DOCSLIB.ORG

Task 10 Working Paper Transit Operations Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Task 10 Working Paper Transit Operations Plan ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE FROM FISHERMAN'S WHARF TO THE SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA’S FORT MASON CENTER FINAL Task 10 Working Paper Transit Operations Plan (Incorporates Ridership Assessment Working Paper - Task No. 6) Prepared by URS Corporation for the National Park Service – Golden Gate National Recreation Area July 2009 Historic Streetcar Extension to Fort Mason Transit Operations Plan - Final TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF TASK.......................................................................1 SECTION 2.0 CURRENT STREETCAR SERVICE...............................................................................................1 2.1 F-MARKET AND WHARVES HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE ...........................................1 2.2 DAYS OF OPERATION, SPAN OF SERVICE, AND HEADWAYS............................................2 2.3 RUNNING TIMES, OPERATING SPEED, AND ANNUAL VEHICLES MILES AND HOURS.............................................................................................................................................4 2.4 VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................................6 2.4.1 Cars in Fleet........................................................................................................................6 2.4.2 Current Vehicle Requirements............................................................................................6 2.5 SCHEDULING AND OPERATIONS..............................................................................................7 2.5.1 Layovers .............................................................................................................................7 2.5.2 Control................................................................................................................................7 2.6 RIDERSHIP......................................................................................................................................7 2.6.1 History of F-line Ridership Development...........................................................................7 2.6.2 Current Ridership for the F-line..........................................................................................7 2.7 CAPACITY AND LOAD FACTORS FOR F-LINE (CURRENT)..................................................8 SECTION 3.0 PLANNED INITIAL E-EMBARCADERO HISTORIC STREETCAR LINE ..............................11 3.1 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT............................................................................................................11 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR E-LINE.........................................................................12 3.3 DAYS OF OPERATION, SPAN OF SERVICE, AND HEADWAYS..........................................12 3.4 RUNNING TIMES AND OPERATING SPEED...........................................................................12 3.5 VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................13 3.6 ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES AND HOURS.................................................................................13 SECTION 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR FORT MASON EXTENSION ..................................................15 4.1 PROPOSED ALIGNMENT............................................................................................................15 4.2 TURNAROUND AT FORT MASON............................................................................................15 4.3 FORT MASON TUNNEL ..............................................................................................................16 4.3.1 Signaling and Interlocking for the Tunnel Segment .........................................................16 4.4 TRANSITION SEGMENT.............................................................................................................17 4.4.1 Signaling and Interlocking to Control Total Number of Cars West of East Portal...........20 4.5 STREET RUNNING SEGMENT...................................................................................................20 4.5.1 Shared Auto/Streetcar Option...........................................................................................20 4.5.2 Semi-Exclusive Eastbound Option ...................................................................................20 SECTION 5.0 OPERATING SCENARIOS FOR EXTENSION – TWO SERVICE PLAN OPTIONS ...............21 5.1 OPTION 1 – E-LINE EXTENSION TO FORT MASON AND CURRENT F-LINE SERVICE........................................................................................................................................21 5.1.1 Days of Operation, Span of Service, and Headways ........................................................21 5.1.2 Operating Speed, Running Times, and Annual Vehicles Miles and Hours ......................22 5.1.3 Vehicle Requirements.......................................................................................................22 5.1.4 2030 Capacity for E-line in Option 1................................................................................23 5.1.5 2030 Capacity for F-line in Option 1................................................................................23 5.2 OPTION 2 – E-LINE SERVICE TO FISHERMAN’S WHARF AND F-LINE EXTENSION TO FORT MASON.........................................................................................................................23 5.2.1 Days of Operation, Span of Service, and Headways ........................................................23 5.2.2 Operating Speed, Running Times, and Annual Vehicles Miles and Hours ......................24 5.2.3 Vehicle Requirements.......................................................................................................24 5.2.4 2030 Capacity for F-line in Option 2................................................................................27 5.2.5 2030 Capacity for E-line in Option 2................................................................................27 5.3 RIDERSHIP AND LOAD FACTORS ...........................................................................................27 July 2009 - i - Historic Streetcar Extension to Fort Mason Transit Operations Plan - Final 5.3.1 Running Times..................................................................................................................27 5.3.2 Current Load Factors ........................................................................................................28 5.3.3 Future Load Factor Estimates ...........................................................................................30 5.3.4 Stop-by-Stop Ridership ....................................................................................................31 5.3.5 Cumulative Effect.............................................................................................................32 5.3.6 Comparison of Transit Trips with Other Modes (All Trips).............................................33 5.3.7 Employee and Visitor Surveys .........................................................................................34 5.3.8 Employment and Population Projections..........................................................................34 SECTION 6.0 COMPARISON OF VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................35 SECTION 7.0 EXTENSION INFRASTRUCTURE ..............................................................................................35 7.1 STATIONS/PLATFORMS.............................................................................................................35 7.2 TURNBACK TRACK AT LEAVENWORTH AND BEACH ......................................................36 7.3 CABLE CAR CROSSING..............................................................................................................36 7.4 JUNCTIONS...................................................................................................................................36 SECTION 8.0 TERMINAL OPERATIONS AT FORT MASON .........................................................................37 8.1 LOOP TERMINALS ......................................................................................................................37 8.2 WYE TERMINALS........................................................................................................................39 8.3 TERMINAL CAPACITY...............................................................................................................43 SECTION 9.0 OPERATING ISSUES COMMON TO BOTH OPTIONS.............................................................43 9.1 OVERLAPPING E- AND F-LINE JOINT OPERATIONS ON NORTH EMBARCADERO ......43 9.2 JUNCTION WITH F-LINE AT JEFFERSON AND JONES.........................................................44 9.3 JUNCTION WITH F-LINE AT BEACH AND JONES AND AT LEAVENWORTH AND BEACH...........................................................................................................................................44 9.4 CABLE CAR CROSSING AT BEACH AND HYDE ...................................................................44 9.5 VAN NESS AVENUE CROSSING ...............................................................................................45 9.6 SINGLE-TRACK OPERATIONS THROUGH TUNNEL.............................................................46
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caltrain Update Caltrain System
    CALTRAIN UPDATE CALTRAIN SYSTEM • 77 Miles, 32 Stations • 92 Weekday Trains Caltrain owns (SF to SJ) • Tenants (Altamont Corridor Express, Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, Freight) Union Pacific owns (SJ to Gilroy) 2 ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT Area Project Service 51 miles Electrification: Up to 79 mph • Overhead Wiring Service Increase San Francisco to • Traction Power • 6 trains / hour / direction San Jose (Tamien Facilities • More station stops / reduced travel time Station) • Restore weekday Atherton & Broadway Electric Trains (EMUs) service • 19 seven-car trainsets Mixed-fleet service (interim period) (133 cars) Continue tenant service • Altamont Corridor Express, Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, Freight 3 CONSTRUCTION / BUILDING ELECTRIC TRAINS Over 600+ foundations, 300+ poles installed; 8 train cars at the new Utah facility SCHEDULE Caltrain Business Plan Project Update July 2018 through Spring 2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 7 8 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT MINUTES San Francisco County Transportation Authority Tuesday, November 17, 2020
    DRAFT MINUTES San Francisco County Transportation Authority Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1. Roll Call Chair Peskin called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Present at Roll Call: Commissioners Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Preston, Peskin, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton and Yee (10) Absent at Roll Call: Commissioner Mar (entered during Item 2) (1) 2. Chair’s Report – INFORMATION Chair Peskin reported that in addition to helping elect President-elect Biden and Vice- President-elect Harris, San Francisco voters looked favorably on transportation funding measures on November 3rd. He added that locally, San Francisco approved Proposition A, the Health and Homelessness, Parks and Streets Bond. He said that this $487.5 million general obligation bond included $41.5 million to repave and reconstruct roads, rehabilitate, and make seismic improvements to street structures and plazas and to install and renovate curb ramps. He said that there are also funds for re-building parks and open spaces, including safe pedestrian access across the city. Chair Peskin reported that regionally, voters in San Francisco along with all three Caltrain district counties, including Santa Clara and San Mateo, passed Measure RR by over 2/3 approval which is the threshold for the first-ever dedicated funding source for Caltrain. He added that the one-eighth cent sales tax for Caltrain will provide a lifeline to the railroad which is struggling with severe fare revenue loss associated with low levels of ridership during the pandemic. He shared that the funds will also help off-set SFMTA’s obligations to provide operating support, benefitting Muni. He added that the funds will provide a way to build toward Caltrain’s future as an electrified service.
