DOCSLIB.ORG

Douglas Road Transit Corridor Study Final Report, May 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT Douglas Road Transit Corridor Study General Planning Consultant (GPC) Services Work Order #GPC V-8 Miami-Dade County, Florida Prepared for: MIAMI-DADE County Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by May 2014 Contents 1. Study Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Need for Project .................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Existing Transit Service ......................................................................................................................... 3 4. Transit Level-of-Service......................................................................................................................... 8 5. Candidate Modes ................................................................................................................................ 10 6. Alternative Alignments ....................................................................................................................... 16 7. Alternatives and Variations ................................................................................................................ 23 7.1. Alternative 1 - 42nd Avenue/Le Jeune Road........................................................................... 23 7.2. Alternative 2 - Ponce de Leon Boulevard ................................................................................ 23 7.3. Alternative 3 - 32nd Avenue (dropped from further consideration) ...................................... 23 7.4. Alternative 4 - 37th Avenue/Douglas Road ............................................................................ 23 7.5. Alternative 5 - 27th Avenue .................................................................................................... 24 8. Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................................. 26 9. Recommended Alignment Priorities ................................................................................................... 29 10. Evaluation of Douglas Road Corridor Transit Alternatives ................................................................. 30 11. Ridership Estimate .............................................................................................................................. 31 12. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 40 13. Detailed Recommendations by Corridor ............................................................................................ 42 13.1. Semi-Exclusive Bus Lane – Ponce de Leon Boulevard (mid-term) .......................................... 42 13.2. Le Jeune Road-NW/SW 42nd Avenue (mid-term) .................................................................... 43 13.3. Douglas Road-NW/SW 37th Avenue – Bus Operating in Semi-Exclusive Lanes (short-term) .. 46 13.4. NW/SW 27th Avenue (short-term) .......................................................................................... 48 13.5. Ponce de Leon Boulevard – LRT/Modern Streetcar (long-term) ............................................ 50 13.6. Douglas Road-NW/SW 37th Avenue – Bus Operating in Semi-Exclusive Lanes (long-term) ... 52 13.7. Douglas Road-NW/SW 37th Avenue – Metrorail (beyond long-term) .................................... 54 13.8. Timing of Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................ 58 13.9. Timing for Metrorail ................................................................................................................ 58 i List of Tables Table 3–1 - Existing Miami-Dade Transit Bus Service .......................................................................................... 3 Table 5–1 - Typical Heavy Rail Characteristics ................................................................................................... 10 Table 5–2 - Typical Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Characteristics ............................................................................... 11 Table 5–3 - Typical Light Rail Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 5–4 - Typical Semi-Exclusive Bus Lanes Characteristics ........................................................................... 13 Table 5–5 - Typical Rapid Bus Characteristics .................................................................................................... 14 Table 5–6 - Typical Trolley Bus Characteristics .................................................................................................. 15 Table 7–1 - Alternative Alignments and Alignment Variations .......................................................................... 25 Table 8–1 - Basis for Advancement of Viable Short, Medium, and Long-Term Alignment/Modal Combinations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 8–2 - Recommended Alignment/Modal Combinations by Time Frame .................................................. 28 Table 9–1 - Preliminary Evaluation of Candidate Alignments ........................................................................... 29 Table 10–1 - Candidate Improvements for Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term .................................................. 30 Table 11–1 - Linear Regression - Metrorail Boardings ....................................................................................... 31 Table 11–2 - 2040 Metrorail Ridership Estimate - Hypothetical Ponce de Leon Alignment ............................. 32 Table 11–3 - SERPM Mode Bias in Minutes ....................................................................................................... 33 Table 11–4 - Market within 1/2 Mile of Alignment ........................................................................................... 33 Table 11–5 - Market within 1 Mile of Alignment ............................................................................................... 33 Table 11–6 - Ridership Estimation by Mode ...................................................................................................... 34 Table 11–7 - Ridership Check - Observed vs. Estimated .................................................................................... 34 Table 11–8 - Ridership by Alignment and Mode................................................................................................ 35 Table 11–9 - Characteristics of Alternative Modes ............................................................................................ 36 Table 11–10 - Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 37 Table 11–11 - Ridership/Capacity Ratio for Revised Headways ........................................................................ 38 Table 11–12 - Evaluation Using Reduced (5 rather than 10 minutes) Headways for Bus Modes ..................... 39 Table 12–1 - Modes Recommended for Implementation by Alignment (Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term) .. 41 ii List of Figures Figure 3–1 - Existing Miami-Dade Transit Bus Routes in Study Area ................................................................... 6 Figure 3–2 - Existing Metrorail System ................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4–1 - Miami-Dade Transit Bus Level-of-Service (Frequency) .................................................................... 9 Figure 6–1 - Alternative Alignments .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 6–2 - 42nd Avenue/Le Jeune Road Corridor ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 6–3 - Ponce de Leon Corridor ................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 6–4 - 37nd Avenue/Douglas Road Corridor ............................................................................................ 20 Figure 6–5 - 32nd Avenue Corridor .................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6–6 - 27th Avenue Corridor .................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 13–1 - Semi-Exclusive Bus Lane – Ponce de Leon Boulevard (mid-term) ............................................... 43 Figure 13–2 - Le Jeune Road-NW/SW 42nd Avenue (mid-term) ....................................................................... 45 Figure 13–3 - Douglas Road-NW/SW 37th Avenue – Bus Operating in Semi-Exclusive Lanes (short-term) ..... 47 Figure 13–4 - NW/SW 27th Avenue (short Term) ............................................................................................... 49 Figure 13–5 - Ponce de Leon Boulevard LRT/Modern Streetcar (long-term) .................................................... 51 Figure 13–6 - Douglas Road NW/SW 37th Avenue Bus Operating in Semi-Exclusive Lanes (long-term) ........... 53 Figure 13–7 - Douglas Road NW/SW 37th Avenue
Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
  • TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit Or Diesel Multiple

    TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit Or Diesel Multiple

    APPENDIX A Key FRA Regulations (Affecting Joint Use) The following is a listing of key FRA specifications. This listing is intended as a regulations taken from the Code of Federal general identification of the operative code Regulations (49 CFR 200-299), Federal sections, along with a general description Railroad Administration, that may affect of the requirements. This identification joint operation of light rail transit or diesel code section should not imply or impute multiple unit vehicles with railroads. The that the code provision will need to be selected regulations concern operational modified to operate light rail transit or procedures, standards, and certain design DMU with railroads. Regulation Number and Section Comment §209: Railroad Safety Enforcement Policy procedures for assessing Procedures penalties and for appealing penalties. Also includes, fitness-for-duty and follow-up on FRA recommendations. §210: Railroad Noise Emission Covers total sound emitted by moving Compliance Regulations rail cars and locomotives. Does not apply to: • Steam engines; • Street, suburban, or interurban electric railways, unless operated as a part of the general railroad system of transportation; • Sound emitted by warning devices such as horns, whistles, or bells when operated for the purpose of safety; • Special-purpose equipment that may be located on or operated from rail cars. §211: Rules of Practice Subpart C - Rules of practice that apply to Waivers rulemaking and waiver proceedings, review of emergency orders issued §211.41: Processing of petitions for under 45 U.S.C. 432, and miscellaneous waiver of safety rules safety-related proceedings and informal safety inquiries. Page A-1 Regulation Number and Section Comment §212: State Safety Participation Establishes standards and procedures for Regulations State participation in investigative and surveillance activities under Federal railroad safety laws and regulations.
  • Alhambra Portfolio

