane Transit District Transit Priority has not adversely impacted general traffic operations 150 Valley Metro RPTA 2,000 33 10 We would anticipate that the impact on the general traffic would be in the vicinity of 15% Metro Gold Line. Street run segment on Marmion Way. Traffic Signals are set to detect a LRV, then Los Angeles County phasing will start and carry through the seven block section for train movement at 20 mph. If two 151 Metropolitan Transportation 24,000 trains enter at the same time (opposite directions), there is good probability that the second train will Authority be delayed for 15-20 seconds at an intersection while the systems cycles. Travel time savings and normal variability is 0%, as the system was designed with this feature. Signal synchronization was placed into service approximately 1993, after the Metro Blue Line opened in 1990. Traffic signals were phased to allow for trains to move from Washington Bl. and Long Beach Ave., on Washington Bl., then on Flower St., at a rate of approximately 33 miles per hour, for the most Los Angeles County part without stopping. There is a section of the street run that has city blocks that cannot store a three 152 Metropolitan Transportation 80,000 8 50 car train...at those locations, the traffic signal system will detect the length of the train and Authority momentarily hold the phasing if the train is delayed for whatever reason. This prevents trains that are delayed from blocking traffic at several intersections. Very successful. Saves 4 minutes running time in each direction (previous running time was 59 minutes) 153 Pierce Transit 154 Pierce Transit 155 Pierce Transit 156 Pierce Transit 157 Pierce Transit

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications Treat- Peak Hour Offpeak Average Peak ment Description Year Transit Hourly Daily Hour ID Agency Service Type (if Other) Street Built Direction Volume Volume Traffic LOS Capital Cost 158 Pierce Transit bus tsp Bridgeport Way 2005 two-way 159 Pierce Transit bus tsp SR-7 2005 two-way 160 King County Metro Transit bus tsp Lake City Way NE 2007 two-way 20 4 37,000 161 King County Metro Transit bus tsp Rainier Ave S 1999 two-way 14 7 33,000 162 King County Metro Transit bus tsp 1st Ave S 2004 two-way 14 6 24,000 163 King County Metro Transit bus tsp Rainier Ave / Grady Way 2004 two-way 52 39 44,000 164 King County Metro Transit bus tsp Aurora Ave N 2001 two-way 8 4 40,000 165 King County Metro Transit bus tsp NE 124th St 2008 two-way 166 King County Metro Transit bus tsp Bellevue Way SE 2006 two-way 16 12 38,700 Highway 417 EB Off Ramp 167 OC Transpo bus tsp 1999 one-way 54 5 2,324 C $5,000 and Moodie Dr. 168 OC Transpo bus tsp Holly Acres and Tranistway 2000 one-way 21 10 6,996 A $4,000 169 OC Transpo bus tsp Iris and Transitway 1994 two-way 78 29 6,675 A $15,000 170 OC Transpo bus tsp Woodroffe & Meadowlands 2000 one-way 58 14 16,701 E $10,000 171 OC Transpo bus tsp Woodroffe & Knoxdale 2005 two-way 48 10 31,672 F $15,000 172 OC Transpo bus tsp Heron & Bronson 2001 one-way 29 11 12,400 C St. Joseph & Place D' 173 OC Transpo bus tsp 2001 one-way 8 8 8,296 B $7,500 Orleans 174 OC Transpo bus tsp Richmond & Golden 2005 one-way 6 5 7,224 A $8,500

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations 158 Pierce Transit 159 Pierce Transit 160 King County Metro Transit 8,280 161 King County Metro Transit 1,820 162 King County Metro Transit 6,340 163 King County Metro Transit 5,720 164 King County Metro Transit 5,720 5 165 King County Metro Transit This intersection is the only stop between freeway to the South and two arterials that "y" into the road. 166 King County Metro Transit 6,230 20 Anytime this signal stops mainline it causes some queues that during peak can extend up both arterials. TSP hasn't seemed to drastically impact this queue length. 167 OC Transpo $0 2,912 75 70 NS traffic is affected to some extent due to Signal pre-emption for buses 168 OC Transpo $0 3,449 15 15 Minimal impact due to low traffic volume on intersecting street Advance detection and green extension for buses; Peak hour & Off Peak Hr transit volumes shown 169 OC Transpo $0 27,978 25 25 are for per direction; Traffic volume shown is for E&W directions for intersecting street; traffic on intersecting street is impacted when buses recieve priority Buses recieve priority using Transit Priority Signal Indicator (TPSI) or White Vertical Bar; Buses 170 OC Transpo $0 14,160 10 10 operate on exclusive bus lanes; Daily Traffic Volume shown is for NB direction only; When bus recieves priority, SBL traffic is penelized which is heavy during PM Peak Period NS buses are detected in advance and Green extension is provided to give priority to buses; Transit 171 OC Transpo $0 28,267 15 15 volume shown is for one direction; Daily Traffic volume shown is for NS directions Traffic volume shown is for EB direction; Travel Time (TT) Savings and Reduction in TT variability 172 OC Transpo 2 2 shown are in minutes (not percentage) each time bus recieves priority; Buses move from right lane to left lane on dedicated transit signal phase; some capacity removed from general traffic 173 OC Transpo $0 1,063 Traffic volume shown is for EB direction; Traffic volume shown is for EB direction; Travel Time (TT) Savings and Reduction in TT variability 174 OC Transpo $0 1,136 2 2 shown are in minutes and for each time bus recieves priority; EB curb lane designated as Right Turn Lane with Buses excepted

