Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 16


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 15
15 Table 1. List of LRT systems surveyed. Map No. Locations System 1. Austin, TX ASG (Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority All Systems Go!) (Proposed system with construction scheduled to start in summer 2006. The system was tested in Spring 2009 and was not yet in service at the time of publication.) 2. Baltimore, MD MTA-MD (Maryland Transit Administration) 3. Boston, MA MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) 4. Buffalo, NY NFTA (Niagara Frontier Transit Authority) 5. Camden, NJ NJT (New Jersey Transit River LINE) 6. Cleveland, OH GCRTA (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority) 7. Dallas, TX DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) 8. Denver, CO RTD (Regional Transit District) 9. Galveston, TX GIT(Galveston Island Transit) 10. Houston, TX Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) 11. Jersey City, NJ NJT-HBLR (New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail) 12. Kenosha, WI KT (Kenosha Transit) 13. Los Angeles, CA LACMTA (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 14. Memphis, TN MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authority) 15. Minneapolis, MN MT (Metro Transit) 16. New Orleans, LA NORTA (New Orleans Regional Transit Authority) 17. Newark, NJ NJT-NCS (New Jersey Transit Newark City Subway) 18. Norfolk, VA HRT (Hampton Roads Transit) (Currently under construction. Expected completion date is in early 2009) 19. Philadelphia, PA SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) 20. Pittsburgh, PA PAAC (Port Authority of Allegheny County) 21. Portland, OR TriMet (Portland TriMet) 22. Sacramento, CA SRTD (Sacramento Regional Transit District) 23. Saint Louis, MO/IL BSDA (Bi-State Development Agency) 24. Salt Lake City, UT UTA (Utah Transit Authority) 25. San Diego, CA SDTI (San Diego Trolley Inc.) 26. San Diego, CA NCTD (North County Transit District) 27. San Francisco, CA SF Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway) 28. San Jose, CA SCVTA (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) 29. Seattle, WA WFSC (King County Metro) 30. Tacoma, WA ST (Sound Transit, Link) 31. Tampa, FL HART (Hillsborough Area Regional Transit) 32. Calgary, Alberta C-Train 33. Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton Transit System 34. Ottawa, Ontario O-Train (diesel-powered pilot project) 35. Toronto, Ontario TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) Streetcars 36. Vancouver, British Columbia CLCO (Canada Line Rapid Transit Link RAV Line) 37. Waterloo, Ontario Region of Waterloo (Waterloo LRT) (In the environmental assessment stage ) State of the Practice Summary tifies the top safety issues, and LRT Safety Treatments provides basic information about the types of treatments available to TCRP Report 69 indicated that LRT systems in North LRT agencies. America are generally safe. A crash at any given crossing is a rare event, but when a collision occurs at an LRT crossing, the LRT Exposure to Pedestrians outcome is often severe (1). The following sections provide and Motor Vehicles information about current safety practices along the LRT alignment. LRT Exposure to Pedestrians and Motor Vehicles A number of TCRP research projects have discussed safety describes the influence of LRT exposure. The next section iden- in the LRT alignment. TCRP Report 17 (TCRP Project A-05)

OCR for page 15
16 Table 2. List of LRT agencies responding to the online survey. Map No. Locations System 2. Baltimore, MD MTA-MD (Maryland Transit Administration) 5. Camden, NJ NJT (New Jersey Transit River LINE) 8. Denver, CO RTD (Regional Transit District) 10. Houston, TX Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) 11. Jersey City, NJ NJT-HBLR (New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail) 12. Kenosha, WI KT (Kenosha Transit) 13. Los Angeles, CA LACMTA (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 14. Memphis, TN MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authority) 15. Minneapolis, MN MT (Metro Transit) 19. Philadelphia, PA SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) 20. Pittsburgh, PA PAAC (Port Authority of Allegheny County) 21. Portland, OR TriMet (Portland TriMet) 22. Sacramento, CA SRTD (Sacramento Regional Transit District) 23. Saint Louis, MO/IL BSDA (Bi-State Development Agency) 24. Salt Lake City, UT UTA (Utah Transit Authority) 25. San Diego, CA SDTI (San Diego Trolley Inc.) 26. San Diego, CA NCTD (North County Transit District) 27. San Francisco, CA SF Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway) 28. San Jose, CA SCVTA (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) 29. Seattle, WA WFSC (King County Metro) 30. Tacoma, WA ST (Sound Transit, Link) 32. Calgary, Alberta C-Train 33. Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton Transit System 35. Toronto, Ontario TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) Streetcars focused on light rail operating on-street at low to moderate 2. Type b. Semi-exclusive alignments keep the LRT apart from speeds, while TCRP Report 69 (TCRP Project A-13) investi- road vehicles and pedestrians, except where road vehicles gated light rail safety for operations in semi-exclusive rights-of- and pedestrians intersect at an at-grade crossing. Operating way at speeds greater than 55 km/h (35 mph). TCRP Project speeds on segments that do not have automatic crossing D-09 provided more general information about the design of gates are governed by vehicle speed limits on the streets or transit vehicles and facilities, both bus and light rail. Several highways. On Type b segments where the right-of-way is other studies of specific safety problems and treatments have fenced, operating speeds are maximized (based on geomet- been published by TCRP and other organizations. ric limits), but these higher speeds are typically maintained LRT alignments are typically categorized into three right-of- only for short distances, often on segments between grade way types for planning purposes. These classifications are also crossings. used for operations and safety. TCRP Reports 17 and 69 and 3. Type c. Non-exclusive alignments allow for mixed flow TCRP Project D-09 used this classification system to distin- operation with motor vehicles or pedestrians, resulting in guish between different types of light rail alignments. The clas- higher levels of operating conflicts and lower-speed oper- sification system is useful because the type of alignment and the ations. Non-exclusive alignments are often found in down- resulting level of exposure to vehicles and/or pedestrians have town areas where there is a willingness to forgo operating significant safety implications. speeds in order to access areas with high population den- TCRP Report 17 provides this information about the three sity and many potential riders. basic alignment classes (2): Table 3 summarizes the alignment classification set out 1. Type a. Exclusive alignments use full grade separation of in TCRP Report 69 (1). That report provides more detailed both motor vehicle and pedestrian crossing facilities. descriptions of each subcategory. Exclusive alignments eliminate grade crossings and oper- TCRP Report 17 considered the safety issues and implica- ating conflicts, and maximize safety and operating speeds. tions associated with the different types of light rail alignment,