DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Study Report Brooklyn Streetcar Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Study Report Brooklyn Streetcar Feasibility Study B R O O K L Y N STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY CASE STUDY REPORT BROOKLYN STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1‐1 2.0 PORTLAND ................................................................................................2‐3 2.1 PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW ........................................................................................2‐3 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................2‐6 Alignment Decision Process ......................................................................................................2‐10 Principal Challenges..................................................................................................................2‐12 2.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS.......................................................................................................2‐15 Operating Entity........................................................................................................................2‐15 Service Plan...............................................................................................................................2‐15 Ridership ...................................................................................................................................2‐16 Bus Network..............................................................................................................................2‐20 Bicycle Integration ....................................................................................................................2‐20 2.3 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS..........................................................................................2‐23 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................................2‐23 Operation and Maintenance Costs ...........................................................................................2‐26 Funding Strategies ....................................................................................................................2‐26 Economic Development ............................................................................................................2‐28 2.4 VEHICLE ............................................................................................................................2‐31 Type...........................................................................................................................................2‐31 Storage and Maintenance Facilities .........................................................................................2‐33 Traction Power..........................................................................................................................2‐33 3.0 SEATTLE ..................................................................................................3‐35 3.1 PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW ......................................................................................3‐35 Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................................3‐37 Alignment Decision Process ......................................................................................................3‐37 Principal Challenges..................................................................................................................3‐40 3.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS.......................................................................................................3‐42 Operating Entity........................................................................................................................3‐42 Service Plan...............................................................................................................................3‐43 Ridership ...................................................................................................................................3‐43 Bus Network..............................................................................................................................3‐45 Bicycle Integration ....................................................................................................................3‐47 3.3 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS..........................................................................................3‐48 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................................3‐48 Operation and Maintenance Costs ...........................................................................................3‐48 Funding Strategies ....................................................................................................................3‐49 Economic Development ............................................................................................................3‐50 3.4 VEHICLE ............................................................................................................................3‐51 Type...........................................................................................................................................3‐51 Storage and Maintenance Facilities .........................................................................................3‐52 1‐1 TASK 2‐1 CASE STUDY REPORT Traction Power ......................................................................................................................... 3‐52 4.0 PHILADELPHIA.........................................................................................4‐54 4.1 PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW...................................................................................... 4‐54 Design Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 4‐56 Alignment Decision Process...................................................................................................... 4‐56 Principal Challenges ................................................................................................................. 4‐56 4.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4‐60 Operating Entity ....................................................................................................................... 4‐60 Service Plan .............................................................................................................................. 4‐60 Ridership................................................................................................................................... 4‐61 Bus Network ............................................................................................................................. 