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 13
13 · International Road Research Database (IRRD), The survey questions were pilot tested for usability and clar- · Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development ity by having a remote participant (a staff member from the Library (OECD), Utah Transit Authority) complete the survey using a talking out · FTA publications, loud protocol while on the phone with the research team. The · NTD Safety and Security Reports, purpose of the pilot test was to provide sufficient insight to val- · Historical NTD information, idate the usability of the survey and to determine the approxi- · American Public Transportation Association publications mate time required for completion. Following the user testing (APTA), session, the survey was revised to improve the survey's ease of · Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) library cata- use and clarity. The revised survey was submitted to the Panel logue, for review on October 20, 2006. The final survey incorporating · The European Commission's Transport website (http://ec. the Panel's comments was launched on November 6, 2006. europa.eu/transport/index_en.html), and In addition to developing the survey, the project team iden- · Personal and organization libraries of research team tified a survey contact at agencies across North America. At the members. request of the TCRP Panel, representatives from new LRT sys- tems that were about to become operational were also con- In addition to searching these sources, the research team tacted. In total, 37 transit agencies were asked to participate in attempted to obtain unpublished documents through con- the survey. The location of the agencies contacted is shown in tacts at various North American LRT systems, the FTA, the Figure 2, and the names of the systems are listed in Table 1. Transportation Research Board Committee on Light Rail A list of stakeholders was developed. The list contained 86 Transit (AP075) and the APTA Rail Transit Standards Oper- contacts, and included at least two representatives from each ating Practices Committee. Although some contacts provided of the 37 transit agencies shown in Table 1. It was important reports, the reports they provided had already been reviewed for every agency to have more than one contact in order to facilitate the collection of various types of sample data (e.g., during the initial literature review. As a result, no unpub- collisions, volumes, geometric design, etc.). Before the repre- lished documents were added to the material. sentatives from the various transit agencies were invited to The state of the practice summary documents the most sig- participate in the survey, the survey team made introductory nificant information gathered during the literature review. phone calls to initiate contact. Every individual contact received an initial e-mail invitation Survey of Agencies and a supporting phone call at the start of the survey. The sur- vey was scheduled to run from the beginning of November The Survey of LRT Agencies was a single online survey that until the end of December 2006, but due to a lack of response combined the requirements of Task 2 (LRT Collision Data from the transit agencies during the early stages, the time period Collection) with Task 4 (LRT Innovative Control Devices and was extended until mid-January 2007. To maximize the sur- Applications), Task 5 (Assessment of MUTCD Elements along vey response rate, the research team made follow-up phone LRT Alignments), and Task 6 (LRT and New Technologies). calls to encourage participation from agencies that had not The survey was implemented online to provide easy access to completed or responded to the survey by the end of December. the target agencies dispersed across the United States and The phone calls to LRT agencies continued through early Jan- Canada. The survey content and structure were designed to uary with the last survey response received on January 6, 2007. minimize the burden on participants. In total, survey responses were received from 24 different The survey included questions related to collision data, LRT agencies (Table 2). and questions designed to determine the availability of data. Topics included: Telephone Consultations · LRT and roadway characteristics, In Phase II of the project, the project team began making · Vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume data, consultation calls with representatives from local agencies and · Details of 35 LRT treatments, SSO offices. A list of 22 SSO representatives and 32 local · Observations of risky behavior or near misses between agency representatives was provided by FTA. The 54 represen- LRV and motorists and pedestrians (e.g., videotapes from tatives were contacted between February and May 2008, and CCTV cameras), were asked about the following topics: · Inventory of treatments with dates of implementation, · Use of traffic control elements identified in Chapter 10 of · Data collection practices; the MUTCD, and · Relationship between the SSO and the local agencies over- · Use of new technologies. seen by the SSO;