    [Show full text]
  • North Beach Central Subway Station
    CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE ANALYST 1390 Market Street, Suite 1150, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 552-9292 FAX (415) 252-0461 Policy Analysis Report To: Supervisor Christensen From: Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office Re: North Beach Central Subway Station Date: November 16, 2015 Summary of Requested Action Your office requested that the Budget and Legislative Analyst review the current status of a T-Third Line Phase Three extension to North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf, which has been studied by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) in concept only. You asked that we review the status of the City’s discussions with the owner of the Pagoda Palace site for possible acquisition for the North Beach station, as well as alternative station site options. You additionally requested that we look at what type of development would be feasible at the site above a transit station, as well as interim revenue generating uses for the site during a holding period. For further information about this report, contact Severin Campbell at the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. Executive Summary • The Third Street Light Rail Transit Line (T-Third Line) is a transportation project which, upon completion, will connect the Bayview, Union Square and Chinatown by light rail. Phase One, which was completed in 2007, connected Visitation Valley to the Caltrain station at 4th and King Streets, and Phase Two, or the “Central Subway,” is currently under construction, and will connect the Caltrain station to Chinatown among completion in 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Subway Project
    Central Subway Project FTA Real Estate Conference Silver Spring, MD Thursday, November 1, 2012 Third Street Light Rail Project . Support city’s Transit First Policy . Protect and preserve the environment . Improves transportation service in underserved neighborhoods . 26% increase in population . 61% increase in employment . 68% in Central Subway corridor are without a vehicle . Connects to regional transit and areas in need of a rapid transportation option, including 10,000 new housing units at Hunters Point, Mission Bay development, future high-speed rail Project Funding (millions) and Caltrain Funding T-Third Central Subway . Start of service in 2019 Sources (Phase 1 ) (Phase 2) Federal $123.38 $983.22 State $160.70 $471.10 Local/Regional $364.38 $123.98 Total $648.46 $1,578.30 Why Central Subway? Improving Transportation . Reduces travel times . Bypasses congested city streets . Improves San Francisco’s . Provides a direct connection to BART and Muni transportation network Metro at Powell Street Station . Connects bustling neighborhoods, th premier commercial districts and tourist . Improves access to Caltrain at 4 and King streets destinations . Facilitates rapid travel from the southern . An essential investment in San neighborhoods to SoMa, downtown, Union Square Francisco’s transportation infrastructure and Chinatown that will ease travel and enhance the . Relieves congestion on Stockton, 4th and Market Bay Area’s public transit network Connecting Communities and Investing in San Francisco . Project will create thousands of jobs, providing a boost to the local economy . Jobs and population are projected to increase significantly in the neighborhoods along the T Third Line . Extends reliable, efficient rail service to improve travel .
    [Show full text]
  • Dubai: CREATING the WORLD’S LONGEST DRIVERLESS NETWORK INSIDE: Light Rail Awards 2012 Special
    THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE HEADLINES l Paris tram network reaches 65km l AnsaldoBreda enters Chinese LRT market l Edinburgh tramway to open early? DUBAI: CREATING THE WORLD’S LONGEST DRIVERLESS NETWORK INSIDE: Light Rail Awards 2012 special Olsztyn Halberstadt Poland’s first How do you new-build sustain a system tramway in with a declining over 50 years population? DECEMBER 2012 No. 900 WWW . LRTA . ORG l WWW . TRAMNEWS . NET £3.80 PESA Bydgoszcz SA 85-082 Bydgoszcz, ul. Zygmunta Augusta 11 tel. (+48)52 33 91 104 fax (+48)52 3391 114 www.pesa.pl e-mail: [email protected] Layout_Adpage.indd 1 26/10/2012 16:15 Contents The official journal of the Light Rail Transit Association 448 News 448 DECEMBER 2012 Vol. 75 No. 900 Three new lines take Paris tram network to 65km; www.tramnews.net Mendoza inaugurates light rail services; AnsaldoBreda EDITORIAL signs Chinese technology partnership; München orders Editor: Simon Johnston Siemens new Avenio low-floor tram. Tel: +44 (0)1832 281131 E-mail: [email protected] Eaglethorpe Barns, Warmington, Peterborough PE8 6TJ, UK. 454 Olsztyn: Re-adopting the tram Associate Editor: Tony Streeter Marek Ciesielski reports on the project to build Poland’s E-mail: [email protected] first all-new tramway in over 50 years. Worldwide Editor: Michael Taplin Flat 1, 10 Hope Road, Shanklin, Isle of Wight PO37 6EA, UK. 457 15 Minutes with... Gérard Glas 454 E-mail: [email protected] Tata Steel’s CEO tells TAUT how its latest products offer News Editor: John Symons a step-change reduction in long-term maintenance costs.