    Alhambra Portfolio

    DOWNTOWN MIAMI LE JEUNE ROAD ALHAMBRA CIRCLE ALHAMBRA PORTFOLIO ICONIC MIXED-USE PROPERTIES IN THE HEART OF CORAL GABLES, FL Offering Memorandum ALHAMBRA PORTFOLIO NON-ENDORSEMENT 367-371 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE & DISCLAIMER NOTICE CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER The information contained in the following Marketing Brochure is proprietary and strictly confiden- tial. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from Marcus & Millichap Real Estate EXCLUSIVELY LISTED BY Investment Services of Florida, Inc. (“Marcus & Millichap”) and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of Marcus & Millichap. This Marketing Bro- BENJAMIN H. SILVER chure has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, First Vice President Investments and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information con- Senior Director, National Office and tained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. Marcus & Millichap has Industrial Properties Group not made any investigation, and makes no warranty or representation, with respect to the income Fort Lauderdale Office or expenses for the subject property, the future projected financial performance of the property, the Cell 786.999.4541 size and square footage of the property and improvements, the presence or absence of contam- Office 954.245.3425 inating substances, PCB’s or asbestos, the compliance with State and Federal regulations, the [email protected] physical condition of the improvements thereon, or the financial condition or business prospects License: FL SL3197924 of any tenant, or any tenant’s plans or intentions to continue its occupancy of the subject property.
  • Douglas Road Transit Corridor Study Final Report, May 2014

    Douglas Road Transit Corridor Study Final Report, May 2014

    FINAL REPORT Douglas Road Transit Corridor Study General Planning Consultant (GPC) Services Work Order #GPC V-8 Miami-Dade County, Florida Prepared for: MIAMI-DADE County Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by May 2014 Contents 1. Study Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Need for Project .................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Existing Transit Service ......................................................................................................................... 3 4. Transit Level-of-Service......................................................................................................................... 8 5. Candidate Modes ................................................................................................................................ 10 6. Alternative Alignments ....................................................................................................................... 16 7. Alternatives and Variations ................................................................................................................ 23 7.1. Alternative 1 - 42nd Avenue/Le Jeune Road........................................................................... 23 7.2. Alternative 2 - Ponce de Leon Boulevard ................................................................................ 23 7.3. Alternative
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical

    Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical

    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
  • US 1 from Kendall to I-95: Final Summary Report

    US 1 from Kendall to I-95: Final Summary Report

    STATE ROAD (SR) 5/US 1/DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM SR 94/SW 88 STREET/ KENDALL DRIVE TO SR 9/I-95 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA FDOT FINANCIAL PROJECT ID: 434845-1-22-01 WWW.FDOTMIAMIDADE.COM/US1SOUTH March 2019 Final Summary Report ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to the many professionals and stakeholders who participated in and contributed to this study. From the communities along the corridor to the members of the Project Advisory Team, everyone played a crucial role in forming the results and conclusions contained in this study. 2 STATE ROAD (SR) 5/US 1/DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM SR 94/SW 88 STREET/KENDALL DRIVE TO SR 9/I-95 This report compiles the results of the State Road (SR) 5/US 1/ Dixie Highway from SR 94/SW 88 Street/Kendall Drive to SR 9/I-95 Corridor Study and includes: › Findings from the study › Recommendations for walking, bicycling, driving, and transit access needs along US 1 between Kendall Drive and I-95 › Next steps for implementing the recommendations This effort is the product of collaboration between the Florida Department of Transportation District Six and its regional and local partners. FDOT and its partners engaged the community at two critical stages of the study – during the identification of issues and during the development of recommendations. The community input helped inform the recommended strategies but the collaboration cannot stop here. Going from planning to implementation will take additional coordination and, in some instances, additional analysis. FDOT is able and ready to lead the effort but will continue seeking the support of community leaders, transportation and planning organizations, and the general public! To learn more, please read on and visit: www.fdotmiamidade.com/us1south WWW.FDOTMIAMIDADE.COM/US1SOUTH 3 CONTENTS 1.
  • Miami-Dade Transit's TOD / P3 Program

