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 57
57 Table 32. LRT alignment classification. Class Category Description of Access Control Exclusive Type a Fully grade separated or at-grade without crossings Type b.1 Separate right-of-way Semi-exclusive Shared right-of-way, protected by barrier curbs and Type b.2 fences (or other substantial barriers) Type b.3 Shared right-of-way, protected by barrier curbs Shared right-of-way, protected by mountable curbs, Type b.4 striping and/or lane designation Type b.5 LRT/pedestrian mall adjacent to parallel roadway Non-exclusive Type c.1 Mixed traffic operation Type c.2 Transit-only mall Type c.3 LRT/pedestrian mall Source: TCRP Report 69 prevents more accidents. Gates in general can be problem- compiled in a catalog format and attached as Appendix A for atic (bell noise, mechanism maintenance and durability) ease of use. when the frequency of LRT service is very high. The treatments included in the catalog are organized into · Grade separation: Exclusive alignments typically experi- seven categories. The categories are intended for reference ence few (if any) collisions, and grade separation at inter- organization purposes only, and some treatments may fall sections could be considered a safety treatment. Grade into more than one category, but every treatment has been separation converts a type b alignment to a type a align- listed only once. It is also noted in the catalog that some treat- ment for the length of the separation. However, exclusive ments have been referred to by several names. alignments are not addressed in the catalog due to the The categories and treatments are: extreme implementation costs in comparison with other treatments and the combination of space requirements 1. Signals and active warnings and possible environmental impacts that make them likely a) Signal priority to be a treatment of last resort. b) Transit signal pre-emption c) Audible crossing warning devices The catalog could eventually be presented as a searchable d) Constant warning time systems database that could be updated by approved users. LRT Agen- e) Pre-signals cies, SSOs, and other users could be encouraged to access the f) Flashing light signals database and to add treatments and information about the g) Limits on downtime of gates treatments as information becomes available. Statistical reports h) Crossing horns--automatic and LRVoperator- and research on treatments could be added to the database, and activated subscribers could be notified of changes. i) Illuminated, active, in-pavement marking systems As noted in the main body of the report, this project prima- j) Blank out signs rily addressed semi-exclusive alignments. The catalog includes k) Pedestrian signals a field suggesting the type of alignments to which each treat- 2. Signs ment can be applied. For clarity, the alignment types are given a) Stop and yield signs in Table 32. b) Retroreflective advance warning signs c) Flashing train-approaching warning signs d) Gate crossing status indication signals LRT Safety Treatments 3. Second train approaching treatments Included in the Catalog a) Second train approaching signals and active signs The information presented in the catalog was collected b) Second train approaching warning signs throughout the project. Much of the information came 4. Gates directly from LRT agencies that cooperated with the project a) Pedestrian automatic gates team during a series of site visits. Additional information was b) Four-quadrant gates gathered during the literature review and during phone con- 5. Pedestrians sultations with LRT agencies and SSOs. The information was a) Pedestrian fencing/landscaping