    [Show full text]
  • 1973) Is, by Almost Any Means of Reconing, a Little Late
    MUN SURV __..___._ ........_~~ ... it if ii ':, "i I ' ~ .11; ~ ' Ii; I Ii; it ' ' I .. ,\ .~ ' ' ~ .;, l -6, l ' 'I .,__ I I . I L I ' L L L • . L I .t.lii i~ h • I • . I •I I I ' I I I I i I I I I L_ "- L L I 'I '- I I 'I I I I I I ! I I I l I '-- '- ._ I - - L_ ' q I i ! i - .L - ,-I 1 I I' ' - I I I I I I ' I I I - ' I - I I I I I ' I - - ! I j ! I - -- - , .:..._ I I I -- I I l MUNICIPAL RAILWAY SURVEY -- 1969-1970 I F O R E W O R D: The Municipal Railway Survey -- 1969-1970 is the fourth in a series of in-depth looks at the operations of various public transit systems in the Western United States (the 1967 SCRTD Survey, Pasadena City Lines I and Denver Tramway were the other three). The publication of this article at this time (January, 1973) is, by almost any means of reconing, a little late. The reason for the lack of timeliness is simply that it took the volunteer workers who prepared this article in their s pare time this long to produce it! The reader might well ask hims elf why the material herein wasn't updated and the article titled Munici­ I pal Railway Survey -- 1972-1973, The answer to this question is that the 1969-1970 fis cal year represented a sign i ficant t urning point in the history of the SAN FRANC ISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2010 Color.Pub
    MINNESOTA STREETCAR MUSEUM September 2010 Minneapolis & Excelsior, Minnesota Our summer oper- Class of 2020 Rod Eaton—General Supt. ating season is al- “Well, it’s not really for catching cows. How many cows do you think lived in the city?” most over t just a little past 10 AM on · After Labor Day the A an August morning, Bill operations schedules Arends walked eight boys for both railways around DSR No. 265 pointing change. See Ops news- out its parts. The boys, 8 to 11 letter #10-5 for the details. years old, were attending our very first Streetcar Camp. After · Get ready for the spe- looking the car over, they were cial events this fall and given tape measures and, work- winter. Ghost trolley and Santa Claus trol- ing in pairs, took the car’s meas- leys are popular at ure, counted windows and seats, both railways. figured out how many passen- gers it might be able to carry, · Talk to your friends, neighbors and co- and recorded it all in their activ- workers about our Mu- ity book. The Graduating Class from our first Streetcar Camp seum and CHSL and The morning started with a trip down the Como-Harriet line. Following along on ESL. Encourage them a route map, our campers learned what the Motorman, in this case new Museum to come and ride. member Bill Hubbard, is doing at various locations as he operates the car. They examined the track and had a close up look at ballast, ties and spikes. They tried to throw a switch and discovered that there’s a frog involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint International Light Rail Conference
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C145 July 2010 Joint International Light Rail Conference Growth and Renewal April 19–21, 2009 Los Angeles, California Cosponsored by Transportation Research Board American Public Transportation Association TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010–2011 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Associate Administrator and Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair Ronald R. Knipling, Principal, safetyforthelonghaul.com, Arlington, Virginia, System Users Group Chair Edward V. A. Kussy, Partner, Nossaman, LLP, Washington, D.C., Legal Resources Group Chair Peter B. Mandle, Director, Jacobs Consultancy, Inc., Burlingame, California, Aviation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Daniel L. Roth, Managing Director, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Rail Group Chair Steven Silkunas, Director of Business Development, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Transportation Group Chair Peter F. Swan, Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management, Pennsylvania State, Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, Freight Systems Group Chair Katherine F.