4‐63 Bicycle Integration.................................................................................................................... 4‐63 4.3 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 4‐63 Capital Costs............................................................................................................................. 4‐63 Operation and Maintenance Costs........................................................................................... 4‐66 Funding Strategies.................................................................................................................... 4‐66 Economic Development............................................................................................................ 4‐66 4.4 VEHICLE............................................................................................................................ 4‐68 Type .......................................................................................................................................... 4‐68 Storage and Maintenance Facilities......................................................................................... 4‐70 Traction Power ......................................................................................................................... 4‐71 5.0 SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED............................................................5‐72 Design Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 5‐75 Constructability ........................................................................................................................ 5‐76 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 5‐77 Bicycle Integration.................................................................................................................... 5‐77 Funding Strategies.................................................................................................................... 5‐78 Economic Development............................................................................................................ 5‐78 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................5‐79 1‐2 BROOKLYN STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY FIGURES Figure 2‐1: Portland Streetcar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dover Nj to Penn Station Train Schedule
    Dover Nj To Penn Station Train Schedule Courtney tickles goofily as diminuendo Farley snatch her Elohim sparkles irreparably. Spousal Odell thigging scantly, he Americanizing his pinhole very unashamedly. Sometimes bothered Ignazio depersonalized her saplessness testily, but earthier Worth rebraced sparely or amplifies troublesomely. Ledger, find Bergen County real estate listings and senior about local pond on NJ. Only new users can earn points through a referral. Good reason why share write a roundtrip train companies sell or penn station? Buses are choreographed to penn station is designed to do? CEO of Wanderu, as notice as later office instigator of celebratory vodka shots. Customers are strongly encouraged to sign up know My Transit alerts and activate push notifications on the mobile app to rumor the latest status of value system, NJ Transit said allow a release. Traveling by nj transit schedule except with fantastic fly ticket. This improve my hire time using Wanderu, pleasantly surprised! New jersey motorcycle helmet law enforcement of nj transit numbers used to dover can go around your trips. Five NJ TRANSIT rail lines serve Penn Station New York. In image to judge you with key best quality of ticket system map online, we will provided detailed Maps by Community in addition consider the splash System Map. Restaurants in an essential role in essex and this station to dover nj penn station due to get access is no parking at no. The NJ Transit will take occasion to Manhattan to Penn Station. Get schedules schedule information is dover, check travel by following one scheduled train tour of penn station in completing your commute or www.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Certification Review Report
    Transportation Management Area Planning Certification Review Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration St. Louis Transportation Management Area April 14, 2017 Summary Report Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Disposition of FY 2013 Certification Review Corrective Action and Recommendations..5 1.2 Summary of FY 2017 Findings .......................................................................................... 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Purpose and Objective ................................................................................................... 11 3.0 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 12 3.1 Review Process ............................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Documents Reviewed ..................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Input from the Public, Officials, and Member Agencies Staffs ......................................... 13 4.0 PROGRAM REVIEW ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    Transit Strategies Light Rail Transit (LRT) Light rail transit (LRT) is electrified rail service that operates in urban environments in completely exclusive rights‐of‐way, in exclusive lanes on roadways, and in some cases in mixed traffic. Most often, it uses one to three car trains and serves high volume corridors at higher speeds than local bus and streetcar service. Design and operational elements of LRT include level boarding, off‐board fare payment, and traffic signal priority. Stations are typically spaced farther apart than those of local transit services and are usually situated where there are higher population and employment densities. MAX Light Rail (Portland, OR) The T Light Rail (Pittsburgh, PA) Characteristics of LRT Service LRT is popular with passengers for a number of reasons, the most important of which are that service is fast, frequent, direct, and operates from early morning to late night. These attributes make service more convenient—much more convenient than regular bus service—and more competitive with travel by automobile. Characteristics of LRT service include: . Frequent service, typically every 10 minutes or better . Long spans of service, often 18 hours a day or more . Direct service along major corridors . Fast service Keys reasons that service is fast are the use of exclusive rights‐of‐way—exclusive lanes in the medians of roadways, in former rail rights‐of‐way, and in subways—and that stations are spaced further apart than with bus service, typically every half mile (although stations are often spaced more closely within downtown areas). Rhode Island Transit Master Plan | 1 Differences between LRT and Streetcar Light rail and streetcar service are often confused, largely because they share many similarities.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 – Eurocruise - Porto Part 4 - Heritage Streetcar Operations
