Not that we shop there, but this was something I heard about and then finally tracked down the article while writing a Strategic Highway Research Proposal tonight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/business/yourmoney/14wal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
TSP Question from San Francisco
It is an interesting question that you pose. You were interested in “the physical operation of TSP, its strength and weaknesses, limits, and the range of flexibility for modification to fit certain traffic conditions”.
To answer this, I would simply say that TSP enables a communication between the traffic signal and the transit vehicle to provide an opportunity to adjust the signals to improve the efficiency of transit movements. Obviously, knowing when a bus is going to stop to pick up passengers and when it is going to move through a traffic signal is of key interest, thus the typical interest in far side stops.
Given the assumptions, I will give you some advice on what I would say having implemented TSP in Portland with some corridors that are similar (signals every 260 feet in some cases with stops every other block).
He bases his assumption on the following facts: 1) On a 2.3 mile corridor Van Ness has 29 intersections, 2) cross traffic on several streets cannot be impacted too much because the traffic is very heavy so Van Ness doesn’t have as much control re. signal timing as may be needed,
** Pedestrians may be more important than the traffic, given what I know about the City’s policies. Jack Fleck and Bond Yee from the City are two that I have talked with about this in the past. This largely depends on the performance measures that are used, so I would say I am not sure that I would agree with this in all cases. If the signals are actuated, it may be possible to benefit the bus even at near side stops.
3) the likely infrastructure plan will use exclusive bus lanes so traffic congestion is either a minor issue or not an issue at all as buses move in the corridor, 4) buses will be able to average a consistent speed on the exclusive lanes that will be a major part of the signal timing plan, 5) the likely headway of buses in the corridor will be about 2-3 minutes at peak times in both directions, and 6) if a bus falls off the signal progression “schedule” it automatically resets when they get the first green – and then they should see green lights for the next 2-4 blocks until a stop is made, and if they complete the stop in the allotted time, they will continue to see green at that light and 2-4 more. He developed a similar signal / near side transit stop plan for F-Market Streetcar service on Market Street, and his assumptions were proven mostly correct. The end result shaved 3-4 minutes (10%-15%) off the run time on the route in one direction and 1-2 minutes off in the other direction.
** On most of these points I agree, but one issue that is different than streetcar service in many cases, is that there are situations where buses aren’t stopping at every stop. Given this case, it may be beneficial to have TSP at select locations that could reduce delay associated with bus stopping or not. A standard plan such as what was implemented on Market Street (which I have seen operate and is an extremely good plan), works well if the stops are consistent. The bus service would benefit during periods when bus stop frequency at a particular stop is variable. I know the signal vendor that the City is working with on the 3rd Street light rail project and one of the innovative steps that they took on that corridor was to use the TSP system and detection of multiple intersections upstream of the stop to reduce the likelihood that any stop would occur. This sort of predictive priority is a powerful tool, considering the potential for bus stop dwell times that are variable. One of the reasons the Market Street corridor looks good is that it leaves the stop when the signal goes green. In many cases, the dwell is unnecessary and activation of TSP may improve that operation adjacent to the stop and at the downstream intersections.
** The reliability of the service may also be improved with TSP, if it is used only for vehicles that are late. This would help maintain the 2-3 minute headways and result in bus bunching, but it is the case at that as the headway increases to that sort of level (near the signal cycle length) that changing the signal timing may be best and TSP becomes less effective.
To answer this, I would simply say that TSP enables a communication between the traffic signal and the transit vehicle to provide an opportunity to adjust the signals to improve the efficiency of transit movements. Obviously, knowing when a bus is going to stop to pick up passengers and when it is going to move through a traffic signal is of key interest, thus the typical interest in far side stops.
Given the assumptions, I will give you some advice on what I would say having implemented TSP in Portland with some corridors that are similar (signals every 260 feet in some cases with stops every other block).