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications Treat- Peak Hour Offpeak Average Peak ment Description Year Transit Hourly Daily Hour ID Agency Service Type (if Other) Street Built Direction Volume Volume Traffic LOS Capital Cost Woddroffe & Sportsplex 175 OC Transpo bus tsp 2005 one-way 41 8 21,084 E $7,500 South 176 OC Transpo bus tsp Richmond & Island Park 2006 two-way 6 4 6,697 C $10,000 177 OC Transpo bus tsp March & Herzberg 2008 one-way 4 0 12,339 B $2,500 400 South Corridor - 178 Utah Transit Authority lrt tsp 2001 two-way 8 10 22,000 University Line Fort Worth Transportation 179 bus tsp Lancaster Ave. 2008 two-way 7 5 $250,000 Authority Memphis Area Transit 180 lrt tsp Main Street 2006 two-way 12 12 3,500 A $53,000 Authority Memphis Area Transit 181 lrt tsp Madison Avenue 2004 two-way 12 6 8,000 A $100,000 Authority Memphis Area Transit Front St. & Tennessee 182 lrt tsp 1997 one-way 6 6 0 A $60,000 Authority (Riverfront Line) 183 Community Transit bus tsp State Route 99 2003 two-way 10 6 37,500 D $2,789,700 184 Chicago Transit Authority bus tsp Western Ave. 2009 two-way 24 12 $500,000 185 York Region Transit bus tsp Yonge Street, 2005 two-way 24 10 50,000 E $825,000 186 York Region Transit bus tsp Highway 7 2005 two-way 12 8 65,000 E $1,170,000

OCR for page 87
Indi vidual Transit Pref erential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations Traffic volume shown is for NS directions; buses are detected in advance and traffic signal is pre- 175 OC Transpo 5,949 45 70 empted to provide priority to buses; NS traffic is impacted as a result of pre-emption Daily Traffic Volume shown is for E&W traffic; minimal impact on other traffic; buses are detected in 176 OC Transpo 963 15 15 advance and green extension is provided in order to give priority to buses Daily Traffic Volume shown is for NS direction; DOuble loop is provided to detect SBL turning buses 177 OC Transpo 43 40 40 and signal is pre-empted to provide priority to buses; minimla impact on other traffic Impacts vary from intersection to intersection. The 400 South corridor is a major arterial with 6 traffic lanes plus left turn and dual left turn lanes. Shared left turn lanes exist in 5 locations. The 400 South corridor is also a coordinated corridor with cross coordination in many locations. Most trains follow the green-band along the corridor and receive background TSP. Impacts to traffic include, early 178 Utah Transit Authority 20,000 20 termination for cross streets, green extensions at most locations, swapping of lead/lag left turns, queue jumps, and shared left turn lane treatements. Because the streets are very wide, pedestrian crossing times are high, dictating a high cycle length and limiting the amount of priority that can be given within that cycle. Locations near the CBD which a Fort Worth Transportation 179 Authority The project results in very minor impacts on general traffic operation. However, it aids transit vehicle operation during downtown special events, such as concerts and NBA basketball games when the Memphis Area Transit 180 $1,500 1,300 5 10 roadway and transit system experience high volumes of vehicular and tranist use. The transit signal Authority priority allows transit vehciles (LRT Streetcars) to navigate congested intersections and helps maintain time schedules and headways. Memphis Area Transit The City of Memphis has not programmed the signals to allow additional time for transit vehicles. 181 $1,500 550 0 0 Authority Signal pre-emption is available for emergency vehicles. Memphis Area Transit Signal detection devices are used for safety warning devices for automobiles and railroad crossing 182 $1,000 1,200 0 0 Authority detection and gate activation. 183 Community Transit $30,000 4,200 16.3 27 184 Chicago Transit Authority Scheduled for implemenation Summer 2009 185 York Region Transit $24,000 15,500 5 There are 55 signalized intersections with traffic signal priority. Negligable impact on traffic operations There are 78 signalized intersections with traffic signal priority. Negligable impact on general traffic 186 York Region Transit $36,000 10,000 5 operations.

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications Treat- Peak Hour Offpeak Average Peak ment Description Year Transit Hourly Daily Hour ID Agency Service Type (if Other) Street Built Direction Volume Volume Traffic LOS Capital Cost Chattanooga Area Regional 187 bus tsp Shallowford/Gunbarrel 2001 two-way 5 3 22,575 D $200,000 Transportation Authority Maryland Transit 188 lrt tsp Howard Street 2007 two-way $2,000,000 Administration regional transportation 189 bus tsp Virginia Street 2009 two-way E commission of Washoe County 190 SEPTA lrt tsp Lancaster, Lansdowne, 63rd 2000 two-way 191 SEPTA lrt tsp girard 2005 two-way 192 SEPTA bus tsp 52nd, 54th 2006 two-way Regional Transportation 193 lrt tsp Stout St/California St 1994 two-way 18 16 $100,000,000 District

OCR for page 87
Individual Transit Preferential Treatment Applications % Travel % Decrease in Annual O/M Time Travel Time ID Agency Cost Ridership Savings Variability Impact on General Traffic Operations Chattanooga Area Regional 187 1,800 Transportation Authority Maryland Transit 188 33,000 Administration regional transportation 189 commission of Washoe County 190 SEPTA 191 SEPTA 192 SEPTA Regional Transportation 193 50,000 25 50 District