    10 – Eurocruise - Porto Part 4 - Heritage Streetcar Operations On Wednesday morning Luis joined us at breakfast in our hotel, and we walked a couple of blocks in a light fog to a stop on the 22 line. The STCP heritage system consists of three routes, numbered 1, 18 and 22. The first two are similar to corresponding services from the days when standard- gauge streetcars were the most important element in Porto’s transit system. See http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/pt/porto/porto-tram.htm. The three connecting heritage lines run every half-hour, 7 days per week, starting a little after the morning rush hour. Routes 1 and 18 are single track with passing sidings, while the 22 is a one-way loop, with a short single-track stub at its outer end. At its Carmo end the 18 also traverses a one-way loop through various streets. Like Lisbon, the tramway operated a combination of single- and double- truck Brill-type cars in its heyday, but now regular service consists of only the deck-roofed 4-wheelers, which have been equipped with magnetic track brakes. Four such units are operated each day, as the 1 line is sufficiently long to need two cars. The cars on the road on Wednesday were 131, 205, 213 and 220. All were built by the CCFP (Porto’s Carris) from Brill blueprints. The 131 was completed in 1910, while the others came out of the shops in the late 1930s-early 1940s. Porto also has an excellent tram museum, which is adjacent to the Massarelos carhouse, where the rolling stock for the heritage operation is maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • Paris: Trams Key to Multi-Modal Success
    THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE www.lrta.org www.tautonline.com JANUARY 2016 NO. 937 PARIS: TRAMS KEY TO MULTI-MODAL SUCCESS Innsbruck tramway enjoys upgrades and expansion Bombardier sells rail division stake Brussels: EUR5.2bn investment plan First UK Citylink tram-train arrives ISSN 1460-8324 £4.25 Sound Transit Swift Rail 01 Seattle ‘goes large’ A new approach for with light rail plans UK suburban lines 9 771460 832043 For booking and sponsorship opportunities please call +44 (0) 1733 367600 or visit www.mainspring.co.uk 27-28 July 2016 Conference Aston, Birmingham, UK The 11th Annual UK Light Rail Conference and exhibition brings together over 250 decision-makers for two days of open debate covering all aspects of light rail operations and development. Delegates can explore the latest industry innovation within the event’s exhibition area and examine LRT’s role in alleviating congestion in our towns and cities and its potential for driving economic growth. VVoices from the industry… “On behalf of UKTram specifically “We are really pleased to have and the industry as a whole I send “Thank you for a brilliant welcomed the conference to the my sincere thanks for such a great conference. The dinner was really city and to help to grow it over the event. Everything about it oozed enjoyable and I just wanted to thank last two years. It’s been a pleasure quality. I think that such an event you and your team for all your hard to partner with you and the team, shows any doubters that light rail work in making the event a success.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Design for Fairmount Park
    The First Design for Fairmount Park AIRMOUNT PARK IN PHILADELPHIA is one of the great urban parks of America, its importance in landscape history exceeded only by FNew York’s Central Park. Its name derives from the “Faire Mount” shown on William Penn’s plan of 1682, where the Philadelphia Museum of Art now perches, and where the gridded Quaker city suddenly gives way to an undulating scenery of river and park. Measuring over 3,900 acres, it is one of the world’s largest municipal parks. Nonetheless, for all its national importance, the origin of the park, its philosophical founda- tions, and its authorship have been misunderstood in the literature.1 About the principal dates there is no dispute: in 1812–15 a municipal waterworks was built on the banks of the Schuylkill, the site of which soon became a popular resort location and a subject of picturesque paintings; in 1843 the city began to acquire tracts of land along the river to safeguard the water supply; in 1859 the city held a competition for the design of a picturesque park; finally, in 1867, the Fairmount Park Commission was established to oversee a much larger park, whose layout was eventually entrusted to the German landscape architect Hermann J. Schwarzmann. This is the version rehearsed in all modern accounts of the park. All texts agree that 1867 marks the origin of the park, in conception and execution. They depict the pre–Civil War events as abortive and inconclusive; in particular, they dismiss the 1859 competition. According to George B. Tatum, writing in 1961, a series of “plans were prepared,” I am indebted to five generous colleagues who read this manuscript and contributed suggestions: Therese O’Malley of CASVA; Sheafe Satterthwaite and E.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Review of Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Studies
    APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLANNING STUDIES This appendix provides an overview of previous planning efforts undertaken in and around Philadelphia that are relevant to the Plan. These include city initiatives, plans, studies, internal memos, and other relevant documents. This appendix briefly summarizes each previous plan or study, discusses its relevance to pedestrian and bicycle planning in Philadelphia, and lists specific recommendations when applicable. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE PLAN APRIL 2012 CONTENTS WALKING REPORTS AND STUDIES .......................................................................................................................... 1 Walking in Philadelphia ............................................................................................................................................ 1 South of South Walkabilty Plan................................................................................................................................. 1 North Broad Street Pedestrian Crash Study .............................................................................................................. 2 North Broad Street Pedestrian Safety Audit ............................................................................................................. 3 Pedestrian Safety and Mobility: Status and Initiatives ............................................................................................ 3 Neighborhood/Area Plans and Studies .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit a History of Public Transit in Portland