He bases his assumption on the following facts: 1) On a 2.3 mile corridor Van Ness has 29 intersections, 2) cross traffic on several streets cannot be impacted too much because the traffic is very heavy so Van Ness doesn’t have as much control re. signal timing as may be needed,
** Pedestrians may be more important than the traffic, given what I know about the City’s policies. Jack Fleck and Bond Yee from the City are two that I have talked with about this in the past. This largely depends on the performance measures that are used, so I would say I am not sure that I would agree with this in all cases. If the signals are actuated, it may be possible to benefit the bus even at near side stops.
3) the likely infrastructure plan will use exclusive bus lanes so traffic congestion is either a minor issue or not an issue at all as buses move in the corridor, 4) buses will be able to average a consistent speed on the exclusive lanes that will be a major part of the signal timing plan, 5) the likely headway of buses in the corridor will be about 2-3 minutes at peak times in both directions, and 6) if a bus falls off the signal progression “schedule” it automatically resets when they get the first green – and then they should see green lights for the next 2-4 blocks until a stop is made, and if they complete the stop in the allotted time, they will continue to see green at that light and 2-4 more. He developed a similar signal / near side transit stop plan for F-Market Streetcar service on Market Street, and his assumptions were proven mostly correct. The end result shaved 3-4 minutes (10%-15%) off the run time on the route in one direction and 1-2 minutes off in the other direction.
** On most of these points I agree, but one issue that is different than streetcar service in many cases, is that there are situations where buses aren’t stopping at every stop. Given this case, it may be beneficial to have TSP at select locations that could reduce delay associated with bus stopping or not. A standard plan such as what was implemented on Market Street (which I have seen operate and is an extremely good plan), works well if the stops are consistent. The bus service would benefit during periods when bus stop frequency at a particular stop is variable. I know the signal vendor that the City is working with on the 3rd Street light rail project and one of the innovative steps that they took on that corridor was to use the TSP system and detection of multiple intersections upstream of the stop to reduce the likelihood that any stop would occur. This sort of predictive priority is a powerful tool, considering the potential for bus stop dwell times that are variable. One of the reasons the Market Street corridor looks good is that it leaves the stop when the signal goes green. In many cases, the dwell is unnecessary and activation of TSP may improve that operation adjacent to the stop and at the downstream intersections.
** The reliability of the service may also be improved with TSP, if it is used only for vehicles that are late. This would help maintain the 2-3 minute headways and result in bus bunching, but it is the case at that as the headway increases to that sort of level (near the signal cycle length) that changing the signal timing may be best and TSP becomes less effective.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
My ITE Resume
I was submitting an application to ITE for the National Young Consultant Award and thought I would copy this to the Blog. It seems like I am using this to document a few things. When writing proposals, I find I forget the activities I am involved in, so better to put them in more than one place.
Peter J. V. Koonce, P.E., is currently serving as Principal Investigator for the Traffic Signal Timing Manual project. He is the primary author of Chapter 2 of the Manual which deals with Policies and Processes similar to what is described in this paper. Peter is an active member of ITE, having recently served as the Local Arrangements Committee Chair for the highly successful District 6 Annual Meeting held in Portland, Oregon in July of 2007. He has served on National ITE Committees such as the Smart Growth Task Force and the Intelligent Traffic Signal Operations Committee and participated as a reviewer on the ITE Information Reports entitled: Improving the Pedestrian Environment through Innovative Transportation Design and Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines. He is looking forward to having his first article in the April issue of the ITE Journal published entitled: “Improving the Application of Transit Signal Priority Using the NTCIP 1211 Standard”. In the past, he was the Oregon Section Student Chapters Liaison, Newsletter Editor, and Webmaster. He has also served District 6 as the Technical Editor for the WesternITE Newsletter. He is secretary of TRB Committee on Traffic Signal Systems and serves as chair of its Signal Timing subcommittee.
