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 88
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 89
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 90
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 91
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 92
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 93
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 94
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 95
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 96
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 97
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 127
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 128
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 129
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 130
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 131
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 132
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 133
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 134
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 135
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 136
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 137
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
