Square One Bus Terminal Map
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Peel Sustainable Transportation Strategy
Background Documents Sustainable Transportation Strategy February 2018 Region of Peel Sustainable Transportation Strategy Online Consultation Survey Summary Shaping the Vision for Sustainable Transportation in the Region of Peel Prepared for Region of Peel by IBI Group May 19, 2017 IBI GROUP REGION OF PEEL SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY ONLINE CONSULTATION SURVEY SUMMARY Prepared for Region of Peel Table of Contents List of Exhibits .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Survey Objective and Design ............................................................................................ 2 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Design ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Promotion ................................................................................................................. 3 2 Survey Responses .............................................................................................................. 3 3 Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 Priority Ranking ........................................................................................................ 8 4 Strategy Rating .................................................................................................................. -
Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study
Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study PHASE I REPORT Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS Section 1 – Data Collection & Application 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion Section 3 – Institutional Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues 3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations Appendix • DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Data Application Table 2-1 Peer Group Data Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service List of Figures Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN 1.1 INTRODUCTION The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study. -
Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing
Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel S.M. in Engineering Systems- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 Vordiplom in Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen- Universität Karlsruhe, 2007 Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Political Science October 12, 2010 Certified by . Kenneth Oye Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Roger Peterson Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee 1 Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel Submitted to the Department of Political Science On October 12, 2010, in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science Abstract The thesis seeks to provide an understanding of reasons for different outcomes of airport ground access projects. Five in-depth case studies (Hongkong, Tokyo-Narita, London- Heathrow, Chicago- O’Hare and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and eight smaller case studies (Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, Shanghai-Pudong, Bangkok, Beijing, Rome- Fiumicino, Istanbul-Atatürk and Munich- Franz Josef Strauss) are conducted. The thesis builds on existing literature that compares airport-rail links by explicitly considering the influence of the institutional environment of an airport on its ground access situation and by paying special attention to recently opened dedicated airport expresses in Asia. -
A Downloadable
GREATER CLEVELAND REGI0NAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2009 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Hybrid Oil Transit + Redevelopment – x CO 2 = ∞ Good √ Technology ( Dependency ) Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 2009 Adopted Budget Plan President - Board of Trustees George F. Dixon, III CEO/General Manager and Secretary-Treasurer Joseph A. Calabrese The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 2008. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgements Office of Management & Budget Executive Director Gale Fisk Manager of Budgets Michael Daugherty Manager of Budgets Floun’say R. Caver Coordinator of Financial Systems & Budgets Susanna Theofylaktos Senior Budget Management Analyst Sofya Linetsky Senior Budget Management Analyst James Teubl Budget Management Analyst Kay Sutula Budget Management Analyst Wesley Keshtkaran Budget Management Analyst Daniel Bobeczko Business Analyst (MDP) Anthony Henderson Executive Secretary Theresa Burrage Special thanks to the following individuals for their assistance: Printing/Reproduction - Carol Thomas, Gloria Wood, Bill Dietz & the RTA Print Shop Organization Charts - Mary Wilkins Cover Artwork/Tabs - Steve Bitto & Co. DIRECTORY OF THE GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY OFFICIALS BOARD OF TRUSTEES George F. -
Responsive Buildingsiwb INTERNATIONAL CHARRETTE Address 230 Richmond Street East, Toronto on M5A 1P4 Canada
