Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 15

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 14
14 Figure 2. Location of LRT systems in the United States and Canada included in the survey. Data transfer activities (between local agency, NTD, and The site visits gave the project team the opportunity to SSO); observe different safety treatments and problematic locations Availability of data for research purposes; and (as identified by the respective agencies) in situ. They also Interest in participating in the upcoming site visits, where allowed the project team access to the knowledge and experi- appropriate. ence of the experts who run these systems every day. The agencies chosen for the visits were selected from the In total, 14 consultations were completed with representatives 24 agencies that responded to the survey. An initial screening from SSOs and local agencies. Consultations with SSOs focused identified locations that had implemented a number of dif- on the SSO role and data transfer, while calls to agencies focused ferent safety treatments. Different alignment types, histories on procuring additional data, the form of their relationship with of operation, and geographic locations were also targeted. the SSO, and their willingness to participate in site visits. Seven agencies were contacted directly to request site visits. The five agencies who responded and who were visited were: Site Visits 1. Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, Utah; From May to July of 2008, the project team conducted five 2. Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota; site visits to LRT agencies across the United States. The site 3. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line, Hudson County, New visits usually had two components: Jersey; 4. San Francisco Municipal Railroad, San Francisco, Califor- 1. A tour of the LRT system, accompanied by a knowledge- nia; and able agency representative where possible; and 5. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara 2. A meeting with LRT agency staff and other stakeholders as County, California. available. The meetings ranged from informal one-on-one meetings to more formal stakeholder workshops, depend- A complete summary of the findings of the five site visits is ing on the agency's preference and availability. included in Appendix D.