Peter J. V. Koonce, P.E., is currently serving as Principal Investigator for the Traffic Signal Timing Manual project. He is the primary author of Chapter 2 of the Manual which deals with Policies and Processes similar to what is described in this paper. Peter is an active member of ITE, having recently served as the Local Arrangements Committee Chair for the highly successful District 6 Annual Meeting held in Portland, Oregon in July of 2007. He has served on National ITE Committees such as the Smart Growth Task Force and the Intelligent Traffic Signal Operations Committee and participated as a reviewer on the ITE Information Reports entitled: Improving the Pedestrian Environment through Innovative Transportation Design and Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines. He is looking forward to having his first article in the April issue of the ITE Journal published entitled: “Improving the Application of Transit Signal Priority Using the NTCIP 1211 Standard”. In the past, he was the Oregon Section Student Chapters Liaison, Newsletter Editor, and Webmaster. He has also served District 6 as the Technical Editor for the WesternITE Newsletter. He is secretary of TRB Committee on Traffic Signal Systems and serves as chair of its Signal Timing subcommittee.
Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting
I have been asked to speak at the Annual Meeting in Anaheim, CA on August 20, 2008. The topic of discussion is TSP: Trafic & Transit Agency Partnering the Portland, Oregon Perspective.
An abstract that I am a coauthor on with Bill Kloos was accepted. It is related to Dilemma Zone protection.
An abstract that I am a coauthor on with Bill Kloos was accepted. It is related to Dilemma Zone protection.
Peter's Appointments to University Boards, Academic Journal Reviews, Etc
I often forget what sorts of things I am doing outside of the workday that is on my own time, so I thought I would write them down.
American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Transportation Engineering, Peer Review (1 article in 2007, 2006)
Journal of Public Transportation, University of South Florida, Peer Review (6 articles since 2005)
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, University of South Florida
http://www.nbrti.org/
National Institute for Advanced Transportation TechnologyUniversity of Idaho
http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt/
initiative for bicycle & pedestrian innovation, Portland State University
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/
American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Transportation Engineering, Peer Review (1 article in 2007, 2006)
Journal of Public Transportation, University of South Florida, Peer Review (6 articles since 2005)
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, University of South Florida
http://www.nbrti.org/
National Institute for Advanced Transportation TechnologyUniversity of Idaho
http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt/
initiative for bicycle & pedestrian innovation, Portland State University
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/
Monday, March 17, 2008
Transit Signal Priority Articles
I was asked about some of the past publications on TSP today and I have it in my resume, but I thought I should add it here.
Comprehensive Evaluation of Transit Improvements
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Koonce.pdf
2005 TRB Publication on Evaluation of TSP using Hardware in the loop
http://www.its.pdx.edu/pdf/TRB_TSP.pdf
Other TSP articles from PSU
http://www.its.pdx.edu/tsp.php
Results from the Line 12 Barbur Study
www.westernite.org/newsletters/nov2003.pdf
2002 TSP Workshop Summary at TRB
http://www.signalsystems.org.vt.edu/documents/SignalControlWorkshop2002/TRB_Transit_Signal_Priority_Workshop_Summary.htm
Guidance on setting when to request Priority
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Koonce.pdf
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual - section on transit preferential treatments
trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp100/part%200.pdf
Metro Mobility the Smart Way
www.metro-region.org/files/planning/metromobilityreport.pdf
Comprehensive Evaluation of Transit Improvements
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Koonce.pdf
2005 TRB Publication on Evaluation of TSP using Hardware in the loop
http://www.its.pdx.edu/pdf/TRB_TSP.pdf
Other TSP articles from PSU
http://www.its.pdx.edu/tsp.php
Results from the Line 12 Barbur Study
www.westernite.org/newsletters/nov2003.pdf
2002 TSP Workshop Summary at TRB
http://www.signalsystems.org.vt.edu/documents/SignalControlWorkshop2002/TRB_Transit_Signal_Priority_Workshop_Summary.htm
Guidance on setting when to request Priority
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Koonce.pdf
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual - section on transit preferential treatments
trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp100/part%200.pdf
Metro Mobility the Smart Way
www.metro-region.org/files/planning/metromobilityreport.pdf
Monday, March 3, 2008
Urbanism in this day in age
Interesting reading from the Atlantic. I can't recall whether these guys are on the right or the left. The Atlantic is on the right coast if I recall :)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.”
The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.
Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.
Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.
It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.”
The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.
Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.
Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.
It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)