    Miami-Dade Transit's TOD / P3 Program

    Miami-Dade Transit’s TOD / P3 Program FTA / Partnership in Transit Dallas, October 22-23, 2008 TOD Vision & Goals Create Attractive & Dynamic Station Areas . Design and functionality . Oriented towards pedestrians . Includes a mix of uses TOD Vision & Goals Increase Transit Ridership . Housing, employment and shopping . Improve efficiency of transit assets . Reduces reliability of single-occupancy vehicles TOD Vision & Goals Generate Revenue . Farebox revenue . Ground leases . Sale of surplus land TOD Vision & Goals Enhance the Value of Assets . Attracting more development . Additional opportunities for generating revenue TOD Vision & Goals Promote Multi-Modal Access to Transit . Protect and enhance access to pedestrians, cyclists and buses . Preserve automobile and parking access . Balance against other urban design objectives Where We’ve Been Miami-Dade County, Florida’s largest and most densely populated region has aggressively sought to encourage Transit Oriented Development . Emphasis on Joint Development & Public-Private partnerships . Long history of viewing TOD and joint development as important tools for revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods . Increasing transit ridership and reducing traffic congestion . Catalyst for promoting private investment in depressed neighborhoods and redressing social inequities . Bring non-transit revenue dollars into the Department Dadeland South . Land swap of real property in 1982 . Phases 1-3 in operation since 1984 . Phase 4a in 2005, Phase 4b in 2008 . 600,000 sq. ft. of office space . 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space . 305 room hotel . 1,060 garage / 200 surface parking spaces . 2007 Annual Revenue: $ 1,092,000 . Lease commenced in July 1982, with initial term ending December 2038 and an automatic renewal to December 2082 Dadeland North .
  • CHRISTOPHER PATTON, Plaintiff, V. SEPTA, Faye LM Moore, and Cecil

    CHRISTOPHER PATTON, Plaintiff, V. SEPTA, Faye LM Moore, and Cecil

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CHRISTOPHER PATTON, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 06-707 : SEPTA, Faye L. M. Moore, : and Cecil W. Bond Jr., : Defendants. : Memorandum and Order YOHN, J. January ___, 2007 Plaintiff Christopher Patton brings the instant action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq . (“ADA”); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 955(a) (“PHRA”); and Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, against defendants Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”); SEPTA’s General Manager, Faye L. M. Moore; and SEPTA’s Assistant General Manager, Cecil W. Bond Jr. (collectively, “defendants”). Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, as to plaintiff’s claims under the PHRA against defendants Moore and Bond (Counts VII and VIII), plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Counts XI, XII, and XIII) and plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 1 I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations Plaintiff was hired by SEPTA on December 8, 1997 to develop and direct its Capital and Long Range Planning Department. (Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 14.) Defendant Moore, is the General Manager of SEPTA (id . at ¶¶ 6, 13); defendant Bond is the Assistant General Manager of SEPTA (id.
  • FDOT Overpass Studies for Bird Rd

    FDOT Overpass Studies for Bird Rd

    Non-Motorized Overpass at SR 5/US1 And SR 976/SW 40th Street (Bird Road) Executive Summary 6.0’ March 9, 2017 Prepared By: MARLIN Engineering Inc 1700 NW 66th Avenue, Ste. 106 Plantation, FL 33313 P: 305.477.7575 www.marlinengineering.com Non-Motorized Overpass at SR 5/US1 and SR 976/SW 40th Street (Bird Road) (FM No. 421053-3-12-01) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description: Concept and Feasibility Analysis for a non-motorized overpass for pedestrian and bicycles to support the Underline adjacent to US-1 at SW 40th Street (Bird Road). Purpose: The Department requested a conceptual and feasibility analysis to identify, evaluate, and recommend potential alignments for a non-motorized overpass. This conceptual analysis consisted of: Typical Section Analysis Horizontal and Vertical Geometric Analysis Traffic Control Analysis Background: The study was conducted at US 1 at 40th Street adjacent to the Underline, a proposed 10 mile signature linear park and urban trail. The Underline will serve as a gateway to the adjacent communities, by improving physical access from north to south running from underneath the Metrorail line and parallel to US1. Need: At this specific location, the traffic congestion is impacting the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing SW 40th Street. Methodology: The feasibility study included the following tasks; Field review of existing conditions Analyze existing Right of Way Maps and Survey (topography) Obtain aerial images of the proposed study area Performed horizontal and vertical geometric analysis Coordination with local companies that manufacture pre-fabricated bridges to obtain preliminary cost estimates and engineering specifications Performed a conceptual Right of Way cost analysis of the adjacent properties within the study area Development of design criteria Development of concept alternatives including typical section, plan and profile.
  • Verbatim Comments