    [Show full text]
  • What Lies Beneath the Marina?
    What Lies Beneath the Marina? Robert Bardell 1922 Filbert St. San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 931-7249 [email protected] A version of this article appeared in the Argonaut Vol. 14 No. 2, Winter 2003, and Vol. 15 No. 1, Summer 2004. What Lies Beneath the Marina? If you answered rubble from 1906, you’re certainly in the majority, but this article will prove you’re absolutely wrong. One of San Francisco’s most enduring myths is that rubble from the 1906 earthquake provided landfill for the Marina District. Extreme versions of this tale claim all the rubble was dumped there; others don’t go quite that far, but all agree the Marina was a convenient dumping ground for the “damndest finest ruins.” A large part of the Panama Pacific International Exposition would later stand on this man-made land—a triumphal symbol for a city celebrating its return from the ashes. It’s a nice story, but completely false. Indeed, the truth turns this story on its head: No significant amount of 1906 debris was dumped in the Marina, and no new land was reclaimed from the tidelands of the bay there until 1912, long after the ruins of the old city had been cleared away and a new San Francisco born. I intend to debunk the myth of earthquake rubble in the Marina with a history of Marina landfill, beginning in the years following California’s admission to the Union and ending with the Panama Pacific International Exposition of 1915. This history will show that the Marina on April 18, 1906 had changed radically from its virgin state, due almost entirely to the effort and capital of one man, James G.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision Central Subway Project
    RECORD OF DECISION CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT ·Phase 2 of the Third Street Light Rail Project City and County of' San Francisco, California Bytbe San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Decision The U,S Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Transit Administration (FIA) has determined that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 have been satisfied for the Central Subway Pr~ject proposed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMIA), This FT A decision applies to Alternative 3B, Fourth/Stockton Alignment, which is described and evaluated in the CentIaI Subway Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIS/SEIR), The Response to Comments, Volume II ofthe Final SEIR was issued by the City and County of San Francisco in July 2008, and the Final SEIS/SEIR Volume I was issued by FIA in September 2008" The CentIal Subway Pr~ject is Phase 2 of the Third Str'eet Light Rail Project, which began operation in April 2007, The Project consists of aI, 7 mile extension, along Fourth and Stockton Streets, from the existing Third Street Light Rail Station at Fourth and King Streets to a new terminus in Chinatown at Stockton and Jackson streets, The Pr~ject would operate as a surface double-tlack light rail in a primarily semi-exclusive median on Fourth Street between King and Bryant streets, The rail would transition to a subway operation at a portal under the 1-80 Freeway, between Bryant and Hanison streets, and continue under ground along Fourth
    [Show full text]
  • Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 May 17, 2011 National Park Service Denver Service Center – Transportation Division Attention: F-Line Draft EIS Planning Team Post Office Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, California (CEQ# 20110079) Dear Planning Team: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the F-Line Streetcar Service Extension, published by the National Park Service, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and the Federal Transit Administration. Our review is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The SFMTA proposes to extend the San Francisco Municipal Railway F-Market and Wharves Line (F- Line) approximately 0.85 miles west from the intersection of Jefferson and Jones Streets to the west side of Fort Mason Center. The Draft EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative 1 and two options for Action Alternative 2: Alternative 2A – North Loop Turnaround, which would locate the streetcar turnaround in the Fort Mason parking lot, and Alternative 2B – South Loop Turnaround, which would locate the turnaround in the Great Meadow. The Draft EIS also analyzes the environmental impacts of 8 to 9 station platforms and upgrades to the historic Fort Mason Tunnel. The EPA supports improving local and regional transit service connections to National Park Service attractions.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers
    America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers 1 America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 Alabama .............................................................................................................. 12 Alabama Caves .................................................................................................. 13 Alabama Mines ................................................................................................. 16 Alabama Tunnels .............................................................................................. 16 Alaska ................................................................................................................. 18 Alaska Caves ..................................................................................................... 19 Alaska Mines ............................................................................................... 19 Arizona ............................................................................................................... 24 Arizona Caves ................................................................................................... 25 Arizona Mines ................................................................................................... 26 Arkansas ............................................................................................................ 28 Arkansas Caves ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]