FEBRUARY 2014 RESPONSIVE BUILDINGSIwB INTERNATIONAL CHARRETTE ADDRESS 230 Richmond Street East, Toronto ON M5A 1P4 Canada MAILING ADDRESS Institute without Boundaries, School of Design, George Brown College P.O. Box 1015, Station B, Toronto ON M5T 2T9 Canada Tel.: +1.416.415.5000 x 2029 © 2014 THE INSTITUTE WITHOUT BOUNDARIES No part of this work may be produced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the publisher except for a brief quotation (not exceeding 200 words) in a review or professional work. WaRRANTIES The information in this document is for informational purposes only. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and veracity of the informa- tion in this document, and, although the Institute without Boundaries at George Brown College relies on reputable sources and believes the informa- tion posted in this document is correct, the Institute without Boundaries at George Brown College does not warrant the quality, accuracy or complete- ness of any information in this document. Such information is provided “as is” without warranty or condition of any kind, either express or implied (including, but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose), the Institute without Boundaries is not respon- sible in any way for damages (including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or exemplary damages) arising out of the use of this document nor are liable for any inaccurate, delayed or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. -
February 2005 Bulletin.Pub
TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - FEBRUARY, 2005 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 48, No. 2 February, 2005 The Bulletin MYRTLE AVENUE “L” STRUCTURE Published by the New York Division, Electric IS 90 YEARS OLD Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box Trains started running on the new elevated private right-of-way on the surface from Wy- 3001, New York, New structure between Wyckoff Avenue and Fresh ckoff Avenue to Metropolitan Avenue. Electric York 10008-3001. Pond Road and the new ramp east of there operation began in August, 1895, probably 90 years ago, February 22, 1915. with trolley cars. A year later, August 20, For general inquiries, This line has an interesting history. On July 1896, Flushing-Ridgewood trolley cars were contact us at nydiv@ 20, 1889, trains started operating from also operated on this right-of-way. electricrailroaders.org or by phone at (212) 986- Broadway to Wyckoff Avenue on a two-track On October 1, 1906, the ramp at Wyckoff 4482 (voice mail structure with island platforms at Broadway, Avenue connecting the elevated tracks with available). ERA’s Evergreen Avenue, Central Avenue, Knicker- the trolley tracks was placed in service. Myr- website is bocker Avenue, and Wyckoff Avenue. A con- tle Avenue “L” service was extended to Met- www.electricrailroaders. org. tract delivered on July 22, 1914 provided for ropolitan Avenue on the existing right-of-way. the rebuilding of the above stations. Side All elevated trains were equipped with trolley Editorial Staff: platforms were built at Central Avenue and poles, which made contact with the trolley Editor-in-Chief: Knickerbocker Avenue, an express station wire when the trains ran on the surface. -
Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964. -
Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation South Station Expansion October 2014 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank October 2014 South Station Expansion Massachusetts Department of Transportation Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION As presented in Chapter 3, MassDOT considered alternative concept designs on the track configuration, station concept, layover facility sites, and joint/private development elements of the project. These analyses identified concepts for consideration and provided refinements to designs. From this analysis, the Build Alternatives for the DEIR were refined and utilized as the basis for the environmental analysis. The four project alternatives developed and presented in this DEIR are: • No Build Alternative • Alternative 1 – Transportation Improvements Only • Alternative 2 – Joint/Private Development Minimum Build • Alternative 3 – Joint/Private Development Maximum Build The concepts developed for the track configuration, station design, and layover facility sites are the same in each Build Alternative and would result in no variations in environmental impacts across each alternative. Differences in the DEIR project alternatives stem from only the joint/private development -
Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report 2016
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the efforts of former Metrolinx Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) members Mr. Sean Henry and Mr. Brian Moore, both of whom stepped down from the AAC in 2016. They provided valuable input into our accessibility planning efforts. We would like to welcome Mr. Gordon Ryall and Ms. Heather Willis, who both joined the Metrolinx AAC in 2015. Lastly, we would like to thank all of the Metrolinx AAC members for the important work they do as volunteers to improve the accessibility of our services. Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report: 2016 1. Introduction The 2016 Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report provides an annual update of the Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan published in December 2012, as well as the 2015 Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report. Metrolinx, a Crown agency of the Province of Ontario under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation, has three operating divisions: GO Transit, PRESTO and Union Pearson Express. This Status Report, in conjunction with the December 2012 Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, fulfills Metrolinx’s legal obligations for 2016 under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), to publish an annual accessibility plan; and also under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), to publish an annual status report on its multi-year plan. The December 2012 Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan and other accessibility planning documents can be referenced on the Metrolinx website at the following link: www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/accessibility/default.aspx. In accordance with the AODA, it must be updated every five years. Metrolinx, including its operating divisions, remains committed to proceeding with plans to ensure AODA compliance. -
GO Transit Fare Increase
Memorandum To: Metrolinx Board of Directors From: Greg Percy President, GO Transit Date: December 3, 2015 Re: Proposed GO Transit Fare Increase Executive Summary As part of the annual business plan process, an extensive review is undertaken of both operating expenses as well as other revenue opportunities to determine if a fare increase is warranted. Effective February 1, 2016, a GO Transit fare increase of approximately 5% is being recommended to meet the needs of our growing customer base and to ensure long term financial sustainability for the corporation. Staff are proposing to continue with a tiered fare increase approach, based on a four-tier system that exemplifies the fare-by-distance approach. Fares for short-distance trips would be frozen under this proposal. Base adult single fares would be increased as follows: Base Adult Single Fares Current Fare Increase Range $5.30 - $5.69 $0.00 $5.70 - $6.50 $0.40 $6.51 - $8.25 $0.50 > $8.25 $0.60 The discounts for the initial Adult PRESTO card fare would be increased from 10% to 11.15%. The discount on the initial PRESTO card fare for a student would increase from 17.25% to 18.40% while the discount on a senior fare would increase from 51.50% to 52.65%. The net result would be an approximate 5% effective rate of increase for the majority of our customers who use the PRESTO card. Additionally, PRESTO users will now pay less for short-distance trips due to the fact that the fares for these trips are not increasing while the initial discount for using PRESTO is increasing. -
Phase Tw O Engagem Ent Report
Engagement Report Two Phase Prepared by Lura Consulting in association with Steer for: The City of Mississauga October 2018 This report was prepared by Lura Consulting, the independent facilitator and engagement specialist for the Mississauga Transportation Master Plan. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact: James Knott | Senior Project Manager Lura Consulting | lura.ca [email protected] | t: 905.481.2467 614 Concession Street, Hamilton ON L8V 1B5 Executive Summary The City of Mississauga has launched the Mississauga Moves project to develop the City’s first Transportation Master Plan that is informed by use research, analysis and community engagement. Lura Consulting was hired to undertake a comprehensive engagement process to inform the Transportation Master Plan. This report outlines the details of Phase 2 Engagement including the objectives, process, and participant feedback collected. Approximately 3,450 individuals were engaged between March and September 2018, including key stakeholders and members of the general public. Goals of Phase 2: ‘Where Do We Want To Be?’ The goal of Phase 2 was to determine where we as a City want to be in the future, with regards to transportation. Engagement goals during this phase were to: • Have people engage in interesting and meaningful discussions about the future of transportation in Mississauga; • Identify the community’s values and interests as they relate to transportation; • Collect information on the community’s current transportation choices and how to expand the choices available; and • Understand the barriers to using a variety of transportation modes. Phase 2 Engagement and Participation The table below provides a summary of Phase 2 Engagement activities. -
Commuter Rail Routes and Operating Plans
Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Chapter 3: Commuter Rail Routes and Operating Plans 3.1 Commuter Rail Service Assumptions 3.2 Rail Network Characteristics 3.3 Description of Each Route 3.4 Access to Downtown Cleveland 3.5 Access to Downtown Akron PARSONS Final Report BRINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II CHAPTER 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................ 3 3.1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 3 Level of Service (LOS) 1– Minimum service with no reverse-peak .......................................................... 3 Level of Service (LOS) 2– Basic service with limited reverse-peak.......................................................... 4 Level of Service (LOS) 3 – Basic service with full reverse-peak............................................................... 4 3.1.2 TRAINSET REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2 RAIL NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................ 6 3.2.1 RIGHT OF WAY OWNERSHIP.......................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................