    Verbatim Comments

    2011 CALTRAIN RIDER SURVEY On-Board Survey VERBATIM COMMENTS Prepared by COREY, CANAPARY & GALANIS RESEARCH 447 Sutter Street – Penthouse North San Francisco, CA 94108 2011 CALTRAIN ONBOARD RIDER SURVEY . VERBATIM COMMENTS CONTENTS VERBATIM COMMENTS BY CATEGORY Coding of respondent comments was done to provide a department specific or subject specific listing of comments. These department/subject specific categories are listed below. 1. Schedules/Frequency .................................................................... 4 – 11 2. Routes/Stops .................................................................................... 12 3. On-time Performance/Reliability................................................... 13 – 19 4. Delay Information/Service Announcements/Updates .................... 20 – 29 5. Transit Connections/Transfers ...................................................... 30 – 31 6. Crowding/Seat Availability.................................................................... 32 7. Fares/Fare Policy/Ticket Validation Procedure .............................. 33 – 39 8. Personnel ..................................................................................... 40 – 46 9. Enforcement/Security................................................................... 47 – 50 10. Safety Issues ........................................................................................ 51 11. Bikes/Bike Cars ............................................................................ 52 – 54 12. Train Cleanliness-Exterior/Interior................................................
  • On the Move... Miami-Dade County's Pocket

    On the Move... Miami-Dade County's Pocket

    Guide Cover 2013_English_Final.pdf 1 10/3/2013 11:24:14 AM 111 NW First Street, Suite 920 Miami, FL 33128 tel: (305) 375-4507 fax: (305) 347-4950 www.miamidade.gov/mpo C M On the Y CM MY Move... CY CMY K Miami-Dade County’s Pocket Guide to Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 4th Edition Table of Contents Highway Information Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) p. 1 FDOT’s Turnpike Enterprise p. 2 Florida Highway Patrol p. 2 95 Express Lanes p. 3 Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) p. 4 SunPass® p. 5 511-SmarTraveler p. 5 Road Rangers p. 5 SunGuide® Transportation Management Center p. 6 Miami-Dade Public Works and Waste p. 7 Management Department Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) p. 8 Driving and Traffic Regulations p. 8 Three Steps for New Florida Residents p. 9 Drivers License: Know Before You Go p. 9 Vehicle Registration p. 10 Locations and Hours of Local DMV Offices p. 10-11 Transit Information Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) p. 12 Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover p. 12 Fares p. 13 EASY Card p. 13 Discount EASY Cards p. 14-15 Obtaining EASY Card or EASY Ticket p. 15 Transfers p. 16-17 Park and Ride Lots p. 17-18 Limited Stop Route/Express Buses p. 18-19 Special Transportation Services (STS) p. 20 Special Event Shuttles p. 21 Tax-Free Transit Benefits p. 21 I Transit Information (Continued) South Florida Regional Transportation Authority p. 22 (SFRTA) / TriRail Amtrak p. 23 Greyhound p. 23 Fare & Schedule Information p. 24 Local Stations p.
  • Keeping Southern California's Future on Track

    Keeping Southern California's Future on Track

    Keeping Southern California’s 25Future on Track CONTENTS Message from the Board Chair .........................1 CEO’s Message .....................................................3 A Quarter Century of Moving People: The Metrolink Story .............................................5 How It All Began ................................................19 Metrolink’s Top Priority: Safety .......................27 WHO WE ARE Environment ........................................................31 Metrolink is Southern California’s regional commuter rail service in its Metrolink Relieves Driving Stress ...................35 25th year of operation. Metrolink is governed by The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Board Members Past and Present ..................40 a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing Metrolink Pioneering Staff the transportation commissions of Still on Board ......................................................47 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Metrolink Employees Metrolink operates seven routes Put Customers First ...........................................48 through a six-county, 538-route-mile network with 60 stations. Facts at a Glance ...............................................50 For more information, including how to ride, go to www.metrolinktrains.com MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to provide safe, efficient, dependable and on-time transportation service that offers outstanding customer experience and enhances quality of life. For