    Hilary Pfeifer Meredith Dittmar PUBLIC TRANSIT A history of public transit in Portland Melody Owen Mark Richardson Smith Kristin Mitsu Shiga Chandra Bocci trimet.org/history Traveling through time Dear Reader, Transit plays a critical role in providing options for traveling throughout the region. It connects people to work, school, recreational destinations and essential services. It’s not just a commuter service. It’s a community asset. And the benefits extend far beyond those who ride. TriMet’s transit system is recognized as a national leader for its connection to land use. By linking land-use planning and transit, we have helped create livable communities, vibrant neighborhoods and provide alternatives to driving. Transit is also a catalyst for economic development. More than $10 billion in transit-oriented development has occurred within walking distance of MAX light rail stations since the decision to build in 1980. Developers like the permanence of rail when investing in projects. Transit is also valued by the community. Most of our riders— 81 percent—are choice riders. They have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet. With more than 325,000 trips taken each weekday on our buses, MAX Light Rail and WES Commuter Rail, we eliminate 66 million annual car trips. That eases traffic congestion and helps keep our air clean. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system our size. Our many innovations have drawn the attention of government leaders, planners, transit providers and transit users from around the world. We didn’t start out that way.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to Be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents
    DOWNTOWN ACCESS STRATEGY PHASE 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 II. Review of Existing Plans, Projects, and Programs ......................................... 2 III. Potential Construction Concerns and Opportunities .................................. 3 A. Existing Construction Planning Tools 3 B. SDOT’s Construction Hub Coordination Program 4 C. Construction Mitigation Strategies Used by Other Cities 7 D. Potential Construction Conflicts and Opportunities 10 IV. Future Transportation Network Opportunities ......................................... 12 A. North Downtown 12 B. Denny Triangle / Westlake Hub 14 C. Pioneer Square / Chinatown-ID 15 D. Downtown Core and Waterfront 16 V. Future Phases of Downtown Access Strategy ............................................. 18 A. Framework for Phase 2 (2014 through 2016) 18 B. Framework for Phase 3 (Beyond 2016) 19 - i - September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years I. INTRODUCTION Many important and long planned transportation and development projects are scheduled for con- struction in Downtown Seattle in the coming years. While these investments are essential to support economic development and job growth and to enhance Downtown’s stature as the region’s premier location to live, work, shop and play, in the short-term they present complicated challenges for con- venient and reliable access to and through Downtown. The Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) and its partners, Historic South Downtown (HSD) and the Seat- tle Department of Transportation (SDOT), seek to ensure that Downtown Seattle survives and prospers during the extraordinarily high level of construction activity that will occur in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study LPA Report
    The Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) R e port Executive Summary August 2014 in association with: URS Shiels Obletz Johnsen CH2MHill Natalie Quick Consulting John Parker Consulting BERK Consulting VIA Architecture Alta Planning + Design DKS Associates I | LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT ― EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LTK Cover image from SDOT Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study Executive Summary Volume I: LPA Report 1. Project Overview 2. Purpose and Need 3. Evaluation Framework 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 5. Summary of Tier 1 Screening and Tier 2 Evaluation Results and Public Input 6. Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative 7. Next Steps Volume I Appendix A: Project Purpose and Need Volume II: Detailed Evaluation Report 1. Project Overview 2. Evaluation Framework and Public Outreach 3. Initial Screening of Alternatives (Purpose and Need) 4. Summary of Tier 1 Alternatives and Evaluation Results 5. East-West Connection Assessment 6. Description of Tier 2 Alternatives 7. Tier 2 Evaluation Results 8. Tier 2 Public Outreach Summary 9. Tier 2 Recommendation Volume II Technical Appendices (Methodology and Detailed Results) Appendix A: Ridership Projections Appendix B: Additional Ridership Markets: Visitors and Special Events Appendix C: Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology and Estimates Appendix D: Loading Analysis Appendix E: Capital Cost Methodology and Estimates Appendix F: Utility Impacts Assessment Appendix G: Traffic Analysis Appendix H Evaluation
    [Show full text]
  • January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails To
    January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails to Rubber to Rails Again, Part 1: Alabama–Montana Headlights The Magazine of Electric Railways Published since 1939 by the Electric Railroaders’ Association, Inc. WWW.ERAUSA.ORG Staff Contents Editor and Art Director January–June 2005 Sandy Campbell Associate Editors Raymond R. Berger, Frank S. Miklos, John Pappas Contributors Edward Ridolph, Trevor Logan, Bill Volkmer, Columns Alan K. Weeks 2 News Electric Railroaders’ Compiled by Frank Miklos. International transportation reports. Association, Inc. E Two-Part Cover Story Board of Directors 2008 President 18 Rails to Rubber to Rails Again Frank S. Miklos By Edward Ridolph. An extensive 60-year summary of the street railway industry in First Vice President the U.S. and Canada, starting with its precipitous 30-year, post-World War II decline. William K. Guild It continues with the industry’s rebirth under the banner of “light rail” in the early Second Vice President & Corresponding Secretary 1980s, a renaissance which continues to this day. Raymond R. Berger Third Vice President & Recording Secretary Robert J. Newhouser Below: LAMTA P3 3156 is eastbound across the First Street bridge over the Los Treasurer Angeles River in the waning weeks of service before abandonment of Los Angeles’ Michael Glikin narrow gauge system on March 31, 1963. GERALD SQUIER PHOTO Director Jeffrey Erlitz Membership Secretary Sandy Campbell Officers 2008 Trip & Convention Chairman Jack May Librarian William K. Guild Manager of Publication Sales Raymond R. Berger Overseas Liason Officer James Mattina National Headquarters Grand Central Terminal, New York City A-Tower, Room 4A Mailing Address P.O.
    [Show full text]